NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, but that whole oil for food program that made him rich was ok. :rolleyes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6016893/

Well, technicall it was illegal. But, please, let's not get into another debate on the morality of the war. He was pressed on a question and answered in a predictable fashion. It's not like it's a revelation.

Fuck the UN. They never come through when it counts. All they're good for is putting Israel down. Have they ever prevented a genocide? Have they ever done anything important?

Fuck the UN. They never come through when it counts. All they're good for is putting Israel down. Have they ever prevented a genocide? Have they ever done anything important?They called on member nations to do that sort of thing, but the members that matter, like the US, just sat back and said there was no oil in it for them.

Yeah, but that whole oil for food program that made him rich was ok. :rolleyes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6016893/

Keep perspective.. these are two different things. Canada who had no self interest in Iraq one way or another has also called the war illegal. It's not just the UN saying it.

Keep perspective.. these are two different things. Canada who had no self interest in Iraq one way or another has also called the war illegal. It's not just the UN saying it.

Maybe, but he did not say so before the war did he?

Fuck the UN. They never come through when it counts. All they're good for is putting Israel down. Have they ever prevented a genocide? Have they ever done anything important?

So when they wanted to stop the Rwandan genocide and America blocked it, it was still the UN's fault?

Whooo, I bet this makes Bush change his policies. :rolleyes:

So when they wanted to stop the Rwandan genocide and America blocked it, it was still the UN's fault?
Of course, likewise it's te UN's fault for the US veto-ing all those proclaimations the UN's put out about Israel.

Maybe, but he did not say so before the war did he?

Yes, he most certainly did. That's what started all the UN bashing. He said and I'm not doing exact quoting.. but to paraphrase 'That it was against the UN charter to preemptively attack a nation unilaterally without UN SC approval' Now you may not like it, but the US is a signatory member to that charter and remain so to this day.

Yes, he most certainly did. That's what started all the UN bashing. He said and I'm not doing exact quoting.. but to paraphrase 'That it was against the UN charter to preemptively attack a nation unilaterally without UN SC approval' Now you may not like it, but the US is a signatory member to that charter and remain so to this day.

Maybe he did say it then, I do not know. Does the UN charter not also say that countries also have the right to defend themselves if attacked or threatened?

The whole UN thing is past it's usefulness. Isn't Sudan still on the human rights commission? :rolleyes:

Maybe he did say it then, I do not know. Does the UN charter not also say that countries also have the right to defend themselves if attacked or threatened?

Yes, as does NATO. However the Americans failed to provide evidence that Iraq was a threat to any one but their own people. As it turns out, there was no evidence because there was no threat from Iraq to America, thus breaching the charter.

Yes, as does NATO. However the Americans failed to provide evidence that Iraq was a threat to any one but their own people. As it turns out, there was no evidence because there was no threat from Iraq to America, thus breaching the charter.

However, we had NATO support for this operation! Before you say anything Stephistan, we DID get their approval and I am not Talking Article V of the NATO Charter.

The US went to the little used Defense Council to by pass France and it was approved unanamously. With this vote, NATO DID APPROVE of the Iraq war. If NATO thought it was "illegal" they would not have approved it. Obviously they thought it worthwhile to go in there and remove Saddam.

And if you want to go into breach of charter, France is in violation of the Charter. Russia was in violation of the charter. Germany was in violation of the charter. You, however stephistan, have yet to declare these nations in violation of the UN Charter but only blame the US! Care to explain why?

However, we had NATO support for this operation! Before you say anything Stephistan, we DID get their approval and I am not Talking Article V of the NATO Charter.
The US went to the little used Defense Council to by pass France and it was approved unanamously. With this vote, NATO DID APPROVE of the Iraq war. If NATO thought it was "illegal" they would not have approved it. Obviously they thought it worthwhile to go in there and remove Saddam.
And if you want to go into breach of charter, France is in violation of the Charter. Russia was in violation of the charter. Germany was in violation of the charter. You, however stephistan, have yet to declare these nations in violation of the UN Charter but only blame the US! Care to explain why?
I think you are referring to the defense measures for Turkey. That was however not an approval for the war against Iraq. Otherwise governments like the one of Canada or Germany wouldn´t have approved of it. You shouldn´t mix that up.
And NATO has also approved - with the vote of France - to train the new Iraqi police and military. Though those decisions are the result of the situation as it develops. There was no decision by Nato to attack Iraq or an approval by Nato for it.
And I would like to know in what respect the Federal Republic of Germany is in violation of the UN charta?

Maybe he did say it then, I do not know. Does the UN charter not also say that countries also have the right to defend themselves if attacked or threatened?
Do you really believe the Bush propoganda? The war in Iraq was not a defensive war. Afghanistan was, and that was approved by the UN.

Everyone knows that Iraq was no threat to America and had never attacked the US.

Are you saying the above because you actually believe it or are you just afraid to make any criticism of George Bush that might make him look bad? You never know, something you say here might affect the outcome of the election! :rolleyes:

However, we had NATO support for this operation! Before you say anything Stephistan, we DID get their approval and I am not Talking Article V of the NATO Charter.

The US went to the little used Defense Council to by pass France and it was approved unanamously. With this vote, NATO DID APPROVE of the Iraq war. If NATO thought it was "illegal" they would not have approved it. Obviously they thought it worthwhile to go in there and remove Saddam.

And if you want to go into breach of charter, France is in violation of the Charter. Russia was in violation of the charter. Germany was in violation of the charter. You, however stephistan, have yet to declare these nations in violation of the UN Charter but only blame the US! Care to explain why?

The official NATO word on Iraq (http://www.nato.int/issues/iraq/index.html):

NATO as an organisation had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign nor in its conduct.


Not exactly a ringing endorsement Corneliu....

Do you really believe the Bush propoganda? The war in Iraq was not a defensive war. Afghanistan was, and that was approved by the UN.

Everyone knows that Iraq was no threat to America and had never attacked the US.

Are you saying the above because you actually believe it or are you just afraid to make any criticism of George Bush that might make him look bad? You never know, something you say here might affect the outcome of the election! :rolleyes:

Well, Saddam was giving support to Hamas, and Hamas has stated that the US is now a target for their actions. Therefore it could be argued that to prevent the support for Hamas becoming an attack against the US, the methos of that support (Saddam) had to be removed. Yes, it is thin, but it also happens to be true. Saddam had threatened the US many times before and by using other groups that we KNOW he had contact with he could have carried out those threats. Then again, the point is really moot since Saddam and his financial support of Hamas is now gone.

Iraq continued to violate the terms of the agreement they signed at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Does anyone recall the expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors?

How about the nearly daily attacks on US fighters enforcing the no-fly zone?

While I do recognize the opinion that the war in Iraq was mostly a pre-emptive one, this is the post-9/11 world, and that is the philosophy of the Bush Doctrine: Anti-Terrorism (pre-emptive strikes) rather than Counter-Terrorism (response to terrorist attacks). Get over it. It's the 21st Century.

For Kofi Annan to call this war "illegal" means that he doesn't understand any of the UN resolutions that were passed. Is there any mechanism for impeachment in the UN?

War cannot be illegal. In a Darwinian universe, if you can do it, it's okay.

Well, Saddam was giving support to Hamas, and Hamas has stated that the US is now a target for their actions. Therefore it could be argued that to prevent the support for Hamas becoming an attack against the US, the methos of that support (Saddam) had to be removed. Yes, it is thin, but it also happens to be true. Saddam had threatened the US many times before and by using other groups that we KNOW he had contact with he could have carried out those threats. Then again, the point is really moot since Saddam and his financial support of Hamas is now gone.

Excellent point. I think those who keep harping that there was no connection between Saddam and terrorists are sorely lacking in understanding about how terrorists operate. Their networks are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED so that "clear-cut" connections, demanded by people like Steph, either don't exist or are extremely well-concealed. But that doesn't change the fact that all these groups cooperate, and share knowledge and resources toward a common goal of attacking Western civilization. These people are basically demanding "proof" which they know doesn't exist. That makes it easier for them to bash America for defending herself.

