NationStates Jolt Archive

I do not care for that guy at all. His speech, meh ill give it a 4/10 at best. Lets review. He basically stated the US supported Israel, as the agressors, causing the Leabaneese too come under fire. But why did Israel invade? Too destroy the IRANIAN CONTROLLED AND SUPLLIED HEZBOLLAH ORGANIZATIOn who had captured 2 israeli soldiers, overun a border post, and fired rockets at Israeli cities.

As for openeing up the security council, I support the fact that the worlds MAJOR POWERS hold seats. They have the economy, (and corresponding millitary) too enforce revolutions. Lets be straight. Iran, or some african country, would not do **** too enforce a resolution.

Accuses the US and UK of holding the secuirty council in thier grip. BEACUSE THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES AND WILLPOWER TOO ENFORCE THE RESOLUTIONS. Being, namely, having the millitary and intestinal fortitude.

As for Iraq (looks back and fourth for hard core liberals, and anti-bush ppl, who are sure too hijack this thread) He claims that he is saddened, and feels sympathy for the Iraqis sufering. If so, why is he supplying the insurgents, with the tools they utilize for death and destruction. (lets be honest) Why did he denounce the regime of Sadaam hussein, but now, seems too have favored his leadership, opposed too the coaltion invasion.

And theres the Jew- hating. For Israel, he suggested the natives were displaced too make room for foreigners, foreigners who had escaped, or been libertaed from the death camps, or equally/not much better conditions. Why not blame the bristsh, who agreed too this massive immigration?

I dont buy any of this nuclear powers hit. He wants too be a major player. Instead of holding oil hostage (which will/would destroy the iranian economy) He could have a helluva (my redneck moment) lot of sway, with nuclear weapons.

Anyway, what do you think?

I do not care for that guy at all. His speech, meh ill give it a 4/10 at best. Lets review. He basically stated the US supported Israel, as the agressors, causing the Leabaneese too come under fire.
Which is true.


As for openeing up the security council, I support the fact that the worlds MAJOR POWERS hold seats. They have the economy, (and corresponding millitary) too enforce revolutions. Lets be straight. Iran, or some african country, would not do **** too enforce a resolution. No India? No Pakistan, the permanent members system needs to revised and reformed, probably expanded too. They people there now are there because at an arbitrary point in time they had nuclear weapons. Hardly a justifiable way to run world politics years later.


Accuses the US and UK of holding the secuirty council in thier grip.

Relatively true, what with the veto most of the permanent members do.


As for Iraq (looks back and fourth for hard core liberals, and anti-bush ppl, who are sure too hijack this thread) He claims that he is saddened, and feels sympathy for the Iraqis sufering. If so, why is he supplying the insurgents, with the tools they utilize for death and destruction. (lets be honest) Why did he denounce the regime of Sadaam hussein, but now, seems too have favored his leadership, opposed too the coaltion invasion.

I denounced Saddam's regime, and oppose the coalition invasion, that's not contradictory. Little or no proof of backing insurgency, also to prevent USA setting up a puppet state run from Washington.


And theres the Jew- hating. For Israel, he suggested the natives were displaced too make room for foreigners, foreigners who had escaped, or been libertaed from the death camps, or equally/not much better conditions. Why not blame the bristsh, who agreed too this massive immigration?

Where the foreigners had come from makes no odds about it, the holocaust did not give the right to settle where they wanted to. They seem to blame the British and the Americans quite a lot, but since the Jews are the ones who pushed for their agreement and actually emigrated, it's unreasonable to suggest that he should blame America and Britain but not the Jews.


I dont buy any of this nuclear powers hit. He wants too be a major player. Instead of holding oil hostage (which will/would destroy the iranian economy) He could have a helluva (my redneck moment) lot of sway, with nuclear weapons.
As does just about every country that has the potential too (excluding brazil)


Anyway, what do you think?
Decent speech, most of it true. Not that Bush et al are going to accept diplomacy or any of his points whatever he said.

Don't really care to be honest. Don't care about his big speeches any more or less than say, President Bush's or Prime Minister Blair's.

Which is true.

No India? No Pakistan, the permanent members system needs to revised and reformed, probably expanded too. They people there now are there because at an arbitrary point in time they had nuclear weapons. Hardly a justifiable way to run world politics years later.

Excluding nuclear arms, concerning more of the goverments financial utility, too support and enforce a resolution. (Pakistan and India probably could handle the responsiblility. The security council is not a right, its a priveleage, in which you must be prepared for in EVERY aspect.

Relatively true, what with the veto most of the permanent members do.




I denounced Saddam's regime, and oppose the coalition invasion, that's not contradictory. Little or no proof of backing insurgency, also to prevent USA setting up a puppet state run from Washington.

Oh! But it is! With how events had unfolded, the fact is, it was either leave Sadaam in power, or remove him forcibly. Too oppose both actions would not be sensible (seeing as coalition forces had a sum 80% approval ratings, in thier initial invasion)

Where the foreigners had come from makes no odds about it, the holocaust did not give the right to settle where they wanted to. They seem to blame the British and the Americans quite a lot, but since the Jews are the ones who pushed for their agreement and actually emigrated, it's unreasonable to suggest that he should blame America and Britain but not the Jews.

Too be honest Jews WERE ALREADY THERE. Israel, is home of the Jews, in which, it simply rapidly expanded. We sure can blame the jews for thier emmigration too Palestine, but we certainly cannot deny the reasons (as with all peoples in the same situation) with the holocaust, international hatred, poverty. Certainly given the choice too leave or stay, they would flee.


As does just about every country that has the potential too (excluding brazil)

Thats funny. Absolutly not. Most countries that have a stockpile, have either eliminated it completely, or are working towards the said goal. Dont they have the potential too re-build? YEs. Will they. No. All of Europe can either rebuild, or develop stockpiles....but they arent and will not. Same goes for south korea....and japan....and Canada (diminished supply)


Decent speech, most of it true. Not that Bush et al are going to accept diplomacy or any of his points whatever he said.


Of course not. 60% was speculations of his twisted world views.

...

As for openeing up the security council, I support the fact that the worlds MAJOR POWERS hold seats. They have the economy, (and corresponding millitary) too enforce revolutions. Lets be straight. Iran, or some african country, would not do **** too enforce a resolution.

...

Anyway, what do you think?

Freud would have something to say about that statement....

BTW, try looking up the stats on who actually supplies peacekeepers to enforce most UN resolutions. It is primarily those very african countries (and other developing nations) that you are sh*tting on who do the bulk of the work.

In fact, here you go (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2006/august06_1.pdf)

Out of the almost 75,000 people with their asses on the line enforcing UN resolutions and keeping the peace around the world, the permanent members of the UN Security Council are providing.... ummm.... pretty much sweet FA.

Or, to be specific:

The US provides: 345, almost all of whom are...... police!
The UK: 350
France: 806 (although climbing thanks to their efforts in Lebanon)
Russia: 306
China: 1663


Oh yeah, it everyone else who is unwilling to step up to the plate for the UN.................. :rolleyes:

Freud would have something to say about that statement....

BTW, try looking up the stats on who actually supplies peacekeepers to enforce most UN resolutions. It is primarily those very african countries (and other developing nations) that you are sh*tting on who do the bulk of the work.

I call utter and total, the heaviset call of Bullshit I have have called.

Its the European, North American countries that supplies peacekeepers too Africa, and other areas. Hmmm which african countries pledged support for the lebaneese border...oh ya, none. Kosovov, any africans, or south americans? Nope. Im not racist, but jeez get it rite buddy.