The UN are officially pussies. [Archive] - The Lone Star Command Message Boards

Papa Smurf

Jan 21, 2005, @ 04:57 PM

Look at the American blaming other people for their mess, like stats says why should they bother cleaning up the mess we have created.

They are civilian personal you are calling pussies, i certainly would not be headed to Iraq, if you had not noticed its not exactly safe, we can not even protect our own troops ffs. They would get slaughtered.

Here is a blog by an Iraq women this is the situation you are asking people to walk into, i liked this one as its still shows how normal people attempt to get on with life through the chaos and killing.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

This is a blog i started reading of a young American solider i read alot of this stuff i have alot of time between making calls. I liked him he was obviously so scared yet held himself together for his friends that posted.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wolfmoon98/

Sadly Mike died in an RPG attack on his vehical, may he rest in peace, you have been in my prays and always will be.

How dare you frivolise something as life and death as the situation in Iraq, you go and observe the elections Karma, lol, no because you just a gob shyt behind a computer. If not wanting to die makes UN personal pussies then fuck it i am the biggest pussy on earth. Its people like you that creat these situation blind biggots that will not accept divurgining opinions from your own.

PS are you calling both our and your own troops pussies in the Balkans?

I did not really know wether to include Mike in this post, I have sat here for an hour and a half now thinking about it and i do not even know what i am trying to decide, and i am no closer to decideing whatever i am trying to decide, so i'll post it, it would be nice if the sane members of the community could post their condolences. I have no idea if this post makes sense, its very much upset me writing it

BIack

Jan 21, 2005, @ 05:31 PM

I don't believe that the UN could lose any more face than it has already lost by being unable to prevent the United States acting in Iraq or at least to exert some measure of control over that action. The situation is now showing some of the hallmarks of the League of Nations in the 20s and 30s. The question is not about whether the UN are pussies, but it is concerned with the fact that as an international peacekeeping force they are often ignored or ineffective, altho with some notable humanitarian successes.

The fact of the matter is that the US is now in a position where it can exert its interests in a supernational manner. Also, regardless of how Americans perceive events, it is a documented fact that a large number of people outside America now view it as a country with little regard for the 'mess' it creates. Bush now has a choice. He can either become more concilliatory (as his visit to Europe hopefully suggests) or he can pursue his war on terror.

This is not a reliable poll or anything, but in my staff room today at the public school where I teach history the front page of the newspaper on display was something along the lines of 'Bush vows to erradicate tyranny from the face of the world in his next term'. The response of some of the most intellectual minds of the NW England? 'How Ironic'. A sad reflection of current affairs, either though lack of understanding of American interests and perspective, or of the reverse.

I hope these matters can be resolved more maturely out there than by accusing one side of being pussies ;)

Now feel free to tell me to :stfu:

shutupandshave

Jan 21, 2005, @ 05:33 PM

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

http://209.208.176.247/shows/randirhodes/fallujah/BLOGS/GALLERY/2005/01/family-of-seven.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1011.htm

Read the blog that PapaSmurf posted.

BIack

Jan 21, 2005, @ 05:45 PM

I have, or was that not directed at me?

shutupandshave

Jan 21, 2005, @ 05:47 PM

no to everyone

Karmashock

Jan 21, 2005, @ 06:18 PM

The UN wants to be this great organization that repesents all nations and can solve all problems.

But it lacks the moral courage, will, and resources to make any of it happen.

They're the FIRST people to start giving out awards and titles in fancy parties in Geneva... and the LAST people to actually do anything.

This is why the US is going to slowly devalue them. They had their chance at redemption and they blew it.

The eviction notice in NY is pending, Karmashock.

JADezimar

Jan 21, 2005, @ 06:43 PM

So Iraqi's Have access to the internet and have computers? Yet barely have active phone lines? Somehow I doubt the reality of the blog even being written by an Iraqi right in iraq. Does not seem like something someone would partake in "when just trying to survive a battle zone you all talk about being so horrific". Also There are a few Soldiers and marines etc that Feel we should not be there, But it no way shape or form does that blog of 1 soldier represent The entire nations armed forces.

I will make 1 simple statement here, And I have previously done so in other threads. The majority of people that go into the military are not prepared for war, they do not go in to kill, they go in cuase they are trying to prepare for a civilian life. I have had several freinds that have went in and joined the military understanding that war happens and that is there duty. They go to Iraq, (of course they do not like it) but they go to Iraq and come home proud of what they have done. They realise that war is there duty being apart of the world's greatest military. If You join an armed service expecting to stay completely out of war you should have never joined in the firsts place or you are just leeching off our government. I am not saying that was the case with this soldier. But I am saying this is the case with many. Anyhow I will further clarify my point if needed, and no not at the requests of saus just coming to the thread and going please clarify JAD, I will need points to be asked.

Thank You, Defending those that are not ouspoken, To make sure there lives are not in vain. JADezimar

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 03:41 AM

What does the UN stand for?... They'd make Syria head of Human rights and Saddam's Iraq head of disarmament...

duplicitous, spineless, greedy... blow fish... Seriously... what good are they?

If I were president, I'd start working on a rival organization... I wouldn't overtly say it was a rival... I'd get all the democracies in it... work out it's extremely limited powers... then kill the UN.

Dictators have no membership... tough shit.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

DemonTalons

Jan 22, 2005, @ 11:00 PM

I think you all are missing the main point of the UN. And that was to prevent world wars. To give a forum where rival nations would take to each other instead of just shooting first and asking later. That's why we didn't nuke the USSR in the cold war.

Now I know alot of you are pissed at the UN for not bacing the US up but it turns out they were right. There were no WMD's and I know alot of you have forgotten that but that was our basis for war.

Lastly Karma we allow dictatorships in the UN because they usually start the wars. THis gives them an outlet to talk instead of shoot. Notice how in the first Desert Storm the UN backed us up? Does the UN work perfectly? No. does it need to reform a bit? Yes But, believe me it will be a sad day if it goes and we don't have anything to replace it.

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 11:07 PM

Deplomacy happened before between the great nations and it will happen with or without the UN.

What has the UN done since its founding? Has it stopped anything? No.

International politics made more sense before the UN. They will make more sense again after it dies. The UN is worse then the league of nations. The first was debating society. The UN is a debating society with powers it doesn't deserve.

DemonTalons

Jan 23, 2005, @ 02:10 AM

JADezimar

Jan 23, 2005, @ 03:37 AM

Demon your lasts posts is a joke. Utterly and completely garbage. You could easily say the exact opposite about every statement you made.

It was not the U.N that dismantled germany, did you forget that?

edit: Forgive me if you found this posts a bit aggressive. But what we want to see is actual arguments on what the U.N has truly accomplished. Not what has not happened since its creation. There are several factors on why those things have not happend or have happened. It all depends on someones view of what a major war is etc. Again I apologize for attacking your posts, it was just not the posts of a brilliant mind, and I feel your more capable than that.

DrunkenUno

Jan 23, 2005, @ 04:14 AM

O yea the nations had great diplomacy before the UN. WW1, WW2, great track record. Say what you want about the UN but there hasnt been a world war since. What's it been 60 years since a major conflict? Before that Europe pretty much went to war with itself every 20 years.

This is true, but technically could be argued either way. For a long period after WW2, europe was simply rebuilding. Then, until 89, Europe was competlely united due to the Soviet threat. And since then we have increasingly more powerful EU. So Europe is united, and the UN really hasnt had shit to do with it.

And Korea and Vietnam were certaintly major conflicts which the UN never resolved.

Karmashock

Jan 23, 2005, @ 04:54 AM

Please... look at all the wars we've had since... the only thing that kept those from going farther was NUKES... plain and simple MAD is the diplomacy of the 20th and 21st century. Not the UN.

If the UN went away, that wouldn't be any different. The UN is a waste of good real-estate.

shutupandshave

Jan 24, 2005, @ 03:18 AM

The UN wants to be this great organization that repesents all nations and can solve all problems.
And the US doesn't want to be great organisation and represent all nations (whether they like it or not) and try and solve problems.