However, we had NATO support for this operation! Before you say anything Stephistan, we DID get their approval and I am not Talking Article V of the NATO Charter.

No, wrong, you had NATO support for Afghanistan, not Iraq, better check again.

Hamas is in a regional conflict with Israel, not world wide terrorism. If you want to take out Hamas, I suggest you also take out the Mossad, they basically equal the same thing. Hamas has no ties to international terrorism and more over Saddam never gave money to them, he gave money for healthcare and education for the children of these people AFTER the fact.
Which he couldnt be bothered to do for his own people.

Well, Saddam was giving support to Hamas, and Hamas has stated that the US is now a target for their actions. Therefore it could be argued that to prevent the support for Hamas becoming an attack against the US, the methos of that support (Saddam) had to be removed. Yes, it is thin, but it also happens to be true. Saddam had threatened the US many times before and by using other groups that we KNOW he had contact with he could have carried out those threats. Then again, the point is really moot since Saddam and his financial support of Hamas is now gone.

Hamas is in a regional conflict with Israel, not world wide terrorism. If you want to take out Hamas, I suggest you also take out the Mossad, they basically equal the same thing. Hamas has no ties to international terrorism and more over Saddam never gave money to them, he gave money for healthcare and education for the children of these people AFTER the fact.

Have they ever prevented a genocide? Have they ever done anything important?

If you are talking about Rawanda, you have to blame the security council.

Our rep was told to never use the G word else it might force action.

So the US has blame in that incident.

Which he couldnt be bothered to do for his own people.

None the less, while I won't argue that point as it's not relevant to this discussion. The war was/is illegal under international law. This isn't news.

"Iraq continued to violate the terms of the agreement they signed at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Does anyone recall the expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors?

How about the nearly daily attacks on US fighters enforcing the no-fly zone?"

Actually, UN Weapons Inspectors were pulled out of Iraq in December 98 by Bill Clinton, just prior to his bombing of Iraq. They were again pulled out by Bush and the UN just prior to Bush's beginning of major conflict (he had continued the less intense bombing that Clinton started from the beginning of his term). As for the No-Fly Zones, those were not legal, they were not endorsed by the UN (which the US is a member of, and according to the US Constitution, treaties [of which US membership is] are the supreme law of the land), only by the US. So technically, not only were the bombings surrounding the No-Fly Zones against international law, they were against US law. If some country was enforcing no-fly zones on the US, how would you react?

Though Kofi Annan has a point, the United States of America does not need to ask for the permission of the United Nations to do something. When did the U.N. become the arbiter of just wars?

None the less, while I won't argue that point as it's not relevant to this discussion. The war was/is illegal under international law. This isn't news.


Hey Steph! How are you?

Does your mom know the address for Gen. Dallaire?

I read an interview where he is still having problems over that event.

Thought I would write him a letter.

Might do some good to hear from a perfect stranger......

So when they wanted to stop the Rwandan genocide and America blocked it, it was still the UN's fault?

The UN helped cause the genocide. Had they not previously disarmed the group of people the genocide was committed against, it may never have happened in the first place.

NATO is the US's biatch.

Hamas is in a regional conflict with Israel, not world wide terrorism. If you want to take out Hamas, I suggest you also take out the Mossad, they basically equal the same thing. Hamas has no ties to international terrorism and more over Saddam never gave money to them, he gave money for healthcare and education for the children of these people AFTER the fact.

Hamas HAS vowed to attack the US. Saddam was supporting them financially. Now that support is gone. "Regional" terrorists can suddenly become worldwide very quickly because they help each other out. Remember the guy from the "Japanese Red Army Faction" that was caught in New Jersey with the explosives in his trunk about 10 years ago? He was working under contract for another group. So why can't Hamas?

Hamas is in a regional conflict with Israel, not world wide terrorism. If you want to take out Hamas, I suggest you also take out the Mossad, they basically equal the same thing. Hamas has no ties to international terrorism and more over Saddam never gave money to them, he gave money for healthcare and education for the children of these people AFTER the fact.

If Hamas has vowed to include America as its enemy, then it becomes international terrorism by definition. Maybe they won't leave Israel to attack the US, but if they're targeting American citizens in Jerusalem, then they make themselves an enemy of the United States.

Hamas HAS vowed to attack the US. Saddam was supporting them financially. Now that support is gone. "Regional" terrorists can suddenly become worldwide very quickly because they help each other out. Remember the guy from the "Japanese Red Army Faction" that was caught in New Jersey with the explosives in his trunk about 10 years ago? He was working under contract for another group. So why can't Hamas?
This goes right to the point I made above. But people like Steph are either truly ignorant about how terrorists operate, or they are so blinded by their hatred of the U.S. that they refuse to see it.

The UN helped cause the genocide. Had they not previously disarmed the group of people the genocide was committed against, it may never have happened in the first place.

Problem: The security council would be the ones to disarm the people. The US would have vetoed any any action.

This goes right to the point I made above. But people like Steph are either truly ignorant about how terrorists operate, or they are so blinded by their hatred of the U.S. that they refuse to see it.

Let's see. Stephs mom is involved in world events.

Steph is working on a PhD in Poly Sci.

And your worldly knowledge comes from where?

Hamas HAS vowed to attack the US. Saddam was supporting them financially. Now that support is gone. "Regional" terrorists can suddenly become worldwide very quickly because they help each other out. Remember the guy from the "Japanese Red Army Faction" that was caught in New Jersey with the explosives in his trunk about 10 years ago? He was working under contract for another group. So why can't Hamas?

The goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. They are rather busy with them at the moment.

Now could Hamas send some people? Sure but what would that gain especially with The Shrub?

Sorry but Hamas is probably doing nothing more then saber rattling.....

Let's see. Stephs mom is involved in world events.

Steph is working on a PhD in Poly Sci.

And your worldly knowledge comes from where?

Well, seeing as Steph and her mom haven't solved the problem of terrorism yet, maybe they should step back and let someone else take a crack at it.

This goes right to the point I made above. But people like Steph are either truly ignorant about how terrorists operate, or they are so blinded by their hatred of the U.S. that they refuse to see it.

I think it might be a little of both, but the hatred of the US is a given. Afterall, everyone hates the US, especially our extremely liberal Canadian friends.

Let's see. Stephs mom is involved in world events.

Steph is working on a PhD in Poly Sci.

And your worldly knowledge comes from where?
Galtania's statement might have been a bit shortsighted, but he (she's, not sure which sorry :( ) is simply stating that if anyone believes that a terrorist group does not have the capability to go "international" in a moments notice is being naive.
And personaly I believe that if funding comes in from international sources, then it's an international terrorist organization.

The goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. They are rather busy with them at the moment.

Now could Hamas send some people? Sure but what would that gain especially with The Shrub?

Sorry but Hamas is probably doing nothing more then saber rattling.....

Terrorists are very patient. Hamas has vowed to attack the US and Americans any and everywhere. Just because they have not done so yet is not an indication that it won't happen.

Well, seeing as Steph and her mom haven't solved the problem of terrorism yet, maybe they should step back and let someone else take a crack at it.

As the Shrub? Well the terror "experts" suggest that the terrorism lists are growing with recruits so his approach is not working.

The Taliban is on the rise.

The amount of attacks in Iraq is on the rise. Somebody told me it was about 40 or so a day(all over the country and various methods from rock throwing to road side bombs) awhile back and now it's up to 85.

Iranian hardliners were on their way out but now people are moving back to their camp.

Terrorists are very patient. Hamas has vowed to attack the US and Americans any and everywhere. Just because they have not done so yet is not an indication that it won't happen.

No doubt. But the same argument can be said that just because they said they would doesn't mean they will.

Hamas is not dumb. The US is still usefull. Well not now but they know goverments can change.

Let's see. Stephs mom is involved in world events.

Hitler's father was involved in world affairs too. He was a customs agent. :rolleyes:

Hitler's father was involved in world affairs too. He was a customs agent. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
A custom's agent only works for his country.

Steph's mom works at the UN(Correct me if I am wrong steph).

Nice try.....

Let's see. Stephs mom is involved in world events.

Steph is working on a PhD in Poly Sci.

