30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes.
Pages :
[1]
2
MR2-AW11
02-24-2004, 10:21 AM
Look how the U.SA. has Voted // Vetoed- see any bias - see any pattern ?
1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year -----Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
Note: During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemcal weapons. On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).
The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement.
1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year -----Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
Note: During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemcal weapons. On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).
The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement.
YogsVR4
02-24-2004, 10:58 AM
Its a good thing that the UN is a waste of space then isn't it.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
syr74
02-24-2004, 03:18 PM
Here's to thirty more years of being the rebel bastards we have always been. :)
Cbass
02-24-2004, 07:19 PM
Here's to me moving to Europe, and letting America quietly(hopefully) implode... Sadly, Canada will collapse along with America, because we're a small boat tied to a very large anchor...
bm2boats
02-24-2004, 07:51 PM
So, the purpose of this post is What? I don't see what you are tring to get at. Plus, if you are going to post Votes, Post All Votes. All post how the other countries voted. You will see that The issues that YOU selected, were not all started by the U.S.A.. And that most of Europe voted the same way.
So, What was your point?
So, What was your point?
syr74
02-24-2004, 08:37 PM
Here's to me moving to Europe, and letting America quietly(hopefully) implode... Sadly, Canada will collapse along with America, because we're a small boat tied to a very large anchor...
Ah, cheer up Cbass. If America "implodes" and plunges into economic termoil then Europe and the Pacific rim are screwed too. Actually, they would be screwed a lot harder than the US would be. In general Their businesses are far more dependent on export industry than American companies are. Unless you think all of their companies can handle losing a few million customers each and just shrug it off they are screwed under that circumstance as well. (let me assure you, if you know how they can do it they would gladly hire you...because they have no clue ;) )
This is especially true considering that their unemployment is much higher than ours and their markets and economies are are less stable as well. Yep, if good old Uncle Sam is screwed a whoooole lotta folks are going down with him.
So you see Cbass,moving to Europe wouldn't help you. Sorry about that :)
Ah, cheer up Cbass. If America "implodes" and plunges into economic termoil then Europe and the Pacific rim are screwed too. Actually, they would be screwed a lot harder than the US would be. In general Their businesses are far more dependent on export industry than American companies are. Unless you think all of their companies can handle losing a few million customers each and just shrug it off they are screwed under that circumstance as well. (let me assure you, if you know how they can do it they would gladly hire you...because they have no clue ;) )
This is especially true considering that their unemployment is much higher than ours and their markets and economies are are less stable as well. Yep, if good old Uncle Sam is screwed a whoooole lotta folks are going down with him.
So you see Cbass,moving to Europe wouldn't help you. Sorry about that :)
Cbass
02-24-2004, 09:01 PM
Ah, cheer up Cbass. If America "implodes" and plunges into economic termoil then Europe and the Pacific rim are screwed too. Actually, they would be screwed a lot harder than the US would be. In general Their businesses are far more dependent on export industry than American companies are. Unless you think all of their companies can handle losing a few million customers each and just shrug it off they are screwed under that circumstance as well. (let me assure you, if you know how they can do it they would gladly hire you...because they have no clue ;) )
This is especially true considering that their unemployment is much higher than ours and their markets and economies are are less stable as well. Yep, if good old Uncle Sam is screwed a whoooole lotta folks are going down with him.
It would spur a worldwide recession, definately, and would probably be the greatest economic disaster since the great depression, but Europe would be able to withstand such a depression. See, that's the beauty of having an open economy that functions properly, you don't have to shore it up by printing and selling billions of dollars. In fact, when the US dollar is no longer the internation standard for oil and gold, the Euro will be, and Europe will be able to print and sell money it to other nations just has the US has been doing for decades now, essentially introducing billions annually into the economy without inflating it.
Every empire falls, the American empire is no different. It looks like a unified Europe will be the next empire, and I for one am glad to see it, and will glad to be a subject of that empire.
So you see Cbass,moving to Europe wouldn't help you. Sorry about that :)
Being an A ticket welder and a professional fabricator will ensure that I always have work in Europe, and at a good salary too. It occurs to me that millions of Americans, including A ticket welders and professional fabricators can't get jobs right now, because there aren't any for them... Funny that.
In any case, this is rapidly getting off topic. Back on track, contrary to what most Americans seem to think, the US has a long standing record of doing terrible things around the world, and the mainstream American media has a long standing record of not reporting it to the American public.
This is especially true considering that their unemployment is much higher than ours and their markets and economies are are less stable as well. Yep, if good old Uncle Sam is screwed a whoooole lotta folks are going down with him.