They're the FIRST people to start giving out awards and titles in fancy parties in Geneva...
Geneva? okay..... you dont know much about the EU do you....

International politics made more sense before the UN.
To who?
You?

Or your teachers that say that UK is a republic? Or perhaps to the people that told you there were WMD in Iraq? OR MAYBE to the people that said that Europe would never ally with the Chinese....

JADezimar

Jan 24, 2005, @ 03:44 AM

Mentioning the republic uK thing again :P

Karmashock

Jan 24, 2005, @ 06:14 AM

Suas,
I'm going to ignore your continuing attempts to start flame wars. However, I would ask AGAIN that you stop.

The US at least stands for something. The UN stands for nothing. We don't pretend to represent the whole world and the UN does. Neither group represents the whole world.

The membership of so many tyrants in the UN alone make it unfit to claim to represent any more then that leadership class.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

shutupandshave

Jan 24, 2005, @ 03:56 PM

So many tyrants? List please?

The UN's job is to stop wars from starting (as someone has previously stated). That's something that is impossible to do all the time, but it doesn't mean it should ever stop doing what it's doing.

Karmashock

Jan 24, 2005, @ 09:08 PM

Name a war they've ever stopped.

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:03 AM

How can I name something that doesn't exist?

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:27 AM

A conflict that only they could resolve?

Anything peace wise that they have to be proud of?

What have they accomplished?... ever.

They're a joke.

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:39 AM

Strange - in 1999 78% in the US viewed the UN favourably. It seems that now they have disagreed with you - they've never been effectual?

Anyway:
"The U.N. has negotiated 172 peaceful settlements, helping bring about an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the civil war in El Salvador, and withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan."

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:52 AM

So what would have happened without the UN?

Honestly, you'd think they invented diplomacy...

none of hte events you listed were caused by the UN. They might have been the building where it went down... but they weren't the forces.

the Iran-Iraq war was going to end regardless of the UN, the civil war in El Salvador was concluded by the time the UN got involved, and the soviet troops leaving Afghanistan had jack shit to do with the UN as you well know.

The thing is, that you know they're worthless. You know that they're basically responsible for nothing. They've been basking in the accomplishments of other people and organizations for a generation and it's pathetic.

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 11:07 AM

So no matter how much evidence I provide you with, you're going to say they're wrong anyway...because you've made up your mind, and any evidence that contradicts you is therefore flawed evidence to begin with.

Fair enough.

Ask yourself though, why the US liked the UN 5 years ago, and why they're seen so unfavourably now...

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 11:26 AM

Evidence? You've shown no evidence of them doing anything. Look, if I put a log in a river, then someone else puts their name on the log... are they moving it down stream... am I?... or is the river?

The UN is names... titles... a building... smoke and mirrors. It does very little of value that wouldn't happen anyway and quite a bit of harm in the name of nothing but it's own power and decadence.

Not a bad piece by the LA Times... which is a left wing newspaper if that matters to you.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot9dec09,0,2073058.column?coll=la-util-op-ed
Why U.N. Stays Mired in Its Defects

Imagine if U.S. troops were accused of sexually exploiting children in impoverished nations. Imagine if a U.S. Cabinet secretary were accused of groping a female subordinate, whose complaint was then swatted aside by the president. Imagine if the head of a U.S. government agency and the president's own offspring stood accused of complicity in the biggest embezzlement racket in history.

Those would be pretty big stories, no? Above-the-fold, top-of-the-newscast stories. Yet the United Nations has been mired in all these scandals and until just recently hardly anybody outside the right-wing blogosphere has noticed.

Even now, if you're not an inveterate U.N.-watcher, you probably don't know that Ruud Lubbers, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, was accused of sexually harassing a subordinate, only to have the charges dismissed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan despite an internal investigation that supported the woman's complaint. Or that U.N. peacekeepers have been accused of a variety of sexual offenses involving children for more than a decade, most recently in Congo. Or even that Annan's son, Kojo, and Benon Savan, the head of the U.N. "oil for food" program in Iraq, are said to have benefited financially while Saddam Hussein stole $21 billion.

Where's the outrage? It's easy to find among conservatives, but then they never liked the U.N. to begin with. Why didn't the mainstream media and the Democrats (pardon the redundancy), not to mention various European governments, devote more attention to these scandals? Far from demanding high-level resignations, they are circling the wagons.

The U.N.'s friends are doing their favorite international institution no favors with this knee-jerk defense. Until it cleans up its act, the U.N. can never be as influential as its boosters would like. Even Annan recognizes this. In fact, he seems to specialize in critiques of his own organization.

In 1997, the secretary-general issued a report on "Renewing the United Nations: A Program for Reform." In 1999, he issued reports on the U.N.'s failures in Rwanda and Bosnia. In 2000, a commission chaired by Lakhdar Brahimi issued a report on how to overhaul U.N. peacekeeping. In 2002, Annan issued another report on "Strengthening of the United Nations: an Agenda for Further Change."

Last week came the umpteenth report on reform, this one from the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. Its criticisms are as scathing as anything written by the Heritage Foundation. The report noted that the General Assembly "often fails to focus effectively on the most compelling issues of the day," that the Commission on Human Rights (which includes among its members gross human-rights violators) suffers from a "legitimacy deficit," that the Security Council has responded with "glacial speed" to "massive human rights violations in Darfur" and elsewhere, and that the U.N. Secretariat is filled with bureaucrats who have "little or no expertise for tackling many of the new or emerging threats" that confront the world.

All true, but note that these problems have persisted despite all the past reform reports. Like its predecessors, the latest blue-ribbon panel offers a plethora of recommendations. Its major proposal — enlarging the Security Council from 15 to 24 — would probably make U.N. paralysis worse, not better, because it would mean having to get the agreement of even more states before taking action. Other steps, such as retiring useless bureaucrats, may be good ideas, but they are unlikely to cure an ailing institution.

All of the reformistas' efforts founder on the rocks of apathy and inertia. The reality is that most of the U.N.'s 191-member states, to say nothing of its 49,000 employees, aren't terribly interested in making it work better. They usually have other priorities. Even the Bush administration isn't making much of a stink over the oil-for-food scandal because it needs U.N. support in Iraq and elsewhere.

Many member states don't want to rock the boat because they have cozy deals with the current U.N. regime. A French bank, for instance, was the prime repository of the oil-for-food billions. Others are afraid that a stronger U.N. would interfere in their affairs. Russia doesn't want the U.N. meddling in Chechnya, China doesn't want it in Tibet, India doesn't want it in Kashmir, and so on.

Flawed as it is, the U.N. does some useful things, ranging from providing cover for the decision to launch the 1991 Gulf War to issuing an influential 2003 report on the failings of the Arab world. The United States should try to make use of it when possible. Leaving the U.N., as some on the right suggest, is unrealistic. But it will never live up to the grandiose expectations of its starry-eyed supporters unless they get mad enough to demand real change. So far there's no sign of that happening.

This is also a good study... 2002... but still good.

Papa Smurf

Jan 25, 2005, @ 12:11 PM

The Cypriot Civil war and the subsequent invasion by Turkey, - being part Greek-Cypriot myself I kn0w about that one with out even thinking about it

Namibia: Creating a Free Country 1989 - 1990
Accomplishments: Achieved ceasefire and peaceful withdrawal of South African troops. Held free and fair elections, demobilized South African forces, and won release of prisoners. Helped repeal repressive legislation and create a new and independent government in Namibia.

El Salvador: Ending Civil War & Holding Free and Fair Elections 1991 - April 1995
Accomplishments: Successfully implemented peace accord, ending 12 years of bloody civil war. Disarmed combatants and created conditions for free and fair elections. Monitored human rights abuses while dismantling existing security forces and beginning creation of a civilian police force. Provided buffer, police and humanitarian observer force to implement peace accord and monitor elections. Helped maintain public order pending the creation of a national civilian police.

There are others too like Sierra Leone

I have to say Karma you accusing susa of trying to start a flame war yet, all he is doing is stating his opinions which because they contradict your we a) are harder or b) know better than you agreements you accuse him of trying to start a flame war.

Is all the UN there only to stop wars? Surly that is the remit of government, the UN tries to aid in negotiations, organize sanctions etc but it has no standing army therefore ultimately what can it do. It is the voice of reason the one that tries to speak with a level voice. They are the ones that stand up to the likes of America and at least says no this is wrong, while the rich countires genrally fall into line behind to protect themselves (i count the UK most definatly in that shameful group) while the UN may have issues the good it does in the world far far out weights. You bang on about the Oil for aid scandal, and yes that is bad it was poorly organised and Mr Annan's actions are reprehensible. Personally i believe he should go, however this does not blind me to the good the organisation as a whole does. If support was based on weather of not we supported the man that lead them then no one on the planet would even communicate with the States, we would of cut our phone lines on the day you elected stupid monkey face.

Are you saying that there is no corruption in America? In any large organisation there is always fraud and corruption, you think the awarding of huge contracts to haliburton was not corruption?

The Pentagon's internal watchdog is looking into claims by a top Army contracting official that a Halliburton Co. subsidiary unfairly won no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars for support services in Iraq and the Balkans.

Halliburton Co.'s $7 billion contract, awarded without competition, to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure also gives it the power to run all phases of Iraq's oil industry, according to U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. (This in direct contradiction to numerous statements that Iraqs Oil is for the Iraqi people, my arse its to line the pockets of the Bush family cronies)

The awarding of the contract in March prompted some lawmakers, along with watchdog groups, to question whether the administration's deep ties with Halliburton helped secure the contract.

"There don't seem to be any criteria [for picking the contractor], other than the close connections a company might have with the administration," said Charlie Cray, director of the corporate reform campaign at Citizen Works, a Washington watchdog group founded by Ralph Nader. "The fact that the contracts are secret enhances the appearance of handing out contracts to cronies."

A Cheney spokeswoman denied the Vice President, who was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000, had anything to do with the contract. LoL

Waxman had written to Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers of the Army Corps of Engineers seeking answers as to why the contract, which could be worth up to $7 billion over two years, netting Halliburton a $490 million profit, "is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer."

no no there is no corruption in the US, none now move along nothing to see here, just ignore everything you learn and hear (unless we tell you)

The UN has saved millions through both its education programs, and its disaster relief efforts. But as a war monger Karma I would expect someone like you conveniently over look these things.

Or maybe this work is not worth while I mean what do these children bring to the American economy eh I mean they have the cheek to live in another country. Oh they probably make your trainers (sneakers).

Eradicating Disease & Famine
Ending Smallpox & Polio. A 13-year effort by World Health Organization (WHO) succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1980. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere.

Universal Immunizations. In 1974, only five percent of children in developing countries were immunized against polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis. By 1995, as a result of the efforts of United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the WHO, there was an 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of over 3,000,000 children each year.

Yes Yes they are not worth shit are they, oh wait I minutes yes they are, oh but they do not do exactly what America wants them to oh well they must be worthless then, quite frankly I am both appalled and astounded by your utter arrogance and stupidity, the UN is not your personal servant it represents all member nations which means you are but a small unreasonable, violent nation. Which while wheeling a lot of power is not all powerful, there are 5.75 billion people in the world that are not US citizens.

My god lets just gather those 3 million children a year together and shot them shall we they are obviously of no importance what so ever.

Protecting People & Resources
For example helping Refugees. In 1996, 27 million refugees, mostly women and children, receive food, shelter, medical aid, education and repatriation assistance from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. This is a never ending process we currently have 1.5 million refugeees in Sudan, as well as the 3 million Palastinian refugees, the 1.6 million in Uganda, as well as variaious other smaller movement while the UN monitors and helps for example currently in DR Congo and the Ivory Coast where you are talking refugee figures of around 50,000-100,000. You probably have not heard of these smaller events as they are not demend news worthy, yet with out the UN these people would more than likely starve.

From now on lets just let these starve

Environment. Through international treaties, the U.N. leads efforts to protect the ozone layer and curb global warming. Forestry action plans help limit deforestation and promote sustainable forestry practices for 90 countries. The U.N. has helped provide safe drinking water for 1.3 billion people in rural areas, and has on-going efforts to help prevent over-fishing and clean up pollution.

LoL if any American comes back and says we do more for the enviroment i may laugh in his face, unless he replaces the word "for" with "to destroy".

Oh but America likes its massive consumption of the worlds resources, so these commie green policies they really do not like, i was horrified to see how many Americans think global warming is not real in a recent debate on another board. Oh yes and on that totally reasonable point Darwin was wrong theres no evolution thats evil talk, we just appeared here magically, along with the fairies and the pixes.

Improving Female Literacy. U.N. programs to help promote education and advancement for women helped raise their literacy rate in developing countries from 36% in 1970 to 56% in 1990.

The role of the UN has changed over the years and it struggling to find a way to define its self in this new age, however its role has never been more important, and if we do not fund it enough how can we expect it to function. And how many has it saved through it sex education lesson in Africa, India and the rest of the world.

ANSWERS ON A POSTCARD PLEASE!

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 12:17 PM

You think the UN has done absolutely nothing, I disagree. You say that all the deals that the UN has brokered would not have been made any faster if the UN was not there. I disagree.

We disagree then.

DemonTalons

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:47 PM

I think Smurf said it best. Yes the UN has its problems like any large orginisation, including the US but I think americans sudden disgust with the UN is that the UN said no to the Iraq question.

JADezimar

Jan 25, 2005, @ 11:54 PM

No the disgust has started before Iraq. I have disliked it for some time now. I saw news coverages on the frustration and irratation of the U.N before talks of the war.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 12:56 AM

in 1999 78% in the US viewed the UN favourably

hmmmm

JADezimar

Jan 26, 2005, @ 01:06 AM

And? Does it specify what favaroubly meant? Or how the People viewed it favoroubly? Whats your Source Suas? I need proof.

Cuase I think most americans feel the U.N and Member nations like UK are stupid.

"Stupid Brittish people were all in a world for trouble now" The China arms embargo.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 02:32 AM

The Cypriot Civil war and the subsequent invasion by Turkey, - being part Greek-Cypriot myself I kn0w about that one with out even thinking about it
The Marshall plan was put into effect largely to stabilize Greece and prevent it from falling into communist hands. If you can’t see American money and effort under neither the blue hat, then I can’t help you.

Namibia: Creating a Free Country 1989 - 1990
Accomplishments: Achieved ceasefire and peaceful withdrawal of South African troops. Held free and fair elections, demobilized South African forces, and won release of prisoners. Helped repeal repressive legislation and create a new and independent government in Namibia.
Point granted… one for the UN…

El Salvador: Ending Civil War & Holding Free and Fair Elections 1991 - April 1995
Accomplishments: Successfully implemented peace accord, ending 12 years of bloody civil war. Disarmed combatants and created conditions for free and fair elections. Monitored human rights abuses while dismantling existing security forces and beginning creation of a civilian police force. Provided buffer, police and humanitarian observer force to implement peace accord and monitor elections. Helped maintain public order pending the creation of a national civilian police.
Nothing happens in the Americas without the US being a MAJOR player. I suggest you educate yourself on the topic… I looked at a few sites… this one is the most accessible… and it has pictures.
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/enemiesofwar/elsalvador2.html

Surly that is the remit of government, the UN tries to aid in negotiations, organize sanctions etc but it has no standing army therefore ultimately what can it do.
Negotiations are meaningless unless there is POWER behind the words. Who’s power do you think that tends to be? Think about it.

Many of the UNs actions are US actions with a big blue stamp on them. The first Iraqi war for instance was a UN action… so was Bosnia.

You bang on about the Oil for aid scandal, and yes that is bad it was poorly organised and Mr Annan's actions are reprehensible.
Systemic corruption
Say those two words before you talk about the UN. He was using UN funds to keep his son in 5 star hotels and 5000 dollar a night whores.

He should go to jail.
The people who knew about it should go to jail.
The whole organization needs an enema.

Are you saying that there is no corruption in America? In any large organisation there is always fraud and corruption, you think the awarding of huge contracts to haliburton was not corruption?
US government has oversight
US corporations have oversight
The UN has no oversight and is therefore not comparable. If the US government and/or corporations were run like the UN you would never hear of any American corruption of any kind.

