Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on April 25, 2003, 11:00:58 PM
-
Americans can sign the following petition to help rid the US taxpayers of the burden of supporting the UN.
Link to Petition (http://patriotpetitions.us/petition.asp?id=4)
About the petition:
In his 1801 inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, called for "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." The "entangling alliance" posing the greatest threat to the national sovereignty of our Constitutional Republic is the United Nations. It is time for this failed multinational alliance to meet the fate of its discarded predecessor, the League of Nations. However, the thrust of the people's objection to U.S. allegiance to the UN is not simply that the UN is ineffective (though it certainly is), but that subjecting the sovereignty of the U.S. to the whims of this external legislative body is patently unconstitutional.
Though the list of failed UN mandates and programs is long, its failure to disarm Iraq after the Gulf War and its obstruction of our sovereign right to defend our national security, most notably since the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks, makes clear the constitutional and moral imperatives to disengage from the UN now.
The Constitutional Imperative -- Our Declaration of Independence states: "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." This assertion is repeated in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sections 1 & 2, which reads, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. ... chosen ... by the People...."
By definition, an "entangling alliances" is the transfer to, or usurpation of, parliamentary authority (as differentiated from the terms of a treaty) by any governing body other than the people of the United States and their elected representatives. This authority and its attendant power cannot be constitutionally transferred to an international body. The United Nations has incrementally evolved into a legislative entity, which now defines itself as a worldwide governing authority.
Nothing more clearly bears this out than does our national experience over the past 19 months, as France, Germany and Russia have used their influence in the Security Council to further their respective economic interests, over and against concerns for international security. These nations have clearly used the UN as a forum of obstruction in their effort to prevent regime change in Iraq, in order to ensure Iraq's tyrant dictator would honor their corrupt "oil for food" arrangements. And what comment could better reveal the inadequacy of the UN than chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's proclamation, "I am more concerned about global warming than any major military conflict."
France, Germany and Russia continue to use the UN's Security Council as a political action committee, now insisting that they, via the UN, be given the authority to oversee U.S.-British efforts in the interim administration and rebuilding of Iraq -- again, solely for economic gain.
The Moral Imperative -- The UN -- a body ostensibly committed to global peace and justice -- utterly failed to prevent genocide in Rwanda, the Balkans and Cambodia. The UN has likewise failed to create an enduring peace in the Middle East; vilifying Israel at every turn, while embracing terrorists like Yasser Arafat. The recent appointment of Libya to head the UN Human Rights Commission, and Iraq's chairmanship of the UN Commission on Global Disarmament is laughably indicative that the UN lacks any fixed moral bearing.
The United Nations, then, is not merely morally ambiguous, but morally evil -- a clearing house for the ambitions and economic interests of "Old Europe" and lesser nations -- undeserving of the support of our country. Beyond the UN's failure to effectively advocate liberty and freedom for all people as an arbiter of international and civil conflict, it now wants to dictate all manner of economic, social and cultural standards worldwide through wealth redistribution, environmental constraints, sustainable development, family planning and even gun control -- all of which are in direct violation of the sovereign rights of the American people.
The Solution -- More so now than ever before, momentum is building to emancipate the U.S. from the control of the UN. The time has come to revisit our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and restore sovereignty to the people. Indicative of this shift in public scrutiny is the newly proposed bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1146, calling for complete U.S. withdrawal from the UN. Rep. Ron Paul, the bill's sponsor, introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act which would, among other things, require the President to terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, terminate any and all U.S. taxpayer funded support for the UN, and prohibit American Armed Forces from serving under the command of the United Nations anywhere in the world.
Patriot Petitions encourages all American Patriots to stand up in defense of the Constitutional sovereignty of the United States and petition the President and Congress: "Terminate U.S. Membership in the UN"
Link to above text:
http://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=4
Hope you all have the time to read this and make your choice, I have.
-
I'll sign that!
Get us out of the UN ! and get the UN out of the USA..... let them be based in France where they belong.
-
Have a nice life, there´s the door...
-
Hey, Swede, look at it this way .... now Sweden can finally rise to prominence within the UN and rule the world with a iron meatball like it was always meant to. Show some freakin' gratitude. ;)
Bork!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hey, Swede, look at it this way .... now Sweden can finally rise to prominence within the UN and rule the world with a iron meatball like it was always meant to. Show some freakin' gratitude. ;)
Bork!
Rotflol, isn't it like 6AM in Sweden right now, shouldn't he still be passed out from last nights drinking binge?
-
yep, thanks guys, but sorry: Won´t miss ya.
-
*sniff* Stop that! Yer breakin' my heart! :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
*sniff* Stop that! Yer breakin' my heart! :D
Ok, I admit, I m to soft, we will let you in, but only you Arlo
-
Originally posted by crabofix
yep, thanks guys, but sorry: Won´t miss ya.
won't miss us heh? The funny thing is that we are gonna be the world's leader regardless of if you miss us or not.
The UN was and will always be a debating society.
-
What a PERFECT solution!
No one is going to miss anyone!
Win/Win
-
Originally posted by Toad
What a PERFECT solution!
No one is going to miss anyone!
Win/Win
yes, a win/win by all means
-
My first act as the supreme prime king potentate of Arlotania is to open our borders to women between the ages of 18 and 28 who can officially pass the bodaciometer with a score of 7+. My second act is to inform the U.S. internal revenue service that, as a sovereign nation, the citizens of Arlotania, my being citizen numero uno, cannot be taxed by them. My third act is to make crabofix our national vegetable (repayment for kindness). My fourth is to sign a contract with FOX to allow them to film their next reality TV show entitled "Rags to Ruler." My fifth (and fittingly so) is to make arrangements with the Jack Daniels distillery for the unlevied import of their product in exchange for the currency I have approved to be printed off my PC (relax, it has to have my saliva on it or it's considered counterfeit).
-
Crabofix, you guys can change the flag after we go.
Same color but with a big, pink "Tsk! Tsk!" in the middle of it.
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
My fifth (and fittingly so) is to make arrangements with the Jack Daniels distillery for the unlevied import of their product in exchange for the currency I have approved to be printed off my PC (relax, it has to have my saliva on it or it's considered counterfeit).
I am honoured to be your national vegtable. Could you be so kind to change the JD to Makers mark,?(I had enough of JD last tour).
-
Originally posted by crabofix
I am honoured to be your national vegtable. Could you be so kind to change the JD to Makers mark,?(I had enough of JD last tour).
No way but I will turn a blind eye to black market activities of that nature. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Crabofix, you guys can change the flag after we go.
Same color but with a big, pink "Tsk! Tsk!" in the middle of it.
:D
Good idea, pink to remind us of you, and the "tsk, tsk" would be in yellow letters
-
Perfect! Remember us however you like... because we'll forget all about the do-nothing UN.
Say, how's Sweden doing stopping that genocide in the Congo?
Or were you guys handling Rwanda?
:D
Face it chum... the UN is a do-nothing organization. When Serb tanks were rolling over the Kosovars the UN did....... nothing.
Congo? Nothing.
Rwanda? Nothing.
Sudan? Nothing.
It'll do even less if we leave. Btw, can you get them to move the HQ to a nice do-nothing town in a nice do-nothing country?
Geneva would be perfect. Or Stockholm.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Perfect! Remember us however you like... because we'll forget all about the do-nothing UN.
Say, how's Sweden doing stopping that genocide in the Congo?
:D
Well, we are sending some troops there, in wich, I myself might be part of.
-
Zimbabwe....... nothing.
Ivory Coast.... UN does ......... nothing.
Kashmir..... nothing.
Nepal........ nothing.
Burundi....... nothing.
Nigeria....... nothing.
North Korea....... nothing.
Chechnya....... nothing.
South Africa (murders of Boer Farmers) .........nothing.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Well, we are sending some troops there, in which, I myself might be part of.
Well this turned quite serious all of a sudden. At least I think it did. Even with the risk of "hook in mouth" disease or "Yank a Yankee's leg" syndrome, I'll venture a good luck and safe return sentiment.
Looks like `ol Arlo is a softie too. Whether it's heart or cranium (watch it - limit it to those two body areas :D)... time will tell. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Zimbabwe....... nothing.
Ivory Coast.... UN does ......... nothing.
Kashmir..... nothing.
Nepal........ nothing.
Burundi....... nothing.
Nigeria....... nothing.
North Korea....... nothing.
Chechnya....... nothing.
South Africa (murders of Boer Farmers) .........nothing.
You check it out. You´d be suprise to see how many place theres been/are swedish observers/troops, Congo will be the second time for us.
We lost some people there last time, during heavy fights.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well this turned quite serious all of a sudden. At least I think it did. Even with the risk of "hook in mouth" disease or "Yank a Yankee's leg" syndrome, I'll venture a good luck and safe return sentiment.
Looks like `ol Arlo is a softie too. Whether it's heart or cranium (watch it - limit it to those two body areas :D)... time will tell. ;)
Not in there yet, but aplied and seamed to have good chances to get in as Sisu driver,
-
Originally posted by crabofix
You check it out. You´d be suprise to see how many place theres been/are swedish observers/troops, Congo will be the second time for us.
We lost some people there last time, during heavy fights.
Ya, saw them in Cyprus. Hanging out on the beaches in
Larnarca. What a joke.
-
Originally posted by Monk
Ya, saw them in Cyprus. Hanging out on the beaches in
Larnarca. What a joke.
Yep, it is just one of thoose "funtrips" that is yearly arranged by swedish army to promote especialy good and obeing soldiers and officers. Involved not risks or hazards at all.
To bad that you guys could come to the party
-
Point is all of those are still going on to some degree, no matter how many times the UN (or Sweden) has been there.
There were troops sent to Bosnia few times too. Remember the Dutch Battalion?
When did that stuff stop... remind me who was involved again? Because I don't remember it being done under the UN blue flag.
You never know, though. Maybe THIS time the UN will actually do something.
I doubt it. IIRC, UN forces first went to the Congo in 1960 wasn't it?
Good luck to you if you go, however. Are they going to give you bullets?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Are they going to give you bullets?
Yep, as we wont shoot at anything that moves.
Oh, toad, you forgot: Kosovo
-
If it's standard UN ROE, you won't shoot at anything, no matter what.
You'll just get orders to pack up and leave when the shooting starts.
:D
Good luck to ya anyway. Keep your head down.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Zimbabwe....... nothing.
Ivory Coast.... UN does ......... nothing.
Kashmir..... nothing.
Nepal........ nothing.
Burundi....... nothing.
Nigeria....... nothing.
North Korea....... nothing.
Chechnya....... nothing.
South Africa (murders of Boer Farmers) .........nothing.
Boer farmer?
You mean Afrikaans?
And isnt that a job for the SA govt?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by crabofix
To bad that you guys could come to the party
Yup, that's true, being that we stole all the women. Easy choice though, between light blue Beret wearing UN scrubs or just out of the "Chit" 2 day growth, US Marines.
-
I smell arrogant people
The dutch invented the marines
So the rest must be *****
-
Ya, I guess your are right. How would I know?
