Let the U.N. die.
YogsVR4
02-17-2003, 12:57 PM
As I keep saying. The sooner the better.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31061
For more than a half-century, the United States has invested untold billions of hard-earned dollars in the United Nations. Once, there was a hope that the sprawling bureaucracy could be a forum where nations hammer out solutions to the world's problems, instead of resorting to war. That hope became a fantasy many years ago. Between bureaucratic inertia, and political posturing, the U.N. has become a bottomless pit, where good money chases bad. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.N.'s highest priority appears to be to contain, constrain, and ultimately, to control the United States.
Germany, aided by France and Russia, has been at the forefront of this effort for more than a decade. Their current display of solidarity on Iraq, and NATO, is far more public than normal, which suggests that they believe they now have the power to force the United States to conform to their demands.
Willy Brandt, then-Chancellor of Germany, called an emergency meeting of the world's socialist leaders in 1991, when George Bush Sr. stood up to Saddam Hussein. Out of this meeting came the Commission on Global Governance, which produced a blueprint for creating world government. That blueprint has now been substantially implemented, and the one-worlders believe they have the power to force the U.S. to acquiesce to their will.
Unlike, the Clinton administration, which supported the global governance agenda, the Bush administration has tried valiantly to keep the U.S. out of the clutches of the one-worlders, while still working within the framework of the United Nations. The selection of Lybia to head the Human Rights Commission; the selection of Iraq to head the Disarmament talks; and, now, France and Germany's determination to continue the U.N.'s 12-year "rush" to war, and their refusal to allow NATO to plan for Turkey's defense should convince even Congressional Democrats that the U.N. is a lost cause.
America's role and responsibility to the world is neither to fund, nor to conform to the wishes of the United Nations. The first responsibility of the American government is to protect U.S. citizens and to defend the U.S. Constitution. Acquiescence to the U.N.'s global governance plan would subject U.S. citizens to policies imposed by unelected bureaucrats in foreign countries, enforced by judges chosen by the very people who seek to control the United States.
It's time to let the U.N. die.
Ironically, the U.N. could not have possibly reached this stage of global governance without the financial and political support of the United States. If the United States were to stop funding this monster, it would die of starvation. To be sure, the world's socialists would close ranks and try to consolidate their global power. They could, and likely would, impose sanctions on the U.S., forcing a direct confrontation between capitalism and socialism. No contest.
Withdrawal from the U.N. is not withdrawal from the world, nor should it be. President Bush's "coalition of the willing" consists of at least 18 nations that have made a public commitment to participate against Iraq, with or without the U.N. Still, Sen. Carl Levin, among others, contend that action against Iraq without U.N. approval is "unilateral" action. This idea that the U.N. must legitimize U.S. foreign policy is to deny the concept of national sovereignty.
There are many people in America who have been taught that global governance, administered by the U.N., is the next plateau in the evolution of governance, and that failure to acquiesce to the inevitable is irresponsible. This idea is the result of a half-century of careful indoctrination by the National Education Association, UNESCO, the U.N. Association, the World Federalist Society, and a host of other one-world advocates. To those who subscribe to this point of view, the U.S. Constitution is obsolete; national sovereignty is outdated, and individual freedom must be suppressed for the greater collective good of society.
The decisions made by the United States government in the next days or weeks could well determine the future of the United States for generations. If the United States bows to the will of the U.N., America – the land of the free and the home of the brave – will be history. On the other hand, if the U.S. exercises its national sovereignty and moral authority to protect its citizens, and the U.S. Constitution – despite the objections of France, Germany, and Russia – we could see the beginning of a new era of freedom in the United States, and throughout the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
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)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31061
For more than a half-century, the United States has invested untold billions of hard-earned dollars in the United Nations. Once, there was a hope that the sprawling bureaucracy could be a forum where nations hammer out solutions to the world's problems, instead of resorting to war. That hope became a fantasy many years ago. Between bureaucratic inertia, and political posturing, the U.N. has become a bottomless pit, where good money chases bad. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.N.'s highest priority appears to be to contain, constrain, and ultimately, to control the United States.
Germany, aided by France and Russia, has been at the forefront of this effort for more than a decade. Their current display of solidarity on Iraq, and NATO, is far more public than normal, which suggests that they believe they now have the power to force the United States to conform to their demands.