There is LESS corruption in America from one decade to the next. It is a process that has been going on for hundreds of years. We get better all the time.

Perhaps the UN will start to get better. But that won’t change the fact that they have almost no respect for human rights or human liberity.

The Pentagon's internal watchdog is looking into claims by a top Army contracting official that a Halliburton Co. subsidiary unfairly won no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars for support services in Iraq and the Balkans.
Do you even know what that company does? Honestly?

There are like 5 companies on the planet that can do what they do… when it comes to rebuilding a nations oil infrastructure, Halliburton is on a very very short list.

Were the French not allowed to make a bid? No they weren’t… guess why.

The awarding of the contract in March prompted some lawmakers, along with watchdog groups, to question whether the administration's deep ties with Halliburton helped secure the contract.
Not really… that’s just partisan in fighting… Dems have been trying to get an edge ever since they lost Clinton… haven’t found it yet.

A Cheney spokeswoman denied the Vice President, who was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000, had anything to do with the contract. LoL
Ok, either name the other companies that could do the job or admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

One or the other.

Waxman had written to Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers of the Army Corps of Engineers seeking answers as to why the contract, which could be worth up to $7 billion over two years, netting Halliburton a $490 million profit, "is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer."
There was an audit and Halliburton had to give a lot of money back. That’s how our system works. There are checks, balances, and oversight. The UN has no such institutions.

The UN has saved millions through both its education programs, and its disaster relief efforts. But as a war monger Karma I would expect someone like you conveniently over look these things.
Where did those millions come from jackass? Where is the country of the “UN”? How did they get this money? Where did it come from?

Can you honestly say that the money wouldn’t go to those places with or without the UN? The US personally gives a great deal to Africa in food, aids drugs, etc both through the UN, as a government, and as private citizens.

The UN is not a country and so all its resources come from other countries.
LoL if any American comes back and says we do more for the enviroment i may laugh in his face, unless he replaces the word "for" with "to destroy".
The UN has done just about nothing for the environment. Even Kyoto would do almost nothing.

The UN as nothing to brag about here.

As to postcard answers… Not likely… you had a long post so I had to respond with a long post. If you want post card answers, then make post card posts.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 03:46 AM

Firstly JAD, according to your retarded rules, it should be your job to find evidence to back up my statements as you have stated in previous posts when I have disagreed with your "evidence" that you make up - that it's my job... anyway

http://www.vox-populi.org/digest/un_1.html
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/un/un1.cfm

There's your evidence.

British is spelt with one T.

I dont doubt that Americans are a lot less favourable with the UN now than they were in 1999, however I was discussing why the attitudes have changed (and you said they hadn't changed, and that was always the attitude.

Karma, the UN is a forum to ease communication between nations (amongst other things). You have a point when you say these things may well have happened without the UN, but to say they would not have happened as easily....

Perhaps you can get MVB's professor to give his opinion as to whether or not the UN has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the world... when he's through proving that the British pilots were inferior and that the British army was a joke ;)

MVB

Jan 26, 2005, @ 03:51 AM

As a note, Suas, I don't think the British pilots were inferior, so much as not quite of the caliber of the top German pilots at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

At that time, the British air force was composed of pilots with NO combat experience, and the German Luftwaffe had significant experience in a number of engagements beginning in 1938. What killed the Germans wasn't their talent .... they began with all the talent in the world, and with more experience and technology than any standing air force. What killed them was when a pilot was shot down, he was lost for good. When a British pilot was shot down, being badly owned by a German pilot, he got back in another plane a little wiser for it. Imagine an RTS where it's FC vs. Chiken. Let's pretend for argument's sake that FC is more "talented" than Chiken, but Chiken has had this game for 2 weeks longer. FC starts playing, and every time they lose, they can play again. Every Chiken that loses can never play again. Sure, Chiken will own you at first, but every game they lose is a critical loss of a veteran player, and they must recruit everyday n00bs to replace them. Once you catch up, and aren't ever losing your vets, things start to change.

The Allies sucked at the beginning of World War II. The British hadn't a clue how to fight, neither did the French, neither did the Americans. Superior economic power from America, coupled with logistics, let them catch up over the course of 2-3 years, and vastly outproduce the Germans and Japanese. By not knocking out the whole world in the first year, Germany and Japan lost the war due to the ability of America to produce shit (basically) and keep the allies fighting much longer and with much more equipment than the Axis.

JADezimar

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:00 AM

I was discussing why the attitudes have changed (and you said they hadn't changed, and that was always the attitude

Please quote where I said that?

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:12 AM

No the disgust has started before Iraq. I have disliked it for some time now. I saw news coverages on the frustration and irratation of the U.N before talks of the war.

P.s. I just noticed this JAD

Cuase I think most americans feel the U.N and Member nations like UK are stupid.
You're a moron.

Find me some proof that most Americans feel the UK are stupid.

JADezimar

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:45 AM

Hehe should I say eu instead of uK? There are plenty of articles since the chance of the arms embargo may be lifted. I may not find the words "think there stupid" but will find complete disgusts and frustration.

No the disgust has started before Iraq. I have disliked it for some time now. I saw news coverages on the frustration and irratation of the U.N before talks of the war.

Read the above statement of mine carefully.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:47 AM

Karma, the UN is a forum to ease communication between nations (amongst other things). You have a point when you say these things may well have happened without the UN, but to say they would not have happened as easily....

If the UN were just a forum, then I wouldn't mind it at all. Its when it claims 'powers' that it bothers me.

I will not have my nation dictated policy to by dictators, tyrants, and despots.

I have no problem with talking... I have issues with 'resolutions', 'international' law, or any statement made by the UN.

If France personally wants to tell us what to do, then that's fine. At least those words have the legitimate support of France behind it and nothing more.

But I refuse to accept any statement by the UN as it is not a people, a country, or in anyway something material.

I am a citizen of the United States of America and my nation is Sovereign. Just like most nations in the world. The United Nations is NOT our superior, nor are they superior to any nation.

So again, talk, communicate, express... but when you tell someone to do something don't sign it "UN"... sign it "<list of countries that support it>".

Critta

Jan 26, 2005, @ 11:29 AM

Cuase I think most americans feel the U.N and Member nations like UK are stupid.

Last time I checked, the US was a member of the U.N too, sat on the security council and had a veto, just like most of the European nations. ;)

If you think the U.N is stupid - try to reform it. Don't start ignoring it, it's not good for world security.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 11:44 AM

No I think he means that the UK and not the US is stupid.

I think JAD, that you will find that the UK has supported the US through our joint mis-information led ventures - and are one of the only major countries in the UN that have done so. I wouldn't say so much biting the hand that feeds you - because we are certainly not that powerful or influential, but your suggestion that the American people think we're stupid for agreeing with you....well, that just seems silly.

I suggest you rethink that one.

Karma, I believe in globalisation and I believe in a united world. For that to work you need some kind of international rules. I believe it is better that the international community decide on those rules together, instead of one country imposing it's rules on everyone else.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 12:08 PM

I believe it is better that the international community decide on those rules together, instead of one country imposing it's rules on everyone else.
My worry is that the 'international community' becomes in effect a small number of officials in the UN. It is not their power to wield. It belongs to all nations.

I resent the organization operating like a discrete entity... I do not resent international treaties.

It is not sovereign. We are… all nations. I surrender nothing to the UN. I make agreements with other nations… but the UN does not exist as material entity.

It is not and can not be world government.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 01:00 PM

No I dont think the UN can be a world government as it is, not without huge upheavels.

It's easier for me to sit in the UK and say "yeah lets share things out more" when it's not the UK that will be doing the most of the sharing, and I really cant tell what I would have said if we were having this discussion 110 years ago.

At the moment the US has decided to tell the world community what to do, and a small number of world leaders is better than one country.

I've been quoted many times the proportion that the US pays for the UN and it's very very big, however it's always been used in a "the UN has to do what we say because we pay for it" type way. That's the attitude that worries me more than a small number of nations.

