Results 1 to 10 of 25
Hybrid View
-
June 19th, 2005 02:29 AM #1
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/18/un.reform/index.html
What arrogance!
okay, maybe the UN really is in need of urgent reform (maybe, maybe not), but blackmail? to put things in perspective, this is the same country that chose to forego the UN when it went to war with iraq. tsk tsk.
-
June 19th, 2005 03:32 AM #2
mbt, according to the article, the Bush Admin will not even support such threats which are being made by the US Senate.
Parang unfair yata kapatid if you have to bring up the Iraq issue dahil mismong Admin hindi naman aprubado itong so called 'blackmail' US Senate Bill.
A senator said he will introduce the measure in the Senate, where it must pass before going to the White House for the president's approval, but the Bush administration has signaled it does not support such threats.
And to put another thing in perspective, US is the same country who built the UN. I cant remember the last time UN had done anything to protect the nations. Maybe somebody here can remind me
-
Nagtatanim ng kamote
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 787
June 19th, 2005 01:01 PM #3Originally Posted by Karding
And -- in case you did not know: the Bushies are opposing this bill because they want Bush to be given the power to decide whether or not to withhold UN dues (the Bushies don't want the US Congress to be the one to decide).
This is the perfect example of an arrogant rich guy -- they think they're better than anyone else and above the law because they have more money. Tsk, tsk.
Originally Posted by KardingLast edited by creepy; June 19th, 2005 at 01:07 PM.
-
June 21st, 2005 12:09 AM #4Originally Posted by creepy
RE: The U.S. hasn't been paying its UN dues properly for a loooooooooooong time anyway
Maybe if the US stops fighting the war for the entire world, giving aid to those so called third world country who, according you your opinion, pay their dues on-time, the US can probably pay its due on time.
RE: And -- in case you did not know: the Bushies are opposing this bill because they want Bush to be given the power to decide whether or not to withhold UN dues (the Bushies don't want the US Congress to be the one to decide).
This is the perfect example of an arrogant rich guy -- they think they're better than anyone else and above the law because they have more money. Tsk, tsk.
I value your opinion and I'm sorry if you feel that way.
RE: UN opposed a morally reprehensible war in Iraq.
I've been exchanging opinions over this issue for a very long time, Id rather keep my comment short. I guess you can call Saddam's action morally correct. YES, I know Bush wanted to hunt Bin Laden but failed, still looking daw. But Saddam's action against the kurds is what prompt Bush to attack Iraq. Why didnt Saddam just let the UN inspectors stay in Iraq to monitor their program?! The attack in Iraq could have been prevented if only Saddam agreed to have inspected again. Geez, after so many UN resolutions given to Saddam, he failed to comply. Wait, how more US resolution effort do we need again just so Saddam complies?!
I'm not going to get into a history lesson. The short, short version is
that the League of Nations (established after WW I to prevent wars) failed
to stop Mussolini's Italy from invading and conquering Ethiopia. It failed
to stop Japan from invading and conquering Manchuria and much of China.
Their committees wrung their hands spoke in platitudes but did absolutely
nothing to stop war.
At France's coaxing Britain's prime minister Nevil Chamberlain met with
Adolph Hitler in Munich and surrendered the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in
the interest of "peace in our time." The French and British watched as
Germany took Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. They all had committee
meetings and wrung their hands and talked of peace.
World War II erupted when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Britain had a
mutual defense treaty with Poland so they couldn't escape. They declared
war on Germany. Germany had a mutual defense treaty with Japan so Japan
declared war on Britain. France wet their pants and surrendered to Germany
as fast as they could and gleefully shipped all the Jews they could find to
death camps in Germany to prove to Adolph that they really were on the side
of Germany.
Japan attacked the United States and, because of Japan's mutual defense
treaty with Germany, Germany declared war on the United States.
Up until December 7th and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a large
number of our people were wringing their hands and saying, "Appease Hitler.
He is really a good guy who just needed a little more land for his
expanding population. The dear man just wants peace. And World War II was
in full swing leaving better than 50,000,000 people dead including about
450,000 American soldiers and sailors.
