NationStates Jolt Archive

With all of the anti US sentiment in the UN, would it be best to withdrawal from the UN and move it to say Switzerland? From the cash for oil program in Iraq to general inaction on all issues, what do you think?

With all of the anti US sentiment in the UN, would it be best to withdrawal from the UN and move it to say Switzerland? From the cash for oil program in Iraq to general inaction on all issues, what do you think?

Nope, US should rather be removed from the UN by UN.

The Bush Administration is who brought about the rise in anti-US sentiment. Lies, manipulation and bullying don't typically work well with most. Maybe the better idea is to move them out of the White House and a new one in?

The Bush Administration is who brought about the rise in anti-US sentiment. Lies, manipulation and bullying don't typically work well with most. Maybe the better idea is to move them out of the White House and a new one in?

I would prefere that. Also, I'd like the US to start paying the membersfee. and the membersfeedebt that they have. Or maybe they have payed that now?

The Bush Administration is who brought about the rise in anti-US sentiment. Lies, manipulation and bullying don't typically work well with most. Maybe the better idea is to move them out of the White House and a new one in?

Well not exactly, in the 1990's the UN (France and Germany for ex) were doing secret business with Iraq (cash for oil) and that's why they were so opposed to us going into Iraq. Another thing is how since we support "evil" Isreal the rest of the world dislikes us. Do you Europeans forget what happened during WWII, why did you turn your backs on them. The jews were no longer welcome in Europe (even France of today), they needed a nation and settled in what was their traditional homeland. The UN sent troops to Bosnia for no good reason, and yet sent none to Rwanda where actual genocide was going on, why?

In general I'd say the UN is so corrupt that it makes anything in the Bush admin pale in comparison.

Ahem "Lies and manipulation?" Von Aven? ok, Lies. What did he lie about? He may not have spokent eh truth, but that wasnt his fault. He was presented Inofrmation by the CIA that there were Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There werent, boohoo, but everyone knows that saddam DID infact have them. Manipulation. WHO IN GODS NAME DID HE MANIPULATE? If you mean making them go to war because of the "lies" then you shouldn blame him, blame the CIA! And who did he bully? The Taliban? SAddam? Well its best to bully an evil regime and try to make it surrender before you invade. And the U.N. Cant kick out the U.S. The U.S. Started the U.N. And without the U.S. the U.N. is weak. In All Operations where the U.N. and U.S. Participated, they normally worked out really well. Once the U.S. Pulled out, however, the Operations just fell down and died.

Isn't it enough that we allow the UN to be on US soil which our tax money pays for and whenever there is a deployment why do we send the most troops? Why should we pay members fees? When the UN members pay their parking tickets and other fines to NY then we'll talk about membership fees.

Well since we don't obey them anyway, sure why don't we leave.

Do you Europeans forget what happened during WWII,
Most of us weren't alive then. Most Americans weren't alive then either. We owe little, if anything.

i think the US should remove the rest of the UN from the UN :rolleyes:

You know the saying Concepualists "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.".


And there are many veterens and people who where alive During WWII, and they're still alive.

The Bush Administration is who brought about the rise in anti-US sentiment. Lies, manipulation and bullying don't typically work well with most. Maybe the better idea is to move them out of the White House and a new one in?
That sounds best to me, especially as Bush isn't in there by rights in the first place.

Most of us weren't alive then. Most Americans weren't alive then either. We owe little, if anything.

Yupp, I agree with the last part. How long will ppl keep using the argument, that Europe owes America because it helped it to stay free. Maybe US should bend over totally for France then since they had a major part in thier fgreedome and independency.

But L a L a Land, the french helped us ONCE. We helped them TWICE. Besides, the french Hate america, even before Bush, banning us from using their airspace. You europeans are just jealous that we are more powerful than you, and that you guys couldnt even defend yourselves. Trying to be peaceful to the NAzis. Pfft, smart idea...

But L a L a Land, the french helped us ONCE. We helped them TWICE. Besides, the french Hate america, even before Bush, banning us from using their airspace. You europeans are just jealous that we are more powerful than you, and that you guys couldnt even defend yourselves. Trying to be peaceful to the NAzis. Pfft, smart idea...
*WOO WOO*
here comes the clue train

alot more than the french hate americans. and it was not only the europeans trying to be nice to the nazis, who remembers when the US joined WWII? it was after the JAPANESE bombed pearl harbor. we would've let the nazis take over europe if the japanese hadnt gotten involved. matter of fatc we were TURNING AWAY nazi refugees DURING THE WAR. we KNEW they were killing off jews and gypsies and taking over other countries, we didnt do jack squat.


but yeah france is screwy, they need to stabilize the government and shutup

Don't forget that US in WWII did something after they had been attacked. They couldn't care less before that.

Us Europeans founded and formed the US. No master likes to see his pupils exeed them.

Yes we Americans need to leave the UN.

You know the saying Concepualists "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.".


And there are many veterens and people who where alive During WWII, and they're still alive.
My point wasn't that we should forget History. But that we Europeans owe America nothing at all.

But L a L a Land, the french helped us ONCE. We helped them TWICE. Besides, the french Hate america, even before Bush, banning us from using their airspace. You europeans are just jealous that we are more powerful than you, and that you guys couldnt even defend yourselves. Trying to be peaceful to the NAzis. Pfft, smart idea...
First time the soldiers weren't needed.

So we can ignore that.

Chess, you beat me to it. The U.S. ignored the plight of Jews and didn’t want any involvement in WWII. The bombing at Pearl Harbor was the reason they entered.

This idea of the US leaving the UN because of the Bush Administration is childish anyway. It sounds like school children fighting on a playground. As soon as someone with smarts and diplomacy skills enters the White House, it will be solved.

It's easy to hate the people doing things in this world while you sit on the sidelines and wait to be crushed. Yes, we've made mistakes, but we made mistakes because we're actively involved in what's going on. Last time the US was isolationist, two world wars broke out, we're not about to let that happen again.

The fact is, we've freed more people over the last 100 years than anyone else. We give more money in Aid (11bil over 5 years to Africa to fight AIDS, Canada gave 220 million and France....nothing) and we make stands that other people don't have the political will to make.

And lets talk about France's 'help' in the American Revolution. We had that war won already, they sent a whole 6000 troops, which landed in Newport, RI and sat there until we called for them to blockade Yorktown. So basically, they only helped in one battle. The Dutch actually helped us more than any other country at the time.

Funny how no one hated us while we were protecting them from the Soviets, or the Nazis. Now there is only one country on the top of the hill, so all the sights are aimed up there.

Neusia, Bush earmarked only 1 billion of that AIDS money to go to the AIDS Fund, which is the only way the money goes directly to help the people suffering from the disease. Where is the rest of the money going? Laughable abstinance programs??

Ive got an idea: We quit the UN, but leave it in New York just so if they are acting up, we can use our mean military powers to blow them up.

Actually a program called ABC. Abstinance, Being faithful to one partener and Condoms.

so Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to continue to sell cheap oil to France germany and Russia in exchange for monetary aid, and the rest of the world should turn a blind eye to the 300,000 people hes murdered and buried in mass graves? should turn a blind eye to the fact that the UN did NOTHING to enforce the 1992 Gulf War treaty which Hussein broke for 12 years?

the fact of the matter is, without the US< the UN would CRUMBLE. no lawmaking or policymaking entity can have any credibility if all it poses are empty threats. the US makes up 75% of the UNs armed forces.

The US should leave the UN, let France and germany deal with all the UNs bullshit. yeah, the same france and germany who demanded that the EU put in its constitution that no nation have a national economic deficit of greater than 2%, yet in their co-conspirator design they feel that since they should be the driving force behind the EU that it should be OK for them to have larger deficits. so separate rules for france and germany, and everyone else has to obey the law?

why exactly should anyone give a damn about france anyway, exactly what do they bring to the table except that besides perhaps poland, they are the worlds most conquered nation? do a search on Google.com for french military victories and it brings up "did you mean French Military Defeats?" france is nothing.