As soon as people recognise the planet as a whole, then the countries within the planet can start being run like the states within the US, or the countries within the EU.

Now here's where the interesting thing is - I am not sure that this is not going to happen unless a country like the US just goes "right fuck it, you're all mine" and then involves into a world government instead of a US government...however with the attitudes of people in the US at the moment - people like JAD, who believe that member countries in the UN are all stupid, or because of the flawed intelligence in the US (wmd) people are not going to accept the US doing this yet. I am not ready for US rule at the moment - not until the majority of people can point to portugal on a map with the names taken off.

The US is too insular to rule the world right now, and it's rubbed too many people up the wrong way.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 01:21 PM

The US does not wish to rule, merely to deter those that would.

None shall rule.

Furthermore, the problem with any government gift is htat it always comes with cost... this is true domestically and internationally for all governments including the UN.

I would much prefer take money from the international red cross then the UN... the UN will have strings.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 03:51 PM

The US is ruling.
It insists on putting military bases everywhere, you've said that it's policy is the most important in the world, and affects everyone. Whether it wants too or not, it is ruling. That's fine, until it starts doing things by force against the will of the majority of the international community.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:05 PM

NO!... we are not. We are peacemakers... not over lords. If you can't tell the difference, then you've forgotten what an overlord is.

As to the "international community", I wouldn't give a rat's ass for what France or Russia think... and they comprise the majority of your 'international community'... which is and always has been a farce.

no offense to you personally... they've done a very good job of selling themselves... but that's all it is.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:33 PM

Hmm,

I dont see much peace in Iraq.

Wars been over now for how many years?

I know what an overlord is, and I never suggested the US was one. The US rules by guilt and implication - it infects nations and uses psychological tactics to mould people into consumers and to the US way of thinking. Remember wormtongue from Lord of the Rings (the book)? Suggestion and implication. That is after all why we went to war with Iraq.

There is nothing of any substance to prove that he had any more links to AL-Q than the US did. Nothing of substance to prove that he had NCB weapons, and nothing of substance to prove he could deliver them to the battlefield in 45 or 15 minutes. It was all suggestions and implications based on whatever you want to chose the reasoning to be.

The US doesn't have a habit of getting into wars when people dont want it too... so why now? Why decide to go against the grain and start a war now?

War is a terrible and humbling thing, it's not something you go and do because someone pisses you off, or you dont like the uniform they're wearing.

Most of the countries hit by the Tsunami are going to be "better off" in the long run, with a chance to completely rebuild their infrastructure, and to develop tourist resorts that are some of the newest in the world... I dont hear anybody telling them it's an acceptable price to pay for their new lives. Im some ways it's easier to justify the Tsunami thing, because it was unavoidable. The war with Iraq didn't have to happen.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:44 PM

Hmm,

I dont see much peace in Iraq.

Wars been over now for how many years?
a little war about 2 years before WWII could have ended hitler and saved millions...

The little wars we'll have are to avert larger struggle that we really don't want to fight... we are dealing with things before they get out of our control. If hte whole middle east goes nuclear, then we're in serious trouble.

I know what an overlord is, and I never suggested the US was one. The US rules by guilt and implication - it infects nations and uses psychological tactics to mould people into consumers and to the US way of thinking. Remember wormtongue from Lord of the Rings (the book)? Suggestion and implication. That is after all why we went to war with Iraq.
That is not rule... it is influence... and our infulence has done more to spread this globalism you seem to believe in more then the UN ever has.

lastly, wormtongue is unfair... we don't weaken... we convert... the conversion is typically stronger, more social, and more prosperious.

There is nothing of any substance to prove that he had any more links to AL-Q than the US did. Nothing of substance to prove that he had NCB weapons, and nothing of substance to prove he could deliver them to the battlefield in 45 or 15 minutes. It was all suggestions and implications based on whatever you want to chose the reasoning to be.
The war was sold to differently then it was sold to us then. It was sold as something that had to be done before it could not be done.

The US doesn't have a habit of getting into wars when people dont want it too... so why now? Why decide to go against the grain and start a war now?
We've never been in a habit of doing what hte French and Russians tell us to do and this is no differenent... as to people?... which people...

War is a terrible and humbling thing, it's not something you go and do because someone pisses you off, or you dont like the uniform they're wearing.
suggesting we went in for such petty reasons is beneith you.

Most of the countries hit by the Tsunami are going to be "better off" in the long run, with a chance to completely rebuild their infrastructure, and to develop tourist resorts that are some of the newest in the world... I dont hear anybody telling them it's an acceptable price to pay for their new lives. Im some ways it's easier to justify the Tsunami thing, because it was unavoidable. The war with Iraq didn't have to happen.
You value freedom very cheaply... I would die for mine... you apparently seem to think it's something you can equate to money...

it is beyond price.

DemonTalons

Jan 26, 2005, @ 08:54 PM

No offense Karma but unless you're in the military you can't really say you would be willing to die for freedom. Because you've never been given the chance now have you?
One thing you ahve to realise Karma is that it doesn't matter if everyone in america thinks the US is there to free the Iraqi's. The Iraqi's think we are there to set up a puppet government. And yes They will and do fight us to the death.

To the topic on hand though. We all agree the UN needs reforms. We all agree that the US has supplied the UN with the majority of its troops and men to enforce it's policies. What we don't agree is that this makes the UN evil for not agreeing with the US. The US is benevolent when it has interest in the area. Otherwise it doesn't care. And this includes the Marshall plan to the Iraq war.

And don't get mad at the UN for not wanting to help us in Iraq when we pretty much said fuck you we can do this ourselves. Now we're finding out how much harder it is without them.

JADezimar

Jan 26, 2005, @ 09:10 PM

The Iraqi's think we are there to set up a puppet government. And yes They will and do fight us to the death.

No they do not. Are you in the military demontalons? Most military I know, "my wife is a marine" say that they are happy to have us there. The "so called Iraqi's" everyone talks about were sadaam's allies of the old regime, they were the people that were in control and will lose large sums of power if a new government is put into place. Most Iraqi's 1. Fight for money, 2. are apart of the smaller war like tribes, that were apart of sadaam's force, 3. come from over the border and hide over the border. The fact is at the larger Cities the normal every day slave population of Sadaam are glad to have a new government, are glad we came, and are glad we freed them from Sadaam.

That is who is committing the fighting over there. It disgusts me how many people just plane out assume were not wanted there. (ya by the people that stand to lose power maybe)

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 03:04 AM

No offense Karma but unless you're in the military you can't really say you would be willing to die for freedom. Because you've never been given the chance now have you?
you also don't know if you'd have sex with a goat if left alone on an island with it for 10 years...

Allow both of us our assumptions...

One thing you ahve to realise Karma is that it doesn't matter if everyone in america thinks the US is there to free the Iraqi's. The Iraqi's think we are there to set up a puppet government. And yes They will and do fight us to the death.
Nope... most of the iraqis are glad the US is there and are hopeful of the future.

If we wanted to set up a puppet government, then we would have just put another dictator in power... cheaper, faster, and more reliable.

And don't get mad at the UN for not wanting to help us in Iraq when we pretty much said fuck you we can do this ourselves. Now we're finding out how much harder it is without them.
If they care about their own personal power, then they'll deny the people of the iraq.

If they care about world peace and world harmony then they'll help. What did the people of Iraq do to the UN?

The UN are slimy diseased pussies.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 11:24 AM

lastly, wormtongue is unfair... we don't weaken... we convert... the conversion is typically stronger, more social, and more prosperious.
Yeah, mostly true - I would say though, that your opponents believe you weaken and corrupt the mind and the spirit.

I also thought the war was sold differently in the UK than in the US, but actually it was pretty similar... with Saddam about to launch an attack on the western world with his many nuclear, chemical and biological. I put up some survey here and a few other places trying to find out the reasons people thought we were going to war and they all seemed pretty similar.

People? Me for example, in fact every nation that voted against the US in the UN.

You value freedom very cheaply... I would die for mine... you apparently seem to think it's something you can equate to money...
Freedom is a state of mind.