It would spur a worldwide recession, definately, and would probably be the greatest economic disaster since the great depression, but Europe would be able to withstand such a depression. See, that's the beauty of having an open economy that functions properly, you don't have to shore it up by printing and selling billions of dollars. In fact, when the US dollar is no longer the internation standard for oil and gold, the Euro will be, and Europe will be able to print and sell money it to other nations just has the US has been doing for decades now, essentially introducing billions annually into the economy without inflating it.
Every empire falls, the American empire is no different. It looks like a unified Europe will be the next empire, and I for one am glad to see it, and will glad to be a subject of that empire.
So you see Cbass,moving to Europe wouldn't help you. Sorry about that :)
Being an A ticket welder and a professional fabricator will ensure that I always have work in Europe, and at a good salary too. It occurs to me that millions of Americans, including A ticket welders and professional fabricators can't get jobs right now, because there aren't any for them... Funny that.
In any case, this is rapidly getting off topic. Back on track, contrary to what most Americans seem to think, the US has a long standing record of doing terrible things around the world, and the mainstream American media has a long standing record of not reporting it to the American public.
Toksin
02-24-2004, 11:21 PM
SO...what are we looking at here? I kinda switched off once I saw who started the thread...
DGB454
02-25-2004, 04:54 AM
Cbass..Why are you hanging around the US if you hate it so much? Instead of complaining about it just move.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
YogsVR4
02-25-2004, 08:58 AM
Cbass..Why are you hanging around the US if you hate it so much? Instead of complaining about it just move.
Problem solved.
He's Canadian.
CBass has a hatred for the US economy. He's wrong about it on all counts, but it explains his attitude.
What I don't understand is that he's been saying he wants to go to Europe. I just don't know whats taking so long. You can get to London for a few hundred bucks. One way. :wave:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Problem solved.
He's Canadian.
CBass has a hatred for the US economy. He's wrong about it on all counts, but it explains his attitude.
What I don't understand is that he's been saying he wants to go to Europe. I just don't know whats taking so long. You can get to London for a few hundred bucks. One way. :wave:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
DGB454
02-25-2004, 09:33 AM
Canadian huh? Ok that explains a few things. :smile:
taranaki
02-25-2004, 01:32 PM
There's nothing new about veto stopping U.N. good intentions.Pretty much every country does it to suit their own economic needs.
What's far more disturbing is the number of right-wing governments that veto for the hell of it,and then whine that the UN isn't doing what it was set up for.The very worst of them then go on to break out the 'dirty' weapons,using helicopter assaults on crowded streets,depleted uranium shells,cluster bombs and infrastructure terrorism to gain control of territory that they have no legal or moral claim to....
[end of standard rant.If I have to put up with the same old tired crap from the loony Republicans,they can hear mine again]
What's far more disturbing is the number of right-wing governments that veto for the hell of it,and then whine that the UN isn't doing what it was set up for.The very worst of them then go on to break out the 'dirty' weapons,using helicopter assaults on crowded streets,depleted uranium shells,cluster bombs and infrastructure terrorism to gain control of territory that they have no legal or moral claim to....
[end of standard rant.If I have to put up with the same old tired crap from the loony Republicans,they can hear mine again]
justacruiser
02-25-2004, 03:10 PM
Here's to me moving to Europe, and letting America quietly(hopefully) implode... Sadly, Canada will collapse along with America, because we're a small boat tied to a very large anchor...
See yah! Don't let the door hit yah where the good lord split yah! No one will miss you!
See yah! Don't let the door hit yah where the good lord split yah! No one will miss you!
2strokebloke
02-25-2004, 03:26 PM
Well if the U.S. doesn't like the U.N. they can always just leave... it's not like we've payed our dues for the past 15 years (or longer?)
But despite what it might seem like here, the U.S. and the UN does get along with alot of important stuff, like Refugees, etc.
I don't see how Yogs can think that the UN is so totally useless, for Gods sake, is there anything wrong with wanting to get along with others?
But despite what it might seem like here, the U.S. and the UN does get along with alot of important stuff, like Refugees, etc.
I don't see how Yogs can think that the UN is so totally useless, for Gods sake, is there anything wrong with wanting to get along with others?
Pick
02-25-2004, 05:48 PM
C-bass, you're more out of your mind than I thought. The last time Europenas led the charge in any empire, they got their ass booted by a bunch of farmers with pitch-forks and started what today is America. Europeans are too smart for their own good.....or is it the other way around?
2strokebloke
02-25-2004, 06:23 PM
Europeans are too smart for their own good.....or is it the other way around?
What? Too good for their own smart? Please start making sense.