France and Germany have been pushing in the UN to get the US off as many committees as possible, trying to replace the US with useless nations like India, who will kowtow to the french/german demands in exchange for the UN putting them on a committee.

sorry i cant help it if france and germany are jealous the US is the sole world power now, and they want to lead an EU to rival the US. problem is you cantget that many nations on the same page on every issue, therefore the EU will never have the power it hoped for.

what the EU is great for is encouraging free trade among the european nations. of course it sucks if youre a poor country with no natural resources, as they will get buried on all pricing and hence remain poor and generally war torn.

BTW - the reason france and germany want to have separate rules? they dont like the current EU voting system. the system they helped design and they voted for. they want to change it now, as since they feel they shoudl be the 2 leading countries driving the EU, that they deserve more votes than they currently have. they dont like the fact mid size nations like Spain have voting power that france and germany feel is too close to their own, and they want to create a greater disparity among less populated nations, so that they can control the EU. does this not amount to political imperialism? are they not telling nations to join them with one breath and to submit to them in the other? talk about hypocrisy.

the US did what the European nations were too yellow to get done, and thats remove a tyrannical oppressive government from power. why did it take so long, because frnace and germany were in bed with hussein, and Bill Clinton and his scaling down of US intelligence and that goddamn Torricelli Principle he adopted had the US too reliant on foreign info, hence the US relied too heavily on IRAN for info on Iraq and it now turns out that Iran flat out frickin LIED, in an effort to help get the US to oust Saddam.

some of you people should just go back to your Propaganda 101 schools of thought and pay homage to that jackass Michael Moore and his lies and distortion. he can be your hero.


The US should leave the UN, and laugh hysterically in the face of all who try to save it from its imminent collapse should the US decide to leave.

so continue to believe the US went to Iraq to get oil, since the US gets 84% of its oil from Venezuela and gets NONE from Iraq...if you believe The US is there for Oil you are but a political tool. its no secret that Mr Flip-Flop John (Herman Munster) Kerry would be the weakest US leader since Jimmy Carter and would weaken the US nationall and internationally not to mention make every terrorist the known world happy as a pig in crap, as he cant make up his mind on any kind of action, resulting in inaction, making the US highly vulnerable to any kind of attack.

got news for ya....George W Bush will be the president of the US for the next 4 years, and the rest of the world need take notice that the terrorism will not be tolerated.

not interested in hearing about whythe US isnt in rwanda with all the atrocities there, why isnt the rest of the world there either? why do france and germany sit on their asses while pointing the finger at others? oh yeah, hypocrites.

as europeans, europeans dont owe the US anything, at least not if they speak german.

everyone else, owes their freedom to the US, twice, mind you.

I say We tell the rest of the UN they have not managed to do one thing on their own without either the US or the USSR before it's dissolution, and that if they feel they can do the Haitis, the Bosnias, the Rwandas, the Sri Lankas, the Eritreas..the Gaza Strips....the Liberians, the Sudans...then by all means, we don't need the UN to do trade with the various members of the UN..they won't stop trading with American companies..money talks across political differences..but we should tell them to go to the Hague if they think they could do it better.

Well not exactly, in the 1990's the UN (France and Germany for ex) were doing secret business with Iraq (cash for oil) and that's why they were so opposed to us going into Iraq

The only people doing business in Iraq in the 1990's were halliburton, then headed by DICK cheney. So much so that he actually decried the US position on terrorism.

On the same day that President Bush announced plans to investigate Iran
for ties to terrorism,[1] Halliburton acknowledged that "a U.S. grand
jury issued a subpoena to the company seeking information about its
Cayman Islands unit's work in Iran,[2] where it is illegal for U.S.
companies to operate." Earlier this year, CBS News reported that Vice
President Dick Cheney was CEO of the company "during which time Halliburton
Products and Services set up shop in Iran."[3] In fact, Cheney was so
adamant about doing business with terrorist nations like Iran, he even went
abroad to publicly attack American foreign policy after meeting with
top officials from a foreign government.

Despite economic sanctions on Iran because of its ties to terrorists,
Cheney openly bragged about Halliburton's business dealings there during
the 2000 campaign.[4] Cheney argued that it was ethical for Halliburton
to use "independent foreign subsidiaries" that exist in tax shelter
countries like the Cayman Islands to skirt U.S. law. He also went abroad
to attack American policy: According to the Malaysian News Agency,
Cheney publicly attacked U.S. sanctions on terrorist countries after a
meeting with top Malaysian government officials in Kuala Lampur.[5]

During the 2000 campaign, Cheney also claimed that, as Halliburton CEO,
"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq,[6] even
arrangements that were supposedly legal." Yet, earlier this year, The New
Yorker reported "during Cheney's tenure[7] at Halliburton the company
did business" in Iraq as well. The Washington Post reported that despite
strict economic sanctions, Halliburton did up to $73 million in
business[8] with Iraq while Cheney was heading the company.


Sources:
1. "Bush: U.S. probes possible Iran links to 9/11," CNN.com, 7/19/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46889.
2. "Halliburton Subpoenaed Over Unit's Iran Work ," Reuters, 7/19/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46890.
3. "Doing Business With The Enemy," 60 Minutes, 1/25/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46891.
4. "Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said," NewsMax.com, 6/25/01,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46892 .
5. Malaysian News Agency, 4/20/98
6. "Contract Sport,"The New Yorker, 2/16/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46893.
7. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46893.
8. "Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has
Said,"TruthOut.org, 6/23/01, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46894.

Well not exactly, in the 1990's the UN (France and Germany for ex) were doing secret business with Iraq (cash for oil) and that's why they were so opposed to us going into Iraq. Another thing is how since we support "evil" Isreal the rest of the world dislikes us. Do you Europeans forget what happened during WWII, why did you turn your backs on them. The jews were no longer welcome in Europe (even France of today), they needed a nation and settled in what was their traditional homeland. The UN sent troops to Bosnia for no good reason, and yet sent none to Rwanda where actual genocide was going on, why?

In general I'd say the UN is so corrupt that it makes anything in the Bush admin pale in comparison.
Well, while German companies may have had illegal trade agreements the government was against such actions and the reason why the government disagreed with US involvement in Iraq was that it would have a destabilizing effect on the whole Middle East (which it did).

The US should not leave the UN. The last international governmental body (called the League of Nations) failed because the most powerful nations didn't involve themselves. Plus, the US wouldn't give up its Security Council seat because while no UN action would be enacted against the US (which could happen) but action would occur against Israel without the US to do anything about it.

The US should leave the UN because all of our so called allies contradict us when we want to do something. Teh only thing the UN is good for is humanitarian aid. They are incompetent in finding wmd's and their army is worst than Saddam's.

Did I mention that I'm an evil conservative, and I just love Haliburton. By the way when Saddam was pocketing his cash from Europe, did they get the desperately needed supplies? Not very much, as Koki Conman was pocketing his fair share of the loot. Haliburton may have dealt with Iran, but they weren't making the innocent people of Iraq starve.

PS:Did I mention I'm a conservative which makes me an idiot, a hate monger, and just plain evil. But don't take my word for it.

PPS:I guess the UN really only cares when they can get some cash from something, ie Rwanda. If they cared so much why was a real proven genocide allowed to go on. As opposed to a fake genocide in Bosnia. Those pictures the world saw were pow's not ordinary civilians. The UN is just totally powerless, who are they to tell Isreal what to do with their fence. Go back to your liberal dream world, send me a postcard.

God bless Haliburton!!!

The only people doing business in Iraq in the 1990's were halliburton, then headed by DICK cheney. So much so that he actually decried the US position on terrorism.

