UN

[Roamy]

I see no earthly reason that the US should continue to belong to this pathetic organization. Also we should send the headquarters to Belgium where it belongs.
Is there anyone left in this country with a "set" who can lead??

[Easy Drifter]

It is now basically Useless Nations.

[Rollo]

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/7658/original/1248582307944.jpg

Let's all have a disco, Let's all have a disco, dah dah dah hey, dah dah dah hey!

[glauistean]

I see no earthly reason that the US should continue to belong to this pathetic organization. Also we should send the headquarters to Belgium where it belongs.
Is there anyone left in this country with a "set" who can lead??

What do you see wrong with the UN? Sincere question.

[F1boat]

What do you see wrong with the UN? Sincere question.

Apparently it's not right-wing, pro-US and pro-Israel enough...

[Sonic]

What do you see wrong with the UN? Sincere question.

Seconded. It's not perfect, but if there is a better option I'm all ears.

[Dave B]

What do you see wrong with the UN? Sincere question.
The USA wishes to break international law regarding foreign occupation, detention and torture. The pesky UN regards this as somehow morally and legally wrong, the yellow-bellied liberals that they are :\

[F1boat]

The USA wishes to break international law regarding foreign occupation, detention and torture. The pesky UN regards this as somehow morally and legally wrong, the yellow-bellied liberals that they are :\

Exactly...

[donKey jote]

bunch of donkeys the lot of them :/

[Bob Riebe]

International law has the value of used toilet paper.

[BDunnell]

International law has the value of used toilet paper.

I presume you are in favour of the continuation of the death penalty for certain crimes, and would consider yourself a law-abiding individual?

[Roamy]

What do you see wrong with the UN? Sincere question.

The UN has no teeth at all. It costs the US multi- millions to belong. They have the same rhetoric every year. No one complies with any mandate they don't like. There in no way we are interested in International law unless it fits with our agenda. Same with most of the world. The great Boma wanted to use the international gun laws to control the use here. What a joke.

We can have a annual meeting somewhere and spend millions and millions less.

We need to cut ALL of our frivolous spending immediately and this would be an excellent place to start. Matter of fact as lame as this organization is they should just use "go to meeting.com"

[Bob Riebe]

I presume you are in favour of the continuation of the death penalty for certain crimes, and would consider yourself a law-abiding individual?
Yes.
I obey laws in the manner I see fit.
What is your point?

[Roamy]

I presume you are in favour of the continuation of the death penalty for certain crimes, and would consider yourself a law-abiding individual?

Holy Sh!t BD if it were up to my anyone guilty of 1 - 3 murder would be offed in 60 days and that applies to
1. sex offenders
2. armed robbery
3. 3 violent crimes
4. 1st degree rape

that is just off the top of my head.
We don't need these people in our society and we sure as hell don't need to pay for their keep. OK BD you want to be humane I will outsource them to Somalia

[anthonyvop]

A question for all the UN defenders.

Name me one thing the UN has done in the last 30 years that could be considered effective and successful?

Just one.

[Eki]

I obey laws in the manner I see fit.

Everybody does, including the worst criminals. Law obeying citizens obey laws also in the manner the law makers see fit.

Laws are one of the only black and white things in the world. You either obey them or you don't. You don't just kind of obey them or obey only the parts you agree with. You aren't for example excused for murdering only one person just because you didn't kill many people or all people.

[Bob Riebe]

Everybody does, including the worst criminals. Law obeying citizens obey laws also in the manner the law makers see fit.

Laws are one of the only black and white things in the world. You either obey them or you don't. You don't just kind of obey them or obey only the parts you agree with. You aren't for example excused for murdering only one person just because you didn't kill many people or all people.Ya, the racists in the segregated South played people like you like a piano.

[Dave B]

Yes.
I obey laws in the manner I see fit.
What is your point?
What do you do if you don't happen to agree with a particular law?

[BDunnell]

Yes.
I obey laws in the manner I see fit.
What is your point?

How can you be truly law-abiding if you only obey laws in the manner you see fit? And would you wish others to act in this way?

[Bob Riebe]

How can you be truly law-abiding if you only obey laws in the manner you see fit? And would you wish others to act in this way?
Most definitely.

A society without personal discrimination is a society that consists of either soul-less morons or liars.

[Bob Riebe]

What do you do if you don't happen to agree with a particular law?
Deal with it as the need-be, be of the moment.

[race aficionado]

The UN, in principal is not only a great idea, but a necessary one.
We are all in this together and we should all have a say in our play ground.

The problem right now is that we have a security council that defeats all the purpose of a UNITED nations.

It's a play ground with bullies.
:s mokin:

[Eki]

The UN, in principal is not only a great idea, but a necessary one.
We are all in this together and we should all have a say in our play ground.

The problem right now is that we have a security council that defeats all the purpose of a UNITED nations.

It's a play ground with bullies.
:s mokin:
True. The General Assembly has the right to say what's on their mind and the Security Council has the right not to listen.

[anthonyvop]

A question for all the UN defenders.

Name me one thing the UN has done in the last 30 years that could be considered effective and successful?

Just one.

Wow!!! Nobody can name one thing the UN has done in the last 30 years that could be considered effective and successful?

Not even the King of Wikipedia, Eki?

[Eki]

Wow!!! Nobody can name one thing the UN has done in the last 30 years that could be considered effective and successful?

Not even the King of Wikipedia, Eki?
That's just because all the member states are not committed to play by the same rules. Not the US, not Iran, not Israel, not North Korea, etc. Everybody is just playing the victim and looking after their own interests (especially the permanent members of the Security Council), not the common interests.

[Rollo]

A question for all the UN defenders.

Name me one thing the UN has done in the last 30 years that could be considered effective and successful?

Just one.

