Another example of what's wrong with the UN

kochman said:
I did respond. I obviously don't have much of a problem with it, so I stay and support it.
Click to expand...
So you support how America handled the lead up to the Iraq invasion?
 
I really don't think that this is important... but, I've been on the record, many times, as saying I didn't support the invasion of Iraq (or Afghanistan), though I took part in both due to my oath of service.
These two issues were major factors in my leaving the service, in fact.

Leaving the country? No...

You?
 
So you support how we clamored for UN Weapon Investigators to go into Iraq and do more hunting, but when Saddam rolled over to our demands and it looked like no weapons would be found a showdown was forced and evidence fabricated to look like Saddam threaten the world at any second?

And I fail to see what circumstances would force me to leave the country has any bearing on the matter at hand.
 
I fail to see how you gleened that I support what happened out of my statement of I didn't support the invasion of Iraq...
 
I was not talking about the invasion itself. Given how you has brushed by the lead up part and instead started talking about the actual invasion, I wanted to call attention to the lead up because I was unsure if you either supported it or were unsure of what it contained.
 
I am pretty much not pleased with the lead up... if I was, I would probably have been pleased with the invasion.
I really don't think this is a very important topic.

The behavior of the USA is certainly miles and miles better than the overwhelming majority of the world.
 
I sincerly question the accuracy of your last statement. Yes, American behavior is better than some sordid little dictatorships. Then again, as the sole remaining superpower and the 'leader of the free world', I would certaintly hope we behaved better than those sordid little dictatorships.
 
Well, talk to Obama supporters about our current behavior, the only behavior which can be changed... he's had the reins long enough to make some serious changes now, yet hasn't.
We all pretty much agree, well, most of us, Bush sucked and didn't help our international standing. I don't think that's in contention.
 
kochman said:
So was Hitler, Stalin, etc... I don't like it, and we should not be engaging him in anything, in this "civilized" world of ours, except perhaps warfare.
That's great you're cool with a mass murdering dictator and all, I'm not coll with it.
Click to expand...

who said I'm cool with it ... it just is ... nice to know that if you had your way WWIII would be over and done with tho... :mischief: did anyone win it :crazyeye:
 
kochman said:
The behavior of the USA is certainly miles and miles better than the overwhelming majority of the world.
Click to expand...

Well, making statements like that, maybe you should employ a useful metric, such as comparing US behaviour to the other nations of the G8 or the G20 or even just those in the Western world. It's like suggesting that US citizens earn more money than 80% of the rest of the world's population, which is probably true, but completely irrelevant, considering where over half the world lives.
 
Arakhor said:
Well, making statements like that, maybe you should employ a useful metric, such as comparing US behaviour to the other nations of the G8 or the G20 or even just those in the Western world. It's like suggesting that US citizens earn more money than 80% of the rest of the world's population, which is probably true, but completely irrelevant, considering where over half the world lives.
Click to expand...
Um, we're talking about a global organization where all countries are members, so comparing the US's actions to the entire world is completely legitimate... it's the whole point!
 
So the UN Tourist Organization gave Mugabe a standard letter that asked him to be more open for tourism, same as they give most other world leaders. That is as far as I can tell what has actually happened. Is there anything else to this?

Edit: The hell. I can't see any sort of reasonable source in the article for anything it says other than that world leaders receive letters. Why was this article written at all? It seems to be all .

Edit 2: They link to NOTHING, they refer to NOTHING and they cite NOTHING giving any credence to ANYTHING written in that article! The hell!? Forgive the capital letter words, but journalist ought to be able to back their claims up at least a little bit. All that's in that article is bollocks and !
 
Here is what I think is a truly legitimate problem with the UN that is largely due to the US and the other permanent members of the UNSC:

67afe0008be7012f2fe200163e41dd5b


Isn't it time we finally gave the UN some real military clout to resolve issues like this, while making it impossible for the "superpowers" to unilaterally veto anything substantial? Or are they too afraid that the military might be used contrary to their own imperialism, hegemony, and national interests? That it might even be used to attack their own military?
 
The UN has intervened militarily in several different episodes.

The problem with revoking vetoes... a lot more intervention will be taken up... and while you may think that is a good thing, the people deciding on that intervention would be? The majority?
The majority of the UN are dictatorships...

The level of corruption as is is already ridiculous... give them a power like warfare without serious agreement, and it will go through the roof.

No thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom