United Nations

[Morning Calm]

Bush has depants the United Nations when he went to war despite all efforts to find a resolution. Where do you see the United Nations as a global governing organization and do you think that they need to increase their influence or participation in the world order?

[drisley]

I think the way it is now, there is no way it can be a strong governing organization. Whereas it started with fine intentions, I think it has turned into a bullying mechanism for world socialist dictators. Just look at how often the U.S. gets chastized by dictatorships and the worse human rights abusers in the world, all via the UN. And the UN lends credence to that.

Without the US, the UN would be totally impotent. Its a weak organization.

[Morning Calm]

you're american?

[drisley]

Yes. I think most everyone here is.

[bob]

He is a bush loving American. :)

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by bob
He is a bush loving American. :)

well, there were alot of people who liked nixon too, but I didn't have a problem with those people either.

:lol:

[bob]

I don't give a fuck who you have a problem with unless you post some content.
Debate involves issues or news stories or facts - not sole opinions.
Please understand what I am saying because f you do not, this may not be the correct forum for you.

[Morning Calm]

I didn't like the way that Bush shit on UN and don't think we needed to go to war with Iraq. UN has never really had very big balls to start with, but now bush has completely cut them off and coffie is no more than a eunice without an emperor to seduce.

Fact is, we went to war despite what the global opinion was and stepped all over the one organization needed for the world order.

[bob]

You are correct.

But while the EU did not join us, their EURO gained value against the dollar to bring it 12% higher. That is one hell of a better investment than the US stock market.

:hint:

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by bob
But while the EU did not join us, their EURO gained value against the dollar to bring it 12% higher. That is one hell of a better investment than the US stock market.

:hint:

What do you mean and how does this relate to the UN?

[drisley]

Bob has a habit of changing the subject mid-stream. ;)

[azscary]

Does he piss on his foot when he does that? :)


The U.N. is an obsolete institution and should be disbanded. We should give everyone of them a 30-day eviction notice, and use the space made available in the U.N. building to replace some of that lost in the World Trade Center until a new WTC is built. Hell, since the building has long been paid for we could charge just for the utilities and shit to maintain the building to help those companies displaced in the WTC attack.

[bob]

Originally posted by drisley
Bob has a habit of changing the subject mid-stream. ;)

I agreed and moved along. You did not challenge.

I try to understand what asscrazy is trying to say but it seems some live off the scent of daddies smegma.

[azscary]

Originally posted by bob
I agreed and moved along. You did not challenge.

I try to understand what asscrazy is trying to say but it seems some live off the scent of daddies smegma.

So what confused you Bob? Was it the use of "U.N." as the abbreviation for United Nations? Was it the word "obsolete"? Or was it the concept of the United Nations being an outdated organization?

I can see where someone could confuse smegma with the U.N., (sorry Bob, UNITED NATIONS) but other than that I have no idea where the reference to smegma came from.

You are obviously not an idiot such as Morning Calm, (THERE'S an oxymoron for you) so please explain where we went awry here.

[drisley]

Bob was confused the moment he woke up this morning, with this beer breath and lobster farts. You gotta give him a little leeway. ;)

[azscary]

oooooooooooooooo

kKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

[bob]

The U.S. government is an obsolete institution and should be disbanded. We should give everyone of them a 30-day eviction notice, and use the space made available for the U.N. and to replace some of that lost in the World Trade Center until a new WTC is built. Hell, since the buildings have long been paid for we could charge just for the utilities and shit to maintain the building to help those companies displaced in the WTC attack.

[azscary]

Bob,

Does it hurt much?

[bob]

azscary - best reply for you is that I cast lobster farts in your general direction.

The UN is with us or against us. So says our führer bush.

When it comes to world relations I know bush overstepped his right to lead our nation and steered us down a path of right-wing nation stealing.

[azscary]

I must agree that Bush over stepped his right to lead. No argument there.

It is spelled Füeher Bob, but I think that calling Bush our Füeher is a little out there.

At great risk, I must admit that right-wing or left-wing or whatever I never paid much attention to and would not know one from the other. I know what I believe.

The U.N. was the idea of the United States. As always, we had to convince France to join. Pussies! The committee that was to form the U.N. suggested it be located on US soil out of safety concerns,(No shit) and the U.N. was eventually formed. It was the first U.N. council that elected the US to the role of U.N. police. Each nation was to provide a function and ours was as security / police / military arm or the U.N. Who else had the capacity or capability to perform that servce? France? NOT!

I still believe that they have become ineffective and obsolete. I agree as previously posted that they have become the mouthpiece of 3rd world and terrorist nations. It is time to do away with the obsolete.

In response to Morning Calm, (who Drisley must have killed because he has been oddly quiet after the PM) I am adamantly opposed to THE REASON we went to Iraq, however I still think it was the right thing to do. Bush went about it the wrong way, but the results of freeing a nation from slavery is to be commended. Now we need to make sure the country is safe from Saddam's return or one of his cronies taking over, and get the fuck out.

[bob]

I did not say Füeher - I wrote führer.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=f%FChrer

füh·rer also fueh·rer n.
A leader, especially one exercising the powers of a tyrant.


I guess it is possible that dictionary.com is wrong because your correction "Füeher" is not listed. Please do not waste time correcting what is already correct. ;)
In other words - always agree with me. :D:D:D:D

[azscary]

Yes mine Herr!! LOL :)

You are unfortunately correct as in my haste I left out an "r" and now I am embarrassed. It should have been spelled fuehRer.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fuehrer

However on further investigation I find there are two different spellings. I stand corrected. DAMMIT!

Now that the spelling pissing match is over what about the rest of mine post Herr Bob?

[bob]

The rest was nonsence. We need an even stronger UN.

[azscary]

You keep spelling that wrong too.

NONSENSE

[bob]

Are you running all my posts through a spell check program? Why not do that to everyone here and see where they tell you to go. :D

[azscary]

Sorry. Just giving ya shit cause we are both in Califonia

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by azscary
The U.N. was the idea of the United States. As always, we had to convince France to join. Pussies! The committee that was to form the U.N. suggested it be located on US soil out of safety concerns,(No shit) and the U.N. was eventually formed. It was the first U.N. council that elected the US to the role of U.N. police. Each nation was to provide a function and ours was as security / police / military arm or the U.N. Who else had the capacity or capability to perform that servce? France? NOT!

I still believe that they have become ineffective and obsolete. I agree as previously posted that they have become the mouthpiece of 3rd world and terrorist nations. It is time to do away with the obsolete.

In response to Morning Calm, (who Drisley must have killed because he has been oddly quiet after the PM) I am adamantly opposed to THE REASON we went to Iraq, however I still think it was the right thing to do. Bush went about it the wrong way, but the results of freeing a nation from slavery is to be commended. Now we need to make sure the country is safe from Saddam's return or one of his cronies taking over, and get the fuck out.

At one time, I tried to be a republican because it is a simple way of life. Either it's black/white, day/night, cold/hot, bad/evil. If I could wake up in the morning, read the paper, and say "that's god damn right! or that's utter bullshit." Problem is that things are not that simple. Life is in color and there is not need to watch it in black or white.

Many people share the same feels as you about the UN. They feel that they ineffective and obsolete. I have to agree with you that they are ineffective but do not agree that they are obsolete.

During the 100 drafts of different Iraq resolutions, it showed the structural ineffectiveness of the UN. The impatience of the most powerful permant member of the security council would not wait for it's leadership to take control. In many ways, the UN didn't know what to do as a unanimous decision could not be made. It was actually the first time since WWII we had asked ourselves if democracy is the correct method to administrate the UN. Democracy was shown as ineffective and obsolete, not the UN. We recently see what democracy has done to world trade. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who was recently in Calcun, Mexico.

But the formation of the UN was not to act as a world government. Go check out their website at: www.un.org Their mission statement clearly states that: "we are not a world government!" But are a vehicle of peace and guildence that is represented by the world. Unfortunately, are world has not yet evolved to the point of understanding the meaning of life past our own primitive instincts. And our society does not want to take global responsiblity to how we effect or influence other global communities as the Bush administration tries to future push the livily hood of the nation-state, boarders, national identity, religous seperation......dare I go on?

The UN is not obsolete because the world needs it more than ever. The inevitabilty of mass media has brought us to a statium where all can see and watch. Before the internet the UN was a euphoric organization like watching an episode of Star Trek where different races come together to explore humanity. But now the truth of the sitution has come out, especially now that Bush has gutted it out. It was a fragile living thing and Bush has caused it great damage.

We will see in the very near future more seperation mostly caused by religious struggle. We will see even more voilence, the treat of war, and the crash of many capital bridges that we have attempted to build between nations. It will not be until a great confrontation and much blood shed until we realize the importance of the UN.

[drisley]

I can't say I agree with you, but very well written nonetheless.

It is typical of the left to see a man like Bush as a cowboy unilateralist. They said the same thing about Reagan. Its not usually until we look in history's macro lens that we see the value in what takes place. I think the U.S. bypassing the UN was necessary. We are the only nation on this planet to ever consult the UN before taking military action. Many of those who use the UN to chastize the United States have themselves used their military without the UN's sanction, yet insist that we curb our intentions to the will of the UN. Its hypoacrisy. Truth is that the United States is the country which grants any authority to the United Nations, because we do work through them. That is not to say we must always do that. The Bush administration moved heaven and earth, delayed the IRaqi war for many months, all to get the U.N onboard. It was clear eventually to anyone with half an IQ point that the U.N was never going to come on board. Why? Because one nation with veto power had drawn a line in the sand and decided it wanted to counter-balance our power in the world.

The UN was not gutted by this administration. It was gutted by France. If France had not publically threatened to veto despite everything, we would have gotten our second UN resolution - the one that wasn't even required because 1441 authorized what we did.