What? Too good for their own smart? Please start making sense.
originalmike
02-25-2004, 10:16 PM
I don't see why everybody is being pissy about what cbass said. I don't know when the American economy will decline or who the next leading nation(s) will be, but one thing my parents have taught me is that you should be flexible and be able to adapt to your situation. Even if that calls for moving to a different country.
YogsVR4
02-26-2004, 08:28 AM
I don't see how Yogs can think that the UN is so totally useless, for Gods sake, is there anything wrong with wanting to get along with others?
What does the UN have to do with getting along with others? Are you suggesting that no countries can without going through the UN first? Somehow - I don't think so.
What the unintended post pointed out was that the UN is impotent to accomplish anything. All it takes is one of the five security members to say no. I'm sure the lack of representation in Africa and South America sit well with people from those continents considering Europe has two (and part of a third with Russia). The organization is flawed.
As to if we've paid our UN 'dues' read this and judge for yourself. http://www.mikenew.com/un-debt.html and remember, we've paid about a billion dollar to the UN since this was written.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
What does the UN have to do with getting along with others? Are you suggesting that no countries can without going through the UN first? Somehow - I don't think so.
What the unintended post pointed out was that the UN is impotent to accomplish anything. All it takes is one of the five security members to say no. I'm sure the lack of representation in Africa and South America sit well with people from those continents considering Europe has two (and part of a third with Russia). The organization is flawed.
As to if we've paid our UN 'dues' read this and judge for yourself. http://www.mikenew.com/un-debt.html and remember, we've paid about a billion dollar to the UN since this was written.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
MR2-AW11
02-26-2004, 11:14 AM
In others words Yogs, you use it when it suits you, and you abuse itwhen it suits you :) I laugh and cry at the same time when Bush says the US has enforced what the UN stands for in one of his not too recent speeches..... ignorance, twisting, manipulation, misinformation, brainwashing :p
When the US needed Iraq against Iran, note how they did not see anything wrong with Iraq using chemical weapons on iranian troops (it was part of the veto list what I mention), and notice a PATTERN of who the US is biased towards/etc...
When the US needed Iraq against Iran, note how they did not see anything wrong with Iraq using chemical weapons on iranian troops (it was part of the veto list what I mention), and notice a PATTERN of who the US is biased towards/etc...
2strokebloke
02-26-2004, 11:43 AM
Hey, I never claimed that the UN was perfect, or even that it worked, but it is at least an attempt to get countries working together. (or working against eachother)
YogsVR4
02-26-2004, 12:07 PM
In others words Yogs, you use it when it suits you, and you abuse itwhen it suits you :) I laugh and cry at the same time when Bush says the US has enforced what the UN stands for in one of his not too recent speeches..... ignorance, twisting, manipulation, misinformation, brainwashing :p
:rolleyes:
I am not sure which syllables threw you. I said the UN is useless. Pretty straight forward. There is no “use it when it suits you” in that sentence at all. What we have here is another example of you putting on the blinders then putting words in other people’s mouths. :disappoin pathetic.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
:rolleyes:
I am not sure which syllables threw you. I said the UN is useless. Pretty straight forward. There is no “use it when it suits you” in that sentence at all. What we have here is another example of you putting on the blinders then putting words in other people’s mouths. :disappoin pathetic.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
MR2-AW11
02-26-2004, 12:41 PM
:rolleyes:
I am not sure which syllables threw you. I said the UN is useless. Pretty straight forward. There is no “use it when it suits you” in that sentence at all. What we have here is another example of you putting on the blinders then putting words in other people’s mouths. :disappoin pathetic.
You as in the US :) You as in you support the US government.
Why do you think 'you' are not doing that directly or indirectly :)
I am not sure which syllables threw you. I said the UN is useless. Pretty straight forward. There is no “use it when it suits you” in that sentence at all. What we have here is another example of you putting on the blinders then putting words in other people’s mouths. :disappoin pathetic.
You as in the US :) You as in you support the US government.
Why do you think 'you' are not doing that directly or indirectly :)
Pick
02-26-2004, 01:09 PM
You as in the US :) You as in you support the US government.
Why do you think 'you' are not doing that directly or indirectly :)
How about "you" = Gigatron.
Why do you think 'you' are not doing that directly or indirectly :)
How about "you" = Gigatron.
originalmike
02-26-2004, 09:54 PM
Pick you love that gigatron thing don't you?
MR2-AW11
02-27-2004, 12:27 AM
Haha, you guys humor me, how about talking about topic. Pick how about contributing beyond
C-bass, you're more out of your mind than I thought. The last time Europenas led the charge in any empire, they got their ass booted by a bunch of farmers with pitch-forks and started what today is America. Europeans are too smart for their own good.....or is it the other way around?
and
How about "you" = Gigatron."