East Timor. Because when Australian asked for help the United States gave them jack squat.
South Sudan. Admittedly the Darfur conflict has gone terribly, but South Sudan is likely to acheive independence.
Tajikistan. The Civil War more or less stopped in Tajikistan.


Name me one thing the UN has done in the last 60 years that could be considered effective and successful?
Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? The Dominican Republic?

To be honest the world would be better off if you just buggered off. Leave the UN, go on, do it NOW.

[anthonyvop]

East Timor. Because when Australian asked for help the United States gave them jack squat.

East Timor has suffered rioting, insurgency and attempted coups in spite of the earlier UN presence and in typical UN fation they left early before any real stability can be achieved



South Sudan. Admittedly the Darfur conflict has gone terribly, but South Sudan is likely to acheive independence.

You have to be kidding me......Sudan?


Tajikistan. The Civil War more or less stopped in Tajikistan.

The UN had nothing to do with anything of consequence in Tajikistan.



Name me one thing the UN has done in the last 60 years that could be considered effective and successful?
They built a pretty building on the East river


Korea?
North Korea is still the worst country on the planet.

Vietnam?
UN only helped the bad guys

Iraq?
Food for Oil

Afghanistan?
They were great at pumping money to the Taliban

The Dominican Republic?
A success for the USA and the OAS. UN Had nothing to do with it.


To be honest the world would be better off if you just buggered off. Leave the UN, go on, do it NOW.

How very Fascist of you......Of course you wish people like me were silenced. You have a jealous hatred of Logic and reason.

[Rollo]

How very Fascist of you......Of course you wish people like me were silenced. You have a jealous hatred of Logic and reason.

You're right I do have a hatred of Logic and reason, and and have never found either from you.

[Bob Riebe]

East Timor. Because when Australian asked for help the United States gave them jack squat.
South Sudan. Admittedly the Darfur conflict has gone terribly, but South Sudan is likely to acheive independence.
Tajikistan. The Civil War more or less stopped in Tajikistan.
.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/tajikistan.htm

Just what did the U.N. do in Tajikistan that amounted to anything?

What has the U.N. done in Sudan that amounts to anything?

East Timor:
2006 May - Foreign troops arrive in Dili to try to restore order as clashes involving former soldiers, who were sacked in March, descend into wider factional violence as well as looting and arson. At least 25 people are killed and about 150,000 take refuge in makeshift camps.

2006 June-July - Prime Minister Alkatiri resigns over his handling of the violence. Jose Ramos-Horta is named as premier.
Violence erupted after 600 soldiers were dismissed

2006 August - Non-military peacekeeping mission, the UN Integrated Mission in East Timor, or Unmit, is set up.

2007 January - Former interior minister, Rogerio Lobato, goes on trial on charges of arming civilians during 2006 unrest.

2007 May - Prime Minister Jose Ramos-Horta wins presidential election.

2007 June - Fretilin, led by former prime minister Mari Alkatiri, wins the highest number of votes in parliamentary polls but not the majority needed to govern alone.

2007 August - Xanana Gusmao is named prime minister, prompting violent protests.

2007 November - An Australian court rules that five Australian-based journalists were deliberately killed by Indonesian troops in 1975 to stop them exposing the invasion of East Timor.

Ramos-Horta attack

2008 February - President Jose Ramos-Horta is shot in the stomach by renegade soldiers in an attack on his Dili residence. Rebel leader Alfredo Reinado is killed in the attack.

2008 April - President Ramos-Horta returns to Timor after two months of medical treatment in Australia for his stomach wounds.

Gastao Salsinha, new leader of the rebel group that tried to assassinate the president, surrenders together with 12 of his men.

2008 May - President Ramos-Horta asks United Nations to keep their mission in the country for a further five years, citing security concerns. UN to consider the request when the mandate runs out in February 2009.

2008 July - Final report by joint Indonesian-East Timorese Truth Commission blames Indonesia for the human rights violations in the run-up to East Timor's independence in 1999 and urges it to apologise. President Yudhoyono expresses "deep regret" but stops short of an apology.

2009 May - UN peacekeeping mission returns control of a district back to local police for the first time since the 2006 unrest.

2009 July - Twenty-seven people are put on trial for the failed 2008 attack on President Ramos-Horta; the defendants include Australian national Angelita Pires, the then girlfriend of rebel leader Alfredo Reinado, who was killed in the clash.

2009 August - President Ramos-Horta dismisss an Amnesty International report that accuses the government of failing to deliver justice to citizens who suffered in the 1999 violence. He did acknowledge failure to address poverty.

2009 September - Indonesia says ties with Australia may be harmed by a war crimes inquiry into five Australian journalists who died during the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975.

2010 February - East Timor's first anti-corruption commissioner, Aderito Soares, is sworn in to investigate repeated accusations of corruption against officials.

2010 March - A court convicted rebels over the attempted assassination of the president and prime minister in 2008, jailing them for up to 16 years. Australian national Angelita Pires was among five defendants acquitted.

Just what did the U.N. do here besides , other than what they did in Tajikistan and Sudan, send people to flap their lips and shuffle papers?
Show me where a U.N. force controlled the situation, or maybe you think shuffling papers is enough?

[glauistean]

Yes.
I obey laws in the manner I see fit.
What is your point?

What psychotropic drugs are you on. You make a statement like that; what for?
Your favorite line since I have come in here has been," What's you're point".

Well, I am asking you the same. What is your point. You obviously decry the existence of living in a society of rules. So, in that case you will live in one that is suitable to your way of thinking, ergo, as implied you will set the rules. Did I hear you decry fascism in another forum or was it anarchy. Well, whichever it was you certainly are either destined for heavy does of chlorpromazine or risperidone or a combination. You'll sleep better and may one day be part of society

[anthonyvop]

You're right I do have a hatred of Logic and reason, and and have never found either from you.

Just by saying something over and over again doesn't make you right.

So here is your chance to prove me wrong....Defend the UN.

[markabilly]

What do you see wrong with the UN? Sincere question.

I see nothing right with the UN. When I look at it, it would be more accurate to say, I see nothing at all.

Useless at best; malicous and stealing at worst.




U.N. peacekeepers and staff have sexually abused or exploited war refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The worst of the 150 or so allegations of misconduct--some of them captured on videotape--include pedophilia, rape, and prostitution.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp




Instead, the oil was allotted to politically connected insiders, allegedly including the head of the oil program himself. The insiders got rich while Iraq's people suffered. One beneficiary of the program was U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's own son, who was employed by a firm that played a key role in the scandal-plagued program

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-02-13-un-edit_x.htm



And to give wik-eki something authorative to read and believe along with his other victorian girlfriends, all of whom live in great britain.... :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Oil_for_Food_Scandal


...

[Bob Riebe]

What psychotropic drugs are you on. You make a statement like that; what for?
Your favorite line since I have come in here has been," What's you're point".

Well, I am asking you the same. What is your point. You obviously decry the existence of living in a society of rules. So, in that case you will live in one that is suitable to your way of thinking, ergo, as implied you will set the rules. Did I hear you decry fascism in another forum or was it anarchy. Well, whichever it was you certainly are either destined for heavy does of chlorpromazine or risperidone or a combination. You'll sleep better and may one day be part of society

I was answering his question and asking him why he asked.
Unlike you he was capable of extending his dialog with out having a hissy-fit.
Now take your pills and go back to bed.

[Eki]

Namibia was a success for the UN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martti_Ahtisaari


Ahtisaari spent several years as a diplomatic representative from Finland. From 1977 to 1981, he served as United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, working to secure the independence of Namibia from the Republic of South Africa.
Following the death of a later UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, on Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 – on the eve of the signing of the Tripartite Accord at UN headquarters – Ahtisaari was sent to Namibia in April 1989 as the UN Special Representative to head the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG). Because of the illegal incursion of SWAPO troops from Angola, the South African appointed Administrator-General (AG), Louis Pienaar, sought Ahtisaari's agreement to the deployment of SADF troops to stabilize the situation. Ahtisaari took advice from British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who was visiting the region at the time, and approved the SADF deployment. A period of intense fighting ensued when at least 375 SWAPO insurgents were killed.[5] In July 1989, Glenys Kinnock and Tessa Blackstone of the British Council of Churches visited Namibia and reported: "There is a widespread feeling that too many concessions were made to South African personnel and preferences and that Martti Ahtisaari was not forceful enough in his dealings with the South Africans."[6]
Perhaps because of his reluctance to authorise this SADF deployment, Ahtisaari was alleged to have been targeted by the South African Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB). According to a hearing in September 2000 of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, two CCB operatives (Kobus le Roux and Ferdinand Barnard) were tasked not to kill Ahtisaari, but to give him "a good hiding". To carry out the assault, Barnard had planned to use the grip handle of a metal saw as a knuckleduster. In the event, Ahtisaari did not attend the meeting at the Keetmanshoop Hotel, where Le Roux and Barnard lay in wait for him, and thus Ahtisaari escaped injury.[7]
After the independence elections of 1989, Ahtisaari was appointed an honorary Namibian citizen. South Africa gave him the O R Tambo award for "his outstanding achievement as a diplomat and commitment to the cause of freedom in Africa and peace in the world".[8]
Ahtisaari served as UN undersecretary general for administration and management from 1987 to 1991 causing mixed feelings inside the organization during an internal investigation of massive fraud. When Ahtisaari revealed in 1990 that he had secretly lengthened the grace period allowing UN officials to return misappropriated taxpayer money from the original three months to three years, the investigators were furious. The 340 officials found guilty of fraud were able to return money even after their crime had been proven. The harshest punishment was the firing of twenty corrupt officials.[9][10]

[markabilly]

Namibia was a success for the UN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martti_Ahtisaari
wow, they did something 20 years ago, killed 375 rebels or whatever from Angola. Must have been a massive attack.....

but then as to prove my point, for your victorian girlfriends....wow, fired 20 thieves out of 340....... :eek: after giving them three years to return the money... :eek:




Ahtisaari served as UN undersecretary general for administration and management from 1987 to 1991 causing mixed feelings inside the organization during an internal investigation of massive fraud. When Ahtisaari revealed in 1990 that he had secretly lengthened the grace period allowing UN officials to return misappropriated taxpayer money from the original three months to three years, the investigators were furious. The 340 officials found guilty of fraud were able to return money even after their crime had been proven. The harshest punishment was the firing of twenty corrupt officials


glautstein will be crowing to high heaven over this one.....

[Eki]

wow, they did something 20 years ago, killed 375 rebels or whatever from Angola. Must have been a massive attack.....

The goal of the UN is not to kill, but to save lives, so it was regrettable that 375 people got kill. But you have to remember it wasn't the UN who killed them, but SADF, the defence forces of the Apartheid South Africa, although the UN authorized it in hope it could help in the long run (we don't know if it did, maybe it harmed the cause).

[anthonyvop]

Namibia was a success for the UN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martti_Ahtisaari

Ahhh Wikipedia........great for the ignorant and lazy.

The UN had little to do with Namibian Independence. And your head would explode if I told you who really did.

[Eki]

Ahhh Wikipedia........great for the ignorant and lazy.

The UN had little to do with Namibian Independence. And your head would explode if I told you who really did.
You did it? I'm not surprised.

[Roamy]

Well the votes are in the Un is a flaming P.O.S

[race aficionado]

Well the votes are in the Un is a flaming P.O.S

The fact is that most of us are agreeing in the fact that the UN is not fulfilling the duties that it should in principle be doing.