Willy Brandt, then-Chancellor of Germany, called an emergency meeting of the world's socialist leaders in 1991, when George Bush Sr. stood up to Saddam Hussein. Out of this meeting came the Commission on Global Governance, which produced a blueprint for creating world government. That blueprint has now been substantially implemented, and the one-worlders believe they have the power to force the U.S. to acquiesce to their will.
Unlike, the Clinton administration, which supported the global governance agenda, the Bush administration has tried valiantly to keep the U.S. out of the clutches of the one-worlders, while still working within the framework of the United Nations. The selection of Lybia to head the Human Rights Commission; the selection of Iraq to head the Disarmament talks; and, now, France and Germany's determination to continue the U.N.'s 12-year "rush" to war, and their refusal to allow NATO to plan for Turkey's defense should convince even Congressional Democrats that the U.N. is a lost cause.
America's role and responsibility to the world is neither to fund, nor to conform to the wishes of the United Nations. The first responsibility of the American government is to protect U.S. citizens and to defend the U.S. Constitution. Acquiescence to the U.N.'s global governance plan would subject U.S. citizens to policies imposed by unelected bureaucrats in foreign countries, enforced by judges chosen by the very people who seek to control the United States.
It's time to let the U.N. die.
Ironically, the U.N. could not have possibly reached this stage of global governance without the financial and political support of the United States. If the United States were to stop funding this monster, it would die of starvation. To be sure, the world's socialists would close ranks and try to consolidate their global power. They could, and likely would, impose sanctions on the U.S., forcing a direct confrontation between capitalism and socialism. No contest.
Withdrawal from the U.N. is not withdrawal from the world, nor should it be. President Bush's "coalition of the willing" consists of at least 18 nations that have made a public commitment to participate against Iraq, with or without the U.N. Still, Sen. Carl Levin, among others, contend that action against Iraq without U.N. approval is "unilateral" action. This idea that the U.N. must legitimize U.S. foreign policy is to deny the concept of national sovereignty.
There are many people in America who have been taught that global governance, administered by the U.N., is the next plateau in the evolution of governance, and that failure to acquiesce to the inevitable is irresponsible. This idea is the result of a half-century of careful indoctrination by the National Education Association, UNESCO, the U.N. Association, the World Federalist Society, and a host of other one-world advocates. To those who subscribe to this point of view, the U.S. Constitution is obsolete; national sovereignty is outdated, and individual freedom must be suppressed for the greater collective good of society.
The decisions made by the United States government in the next days or weeks could well determine the future of the United States for generations. If the United States bows to the will of the U.N., America – the land of the free and the home of the brave – will be history. On the other hand, if the U.S. exercises its national sovereignty and moral authority to protect its citizens, and the U.S. Constitution – despite the objections of France, Germany, and Russia – we could see the beginning of a new era of freedom in the United States, and throughout the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
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)
BLU CIVIC
02-17-2003, 01:03 PM
if the un goes away...what happens then:confused: what happened b4 the un:confused:
YogsVR4
02-17-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by BLU CIVIC
if the un goes away...what happens then:confused: what happened b4 the un:confused:
Before the UN was the League of Nations. Another failure. There are some of the things in the UN are worthwhile. There are humanitarian causes that should still be supported, but the UN as a forum to get things done is a waste.
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)
if the un goes away...what happens then:confused: what happened b4 the un:confused:
Before the UN was the League of Nations. Another failure. There are some of the things in the UN are worthwhile. There are humanitarian causes that should still be supported, but the UN as a forum to get things done is a waste.
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)
taranaki
02-17-2003, 04:02 PM
The alternative view.:)
The U.N. was formed during the 2nd world war as a military alliance to defeat the forces of Hitler.After the war,it's purpose changed into that of the world's mediator.Sadly,as it grew larger,it became slower and more cumbersome,and only the largest and most persistent of delegations managed to get any progress with their ideals.with the collapse of the soviet bloc, the U.N became skewed in favour of the U.S.,and the U.S.has shamelessly applied pressure on the U.N. ever since to back the territorial incursions that are becoming a routine part of U.S. foreign affairs.Instead of the abiding by the debated resolutions of the U.N. various U.S. governments have seen fit to try and railroad world opinion into legitimising the empirical aspirations of the U.S.
In short,the U.N.is struggling to do it's job because the U.S. won't let it.It's hard to have a reasoned debate when one party insists on braying at the top of its voice and sulks when it doesn't get its own way.