Just a kind invitation :) Would you like to discuss the topic at hand? What do you think of all these vetos that the US commited?
C-bass, you're more out of your mind than I thought. The last time Europenas led the charge in any empire, they got their ass booted by a bunch of farmers with pitch-forks and started what today is America. Europeans are too smart for their own good.....or is it the other way around?
and
How about "you" = Gigatron."
Just a kind invitation :) Would you like to discuss the topic at hand? What do you think of all these vetos that the US commited?
Toksin
02-27-2004, 12:54 AM
Pick! Don't say that name! It is forbidden to say that name in these hallowed halls!!
justacruiser
02-27-2004, 01:15 AM
Pick! Don't say that name! It is forbidden to say that name in these hallowed halls!!
GIGATRON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D
GIGATRON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D
Pick
02-27-2004, 06:34 AM
What do you think of all these vetos that the US commited?
I think we id what was in the best interest of our people both at the time and possbily in the future. As far as I'm concerned, the UN is a farse.
I think we id what was in the best interest of our people both at the time and possbily in the future. As far as I'm concerned, the UN is a farse.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
02-27-2004, 07:36 AM
It would spur a worldwide recession, definately, and would probably be the greatest economic disaster since the great depression, but Europe would be able to withstand such a depression. See, that's the beauty of having an open economy that functions properly, you don't have to shore it up by printing and selling billions of dollars. In fact, when the US dollar is no longer the internation standard for oil and gold, the Euro will be, and Europe will be able to print and sell money it to other nations just has the US has been doing for decades now, essentially introducing billions annually into the economy without inflating it.
Every empire falls, the American empire is no different. It looks like a unified Europe will be the next empire, and I for one am glad to see it, and will glad to be a subject of that empire.
Being an A ticket welder and a professional fabricator will ensure that I always have work in Europe, and at a good salary too. It occurs to me that millions of Americans, including A ticket welders and professional fabricators can't get jobs right now, because there aren't any for them... Funny that.
In any case, this is rapidly getting off topic. Back on track, contrary to what most Americans seem to think, the US has a long standing record of doing terrible things around the world, and the mainstream American media has a long standing record of not reporting it to the American public.
Europe sucks the French are corrupt the english are retarded and everyone else doesn't seem to care. Empire what are you talking about?
As for living in Europe i'd gladly live anywhere else be it asia or america. England sucks too many people taking benefit just to get back at other people. (ie they actually have jobs and don't need benefits)
Every empire falls, the American empire is no different. It looks like a unified Europe will be the next empire, and I for one am glad to see it, and will glad to be a subject of that empire.
Being an A ticket welder and a professional fabricator will ensure that I always have work in Europe, and at a good salary too. It occurs to me that millions of Americans, including A ticket welders and professional fabricators can't get jobs right now, because there aren't any for them... Funny that.
In any case, this is rapidly getting off topic. Back on track, contrary to what most Americans seem to think, the US has a long standing record of doing terrible things around the world, and the mainstream American media has a long standing record of not reporting it to the American public.
Europe sucks the French are corrupt the english are retarded and everyone else doesn't seem to care. Empire what are you talking about?
As for living in Europe i'd gladly live anywhere else be it asia or america. England sucks too many people taking benefit just to get back at other people. (ie they actually have jobs and don't need benefits)
YogsVR4
02-27-2004, 08:02 AM
Sounds like textbook "the grass is always greener"
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Cbass
02-27-2004, 04:33 PM
Europe sucks the French are corrupt the english are retarded and everyone else doesn't seem to care. Empire what are you talking about?
As for living in Europe i'd gladly live anywhere else be it asia or america. England sucks too many people taking benefit just to get back at other people. (ie they actually have jobs and don't need benefits)
France is no more corrupt than Canada or the US, you say the English are "retarded", so you just have a bone to pick there, and then you say you'd rather live in Asia or America... Speaking as someone who lives in a country that is heavily influenced by the US, I don't like it one bit. I certainly wouldn't want to LIVE there, and be directly subject to whims of the neocons...
I can't comment on Asia really, except to say that their culture and society are fundamentally different from that of the west, and I don't think I'd care to live there.
Yogs, as for your link, Mike New is a crank who has issues with the UN. I'd be hard pressed to consider any of his opinions valid, let alone try to use them to support an argument. :rolleyes:
As for living in Europe i'd gladly live anywhere else be it asia or america. England sucks too many people taking benefit just to get back at other people. (ie they actually have jobs and don't need benefits)
France is no more corrupt than Canada or the US, you say the English are "retarded", so you just have a bone to pick there, and then you say you'd rather live in Asia or America... Speaking as someone who lives in a country that is heavily influenced by the US, I don't like it one bit. I certainly wouldn't want to LIVE there, and be directly subject to whims of the neocons...