Nope... most of the iraqis are glad the US is there and are hopeful of the future.
This I disagree with. There is no unbiased evidence to support this, there cant be. The people that will want to talk to westerners and give their opinions, are the people that support it the invasion.

If the US didn't care about displaying it's power it wouldn't have attacked Iraq to begin with, when the UN said not too. Now you've broken it, you need help from the UN again, you're calling it names for not bailing you out. I think the point the UN is trying to make, is that you should pay your own independent people to stand there and get shot by the terrorists.

Why dont you (the US) go and sort out the UN, why dont you spend your hard earned money to make it not corrupt and more importantly completely independent?
If you care more about your own power then you wont.
If they care about world peace and world harmony then you'll help.

The UN is not beyond reform.

The US is the one invading countries, shooting wounded Iraqi's, and torturing prisoners. You're telling me the organisation that asked you not to do this is wrong?

Heh.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 12:12 PM

Yeah, mostly true - I would say though, that your opponents believe you weaken and corrupt the mind and the spirit.
Considering that they tend to thrive on the misery of millions, I don't really give a shit what they think.

I put up some survey here and a few other places trying to find out the reasons people thought we were going to war and they all seemed pretty similar.
it was pre emptive to him having them... we thought he was making them... we knew he wanted them.

Better now then when it's no longer an option.

People? Me for example, in fact every nation that voted against the US in the UN.
There are many discenting votes for any messure. The only reason why it didn't go through the UN is because france and Russia said no.

Had those two countries said yes, it would have happened with UN approval.

Ergo, the UN's lack of approval is France's and Russia's... which I wouldn't give a diseased Tijuana whore for.

Freedom is a state of mind.
(laughs)... No.

Were that the case, you could be 'free' in a concentration camp.

Please stop using logic that works irrelevant of context. It's meaningless.

This I disagree with. There is no unbiased evidence to support this, there cant be. The people that will want to talk to westerners and give their opinions, are the people that support it the invasion.
Nope, we take surveys of all the populations.
the survey says
The Baathists want us out and Saddam or some other dictator in power so they can shit all over the country again.
The Kurds want a system that protects their regional sovereignty.
The Shiites want a system that takes into consideration their majority status in the population.

our current analysis of foreign policy says...
The terrorists want to blow up children until people see things their way.
The Iranians want Iraq to be a puppet state.
The French want fat oil contracts so they can milk the country like they were in the oil for food program
the Russians want get regional control of the area by selling weapons to the more tyrannical regimes
The UN wants to look like 'it' is the reasonable one and not a degenerate debating society with delusions of grandeur.

If the US didn't care about displaying it's power it wouldn't have attacked Iraq to begin with, when the UN said not too. Now you've broken it, you need help from the UN again, you're calling it names for not bailing you out. I think the point the UN is trying to make, is that you should pay your own independent people to stand there and get shot by the terrorists.
What the UN has done is make it clear that we were right. They have only heightened our independence from them and rendered themselves irrelevant in more eyes.

Why dont you (the US) go and sort out the UN, why dont you spend your hard earned money to make it not corrupt and more importantly completely independent?
First, we try but many have a strong incentive to keep it the way it is… corruption is profitable to the corrupt.
Second, the UN should NEVER be independent. It should be subject to it’s member nations. It is NOT a discrete entity.
If you care more about your own power then you wont.
We will not empower tyrants.
We will not be stalled by the corrupt policies of a distorted and perverted institution with ambitions of global tyranny.
If they care about world peace and world harmony then you'll help.
I think you’re got that backwards.

We are doing our part. By not helping us, the UN has demonstrated that they care more about making this petty statement then about the future of Iraq.

There are completely unfit to hold any leadership role.

The whole institution should be junked. Keep the diplomats, but fire everyone not employed by a specific government. All UN staff except for the janitors get pink slips.

The UN is not beyond reform.
It is so long as it is protected from reform by conformists.

The US is the one invading countries, shooting wounded Iraqi's, and torturing prisoners. You're telling me the organisation that asked you not to do this is wrong?
We liberated Iraq
Kill terrorists who hide behind school children and shoot innocent men
And put underwear on the heads of people that we can technically kill under international law.

We stand for a long list of values that the UN couldn’t hope to live up to.

What does the UN stand for? – Nothing.

You might not like bush, but he’s a shaking things up. The short-term costs to my nation are going to be immense. The war, the loss of meaningless alliances, reforms in the intelligence department, social security reform, tort reform, etc. I could go on… the cost and degree of changes is just huge. However, these are reforms of our domestic and international policy that have been a VERY long time coming.

Say what you like of our policies… but know they are based upon a great many moral convictions that we have before now lacked the courage to act upon.

If our values are wrong, then we will destroy ourselves. If our values are right, then it should be good times for all… minus the dead weight of course… which is going to have to suck off of someone else.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 05:25 PM

you could be 'free' in a concentration camp.
Technically, you could be.

A bit of an extreme "technically" to go with a bit of your extreme example.

However, we're now talking about the definitions of freedom and that's a tough one, and probably best to start a new thread.

We are doing our part. By not helping us, the UN has demonstrated that they care more about making this petty statement then about the future of Iraq.

The world feels a lot less safe now than it did before the US declared it's war on terror. Perhaps you're sacrificing the relative peace of the world in order to buy your own?

You're right, the US is reforming itself, hopefully.. but at too great a cost? What will happen to the US if the only way it can survive would be to nuke the middle east and take all the oil. Them or you.

The recent values that the US has demonstrated to me are things like:
The Patriot Act
TWO invasions and occupations of other countries (one of which was against the wishes of the international community)
Mis-information

Now, I am NOT trying to compare the US to Nazi Germany, however - do you think that all the Germans in Germany were bad? Do you think that almost all their soldiers hates blacks, jews and whomever else.
Most of the Germans did not know about the concentration/death camps, and they genuinely believed that what they were doing was morally correct. Those that didn't agree didn't get shot.... not at the beginning, they were allowed to disagree.

Anyway - people can be fed disinformation, and believe they are doing the right thing. There's been evidence of that once already, and it was the MAJOR reason that was cited for going to war. If more Americans had said "shit we fucked that up in a big way, well we'll stay and get the job done then get the hell out of there" I would feel a lot better. Instead I hear "well we were still right to invade, it's not the governments fault, he was still a bad man, we're only freeing the people".

I do not think we would have gone to war with Iraq if people had said at the beginning "he has no WMD and there are nothing substantial between Saddam and Al-Q - lets go to war?"

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 05:42 PM

Technically, you could be.

A bit of an extreme "technically" to go with a bit of your extreme example.

However, we're now talking about the definitions of freedom and that's a tough one, and probably best to start a new thread.
Would you stop f’ing around with me please? If you have to get all metaphysical, then you have no case.

A free people are not a people in bondage, slavery, or in anyway under tyranny.

If you’re going to fight that, then evaluate what we’re talking about and realize that your comment has no bearing in this context.

The world feels a lot less safe now than it did before the US declared it's war on terror. Perhaps you're sacrificing the relative peace of the world in order to buy your own?
You should have read that article I posted for you.

The point it was making is that the US has changed the type of alliances it will be making now.

In the past we made them with governments. We allied with dictators instead of their people because it was more realistic. However, in so doing we compromise our values. You no doubt will bring up that we sided with Saddam once.

We are shifting to a system were we ally with societies or ‘the people’. In this sense we will only be the allies of governments when they’re democratic… and otherwise the allies of the people in tyrannies.

You're right, the US is reforming itself, hopefully.. but at too great a cost? What will happen to the US if the only way it can survive would be to nuke the middle east and take all the oil. Them or you.
Then we’ll do it.

Look… if you were starving and it was your life or <something awful>… in most cases you’re going to go for anything but death. The US is not evil, but it will also not accept its demise. We told the Russians that if they wanted to play nuclear Armageddon with us, they’d find us up for it.

We don’t like it… we will do a great deal to avoid it… but we reserve it as a final option.