The fact is also that if there is a reason to bicker and point fingers and disagreeing in what is in this case a mutual agreement, the modus operandi of some of us is to go guns a blazing because we just like to bicker and . . .
go guns a' blazing.


So how do we fix the UN, instead of just changing its location?
:s mokin:

[anthonyvop]

So how do we fix the UN, instead of just changing its location?
:s mokin:

Reduce the UN's duties to just conflict resolution, Peace Keeping and Disaster & Famine relief.

Only Democracies can sit on the Security Council.

All financial transaction must be open for all to view.

Stay out of all economic policy issues.

Recognize The rights of:

Freedom of Speech (Not just popular speech but all)
Self Defense both Nationally and of the individual.
Legally obtained Private Property

No Diplomatic Immunity

[Hondo]

The fact is that most of us are agreeing in the fact that the UN is not fulfilling the duties that it should in principle be doing.

The fact is also that if there is a reason to bicker and point fingers and disagreeing in what is in this case a mutual agreement, the modus operandi of some of us is to go guns a blazing because we just like to bicker and . . .
go guns a' blazing.


So how do we fix the UN, instead of just changing its location?
:s mokin:

You cannot fix what might not be broken. The United Nations is an offshoot of Wilson's League of Nations, proposed during and after WW I. The oversimplification being that by having an international forum, world wars could be prevented. Part of that prevention being member states providing military aid to states in danger of takeover by the armed aggression of it's neighbor. Korea was the first real test and I'm sure there are a lot of South Koreans that are very happy with the UN.

Like many other things, the UN has over the years been tasked with things it was not designed to do which weakens it's stature. In the Congo in the 60's, a small, rag-tag group of hired soldiers managed to get things done that the UN forces wouldn't attempt. The UN has been tasked with all manner of para-military missions like peacekeeping which, especially under stupid rules of engagement, can't actually be done.

As far as "unfair" votes and nations being able to ignore resolutions go, there is nothing wrong with that. The UN is not and was never supposed to be a governing body. If it were, how about a vote like "any nation with a population over 260 million has to contribute 10 billion Euros a year to a general fund to be shared by nations with populations below 260 million." Would you really expect any nation with more than 260 million to say ok, and pay it? No. Is that the sort of nonsense that would go on? Yup.

The UN is a sounding board. That's all. It's a way for a nation to air their grievances in a public, international forum. It's not a guarantee that anything will be done about that grievance.

[Eki]

Only Democracies can sit on the Security Council.


Agreed, since the US is a republic and not a democracy.

[airshifter]

The fact is that most of us are agreeing in the fact that the UN is not fulfilling the duties that it should in principle be doing.

The fact is also that if there is a reason to bicker and point fingers and disagreeing in what is in this case a mutual agreement, the modus operandi of some of us is to go guns a blazing because we just like to bicker and . . .
go guns a' blazing.


So how do we fix the UN, instead of just changing its location?
:s mokin:

I think we could spend pages and pages of what needs to be fixed. The UN overall doesn't accomplish much, yet often does little because it is trying to be fair.

It's as if you were part of an organization to rid NYC of drugs. As a voting member you vote to change policies hoping to slow down drug traffic in NYC. But the majority (who are crack dealers or taking money from crack dealers) vote against such measures. By UN standards it is fair to allow those drug dealers into the organization. :rolleyes:

[glauistean]

Reading these responses can be quite amusing. It defines the way people think(or don't) when you see a topic that is presented for discussion.

Spontaneous replies are never seen from some and when they do reply, it is the same tired old gibberish and blah blah blah that you hear from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck (F-ING BUFFOON) and many more. The screecher's like Malkin and Ingraham. Coulter and Cheney.

Deliver them the talking points and wait. It's the same sh!t everyday.

Tell them to say the opposite the next day and they do the same. Damn, look at this forum. There are actually people here that post and believe that Hitler was a liberal or left wing. What frigging bonehead could say anything even remotely akin to that and be taken seriously.

Those of you that do not know that most of us are laughing AT you when you respond. I offer you my sympathies. I feel you know of whom I speak.

[markabilly]

What frigging bonehead could say anything even remotely akin to that and be taken seriously.

Those of you that do not know that most of us are laughing AT you when you respond. I offer you my sympathies. I feel you know of whom I speak.
speaking of frigging boneheads, I think you must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote this, as "most of us" would be laughing at you when you post anything, except that you are so rude when you do it, no one offers or feels any sympathy for you, just pity for you and sympathy for any family you might have who can not escape from you..........

[Hondo]

Seems to come off as a real "hope and change" kind of individual.

[Roamy]

glauistean = Big Hat no Cattle !

[glauistean]

speaking of frigging boneheads, I think you must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote this, as "most of us" would be laughing at you when you post anything, except that you are so rude when you do it, no one offers or feels any sympathy for you, just pity for you and sympathy for any family you might have who can not escape from you..........

As I knew and expected. No surprise there. Attack me because I'm rude! Lol.
Speaking of mirrors I suspect yours must definitely be broken since you are the epitome of hypocrisy.

Come on now, all of you jump in. Neanderthals that most of you are; dang, I bet you don't believe in evolution either.

[race aficionado]

Reduce the UN's duties to just conflict resolution, Peace Keeping and Disaster & Famine relief.

Only Democracies can sit on the Security Council.

All financial transaction must be open for all to view.

Stay out of all economic policy issues.

Recognize The rights of:

Freedom of Speech (Not just popular speech but all)
Self Defense both Nationally and of the individual.
Legally obtained Private Property

No Diplomatic Immunity

I respect that you actually threw your hat into the ring to answer this one.
_________

How I am no genius and my internal hard drive doesn't have the information, I have gone to dear old Google and looked for some info:

I asked: What is the purpose, aim and principles of the UN?

http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/unintro/unintro.asp


The purpose of the United Nations:
is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems.