I can't comment on Asia really, except to say that their culture and society are fundamentally different from that of the west, and I don't think I'd care to live there.
Yogs, as for your link, Mike New is a crank who has issues with the UN. I'd be hard pressed to consider any of his opinions valid, let alone try to use them to support an argument. :rolleyes:
taranaki
02-27-2004, 05:00 PM
I think we id what was in the best interest of our people both at the time and possbily in the future. As far as I'm concerned, the UN is a farse.
The word is 'farce'. :smile:
Poor spelling is an indicator of poor thinking skills.So is blanket judgement.
The word is 'farce'. :smile:
Poor spelling is an indicator of poor thinking skills.So is blanket judgement.
Pick
02-27-2004, 05:19 PM
The word is 'farce'. :smile:
Poor spelling is an indicator of poor thinking skills.So is blanket judgement.
Or just an indicator of having a life outside the internet and typing something fast. :loser:
Poor spelling is an indicator of poor thinking skills.So is blanket judgement.
Or just an indicator of having a life outside the internet and typing something fast. :loser:
2strokebloke
02-27-2004, 06:03 PM
Or having had a life outside of kindergarten and first grade.
MR2-AW11
02-27-2004, 06:34 PM
How about the topic at hand as opposed to insults :/
taranaki
02-27-2004, 07:19 PM
If people could discuss the topic at hand instead of rolling out crap about the U.N. being useless,we might get somewhere.The U.N has it's faults,for sure,but does much good work.To dismiss it out of hand shows a degree of wilful shallowness.
2strokebloke
02-27-2004, 07:36 PM
I'm not so sure that there is so much to discuss. Of course countries do what suits them best, that's how all countries are (or want to be)
T4 Primera
02-27-2004, 08:55 PM
On the contrary, I think there is much to discuss.
For those of you who believe that the veto of any of those resolutions is justifiable, whether it was in the interests of the US or otherwise - pick one and justify it. Then we can get down to brass tacks.
For those of you who believe that the veto of any of those resolutions is justifiable, whether it was in the interests of the US or otherwise - pick one and justify it. Then we can get down to brass tacks.
2strokebloke
02-27-2004, 11:06 PM
I didn't say that any were justifiable, just that countries will do what they see is in their best interest, and don't usually care if it puts others at a disadvantage.
Find me a list of vetoes made by a different country, and we might actually have the start of a productive discussion.
Find me a list of vetoes made by a different country, and we might actually have the start of a productive discussion.
T4 Primera
02-28-2004, 12:50 AM
Find it yourself, or do you wish others to make your argument for you - a la Faux Moos (Fox News).
OK never mind - pick one that is in the interests of the US people and we'll examine that. What we will find out is who's interest are being furthered by the use of UN veto powers.
OK never mind - pick one that is in the interests of the US people and we'll examine that. What we will find out is who's interest are being furthered by the use of UN veto powers.
Pick
02-28-2004, 05:12 PM
I'm not so sure that there is so much to discuss. Of course countries do what suits them best, that's how all countries are (or want to be)
That's actually a very good point. Every country is trying to cover their own ass. The US is no different. We just butt heads more with other countries while trying to cover our asses.
That's actually a very good point. Every country is trying to cover their own ass. The US is no different. We just butt heads more with other countries while trying to cover our asses.
Cbass
03-01-2004, 09:57 PM
That's actually a very good point. Every country is trying to cover their own ass. The US is no different. We just butt heads more with other countries while trying to cover our asses.
I prefer the phrase "fuck over" more countries, it's much more accurate.
I prefer the phrase "fuck over" more countries, it's much more accurate.
justacruiser
03-02-2004, 10:13 AM
I prefer the phrase "fuck over" more countries, it's much more accurate.
Yeah, and I'm sure no other country has ever been guilty of that... are you in Europe yet?
Yeah, and I'm sure no other country has ever been guilty of that... are you in Europe yet?
Cbass
03-03-2004, 08:07 PM
Yeah, and I'm sure no other country has ever been guilty of that... are you in Europe yet?
Of course other countries use the same practices, and generally history remembers them as ruthless and inhumane empires that pursue their own agenda, even when it opresses millions, and results in the murder and butchery of innocents...
I'll be finishing my welding apprenticeship before I move to Europe, to answer your question.
Of course other countries use the same practices, and generally history remembers them as ruthless and inhumane empires that pursue their own agenda, even when it opresses millions, and results in the murder and butchery of innocents...