-
Thank god for the UN! No UN soldier would allow any civilan to be hurt under his watch, especially not dutch UN soldiers.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Boer farmer?
You mean Afrikaans?
And isnt that a job for the SA govt?
Tronsky
Do a little search on it and see if the SA govt is doing any sort of job.
~1300 Boer farmers and their family member killed since ~'94.
Form your own opinion.
Here's a place to start ANC dismisses 'Kill the boer' outcry (http://iafrica.com/news/sa/982523.htm)
Genocide watch covers it too.
-
Believe it or not the forerunner of the UN was the League of Nations a group highly touted by then US President Woodrow Wilson. The idea of a League of Nations was proposed after the end of WWI to prevent such wars in the future. The League was started but without the United States participation as the US Congress wisely decided not to become involved.
The League of Nations might have succeded but the reparations imposed on Germany after the first war were utterly preposterous. Germany in no way could pay the reparations in the first place, let alone rebuild their economy. Seems Mr Clemenceau and Mr Georges wanted to extract their pound of flesh, to which Pres. Wilson was highly opposed. Thus just a few years after WWI it took a wheelbarrow load of Marks to purchase a loaf of bread. Seems the Germans had to print more marks to pay their war debt thusly driving down the value of the Mark and generally the stage was set for WWII.
I like the Europeans a great deal.......wonderful people. Lots of friends from Europe by the way . But if history is any benchmark Europe has..........and always had problems politically that resulted in many long and devastating wars before the world wars occured. I guess the proximity of the borders of so many counties could encourage this.
An American Statesman once warned "Beware of Foreign entanglements!". As one recalls history we tried to not get involved in either world war........we were dragged in by default. LOL and we were draggged in by a few european countries that realised they couldn't win without the United States support.
The United States has taken care of itself just fine. And as an American Citizen I'm sure we can continue to do so. Europes horrible track record of Policing itself is a great reason for the US just to sit on the sidelines............observe. .........and if anything develops that could threaten our national security then get involved. Otherwise........lettem' do what they want. If the European Union is going to count on France, Germany, or even Russia to help .............hope ya got a good backup plan.
-
The un would work if we changed it so that only the U.S. (and maybe the brits) had a vote. failing that... might as well just close down that expensive sewing circle.
lazs
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Yep, as we wont shoot at anything that moves.
Oh, toad, you forgot: Kosovo
And iraq , how the hell did he forget iraq?
-
Thank god for the UN! No UN soldier would allow any civilan to be hurt under his watch, especially not dutch UN soldiers.
Unless theres a bottle around.
Wab
-
We should definitely stop giving the UN any financing, but it would be very silly and counterproductive to give up our seat on the Security Council. All we really need is some minimum wage guy sitting on the security council to use his veto when it is in our interests....
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
All we really need is some minimum wage guy sitting on the security council to use his veto when it is in our interests....
Hooligan
You mean, no changes at all then?
-
no crabofix... he means that we would not foot allmost the entire bill anymore for the expensive sewing circle that is the un. He also means that we would pay our guy at the un minimum wage and give him all the respect that his salary deserved.
lazs
-
UN might work if the votes were $$ weighted somehow.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Zimbabwe....... nothing.
Ivory Coast.... UN does ......... nothing.
Kashmir..... nothing.
Nepal........ nothing.
Burundi....... nothing.
Nigeria....... nothing.
North Korea....... nothing.
Chechnya....... nothing.
South Africa (murders of Boer Farmers) .........nothing.
Toad, you forgot Vietnam, but you did the work for us without UN, thx.
2 millon dead, 3 million wounded, most of them civilians.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by BigGun
UN might work if the votes were $$ weighted somehow.
They always were, cost the american taxpayer a lot of money.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Toad, you forgot Vietnam, but you did the work for us without UN, thx.
2 millon dead, 3 million wounded, most of them civilians.
Hehe ... gawsh, Blitch ... you get a real boner when it comes to Vietnam, dontcha? ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hehe ... gawsh, Blitch ... you get a real boner when it comes to Vietnam, dontcha? ;)
Will change my mind when the tough little country of Vietnam gets his apology from America, finally.
It's 30 years now, enough time to give the responsible politicians the time to die. And butcher Kissinger could claim that he's toooo old now to remember anything- just as general Pinochet :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Will change my mind when the tough little country of Vietnam gets his apology from America, finally.
It's 30 years now, enough time to give the responsible politicians the time to die. And butcher Kissinger could claim that he's toooo old now to remember anything- just as general Pinochet :D
Or .. you can foam over about it one too many times, have a stroke and forget about it. Hey, it could happen. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Or .. you can foam over about it one too many times, have a stroke and forget about it. Hey, it could happen. ;)
This one will never be forgotten because it happens 25 after Nürnberg Trial and noone declared war on US.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Eh ... like I said .. it's a theory. LOL :D
-
Blitz, did you grow up in East Germany? The Communist slant might account for your complete lack of understanding regarding... well... regarding just about everything. Ameriken ist just plane olde redikqulous afterall.
Crabofix, youre from Sweden... concentrate on what youre good, no one really cares what you have to say about international politics. Sorry.
Petition signed, go set up shop in the third world. A UN without the US is like a gun without bullets - good luck all!
US, UK, Ozland, Spain, and every other of the 40 some odd countries that arent afraid to do the right thing, even if it means pissing a few people off.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Blitz, did you grow up in East Germany? The Communist slant might account for your complete lack of understanding regarding... well... regarding just about everything. Ameriken ist just plane olde redikqulous afterall.
Crabofix, youre from Sweden... concentrate on what youre good, no one really cares what you have to say about international politics. Sorry.
Petition signed, go set up shop in the third world. A UN without the US is like a gun without bullets - good luck all!
US, UK, Ozland, Spain, and every other of the 40 some odd countries that arent afraid to do the right thing, even if it means pissing a few people off.
Í was born in West WestGermany but i know much more about the communists than you Saur.
I was in East- Berlin several times for sightseeing and i hated it's government. My current girlfriend has grown up in DDR too, so i get some more information about the species - communist.
People are everywhere the same . Mostly not interested in politics, some young ones who believe everything their goverment tells 'em and a class of people which benefits from the current form of society.
There's one group of people though, who got the same attributes in every form of society.
Fanatics: No matter what sort of : Religious, nazi, communist, "i love my country more then anything else" guys.
If they live under a communist country they will support it.
If their country change to fascist or any kind in between ,they will like that too after a while.
They will take every change in government and be happy with it as long as they don't have to change themselves. They always find their place to settle.
They look for easy answers, to be more precise: they NEED easy answers.
They look for people/groups of people in their own community/ nations to spew upon.
They tend to support millitary force.
They normaly believe their government.
They like it black/white.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
There's another class too. The radical activist. Totally convinced in their superiority regarding the morals of everyone they encounter.
Even those who agree with them run the risk of being branded as "evil" or "ignorant" when this breed fails to understand them (as they often do).
And if you do happen to disagree with them about something then they go directly into "I know you are but what am I?" mode in every exchange.
Their diplomatic skills are non-existant. This generally leads to others quickly reaching the point where they no longer take them seriously. After all, any constructive conversation requires a two-way understanding and acceptance with some latitude allowed for differences of opinion. This concept is totally alien to this class of people. They aren't there to share ideas and examine differences. They are there to "educate and lecture the ignorant masses" and failing that (which is a certainty) to "browbeat, critisize and mock" them.
Quite often they whine when they recieve the same treatment they give others. Quite often this class becomes the village idiot or community clown. Some of them actually have the stamina to stick around. Rarely do any of them turn their self-absorbed focus outward. Quite often they harbor martyr or persecution complexes as a method to cope with thier unpopularity. ;) :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
There's another class too. The radical activist. Totally convinced in their superiority regarding the morals of everyone they encounter.
Of everyone??? Hell, no. Of some people who think their country is superiour to all other nations when morality counts, hell yes.
Even those who agree with them run the risk of being branded as "evil" or "ignorant" when this breed fails to understand them (as they often do).[/B]
Good people live in every country on this planet :)
And if you do happen to disagree with them about something then they go directly into "I know you are but what am I?" mode in every exchange.[/B]
It's no normal exchange, it's war as everyone knows, lots of innocent peole were killed while a sovereign country was invaded by an Aggressor without any threat.
Their diplomatic skills are non-existant. This generally leads to others quickly reaching the point where they no longer take them seriously. After all, any constructive conversation requires a two-way understanding and acceptance with some latitude allowed for differences of opinion. This concept is totally alien to this class of people. They aren't there to share ideas and examine differences. They are there to "educate and lecture the ignorant masses" and failing that (which is a certainty) to "browbeat, critisize and mock" them.[/B]
I know what ya mean. Saw this the last years when Luftwobbles were attacked by American Iron and vice versa. Never understand that and never joined any party. Just too dump.
Quite often they whine when they recieve the same treatment they give others. Quite often this class becomes the village idiot or community clown. Some of them actually have the stamina to stick around. Rarely do any of them turn their self-absorbed focus outward. Quite often they harbor martyr or persecution complexes as a method to cope with thier unpopularity. ;) :D [/B]
They never give the same treatement as others give them as they don't insult others and they do not need to offend them personally.
It's just enough for the others if their evil government is called a "Bunch of Liars", or the "Evil Blackmailing Team" or the "Black Gold Team" to feel offended.
btw If there are no WMDs found in Iraq it is on the US to get some sanctions and Bush should have his trial at International Court Den Haag, aarrgghhh , wait, you didn't sign, long term strategy, smart ---- too bad,though :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous. It was a classic Aggression War.
-
So ... like ... this means agree with you, ignore you or just keep making fun of you, right? I so hate ignoring people. And I certainly don't agree with you're rock-solid anti-American agenda (yeah yeah .. I know - "I love amerikans! It's just your government, Bush, Republikans, the coalition, Iraq, Vietnam, Kissinger, your attitude and the way you don't agree with me that I don't like! And if you don't agree with me in all of this you are a Nazi!").
And you sure as hell have nothing else to say here. *ShruG*
:rolleyes:
-
Arlo what else can you say to somebody when east german communist brainwashing is involved...
-
Originally posted by Arlo
So ... like ... this means agree with you, ignore you or just keep making fun of you, right? I so hate ignoring people. And I certainly don't agree with you're rock-solid anti-American agenda (yeah yeah .. I know - "I love amerikans! It's just your government, Bush, Republikans, the coalition, Iraq, Vietnam, Kissinger, your attitude and the way you don't agree with me that I don't like! And if you don't agree with me in all of this you are a Nazi!").
And you sure as hell have nothing else to say here. *ShruG*
:rolleyes:
You'll never learn to distinguish between the people of a country and its government, Arlo, it's just to hard to stand.
Government will change sooner or later, the people will be still there :)
Regards Blitz
btw If there are no WMDs found in Iraq it is on the US to get some sanctions and Bush should have his trial at International Court Den Haag, aarrgghhh , wait, you didn't sign, long term strategy, smart ---- too bad,though :D
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous. It was a classic Aggression War.
-
Originally posted by blitz
You'll never learn to distinguish between the people of a country and its government, Arlo, it's just to hard to (under)stand.
Sounds like it's a pretty widespread problem here, Blitzereeno. So far I've been labeled a war-monger, a Nazi ... let's see .. what else? Oh yeah ... stupid. Hmmmm ... let me hear you claim that you don't insult people "back" or that you're just here to educate us about our country and our government. Let me hear you say that you're able to distinguish between my government and me.
Better yet.
Let's see you spend a full 24 hours here posting and visiting and hobnobbing with the rest of the folk without one single post that involves your anti-american agenda rhetoric (right down to the tagline). I bet you can't do it. I bet it's all you live for.
Prove me wrong. ;)
-
The US won't ever leave the UN, it has no reason to.
It ignores the UN whenever it feels like, pays it's dues whenever the feels like it, and gets to veto anything it doesn't like.
Oh yes, the US is so hard done by the UN. :rolleyes:
And thanks again for insulting my country and men and the soldiers of all the other countries that risk their lives, have killed and have died, trying to help make this world a better place.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
And thanks again for insulting my country and men and the soldiers of all the other countries that risk their lives, have killed and have died, trying to help make this world a better place.
Ohh the irony of that statement....
-
I signed it..UN is BS Kofi is a frikn dirtbag...
And Blitz..you are a moron...
You prove to us you are not...
Blitz SaysGermany never endangered anyone...ever..There was no Holocaust...ever
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no crabofix... he means that we would not foot allmost the entire bill anymore for the expensive sewing circle that is the un. He also means that we would pay our guy at the un minimum wage and give him all the respect that his salary deserved.
lazs
Hahahahah, ok, So you actully paying now?
For how many years? 2-3-4?
-
Originally posted by taMAWle
I signed it..UN is BS Kofi is a frikn dirtbag...
And Blitz..you are a moron...
You prove to us you are not...
Blitz Says
Oh, sweden is not such a free country after all, I realized.
You would actully be thrown in yail, stating that the Holocoust never happend.
Pretty lucky Blitz lives in Germany and not sweden. Cause there be a big lawsuit hitting someone, somewhere.
-
Quit picking on Blitz and sign the petition, christ, Blitz is just too easy to be picked on!
-
Originally posted by taMAWle
Kofi is a frikn dirtbag...
Why is Kofi a dirtbag?
-
Hes not a dirtbag, he's just way out of his league. Cant fault a man for being thrust into a situation he cant control.
Blitz - so patriotic Americans are Nazi's now?
-
I think he means after Germans stopped. But I'm not sure. I'm not close enough for a mindmeld and Spock warns me against it, even if I was.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Do a little search on it and see if the SA govt is doing any sort of job.
~1300 Boer farmers and their family member killed since ~'94.
Form your own opinion.
Here's a place to start ANC dismisses 'Kill the boer' outcry (http://iafrica.com/news/sa/982523.htm)
Genocide watch covers it too.
So the UN should involve itself in crime across the world?
The SA Sunday times ran a story about a right wing white group calling itself the Boer Nation Warriors who claimed responsibility for the recent bomb blasts in Soweto and Bronkhorstspruit dated 27/4/03.
There doesn't seem that there is state sponsored killing of Afrikaans farmers like in Zimababwe, so I believe it's up to the SA govt. to police it's own citizens to which the police seem to be doing:
SA Sunday times (http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/2001/05/27/news/cape/nct03.htm)
And it's not only white farmers:
Naren Harikrishna, vice-chairman of the Darnall Farmers' Association, said criminals were targeting not only Indians but also African and white farmers.
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/2002/05/05/news/durban/ndbn04.asp
I get what your insinuating, but I'm not really sure what you'd expect the UN to actually do.
Tronsky
-
I get what your insinuating, but I'm not really sure what you'd expect the UN to actually do.
Tragic thing is, most times, neither do they...
:(
Death To The UN
-
Poor servian grunherz
He is not a real american
-
I'm not serbian... But if you wanna call me that go ahead, really doesnt matter to me as long as it makes you feel better somehow. I am croatian and for the past 14 years I have lived in the USA, I became a naturalized US citizen in 1995. So yes BUG I am an American, something you will never understand.
So real americans are supposed to love the UN?
BTW dont you and your dutch UN buddies have somethingf else to do, look there are some unarmed bosnian refugees begging you to save their lives- you know what to do.... :rolleyes:
-
Ok yugo
drive zastava get cool man
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Poor servian grunherz
He is not a real american
Could just imagine that he was´nt.
:D
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Ok yugo
drive zastava get cool man
I drive a ford mustang... :)
BTW, ive noticed you caling me a serbian or muslim a few times recntly. Do you think calling me serbian is supposed to upset me? Or calling me a muslim? My cousin is serbian, he lives in usa now too, and my best childhood friend is a muslim, he was practically like brother. So I dont care really care BUG, im fine witrh all my former countrymates and hated the stupid war. If you think being a serb or a muslim is something worthy of use as insults then I think you have bigger issues than your problems with me.
-
i drive volkswagon
and ford .........fiesta
-
Is the european model fiesta a small affordable economy car like the USA model or is it different, like a small performance type?
-
Originally posted by blitz
You'll never learn to distinguish between the people of a country and its government, Arlo, it's just to hard to stand.
Government will change sooner or later, the people will be still there :)
Regards Blitz
You'll never learn that the majority of Americans like and support President Bush and this government.
-
UN is falling....
Signed...
-
The fiesta is very small economic
it compensates for my big noodle
:D
-
The UN is a waste of the US Tax Payers Money.
-
...and the US can spy on what the foreign dignitaries and what they are saying to each other, and the economic benefits of having all those diplomats and theri staffs spending tons of money on thier respective countries expense accounts...
You guys are nuts to think the US is going to let this go, and you're pretty short sighted, it's in the US's best interest to stay in. The US gets HUGE benefits at very little cost.
-
Um, you do realize that if the US pulls out of the UN, the UN ceases to exist?
US provides most of the funding for the UN.
It also provides most of the troops for its operations.
No US=no UN.
Thought Experiment:
US leaves UN.
All the sudden the remaining member nations find themselves burdened by the UN expenses... none are willing to put up the money to upkeep the UN, none are willing to commit serious troops whenever they are needed.
3 weeks after, the UK leaves the UN. a month later the rest of the commonwealth follows suit.
France will then try to take over the UN in yet another sad attempt to make themselves look important, Germany and Russia will probably end up backing France initially , but a year after they'll go back groveling to NATO. China will just sit and laugh in the background.
a year after that the UN would officially disintegrate, with most countries flocking to the US and forming the "U.N. of A."
-
we are living in a world that is gettin smaller......
le monde et de plus en plus petit.......
yet your talking about Isolating yourselves from the rest of us....
so you want to stand on your own 2 feet and answer only too yourselves......
nice ego trip....
but unreal.....
next.....
-
Originally posted by SLO
yet your talking about Isolating yourselves from the rest of us....
so you want to stand on your own 2 feet and answer only too yourselves......
nice ego trip....
but unreal.....
next.....
Wow, SLO, that's a great commentary on how Quebec behaves! !
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Wow, SLO, that's a great commentary on how Quebec behaves! !
I know your generalizing in your comment.....your putting me in the same boat as the people that wanted that referendum to seperate.....
just for your info....I voted NO
the only time I ever voted....
never wanted that stupid thing in the 1st place....
nice try.....
strike 1
:rolleyes:
-
And your comment wasn't a generalization?
It certainly was a grand generalization (i.e. the use of yourselves).
Besides, I didn't comment on you personally, just that your quote captured very accurately the attitudes of a great many who live in Quebec. I even gave you a for your astute observation!
So, how do you get that whole "putting you in the same boat" thing?
I believe mine was a well hit ball over the fence.
You shouldn't try to read too much into things that aren't there :)
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Hes not a dirtbag, he's just way out of his league. Cant fault a man for being thrust into a situation he cant control.
Blitz - so patriotic Americans are Nazi's now?
Nazies came down from Mars 1933 and all vanished 1945. Rofl
Nazies livin in allmost every country of this planet.
Just make the test if ya want to know if ya one:
1. My country is superiour to allmost any other country
2. The white race is superiour to people of dark colour
3. War is just a distinction of politics
4. I like international law if it fits my countries interests, if not my country has the right to violate it
5. I like easy answers for complex questions
6. If ya dislike the way my government acts and speeks, you better disapear from this planet
7. My country has the power- so it has the right to do,-better get out of the way.
8. If ya are not with us you're against us.
9.I don't distinguish between a government and its people
10. My country should rule the world
11. My country never did any bad, was always the others fault
12. The others are evil
13. I hate gay people
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
A couple of points.
If the US wanted to leave the UN, go right ahead. It would be as smart as cutting off your own head to cure a headache however.
Right now the US has a seat as a permanent member in the UNSC, that means veto, that means influence.
Want to try your luck standing on the sidelines waving the "we are the only remaining superpower"-flag? Go right ahead. But know that the next enemy you find might not be some camelf*ckers hiding in caves or among civilians. Simple fact of the matter is you dont know what the future looks like. Want to leave? Fine, but you will be giving up pretty much your entire diplomatic stack of cards except that 'ol "we are the only remaining superpower"-card, and those cards never last that long. So you'll never leave. Simply because you wont give up that influence. Suck it up.
The US funding the UN? On paper perhaps...or if you actually paid what you are supposed to pay.
Congo? Toad, get an education on the subject instead of talking the way you do, insulting alot of people.
Oh and Toad, DO list what exactly the US did in
Zimbabwe
Ivory Coast
Kashmir
Nepal
Burundi
Nigeria
North Korea
Chechnya
South Africa
Congo
Rwanda
Sudan
What will follow now is not directed at you toad
But what you fail to understand right now is that the UN does *alot* of good that you dont see everyday. And, like oxygen, just because you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there *tries to educate a couple of morons...I was gonna say "you know who you are", but then I realized that you probably dont know who you are*
Take the WHO for example, they are doing alot of good right now. They do even more good every day that we never think about. Kill the UN you kill the WHO. Would that be smart?
Or take the UNICEF, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNAIDS... yeah, I know these abbrevations can be hard for you to understand, but lets just say that behind each of those organizations, you will find MILLIONS of lives saved by the UN.
Frankly, the US isnt contributing as much to the UN as some of you seem to think. And you are sadly misstaken if you think you would be sorely missed if you decided to bail. The UN will live on without you, simply because you are but one nation on this planet. Despite your opinion of yourselves.
So the security aspect of the UN doesnt work right now. Everyone knows that. There are other more important aspects of the UN that does work. That is reason alone to keep it.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
A couple of points.
Oh and Toad, DO list what exactly the US did in
Zimbabwe
Ivory Coast
Kashmir
Nepal
Burundi
Nigeria
North Korea
Chechnya
South Africa
Congo
Rwanda
Sudan
I have a feeling that if America did intervene in those countries, we would be lambasted for the effort..... as usual.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
If the US wanted to leave the UN, go right ahead. It would be as smart as cutting off your own head to cure a headache however.
You might want to change this opinion unless you have recently fallen off the Ann Coultier bandwagon.