On the same day that President Bush announced plans to investigate Iran
for ties to terrorism,[1] Halliburton acknowledged that "a U.S. grand
jury issued a subpoena to the company seeking information about its
Cayman Islands unit's work in Iran,[2] where it is illegal for U.S.
companies to operate." Earlier this year, CBS News reported that Vice
President Dick Cheney was CEO of the company "during which time Halliburton
Products and Services set up shop in Iran."[3] In fact, Cheney was so
adamant about doing business with terrorist nations like Iran, he even went
abroad to publicly attack American foreign policy after meeting with
top officials from a foreign government.

Despite economic sanctions on Iran because of its ties to terrorists,
Cheney openly bragged about Halliburton's business dealings there during
the 2000 campaign.[4] Cheney argued that it was ethical for Halliburton
to use "independent foreign subsidiaries" that exist in tax shelter
countries like the Cayman Islands to skirt U.S. law. He also went abroad
to attack American policy: According to the Malaysian News Agency,
Cheney publicly attacked U.S. sanctions on terrorist countries after a
meeting with top Malaysian government officials in Kuala Lampur.[5]

During the 2000 campaign, Cheney also claimed that, as Halliburton CEO,
"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq,[6] even
arrangements that were supposedly legal." Yet, earlier this year, The New
Yorker reported "during Cheney's tenure[7] at Halliburton the company
did business" in Iraq as well. The Washington Post reported that despite
strict economic sanctions, Halliburton did up to $73 million in
business[8] with Iraq while Cheney was heading the company.


Sources:
1. "Bush: U.S. probes possible Iran links to 9/11," CNN.com, 7/19/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46889.
2. "Halliburton Subpoenaed Over Unit's Iran Work ," Reuters, 7/19/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46890.
3. "Doing Business With The Enemy," 60 Minutes, 1/25/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46891.
4. "Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said," NewsMax.com, 6/25/01,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46892 .
5. Malaysian News Agency, 4/20/98
6. "Contract Sport,"The New Yorker, 2/16/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46893.
7. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46893.
8. "Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has
Said,"TruthOut.org, 6/23/01, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1741794&l=46894.

Hey yo mamma thanks for all of your obviously unbiased links. Esp since CBS with Dan Rather has no real agenda.

I would prefere that. Also, I'd like the US to start paying the membersfee. and the membersfeedebt that they have. Or maybe they have payed that now?


Fine the US should pay the fee. Then the UN should pay taxes on the property they are using. I'm sure that is a nice pretty penny there.

Funny to me that this topic should come up now. I wrote my congressmen and the White House just a few days ago expressing my disappointment with the UN after reading some reports by Human Rights Watch. I asked them to get us out of the UN. So for those of you who want out of the UN, let your leaders know you want out, write them, be polite don't cuss just say you what you feel but be tactful. Let our leaders know what you want otherwise they cannot act on it.

so Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to continue to sell cheap oil to France germany and Russia in exchange for monetary aid, ...
How exactly black market oil got into France, Germany, and Russia for cheap prices, no one will be able to say. The dealings were not about oil, but about dubious industrial products that had civilian but also military uses.

...
the fact of the matter is, without the US< the UN would CRUMBLE. no lawmaking or policymaking entity can have any credibility if all it poses are empty threats. the US makes up 75% of the UNs armed forces.
...[/QUOTE]
True.

The US should leave the UN, let France and germany deal with all the UNs bullshit. yeah, the same france and germany who demanded that the EU put in its constitution that no nation have a national economic deficit of greater than 2%, yet in their co-conspirator design they feel that since they should be the driving force behind the EU that it should be OK for them to have larger deficits. so separate rules for france and germany, and everyone else has to obey the law?
Not in the constitution (which hasn't even passed yet) but in a special pact. Also, all other EU states thought that Germany and France get special rules (the council decided in favor of suspending deficit trials).

France and Germany have been pushing in the UN to get the US off as many committees as possible, trying to replace the US with useless nations like India, who will kowtow to the french/german demands in exchange for the UN putting them on a committee.
It's unlikely that they'd be "pushing" the US off, and if they were, they wouldn't be the driving force. There's plenty of countries that actually hate and don't just disagree with the US.

sorry i cant help it if france and germany are jealous the US is the sole world power now, and they want to lead an EU to rival the US. problem is you cantget that many nations on the same page on every issue, therefore the EU will never have the power it hoped for.

Jealous? The French maybe, but national pride hasn't quite recovered in Germany.

what the EU is great for is encouraging free trade among the european nations. of course it sucks if youre a poor country with no natural resources, as they will get buried on all pricing and hence remain poor and generally war torn.

Which is probably why the EU is lowering its tariffs and allowing poor African countries to compete (sure...)

BTW - the reason france and germany want to have separate rules? they dont like the current EU voting system. the system they helped design and they voted for. they want to change it now, as since they feel they shoudl be the 2 leading countries driving the EU, that they deserve more votes than they currently have. they dont like the fact mid size nations like Spain have voting power that france and germany feel is too close to their own, and they want to create a greater disparity among less populated nations, so that they can control the EU. does this not amount to political imperialism? are they not telling nations to join them with one breath and to submit to them in the other? talk about hypocrisy.

Yeah, the EU parliament actually gives Germany the wrong number of votes. They have 99 whereas no other country has that many. Luxembourg has more votes per citizen than Germany, so actually Germany should have way more in order to make the system fairer. The other reform in the voting system is that one EU country can't just blockade a decision in the Commissions because they disagree and make it a popular vote.

the US did what the European nations were too yellow to get done, and thats remove a tyrannical oppressive government from power. why did it take so long, because frnace and germany were in bed with hussein, and Bill Clinton and his scaling down of US intelligence and that goddamn Torricelli Principle he adopted had the US too reliant on foreign info, hence the US relied too heavily on IRAN for info on Iraq and it now turns out that Iran flat out frickin LIED, in an effort to help get the US to oust Saddam.

Dunno bout France, but our Vice-chancellor/Foreign minister was against it because of the destructive effects it had on the region (Which he predicted)

some of you people should just go back to your Propaganda 101 schools of thought and pay homage to that jackass Michael Moore and his lies and distortion. he can be your hero.

It is quite possible that Bush lies more than Moore. But that's just my bias because I agree with Moore on a lot of accounts. That Moore is a liar is your bias.

The US should leave the UN, and laugh hysterically in the face of all who try to save it from its imminent collapse should the US decide to leave.

And watch the SC implement a resolution against Israel.

so continue to believe the US went to Iraq to get oil, since the US gets 84% of its oil from Venezuela and gets NONE from Iraq...if you believe The US is there for Oil you are but a political tool. its no secret that Mr Flip-Flop John (Herman Munster) Kerry would be the weakest US leader since Jimmy Carter and would weaken the US nationall and internationally not to mention make every terrorist the known world happy as a pig in crap, as he cant make up his mind on any kind of action, resulting in inaction, making the US highly vulnerable to any kind of attack.

Right. It wasn't about oil. It was about getting a lot of contracts for the US and its allies rebuilding Iraq, among other things.

got news for ya....George W Bush will be the president of the US for the next 4 years, and the rest of the world need take notice that the terrorism will not be tolerated.

Don't know about that, but then again, you don't either.

not interested in hearing about whythe US isnt in rwanda with all the atrocities there, why isnt the rest of the world there either? why do france and germany sit on their asses while pointing the finger at others? oh yeah, hypocrites.
Germany is busy in Afghanistan and France is busy in Ivory Coast. They don't have the military capacity the US has. The US is reaching its limits too though, so there's a good point for it not to be in Rwanda.