Now, I am NOT trying to compare the US to Nazi Germany, however - do you think that all the Germans in Germany were bad? Do you think that almost all their soldiers hates blacks, jews and whomever else.
Yes you are.
Most of the Germans did not know about the concentration/death camps, and they genuinely believed that what they were doing was morally correct. Those that didn't agree didn't get shot.... not at the beginning, they were allowed to disagree.
Moral relativism… it’s just a bogus way of thinking. Our moral system isn’t comparable. They only cared for themselves and we care for the whole world. Same deal with the USSR… they weren’t about the world. They were about their own power. The US is simply preventing domination. That means we’re going to intervene when someone tries ti or when there is a trend that leads to it. But we don’t control there after.

Anyway - people can be fed disinformation, and believe they are doing the right thing. There's been evidence of that once already, and it was the MAJOR reason that was cited for going to war.
Misinformation is the wrong term. Faulty is more appropriate… I know the distinction isn’t lost on you.

If more Americans had said "shit we fucked that up in a big way, well we'll stay and get the job done then get the hell out of there" I would feel a lot better. Instead I hear "well we were still right to invade, it's not the governments fault, he was still a bad man, we're only freeing the people".
We feel no guilt. This was right without WMDs.

I do not think we would have gone to war with Iraq if people had said at the beginning "he has no WMD and there are nothing substantial between Saddam and Al-Q - lets go to war?"
Again, you don’t understand why we went in. We’re going to transform that whole region of the world.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 05:58 PM

I'm not getting metaphysical with you. Do you think the people in Guatanamo bay are free? Do you think that makes the US a bastion of freedom - locking people up with no trial?

I cant find the article you're referring too, but perhaps you should see the results of the survey I posted that said 78% of people (or something like that) feel LESS safe now GWB is back in charge.

We are shifting to a system were we ally with societies or ‘the people’. In this sense we will only be the allies of governments when they’re democratic… and otherwise the allies of the people in tyrannies.
Interesting. That's a great idea - I've not seen ANYthing in the news about this.

We don’t like it… we will do a great deal to avoid it… but we reserve it as a final option.
Now what if you had been lied too, misinformed, whatever - and we're already at that point?

Okay, well I am drawing a comparison, but I am not saying that the US is a Nazi regime then. That's what I meant. Please answer the question I asked.

Sorry, who only cared for themselves, the Germans? All of them? The US looks after the US first and foremost. I'll bet you those Germans thought they were doing everyone a favour when they marched into Poland.

You say faulty evidence, I say misinformation. I am pretty confident that the UK misinformed the public, and based on that - the US government must have misinformed the US people, else we knew something you didn't (or vice-versa) and this whole thing was a far bigger shambles than I initially thought.

I disagree. I dont think this was right without WMD.

I still dont believe the reasons for going in. Oil, pride, domination... those are still options for me. I am not saying I disbelieve it, I just dont believe it yet.

I also dont think the US has the right to decide to transform that region of the world. I hope it succeeds in creating vast amount of freedom for everyone - god I really do... but as far as i'm concerned, you've just cut of a hand because there was an infection in a finger. You could have just saved the day but what's more likely, is that you'll be faced with anger rather than gratitude. So far that's what has happened.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 06:20 PM

I'm not getting metaphysical with you. Do you think the people in Guatanamo bay are free? Do you think that makes the US a bastion of freedom - locking people up with no trial?
Of course they're not free... they're lucky they're not dead.

You tried to make some claim about how a person could be free in a tyranny if their minds were free.

We are talking about political freedom... period.

I cant find the article you're referring too, but perhaps you should see the results of the survey I posted that said 78% of people (or something like that) feel LESS safe now GWB is back in charge.

Interesting. That's a great idea - I've not seen ANYthing in the news about this.
I gave you an article which you didn't read... It was the one that i put up with a picture of bush hanging his head with the world as a background.

Now what if you had been lied too, misinformed, whatever - and we're already at that point?
We're not at that point. We'd have to lose all our allies before that became attractive.

and no we haven't.

Okay, well I am drawing a comparison, but I am not saying that the US is a Nazi regime then. That's what I meant. Please answer the question I asked.
don't compare us... we're too different. I'm not even talking about good and evil... our whole way of thinking about things is so completely different that you can't compare us. Our cultures and societies operate on different principles.

Sorry, who only cared for themselves, the Germans? All of them? The US looks after the US first and foremost. I'll bet you those Germans thought they were doing everyone a favour when they marched into Poland.
No... we have and continue to base our foreign policy on international health. We do what we do in the interest of that health. If we cared nothing for the fate of the world's people, then we would have a VERY different policy.

I mean... if you think we're "dominating" the planet, I think you underestimate what we could do if we were so inclined.

You say faulty evidence, I say misinformation. I am pretty confident that the UK misinformed the public, and based on that - the US government must have misinformed the US people, else we knew something you didn't (or vice-versa) and this whole thing was a far bigger shambles than I initially thought.
There is no evidence of lying or willful distortion. There was bad intelligence.

I disagree. I dont think this was right without WMD.
Tell that to the free Iraqi people 20 years from now.

I still dont believe the reasons for going in. Oil, pride, domination... those are still options for me. I am not saying I disbelieve it, I just dont believe it yet.
At the end of the day, tyranny offends us.
There isn't a tyranny on earth that we wouldn't feel good about liberating on those grounds alone. It makes us feel good as people... we derive personal moral satisfaction from it.

I also dont think the US has the right to decide to transform that region of the world. I hope it succeeds in creating vast amount of freedom for everyone - god I really do... but as far as i'm concerned, you've just cut of a hand because there was an infection in a finger. You could have just saved the day but what's more likely, is that you'll be faced with anger rather than gratitude. So far that's what has happened.
Oh eventually, the democracies will resent us... it's a pattern we're rather resigned to at this point...

when people are scared, hungry, and oppressed they hear our words about freedom and fighting oppression etc and they support it. But when they get fat and happy, they tend to forget what our words used to mean to them... typically takes the old generation dying out... then they snidely deride us in prosperous societies that wouldn't exist if it weren't for us...

oh well... at least none of them are violent... it's mostly just poorly thought out ignorant talk.

30 years from now Iraq will be pretty happy with the US... then the generation that taught the value of freedom will die off... 60 years from now they'll likely be bitching at us again... only it won't be violent... just some bad books that no oen will read and the occasional cheap shot in the press.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

shutupandshave

Jan 28, 2005, @ 12:35 AM

don't compare us... we're too different. I'm not even talking about good and evil... our whole way of thinking about things is so completely different that you can't compare us. Our cultures and societies operate on different principles.

You+still didn't answer the question.

will read on when you have

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 10:20 AM

the crux of your question is that if the nazis thought they were doing right by killing millions couldn't the US be mislead as well.

I have said that I don't think our cultures or societies are comparable and I don't think we can be so mislead. I further doubt the degree to which the nazis were ignorent of what they were doing. Perhaps some of them were... but I think many to most were not.

shutupandshave

Feb 2, 2005, @ 02:13 PM

I think you're forgetting about the fact you've already been misled... apparently by the intelligence service. The US people knows it's killing 10's of thousands however they believe it to be the greater good.

Anyway, back to your UN comment.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/01/newdarfur-report050201.html

Now if the US really wants to impress me, it will state officially that this is genocide.

Here is an example of what is bad about the UN... now it may be that they are right and it's not officially genocide, but it looks pretty horrendous to me.

The thing is with genocide... once you have acknowledged that genocide is taking place you HAVE to intervene. It's the law.

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 02:33 PM

you're a moral relativist... the morality of anything is irrelevant to you.

So from your perspective nothing is worth going to war for unless its to save life.

That's so simplistic that I feel like I'm arguing with a computer... a philosophical bot.

pointless.

Now if the US really wants to impress me, it will state officially that this is genocide.

Here is an example of what is bad about the UN... now it may be that they are right and it's not officially genocide, but it looks pretty horrendous to me.

The thing is with genocide... once you have acknowledged that genocide is taking place you HAVE to intervene. It's the law.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8364-2004Sep9.html
We already have.

So be impressed... of course you won't be... cus you weren't serious when you said you'd be impressed. You were merely throwing out something that you didn't expect us to meet... ergo you'll take the line we have to cross to be respected another 2 feet from us... if we go two feet further, instead of giving it to us, you'll take it back another two feet.