The Aims of the United Nations:
• To keep peace throughout the world.
• To develop friendly relations between nations.
• To work together to help people live better lives, to eliminate poverty, disease and illiteracy in the world, to stop environmental destruction and to encourage respect for each other's rights and freedoms.
• To be a centre for helping nations achieve these aims.
The Principles of the United Nations:
• All Member States have sovereign equality.
• All Member States must obey the Charter.
• Countries must try to settle their differences by peaceful means.
• Countries must avoid using force or threatening to use force.
• The UN may not interfere in the domestic affairs of any country.
• Countries should try to assist the United Nations.


That sound wonderful and wouldn't it be great if it actually did that.

I kept on digging and saw comments like:

However, there is much infighting and disagreement over how and under what circumstances the UN should act.

My big issue is the UN's Security Council with it's exclusive members and it's power to veto - and what usually happens is that you don't have an actual United Nations (as mentioned on airshifter's latest post)

I then googled: What is the purpose of the Security Council of the UN?
expecting to get a detailed explanation but I just got this:


The Security Council was constructed as an organ with primary responsibility for preserving peace.

right! :dozey:

In my opinion, if we were to implement what anthony suggests, then it shouldn't be called the United Nations. call it The Club of Nations.

it would work as the United Nations if it actually followed the Purpose, Aims and Principles that it originally stipulated.

[glauistean]

I respect that you actually threw your hat into the ring to answer this one.
_________

How I am no genius and my internal hard drive doesn't have the information, I have gone to dear old Google and looked for some info:

I asked: What is the purpose, aim and principles of the UN?

http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/unintro/unintro.asp





That sound wonderful and wouldn't it be great if it actually did that.

I kept on digging and saw comments like:


My big issue is the UN's Security Council with it's exclusive members and it's power to veto - and what usually happens is that you don't have an actual United Nations (as mentioned on airshifter's latest post)

I then googled: What is the purpose of the Security Council of the UN?
expecting to get a detailed explanation but I just got this:



right! :dozey:

In my opinion, if we were to implement what anthony suggests, then it shouldn't be called the United Nations. call it The Club of Nations.

it would work as the United Nations if it actually followed the Purpose, Aims and Principles that it originally stipulated.


There is another aspect and that is that the UN members should not and could not take independent action against another country or member country without approval from the general council.
Some governments have acted very recently as though they and only they have the right to wage war and damn you if you don't like it.

If a country violates this principal then there should be severe ramifications.

[anthonyvop]

There is another aspect and that is that the UN members should not and could not take independent action against another country or member country without approval from the general council.
Some governments have acted very recently as though they and only they have the right to wage war and damn you if you don't like it.

If a country violates this principal then there should be severe ramifications.


That is why the UN will never really work.

As an American I fully expect that my Government acts in what is the best interest of my country. If the UN Likes it great. If they don't....too bad. Most Americans feel the same way.

Of course I expect every person and nation to act in the same way.

[anthonyvop]

Reading these responses can be quite amusing. It defines the way people think(or don't) when you see a topic that is presented for discussion.

Spontaneous replies are never seen from some and when they do reply, it is the same tired old gibberish and blah blah blah that you hear from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck (F-ING BUFFOON) and many more. The screecher's like Malkin and Ingraham. Coulter and Cheney.

Deliver them the talking points and wait. It's the same sh!t everyday.

Tell them to say the opposite the next day and they do the same. Damn, look at this forum. There are actually people here that post and believe that Hitler was a liberal or left wing. What frigging bonehead could say anything even remotely akin to that and be taken seriously.

Those of you that do not know that most of us are laughing AT you when you respond. I offer you my sympathies. I feel you know of whom I speak.

All you do is insult those who disagree with you instead of providing a logical argument supporting your beliefs.

Well here is you chance.

Explain in your own words how Hitler and the Nazis weren't socialist.

Remember it has already been shown that the Nazis believed in Government control of industries, Banking, media, arts, universal health care and benefits and advocated putting the state above the individual.

And

Provide some examples of how the UN has been a benefit to all.

[Eki]

Of course I expect every person and nation to act in the same way.
So, you're OK with Iran and North Korea having nukes? I'm surprised.

[anthonyvop]

So, you're OK with Iran and North Korea having nukes? I'm surprised.

Nope.......I am OK with the US keeping them from getting them.

Now explain to us how Iran and N. Korea having nukes would be a benefit to the Iranian and North Korean people.

This should be good for a Laugh.

[Eki]

Nope.......I am OK with the US keeping them from getting them.

Now explain to us how Iran and N. Korea having nukes would be a benefit to the Iranian and North Korean people.

This should be good for a Laugh.
They could be proud of the achievements of their countries and not so easily be bullied by the US.

Now explain to us how the US having nukes would be a benefit to the American people. Then replace "the US" with "Iran and North Korea" and "American" with "Iranian and North Korean".

[race aficionado]

Now explain to us how the US having nukes would be a benefit to the American people. Then replace "the US" with "Iran and North Korea" and "American" with "Iranian and North Korean".

Let me play this game:

The US of A is benefited by having a whoop ass arsenal of Nukes so that no one messes with them.

Iran & North Korea are benefited by having a whoop ass arsenal of Nukes so that no one messes with them.


hmmm . . . something's wrong with this picture:
It's freek'n scary with the actual existence of those weapons and the "I got a bigger Nuke than you" threats when any size nuke will be a disaster.

Those were the dark ages I tell you, they were all nuts.
(That's what our great grandchildren will say of us if we survive this era)

This is a crazy, whacky world we live in.
:dozey:

[Bob Riebe]

They could be proud of the achievements of their countries and not so easily be bullied by the US.
Gee the U.S. has been bullied by other countries after WWII and never dropped a nuke, ditto with other nuke countries.