Hell yeah, the U.S. should leave! The U.N. is pure evil, always has been, always will be. How the hell can we expect the U.N. to 'fight' terrorism when many of our worst enemies are in the U.N.? Nations like Syria, Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Sudan, Libya, etc. The U.N. is itself a terrorist organization. In the early 60's it waged a ferocious and brutal terroristic war on the peaceful province of Katanga in the Congo. Hospitals, schools, and ambulances were bombed, women were raped, children were slaughtered. And one of the main reasons we lost the Korean War was because of our U.N. membership. Because the Soviet Union was a member, they had access to all our military plans, which they in turn gave to the North Koreans and Red Chinese. I've heard stories by Korean War veterans about how they would travel to a 'top secret' area, only to have the enemy identify each of them by name via loudspeakers, then come out and start slaughtering them. Were it not for the U.N. (and the treasonous Truman Administration) there would only be one Korea, a free Korea, and that war would have been won quickly and decisively. Every war we fought since World War II had U.N. roots. We got involved in Vietnam via SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization), a regional subsidiary of the United Nations. Because of the U.N., the first Gulf War was not finished in a satisfactory manner, and of course, because of that, we're in Iraq today...In Kosovo and Somalia, the U.N. soldiers, as usual, committed atrocities of the most brutal, sadistic, and inhumane manner possible, wreaking such havoc that they would have earned the admiration of the Nazis, the Vietcong, and the Japanese militarists. Remember Rwanda? That was made possible by the U.N., which had previously disarmed the civilian population that the genocide was committed against. I could go on all day, but I think I've made my point clear.

Funny how no one hated us while we were protecting them from the Soviets, or the Nazis. Now there is only one country on the top of the hill, so all the sights are aimed up there.
There were actually a lot of protests against the US in Germany and France and the rest of Western Europe. Especially when the Pershing missiles were built up in Germany.

US forces are over extended right now. There are no 30 day leaves for those in the field. There are only 15 day leaves and those that are getting them have to go through a lottery system and hope for the best.

Other nations must step up and do the right thing. Quit arguing about stupid issues and help those countries that cannot help themselves. That is the America I grow up in. Not what is going on right now. There are times I am ashamed to be an American, but when push comes to shove I will back my President whomever it maybe.

Hell yeah, the U.S. should leave! The U.N. is pure evil, always has been, always will be. How the hell can we expect the U.N. to 'fight' terrorism when many of our worst enemies are in the U.N.? Nations like Syria, Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Sudan, Libya, etc. The U.N. is itself a terrorist organization. In the early 60's it waged a ferocious and brutal terroristic war on the peaceful province of Katanga in the Congo. Hospitals, schools, and ambulances were bombed, women were raped, children were slaughtered. And one of the main reasons we lost the Korean War was because of our U.N. membership. Because the Soviet Union was a member, they had access to all our military plans, which they in turn gave to the North Koreans and Red Chinese. I've heard stories by Korean War veterans about how they would travel to a 'top secret' area, only to have the enemy identify each of them by name via loudspeakers, then come out and start slaughtering them. Were it not for the U.N. (and the treasonous Truman Administration) there would only be one Korea, a free Korea, and that war would have been won quickly and decisively. Every war we fought since World War II had U.N. roots. We got involved in Vietnam via SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization), a regional subsidiary of the United Nations. Because of the U.N., the first Gulf War was not finished in a satisfactory manner, and of course, because of that, we're in Iraq today...In Kosovo and Somalia, the U.N. soldiers, as usual, committed atrocities of the most brutal, sadistic, and inhumane manner possible, wreaking such havoc that they would have earned the admiration of the Nazis, the Vietcong, and the Japanese militarists. Remember Rwanda? That was made possible by the U.N., which had previously disarmed the civilian population that the genocide was committed against. I could go on all day, but I think I've made my point clear.
SEATO is not a UN subsidary.
China, Russia, Libya, Venezuela, and Pakistan are not the worst enemies of the US.
These are outright lies that you spread, so I kinda have little faith in the rest of your statements, though some of them might be true.
(Libya only recently came on "our" side, so you may be behind on that)
(ADDED)
I personally think that we didn't "lose" the Korean War. It was a stalemate, neither side won. But that's just my opinion and not neccessarily a fact.

It'd be unwise to pull out of the UN now. They've become quite corrupt, are growing in inefficiency, and they are ineffective. It doesn't help either that Lybia is the head of the UN's human rights commission. Worst of all, however, they are ineffective. However, they are still reliable for delivering aid. Besides, if nothing else, the UN is a forum for other nation's views.

It'd be unwise to pull out of the UN now. They've become quite corrupt, are growing in inefficiency, and they are ineffective. It doesn't help either that Lybia is the head of the UN's human rights commission. Worst of all, however, they are ineffective. However, they are still reliable for delivering aid. Besides, if nothing else, the UN is a forum for other nation's views.
The problem with the UN is that it's not being reformed. That's because some of the Permanent 5 nations (France, Great Britain, China, Russia, and the USA) are blocking them for fear of losing power in the SC.

SEATO is not a UN subsidary.
China, Russia, Libya, Venezuela, and Pakistan are not the worst enemies of the US.
These are outright lies that you spread, so I kinda have little faith in the rest of your statements, though some of them might be true.
(Libya only recently came on "our" side, so you may be behind on that)
(ADDED)
I personally think that we didn't "lose" the Korean War. It was a stalemate, neither side won. But that's just my opinion and not neccessarily a fact.

Yes, SEATO was a subsidiary of the United Nations.
Yes, the nations I mentioned are our enemies. China's government still calls the U.S. 'the main enemy,' as does Russia's. I don't have any sources about China off the top of my head, but as for Russia, read 'New Lies For Old' and 'The Perestroika Deception' by Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. Another helpful source is British journalist Christopher Story's magazine 'Soviet Analysis.'
Yes, we did lose the Korean War.

I'll happily provide some good sources:

1. Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends: The Katanga Story
2. 46 Angry Men
3. Who Killed the Congo?
4. Global Gun Grab
5. Inside the United Nations
6. The United Nations Exposed
7. Freedom on the Altar
8. The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations

The problem with the UN is that it's not being reformed. That's because some of the Permanent 5 nations (France, Great Britain, China, Russia, and the USA) are blocking them for fear of losing power in the SC.
It can, however, be reformed without such a power loss. Expand the Security Concil to 24 members, and six will be pernament. I suggest that the new pernament members be India and Brazil. I say five because Europe is overrepresented in the Security Concil. Both the UK and France are part of the EU, and they are too similar in thinking to be on that concil. I'd like it if one of them could give up their seat, but I sure as hell don't want it to be the UK.
And while we are at it, why not we let Israel run for membership.

And while we are at it, why not we let Israel run for membership.
They already have a permanent representative in the council. The USA.

Syria - True, enemy
Iran - True, enemy
Pakistan - turned on its ally, the Taliban in favor of the USA
China - Ally against the Soviets
Russia - Ally against Iraq in the Gulf War (Back when they were Soviets, UN action that actually occurred)
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - True, enemy
Cuba - Enemy, though the continuation of that is mainly our fault
Venezuela - According to someone else, the US's main oil source
South Africa - not an enemy
Sudan - Gets pharmaceutical plants bombed by us, so that makes em an enemy, I guess
Libya - Bush administration recently lifted sanctions

Is this how you treat your worst enemies? I mean some of them are, but if Russia really was an enemy, they would be letting us feel it

It can, however, be reformed without such a power loss. Expand the Security Concil to 24 members, and six will be pernament. I suggest that the new pernament members be India and Brazil. I say five because Europe is overrepresented in the Security Concil. Both the UK and France are part of the EU, and they are too similar in thinking to be on that concil. I'd like it if one of them could give up their seat, but I sure as hell don't want it to be the UK.
And while we are at it, why not we let Israel run for membership.
How are you gonna convince the UK or France to give it up? They can block something like that, you know. Also, UK AND FRANCE THINK SIMILARLY?!?!?!?! YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!! YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!

They already have a permanent representative in the council. The USA.
But is the US a stable ally of Israel? I say no. In fact, under the Bush administration, the tone has been quite anti-Israeli. No surprise, however. They all are.