-
Why do you care if the US leave the UN. Aren't we evil anyway? Aren't we hyprocrites? Don't we bomb babies? Take over foreign lands? Don't we forgo on paying dues?
I try to understand your positions but all I can see is that YOU SIMPLY DON'T LIKE THE US.
Woulnd't getting the US out in the open on it's own suit your purposes so that you could point fingers at it and say "See I told you so. They are only looking out for themselves." Then you could brand them the self-indulgent, swaggering, arrogant, murdering bast@rds you make them out to be?
If it wasn't for you constant and everpresent whining on these boards I could very, very easily overlook you tards...but you do it far too oftten too be ignored. Maybe that is your only justification and validation in this lifetime...one of the permanent squeaky wheel. But for my personal preference I wish you would just STFU. You simply do not have to post about EVERYTHING, ALL THE F#CKING TIME
Perhaps you should take time to look into your own countries and find something to post about it on other boards.
If you don't like mine, then piss off and I will be glad when we stop supporting the countries that squeak, squeak and squeak about what we do or don't do.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Frankly, the US isnt contributing as much to the UN as some of you seem to think. And you are sadly misstaken if you think you would be sorely missed if you decided to bail. The UN will live on without you, simply because you are but one nation on this planet. Despite your opinion of yourselves.
So the security aspect of the UN doesnt work right now. Everyone knows that. There are other more important aspects of the UN that does work. That is reason alone to keep it.
Hortlund, Just how much do you suppose was contributed to the UN since the start of it's conception by the US. The number is simply staggering!
The reason the US refuses to pay it's "dues" on time is due to the fact that hardly any other nation chooses too. We, the US, funded the conception, we, the US, provide 80% of the troops, we, the US, provide all the upkeep and support for the frigging building, we, the US, get NOTHING in return, except the whining and bantering by many wanna-be third world nations. I fail to see where the benefit is for us? You say the VETO is a big deal? Guess what, it means shreck All right now, because unless it is a France / Russia suck fest, nothing is going to get accomplished. SO to do with out the UN, is simply a better deal in our opinions. shreck, I'd rather support just WHO then the UN, as you correctly said, they do accomplish something. Unfortunately we will be stuck with the meaninglessnees of the UN for the forseeable future....
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Congo? Toad, get an education on the subject instead of talking the way you do, insulting alot of people.
I have an education, thanks.
As I said, the UN first went into the Congo in 1960. 43 Years later, they're thinking of going back for the umpteenth time.
Should tell you something, eh? If it doesn't, reflect on Kosovo. When did the slaughter finally stop? Hint, it wasn't stopped under a blue UN flag.
Oh and Toad, DO list what exactly the US did in
Zimbabwe
Ivory Coast
Kashmir
Nepal
Burundi
Nigeria
North Korea
Chechnya
South Africa
Congo
Rwanda
Sudan
Well, we've been to some of those places and others we've not. But the ones we went to, we went under a blue flag.
And what got done? Essentially NOTHING. Should tell you something, eh? If it doesn't, reflect on Kosovo. When did the slaughter finally stop? Hint, it wasn't stopped under a blue UN flag. (Theme?)
Some of those places we didn't go to, we still managed to achieve something but it was outside of the UN. Some say the US business boycott of South Africa made a big difference, for example. But that wasn't a UN flagged operation either.
All I'm saying is that in some cases sooner or later you have to take the gloves off and beat the sh t out of somebody before they get the message.
The UN, clearly..... in anyone's view... hasn't done anything like that since Russia failed to show at a UN SC meeting and UN troops went into Korea. And for those of you who will jump up and shout that Korea was a stalemate, check the casualty figures. The NK's and the Chinese got their a es handed to them. It was see-saw for a while but when the war was winding down, the Communist forces were getting pushed back. UN forces were 20 miles above the parallel when the Chinese called for truce talks in October '51.
General Van Fleet was ordered not to start any offensives except local attacks no larger than batallion size. The Chinese used the talks as an opportunity to bolster their defenses. From then on, thousands of men on both sides would die taking or defending a hill that essentially changed nothing. These men would died to give one side or the other a bargaining chip at the conference table.
Sounds a lot like VietNam, eh? The politicians took over the war plan and grunts died to no purpose. Had Van Fleet been allowed to continue, he claimed he could have driven the Chinese from Korea,but he just wasn't alowed to do so. Many top commanders agreed with him.
Numbers? The U.S. sent 1,319,000 men to the war and in three years 33,629 of them were killed in battle, and another 105,000 were wounded. Almost half of these casualties happened after the first "peace" talks were started. South Korea lost 415,000 men killed,and the British Commonwealth lost 1,263 while the rest of the U.N. forces lost a combined total of 1,800 men. It's estimated that China and North Korea lost over a million and a half men.
That's the LAST time the UN took the gloves off. And it's pretty clear which side got their headlights punched out.
I'd support a UN that was willing to take the gloves off and do what's right.
But this pointless politically correct visiting of "neutral" forces hasn't changed a d mn thing in the vast majority of those coutries listed.
If anyone is insulted, they're insulted by the truth. The UN hasn't done squat to end the slaughter in those coutries listed because the UN is afraid to do what will have to be done. Spill blood.
Yeah, they're good at health operations sometimes and other non-violent stuff.
But when the time comes to disarm the slaughtering psychos, the UN is sadly lacking in balls. As we've just seen.
-
"But when the time comes to disarm the slaughtering psychos, the UN is sadly lacking in balls. As we've just seen."
Yeap...
Srebrenica!
Death To the UN
-
Your reference to UN role in Korea is pretty flawed Toad ...
Taiwan was representing China at this time and USSR was boycotting UN ...
With a UN including USSR and China no UN intervention would have been possible in Korea.
In this particlar case UN was the puppet of the western countries.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Your reference to UN role in Korea is pretty flawed Toad ...
Taiwan was representing China at this time and USSR was boycotting UN ...
With a UN including USSR and China no UN intervention would have been possible in Korea.
In this particlar case UN was the puppet of the western countries.
Again proving that if the UN was working "right" that nothing would have been done to stop the communist NK conquest of SK.
The UN is useless...
-
Agree ...
There is so much contradictory interests in the Un that it's not strange it don't work flawlessly...
-
Originally posted by Toad
I have an education, thanks.
As I said, the UN first went into the Congo in 1960. 43 Years later, they're thinking of going back for the umpteenth time.
[/b]
How much do you know about what happened in Congo 1960, and how much do you know about the original conflict and why the UN went in?
Should tell you something, eh? If it doesn't, reflect on Kosovo. When did the slaughter finally stop? Hint, it wasn't stopped under a blue UN flag.
[/b]
Yes, the big slaughter in Kosovo. Please.
the US went into Kosovo for one reason and one reason alone: Monica Lewinsky
Well, we've been to some of those places and others we've not. But the ones we went to, we went under a blue flag.
[/b]
Please do tell what countries in that list the US went to and when.
And what got done? Essentially NOTHING. Should tell you something, eh? If it doesn't, reflect on Kosovo. When did the slaughter finally stop? Hint, it wasn't stopped under a blue UN flag. (Theme?)
[/b]
So now I'm confused... I thought your main theme here was that the UN didnt go into those countries.
ANYWAY Toad, I invite you to read the UN Charter. More specifically Chapter I, article 2, point 6. I then want you to explan what nations on your list that article would apply to.
I would also like for you to explain the legal basis for the US "intervention" in Kosovo.
Thanks.
Some of those places we didn't go to, we still managed to achieve something but it was outside of the UN. Some say the US business boycott of South Africa made a big difference, for example. But that wasn't a UN flagged operation either.
[/b]
And some would say you're full of sh*t. Go ahead, list your achievements in those places. Practically the entire world had a business boycott on South Africa back then, but you would like to list that as a US accomplisment? Why am I not surprised...
All I'm saying is that in some cases sooner or later you have to take the gloves off and beat the sh t out of somebody before they get the message.
[/b]
I agree.
The UN, clearly..... in anyone's view... hasn't done anything like that since Russia failed to show at a UN SC meeting and UN troops went into Korea.
[/b]
I suggest you do some reading up on Congo.
That's the LAST time the UN took the gloves off. And it's pretty clear which side got their headlights punched out.
...
If anyone is insulted, they're insulted by the truth. The UN hasn't done squat to end the slaughter in those coutries listed because the UN is afraid to do what will have to be done. Spill blood.
[/b]
OK, you claim to have an education, might I please inquire as to exactly what your education is? Because you are severely lacking in knowledge here my friend.
But when the time comes to disarm the slaughtering psychos, the UN is sadly lacking in balls. As we've just seen.
The UN is nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its member nations. Your anger/blame/disgust/whatever should be focused on the nations controlling the UN desicions in every single issue. France, Germany, Russia for example when it comes to Iraq. Russia, China, France, Germany when it comes to N Korea...etc etc.
-
Yes, the big slaughter in Kosovo. Please. the US went into Kosovo for one reason and one reason alone: Monica Lewinsky
BS. This stuff is as dumb as the no war for oil protests, milisevic had to to be stopped. Do you know why the genocide in kosovo was so low, why so few people died as compared to bosnia? Why only a few bodies were found? Know why? Cause the serbs prolly didnt kill that many, and they didnt because we USA/NATO not retarded UN stopped them we kille their death squad troops and blew up their weapons and kicked them out. This is what should have been done before in bosnia. The fact is the kosovo mission was a fantastic succes and it prevented another milosevic genocide. One of best things clinton ever did IMHO along with helping croatian forces do the 1995 liberation offensive of croatia and bosnia.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
BS. This stuff is as dumb as the no war for oil protests, milisevic had to to be stopped.
[/b]
Try to raise the level of conversation just one notch please.
Do you know why the genocide in kosovo was so low, why so few people died as compared to bosnia? Why only a few bodies were found? Know why?
[/b]
Do you? Or do you have some pet theory that you cannot backup or prove? Lets read on and find out.
Cause the serbs prolly didnt kill that many, and they didnt because we USA/NATO not retarded UN stopped them we kille their death squad troops and blew up their weapons and kicked them out. This is what should have been done before in bosnia. The fact is the kosovo mission was a fantastic succes and it prevented another milosevic genocide.
[/b]
Nice theory. Now give it some backing. Some evidence. Some indication that you are right. Lets hear some evidence that the Serbs were massacring the civilian Kosovars. Lets see some numbers. Lets hear it.
One of best things clinton ever did IMHO along with helping croatian forces do the 1995 liberation offensive of croatia and bosnia.
Of cource you think it was the best thing he ever did. You are Croatian. I suspect there is little love lost between you and the Serbs.
-
You know hortlund you are making me sick. Milosevic and his gang had a record of a decade of genocide in yugoslavia. Then serb paramolitaries start killing off kosovo civilans in small excection groups - I have seen the picture and yes of course they are all lies. And this is exactly how they strated in bosnia and croatia. Now I dont hate the serbs even though they killed many of m,y family in that stupid war - but if you tell me that they werent starting it all over in kosovo then you and I have nothing more to talk about. Because if you dont want to belive that then you are a naive idiot no better than all these saddam hussein lovers and apologists.