And your worldly knowledge comes from where?

Irrelevant. Logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority).

Even if that made Steph an expert in terrorism (which it doesn't, her opinion is no more authoritative than mine), that would still leave the "blinded by hatred" part; wouldn't it?

As the Shrub? Well the terror "experts" suggest that the terrorism lists are growing with recruits so his approach is not working.

The Taliban is on the rise.

The amount of attacks in Iraq is on the rise. Somebody told me it was about 40 or so a day(all over the country and various methods from rock throwing to road side bombs) awhile back and now it's up to 85.

Iranian hardliners were on their way out but now people are moving back to their camp.

I think it is working. The "terrorists" are flocking to Iraq and Afganistan to fight us. It is better to have them die there than here.

:rolleyes:
A custom's agent only works for his country.

Steph's mom works at the UN(Correct me if I am wrong steph).

Nice try.....

Does anyone actually "work" at the UN? That has GOT to be the most corrupt and useless organization ever created. The mafia is so jealous of them.

Irrelevant. Logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority).

Even if that made Steph an expert in terrorism (which it doesn't, her opinion is no more authoritative than mine), that would still leave the "blinded by hatred" part; wouldn't it?

You didn't answer the question. Where does your worldly knowledge come from?

Does anyone actually "work" at the UN? That has GOT to be the most corrupt and useless organization ever created. The mafia is so jealous of them.

-sighs-

All right. The fact is they have access to and work on problems vs the armchair diplomats and world leaders that frequent these boards.

Myself included. ;)

Does anyone actually "work" at the UN? That has GOT to be the most corrupt and useless organization ever created. The mafia is so jealous of them.
A very good friend of mine works in the Protocol Office in the New York UN building. Most of his duties seem to involve drinking wine with diplomats and dignitaries.


Edit: It's really neat to be able to call the UN for answers on most anything.

-sighs-

All right. The fact is they have access to and work on problems vs the armchair diplomats and world leaders that frequent these boards.

Myself included. ;)

They actually work on problems? Really? Can you show me ONE problem that the UN has actually fixed and or solved? I am serious....no joke at all.

I think it is working. The "terrorists" are flocking to Iraq and Afganistan to fight us. It is better to have them die there than here.

Oh come on now.

That didn't stop the Bali bombing. That didn't stop the Spain bombing.

You know full well they are not going to drop all plans and flock to those countries.

Why do we have a terror alert system.

A very good friend of mine works in the Protocol Office in the New York UN building. Most of his duties seem to involve drinking wine with diplomats and dignitaries.

Thats what I thought....they don't "do" anything. They are an extremely expensive social club that should take it's parties elsewhere.

Oh come on now.

That didn't stop the Bali bombing. That didn't stop the Spain bombing.

You know full well they are not going to drop all plans and flock to those countries.

Why do we have a terror alert system.

They were not attacking Americans in Bali or Spain were they? Now you want the US to stop ALL terrorism? Indonesia denied for YEARS that they even had terrorists in their country. Afterall, they are Muslim. :rolleyes:

All this UN talk is worthless. The bottom line is that the UN is just a global PR body, like a high school clique, so that we know who is in fashion and who is out. Because 5 permanent members of the UN are diametrically opposed, like points on a star, nothing ever gets done. The UN has no pull in Israel because of the US. No pull in Korea (or almost anywhere else) because of Russia and China. Most military options are usually killed off by France, which while I admire and respect their leadership in attempts to avoid the Iraq war, I can't EVER remember opting for war in the last 200 years (including WWII)

Einstein said it best: for a global body to work, we ALL (including US, Russia, China) will have to give up some of our sovereignty for the global good, and America is hardly prepared to do that, and won't be in my lifetime. I am a high school teacher, and listening to many of my students, they can't see that us invading a sovereign country is wrong, and many have suggested (in the interest of expediency) simply nuking all of Iraq.

The UN will continue to be a $500 million waste for a while...

Oh come on now.

That didn't stop the Bali bombing. That didn't stop the Spain bombing.

You know full well they are not going to drop all plans and flock to those countries.

Why do we have a terror alert system.

It didn't stop the Spain bombing because the terrorists (rightly) judged that Spain was teetering on the brink of withdrawal, and gave them a nudge in that direction. There's really no way to get rid of all the terrorists unless the world converts entirely to Islam, and that's just not going to happen.

Einstein said it best: for a global body to work, we ALL (including US, Russia, China) will have to give up some of our sovereignty for the global good, and America is hardly prepared to do that, and won't be in my lifetime. I am a high school teacher, and listening to many of my students, they can't see that us invading a sovereign country is wrong, and many have suggested (in the interest of expediency) simply nuking all of Iraq.

The UN will continue to be a $500 million waste for a while...

Yeah, I can see China giving up some of it's sovereignty too. it is always easier to start with the democracies, they won't shoot you for protesting. :rolleyes:

The UN will NEVER be anything but the joke that it is. No wonder no nation on earth listens to or follows the UN resolutions?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
Video http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40076000/rm/_40076368_annan07_fullinterview16_vi.ram

They were not attacking Americans in Bali or Spain were they? Now you want the US to stop ALL terrorism? Indonesia denied for YEARS that they even had terrorists in their country. Afterall, they are Muslim. :rolleyes:

Whatever dude.

Change the facts however you want.

The aussies and spain are allies and that is why they attacked.

Malaysia is not all muslim. Christians and Muslims have been fighting each other for years.

Thats what I thought....they don't "do" anything. They are an extremely expensive social club that should take it's parties elsewhere.
:rolleyes:

The aussies and spain are allies and that is why they attacked.
Yes, they were involved in the conflict as allies of the US. They were targeted to attempt to scare them out of the area. Spain tucked tail and ran, but Australia is made of sterner stuff.

America probably wasn't targeted because the last time were were terrorized, we invaded two countries.

:rolleyes:

Well, can you name ONE thing that the UN has actually done? Or ONE world problem they have actually solved?

Whatever dude.

Change the facts however you want.

The aussies and spain are allies and that is why they attacked.

Malaysia is not all muslim. Christians and Muslims have been fighting each other for years.

So you expect the US to stop ALL terrorism? Spain and Indonesia are responsible for their own security. Blaming the US for the fact that the terrorists are now attacking others is wrong as well.

Well, can you name ONE thing that the UN has actually done? Or ONE world problem they have actually solved?

Ahh Biff if only the world was simply black and white. You are conservative so I understand your thinking.

The UN does many things. Relief work and land mine clearing.

But I won't bother since you obviously hate the UN to no end and nothing will convince you otherwise.

So you win. Feel better.

So you expect the US to stop ALL terrorism? Spain and Indonesia are responsible for their own security. Blaming the US for the fact that the terrorists are now attacking others is wrong as well.

Ok. If you are going to keep changing the argument by adding nouances to the points being made. You win.

Enjoy the thread.

I am done.

Ahh Biff if only the world was simply black and white. You are conservative so I understand your thinking.

The UN does many things. Relief work and land mine clearing.

But I won't bother since you obviously hate the UN to no end and nothing will convince you otherwise.

So you win. Feel better.

Actually I am a Libertarian...but my eyes are wide open when it comes to the UN.

Ok. If you are going to keep changing the argument by adding nouances to the points being made. You win.

Enjoy the thread.

I am done.

Thats too bad. Since you don't seem to understand the workings of international terrorism, you don't understand my points.

Thats too bad. Since you don't seem to understand the workings of international terrorism, you don't understand my points.
I tried to warn you of that, Biff. ;)
It's funny that he gives up in a huff over your supposed hatred for the UN, but won't admit that he and others like him are, in the EXACT same way, against the U.S.

I tried to warn you of that, Biff. ;)
It's funny that he gives up in a huff over your supposed hatred for the UN, but won't admit that he and others like him are, in the EXACT same way, against the U.S.

Well....anti-US sentiment is something I have dealt with for many years. Those who complain the most usually know the least about what they are talking about. I hardly know everything, but one thing I do know is that the US is a far better country to live in than ANY of the 31 other countries I have either lived in or visited.