Syria - True, enemy
Iran - True, enemy
Pakistan - turned on its ally, the Taliban in favor of the USA
China - Ally against the Soviets
Russia - Ally against Iraq in the Gulf War (Back when they were Soviets, UN action that actually occurred)
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - True, enemy
Cuba - Enemy, though the continuation of that is mainly our fault
Venezuela - According to someone else, the US's main oil source
South Africa - not an enemy
Sudan - Gets pharmaceutical plants bombed by us, so that makes em an enemy, I guess
Libya - Bush administration recently lifted sanctions

Is this how you treat your worst enemies? I mean some of them are, but if Russia really was an enemy, they would be letting us feel it

Thank you for disagreeing without flaming. I highly respect you for that.

But is the US a stable ally of Israel? I say no. In fact, under the Bush administration, the tone has been quite anti-Israeli. No surprise, however. They all are.
I still have to see the US not supporting an Israeli action. Like building that wall.

1. Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends: The Katanga Story
2. 46 Angry Men
3. Who Killed the Congo?
4. Global Gun Grab
5. Inside the United Nations
6. The United Nations Exposed
7. Freedom on the Altar
8. The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations

What are these? Books? Magazines? Articles?
Do they have Authors?

How are you gonna convince the UK or France to give it up? They can block something like that, you know. Also, UK AND FRANCE THINK SIMILARLY?!?!?!?! YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!! YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!
Similarly enough. They both are founding members of the EU, they were both the first democracies in Europe, and they both describe eachother today as "progressive". Besides, if it weren't for Blair, Anglo-American friendship to this degree wouldn't exist.
And btw, there are ways of convincing them. Tell the UK or France that they'll be lumped in a new region, where only Germany is a member. That way, they are guranteed to be on the Security concil every other year.

What are these? Books? Magazines? Articles?
Do they have Authors?

All are books but '46 Angry Men' which is an article. Regrettably, I don't remember any of the authors, as I am quite absent-minded at times, for which I apologize.

I still have to see the US not supporting an Israeli action. Like building that wall.
It's been condemned by the US far too often. In fact, I wrote a thread a few months ago about how the US withheld aid because of Israel's construction of the wall.

Similarly enough. They both are founding members of the EU, they were both the first democracies in Europe, and they both describe eachother today as "progressive". Besides, if it weren't for Blair, Anglo-American friendship to this degree wouldn't exist.
And btw, there are ways of convincing them. Tell the UK or France that they'll be lumped in a new region, where only Germany is a member. That way, they are guranteed to be on the Security concil every other year.
The UK is not a founding Member... they joined later
UK or France have the power to block being lumped into a region with Germany because they have a veto power.
France and UK similar policies? France an avid oposer of the Iraq war, UK the second highest contributor of forces? That's rather different to me.
(ADDED)
And the first democracy in Europe was Athens.

It's been condemned by the US far too often. In fact, I wrote a thread a few months ago about how the US withheld aid because of Israel's construction of the wall.
They condemned it? Must have been a very quiet condemnation. Cause I don't recall hearing anything about them condeming it.

That Coffee Anna dude is a real jerko asshole fruitcake, bro. Seriously, man. :mp5:

Chess, you beat me to it. The U.S. ignored the plight of Jews and didn’t want any involvement in WWII. The bombing at Pearl Harbor was the reason they entered.


Some people really need a history lesson here. While the US was only lightly committed militarily before Pearl Harbor (There was some more-or-less covert involvement) there were very heavily involved economically supporting the Allies with arms and materials. This only makes sense as before WW2, while industrially powerful, the US was not considered a world super-power. Nor did they really have the desire to be.

In more ways then one, Europe has only themselves to thank/blame for making the USA what it is today.

That Coffee Anna dude is a real jerko asshole fruitcake, bro. Seriously, man. :mp5:
What has he done that makes him so bad? You could support a statement like that...

What has he done that makes him so bad? You could support a statement like that...

'Cause he's a jerko buttmunch asswipe jerko scumbucket lousy bum. He don't do nothing about terrorism 'cause he's a fruitface dorko dweebie asshole.

The UK is not a founding Member... they joined later
UK or France have the power to block being lumped into a region with Germany because they have a veto power.
France and UK similar policies? France an avid oposer of the Iraq war, UK the second highest contributor of forces? That's rather different to me.
(ADDED)
And the first democracy in Europe was Athens.
Let me rephrase it: the first modern democracy. There domestic policies, and their ones concerning the EU, btw, are eerily similar. As I've said, if Blair weren't in office, the UK wouldn't be as supportive of US foreign policy as it is now. In fact, Blair and a few close allies seemed to be the only supporters of the Iraq war in the UK. Do you agree with me on this one?

They condemned it? Must have been a very quiet condemnation. Cause I don't recall hearing anything about them condeming it.
The media hates reporting White House condemnations, because they rarely make a juicy story.

Let me rephrase it: the first modern democracy. There domestic policies, and their ones concerning the EU, btw, are eerily similar. As I've said, if Blair weren't in office, the UK wouldn't be as supportive of US foreign policy as it is now. In fact, Blair and a few close allies seemed to be the only supporters of the Iraq war in the UK. Do you agree with me on this one?
Agreed.

In more ways then one, Europe has only themselves to thank/blame for making the USA what it is today.
Thats very true. Personally, I blame the French for not siding with Britain and helping the American terrorists.

Thats very true. Personally, I blame the French for not siding with Britain and helping the American terrorists.

Americans ain't terrorists, jerko. The French are 'cause they done help Saddam Hussein by ain't doin' nothing when he killed them curds.

Americans ain't terrorists, jerko. The French are 'cause they done help Saddam Hussein by ain't doin' nothing when he killed them curds.
I didn't see the Americans get of their fat arses to help them either. So STF up.

Agreed.
Good. I hope you see that, in principle, one of them needs to be removed.

I didn't see the Americans get of their fat arses to help them either. So STF up.
Don't bother responding to him. He hasn't got any arguments, there's no challenge in proving him wrong.

Don't bother responding to him. He hasn't got any arguments, there's no challenge in proving him wrong.

Bro, go shove a butt plug up your plug before I done make your ears bleed.

Good. I hope you see that, in principle, one of them needs to be removed.
I didn't say that.
What I would like is that the SC gets expanded by possibly five more permanent members, but a constructive veto requiring at least two nations is necessary. France and UK are necessary because they have the power (though sometimes not the will) to get things done in the world if the SC actually goes ahead with something.

The Bush Administration is who brought about the rise in anti-US sentiment. Lies, manipulation and bullying don't typically work well with most. Maybe the better idea is to move them out of the White House and a new one in?

Well thats becuase the world was so used to clinton letting the world walk all over us, Terroist blow up our embassies and allow this country to become the UN's personal body guard. I' heard this some where:

The UN is like the smart little kid with the USA its stupid strong friend. The small friend uses the big one to do its dirty work and finally the big one has started to think for itself and is about to either leave or beat down the smaller ex-friend.

I didn't bother to read all five or so pages of this. So, yeah. I'm witnessing the breakdown of the UN as a world governing power. Sloth, indecision...they're not looking all that good. As far as Europe...who cares what they think? Would someone please explain to me why we should wait for a popular opinion across the pond before we act to defend ourselves? The same goes for some UN permission slip. Screw that.

Time for a history lesson. I guess you never heard of the Atlantic Charter? It was a meeting between Winston Churchill and FDR, BEFORE Pearl Harbor, where they discussed how to fight the Nazis in Europe. So, the US would have entered the war eventually anyway, whether Pearl Harbor happened or not.

I didn't say that.
What I would like is that the SC gets expanded by possibly five more permanent members, but a constructive veto requiring at least two nations is necessary. France and UK are necessary because they have the power (though sometimes not the will) to get things done in the world if the SC actually goes ahead with something.
The problem, however, is that it creates too much bureaocracy, and the Security Concil will be reduced to political jokeying.
Perhaps what could happen first is a requirement of two or more vetos to fail a resolution, as I see no problem with that. Then, have one of the SC pernament members dropped. If it's France, I have doubts that the other four would mind.

I think the United States should be kicked out of the United Nations for such a blatant disregard of its charter.