I'll be finishing my welding apprenticeship before I move to Europe, to answer your question.
justacruiser
03-03-2004, 11:56 PM
Of course other countries use the same practices, and generally history remembers them as ruthless and inhumane empires that pursue their own agenda, even when it opresses millions, and results in the murder and butchery of innocents...
I'll be finishing my welding apprenticeship before I move to Europe, to answer your question.
Oh, so China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Cuba, every country in the middle east, North Korea and quite a few Central/Middle American countries were/are "ruthless and inhumane empires that pursue their own agenda, even when it opresses millions, and results in the murder and butchery of innocents..."
K, just so you cleared that up in my mind.
Don't say hi when you get there.
I'll be finishing my welding apprenticeship before I move to Europe, to answer your question.
Oh, so China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Cuba, every country in the middle east, North Korea and quite a few Central/Middle American countries were/are "ruthless and inhumane empires that pursue their own agenda, even when it opresses millions, and results in the murder and butchery of innocents..."
K, just so you cleared that up in my mind.
Don't say hi when you get there.
MR2-AW11
03-04-2004, 12:15 AM
The point is, the US is on top of the list succeeding
Toksin
03-04-2004, 12:23 AM
Oh, so China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Cuba, every country in the middle east, North Korea and quite a few Central/Middle American countries were/are "ruthless and inhumane empires that pursue their own agenda, even when it opresses millions, and results in the murder and butchery of innocents..."
Well, yes.
China - Falung Gong (sp)
Russia - Stalin vs Ukrainians
Britain - The Scots (among others)
France - Louis XVI
Germany - pretty obvious really
Italy - Mussollini (sp again, fark)
Spain - Spanish civil war
South Africa - apartheid. PS Stop reminding us, we don't like being associated with it FFS.
Cuba - Castro's earlier years
every country in the middle east - etc etc
North Korea - Jim Jong Il
Central/Middle American countries - Colombia, Panama? among others
The point is every country pursues their own agenda and steps on peoples' toes. It's different now because the US claims to be doing it in the name of peace (war for peace, right fellas :loser:), moreso they are trying to bully other countries into helping, and turning against allies for refusing.
Well, yes.
China - Falung Gong (sp)
Russia - Stalin vs Ukrainians
Britain - The Scots (among others)
France - Louis XVI
Germany - pretty obvious really
Italy - Mussollini (sp again, fark)
Spain - Spanish civil war
South Africa - apartheid. PS Stop reminding us, we don't like being associated with it FFS.
Cuba - Castro's earlier years
every country in the middle east - etc etc
North Korea - Jim Jong Il
Central/Middle American countries - Colombia, Panama? among others
The point is every country pursues their own agenda and steps on peoples' toes. It's different now because the US claims to be doing it in the name of peace (war for peace, right fellas :loser:), moreso they are trying to bully other countries into helping, and turning against allies for refusing.
justacruiser
03-04-2004, 10:45 PM
Well, yes.
China - Falung Gong (sp)
Russia - Stalin vs Ukrainians
Britain - The Scots (among others)
France - Louis XVI
Germany - pretty obvious really
Italy - Mussollini (sp again, fark)
Spain - Spanish civil war
South Africa - apartheid. PS Stop reminding us, we don't like being associated with it FFS.
Cuba - Castro's earlier years
every country in the middle east - etc etc
North Korea - Jim Jong Il
Central/Middle American countries - Colombia, Panama? among others
The point is every country pursues their own agenda and steps on peoples' toes. It's different now because the US claims to be doing it in the name of peace (war for peace, right fellas :loser:), moreso they are trying to bully other countries into helping, and turning against allies for refusing.
Germany signing non-agression pacts with Russia and Britain before summarily attacking both of them? Other countries have done worse before, it hit the news back then just as hard as it does now, it's just our turn. Well... sort of, I actually kind of think it's just because we have a president who either can't keep the bad stuff quiet or doesn't care to. Trust me, MUCH worse occurances have happened here in the past under other presidents, they just hid them well.
One thing I kind of wonder about is Britain. They seem to be a lukewarm member of the EU and side with the US on most things. I don't believe that British government has been purchased, so why would they side with us and not their fellow Europeans? Kind of strange...
China - Falung Gong (sp)
Russia - Stalin vs Ukrainians
Britain - The Scots (among others)
France - Louis XVI
Germany - pretty obvious really
Italy - Mussollini (sp again, fark)
Spain - Spanish civil war
South Africa - apartheid. PS Stop reminding us, we don't like being associated with it FFS.