As for the value of the UN, I agree that it is, in theory, of great value to mankind. But, I say in theory, because it is administratively a total nightmare. It is totally ineffective. It is increasingly a tool of world dictators and globalists. Like any governmental system, the power and effectiveness of the UN is dependent on it being run by sane and honest men. Unfortauntely we don't have that today.

MC, what is your political philosophy? You have bashed democracy as a system of gov't. You've bashed capitalism. You bash the concept of the nation-state and rather openly advocate globalism. I'm not saying everything along that line is bad, but I'm just wondering where you're coming from here.

[bob]

D you might review history to see why France would have vetoed. You may find that it had something to do with the big lie of WOMD.

[drisley]

Bob, is this just echo syndrome or did you actually think that one through? Think about it - what would this administration have to gain by lying about WMD? To lie to go to war, just to go in and ultimately find nothing would mean bye-bye Bush. He knows that. Besides, if it were all a big lie and the administration was willing to sink to hose levels, don't you think we would have "found" (wink-wink) something by now?

It just doesn't add up, bob, and you know it. Here are the two likely choices:
(1) Saddam did have WMD but they are hidden and we haven't found them yet. I mean, if Saddam can hide 30 MIG fighters in the sand with our troops practically driving over them for a couple months before they pop up - he can hide WMD.
(2) Our intelligence system failed mightily and we went to war on faulty intel.

As for France, gimme a break. France knew damn well what was going on. All you have to do is look at what French gov't officials have said to see the importance they place on counter-balancing what they perceive as a unhealthy US dominance in the world. They were playing a bigger game than simply Iraq. They were playing "protect their investment" and "bully the US".

[bob]

France just had better intelligence and as an ally of the US it could have been cited instead of the flaky British intelligence.

But the French did not have what bush wanted to hear and bush only said to us what he wanted us to hear.

You can wait for WOMD but by now I will say if they are found they WERE planted. It is clear the war was for another reason and you have shotgun-ed many righteous reasons for the war yourself.

[drisley]

As for France - whatever. I disagree with you on that one.

Yes, I think the war was just and my personal reasons for supporting it have nothing to do with WMD. I think the Bush administration made a horrible mistake by using WMD as its argument. It would have had a lot better success to use other reasoning. In fact, I think the administation has bunged many of its PR situations. The fact that they constantly played the WMD card while ignoring Saddam's well-documented human rights abuses and links to world terrorism - just completely idiotic.

by now I will say if they are found they WERE planted.

What a predictable thing for you to say. This is the planned spin by the DNC when/if WMD are eventually found.

[bob]

I said it and it is my logical assumption. If they plant them they will not get away with it so that is why it will not happen. Nice twist but utter bullshit.

WOMD are not there to be found. If searched hard enough they may find a few that were gifts from the US for the Iran war.

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by drisley
MC, what is your political philosophy? You have bashed democracy as a system of gov't. You've bashed capitalism. You bash the concept of the nation-state and rather openly advocate globalism. I'm not saying everything along that line is bad, but I'm just wondering where you're coming from here.

I'm here to explore my political philosophy and not really here to persuade anyone toward my agenda, but to share my experiences and knowledge with other people so that I/we can acheive a more developed perspective of global politics. I came to this site from google and started to post here because it appeared to be somewhat active and administration seems to allow freedom of speech. I've been living overseas for the last 7 years and my domestic knowledge of politics is very rusty almost to the point of being ignorant but my knowledge in global perspectives is diversified due to the fact I read alot of non-american/american media. Non-american media is not very generous toward the bush administration because the bush administration is not very generous to the outside world. I see the qualities of capitalism as well as I see the pitfalls. It's much easier to see the pitfalls of capitalism in developing worlds, but also easier to see the pitfalls of an underdeveloped government.

[azscary]

I must agree that the reasoning behind the Iraq war was indeed the wrong one. I still feel that whatever the reason used, the end results were worth it.

As for WOMD, the U.S., as Drisley said, spent months trying to get the U.N. on board. Saddam surely was aware that invasion was inevitable. I believe he had sufficient time to either destroy, hide or move out of the country any WOMD he had.

I am not sure the France was alone in the gutting of the U.N. Germany and Russia played a part there. Russia and France both had a lot of money at stake in Iraq in oil contracts that their economies depended on and that they had already paid on. It was in their best financial interest for Saddam to remain in power.

I think they knew all along that the intelligence was faulty. They picked the wrong reason to justify the invasion.

[drisley]

I think they knew all along that the intelligence was faulty. They picked the wrong reason to justify the invasion.

Again, that makes no sense. In this day and age, there is not a chance in hell that our gov't could pull off such a thing. In Washington, if two people know something, its not a secret. In this case, we're talking about thousands of people from multiple agencies of gov't who see the intelligence we have. I would guarantee you as sure as I'm sitting here that if the administration (which itself has a lot of potential whistleblowers) tried to go to war on a lie, people would have leaked. Besides, like I said to bob, it would be stupid politically.

[azscary]

This is a prime example of why the UN is an obsolete agency.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D7TSG9700_story