If the U.S. can't handle being subject to the highest democratic process in the world,it should quit the U.N. altogether.Alternatively,it could listen to what the rest of the world is saying instead of trying to bully its way to respectability.
The U.N. was formed during the 2nd world war as a military alliance to defeat the forces of Hitler.After the war,it's purpose changed into that of the world's mediator.Sadly,as it grew larger,it became slower and more cumbersome,and only the largest and most persistent of delegations managed to get any progress with their ideals.with the collapse of the soviet bloc, the U.N became skewed in favour of the U.S.,and the U.S.has shamelessly applied pressure on the U.N. ever since to back the territorial incursions that are becoming a routine part of U.S. foreign affairs.Instead of the abiding by the debated resolutions of the U.N. various U.S. governments have seen fit to try and railroad world opinion into legitimising the empirical aspirations of the U.S.
In short,the U.N.is struggling to do it's job because the U.S. won't let it.It's hard to have a reasoned debate when one party insists on braying at the top of its voice and sulks when it doesn't get its own way.
If the U.S. can't handle being subject to the highest democratic process in the world,it should quit the U.N. altogether.Alternatively,it could listen to what the rest of the world is saying instead of trying to bully its way to respectability.
jon@af
02-17-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
.....If the U.S. can't handle being subject to the highest democratic process in the world,it should quit the U.N. altogether.Alternatively,it could listen to what the rest of the world is saying instead of trying to bully its way to respectability.
I very much agree. War is never needed, but for some reason, the US feels it is. I think the UN has done a decent job up to now of keeping the US from declaring war on Iraq, I mean for crying out loud, Bush is like a 10 year old with the button to launch a little rocket in the air, and his daddy is making him wait(I think that made sense). I think that it would make many people happy if the US made a whole-hearted attempt at solving this problem peacefully, and if they dont want to, as naki said, remove yourself from the UN, you obviously have no business there.
.....If the U.S. can't handle being subject to the highest democratic process in the world,it should quit the U.N. altogether.Alternatively,it could listen to what the rest of the world is saying instead of trying to bully its way to respectability.
I very much agree. War is never needed, but for some reason, the US feels it is. I think the UN has done a decent job up to now of keeping the US from declaring war on Iraq, I mean for crying out loud, Bush is like a 10 year old with the button to launch a little rocket in the air, and his daddy is making him wait(I think that made sense). I think that it would make many people happy if the US made a whole-hearted attempt at solving this problem peacefully, and if they dont want to, as naki said, remove yourself from the UN, you obviously have no business there.
inferno
02-17-2003, 04:42 PM
Well one thing that both of you are seeming to forget is that if the U.S. were to leave the U.N., it would probably be the death blow to the organization. We all pretty much can agree that the U.S. is the most powerful member of the U.N. In terms of the U.S. trying to "bully its way to respectability", I think the U.S. has enough credibility that it doesn't need to impose its will anymore. I would like to see this situation resolved without war as well, but there still is no guarantee that Saddam would comply with the proposed plan that the U.N. is currently offering. Saddam has not complied in the past with the U.N. mandates and there is no guarantee that he will in the future. I am curious as to what you think should be done if he fails to follow through once again and how the U.N. should address that if/when it happens.
taranaki
02-17-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by inferno
Well one thing that both of you are seeming to forget is that if the U.S. were to leave the U.N., it would probably be the death blow to the organization. We all pretty much can agree that the U.S. is the most powerful member of the U.N.
Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.
Well one thing that both of you are seeming to forget is that if the U.S. were to leave the U.N., it would probably be the death blow to the organization. We all pretty much can agree that the U.S. is the most powerful member of the U.N.
Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.
YogsVR4
02-17-2003, 05:23 PM
Mr. T - just to be picky...
It looks like it was called "Declaration by United Nations" by FDR in 1942 (26 nations) and then was chartered as the "United Nations" in 1945. "The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945" from http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm
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)
It looks like it was called "Declaration by United Nations" by FDR in 1942 (26 nations) and then was chartered as the "United Nations" in 1945. "The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945" from http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm
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)
YogsVR4
02-17-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.
I'm all for letting it do just that.
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)
Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.
I'm all for letting it do just that.
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)
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
02-17-2003, 05:33 PM
let the UN die are you crazy? they need some place to meet
they invest untold millions
what about the pointless billions wasted on israel has anything good come from that?
The UN is only in trouble because not everyone is 100% on war and if you haven't noticed it kinda works out 50% in every country doesn't want a war. latest polls in England saw 52% against war.
they invest untold millions
what about the pointless billions wasted on israel has anything good come from that?