Cuba - Castro's earlier years
every country in the middle east - etc etc
North Korea - Jim Jong Il
Central/Middle American countries - Colombia, Panama? among others
The point is every country pursues their own agenda and steps on peoples' toes. It's different now because the US claims to be doing it in the name of peace (war for peace, right fellas :loser:), moreso they are trying to bully other countries into helping, and turning against allies for refusing.
Germany signing non-agression pacts with Russia and Britain before summarily attacking both of them? Other countries have done worse before, it hit the news back then just as hard as it does now, it's just our turn. Well... sort of, I actually kind of think it's just because we have a president who either can't keep the bad stuff quiet or doesn't care to. Trust me, MUCH worse occurances have happened here in the past under other presidents, they just hid them well.
One thing I kind of wonder about is Britain. They seem to be a lukewarm member of the EU and side with the US on most things. I don't believe that British government has been purchased, so why would they side with us and not their fellow Europeans? Kind of strange...
T4 Primera
03-05-2004, 03:07 AM
....One thing I kind of wonder about is Britain. They seem to be a lukewarm member of the EU and side with the US on most things. I don't believe that British government has been purchased, so why would they side with us and not their fellow Europeans? Kind of strange...
I've long lost the desire to argue the following viewpoint - people either accept it or they don't and one side rarely convinces the other. However, in reference to your question here's my opinion........
I don't know about most things, but it probably is related to the US having several large military bases in the UK, along with all the money that this contributes to the British economy.
When it comes to Iraq, it's a matter of common interests with the US. Both countries were shut out of oil field development deals which were to begin AFTER the UN sanctions were lifted - deals that had been struck with Russia, China, France etc.
Following Hans Blix's report on WMD, there was nothing standing in the way of lifting the sanctions. Thus, whoever developed the Iraqi oilfields could produce high quality crude for $6/barrel - the cheapest in the world.
The rest of the oil companies would not be able to compete, would lose their dominant positions and be forced into the less lucrative downstream parts of the energy business.
I will remember the following passage for a very long time:
A two-time Medal of Honor recipient, General Smedley Butler, said that “War is a Racket” and that he spent his 33 year military career being a bodyguard for U.S. business interests. I submit that protecting U.S. business interests, sometimes referred to as “national interests” is still the primary mission of the U.S. military. Wartime profits go to a select few at the cost of many. Again to quote Gen. Smedley:
“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
I've long lost the desire to argue the following viewpoint - people either accept it or they don't and one side rarely convinces the other. However, in reference to your question here's my opinion........
I don't know about most things, but it probably is related to the US having several large military bases in the UK, along with all the money that this contributes to the British economy.
When it comes to Iraq, it's a matter of common interests with the US. Both countries were shut out of oil field development deals which were to begin AFTER the UN sanctions were lifted - deals that had been struck with Russia, China, France etc.
Following Hans Blix's report on WMD, there was nothing standing in the way of lifting the sanctions. Thus, whoever developed the Iraqi oilfields could produce high quality crude for $6/barrel - the cheapest in the world.
The rest of the oil companies would not be able to compete, would lose their dominant positions and be forced into the less lucrative downstream parts of the energy business.
I will remember the following passage for a very long time:
A two-time Medal of Honor recipient, General Smedley Butler, said that “War is a Racket” and that he spent his 33 year military career being a bodyguard for U.S. business interests. I submit that protecting U.S. business interests, sometimes referred to as “national interests” is still the primary mission of the U.S. military. Wartime profits go to a select few at the cost of many. Again to quote Gen. Smedley:
“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
justacruiser
03-05-2004, 12:12 PM
I don't know about most things, but it probably is related to the US having several large military bases in the UK, along with all the money that this contributes to the British economy.
When it comes to Iraq, it's a matter of common interests with the US. Both countries were shut out of oil field development deals which were to begin AFTER the UN sanctions were lifted - deals that had been struck with Russia, China, France etc.
Well, that makes a lot of sense!
When it comes to Iraq, it's a matter of common interests with the US. Both countries were shut out of oil field development deals which were to begin AFTER the UN sanctions were lifted - deals that had been struck with Russia, China, France etc.
Well, that makes a lot of sense!
Pick
03-05-2004, 06:29 PM
When it comes to Iraq, it's a matter of common interests with the US. Both countries were shut out of oil field development deals which were to begin AFTER the UN sanctions were lifted - deals that had been struck with Russia, China, France etc.
Following Hans Blix's report on WMD, there was nothing standing in the way of lifting the sanctions. Thus, whoever developed the Iraqi oilfields could produce high quality crude for $6/barrel - the cheapest in the world.
The rest of the oil companies would not be able to compete, would lose their dominant positions and be forced into the less lucrative downstream parts of the energy business.
That might be the case if the actual interest of the US was oil, but it wasn't. Don't just throw implied rhetoric in there and not expect it to get called out.