Now Islamic countries like to speak of wiping other nations off of the face of the earth, which a nuke would make much easier.
Oh ja, that would make them proud.

[Bob Riebe]

As I knew and expected. No surprise there. Attack me because I'm rude! Lol.
Speaking of mirrors I suspect yours must definitely be broken since you are the epitome of hypocrisy.

Come on now, all of you jump in. Neanderthals that most of you are; dang, I bet you don't believe in evolution either.
I am starting to think you are deliberately just throwing out illogical or rude troll responses to see what you can get away with and how others will respoind.
Troll on.

[anthonyvop]

They could be proud of the achievements of their countries and not so easily be bullied by the US.

Now explain to us how the US having nukes would be a benefit to the American people. Then replace "the US" with "Iran and North Korea" and "American" with "Iranian and North Korean".

Actually the US developed Nukes to win World War 2. They Continued developing nukes because of the Soviet Union's stated goal to destroy us and Western Europe.

So it was in the US best interest.

As far as I know no nation has stated that the annihilation of Iran or North Korea is their stated goal. Iran and North Korea on the other hand have stated their goals of destroying other countries...Israel and South Korea respectively.

[Eki]

Gee the U.S. has been bullied by other countries
Anthonyvop was right, this WAS for a good laugh.

[Eki]

Iran and North Korea on the other hand have stated their goals of destroying other countries...Israel and South Korea respectively.
I haven't heard about those. Do you have a link? Straight from the horses mouth I mean, not the Fox News or some other American or Israeli paranoid nutters.

[Bob Riebe]

Anthonyvop was right, this WAS for a good laugh.
Ja, but Jimmy Carter wasn't.

Although to give Carter credit, he is now the mouth that roars among ex-presidents, actually blaming Teddy Kennedy for part of his problems and saying hs should considered an exceptional pres. for what he considers various achievements.
Rough Rider Teddy had the Bully Pulpit, I guess Carter had the bullied pulpit.

[BDunnell]

I haven't heard about those. Do you have a link? Straight from the horses mouth I mean, not the Fox News or some other American or Israeli paranoid nutters.

I thought these comments, at least, were well known?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4384264.stm

Although it must be said that some dispute the translation/emphasis, and I don't know well enough to offer a view one way or the other.

[Eki]

I thought these comments, at least, were well known?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4384264.stm

Although it must be said that some dispute the translation/emphasis, and I don't know well enough to offer a view one way or the other.
I want to wipe Israel off the map too, but not through violence and especially not with nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad didn't say anything about the means he had in mind.

[Easy Drifter]

Nice Eki. You want to eliminate a legal country that is the closest thing to a Democracy in the mid east. Just lovely.
I guess I want to eliminate Finland because you and I usually disagree.

[Bob Riebe]

I want to wipe Israel off the map too, but not through violence and especially not with nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad didn't say anything about the means he had in mind.
At least you admit you hate the Jews, of course then you have a lot in common with muslims.

[BDunnell]

I want to wipe Israel off the map too

I think that is a disgraceful statement, of which you should be ashamed. You may not like the policies of its governments (and nor do I), but the country itself is legitimate and has a right to exist.

[ArrowsFA1]

That is why the UN will never really work.

As an American I fully expect that my Government acts in what is the best interest of my country. If the UN Likes it great. If they don't....too bad. Most Americans feel the same way.

Of course I expect every person and nation to act in the same way.
Of course a country should act in its own best interests. However, it cannot do so in isolation and with disregard for the other nation states in the world.

That's where there is a need for an organisation like the UN. It may never really be able to work as intended but its achievements (http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm) are considerable.

For it to work as intended it needs a commitment from all member states to reform and improve the UN, not to undermine it and then complain it doesn't work.

[Eki]

I think that is a disgraceful statement, of which you should be ashamed. You may not like the policies of its governments (and nor do I), but the country itself is legitimate and has a right to exist.
I don't think it's anymore disgraceful than if someone says North Korea should be wiped off the map or says that it was good that the Soviet Union and DDR were wiped off the map, or that Apartheid was wiped off the political map.

[Hondo]

What is sort of amusing is that the abundance of differences between the various Palestinian factions now is just the sort of thing that led the British to believe there was no sense of Palestinian unity that would be a problem with the creation of Israel. Bickering tribesman with no sense of national identity. Ironically, with each passing year, there are fewer native Palestinians and more native Israelis.

[Eki]

Nice Eki. You want to eliminate a legal country that is the closest thing to a Democracy in the mid east. Just lovely.
I guess I want to eliminate Finland because you and I usually disagree.
"Legal" is not synonymous to "rightful". Remember that the Holocaust was legal too (by the Nazi laws), but few think it was the right thing to do. And the Nazi Germany was a legal country too, but still it was wiped off the map.

[Mark in Oshawa]

"Legal" is not synonymous to "rightful". Remember that the Holocaust was legal too (by the Nazi laws), but few think it was the right thing to do. And the Nazi Germany was a legal country too, but still it was wiped off the map.

No it wasn't Eki, the Nazi's were deposed and within 10 years the conquerers (the Allies) had funded the rebuilding of a Germany at least that was in the West a model democracy with an economy capable of supporting itself and more.....and your friends in the USSR gave the East misery, oppression and enviromental disasters just to keep the fiction that communism works.....

Getting back to your views on Israel, You prove over and over again that you really are out to lunch. When Ben And I see eye to eye on YOU, the rubicon was crossed....

[Eki]

No it wasn't Eki, the Nazi's were deposed and within 10 years the conquerers (the Allies) had funded the rebuilding of a Germany at least that was in the West a model democracy with an economy capable of supporting itself and more.....and your friends in the USSR gave the East misery, oppression and enviromental disasters just to keep the fiction that communism works.....