The UN is only in trouble because not everyone is 100% on war and if you haven't noticed it kinda works out 50% in every country doesn't want a war. latest polls in England saw 52% against war.
inferno
02-17-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.
If the United States wasn't the premier power with-in the U.N., then why is this discussion even going on? If it were that simple, the U.S. could be shut out of talks and the resolution can be made as was the case with the defense preparation for Turkey and the French being locked out. If the U.N. can make a resolution without the U.S., then why don't they do it? Also, you don't think a founding member the size and strength(economically and militarily) of the United States leaving won't cause other nations to start to doubt the U.N. and possibly cause more countries to leave as well?
Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.
If the United States wasn't the premier power with-in the U.N., then why is this discussion even going on? If it were that simple, the U.S. could be shut out of talks and the resolution can be made as was the case with the defense preparation for Turkey and the French being locked out. If the U.N. can make a resolution without the U.S., then why don't they do it? Also, you don't think a founding member the size and strength(economically and militarily) of the United States leaving won't cause other nations to start to doubt the U.N. and possibly cause more countries to leave as well?
Darth Cypher
02-17-2003, 08:02 PM
I think the UN is on it's way out the door like it's predecessor. Not saying it is wrong to be against the war. But sometimes you have to resort to violent means. However, that is beside the point.
The UN is pretty much spineless and only a debating committee. Wether the UN inspectors were kicked out because of the alleged "spying" or not, still they let one little country that got it's ass kicked by the whole world walk all over them in that move. Thus it gave Iraq a victory.
And Iraq has gone relatively unchecked for years until the current administration basically said "bullshit" and got inspectors in there at least and are keeping the pressure on Iraq. Notice Blix's most recent report on how Iraq is complying in some areas though still not in others. It's good that the "coalition of the willing" is keeping the pressure on.
If the US dropped out or got kicked out then the UN would lose it's spine, IMO.
The UN is pretty much spineless and only a debating committee. Wether the UN inspectors were kicked out because of the alleged "spying" or not, still they let one little country that got it's ass kicked by the whole world walk all over them in that move. Thus it gave Iraq a victory.
And Iraq has gone relatively unchecked for years until the current administration basically said "bullshit" and got inspectors in there at least and are keeping the pressure on Iraq. Notice Blix's most recent report on how Iraq is complying in some areas though still not in others. It's good that the "coalition of the willing" is keeping the pressure on.
If the US dropped out or got kicked out then the UN would lose it's spine, IMO.
GTStang
02-28-2003, 01:48 AM
A UN without the US? LMAO Like making laws with no police or courts to enforce it and expecting people to follow them. I bet it works great!
GTi-VR6_A3
02-28-2003, 02:01 AM
too bad theory almost never makes reality. the UN should and could be a beautiful thing. too bad it does stupid things like appoint turkey head of education programs when their leader is seriously against education the masses.
-GTi-VR6_A3
-GTi-VR6_A3
taranaki
02-28-2003, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by GTStang
A UN without the US? LMAO Like making laws with no police or courts to enforce it and expecting people to follow them. I bet it works great!
I find it sad and slightly offensive that there are bigots out there that truly believe that America rules the world.Perhaps if you closed your mouths and opened your ears for a change you might learn something of what the rest of the world thinks of your foreign policy.It's quite clear that the U.S. has lost massive amounts of overseas support over the last twenty years,when NATO comes to the brink of collapse because of the greedy and arrogant attitude of the White House.America is increasing descending into the deluded paranoia that was the downfall of Hitler.Twenty years ago the western world stood squarely behind the U.S.,now only theBritish and Australian gowernments stand there,and there is considerable doubt as to whether they have the democratic mandate of their citizens to assist shoud Bush decide to violate international law and attack Iraq without the approval of the U.N.
A UN without the US? LMAO Like making laws with no police or courts to enforce it and expecting people to follow them. I bet it works great!
I find it sad and slightly offensive that there are bigots out there that truly believe that America rules the world.Perhaps if you closed your mouths and opened your ears for a change you might learn something of what the rest of the world thinks of your foreign policy.It's quite clear that the U.S. has lost massive amounts of overseas support over the last twenty years,when NATO comes to the brink of collapse because of the greedy and arrogant attitude of the White House.America is increasing descending into the deluded paranoia that was the downfall of Hitler.Twenty years ago the western world stood squarely behind the U.S.,now only theBritish and Australian gowernments stand there,and there is considerable doubt as to whether they have the democratic mandate of their citizens to assist shoud Bush decide to violate international law and attack Iraq without the approval of the U.N.