I also think the security council should be expanded adding Germany and Japan as permenant members. They are solid modern day nations who were likely only left out of the SC because they were on the wrong side during WWII.

I also think the security council should be expanded adding Germany and Japan as permenant members. They are solid modern day nations who were likely only left out of the SC because they were on the wrong side during WWII.
I don't think they should, because they don't have much military power. If you want to be a pernament member, you must be able to back up the prestige of the Security Concil. All five pernament members can, a few singlehandedly if they wanted to.

Bro, go shove a butt plug up your plug before I done make your ears bleed.

How old are you, FSB? Ten?

I don't think they should, because they don't have much military power. If you want to be a pernament member, you must be able to back up the prestige of the Security Concil. All five pernament members can, a few singlehandedly if they wanted to.
France, Russia, and China have better militaries than Germany and Japan?

France, Russia, and China have better militaries than Germany and Japan?
Yep. Japan is geared toward defense, and their military budget comes from the high cost of purchasing military hardware, and not the size of their military. Germany was never really a military powerhouse post WWII, and despite a few ships floating around, they aren't powerful now.
The other countries, on the other hand, have great militaries. The French are generally thought of as whimps, including by me. I guess I should tell that to their 2,000 nukes and the Charles de Gaulles aircraft carrier. China has the largest army on the planet, and Russia still has a lot of useful military hardware. If they really wanted to do it, they could be a superpower again within twenty years.

We'd really earn world hatred if we withdrew from the UN. Every country in the world would hate us-

Wait, no, some wouldn't. I guess Taiwan and Vatican City can be our allies. :P

The Axis of USA? Taiwan-Holy See-USA. That seems like a rather dull future.

We'd really earn world hatred if we withdrew from the UN. Every country in the world would hate us-

Wait, no, some wouldn't. I guess Taiwan and Vatican City can be our allies. :P

The Axis of USA? Taiwan-Holy See-USA. That seems like a rather dull future.
Taiwan isn't even recognized by the US as an independent state.

With all of the anti US sentiment in the UN, would it be best to withdrawal from the UN and move it to say Switzerland? From the cash for oil program in Iraq to general inaction on all issues, what do you think?

...I don't think America should leave. I just thing the whole "veto" policy should be scrapped - charter members shouldn't be able to poohoo any proposition just becase "we were here first!".

Anyway, if America is going to leave, please make sure they pay the massive monetary debts they owe to the UN first, eh? ;)

How old are you, FSB? Ten?
He claims to be a 41 year old biker in California. I can imagine him in a biker bar now...
"Hey bartender. Yo, bro. What's with you ya fat smellys jerko? All you who hate bush are stupid jerkos. Yeah, that's right, I called you a jerko. Bush killed Osimer Bilagen. What are you doing with that lead pipe?"

Thud

He claims to be a 41 year old biker in California. I can imagine him in a biker bar now...
"Hey bartender. Yo, bro. What's with you ya fat smellys jerko? All you who hate bush are stupid jerkos. Yeah, that's right, I called you a jerko. Bush killed Osimer Bilagen. What are you doing with that lead pipe?"

Thud

A biker, lol? Are you serious? He actually called himself one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HannibalSmith
With all of the anti US sentiment in the UN, would it be best to withdrawal from the UN and move it to say Switzerland? From the cash for oil program in Iraq to general inaction on all issues, what do you think?

That's America's right - but I hope you don't. If you do, the UN will collapse. Not in itself a bad thing; the UN is getting a bit long in the tooth and out of touch.
However: I doubt that any successor organisation would be as good, much less better. Granted, it's anachronistic for France and Britian to hold their veto powers - but they're both stable democracies with good human rights etc, etc. I doubt that whoever takes their place will be as good.

I'd personally like a system where each nation gets one vote for every year they've been a democracy, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Hell yeah, the U.S. should leave! The U.N. is pure evil, always has been, always will be. How the hell can we expect the U.N. to 'fight' terrorism when many of our worst enemies are in the U.N.? Nations like Syria, Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Sudan, Libya, etc.

P.S. Sorry if response to some of these seems late, ive been away from this post a while.

Now while i Agree with Syria, Iran, and North Korea (yes, thats what the DEmocratic Repbulic of Korea is), and Cuba are our Enemies, a few of the People on there arent. While i Agree that some of them have conflicting interests, they arent Exactly "Enemies". SOme of you may be Surprised that i didnt put CHina in the "enemy" Section. Thats because, while Communism and CApitalism dont mix, China is a lot more CApitilasitc then in the Mao Days. The "Make 120% more crops on this farm or die" Philisophy has ended, and China actually has ,*gasp*, Land ownership and buisiness ownership! I dont see how Venezuela, or south Africa are enemies, seeing how they are in teh large group of countries that sometimes disagrees with the U.S. but is generally friendly. The Sudanesse government itself doesnt have a deep hatred for the U.S. but its involvement in supported the ARabs militias that are currently commiting GEnocide in Sudan is not very good for its reputation. Libya has recently "come to the light side", so to speak. They have destroyed their WMD development and have been welcomed back into the world community (to an extent). Russia is also an ally, but it is really to an extent "A dictatorship thats calls itself a democracy". Finally on your list, Pakistan is actually one of Americas greatest ally in the war on terror, and hundreds and maybe even thousands of Pakistani soldiers have died fightning Terrorists. IT comes in after Great BRitain on the list of Supporting countries. Although, in the southern and north-western parts of pakistan, There are terrorist supporters. In teh middle of the country the people are moderatly wealthy and in teh South-west maybe 2% off teh people get contact from teh outside world :)

They already have a permanent representative in the council. The USA.

You couldnt be more wrong, my friend. The U.S., while supporting Israel on a number of counts, also scolds it for stalling the peace porcess. Up-rooting a large amount of poor Palestinian young men and building a wall through their holy land isnt good to do much good. :/

That Coffee Anna dude is a real jerko asshole fruitcake, bro. Seriously, man. :mp5:

I believe you are talking about U.N. Secratary General Kofi Annan? Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and one THE most respected Blacks in the world, right after Nelson MAndela and AL SHarpton (j/k on thr Al Sharpton Part). He is one of the few reasons that i believe th U.S. Should stay in the U.N. While some nations are really, well not currupt but "power ABusing", Mr Annan is a well respected man, and he has had a major part in all the good Things the U.N. has done while he was in office.

All in all, while leaving the U.N. would make the U.S. Free of some burdens, it would not be in teh best interest of the World. Without the U.S. to help them with the help of other "nice" U.N. countries (Poland, Britain, Australia), about half of teh world would plunge into chaos, causing maybe a third world war, wand Deffinetly a wave of TErrorist attack, not just by Islamic RAdicals, against the U.S.

P.S. Sorry about all teh "teh", i type a bit to fast :)

Russia's still an enemy, as is China. China still calls us 'the number one enemy' (not to our faces, of course, because they're a bunch of chickensh*ts), and same thing goes for Russia. Read 'New Lies For Old' and 'The Perestroika Deception' by Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, and British journalist Christopher Story's journal, 'Soviet Analysis.' (If you don't mind forking over $350 bucks a year for 10 issues a year...)

Sharpton is an ultra-racist. Read 'Scam' by Reverand Jesse Lee Peterson. Mandela is a brutal killer. Read the books by Morgan Norval (who knows the ANC from personal experience).

Lol Roach-busters :) Unfortunatly reading something by a Back-stabbing COmmy (not my favorite type of People) and a brit ( no offence intended) wont change my mind. While their may be some Anti- americanism in those countries (in fact im sure of it.) The people of those countries dont regard the U.S. as an enemy. And its people that matter, even in Dictatorships. But i DO agree that CHina isnt exactly our enemy, because if it were then CHina would be under blockade, we wouyld have second Cold WAr on them, and Taiwan would probably be the place where the U.S> is involved in fighting, not Iraq.