Both West Germany and East Germany were much smaller on the map than the Nazi Germany, even put together.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/NS_administrative_Gliederung_1944.png/630px-NS_administrative_Gliederung_1944.png

http://www.opb.org/education/coldwar/berlincrisis/maps/dividedgermany.jpg

[BDunnell]

I don't think it's anymore disgraceful than if someone says North Korea should be wiped off the map or says that it was good that the Soviet Union and DDR were wiped off the map, or that Apartheid was wiped off the political map.

So, in the case of the DDR, you do not mourn the passing of a country whose very existence depended upon an appalling level of state surveillance upon its own people and the restriction of their most basic personal freedoms?

[BDunnell]

"Legal" is not synonymous to "rightful". Remember that the Holocaust was legal too (by the Nazi laws), but few think it was the right thing to do. And the Nazi Germany was a legal country too, but still it was wiped off the map.

No, it wasn't. The regime was deposed. Germany was not 'wiped off the map'. Your grasp of history here is shaky to say the least, to say nothing of its application.

[BDunnell]

Both West Germany and East Germany were much smaller on the map than the Nazi Germany, even put together.

Yes, and we know the reasons why. So?

[Easy Drifter]

Yet again you ignore the UN when it suits your perverted purposes. Israel was a UN creation but you ignore that. You only support the UN when it critizes Israel, sometimes correctly.
Iran has threatened to destroy Israel by violence.
If Israel were to 'disappear' from the map I am sure you and Finland would be quite happy to take in all the displaced Israel citizens, those that survive that is.
Most countries have had their borders changed by war at one time or other. The losing side is the one who usually loses territory.
The Alsace region has been both French and German several times.
Nazi Germany lost territory it gained by force and disputed territory.
It is not always by war either. Back when the US and Britain were still less than friendly the US accidently built a fort on Cdn. territory. Surveys were less than precise then. After negotiations, not war, Canada ceded the land to the US. Compensation was made.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Both West Germany and East Germany were much smaller on the map than the Nazi Germany, even put together.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/NS_administrative_Gliederung_1944.png/630px-NS_administrative_Gliederung_1944.png

http://www.opb.org/education/coldwar/berlincrisis/maps/dividedgermany.jpg

I am quite sure the people of Gdansk and parts of Poland will be happy to know that you think they should be part of Germany..heck, some Poles were just over joyed in 1939 by the Germans....why they just up and died under the Panzers showing their joy.....

Oh ya Eki, your grasp on what happened is somewhat jaundiced by your extreme ability to ignore facts.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So, in the case of the DDR, you do not mourn the passing of a country whose very existence depended upon an appalling level of state surveillance upon its own people and the restriction of their most basic personal freedoms?

To Eki, Israel is as big an offender as the DDR, the Apartheid Regime of South Africa, and the USSR....

He is wrong, but hey, that's Eki for you, why let facts and reality get in the way of a good polemic?

[BDunnell]

To Eki, Israel is as big an offender as the DDR, the Apartheid Regime of South Africa, and the USSR....

He is wrong, but hey, that's Eki for you, why let facts and reality get in the way of a good polemic?

I must say, I too find the actions of successive Israeli regimes and the way in which they go about their business disgusting.

[Roamy]

Here we go with the freaking Nazis again - guys start your own thread "Living in the Past" and quit polluting every thread with this sh!t

[Eki]

It would be actually quite easy to wipe Israel off the map without a shot fired if enough countries agreed. The Palestinians would declare Palestine independent and Israel as a part of it, then other countries would acknowledge and verify it. The Israeli Defence Forces would become a rebel army and terrorists over night, and Palesitine a legal country. Then we'd just print new maps.

[Easy Drifter]

Whatever Eki is smoking is really strong stuff.By the way I would love to see what would happen if he were to go to Detroit and say out loud in a crowd his "Red Wings give you Bull".

[Mark in Oshawa]

It would be actually quite easy to wipe Israel off the map without a shot fired if enough countries agreed. The Palestinians would declare Palestine independent and Israel as a part of it, then other countries would acknowledge and verify it. The Israeli Defence Forces would become a rebel army and terrorists over night, and Palesitine a legal country. Then we'd just print new maps.

So when all the Jews were being slaughtered in the streets merely for being Jewish, I would expect you to be the first one to state how horrible this all would be? Eki....you really are a piece of work...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I must say, I too find the actions of successive Israeli regimes and the way in which they go about their business disgusting.

Ok...But from you I see cogent arguments (even if I can disagree on some points or quibble about the severity of others) and a point where you recognize that not only is Israel a viable nation and entity, but it has a right to co-exist with its Arab neighbours. You would advocate a two state solution...

Eki isnt...he thinks the whole lot should be handed over to the Palestinians, who despite billions of dollars in aid over the years still have people living out of tents and refusing to get on with life.....

[race aficionado]

. . . . the Palestinians, who despite billions of dollars in aid over the years still have people living out of tents and refusing to get on with life.....

IMHO, this is a pretty patronizing, condescending, angry statement Mark, specially the "refusing to get on with their life" part. - and specially after pointing the finger at Eki.

[BDunnell]

Here we go with the freaking Nazis again - guys start your own thread "Living in the Past" and quit polluting every thread with this sh!t

Coming from a Republican supporter, criticism of others for 'living in the past' is a bit hard to take.

[BDunnell]

Ok...But from you I see cogent arguments (even if I can disagree on some points or quibble about the severity of others) and a point where you recognize that not only is Israel a viable nation and entity, but it has a right to co-exist with its Arab neighbours. You would advocate a two state solution...

Yes, I would...



Eki isnt...he thinks the whole lot should be handed over to the Palestinians, who despite billions of dollars in aid over the years still have people living out of tents and refusing to get on with life.....

...but then I read a one-sided statement such as this, and that angers me too.