Darth Cypher
02-28-2003, 07:47 AM
But let's be real about one thing though. Bigotry or not, we do form a very good portion of the backbone of the UN. If we are so hated by people we call our allies (and those who call us thier allies) then why do they not hesitate to call on us when they have a mission or objective to carry out?
Ringo
02-28-2003, 08:42 AM
Yeah sure, let the UN die, what a stupid comment. Now that the UN is no longer a convenience to Bush, lets just get rid of it.
The whole world knows what Bush's real intentions are. Invading and killing another nation just so we can save 50 cents a week on gas is monstrous. Bush says that he wants to liberate Iraq's people? When I heard that I laughed until I puked. Bush should use those $20 billion to help the economy here, not give it to Turkey so he can have some personal war and destabilize foreign nations. Bush, leave those Arabs alone already! This is the worst presidency this country ever had.
The whole world knows what Bush's real intentions are. Invading and killing another nation just so we can save 50 cents a week on gas is monstrous. Bush says that he wants to liberate Iraq's people? When I heard that I laughed until I puked. Bush should use those $20 billion to help the economy here, not give it to Turkey so he can have some personal war and destabilize foreign nations. Bush, leave those Arabs alone already! This is the worst presidency this country ever had.
Darth Cypher
02-28-2003, 10:30 AM
Considering that the UN has not backed up any of it's own sanctions (hell some members broke them themselves) it pretty much says how much they really get down. Oh yeah, that is because the US isn't there to enforce them now.
And everytime I hear about how everything we do about oil makes me laugh to the point of puking. We had the Gulf War, didn't get any extra oil out of it.
"Leave the Arabs alone". So are you one of those that are saying that we are killing Muslims, that we are turning this into a Holy War? We helped those Arabs out plenty of times and what did we get for our trouble? 'Nuff said.
I don't want the UN to die. I had high hopes for it and now that they cannot stand up to a country that we kicked the shit out of and allegedly can't fight back that seems to destroy any hopes I had for them. And the US respects the world organization or we wouldn't have gone to them in the first place and try repeatedly to get them to hold true to their own words.
And don't say that Iraq isn't a threat because the UN thought so if they voted unanimously to have him disarm.
And everytime I hear about how everything we do about oil makes me laugh to the point of puking. We had the Gulf War, didn't get any extra oil out of it.
"Leave the Arabs alone". So are you one of those that are saying that we are killing Muslims, that we are turning this into a Holy War? We helped those Arabs out plenty of times and what did we get for our trouble? 'Nuff said.
I don't want the UN to die. I had high hopes for it and now that they cannot stand up to a country that we kicked the shit out of and allegedly can't fight back that seems to destroy any hopes I had for them. And the US respects the world organization or we wouldn't have gone to them in the first place and try repeatedly to get them to hold true to their own words.
And don't say that Iraq isn't a threat because the UN thought so if they voted unanimously to have him disarm.
GTStang
02-28-2003, 11:26 AM
When some1 says that the US has all the power and is the strongest power in the world they are called a bigot. Well too all you people who do not understand that's not bigotry it's called a fact! If someone said cause we are the biggest and badest you should do whatever we want and we'll do whatever we want that's being a bigot.
GTi-VR6_A3
02-28-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Ringo
Yeah sure, let the UN die, what a stupid comment. Now that the UN is no longer a convenience to Bush, lets just get rid of it.
The whole world knows what Bush's real intentions are. Invading and killing another nation just so we can save 50 cents a week on gas is monstrous. Bush says that he wants to liberate Iraq's people? When I heard that I laughed until I puked. Bush should use those $20 billion to help the economy here, not give it to Turkey so he can have some personal war and destabilize foreign nations. Bush, leave those Arabs alone already! This is the worst presidency this country ever had.
please read a few books then come back. no offense but your arguement is unpresidented.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Yeah sure, let the UN die, what a stupid comment. Now that the UN is no longer a convenience to Bush, lets just get rid of it.
The whole world knows what Bush's real intentions are. Invading and killing another nation just so we can save 50 cents a week on gas is monstrous. Bush says that he wants to liberate Iraq's people? When I heard that I laughed until I puked. Bush should use those $20 billion to help the economy here, not give it to Turkey so he can have some personal war and destabilize foreign nations. Bush, leave those Arabs alone already! This is the worst presidency this country ever had.
please read a few books then come back. no offense but your arguement is unpresidented.