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2. We've also had similar interests business-wise and militarily wise.
Following Hans Blix's report on WMD, there was nothing standing in the way of lifting the sanctions. Thus, whoever developed the Iraqi oilfields could produce high quality crude for $6/barrel - the cheapest in the world.
The rest of the oil companies would not be able to compete, would lose their dominant positions and be forced into the less lucrative downstream parts of the energy business.
That might be the case if the actual interest of the US was oil, but it wasn't. Don't just throw implied rhetoric in there and not expect it to get called out.
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2. We've also had similar interests business-wise and militarily wise.
originalmike
03-05-2004, 07:01 PM
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2.
Oh, thank you U.S., for saving us in World War 2, now we'll be your bitch and do what you say forever!
There has to be better reasons. I think the oil reason is better.
Oh, thank you U.S., for saving us in World War 2, now we'll be your bitch and do what you say forever!
There has to be better reasons. I think the oil reason is better.
T4 Primera
03-05-2004, 09:21 PM
That might be the case if the actual interest of the US was oil, but it wasn't. Don't just throw implied rhetoric in there and not expect it to get called out.
As I stated, I'm not trying to convince anyone anymore - take it or leave it. It's my opinion but it is not a baseless one as you well know i.e. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=95982&highlight=universal
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2.
If they helped oust the Germans from Britain that would be saving their asses - but that was not the case. If they helped repel a German invasion of Britain that would be saving their asses - but that was not the case either.
What they did was help Britain and France oust the Germans from France. In that case, why aren't the French going along with everything the British and USan's propose? Here's why:http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/FRENCH_TOAST.html
We've also had similar interests business-wise and militarily wise.
Right on the money.
As I stated, I'm not trying to convince anyone anymore - take it or leave it. It's my opinion but it is not a baseless one as you well know i.e. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=95982&highlight=universal
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2.
If they helped oust the Germans from Britain that would be saving their asses - but that was not the case. If they helped repel a German invasion of Britain that would be saving their asses - but that was not the case either.
What they did was help Britain and France oust the Germans from France. In that case, why aren't the French going along with everything the British and USan's propose? Here's why:http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/FRENCH_TOAST.html
We've also had similar interests business-wise and militarily wise.
Right on the money.
2strokebloke
03-05-2004, 09:46 PM
Why invade Iraq? Iraq has OIL! Iraq has NO WMDs!
Why not invade N. Korea? N.K. has no oil. N.K. has WMDs.
What's there not to understand? It was a plan so simple, that even GWB had no problem figuring it out.
Why not invade N. Korea? N.K. has no oil. N.K. has WMDs.
What's there not to understand? It was a plan so simple, that even GWB had no problem figuring it out.
Cbass
03-06-2004, 05:23 PM
That might be the case if the actual interest of the US was oil, but it wasn't. Don't just throw implied rhetoric in there and not expect it to get called out.
Hey, lay off the kettle.
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2. We've also had similar interests business-wise and militarily wise.
Once more the misconception that the US was the deciding factor in western Europe... Read up on the eastern front.
Hey, lay off the kettle.
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2. We've also had similar interests business-wise and militarily wise.
Once more the misconception that the US was the deciding factor in western Europe... Read up on the eastern front.
justacruiser
03-07-2004, 09:18 PM
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2.
Gee, thanks for making the case for yet another ugly american. That attitude should have died years ago...
Gee, thanks for making the case for yet another ugly american. That attitude should have died years ago...
Toksin
03-07-2004, 11:28 PM
The British interest in America might be that we saved their asses bigtime in WW2.
How so? Pull your head in. The Germans aborted Operation Sealion because the weather turned to shit and the Luftwaffe got assraped in the battle of Britain. America had NOTHING to do with it.
How so? Pull your head in. The Germans aborted Operation Sealion because the weather turned to shit and the Luftwaffe got assraped in the battle of Britain. America had NOTHING to do with it.
Pick
03-08-2004, 06:31 PM
True or False...... the British,French, and Russians could have defeated Germany without US help.
Toksin
03-08-2004, 11:49 PM
Irrelevant. The USA did not "save their asses". They were part of a collective alliance. Russia still reached Germany on their own. The other allies moved in from the West. The end result would still have been the same without US help. It probably just would have taken longer.
taranaki
03-09-2004, 12:21 AM
True or false pick?The Second world war was done and finished before my son's grandfather was out of diapers.......
Wanking on about the last honorouble thing that the U.S.military ever did only highlights their rather pathetic performance since.
Wanking on about the last honorouble thing that the U.S.military ever did only highlights their rather pathetic performance since.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025