Yes, we SHOULD get out of the UN, and we should kick the UN out of the US. We should also withdraw ALL of our troops from the 120 countries we are currently deployed to and let the Europeans take care of the world for awhile. They did SUCH a good job of it when they all had their "empires." They did SUCH a good job of it in the 30's too.

I say we leave them to their own devices and defend our own borders for a change. If they kill each other off, let the French come to the rescue since they want to be world leaders. :rolleyes:

Lol Roach-busters :) Unfortunatly reading something by a Back-stabbing COmmy (not my favorite type of People) and a brit ( no offence intended) wont change my mind. While their may be some Anti- americanism in those countries (in fact im sure of it.) The people of those countries dont regard the U.S. as an enemy. And its people that matter, even in Dictatorships. But i DO agree that CHina isnt exactly our enemy, because if it were then CHina would be under blockade, we wouyld have second Cold WAr on them, and Taiwan would probably be the place where the U.S> is involved in fighting, not Iraq.

Thanks for disagreeing without flaming! You're right that the people of those countries (for the most part) do not consider us 'the main enemy,' but the Chinese and Russian government sure do.

ANd about the Nelson Mandela and AL Sharpton thing. #1 is was Joking about Sharpton (but i dont think he's RAcist), and Nelson MAndela DID do bad stuff. He DID wage a "mini-war" against the Ultra-super-RAcist-apartheid government of South AFrica. But, he was a Civil-rights activist, who, unlike Martin Luther King Juniour, used Fightning to try and achieve his aims and, inliek MAlcom X, didnt hate whites, he just hated racists. And you shoudl see the about 100,000 documentaries, interviews, and REad his about 1,000,00 biographies, and you'll see what Nelson Madela really Is.

P.S. I hope this doesnt Affect our Friendship in Rping :)

>Russia's still an enemy, as is China. China still calls us 'the number one enemy' (not to our faces, of course, because they're a bunch of chickensh*ts)<

Oh yeah, China is terrified of the mighty USA...LOL

US spyplane crashes in any country in the world besides china:

*waving fist* "Give us back our plane, pilot and recon material right now, or else!"

*grovelling voice* "Yes sir, America sir, sorry sir, please don't whip me sir..."



US spyplane crashes in in China:

*waving fist* "Give us back our plane, pilot and recon material right now, or else!"

*casual voice* "Maybe, when we feel like it..."

*outraged voice* "What? But we're America! You must cower in fear and kowtow to us!"

*China casually glances over shoulder at nuclear stockpile and massive population and standing army* "Um, no, ask nicely or you won't get them back at all..."

*America does a quick assessment of the facts* "Um, OK, cool, lets not be hasty, um, if you can just give them back when you're ready, that would be super. Oh, and sorry about spying on you. Sorry..." *sheepish grin*

;)

Um ok.. New Fubaria. That was a good point. The U.S. isnt all that imposing over China. The reason is.... Who wants to start a war between a the Worlds Largest (and Only) Superpower and the country with the Largest Army in the world and a Large Nuclear Armamemnt. Not to mention it would start a MAJOR crisis, seeing how China would invade TAiwan, the 12 countries that Are Taiwans allies (and the other 20 that dont "legally" recognise its independence but really do) would declare war on CHina. Chinas Allies, which is Basically Pakistan and North Korea would be almost forced into a War. While North Korea would LOVE to declare war on the U.S., thus having a reason to take over the south, Pakistan would be in a Pickle. Either support the country that has helped you tremendously(CHina, which is about Pakistans only ally that its people dont hate that much) OR help the OTHER country that helps you tremendously (The U.S.). Most lickley there would be a coup or a Civil WAr in Pakistan, whos new government (which will obviosuly be the rebels supported by teh people), will use the chance to FINALLY harber Osama and have a reason to Invade India. THAT would start a nuclear WAr. THAT would cause all teh middle east torally behind Pakistan in a Jihad against Islams second (or first, if you aask a pakistani) worst enemy, the Hindu Indian Devils. THat would, in turn, trigger the country witht eh most muslims, Indonesia, to Have a civil war, kill its christians, and it would invade the westernish country/city of Singapore. Then It would ally witht eh Muslims in Malaysia, which would then invade Thailand, from whcih they could invade the Communist devils in Vietnam and Invade the Hindus in Burma, from where they could invade India. The Bangladeshis, the country with the THRID most muslims, would help its best ally, India. Back to the North, The Koreans and Chinese would in VAde Japan. That would Start World War 3.

P.S. That may seemed far fetched but if you knew what country was allied with who and how much a roel REligion plays in Asia then it would make more possible (which it is). If you want the Way that would no doubt happen if the U.S. and china went to war, without all the Allies and stuff, it would be TAiwan gets destroyed, the U.S. and china dgo to war, and maybe a nuke or 2 will be launched :)

P.P.S. If you want to make this war happen, just buy a copy of Command and COnquer: Generals Zero Hour and make an 8 person map with some Chinese, soem U.S.s, and SOme GLA :D

P.P.P.S Im SOOO sorry about the spelling. Im not that great at spelling and its 9:30 at night here and i type too fast and im tired (ive had a busy day)

Oh yeah, China is terrified of the mighty USA...LOL

US spyplane crashes in any country in the world besides china:

*waving fist* "Give us back our plane, pilot and recon material right now, or else!"

*grovelling voice* "Yes sir, America sir, sorry sir, please don't whip me sir..."



US spyplane crashes in in China:

*waving fist* "Give us back our plane, pilot and recon material right now, or else!"

*casual voice* "Maybe, when we feel like it..."

*outraged voice* "What? But we're America! You must cower in fear and kowtow to us!"

*China casually glances over shoulder at nuclear stockpile and massive population and standing army* "Um, no, ask nicely or you won't get them back at all..."

*America does a quick assessment of the facts* "Um, OK, cool, lets not be hasty, um, if you can just give them back when you're ready, that would be super. Oh, and sorry about spying on you. Sorry..." *sheepish grin*

;)

China is a paper dragon just as the USSR was, say what you want about their nuclear weapons, their huge population, and standing army. If conflict began with China, their huge population would starve as everything would go to the army. Besides, China isn't as insane as N Korea, they most likely wouldn't use nukes as we have the capability to kill everyone in their armed forces and population.

Alright
#1 For all you dumb mother fuckers......The US started the UN along with Britain and France after WWII.
#2 The US should not get the shit. Bush is an ass but he used 9.11 to get shit done.
#3 Without the US teh UN is nothing. Sho send the most troops to this shit hole countries? Hell we are still in Bosnia.
#4 If we left the UN we would still ahve NATO to watch our asses

The UN should leave the US and make the US leave since it seems intent on an imperial isolationist status.

Honestly Far, If you even WATCHED american news you could see what its like on the inside. Half The country one way (the so called "Isolationist Imperialist" way), and the other half the "make peace with France and germany and only attack countries when you have a colalition of 30 countries backing you!" Way. I dont watch CAnadian News (only because i dont get it, what do you expect from someone who lives in Panama?), so i dont make any opinions on The canadian Government. But i will say this, You other U.N. members (well, most fo you) Whink we're isolationist because we Did somethign without the U.N., and it was exposed that the U.S. Baisically WAS the U.N.

P.S. and i do get U.S. news. I also get BBC WOrld and DW-TV World ( a germen News Channel divided into one hour blocks in English, Spanish, and GErman.) I also get TV 5, which is a french NEws Channel but i dont know what they say =D

Bush isn't in there by rights in the first place

Four separate companies retallied all the votes in Florida, one did it the way Bush said, one did it the way Gore wanted, and there were two other ways they were totalled up, and all four said that Bush won Florida by at least 500 votes. So get over it, all you Democrats that think Bush stole the election.

Also, because several news outlets reported too early that Gore had won Florida, there were several thousand Floridians that are Republicans that did not vote at all. (Florida is in two time zones and the most western part of the panhandle had many voters not turn out to vote because of the reports the media made about Gore winning Florida). Blame the media, not Bush for the fouled up mess in Florida.