And you go look up the pictures of the shallow graves and mutilated corpses and rotting skeletons, and women ripped ope. I DONT want to look at crap like that done by miliosevic buddies any more.
MILISEVIC = BAD, GENOCIDE, MURDER, CONQUEST, HATE, INTOLERANCE
Is that clear Hortlund?
FUC**ING OUTRAGEOUS REALLY HORTLUND
And something else hortlund. About no love lost with serbs. I dont hate them, they did what they did because they thought, rigtly for a while, that they could get away with it and benefit. Those guys did these things and many of them thankfully were killed. So many were mislead and lied to by milisevic that hating them mmakes no sense.
About the offensive. I guess you would think that a genocidal enemy force holding 1/3 of sweden was cool. Yes still by summer 95 they had 1/3 of croatia and they nearly cut the country in two - this was unbearable so we took care of it along with bosnian troops and US/Brit air support. We then pushed into bosnia together and releved many areas. his all came after the UN (yes hortlund your beloved gay UN) failed misertably toi stop the genocide of 8000 civilans under their DIRECT CARE in srebrenica. Finally the real world leaders US/UK stepped in and took care of business. And rember the cease fire was signed on a USAF base in the middle of USA not some UN potatohouse in geneva..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You know hortlund you are making me sick.
[/b]
Oh no...please say it isnt so.
Milosevic and his gang had a record of a decade of genocide in yugoslavia. Then serb paramolitaries start killing off kosovo civilans in small excection groups - I have seen the picture and yes of course they are all lies. And this is exactly how they strated in bosnia and croatia.
[/b]
Kosovo...part of Serbia since when...1200-something?
Yugoslavia..federation of states created when?
Same thing?
You have seen the picture...great evidence.
Now I dont hate the serbs even though they killed many of m,y family in that stupid war - but if you tell me that they werent starting it all over in kosovo then you and I have nothing more to talk about. Because if you dont want to belive that then you are a naive idiot no better than all these saddam hussein lovers and apologists.
[/b]
Sweet. You know the truth, and if I ask you to back your claims with sources, you will stop talking to me. Hello mr Crabofix/Boroda/Blitz.
And you go look up the pictures of the shallow graves and mutilated corpses and rotting skeletons, and women ripped ope. I DONT want to look at crap like that done by miliosevic buddies any more.
[/b]
Well, if you pointed me to your sources maybe I could. But oh, wait, I'm not allowed to do that because then you will stop talking to me.
MILISEVIC = BAD, GENOCIDE, MURDER, CONQUEST, HATE, INTOLERANCE
Is that clear Hortlund?
[/b]
Crystal. Is it relevant?
And something else hortlund. About no love lost with serbs. I dont hate them, they did what they did because they thought, rigtly for a while, that they could get away with it and benefit. Those guys did these things and many of them thankfully were killed. So many were mislead and lied to by milisevic that hating them mmakes no sense.
[/b]
You dont hate them but "thankfully they were killed"? This must be some Croatian thing I dont understand.
About the offensive. I guess you would think that a genocidal enemy force holding 1/3 of sweden was cool. Yes still by summer 95 they had 1/3 of croatia and they nearly cut the country in two - this was unbearable so we took care of it along with bosnian troops and US/Brit air support. We then pushed into bosnia together and releved many areas. his all came after the UN (yes hortlund your beloved gay UN) failed misertably toi stop the genocide of 8000 civilans under their DIRECT CARE in srebrenica. Finally the real world leaders US/UK stepped in and took care of business. And rember the cease fire was signed on a USAF base in the middle of USA not some UN potatohouse in geneva..
How old are you Grun? 16-17?
-
Go on being a milosevic aplologist....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Go on being a milosevic aplologist....
I'm not.
Good luck on your future education.
-
if we withdraw from the UN, people from other countries will see USA as ARROGANT and a THREAT to world peace rather than the "peacemakers" and we will lose aliances from other countries.
-
Lets say i put a picture of a dozen or so Kosovar people with their mutilated dead bodies?
Im guessing youll say its a lie and not proof of genocide - or something like that.
The thing I'm asking you is does that make the start of a genocide? Because thats exactly how it strated in bosnia and croatia and even you wont pull a boroda and deny that.
I'm telling you hortlund he was starting that crap again and I'm glad somebody finally stepped in before it got bad.
You on the other hand seem to be unwilling to face that reality - but it doesnt really matter just like it didnt matter what so many of the sadam apologists thought.
I dont really want to get hostile with you - actually I dont like getting hostile with anyone on this board but hell it just strikes me that you made up your mind allready.
I simply ask you to consider the very real possibility, based on miliosevics past behavior, that he was starting it up again in kosovo, and that NATO stopped him before it got real bad all over again like in bosnia and croatia.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I simply ask you to consider the very real possibility, based on miliosevics past behavior, that he was starting it up again in kosovo, and that NATO stopped him before it got real bad all over again like in bosnia and croatia.
Sure.
Personally I doubt it, but it is possible.
The thing I'm objecting to here is not necessarily the removal of Milosevich as you may think, it is the US motivation for doing so (Lewinsky), it is the legal basis for the US intervention (non existant) it is the events leading up to the war (US peace plan that was a f*cking joke that no country would ever agree to) and the US hypocircy afterwards (we were doing it for the Kosovars)
-
A lot of people say we have no justification for the Iraq war.
But I'll say this the world is much better with milosevic in jail and not running amock in kosovo. The NATO war and US pressure set events in motion for that to happend - I dont think
I should care why people think it was done.
My thought is it was to prevent and stop the spread of yet another wonderful milosevic genocide - certanly i think it accoimplished that.
-
Why do you doubt it?
He is certainly capable of it.
He had a motive to "cleanse" the area for its high cultural signifiacnce to serbs - something that people outside yugo will prolly never fully understand.
He had a motive bacause that would strenghthen him in serbia - for the above reason.
He wasnt really punished in either bosnia and croatia.
He prolly thought it would go unnoticed as it was in a part of serbia.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
A lot of people say we have no justification for the Iraq war.
[/b]
Yeah, but they are full of sh*t.
But I'll say this the world is much better with milosevic in jail and not running amock in kosovo. The NATO war and US pressure set events in motion for that to happend - I dont think
I should care why people think it was done.
[/b]
Fine.
My thought is it was to prevent and stop the spread of yet another wonderful milosevic genocide - certanly i think it accoimplished that.
I think the situation in Kosovo isnt solved yet. I think the US made it *alot* worse by going in and removing the Serbs. Then they realized they cannot simply solve the underlying problem that would come with Kosovar/Albanian independence. So they jumped into the situation, made it worse, created another powderkeg that is just waiting to blow up, soon the US will want to leave and before doing that they will somehow try to turn Kosovo into Europes problem...
Well guess what, we never wanted the US to intervene, we never wanted the US to try to break out Kosovo from Serbia, we never wanted another safehaven for moslem fundementalism in the middle of europe, we never wanted that.
Really stupid...really really f*cking stupid.
You come over to our back yard and f*ck it up, then you realize you f*cked things up and you want to bail, AND you expect us to clear out the mess you created. In between that, you accuse us of being cowards, idiots, weak, stupid and whathaveyou.
-
It also provides most of the troops for its operations.
Oh my.
I can't believe the ignorance of some of the people on this board. Just make everything up why don't you.
The US has not committed peacekeeping troops to a UN managed operation EVER. I've NEVER seen US troops wearing a blue helmet. Korea was effectively a UN mandated US operation, the same foes for Desert Storm. US command of a coalition given a UN mandate.
Where have all these blue-helmeted US peace-keepers been? So the US contributed the most troops to Bosnia, Indonesia etc etc etc?
And for once, I agree with Hortlund on the question of the UN.
A US pullout of the UN would hurt both the US and the UN, and the global community.
-
Toad - what are your thoughts on Tronski's comments?
-
But Hortlund why dont you say why you doubt he was going to do another genocide ethnic cleansing thing?
-
Its simple really, I dont think he would do one in his own back yard. I think he was motivated by ice-cold logic in Bosnia and Croatia.
The logic being that if you removed all the Croatians and Moslems from the parts of Bosnia and Croatia bordering Serbia, it would be easier to control those areas after the war, and later, annex those areas into Serbia.
Look at the Serbs in Croatia and the Serbs in Bosnia, look at the areas they wanted to control, look at what they did once they had achieved that control. You wont find any "lets conquer the entire nation and occupy it"-strategy, what you find is a "lets take these parts bordering Serbia and remove everything that isnt Serbian"-strategy.
In Kosovo, he doesnt need to do that, simply because Kosovo is an acknowledged part of Serbia. Then the Albanians start their own little war in Kosovo, aimed at independence naturally. For some unknown reason (i e Lewinsky and the need to shift focus from the presidents dick) the US decides to back this Albanian desire for a nation of their own.
They present a peace deal in that French meeting that is so outrageously insane it would make even Stalin blush. Then they say "accept this or we will attack". The Serbs say "uh..wtf are you on drugs? We sure as he** aint going to part with Kosovo, the cradle of our culture, the place we see as the birthplace of the Serbian nation"
The US says "do it now or face the consequences".
The Serbs say no. The US attacks. Its a f*cking outrage.
Its as if China would present the US with a "peace deal" giving New York and Michigan back to the Indians because the Chinese feel the Americans have been treating the Indians unfair. Then when the US refuses, the missiles come flying. You get the idea...Its like "who the he** are you to get involved in our domestic issues?"
Does that answer your question?
-
Had Russian not been boycotting the SC because of the Mainland China/Taiwan representation issue or if Mainland China had been sitting on the SC then the NK's would have most likely faced the S and a few of it's true allies only. I agree.
The US + allies would have put them back across the border anyway, the only difference would have been that the UN would have been shown to be clearly irrelevant 60 years ago.
"Puppet of the western countries". Yeah, the UN/world should have stood by and said "Tsk, Tsk" when the North Korean tanks rolled into Seoul. That would have been the "right thing to do" instead of being a "puppet of the west".
-
No Hortlund. Its no difference whether Kosovo is ofically part of serbia, the problem were the people. You very eaily dismiss removal of people
The logic being that if you removed all the Croatians and Moslems from the parts of Bosnia and Croatia bordering Serbia, it would be easier to control those areas after the war, and later, annex those areas into Serbia.
He did not have control over kosovo, they ha autonomy. Thats why he wanted to get rid of them. Its the same thing as in bosnia and croatia - he wanted to remove the non serbs. And the kosovar albanians were definitely not serbs.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No Hortlund. Its no difference whether Kosovo is ofically part of serbia,
There is an ocean of difference between the two.
The logic being that if you removed all the Croatians and Moslems from the parts of Bosnia and Croatia bordering Serbia, it would be easier to control those areas after the war, and later, annex those areas into Serbia.
[/b]
Isnt that what I said?
He did not have control over kosovo, they ha autonomy. Thats why he wanted to get rid of them. Its the same thing as in bosnia and croatia - he wanted to remove the non serbs. And the kosova albanians were definitely not serbs.
I disagree. And I question your sources for your statements.