-GTi-VR6_A3
GTi-VR6_A3
02-28-2003, 12:15 PM
i just would liek to elt everyone know that the un has been dying slowly for a long time. i mean think about vietnam. that would have never happened if russia would have just been there to veto. but hey i wish the UN would work too. i do not support action without the UN backing it but hell they better back it if Hans over there says they should.
-GTi-VR6_A3
-GTi-VR6_A3
dolla_bill0913
03-02-2003, 03:16 AM
The only way the UN will ever work is if EVERY country in the world is part of it. This way peaceful solutions could always be found by talking things out.That means all countries not in the UN, would have to want to be in the UN. But, we all know that some countries want nothing to do with the UN and thats why it will never work.
Cbass
03-02-2003, 03:44 PM
The UN does work. The UN is there to be a global forum for nations to discuss their views. The most powerful nations sit on the Security Council, and decide who does what.
The UN is merely an assembly of diplomats, the UN is world opinion. The UN is only called useless by those who wish to see it's demise, right wing Americans such as YogsVR4 and Dubya who would rather not see it stand in the way of their interests.
The UN is merely an assembly of diplomats, the UN is world opinion. The UN is only called useless by those who wish to see it's demise, right wing Americans such as YogsVR4 and Dubya who would rather not see it stand in the way of their interests.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-02-2003, 11:44 PM
i realised somnething. the masses believe the UN only works when its in that countries best interest. say if canada disagreed with the UN. i am sure a ton fo canadians would hate it. i honestly still think that the UN is becoming semi useless but im glad it is there
-GTi-VR6_A3
-GTi-VR6_A3
Cbass
03-03-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
i realised somnething. the masses believe the UN only works when its in that countries best interest. say if canada disagreed with the UN. i am sure a ton fo canadians would hate it. i honestly still think that the UN is becoming semi useless but im glad it is there
-GTi-VR6_A3
I agree that if the UN was working in the efforts of global peace and fairness, and that conflicted with the interests of Canada, the Canadian media would cast it in an unfavourable light, and there would be disparaging comments made about it.
I disagree, however, with the UN being useless to any degree. The UN has one major mandate, and that is to keep the peace. The nation that seeks to undermine the UN is not Iraq, it is the US.
The UNSCOM inspectors were making progress in Iraq, until Butler pulled them out, thinking Clinton was sending the troops in.
i realised somnething. the masses believe the UN only works when its in that countries best interest. say if canada disagreed with the UN. i am sure a ton fo canadians would hate it. i honestly still think that the UN is becoming semi useless but im glad it is there
-GTi-VR6_A3
I agree that if the UN was working in the efforts of global peace and fairness, and that conflicted with the interests of Canada, the Canadian media would cast it in an unfavourable light, and there would be disparaging comments made about it.
I disagree, however, with the UN being useless to any degree. The UN has one major mandate, and that is to keep the peace. The nation that seeks to undermine the UN is not Iraq, it is the US.
The UNSCOM inspectors were making progress in Iraq, until Butler pulled them out, thinking Clinton was sending the troops in.
Darth Cypher
03-03-2003, 03:10 AM
Clinton sending the troops in????? I thought that you said the reason was because there was a spy in the team (though I think it was Iraq throwing out accusations but that is not the point). Besides, a lot of us in the military knew clinton was a wimp anyhow. :D
I want the UN to work. But only certain members are permanent and some are only members. Not every nation it seems is a member, unless I am not understanding the structure or something. Anyhow, my point is that you have sort of a buddy system going. So basically what the UN does will only be in the interests of the members instead of all nations.
Take the Iraq situation for example. People argue that we are doing it for the oil (riiiight). But it can also be said that the reason France and Germany are against US action is because they are doing business with Iraq currently. I'm not trying to throw stones or anything, I'm only trying to create a scenario based on current events to make my point.
Maybe I am niave but all nations (even the third would countries) should have equal representation to be truely effective.
I want the UN to work. But only certain members are permanent and some are only members. Not every nation it seems is a member, unless I am not understanding the structure or something. Anyhow, my point is that you have sort of a buddy system going. So basically what the UN does will only be in the interests of the members instead of all nations.