And get your facts straight, don't drink the Koolaid Kerry's team is dishing out. Remember Koolaid drinkers die a miserable death (ie Jim Jones).

I agree, United Seekers. The Media is the REAL cause of election COnfusions.
(this part coming up is my opinion, not United Seekers, i think) The Media really controlls who wins the election, when you come to think of it. You ever notice how before NEws TElevision there were alot more Second TErms for Presidents? That was because then the Media didnt screw with teh facts. Whenever a government does something the Media Doesnt like, most (key word "most") of it shifts towards the other guy. Whenever the current government does something bad, the Media blows it up ALOT. Who wants to cover the peaceful side of the world? The only reason the news has good news (and stupid articles about diving chinese monkies) is because the journalists are looking for some new story with death and violence in it.

P.S. Funny Kool Aid Joke. And this really only counts the U.S. News. Most other countries have more peaceful news. With a larger sports section.

The UN should leave the US and make the US leave since it seems intent on an imperial isolationist status.

Absolutely! Then Canada can take that leadership role they have always wanted. Of course they will have to decide what language they will use first.
:rolleyes:

The mighty Canadian Armed Forces can then be used to run errands for the UN instead. :mp5:

We'll leave the UN, kick the UN out, send them to Belgium or Paris, we'll use now all that UN property and convert it to low income housing...all the other associated property the City of NY can sell off for funds to help offset the rehabilitation of the property.

We'll still be trading partners with the members of the UN, money talks still, so there is no indication we'd go bellyup economically...and then when mlitary force is necessary..it can be their people do the dying primarily.

Lol, Biff, but i dont think making the U.S. leave (or the U.S. leaving by choice) would make Canada the leading country in the U.N. Rather, it would be The communists chinese or the Russians. Which is bad, because the Russians dont like the U.S. and because China is communist. Soooo while im all for Canadian Wealthiness and all that, making the U.S. leave wouldnt solve much.

Theres only one problem with your plan, SAlishe. All these low income houses in a an area where there are quite a few big buildings doesnt seem like a good idea. Rather, we can turn it into a "Museum of the U.N.", which will show the entire history of the U.N., from its righteous beginning, to the Wars started by It, to its corrupted ending when the U.S. left. It will also have a room at the entrance that is dedicated to the League of Nations.

i have seen several statements inthis thread that if the US left the UN that the UNSC would pass resolution after resolution vs Israel in their issues with the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

well, while i am not entirely sure that would happen (though it well may) if the US were to pull out, exactly who would enforce these resolutions?

the US is gone - which means the UK is probably not far behind, so why is Israel even still part of the UN? should the US leave the UN, and i wish it would, because they drain us of our money, troops, and sanity, is it not expected that the US would move to merge NATO and a few allies from the other side of the world into a new organization, which would basically rival the UN, only it would actually have some military power? since once the US leaves the UN, it would have no power at all.

as i said before, you can make all the policy in the world, it means nothing if you cant enforce it. and the US is the UNs enforcement agency.

now, should that happen, what happens when different nations within the EU make the decision to leave the UN to go to the new US-UK alliance based conglomerate, do france and germany get all pissy and cause problems within the EU because they dont want EU nations leaving the UN to side with the US and UK? now that would be interestingto watch.

Isn't it enough that we allow the UN to be on US soil which our tax money pays for and whenever there is a deployment why do we send the most troops? Why should we pay members fees? When the UN members pay their parking tickets and other fines to NY then we'll talk about membership fees.

Well given in large the US created the UN, don't you think that should be a given and further, I think the US will be just fine with the UN once the administration changes.

Lets face it, you need friends and allies, you can't take out all the bad guys yourself.

so Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to continue to sell cheap oil to France germany and Russia in exchange for monetary aid, and the rest of the world should turn a blind eye to the 300,000 people hes murdered and buried in mass graves? should turn a blind eye to the fact that the UN did NOTHING to enforce the 1992 Gulf War treaty which Hussein broke for 12 years?

the fact of the matter is, without the US< the UN would CRUMBLE. no lawmaking or policymaking entity can have any credibility if all it poses are empty threats. the US makes up 75% of the UNs armed forces.

The US should leave the UN, let France and germany deal with all the UNs bullshit. yeah, the same france and germany who demanded that the EU put in its constitution that no nation have a national economic deficit of greater than 2%, yet in their co-conspirator design they feel that since they should be the driving force behind the EU that it should be OK for them to have larger deficits. so separate rules for france and germany, and everyone else has to obey the law?

why exactly should anyone give a damn about france anyway, exactly what do they bring to the table except that besides perhaps poland, they are the worlds most conquered nation? do a search on Google.com for french military victories and it brings up "did you mean French Military Defeats?" france is nothing.

France and Germany have been pushing in the UN to get the US off as many committees as possible, trying to replace the US with useless nations like India, who will kowtow to the french/german demands in exchange for the UN putting them on a committee.

sorry i cant help it if france and germany are jealous the US is the sole world power now, and they want to lead an EU to rival the US. problem is you cantget that many nations on the same page on every issue, therefore the EU will never have the power it hoped for.

what the EU is great for is encouraging free trade among the european nations. of course it sucks if youre a poor country with no natural resources, as they will get buried on all pricing and hence remain poor and generally war torn.

BTW - the reason france and germany want to have separate rules? they dont like the current EU voting system. the system they helped design and they voted for. they want to change it now, as since they feel they shoudl be the 2 leading countries driving the EU, that they deserve more votes than they currently have. they dont like the fact mid size nations like Spain have voting power that france and germany feel is too close to their own, and they want to create a greater disparity among less populated nations, so that they can control the EU. does this not amount to political imperialism? are they not telling nations to join them with one breath and to submit to them in the other? talk about hypocrisy.

the US did what the European nations were too yellow to get done, and thats remove a tyrannical oppressive government from power. why did it take so long, because frnace and germany were in bed with hussein, and Bill Clinton and his scaling down of US intelligence and that goddamn Torricelli Principle he adopted had the US too reliant on foreign info, hence the US relied too heavily on IRAN for info on Iraq and it now turns out that Iran flat out frickin LIED, in an effort to help get the US to oust Saddam.

some of you people should just go back to your Propaganda 101 schools of thought and pay homage to that jackass Michael Moore and his lies and distortion. he can be your hero.


The US should leave the UN, and laugh hysterically in the face of all who try to save it from its imminent collapse should the US decide to leave.

so continue to believe the US went to Iraq to get oil, since the US gets 84% of its oil from Venezuela and gets NONE from Iraq...if you believe The US is there for Oil you are but a political tool. its no secret that Mr Flip-Flop John (Herman Munster) Kerry would be the weakest US leader since Jimmy Carter and would weaken the US nationall and internationally not to mention make every terrorist the known world happy as a pig in crap, as he cant make up his mind on any kind of action, resulting in inaction, making the US highly vulnerable to any kind of attack.

got news for ya....George W Bush will be the president of the US for the next 4 years, and the rest of the world need take notice that the terrorism will not be tolerated.

not interested in hearing about whythe US isnt in rwanda with all the atrocities there, why isnt the rest of the world there either? why do france and germany sit on their asses while pointing the finger at others? oh yeah, hypocrites.


Actually you lied: I put in french military victories, i got 130, 000 entries.
And no "did you mean French Military Defeats?"

God yes! Let's get the hell out of that worthless know-nothing, bleeding-heart loser club.

The US should leave the UN firstly for blatantly violating the charter and secondly, so that terrorists can kick their teeth in and their fat asses from the planet. I think a few nuclear missiles and biological agents in NY or somewhere else heavily populated, will teach them a lesson to not piss off the world. No UN to abuse for illegal wars and if the US cant pressure other nations to do their bidding in the UN, it will be much easier ridding the world of this menace.

Also, whoever said that Germans have no national pride, stick it up your fat american ass and die from cancer. Thank you.