He most certainly did not want to remove the Kosovars for several reasons. They had limited autonomy, yes, and that was the way it was supposed to be.
He had complete control over Kosovo. The Albanians were attempting some guerilla warfare against the Serbs, but the Serbs were in the process of defeating said guerillas when the US showed up with their "peace plan".
It is not the same thing as in Bosnia and Croatia, because this time we are talking about a part of Serbia.
-
South Africa and the white farmers?
Just that ~1000-1300 have been murdered, men, women and children over about the last 9-10 years while at the ANC political rallies, ANC Ministers lead the crowd in chants of "Kill the Boer! Kill the Farmer!"
Seems a bit strange for the ANC to be doing that eh? Where do the Boers have to turn to for aid then?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Had Russian not been boycotting the SC because of the Mainland China/Taiwan representation issue or if Mainland China had been sitting on the SC then the NK's would have most likely faced the UN and a few of it's true allies only. I agree.
I've re-read my post and I fail to see were I posted a link between USSR boycott and China ????
If China would have been in the security council you think they wouldn't have vetoed a UN intervention ?
I disagree accepting such an intervention would have been against Chine interrest.
The US + allies would have put them back across the border anyway, the only difference would have been that the UN would have been shown to be clearly irrelevant 60 years ago.
Yep.
"Puppet of the western countries". Yeah, the UN/world should have stood by and said "Tsk, Tsk" when the North Korean tanks rolled into Seoul. That would have been the "right thing to do" instead of being a "puppet of the west".
Ok I'll search another term to define an assembly voicing only one opinion.
But till I find the right term I'll use the "puppet" word ...
Btw my point (if you don't see it clearly) was : if the 50's UN was strutured like the current UN it will have ended like Iraq : an intervention without mandat.
Note that I take no position about the "bien fondé"(*) of the intervention.
(*) I hope you understand cause I didn't found a good looking translation for this word...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Face it chum... the UN is a do-nothing organization. When Serb tanks were rolling over the Kosovars the UN did....... nothing.
Yeah they did they sent me, and around 2,500 troops over there as part of Task Force Falcon to stop it. I have been to Kosovo twice, once in 98 and once agin 00. I wouldnt say the UN helped much, it seems that when ever somthing needs to be fixed, its left up to America to fix it. I am still not sure if leaving the UN is a good idea. Maybe there needs to be changes made, but leaving it could be a mistake.
-
Originally posted by Toad
South Africa and the white farmers?
UN Charter, Chapter I, article 2, point 6.
I invite you to reply to the rest of my post too though...
-
Hortlund practically Milosevics whole career was based on kosovo. You see he gained national prominance and serbian clout by going to kosovo in the late 1980s and making a mess and making trouble for the albanians - thats how it all started and he always worked to reduce their autonomy.
You say there are severl reasons he wanted them to stay, what are they?
The reasons he wanted them gone are pretty clear.
They were non serbs running a serb "holy" area.
They were non serbs controling a big coal/mineral area.
The serbs in the area wanted them gone and began to make trouble as well.
What are your reasons he wanted them there?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What are your reasons he wanted them there?
They were not running anything, their limited self governing was mostly on paper.
There is a difference between wanting to reduce their self government and "kill them all".
They provided a large body of unskilled labour, vital for the industry in the area.
The Serbs in the area didnt want them gone until the albanians arrived and started destabilizing the entire region.
The Serbs had Kosovo in complete control.
There are no benefits with doing some enormous ethnical cleansing in the area, neither in the short term or in the long term.
-
The Serbs in the area didnt want them gone until the albanians arrived and started destabilizing the entire region.
So it was the kosovars fault?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
How much do you know about what happened in Congo 1960, and how much do you know about the original conflict and why the UN went in?
Just what's in the history books. Initiially another European colonial problem from my point of view. The mutiny of the troops resulted in Belgian paras going in and UN troops going in to get the Belgian paras out. They did that and then were also used to crush the rebellion in Katanga and Stanleyville against the DRP central government but nonetheless the ethnic fighting continued and rebellion continued in many of the provinces.
Shall I go on?
Monica Lewinsky? That undoubtedly played a role. But what is undeniable is that all the UN/Euro maneuvering and troop-sending into the former Yugoslavia achieved nothing until the gloves came off and the Serbs got lit up.
North Korea - 1950, still there. No war since we kicked them back across the 38th and signed the truce.
Don't think we sent troops to the rest of them. And there's still serious fighting in those places. Go figure. But UN's been to all of them right?
Here you go.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
So, by Charter, there's a lot of those places that the UN shouldn't have intevened in by Charter. Purely domestic slaughter isn't UN business. But the UN's been to some of those situations anyway, haven't they? Of course, they're still killing in all of them.
The US intervention was a violation of the NATO charter. Do a search, I've said it many times before.
Obviously the lesson is that neither the UN or NATO can do anything "legally" about internal genocide. So why pretend like they can?
Ah, I see. The boycott of the rest of the world would have brought about change in SA without the US participation. Fine. Have it your way.
Well, Hortlund, I'm educated enough not to make personal attacks in the very least. Can you say the same?
The UN is nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its member nations.
That is true. And when you have a system that puts Libya in charge of the Human Rights aspect and Iraq in charge of Disarmament, you have a totally dysfunctional system.
I'm sorry but the idea that "all nations are equal and equally worthy" is clearly bogus. The system doesn't work because the ability to actually do anything is hindered if not prohibited due to the inherent design of the system.
Now, I've got really busy day, so toodle-pip.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So it was the kosovars fault?
More specifically, it was the fault of the Albanians and the Kosovar-Albanians that started the guerilla war against the Serbian security forces in Kosovo, that the Serbains in Kosovo wanted them to quit shoothing and leave them the f*ck alone ...yeah.
Read back a couple of posts, see what I have written and what you have responded...are you reduced to one liners trying to set me up now?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
UN Charter, Chapter I, article 2, point 6.
Yeah, I agree.
It would have prevented the UN from doing anything about the internal genocide in Nazi Germany too.
Great piece of writing, isn't it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I agree.
It would have prevented the UN from doing anything about the internal genocide in Nazi Germany too.
Great piece of writing, isn't it.
Whether you like it or not, it sets the boundaries for the UN.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
And your comment wasn't a generalization?
It certainly was a grand generalization (i.e. the use of yourselves).
Besides, I didn't comment on you personally, just that your quote captured very accurately the attitudes of a great many who live in Quebec. I even gave you a for your astute observation!
So, how do you get that whole "putting you in the same boat" thing?
I believe mine was a well hit ball over the fence.
You shouldn't try to read too much into things that aren't there :)
my humble apologies for mis-interpreting your comments....:(
-
No problem SLO!
Now the only way I can think of to make up for this, is to invite me up for the Grand Prix of Montreal in June!! :)
GO SCHUMI!! (the Schumi in the RED car)
-
Originally posted by Drunky
Why do you care if the US leave the UN. Aren't we evil anyway? Aren't we hyprocrites? Don't we bomb babies? Take over foreign lands? Don't we forgo on paying dues?
I try to understand your positions but all I can see is that YOU SIMPLY DON'T LIKE THE US.
Woulnd't getting the US out in the open on it's own suit your purposes so that you could point fingers at it and say "See I told you so. They are only looking out for themselves." Then you could brand them the self-indulgent, swaggering, arrogant, murdering bast@rds you make them out to be?
If it wasn't for you constant and everpresent whining on these boards I could very, very easily overlook you tards...but you do it far too oftten too be ignored. Maybe that is your only justification and validation in this lifetime...one of the permanent squeaky wheel. But for my personal preference I wish you would just STFU. You simply do not have to post about EVERYTHING, ALL THE F#CKING TIME
Perhaps you should take time to look into your own countries and find something to post about it on other boards.
If you don't like mine, then piss off and I will be glad when we stop supporting the countries that squeak, squeak and squeak about what we do or don't do.
Don't drink that much please! :)
Because people strongly dislike the bad boys in the white house and the warmongers in pentagon doesn't mean they do not like the american people in general.
I do not believe in "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" !
You do?
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Stringer
No problem SLO!
Now the only way I can think of to make up for this, is to invite me up for the Grand Prix of Montreal in June!! :)
GO SCHUMI!! (the Schumi in the RED car)
funny you should mention that.....
right now I'm takin a NSS(network sys. specialist course) at a College.....
College sits right near the track:D
unfortunately my friend doesn't work for GP Canada anymore....if he did I woulda got ya free tickets.....
this summer I'll be sitting in class.....hmm hmm..maybe.... maybe not....34 year old man surrounded by half naked 18 year olds:D
in class or outside...where you think i'll be:p
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Whether you like it or not, it sets the boundaries for the UN.
It certainly does. Coupled with the UN SC's near phobia about using Chapter 7, it highlights what many in this thread have been saying about the UN.
Remember how hard Jim Baker had to work, flying around in non-stop shuttle diplomacy to get anything done after Iraq invaded Kuwait? (Chapter VII).
Then review that the entire Yugoslavian debacle really falls under Chapter I, article 2, point 6, so the UN really shouldn't have ever done anything. And also of course that the NATO intervention violated the NATO charter as well... and what do you really have as a world peacekeeping multinational organization?
NOTHING. :D
So I don't have to like it at all, you are right.
I'm glad you like it, though.
I've got an idea... why don't you stay in and we'll just go?
Perfect! Everybody's happy!
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The dutch invented the marines
Al Gore was Dutch? :D
crabofix,
Keep your head down & come back in one piece.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
Now, I've got really busy day, so toodle-pip.
ROFLMAO!!! I've created a T-P monster!
OK, me old Septic Tanks (cockney rhyming...) We've had some good ding-dongs here in the O'Club, but they've been good natured, and you know I love you all really. :)
Pity about the UN. George Bush-1 was right - another light that failed. A bureaucracy for causing gridlock, delays, and creating the very conditions in which the world's tyrants can thrive, they themselves being self-exempted from any form of protocol observed by UN members.
The UN may be in disarray. It's role will almost certainly be different in the years to come.
We don't want entangling alliances. But some alliances are good, have lasted a long time, and are now stronger than ever.
(http://www.alanadsl.legend.yorks.com/ukflag.gif) (http://www.alanadsl.legend.yorks.com/usflag.gif)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
We don't want entangling alliances. But some alliances are good, have lasted a long time, and are now stronger than ever.
(http://www.alanadsl.legend.yorks.com/ukflag.gif) (http://www.alanadsl.legend.yorks.com/usflag.gif)
OMG...this is the SECOND time a fully agree with bett1e. :eek:
Is this the second seal of the apocolypse? :D
Just kidding bett1e....in all seriousness to you bud and your country.
-
Originally posted by Toad
South Africa and the white farmers?
Just that ~1000-1300 have been murdered, men, women and children over about the last 9-10 years while at the ANC political rallies, ANC Ministers lead the crowd in chants of "Kill the Boer! Kill the Farmer!"
Seems a bit strange for the ANC to be doing that eh? Where do the Boers have to turn to for aid then?
So you would agree with the UN placing peacekeepers in the southern states, because of the numbers of black men killed in the 9-10 years, and because of the existance of the KKK or even the NRA?