Take the Iraq situation for example. People argue that we are doing it for the oil (riiiight). But it can also be said that the reason France and Germany are against US action is because they are doing business with Iraq currently. I'm not trying to throw stones or anything, I'm only trying to create a scenario based on current events to make my point.
Maybe I am niave but all nations (even the third would countries) should have equal representation to be truely effective.
YogsVR4
03-03-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Ringo
Yeah sure, let the UN die, what a stupid comment. Now that the UN is no longer a convenience to Bush, lets just get rid of it.
The whole world knows what Bush's real intentions are. Invading and killing another nation just so we can save 50 cents a week on gas is monstrous. Bush says that he wants to liberate Iraq's people? When I heard that I laughed until I puked. Bush should use those $20 billion to help the economy here, not give it to Turkey so he can have some personal war and destabilize foreign nations. Bush, leave those Arabs alone already! This is the worst presidency this country ever had.
Its hardly a stupid comment. The organization itself is complete garbage. Its been that way for a long time. Its not that way because of any current disagreements. I say (again) let the UN continue to run on without the US and watch it wither and die the death it deserves.
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)
Yeah sure, let the UN die, what a stupid comment. Now that the UN is no longer a convenience to Bush, lets just get rid of it.
The whole world knows what Bush's real intentions are. Invading and killing another nation just so we can save 50 cents a week on gas is monstrous. Bush says that he wants to liberate Iraq's people? When I heard that I laughed until I puked. Bush should use those $20 billion to help the economy here, not give it to Turkey so he can have some personal war and destabilize foreign nations. Bush, leave those Arabs alone already! This is the worst presidency this country ever had.
Its hardly a stupid comment. The organization itself is complete garbage. Its been that way for a long time. Its not that way because of any current disagreements. I say (again) let the UN continue to run on without the US and watch it wither and die the death it deserves.
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)
1985_BMW318i
03-11-2003, 01:11 PM
There is no way the UN can or will survive without the US remaining a Member. The United States by far is the largest contributing member of the UN since its inception. The US is also the first Country that sends in troops under UN resolutions. Followed by England. I would be willing to bet that if the US pulled completely out of the UN then England would follow and then the rest of the US's staunchest allies. Now I'm not saying I'd like to see that happen. What I would like to see is the UN get back to the orginal charter of being just what its initials stand for. United Nations. However since that is unlikely to happen I suppose it can be renamed like its backstabbing members such as France, Russia and Germany would approve. UNSRN or The Union of Socialist Dictator Run Nations.
taranaki
03-11-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
I suppose it can be renamed like its backstabbing members such as France, Russia and Germany would approve. UNSRN or The Union of Socialist Dictator Run Nations.
I think you will find that all of those countries are democracies.And I hope that your 'dictator' finds out that America is a democracy at the next election.Bush is determined to stab the UN in the back,not the other way around.This invasion is wrong.period.
I suppose it can be renamed like its backstabbing members such as France, Russia and Germany would approve. UNSRN or The Union of Socialist Dictator Run Nations.
I think you will find that all of those countries are democracies.And I hope that your 'dictator' finds out that America is a democracy at the next election.Bush is determined to stab the UN in the back,not the other way around.This invasion is wrong.period.
1985_BMW318i
03-11-2003, 01:36 PM
This invasion is not only needed but is long overdue. This is not about oil. This is not about Bush. This is about a people that have long been oppressed. Ok maybe I went a little overboard calling France, Germany and Russia Dictatorships however they still do not enjoy the freedoms that we do here in the US, I'd love nothing more then to debate this subject personally with you but this seems unlikely and useless. For some reason you personally hate our President. You make it sounds as though its only Bush here in the US that want war. I talk to hundreds or more people a day here in this store and all are of the same opinion with very few exceptions. We want Saddam gone from power of any country on this planet. It will happen and its long long overdue.Saudi Arabia has already agreed to boost its production of oil. We have our own oil here in the states yet we haven't been pumping it. Instead we've been sending our money over to the middle east and purchasing thier oil. I'm not worried about oil or the price of gas. If it goes up so does everything else respectively including wages. It will all balance out here in the US. Russia sits on large oil reserves that are already being developed in large part with American help and know how. Hell the vast majority of the fields in the middle east we developed by the US. When Saddam blew up the fields in Kuwait who was called on to blow out the majority of the fires? A fellow Texan. Now what does your country do for others? How many troups has your country commited to the removal of Terrorism? How much money has your country spent?
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025