Three cheers for the League of Nations!
After World War II it was decided to do the whole thing all over again.
This time we would call it the United Nations and we will have committee
meetings and hand wringing parties and make sure peace prevails throughout
the land.
While that august body wrung hands the Soviet Union split Germany, invaded
Poland and Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria along with Latvia,
Lithuania and Estonia. The peaceful world saw Korea with 37,000 American
soldiers killed, over 1,000,000 South Korean soldiers and civilians killed
and the country nearly destroyed.
Since then we have had over 50,000 American soldiers killed in Vietnam and
have fought wars in Somalia, Herzegovenia, Panama, Granada, plus the Gulf
War when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
We should have gone into Baghdad and taken out that evil regime then but
the United Nations would have no part of that. All they would allow was for
us to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait, then peace would prevail.
Now, here we are with Saddam violating all 17 United Nations resolutions
while he has massed poison gas and bio weapons.
He is frantically trying to develop a nuke and his buddy, Kim Jong-Il of
North Korea may give him a few. (It was the United Nations who prevented us
from taking North Korea when the war was hot and we had the means to do it.)
Peace!!!!!!!! Sure.
France is wetting their collective pants in fear that the United States
will take Saddam out and along with him, France's 60 billion dollar
contracts with Iraq. Russia hedges because Iraq owes them 6 billion dollars
that they sorely need.
In answer to your question....... hell yes we should go to war with Iraq.
We should have done it six months ago. We should also get out of the United
Nations. Can you believe that the United Nations has appointed Iraq and
Syria to head up the United Nations Disarmament Committee? Can you believe
they have appointed Libya to head up the Human Rights Committee?
All three of these countries are on the UN List of Terrorist
States..........Absolutely unbelievable.
Just don't get me going. Throughout recorded history the only time peace
has prevailed is when the good guys have militarily whipped the bad guys.
Who are our best friends in the world? Japan because we whipped them.
Germany because we whipped them. Italy because we whipped them. Britain
because we whipped them.
I wish John Kerry won the last election, it would have been nice to blame somebody else, its a blame game afterall.
-
Nagtatanim ng kamote
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 787
June 21st, 2005 02:27 PM #5Originally Posted by Karding
Originally Posted by Karding
Originally Posted by Karding
Iraq was never a threat to the U.S.. After invading, the U.S. tells us -- "Ooops, no WMD!!". It's like police raiding a house for drugs, capturing the supposed drug dealer (killing a few dozen bystanders on the way) and saying "Ooops, wrong house!"
Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions for decades (much longer than Iraq) and has nuclear weapons but does it justify Iran or Syrians attacking Israel?
Originally Posted by Karding
I really think it is VERY VERY SAD that Americans actually believe they are in the right and keep on bashing people who opposed a war that killed more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis. I wish more Americans would swallow their pride and admit they made a huge mistake. They allowed a fanatical leader to lead them to kill so many people (in a poor foreign country) in the name of protecting the "freedom" of Americans. I think it's time for Bush (and his cabal) to apologize.
-
-
Nagtatanim ng kamote
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 787
-
June 22nd, 2005 02:08 AM #8Originally Posted by creepy
i am simply curious as to who is actually saying this - whether it's actually the Bush administration or people with political agendas that think they know what the real story is. i read a few articles on this and the State department (who works for Bush) has been pretty clear that they don't think this is the right way to drive this change, no matter how much that change is needed.
-
June 19th, 2005 03:49 AM #9
karding,
yeah, i noted that the administration is against this move, pero kung matuloy ito, i'd think that bottom line is that it would still be the US' move. i mean, even if it was bush's decision to go to war in iraq, ultimately, i'd think it was with the blessing of the american people. at least, the US congress also voted to go to war over iraq without the UN. am i making sense? hehe, pasensya na, alas tres na ng gabi hehehe
ano bang gagawin ni bush kung pumasa sa senate ito? veto?
-
June 19th, 2005 05:20 AM #10
he might veto it.
i don't agree with withholding dues either. parang breach of contract eh
tapos 4A/T!!! in 2024!
Mitsubishi Xforce