As for the UN, I would like to see that building blown up and a childrens park be placed there instead. THEN that space will get some good use for a change. Then all those foreign "diplomats" can go home where they belong.

Well....anti-US sentiment is something I have dealt with for many years. Those who complain the most usually know the least about what they are talking about. I hardly know everything, but one thing I do know is that the US is a far better country to live in than ANY of the 31 other countries I have either lived in or visited.

As for the UN, I would like to see that building blown up and a childrens park be placed there instead. THEN that space will get some good use for a change. Then all those foreign "diplomats" can go home where they belong.
Perhaps you should use the term "demolished" instead of "blown up" as some people might use that as "proof" that you support terrorist activities.

Perhaps you should use the term "demolished" instead of "blown up" as some people might use that as "proof" that you support terrorist activities.

Well, they blow buildings up when they "demolish" them. Either way, I would love to see that building come down. Empty of course....

I hate Kofi Annan he is a moron. I mean god I could do better than he could all he does is say America is bad and its war is illegal, that why I want a full withdraw from the UN so I can watch it fall into chaos.

:rolleyes:
A custom's agent only works for his country.

Steph's mom works at the UN(Correct me if I am wrong steph).

Nice try.....

Actually it's my mother-in-law.. it's Zeppistan's mother. Same difference :)

I hate Kofi Annan he is a moron. I mean god I could do better than he could all he does is say America is bad and its war is illegal, that why I want a full withdraw from the UN so I can watch it fall into chaos.

He is just another guy in a worthless position with no power. The UN is finished as a world body and it only has itself to blame. In it's entire history it has accomplished nothing. Wasted BILLIONS of dollars and cost MILLIONS of lives by doing nothing. The US is the force behind the UN and now it will be much harder for the UN to get the US to do anything, so thats it, unless Angola wants to step up and take over. ;)

[QUOTE=Joey P]Fuck the U.N. All they're good for is putting Israel down. QUOTE] :sniper:
Yeah, those 95 resolutions they've declared against Israel between 1955 and 1992 alone (http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm) are just because they're jealous or something; they don't have any REAL meaning. The way they single them out, if one didn't know any better, you'd think that Israel was rogue and evil or something!

Dr. Nothing

Hey Steph! How are you?

Does your mom know the address for Gen. Dallaire?

I read an interview where he is still having problems over that event.

Thought I would write him a letter.

Might do some good to hear from a perfect stranger......

From what I understand he is still having a difficult time. I'm more then sure my mother-in-law probably has an email or some thing to that effect where you could contact him with your thoughts. I will discuss it with Zeppistan, however, given your intentions are of a compassionate nature, I don't see it being a problem. I will ask. :)

From what I understand he is still having a difficult time. I'm more then sure my mother-in-law probably has an email or some thing to that effect where you could contact him with your thoughts. I will discuss it with Zeppistan, however, given your intentions are of a compassionate nature, I don't see it being a problem. I will ask. :)

Probably a postal address would be better. Email could make me sound like a stalker. ;)

Thanks!

Uhh, wasn't the unlawfulness of the Iraq invasion established the day it was invaded? :confused:

Sorry no news here.

Uhh, wasn't the unlawfulness of the Iraq invasion established the day it was invaded? :confused:

Sorry no news here.

Yeah, I guess the UN should maybe arrest someone or something huh? Wait....who are they going to call to do the arresting? Oh thats right....they have no power to do anything but squawk like a chicken about it. :rolleyes:

Well, can you name ONE thing that the UN has actually done? Or ONE world problem they have actually solved?
Can you name ONE world problem your beloved US solved? Seeing as they helped create lot's of them.

Can you name ONE world problem your beloved US solved? Seeing as they helped create lot's of them.

Nope, it is not our job to solve the worlds problems. How many of the worlds problems has your fatherland caused?

Uh, this belongs here as well. I posted to two thread where this was relevant to both.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7041234&postcount=27

I really don't want to get into this debate. mostly because it's an issue that most do not understand. International terrorism is quite different then per se "Hamas" who is as stated in a regional conflict with Israel. Now, while I certainly don't personally approve of their tactics, we must realize that in any conflict innocents die. While I mean no disrespect, Israel is considered an American ally, thus the innocents they kill while not with bombs attached to their body, they instead use precision missiles that kill just as many innocents. The Palestinian don't have the benefit of American aid and support. Israel does. Israel also has one of the largest lobbies in the United States, perhaps only second to the NRA. Killing innocents is killing innocents, whether you do it with a missile or you do it with a bomb attached to your body. Their acts to us are acts of terrorism. Our acts to us and Israel is what is know as "Collateral damage" There is a risk assessment that is done before these "missiles" are sent into places like the Gaza Strip.. they know they will kill xyz amount of innocent civilians and accept that as collateral damage.

In WWII, the Nazi's after the war were tried for their war crimes, in my opinion rightfully so. However the allies committed war crimes as well, the ones of us who did were not tried but yet seen as hero's. This is not uncommon for the victor to do.

If you think I don't understand.. that is your right and your opinion , to which you're entitled. Just don't be so sure.

As to the UN, if I've said it once I've said it 1000 times, the UN is only as effective as the sum of it's parts. The "UN" is only a name, it is up to member states to act, not the UN as it's not an entity onto it's self. Lets not forget, if we remove ourselves from the SC, we could learn that the UN has been quite successful in other endeavors that have most certainly benefited the world. Such as disaster relief funds and peacekeeping missions. The UN is not an army or force, the UN is and has always been simple a venue for diplomacy. Their mandate is not to help nations go to war, in fact it is to try and stop them.

Uh, this belongs here as well. I posted to two thread where this was relevant to both.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7041234&postcount=27

Disaster relief? Yeah, thats a great thing to do. :rolleyes: The UN is just a meeting place for diplomats. The member states really do nothing. I think you will find that the US will be less likely to turn to the UN in the future. The majority of Americans have a very low opinion of the UN and will look down on any politician that turns to the UN for anything relating to the US. Kerry is going to lose a lot of points on that score....

Disaster relief? Yeah, thats a great thing to do. :rolleyes: The UN is just a meeting place for diplomats. The member states really do nothing. I think you will find that the US will be less likely to turn to the UN in the future. The majority of Americans have a very low opinion of the UN and will look down on any politician that turns to the UN for anything relating to the US. Kerry is going to lose a lot of points on that score....

I don't disagree that the world is changing.. and it's changing at the whim of the United States for better or worse, history has yet to decide that. I will not attempt to try and convince you or change your mind, as I believe it's pointless and probably unlikely. However if you want my opinion in a nutshell, this is quite the slippery slope the United States will encompass if they abandon at least the very principles of the Charter. In doing such, there will leave little doubt that all bets are off and the United States will no longer hold the high ground it once enjoyed.

I don't disagree that the world is changing.. and it's changing at the whim of the United States for better or worse, history has yet to decide that. I will not attempt to try and convince you or change your mind, as I believe it's pointless and probably unlikely. However if you want my opinion in a nutshell, this is quite the slippery slope the United States will encompass if they abandon at least the very principles of the Charter. In doing such, there will leave little doubt that all bets are off and the United States will no longer hold the high ground it once enjoyed.

Well, by being on the high ground you open yourself up as an easy target. There is not ONE country on this planet that will jump to help out like the US has. The problem is that we Americans are getting tired of doing so. It gets old being asked to ante up once again and then be ridiculed for it.

Somalia? A UN request....ended badly. US ridiculed...

Bosnia? the US had to drag the UN AND Europe in there to stop the killing. Seen as imperialistic.

Kosovo.... Ditto. Then the "world body" puts Milosivic on trial....when is THAT going to end anyway?

Americans are tired of being asked to foot the majority of the financial bill and then be asked to do the grunt work too.

Why does the UN refuse to allow an audit of the funds as the US asks anyway? Because the whole organization is a sham full of thieves.

Well, by being on the high ground you open yourself up as an easy target. There is not ONE country on this planet that will jump to help out like the US has

I believe "has" being the key word. I doubt we will as you stated see much of it in the future and I think more then any thing the world will see it as a rejection of the ICC. This will set the sun on the United States as far a respect goes, I believe in many ways it already has. To me the highest honour of democracy is power with accountability. This current administration doesn't know the meaning of the world.

Everyone does not hate America.Its called pity.

Everyone does not hate America.Its called pity.
Everyone pities America?

I believe "has" being the key word. I doubt we will as you stated see much of it in the future and I think more then any thing the world will see it as a rejection of the ICC. This will set the sun on the United States as far a respect goes, I believe in many ways it already has. To me the highest honour of democracy is power with accountability. This current administration doesn't know the meaning of the world.

Ok, then I have to ask. Why SHOULD the US help the rest of the world? Does any other country do so? Does France who wants to be the leader in Europe help anyone? Does any other "democracy" help out? No, they don't. Oh, and the US is NOT a democracy, we are a Republic.

So the rest of the world can have less respect for the US. Respect does nothing anyway. The rest of the world will still trade with us because they have to. The rest of the world can take care of it's own problems, but we both know they won't don't we?

Everyone pities America?
Lets say, its a combination of both. I hate those that have the power to do better and decide to mess things up deliberately and I pity those who are too blind to see it or those who suffer under the rule of the hated.

Ok, then I have to ask. Why SHOULD the US help the rest of the world? Does any other country do so? Does France who wants to be the leader in Europe help anyone? Does any other "democracy" help out? No, they don't. Oh, and the US is NOT a democracy, we are a Republic.

So the rest of the world can have less respect for the US. Respect does nothing anyway. The rest of the world will still trade with us because they have to. The rest of the world can take care of it's own problems, but we both know they won't don't we?

So if a country get's word that a group has a dirty bomb or two and plans to sneak them in through Canada, why should they bother telling us?

After all we are supposed to take care of our own security problems right?

We don't need the help of other nations right?

So if a country get's word that a group has a dirty bomb or two and plans to sneak them in through Canada, why should they bother telling us?

After all we are supposed to take care of our own security problems right?

We don't need the help of other nations right?

Would they tell us? How many terrorists have already come in through Canada? Who knows? They allow any and everybody into their country. Do they tell us when they admit a known terrorist? Thats why we need to step up our borders and double or triple the border patrol.

Disaster relief? Yeah, thats a great thing to do. :rolleyes: The UN is just a meeting place for diplomats. The member states really do nothing. I think you will find that the US will be less likely to turn to the UN in the future. The majority of Americans have a very low opinion of the UN and will look down on any politician that turns to the UN for anything relating to the US. Kerry is going to lose a lot of points on that score....

If the UN does disaster Relief, where is the disaster relief for Hurricanes Ivan, Frances and Charley as well as for Tropical Storm Bonnie? Also Tropical Storm Jeanne has made landfall on Puerto Rico. Where is the disaster relief for that?

Would they tell us? How many terrorists have already come in through Canada? Who knows? They allow any and everybody into their country. Do they tell us when they admit a known terrorist? Thats why we need to step up our borders and double or triple the border patrol.

Yes they do. A couple of the groups we busted came from tips from abroad.

They share intel and we share intel.

If the UN does disaster Relief, where is the disaster relief for Hurricanes Ivan, Frances and Charley as well as for Tropical Storm Bonnie? Also Tropical Storm Jeanne has made landfall on Puerto Rico. Where is the disaster relief for that?

You have to ask for it.

If the UN does disaster Relief, where is the disaster relief for Hurricanes Ivan, Frances and Charley as well as for Tropical Storm Bonnie? Also Tropical Storm Jeanne has made landfall on Puerto Rico. Where is the disaster relief for that?
Disaster relief tends to go to nations who need it, as opposed to those who can more than afford it themselves.

Fuck the UN. They never come through when it counts. All they're good for is putting Israel down. Have they ever prevented a genocide? Have they ever done anything important?
While we're cursing international organizations, fuck NATO. I still think they were hypocrites in Kosovo. :upyours: ---> NATO.

Oh, and the US is NOT a democracy, we are a Republic.For the gallery: What is the difference between "democracy" and "republic" ?

For the gallery: What is the difference between "democracy" and "republic" ?
democracy= direct vote, everyone has a say.
republic=indirect vote, not everyone can vote.

There's more to it than that, but that is the skinny.

For the gallery: What is the difference between "democracy" and "republic" ?

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

Hoped that Help :)

My thought on this:
Welcome to last year Kofi! Enjoy your stay in the bowels of time and space.

democracy= direct vote, everyone has a say.
republic=indirect vote, not everyone can vote.
There's more to it than that, but that is the skinny.Thank you. That's what I expected. Nonsense. :rolleyes:

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

Hoped that Help :) :rolleyes: worse. Is the UK a democracy?

Thank you. That's what I expected. Nonsense. :rolleyes:
Nonsense in that it is fairly accurate?

:rolleyes: worse. Is the UK a democracy?

They have a Parlamentary Democracy where the House of Commons is elected and the House of Lords are well...I'm sure you can guess that.

Nonsense in that it is fairly accurate?One is a form of governing while the other is a form of state. Now go figure which is which.

They have a Parlamentary Democracy where the House of Commons is elected and the House of Lords are well...I'm sure you can guess that.How so if a democracy is allegedly something distinguished from a monarchy?

One is a form of governing while the other is a form of state. Now go figure which is which.
democracy, form of governing.
republic, form of state.

there there.

How so if a democracy is allegedly something distinguished from a monarchy?

You have a limited Democracy in Britain. The Queen, as of right now, is a figurative head only though with a wave of her hand, she can end the Parliment and declare herself an absolute monarch.

In Britain, the only power the people have is those granted by her majesty and Parliment. You only get to vote on who goes into parliment whereas here in the US we vote on Senate, House, and electors for the Presidency.

democracy, form of governing.
republic, form of state.
there there.Now that you have figured that one out, you will recognize that the two do neither exclude nor require each other. They are just two completely different things.

You have a limited Democracy in Britain. The Queen, as of right now, is a figurative head only though with a wave of her hand, she can end the Parliment and declare herself an absolute monarch.
In Britain, the only power the people have is those granted by her majesty and Parliment. You only get to vote on who goes into parliment whereas here in the US we vote on Senate, House, and electors for the Presidency.You surely live no-where near Britain, a school, or a library, do you?

Does Biff advocate completely sealing ourselves off from the world? Because that was the argument made to stay out of World War 1 and 2.
Hiding in shell of disregard would not solve any of our problems. it would just exacerbate them.

And what do you mean about NATO Meriadoc? I dont know much about the Kosovo conflict so I can not really make an opinion on it now.

Does Biff advocate completely sealing ourselves off from the world? Because that was the argument made to stay out of World War 1 and 2.
Hiding in shell of disregard would not solve any of our problems. it would just exacerbate them.

And what do you mean about NATO Meriadoc? I dont know much about the Kosovo conflict so I can not really make an opinion on it now.
Civil war in the Balkans had been spreading. Kosovo is fighting Serbia for independence. NATO concludes that Kosovo must not gain independence, because that will trigger a domino-effect series of events of fragments of nations fighting for independence in an already shattered Balkans region. From March to June, 1999, in order to quell the Kosovarian rebellion, the U.S. participtates in airstrikes in Kosovo. Bill Clinton acts without UN approval.

My thought on this:
Welcome to last year Kofi! Enjoy your stay in the bowels of time and space.

There were so many responses I could of replied to, however, I chose you because I never respond to you.. :p

Perhaps Kofi will be taken out, but lest we forget he was put in place by the Americans who didn't like the last guy, who's next? Another American choice that they won't like in 5 years?

I'm sure if you had your way there would be no chance of police because all you anarchist and libertarians fail to see the obvious, if there is no government, or no one pays taxes, there goes schools, healthcare, police, military... Yes, I realize it's the choice of the young and incredibly unrealistic.. have fun.. when you grow up and see the world around you, you may change your mind. I didn't mean to be condescending
, although it did come off that way, I'm sorry for that, but it's a fact!

I'm sure if you had your way there would be no chance of police because all you anarchist and libertarians fail to see the obvious, if there is no government, or no one pays taxes, there goes schools, healthcare, police, military... Yes, I realize it's the choice of the young and incredibly unrealistic.. have fun.. when you grow up and see the world around you, you may change your mind. I didn't mean to be condescending, although it did come off that way, I'm sorry for that, but it's a fact!