The US already should have had your respect in this manner... that it doesn't says more about you then US.

shutupandshave

Feb 2, 2005, @ 02:40 PM

Actually I am genuinely impressed dispite your pathetic girly whining, which is difficult because I know you're going to accuse me of feeling like this only because it makes you wrong.

I am not impressed however, that the US recognises it as genocide and does fuck all about it... contrevening International law... and making the whole reason for being impressed to begin with, worthless.

Great job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62798-2004Oct25.html

On Friday, President Bush committed $2.5 million in military services to support the mission, and the U.S. government awarded $20.5 million in contracts to two U.S. companies to provide tents, electricity and other support. The European Union also announced it would spend $125 million to support the peacekeepers, but the promised aid falls short of the African Union's request for $220 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/27/sudan.us/

Nothing has been done by the US yet.

So what do I have to be impressed about?

150billion in Iraq, 2.5 million for recognised Genocide

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 04:52 PM

As predicted, the bar was moved another two feet away.

If we invaded and stopped the genocide, we'd be warmongers... there's no way we can win with you people... so we're not trying anymore...

Fucking hate us... we don't care anymore.

and by "you people", i don't refer to countries so much as specific people that have an unshakable notion of the US. We can win over populations... but haters will be haters.

give us a condition, with solid values that can't be debated once reached, unter which you would call us a good or moral or whatever positive nation?

Cus' we can't think of anyway to get that out of you, which means we won't try.

Papa Smurf

Feb 2, 2005, @ 05:07 PM

Nope, we take surveys of all the populations.
the survey says
The Baathists want us out and Saddam or some other dictator in power so they can shit all over the country again.
The Kurds want a system that protects their regional sovereignty.
The Shiites want a system that takes into consideration their majority status in the population.
show me were these fictional surveys are taken, how are they taken? Who takes them? I mean ffs you are just making things up and hoping no one points at them and laughs well i am pointing at them and laughing, how do this representative sample of the population get their questionares?

1 POST ????? hummmm there is no postal service in Iraq outsde of the main cities and even them only in a few.

2 Telephone???? may people in Iraq do not have phones therefore mathamatically it is impossible to gain an accurate survey, plus the phone system in Iraq has been bomber into the stone age, its not exactly reliable as the blog i posted points out.

3 Troop in a kindly manor ask people for their opinions, LOL omg that one makes me laugh the most, emmm hello US troops do not even stop their vehicals on the streets any more let alone get out of them, their tactics for urban control and warfare are woeful. So its a big no there too.

4. Iraqs ask on the part of the US army lol three results in get shot in the back of the head, no one works openly for US with out taking a very very serious risk.

shutupandshave

Feb 2, 2005, @ 05:13 PM

Fucking hate us... we don't care anymore.
On who's authority do you speak for the whole of the US?

You went into Iraq looking for WMD's - THAT is the problem I have. If you went in to curtail genocide, and provided evidence for it, that would have been fine.

YOU LIED

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/vet-n11.shtml

present.

Papa Smurf

Feb 2, 2005, @ 05:30 PM

http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20030513IE16

Papa Smurf

Feb 2, 2005, @ 05:50 PM

You like to take the moral high ground Karma, and i applaud that. To be moral though you must not be hypocrital something the US is abuntently, maybe before preaching morality to the world you should try and reduce corruption in your own country.

Do you think you are so perfect? the only thing important to your leaders is money, not the countries they are bringing freedom too. They will spend your money willy nilly buying tanks guns oil or drugs off themselves, what i job. They might aswell just print themselves money, oh GW does lol.

Ill use the Medicare scam (i call it a scam because thats what it is)
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=14528
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/12/bush_allys_firm_vies_for_medicare_cards/

LOL its so simple you look at it once you go yeah man thats great 14% of branded drugs and 30% off generic that has to help until you reralise that the customer is not going to see a penny, the companies distributing these will claim that 14% or 30% off the government and charge the same, and there is nothing to stop them it prefect, looky looky GW frend is going to profit, and who drew up this section of the bill oh Haliburton our old friends YAY

This is what your own press says about it:
Salt Lake City, Utah - Deseret News

"The Medicare prescription drug bill may be a hoax, a sham and a shell game, but it has the seal of approval of the AARP, whose leadership is obviously not elected.

"Some of the organization's newest members have the distinction of being the only generation to have burned their draft cards and their AARP membership cards."

Los Angeles, Calif. - Los Angeles Times
Prescription Drug Plan Betrays Senior Citizens,

"Once again, the well-heeled vested interests got their way; the result is a sweetheart deal for the drug companies that represents a gigantic rip-off of our nation's taxpayers. The Bush administration, the drug companies and AARP should all be ashamed of their complicity in ramming through this fatally flawed legislation."

Allentown, Pa. - The Morning Call
AARP Was Wrong to Back Medicare Bill,

"We all need to read between the lines and understand that in the long run, this plan will leave many seniors behind and may very well cost future generations, both financially as well as their own Medicare benefits."

Atlanta, Ga. - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Medicare Drug Benefit Will Stick it to Taxpayers,

"Forage under couch cushions. Break open the baby's piggy bank. Empty your pockets. You'll need every last cent to pay for the Medicare mayhem created by the U.S. Congress this week.

"The price of the disastrous new Medicare drug benefit, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to eventually soar into the trillions, ranks among the worst fleecings of the U.S. citizenry by its elected officials."

St. Louis, Mo. - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
A Bitter Pill,
"So, to recap: Big pharmaceutical companies get exactly what they wanted in the bill. Insurance and managed care companies get a chance to make money. Hospitals and doctors get higher reimbursements. Corporations get more than they asked for. But for the millions of elderly and soon-to-be-elderly Americans who will get, at most, 22 percent of their drug bills covered over the next decade, it's a bitter pill."

Wichita, Kan. - The Wichita Eagle
SCARY; Drug Benefit Needed, But How to Pay For it?,

"But what Medicare is costing today isn't the big problem; it's what happens once the baby boom generation starts retiring in 2011.

"Consider: The $395 billion price tag of the Medicare bill is only for the next 10 years. After that, as the demographic tidal wave of retirees begins to enter the system, the cost of the drug benefit will skyrocket.

"But for the most part, Congress just added an expensive new benefit without a long-term plan to pay for it. That's scary."

New York, N.Y. – Newsday
Medicine Show; Both the Medicare Prescription-drug Bill and the Process of Producing it are Bad News,

"The congressional action on landmark Medicare prescription drug legislation in recent days was a classic illustration of a dominant political party using its muscle to add insult to injury.

"First the injury: It's a bad bill. Elderly people desperate for government help to pay for medicines will be sorely disappointed by coverage that is meager, complicated and will leave them to the untender mercies of the insurance industry, which the bill lavishes with multi-billion-dollar subsidies.

"So that leaves the insult: A process tilted outrageously to favor passage."

Now this all happened about a year ago and they were pushing it through the house and senate did it become law. Unless there was some sort of mirical it did, i mean something which was obviously designed to help the less fortunate of your care nothing economy. Its shameful i fell ashamed for you, are the elderly that you kill because they can not afford treatment, is that not blood on the hands of your government, or its refusal to bring in tuffer gun laws, because the gun manufactures and the NRA want their toys despite the pain, death and misery they spread across the US, and if you come back with its not guns that kill people crap, i will laugh so hard in your face i may expode and kill everyone.

Its not that i hate Americans, i would not be so blind sighted as to hate someone with out knowing them, but i do hate is what America is coming to stand for, you are no longer the good guys that you once were, you were in many people eyes the saviours of the world after ww2 the reality was somewhat diffrent but America was the most singularly important country in ww2, i have never and would never deny that, however you did not win it alone nor could you. but that was another arguement (i mean debate). Most of the rest of the world now see you as a bully, a mean tempered bully whos only interest is stealing pocket money off smaller boys who it can pick on easily. You now run the risk of being branded the bad guys you claim to want to free people yet you openly support ther supression of arabs in Isreal, you claim to be bring freedom yet all i see is chaos and destruction.