Obviously the US police cannot (or perhaps will not?) protect Black men in the United states so who would they turn to?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Toad
It certainly does. Coupled with the UN SC's near phobia about using Chapter 7, it highlights what many in this thread have been saying about the UN.
See my previous comment on how the UN is nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its members. The same applies to the UNSC.
And I dont exactly see the US falling over themselves in their attempts to pass some Chapter VII resolution on Israel either...get my point?
-
Yeah, Tronski.. yer right! It's AMAZINGLY THE SAME HERE!
We have administration officials going to Selma, Alabama chanting "kill the blacks" and then white mobs go around to black farmer's homes and kill every one of them, man, woman and child.
So I guess it is EXACTLY THE SAME... we need UN troops!
-
Yes, it's the sum of it's parts. The Sum is about 3 or 4 when you add up all 187. Not a very good sum, is it?
Look, if you want to join a pointless club, a knitting society that never even knits, a swimming club that never goes to a pool... fine. Go ahead.
See, that's the beauty of that freedom thing. YOU are free to belong to the UN. Go ahead. Enjoy! We WANT you to be happy.
All we ask is that you allow us the same courtesy. Let us choose whether we want to be in an auto club with no autos or a golfing club with no course, clubs or balls.
I think we're on the edge of not renewing our membership. This club has proven to be absolutely pointless.
I think we'll still be able to do "good" things without the blue flag flying. CDC in Atlanta doesn't have to work through WHO to be a positive force in the world. Same with food aid; we seem to distribute quite a bit of food that doesn't go through the UN.
Necessary military action? :D
And another thing to look at is that it'll never get fixed unless somebody admits it's seriously broke. Someone's going to have to be first. Might as well be us, usually is anyway.
But, like I mentioned before...... can you find a nice stands-for-nothing country like Switzerland for the new UN HQ? It'd be nice to have it out of here and maybe it could serve as the nucleus for the new, powerful, pro-active EU. You could even base the new Euro quick reaction force that will make Nato a thing of the past there! Great idea!
-
I find myself nodding in agreement with Mr. Toad. Sad but true (what's happened to the UN - not the fact that I agree with Mr. Toad - LOL)
It was a good idea at the time, and could have worked if all countries played by the rules. But it's not turned out like that. I had a feeling that things might one day end up like this. That's why I've always considered the "unofficial" alliance between the UK and the USA to be vitally important. John Major almost porked it in 1992 when he overtly supported the re-election of GB1, and then had to mend fences when WJC became president.
The Reagan-Thatcher years were glorious! :):):) <--Dowding troll bait :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The Reagan-Thatcher years were glorious! :):):) <--Dowding troll bait :D
I can resist the temptation ...
I can resist ...
I can resist ...
I can resist ...
I can resist ...
I can resist ...
I can resist ...
running awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ;)
-
tronsky.. do you know who is killing all the poor black folk in the U.S.? Hint... It ain't white folk and it ain't the NRA... it aint even the KKK.
Speaking of the NRA... it appears that the membershp of the NRA is one of the most law abiding groups in the U.S.
lazs
-
how many countries does the UN have too manage.....
how many countries does the US have too manage.....
it ain't perfect....but its what we got....its OURS.
since its OURS...we can change and mold its form.....why do we have to get rid of something that belongs to EVERYONE.....
a little work....and voila...a better TOOL for peace.
-
You miss the point, Slo.
The UN doesn't manage any countries.
The US only has to manage one: the US.
Not only is the UN not perfect, it's powerless and pointless.
It is most definitely YOURS, however. It belongs to anyone that wants to join that can pass itself off as a "nation".
Which is fine by me and others like me I think. We just don't see why YOU would consider our membership mandatory in any way. After all, we're the Bad Guys, as you and a few others on this board have gone to great lengths to point out over the last two or three months.
Why would you want the Bad Guys in YOUR organization?
So, let us go in peace, wish us well. Then do you little bit of work and have your voila better tool for peace.
We'll just sit back and watch as the masters show us how it's done.
-
Petition signed
-
Alot of you people are really funny. I mean really funny in a sick, spoiled brat way. You really make me want to punch you.
First, it has been said that the US is a bully. Might makes right. Evil Bush & Co. are taking over the planet. America shouldn't be leading the world...it's just selfish and looking after it's own interest. Blah, blah, blah.
Okay, fine.
Then it is said, "Maybe the US should leave the UN."
Now everyone seems to be crying that the US shouldn't leave. The UN is all we have however imperfect it is. Wah, wah...don't leave us.
Why? Why do you give a f*ck if we leave or not? If we are so f*cking evil, selfish, etc then why do you care if we leave.
Funny...when some j@ckass leaves AH there are quite a few "Don't let the door hit you on the arse". I don't recall hearing a single one of those about the US leaving the UN. Think about it
Maybe the UN needs the US more than the US needs the UN.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You miss the point, Slo.
The UN doesn't manage any countries.
The US only has to manage one: the US.
Not only is the UN not perfect, it's powerless and pointless.
It is most definitely YOURS, however. It belongs to anyone that wants to join that can pass itself off as a "nation".
Which is fine by me and others like me I think. We just don't see why YOU would consider our membership mandatory in any way. After all, we're the Bad Guys, as you and a few others on this board have gone to great lengths to point out over the last two or three months.
Why would you want the Bad Guys in YOUR organization?
So, let us go in peace, wish us well. Then do you little bit of work and have your voila better tool for peace.
We'll just sit back and watch as the masters show us how it's done.
this is exactly why I don't bother anymore.....
here's another we AMERICANS vs. the World useless argument....
your part of the world handsomehunk.....fine.....you DON'T wanna participate with OTHERS.....fine....you wanna do it alone....fine.
you wanna bash the UN....not fine.....bash my country for NOT agreeing with your Black & White Politics....not fine...yet there you are bashing again.....
just cause we don't agree.....just cause we squeak some about your country....just cause we state a few opinions...doesn't mean we DON'T appreciate Americans or there culture.....
but boy....do you act like wounded animals when we do bash it a little.....
here you are bashing the UN again...but wait a minute...we can't bash you.....
-
Bashing?
Once again, the non-US version of free speech rears its head.
I'm not bashing the UN. I'm voicing my opinion of it. I haven't used foul language or anything like that. I've just said I see it as a pointless, powerless organization.
What you apparently find fault with is that I don't agree with you. Therefore, I'm not entitled to voice my opinion because I'm not voicing an opinion, I'm "bashing".
"Free speech" Euro style! :D
It's not America vs the world. No US poster here is saying you can't have your UN. We say quite the opposite. Have it. Enjoy it. Eat all you want.
Yeah, we're part of the world. And we participate. We feed lots of people around the world, we send medicine, we send money. And we already even do this OUTSIDE the structure of the UN.
just cause we don't agree.....just cause we squeak some about your country....just cause we state a few opinions...doesn't mean we DON'T appreciate Americans or there culture.....
Simlarly, just because we don't agree with other countries, it's not "bashing" them. It's just not agreeing with them. And, if we therefore choose to deal less favorably with that particular country and more favorably with another country that is more in agreement with us, it's not punishment, it's common sense.
Again, we're not bashing. We're stating our opinion.
And we understand that freedom of speech is a two way street. You get to say what you like. We get to say what we like. We may or may not agree, but that has nothing to do with "free speech".
It's the freedom to voice your opinion that counts. Nowhere is it mandated that, having done so, others MUST agree with you.
Something that far too many Euro posters.. and some Canadians, apparently, fail to understand.
Have a very nice day.
-
From Fox News today...
WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday expressed outrage that Cuba has been re-elected to the U.N. Human Rights Commission (search), only three weeks after rounding up dozens of dissidents and sending them to prison.
"This is a setback for the cause of human rights. Cuba does not deserve a seat on the Human Rights Commission. Cuba deserves to be investigated by the Human Rights Commission," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.
While the United States was preoccupied with the Iraq war, Cuban leader Fidel Castro (search) arrested 78 dissidents, journalists and librarians and "tried" them for treason, giving them varying prison sentences of as long as 28 years.
The same commission that by acclamation Tuesday allowed Cuba to remain a member, earlier this month voted to investigate the mass arrests. It was treated with resistance.
"The Human Rights Commission wanted to send investigators into Cuba and Cuba said 'no.' And yet, today, Cuba gets re-elected to the Human Rights Commission. It raises troubling issues, and that's why the United States is speaking out about it," Fleischer said.
The Bush administration lobbied against the vote to keep Cuba on the panel, but in the end threw up its hands, suggesting the commission is a lost cause.
"You have to keep in mind that Libya is the chairman of this committee. There are some things that happen at the United Nations that it's very hard for anybody to explain," Fleischer said.
U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Economic Social Council Sichan Siv (search), who served as the U.S. representative at Tuesday's commission meeting, got up and walked out when it became clear Cuba was going to win the vote.
"It was an outrage for us because we view Cuba as the worst violator of human rights in this hemisphere," he said.
Siv said the arrests aren't the only travesties committed by Castro. Cubans trying to escape Castro's regime have mounted several hijackings recently, including a plane flown to Key West and a ferryboat also headed to Florida. While hijackings are illegal, Castro didn't bother with anything like a trial, Siv said.
"They arrested three hijackers. After one week of incarceration, they shot them — no trial no justice or nothing," he said.
Castro's summary executions surprised and dismayed even his longtime defenders. It also riled longtime critics in the U.S. Congress.
"Allowing Cuba to stay on the Human Rights Commission is like honoring Saddam Hussein with the Nobel Peace Prize," said Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley.
Foley is introducing a congressional resolution calling on the United Nations to reverse its decision.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tronsky.. do you know who is killing all the poor black folk in the U.S.? Hint... It ain't white folk and it ain't the NRA... it aint even the KKK.
Speaking of the NRA... it appears that the membershp of the NRA is one of the most law abiding groups in the U.S.
lazs
I think I was making the point the UN should not get involved in civil matters....obviously I should tend toward the less subtle..and just lead you through it.
Tronsky
-
I'd wager the vast majority of the current genocide world wide would be/is considered a "civil matter".
I'd further wager that the vast majority of the genocide in the past 30 odd years would be/is considered a "civil matter".
I'd wager that had the UN been in existence, the genocide at Dachau would have been considered a "civil matter".
So, it's obviously best to do nothing.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'd wager the vast majority of the current genocide world wide would be/is considered a "civil matter".
I'd further wager that the vast majority of the genocide in the past 30 odd years would be/is considered a "civil matter".
I'd wager that had the UN been in existence, the genocide at Dachau would have been considered a "civil matter".
So, it's obviously best to do nothing.
uhuh...Dachau isn't a civil matter, that was state sponsored.
So if I'm robbed by someone who fits a sterotype who best befits a criminal...I should call the UN before I call the police?
Tronsky
-
Paging Dr. Hortlund... Dr. Hortlund... Mr. Tronski needs you to explain Chapter I, article 2, point 7 of the UN Charter.
To wit:
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
The prisoners sent to Dachau were sent under the domestic jurisdiction of the state.