Wow, you really don't know what the Libertarians are about do you? If our ideas were followed we would have more money for schools and everything else. States would have more rights and the all powerful Federal government would be off our backs and morons like Kerry could NOT tax us OR set up ridiculous social programs like national healthcare that will be a boondoggle in the end.

However, we had NATO support for this operation! Before you say anything Stephistan, we DID get their approval and I am not Talking Article V of the NATO Charter.

The US went to the little used Defense Council to by pass France and it was approved unanamously. With this vote, NATO DID APPROVE of the Iraq war. If NATO thought it was "illegal" they would not have approved it. Obviously they thought it worthwhile to go in there and remove Saddam.

And if you want to go into breach of charter, France is in violation of the Charter. Russia was in violation of the charter. Germany was in violation of the charter. You, however stephistan, have yet to declare these nations in violation of the UN Charter but only blame the US! Care to explain why?
Nato did NOT endorse the war on Iraq. The following CNN news clip is from the day before the US invasion of Iraq:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/03/19/nato.iraq/

GEILKIRCHEN AIR BASE, Germany (CNN) -- NATO Secretary-General George Robertson has ruled out automatic support from the alliance for a U.S. attack on Iraq.

In an interview with CNN, Lord Robertson said NATO member states had agreed only to military action against those linked with the September 11 attacks.

And of course, we all know that Iraq was NOT linked to "the September 11 attacks."

Nato did NOT endorse the war on Iraq. The following CNN news clip is from the day before the US invasion of Iraq:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/03/19/nato.iraq/

GEILKIRCHEN AIR BASE, Germany (CNN) -- NATO Secretary-General George Robertson has ruled out automatic support from the alliance for a U.S. attack on Iraq.

In an interview with CNN, Lord Robertson said NATO member states had agreed only to military action against those linked with the September 11 attacks.

And of course, we all know that Iraq was NOT linked to "the September 11 attacks."

You are correct.

Wow, you really don't know what the Libertarians are about do you? If our ideas were followed we would have more money for schools and everything else. States would have more rights and the all powerful Federal government would be off our backs and morons like Kerry could NOT tax us OR set up ridiculous social programs like national healthcare that will be a boondoggle in the end.

And yet few people are buying the Libertarian message.

Why is that? ;)

Legally, we didn't follow UN law and jumped into a war without there say-so, which is what we signed up for when we joined the organization... so, yeah, he's right.

Does Biff advocate completely sealing ourselves off from the world? Because that was the argument made to stay out of World War 1 and 2.
Hiding in shell of disregard would not solve any of our problems. it would just exacerbate them.

And what do you mean about NATO Meriadoc? I dont know much about the Kosovo conflict so I can not really make an opinion on it now.

No, I am not advocating us sealing ourselves off from the rest of the world at all. I am saying that we should get out of the UN and the UN out of the US and let the rest of the world take care of itself. Let Canada or France go about trying to fix things if they want to. I grew tired of flying around the world putting out fires years ago and it is high time that we quit it.

Bosnia? Thats in Europe right? Why couldn't THEY fix it? They just sat there watching and some Dutch peacekeepers actually helped the Serbs in their executions.

Sudan? Let the African nations fix it. Isn't Sudan on the human rights commission? How is that for irony?

Iraq? We should have let the other Middle Eastern countries fix that as well.

If there is EVER a problem in the US I can GUARANTEE that other countries would not come to our aid unless we could pay them.

And yet few people are buying the Libertarian message.

Why is that? ;)

Why is that? It is because the Republicans and the Democrats have taken control of the system and have set up blocks to keep any other parties from getting so much as a toehold. They control access to everything, including the ballots. Do they have to have petitions signed to get on the ballot? No they don't, but everyone else does.

This goes right to the point I made above. But people like Steph are either truly ignorant about how terrorists operate, or they are so blinded by their hatred of the U.S. that they refuse to see it.

Looks like someone else came to the same conclusion that I did. Following is a quote from another thread. This came during a discussion on WMD double standards. I had pointed out that the US and Canada had been allies with an open border for years. Being a US citizen, I try to defend the country I love from hateful attacks by others.

Canada is not the USA, we're more peaceful, more liberal and far more liked. We are a member of the G8 and NATO. We are no one's push over and we are proud of our country because went invented peace-keeping. We have given to the world in a selfless manner that the US government could never understand. We have done it because we thought it was the right thing to do, not because there was some thing in it for us unlike the US.

You may disagree with me all you wish, that is your right. However this is my opinion and what I believe. You certainly won't change that.

So, no matter what mine or anyone else's argument is, there is no changing her mind on the worthiness of the US. I've also noticed that people with liberal ideas are seldom discouraged from name calling and flaming. I can site several instances when I have been called obscene names with a mod in the room and have reported this happening twice with no response.

My observations. Evidence refuting this is welcome.

Why is that? It is because the Republicans and the Democrats have taken control of the system and have set up blocks to keep any other parties from getting so much as a toehold. They control access to everything, including the ballots. Do they have to have petitions signed to get on the ballot? No they don't, but everyone else does.

Good point. I had never throught of that. Do the reps and dems have anything like a standing endorsement in each state?

So, no matter what mine or anyone else's argument is, there is no changing her mind on the worthiness of the US. I've also noticed that people with liberal ideas are seldom discouraged from name calling and flaming. I can site several instances when I have been called obscene names with a mod in the room and have reported this happening twice with no response.

My observations. Evidence refuting this is welcome.

Well, this is a liberal playground, how could you expect a fair shake, just give as good as you get. I have had posts just disappear. Been called some pretty vile names myself. Mostly by people who cannot vote in our election anyway, which makes it even more funny as I will have the last laugh there.

The funniest thing though..... I was going to vote straight Libertarian until I found this site and started to really look at Kerry. How could I possibly vote for a man that so many foreigners want to see elected? Not only that, upon closer look, he really has nothing that qualifies him to BE president. His stance with the UN will cost him more votes than it gains him. His senate record is pretty much empty. He does not have the support of the military or veterans. He has the die hard Democrats and the "He's not Bush" crowd, but the rest of us see him for what he is.

Good point. I had never throught of that. Do the reps and dems have anything like a standing endorsement in each state?

They make the rules. It is high time to smash their power and get rid of both of them.

So, no matter what mine or anyone else's argument is, there is no changing her mind on the worthiness of the US. I've also noticed that people with liberal ideas are seldom discouraged from name calling and flaming. I can site several instances when I have been called obscene names with a mod in the room and have reported this happening twice with no response.

My observations. Evidence refuting this is welcome.
*Calls Zooke obscene names with a mod in the room*

US government sucks. Canada rocks. The end.

Did you happen to hear the Imus interview with him this morning? I've caught a few clips of it on the news stations this morning, but from what little I've heard, he made it awfully hard for Imus to keep supporting him. After Kerry flip-flopped around like a bass, seems as though that Imus summed it up with not being able to tell anybody what Kerry had just said.

Is that really surprising? I have been unable to find anything definitive that he stands for myself. He NEVER answers a question with a straight answer.

Well, this is a liberal playground, how could you expect a fair shake, just give as good as you get. I have had posts just disappear. Been called some pretty vile names myself. Mostly by people who cannot vote in our election anyway, which makes it even more funny as I will have the last laugh there.

The funniest thing though..... I was going to vote straight Libertarian until I found this site and started to really look at Kerry. How could I possibly vote for a man that so many foreigners want to see elected? Not only that, upon closer look, he really has nothing that qualifies him to BE president. His stance with the UN will cost him more votes than it gains him. His senate record is pretty much empty. He does not have the support of the military or veterans. He has the die hard Democrats and the "He's not Bush" crowd, but the rest of us see him for what he is.

Did you happen to hear the Imus interview with him this morning? I've caught a few clips of it on the news stations this morning, but from what little I've heard, he made it awfully hard for Imus to keep supporting him. After Kerry flip-flopped around like a bass, seems as though that Imus summed it up with not being able to tell anybody what Kerry had just said.

If we do that, though, what parties will emerge and what positions will they be taking? Would they be likely to be more radical than what we have? I keep thinking of Howard Dean and getting nervous.

It would be interesting....we would end up with coalition governments I think. I am not too crazy about that idea, but it would knock these two dinosaurs down a peg.

They make the rules. It is high time to smash their power and get rid of both of them.

If we do that, though, what parties will emerge and what positions will they be taking? Would they be likely to be more radical than what we have? I keep thinking of Howard Dean and getting nervous.

It would be interesting....we would end up with coalition governments I think. I am not too crazy about that idea, but it would knock these two dinosaurs down a peg.

Please explain your idea of coalition governments. And why, lately, has this thing been putting responses to previous posts before the post being replied to?

I don't think that either Afghanistan or Iraq posed a direct threat to the USA. Terrorists groups within those countries maybe, but not the whole countries. If I'm not mistaken US government has stated in one of their reports that they have a dozen white supremacy and other organisations on their own soil which they classed as terrorist (Timothy McVeigh was one of them). So should US bomb itself?
Terrorism is a problem faced by dozens of countries around the World. Attacking sovereign countries does not solve the problem of terrorism, but only increases it. The proof for this is Iraq. Many citizens there wanted Saddam gone and rightly so. But what we have now is a potential for an all out war which is the product (in my humble opinion) of an action that was not properly planned and thought through.
I think that the reasons which were given for the war in Iraq were just a load of bull and as such this action was doomed from the start. :confused:

Please explain your idea of coalition governments. And why, lately, has this thing been putting responses to previous posts before the post being replied to?

Coalition governments.... Voters would vote for parties and not individuals. If 2 parties agree to combine and garner say 40% of the vote and that is a majority, then they share power and their candidates serve the 4 year term. Who become pres and v/p would be the leaders of those parties. Their power would be limited to the defense of the country only with the states having full rights to govern their domains as they see fit.

Would it work? Who knows, but it might be better than the mess we have now.

Coalition governments.... Voters would vote for parties and not individuals. If 2 parties agree to combine and garner say 40% of the vote and that is a majority, then they share power and their candidates serve the 4 year term. Who become pres and v/p would be the leaders of those parties. Their power would be limited to the defense of the country only with the states having full rights to govern their domains as they see fit.

Would it work? Who knows, but it might be better than the mess we have now.

I'll have to think about that before I express an opinion. It's not a concept with which I'm familiar. My first question, though, would be what would determine the leaders of each party or coalition of parties?

No, I am not advocating us sealing ourselves off from the rest of the world at all. I am saying that we should get out of the UN and the UN out of the US and let the rest of the world take care of itself. Let Canada or France go about trying to fix things if they want to. I grew tired of flying around the world putting out fires years ago and it is high time that we quit it.

Bosnia? Thats in Europe right? Why couldn't THEY fix it? They just sat there watching and some Dutch peacekeepers actually helped the Serbs in their executions.

Sudan? Let the African nations fix it. Isn't Sudan on the human rights commission? How is that for irony?

Iraq? We should have let the other Middle Eastern countries fix that as well.

If there is EVER a problem in the US I can GUARANTEE that other countries would not come to our aid unless we could pay them.

But that would be sealing ourselves off. Now while I don't advocate going everywhere and doing everything by ourselves hiding away could be even worse. We would adopt a siege mentality that would ultimately prove fatal. We would give the terrorists the initiative for attacking us. I personally do not like just sitting someplace waiting apprehensively for something to happen.

I don't think that either Afghanistan or Iraq posed a direct threat to the USA. Terrorists groups within those countries maybe, but not the whole countries. If I'm not mistaken US government has stated in one of their reports that they have a dozen white supremacy and other organisations on their own soil which they classed as terrorist (Timothy McVeigh was one of them). So should US bomb itself?
Terrorism is a problem faced by dozens of countries around the World. Attacking sovereign countries does not solve the problem of terrorism, but only increases it. The proof for this is Iraq. Many citizens there wanted Saddam gone and rightly so. But what we have now is a potential for an all out war which is the product (in my humble opinion) of an action that was not properly planned and thought through.
I think that the reasons which were given for the war in Iraq were just a load of bull and as such this action was doomed from the start. :confused:

Saddam was the terrorist. He threatened the US, his neighbors, and a segment of his own population. His butchery was on a par with Hitler. Afghanistan was under the control of the terrorists and the people who supported them. Osama had had free run of that country for years. I think the situation in Iraq can be chalked up to the western mentality not being able to understand the eastern way of thinking, and vice-versa. We and our allies were shocked by the brutallity of the Japanese in WWII. It's radically different cultures and ideals. I'm surprised there are only a dozen acknowledged white supremacy groups. They are known about, however, and watched carefully. The US citizens of today are not blinded by racial prejudices and bigotry as in the past so these groups have a hard time gaining support. Like street gangs, they tend to be of lower intelligence and education and take out their frustrations in hate. When the location of one of their meetings becomes publically know, they tend to have more protesters than rally participants.

I'm sure if you had your way there would be no chance of police because all you anarchist and libertarians fail to see the obvious, if there is no government, or no one pays taxes, there goes schools, healthcare, police, military... Yes, I realize it's the choice of the young and incredibly unrealistic.. have fun.. when you grow up and see the world around you, you may change your mind. I didn't mean to be condescending
, although it did come off that way, I'm sorry for that, but it's a fact!

have you ever even read what anarchists have to say on the subject? your comments seem radically at odds with anarchist theory. libertarians too for that matter. the systems they propose to put in place would be different from those today, but there is no fundamental reason why only the state can provide schools and healthcare and protection. they aren't even the only things that do so now. besides, you may be older than me, but being mainstream doesn't make you 'grown up'. except, perhaps, in some self-serving circular way.

Yeah, but that whole oil for food program that made him rich was ok. :rolleyes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6016893/
Koffi Annan is a flaming idiot, his on precious UN authorized the war, and the U.S. doesn't have to ask for permission for the scandal-ridden U.N. or Europe for permission to defend itself.

You surely live no-where near Britain, a school, or a library, do you?

Was this supposed to be funny because it sure as hell sounded like it was funny!

The House of Lords is the upper house of the British Parliment! They ARE NOT ELECTED! They are the Aristocracy the Lords of Great Britain.

The House of Commons is, to my knowledge, voted into office by the people.

And Yes, The Queen can dissolve Parliment and become an absolute monarchy. It has happened before and it resulted in the Glorious Revolution.

Do you know anything about Britain's History? I know some but apparently you know less than I do!

But that would be sealing ourselves off. Now while I don't advocate going everywhere and doing everything by ourselves hiding away could be even worse. We would adopt a siege mentality that would ultimately prove fatal. We would give the terrorists the initiative for attacking us. I personally do not like just sitting someplace waiting apprehensively for something to happen.

Has ANY other country that does not rush in to help "sealed" itself off from the rest of the world? Has France or Germany? How about Japan? Neither of them rush in to help anyone, yet we do. Why SHOULD we continue to help out anyone? Even God only helps those who help themselves if you ascribe to that.

I am not saying that we should not take the fight to the terrorists at all. We should be even MORE aggressive in that area. I am against having to go into places for the UN and fix the worlds problems. Let the Europeans do that for a change.

Koffi Annan is a flaming idiot, his on precious UN authorized the war, and the U.S. doesn't have to ask for permission for the scandal-ridden U.N. or Europe for permission to defend itself.

No, the US does not need to ask permission from such an impotent organization. Kerry would though.....but it does not look like he is going to get the chance to walk hat in hand to the UN and ask if the US can defend itself. ;)

Christ. The two of you sum up what's so frigging objectionable about the USA. You'll happily withdraw from the global political landscape but will you get your tentacles out of other countries' economic affairs? Will you stop chasing what you perceive to be threats to American security? Will you bollocks. Withdrawing from the UN would give the USA carte blanche to do what the hell they like and not have to account for their actions. That would be a fucking disgrace.

Koffi Annan says Iraq war illegal!!


Boy, didn't he take his time until doing so!

Christ. The two of you sum up what's so frigging objectionable about the USA. You'll happily withdraw from the global political landscape but will you get your tentacles out of other countrys' economic affairs? Will you stop chasing what you perceive to be threats to American security? Will you bollocks. Withdrawing from the UN would give the USA carte blanche to do what the hell they like and not have to account for their actions. That would be a fucking disgrace.

Who does any country have to account to for their actions? Really, I want to know. Does the UN have any power over ANY country? Sudan maybe for the atrocities being committed there? Sudan, who is on the UN human rights commission? Why are other countries calling for the US to go in there and stop the killing? Fuck em....let em kill each other if thats what they want to do. It is none of anyone elses business. Or maybe the UN can send some Dutch peacekeepers in there. They are good at helping bad guys kill people. They did a great job helping the Serbs in Bosnia didn't they?

The reason why Annan is now repeating that the Iraq invasion was not covered by the UN, is pretty simple. Since it becomes more and more apparent that Bush is losing control over the events on the ground and he is now trying to appease those who he so insolently affronted, Annan wants to avoid that the US might come to idea to ask the UN to clean up the mess in Iraq. The US have wanted and started the war, so now they must see to the situation there and expend their tax payers' money.

No, the US does not need to ask permission from such an impotent organization. Kerry would though.....but it does not look like he is going to get the chance to walk hat in hand to the UN and ask if the US can defend itself. ;)

To: Dan Rather and CBS News.

Subject: CYA 15 SEP 2004

On this date, I, Koffi Anan, told the US what I thought all along, and vigerously pointed out to the USA many times, that the war in Iraq is illegal.

Koffi Anan
Corrupt man in charge
Impotent World Body (U.N.)














To: Koffi Anan and the UN

Subject: Hey Assface 17 SEP 2004

Clean up your own backyard, asshole, before you start questioning mine. Butthole.

MunkeBrain
Your Daddy

To: Dan Rather and CBS News.

Subject: CYA 15 SEP 2004

On this date, I, Koffi Anan, told the US what I thought all along, and vigerously pointed out to the USA many times, that the war in Iraq is illegal.

Koffi Anan
Corrupt man in charge
Impotent World Body (U.N.)














To: Koffi Anan and the UN

Subject: Hey Assface 17 SEP 2004

Clean up your own backyard, asshole, before you start questioning mine. Butthole.

MunkeBrain
Your Daddy
OK then. Let the UN pull out everywhere it is working and let the US clean up the mess.

OK then. Let the UN pull out everywhere it is working and let the US clean up the mess.

No, let someone ELSE clean up the mess for a change.

No, let someone ELSE clean up the mess for a change.Since the US is creating the mess it's their job to clean up. And maybe the US should just stop selling weapons to everyone, so the chaos caused by those weapons would not be as bloody as we see it everywhere. Remember who sold weapons to the Taliban in their resistance against the USSR and remember who sold weapons to Hussein in his war against Iran.: the US.

No, let someone ELSE clean up the mess for a change.
The Us has been cleaning up the UN messes for decades now, why should we stop now, Koffi?

Since the US is creating the mess it's their job to clean up. And maybe the US should just stop selling weapons to everyone, so the chaos caused by those weapons would not be as bloody as we see it everywhere. Remember who sold weapons to the Taliban in their resistance against the USSR and remember who sold weapons to Hussein in his war against Iran.: the US.

Wow...so the US created the mess in Somalia? In Sudan? In Bosnia? In kosovo? In Rwanda? We did ALL that? I think you might be a tad bit wrong there....but the world always calls on the US to go in and fix things...then bitches cause they don't like the fix. it is like begging me to paint your car then complaining because you don't like the color. :rolleyes:

For the record...the Taliban did not exist until AFTER the USSR left Afganistan. You might want to do some reading...

Who does any country have to account to for their actions? Really, I want to know. Does the UN have any power over ANY country? Sudan maybe for the atrocities being committed there? Sudan, who is on the UN human rights commission? Why are other countries calling for the US to go in there and stop the killing? Fuck em....let em kill each other if thats what they want to do. It is none of anyone elses business. Or maybe the UN can send some Dutch peacekeepers in there. They are good at helping bad guys kill people. They did a great job helping the Serbs in Bosnia didn't they?
A nation is there to serve its people, not the other way around. Kennedy was wrong. So, why should a nation's actions be accountable? Because they affect people's lives. Why should we take care for those suffering in other nations? I guess it's hard to explain this to someone who doesn't give a fuck. If you see someone getting the shit kicked out of them, do you help? Or do they have to live on the same wretched lump of soil that you do?

Fucking nationalism, it makes me sick.

Wow...so the US created the mess in Somalia? In Sudan? In Bosnia? In kosovo? In Rwanda? We did ALL that? I think you might be a tad bit wrong there....but the world always calls on the US to go in and fix things...then bitches cause they don't like the fix. it is like begging me to paint your car then complaining because you don't like the color. :rolleyes:

For the record...the Taliban did not exist until AFTER the USSR left Afganistan. You might want to do some reading...
Some of your nice fellow US citizens made big money by selling weapons into all of these reagions. You cannot deny that. And when was the US ever called upon to fix anything? And did they ever fix anything? Somalia perhaps?
And for the Taliban, they were in Afghan resistance against the USSR forces, they were not yet ruling the country but they were there.

For the record...the Taliban did not exist until AFTER the USSR left Afganistan. You might want to do some reading...
Who sponsored the mujahadeen? Uh, let me think...

A nation is there to serve its people, not the other way around. Kennedy was wrong. So, why should a nation's actions be accountable? Because they affect people's lives. Why should we take care for those suffering in other nations? I guess it's hard to explain this to someone who doesn't give a fuck. If you see someone getting the shit kicked out of them, do you help? Or do they have to live on the same wretched lump of soil that you do?

Fucking nationalism, it makes me sick.

Still no answer to my question.... Why does the rest of the world EXPECT the US to fix everything? Then when we do, they complain about what we did. So why bother?

Who sponsored the mujahadeen? Uh, let me think...

The Taliban was created out of a few groups within the Mujahadeen as was the Northern Alliance. However, the Taliban was not in existence until AFTER the war was over there.

If we had sold weapons to the Weimar Republic before Hitler took over and then when he did would you say we supplied him? No you would not....nice double standard though.

Some of your nice fellow US citizens made big money by selling weapons into all of these reagions. You cannot deny that. And when was the US ever called upon to fix anything? And did they ever fix anything? Somalia perhaps?
And for the Taliban, they were in Afghan resistance against the USSR forces, they were not yet ruling the country but they were there.

The US government does sell weapons worldwide.....as does every major country. However, we don't when the UN puts sanctions on a country. Unless you have some breaking news you would like to tell us about.

The Taliban was created out of a few groups within the Mujahadeen as was the Northern Alliance. However, the Taliban was not in existence until AFTER the war was over there.

If we had sold weapons to the Weimar Republic before Hitler took over and then when he did would you say we supplied him? No you would not....nice double standard though.

EDIT... I originally wrote:
That's a false analogy.

I'm now thinking:
Actually, I'll retract that comment as I need to refresh my memory on both periods of history. So, for now, touché.

Still no answer to my question.... Why does the rest of the world EXPECT the US to fix everything? Then when we do, they complain about what we did. So why bother?
I'm not commenting on other nations' expectations of what the US should do in this situation. I think the US should be among other nations in working towards a peaceful world and helping those who are suffering. I'm a woolly idealist, what can I say?

EDIT... I originally wrote:
That's a false analogy.

I'm now thinking:
Actually, I'll retract that comment as I need to refresh my memory on both periods of history. So, for now, touché.

Well, the Weimar Republic was not Hitler.....and the Muhajadeen was not the Taliban. So by selling or giving arms to the former that were used by the latter does not mean that you armed the bad guys.

I'm not commenting on other nations' expectations of what the US should do in this situation. I think the US should be among other nations in working towards a peaceful world and helping those who are suffering. I'm a woolly idealist, what can I say?

Yes....but other nations never jump in there like the US does now do they? No, they have to be pushed into doing the right thing. Look at Somalia, who else but the US went in there to help? Noone.