And you might want to do a bit of research on the ANC and it's "kill the boer" history/activity.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And you might want to do a bit of research on the ANC and it's "kill the boer" history/activity.
I did at the start and are yet to find anything to proves the SA government is in the buisness of killing white farmers as I posted earlier.
If they are they're keeping it quiet even from the SA human rights commision.
Tronsky
-
Row over South Africa funeral (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2050188.stm)
The phrase "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" raised passions in the fight against apartheid, of which Peter Mokaba was highly influential as the ANC's youth leader.
He continued using the phrase right up to the 1994 election to deliberately provoke rage among white South Africans.
Yeah, my mistake. I can see where the ANC would use this phrase merely as an advertising slogan in an attempt to embrace all the various residents of SA into one big group hug.
BTW, no further comment on Dachau?
-
So, Toad, you are: Signing the Petition to Withdraw US from the UN?
You can solve these problem on your own, I am sure SA would just invite you over to help em out.
-
Oooooooooooo YAH! Signed it a long time ago, long before this thread!
I'm an isolationist, baby! Can't wait till ALL US troops are back on US soil. Always have been.. check my posts from the beginning of this BBS.
And anyway, I'm no longer worried about people dying that can't defend themselves. You see, almost all of those are purely civil matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the respective state.
So, you know, Hutus and Tutsis killing each other in the millions? Some regime or other wants to feed its citizens into a wood chipper feet first? I take the UN attitude now. It's OK! It's essentially within their domestic jurisdiction, just like Dachau was!
No problemo!
A weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Don't worry, be happy; NOTHING can be done! Civil matter! :)
But I still don't want the US in the UN. Reading the opinions of my world neighbors on this board has pretty much cured me of that.
And it looks like you guys don't want us either !
So, again... PERFECTION! Everybody is going to be happy! Rejoice!
-
Originally posted by Toad
But I still don't want the US in the UN. Reading the opinions of my world neighbors on this board has pretty much cured me of that.
And it looks like you guys don't want us either !
So, again... PERFECTION! Everybody is going to be happy! Rejoice!
Wow, a WIN/WIN again, TOAD, looks like we are makin lot of progresses here, thanks Toad.
-
You're Welcome!
Win/win is always good!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Row over South Africa funeral (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2050188.stm)
BTW, no further comment on Dachau?
And say what?
Always with these pointless arguments inevitably comes the good old Munich/Auchwitz argument.
It's a good one too, for even though this about South Africa, the supposed moral battle is lost when you bring up your ace in the sleeve...the holocaust..oooooo can't argue about that at all can we...
Dear oh dear...I have yet to see anything that contends the official south african government policy is the genocide of white farmers. You have yet to provide this information, because the South African dailies don't seem too interested. The Australian media doesn't seem too interested , even though it's neighbour Zimbabwe makes the news often.
What, because members of the ANC shout slogans or may advocate the killing of white farmers, suddenly the governments buying up the Afrikkanners whole stock of Zyklon-B?
You must contend that there isn't a lunatic fringe with most political parties, especially in places of turmoil like South Africa.
Tronsky
-
Mr. Toad,
I empathise with your current isolationist stance. It's a phase the big empires go through at some stage. In the 18th century, Britain owned one third of the world, and had the most powerful Navy in the world. If I remember my history lessons correctly, there came a time when we severed a few ties here and there, and the period that followed became known as "Splendid Independence". Maybe that's where the US is at now.
But my question for you is - Do you agree with continued American support of Israel? And what would happen if that stopped? My brother tells me (and he's not usually wrong) that there are more Jews living in NY state than there are in Israel. How would they feel about that? Don't these American jews make big donations to the political parties which best represent their interests?
-
Toad, do you really want the USA to leave the UN and leave it to be controlled by the likes of China and Russia, France and Germany? The kind of UN that votes Cuba onto the human rights commission? The kind of UN that does nothing because it hasn't got the power or resolve of America behind it. Unfortunately for better or worse the UN is kept going by the US presence. In my opinion if the US left the UN a split would soon develop as countries who realize their interests better lie with those of America attempt to ally themselves with the US outside the UN. The UN would become an axis of the misaligned. The sort of countries that like to criticise America but whose record of abuses stands no scrutiny?
Isolationism never worked for America and the last big attempt was ended spectacularly at Pearl Harbour. America won't leave the UN anyway. No petition will make any difference to that. Like it or not America is the world's policeman and like any cop will tell you, it's dirty job and you won't be thanked for it very often. You won't even always do the right thing. But the job has to be done.
In any case the truth is that the USA like any country should always does what's best for the USA. Isolation is not in anyone's interest least of all America.
Ignore the likes Hortlund. His assertions about the Kosovo issue ignore the realities on the ground or the history. To describe it as merely a guerilla war which the poor Serbians were about to supress is so far from the truth that it's laughable. If it was up to him Norway would be still part of Sweden and he would be wondering why those cranky Norwegians wanted self determination anyway.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
uhuh...Dachau isn't a civil matter, that was state sponsored.
Tronsky
Say that indeed, the UN Charter would not have allowed intervention in the German genocide typified by Dachau.
As I said, feel free to have the UN.. please just move it to Geneva or some other nice stands-for-nothing place.
And the Boers? Well, go ahead and dismiss it. We'll recheck in a few years and see how it has progressed. It's just beginning to get ink and I suspect the killings aren't going to stop, so it'll get more ink.
Anyway, it's certainly no worse than feeding people into a shredder or any of the other stuff that's known and allowed to go on.
-
Beet1e,
I been relatively outspoken on this very BBS about the US relationship with Israel. I'm sure a quick search will turn up more than you want to read.
If it were me, I'd tell them to get back behind their UN designated borders or I'd cut off all aid. After all, taking territory by conquest is what we went after Saddam for in '91 right?
However, if one does that, one has to provide them reasonable assurances that they won't get shelled and rocketed from the Golan Heights, etc, etc, etc.
That means dealing with their neighbors who have sworn, on and off through the last 50 odd years, to eliminate Israel from the map.
So, at the same time you make Israel the offer they can't refuse, you have to make a similar offer to their neighbors and that's where it gets sticky. You have to be extremely ready to "crack heads".
Or, I guess you could tell the Israelis that they have to withdraw and if they later get attacked they have the OK to use their nukes....
But, all in all, there's way too much support for Israel from the US. They don't deserve all of that support, either.
The current "road map" is an example. The PLO said "we accept!" the Israelis said "hey wait a minute! There's a few dozen or hundred changes we want here!".
;)
-
Rgr that, Mr. Toad - fair enough.
-
Our staying OR leaving the UN won't change those things.
I mean, look.. we're there and Cuba is on human rights. Iraq was on disarmament, LOL!
Can't see where our "presence" makes much difference.
But those things are besides the point anyway. Even with the US there, we have "The kind of UN that does nothing". Cripes, look at this current debacle in Iraq after 1441 passed unanimously!
Look at the evidence. The UN is already a gathering place for "the sort of countries that like to criticise America but whose record of abuses stands no scrutiny?"
Sorry, I can't see the purpose of routine deployment of hundreds of thousands of US troops around the world for extended periods.
Bring them home. Build a better transportation arm of the military so that if we HAVE to go help, we can do so quickly. There are obviously some countries that have similar values and that have supported us in the past. We need to be able to support them should they require it. Britain, obviously but there's others too. Then there's those that need to lie in their own bed for a century or so. ;)
Otherwise, out of the UN and bring the troops home.
It's a powerless, pointless debating society in an insane asylum where the inmates have taken over. Libya heading Human Rights? Cuba on Human Rights? Iraq on disarmament? France passing details of meetings with the US on Iraq to Hussein?
Oh yeah... we need to be in that stewpot! Not!
-
it ain't perfect Toad.....
but again.....where can all the countries in this world go to gather and exchange INFO.....
repeat......it ain't perfect....
you always seem to find good points to leave the UN.....
now find some good one's for not leaving.....
It ain't perfect.....neither is yours....
having the US in the UN puts others in there place.....a certain stability.
I told you before.....Bush's Black & White Politics WILL NOT work in the current WORLD AFFAIRS.....
many many many countries do NOT see it so.....
the world is gettin smaller not bigger.....you leaving the UN is a step backward...not forward
try instead to change it from the inside.....
-
No, it's not perfect. See, we agree!
In fact, it's not anything at all. I wish I could remember MiniD's line about paying a huge amount of people to do nothing at all. See, we disagree?
Stability? We're the ones that create instability, if I read this board correctly. In fact, seems like I remember you making that point recently. Acting against Iraq and all.
So best that us "unstable" folks just remove ourselves, so stable folks like Libya and Cuba and Iraq and Iran can head up those Human Rights and Disarmament commissions. Did I mention inmates running the asylum? Oh, yeah... I did.
There's this premise that all nations have the same honorable intent or morality or something. That there's no difference between those that enslave or oppress their own population.. or their neighbors.... and the ones who make it a point to struggle against oppression and enslavement. (Now that should bring the critics back out...)
But there is a difference. And the fact that so many fail to distinguish it is more than enough reason to leave the insane asylum to the inmates.. it's beyond control.
Please, just run the world without us.. large world or small world. We'll just stay out of the way unless we're threatened or one of our true allies asks for help.
Thank you and have a very nice day.
-
blablabla......
there is no good answer.....
seems you really do wanna leave.....
and I said YOUR GOV's POLICIES OF BLACK AND WHITE POLITICS will create nonsense.....
it already has.....
but as usual.....simple minds will see only simple things.....your a smart man Toad....but your simpleton views will just not work in a world made up of very very diff. views then yours......
do you actually think you leaving the UN will change anything.....
making yourself an isolationist nation will not help you in the long run.....
you closing the door to the world is a negative sir....not a positive
-
blah, blah, blah, indeed.
Time for those in the stands criticizing to get down on the field and play.
We'll get up in the stands and criticize for a while. Should be refreshing all around.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
blah, blah, blah, indeed.
Time for those in the stands criticizing to get down on the field and play.
We'll get up in the stands and criticize for a while. Should be refreshing all around.
:D
lol :D
you won't be able too stay up there and NOT do anything....its not in your countries nature to do nothing bud.....ya just gotta:p
-
I agree we'll act where we feel the US or our true allies are threatened.
But we don't have to be in the UN to do that, now do we? QED, I think?
Here's a hypothetical for you:
Situation:
Kim Jong Il can wait no longer for his "hey, give me free stuff, I've got nukes" plan to feed his starving population to work.
He decides to have his army drive to Seoul to pick up 3 million Big Macs.
A.
The UN WITH the US as a member convenes the SC. China, for reasons of its own, vetos any UN SC action.
What does the world do?
B.
The UN WITHOUT the US as a member convenes the SC. China, for reasons of its own, vetos any UN SC action.
What does the world do?
Well, what do you think are the likely responses from the world community?
I can't wait.
-
Likely Response to it Toad is...
The World will mull it over while anothe nation gets put under the jack boot of oppresion.... that is unless we (the USofA) stand up to them, YET AGAIN......
Piss off to all the liberalist Eurotrash studmuffins.... get a life and remember why you are free.