[Eki]

Ok...But from you I see cogent arguments (even if I can disagree on some points or quibble about the severity of others) and a point where you recognize that not only is Israel a viable nation and entity, but it has a right to co-exist with its Arab neighbours. You would advocate a two state solution...

Eki isnt...he thinks the whole lot should be handed over to the Palestinians, who despite billions of dollars in aid over the years still have people living out of tents and refusing to get on with life.....
What do you expect they'd buy with those alleged "billions of dollars" when Israel has a blockade on them let through anything starting from copying paper and cement to rebuild their homes and infrastructure destroyed by Israel. You can't eat money.

[Hondo]

This is all entertaining, but sadly, merely academic. With one possible and not likely to be tried exception, there will be no peace in the Middle East. For the various Palestinian leaders the power and money lays in the cause, not in the possession. They are not men of peace and vision, they are glorified thugs. Were they to regain Palestine they would be expected to lead their people to prosperity. They are not capable of that. They are destroyers, not builders. In addition, their Arab brothers that enjoyed using them as a thorn in Israel's side, would begin to encroach upon and absorb Palestinian territory because they don't like the Palestinians. There may not be an Israel, but there won't be a Palestine either. Once the Israel-Palestine issue is settled, the Egyptians, Arabs, and Persians can go back to fighting with each other in peace. Once their oil is gone or another energy source takes it's place, their central governments will collapse and they will return to being nomadic tribes, dreaming of the good old days.

[Hondo]

What do you expect they'd buy with those alleged "billions of dollars" when Israel has a blockade on them let through anything starting from copying paper and cement to rebuild their homes and infrastructure destroyed by Israel. You can't eat money.

They don't have billions of dollars. Arafat scammed them for 2 billion dollars but his widow, living in a rather posh refugee camp in Paris, only gave them about 300 million back and told them to not be hanging around any more.

[race aficionado]

They don't have billions of dollars. Arafat scammed them for 2 billion dollars but his widow, living in a rather posh refugee camp in Paris, only gave them about 300 million back and told them to not be hanging around any more.

Sorry Fiero but those are heavy duty accusations.

Can you provide a reputable link?

thanks.
:s mokin:

[Hondo]

Sorry Fiero but those are heavy duty accusations.

Can you provide a reputable link?

thanks.
:s mokin:

No, it's from memory from back when he died. I suppose you could google back and find the articles about it if you want to. I'm satisfied with it. Why do you think the Palestinians or any other denizens of the region don't honor Arafat as the great leader of vision? His name is never spoken by anyone, like he never existed.

[race aficionado]

. Why do you think the Palestinians or any other denizens of the region don't honor Arafat as the great leader of vision? His name is never spoken by anyone, like he never existed.

Again, another strong statement that I will question.

I googled Arafat and found many opinions opposite to yours.

And if yours is an opinion then fine, but please don't state it as a fact.

[Bob Riebe]

It would be actually quite easy to wipe Israel off the map without a shot fired if enough countries agreed. The Palestinians would declare Palestine independent and Israel as a part of it, then other countries would acknowledge and verify it. The Israeli Defence Forces would become a rebel army and terrorists over night, and Palesitine a legal country. Then we'd just print new maps.
What about Jordan, which occupies a larger section of what you call palesstine, they are not giving anything to anyone, so you would have to rebel armies, or terrorists in the blink of an eye.

Your logic is so off key, it is a bit amusing.

[Eki]

What about Jordan, which occupies a larger section of what you call palesstine, they are not giving anything to anyone, so you would have to rebel armies, or terrorists in the blink of an eye.

Your logic is so off key, it is a bit amusing.
Maybe the Palestinians don't want Jordan, maybe they'd be satisfied if they got Israel.

[chuck34]

Maybe the Palestinians don't want Jordan, maybe they'd be satisfied if they got Israel.

Why do the Palestinians have any stonger/better/more legitimate claim to that land than the Israelis do? This question has been asked of you over and over. I expect the same dodging and weaving I/we always get.

.... look, over there, ..... it's Bush's Fault!

[Bob Riebe]

Maybe the Palestinians don't want Jordan, maybe they'd be satisfied if they got Israel.
Then their actions are singly based on prejudice, hatred, and a wish to commit a "genocide". (to use a term that is getting meaningless)

That makes them less palatable than NAZI's ultimate solution, and worthy of any firepower that is aimed in their direction.

[Eki]

Why do the Palestinians have any stonger/better/more legitimate claim to that land than the Israelis do? This question has been asked of you over and over. I expect the same dodging and weaving I/we always get.

.... look, over there, ..... it's Bush's Fault!
The Palestinians didn't move there from Europe, America and elsewhere to make a new country. They were already there.

The European and American Jews had about as much right to Israel as Germans had to Poland and Czechoslovakia, if not less (they had been away from Israel longer than Germans had been away from Poland and Czechoslovakia)

[BDunnell]

Then their actions are singly based on prejudice, hatred, and a wish to commit a "genocide". (to use a term that is getting meaningless)

That makes them less palatable than NAZI's ultimate solution, and worthy of any firepower that is aimed in their direction.

In what sense 'less' or 'more'? One great problem with debate on this issue is that one side is constantly trying to outdo the other when it comes to the depth of the injustice that they perceive is being meted out towards them. I don't think either party can claim any sense of moral superiority at all, and feel that anyone who tries to claim otherwise has an overly skewed moral compass.

[chuck34]

The Palestinians didn't move there from Europe, America and elsewhere to make a new country. They were already there.

The European and American Jews had about as much right to Israel as Germans had to Poland and Czechoslovakia, if not less (they had been away from Israel longer than Germans had been away from Poland and Czechoslovakia)

So you are totally against immigration then? What about the Jews that were already there?

Germany didn't have a right to Poland or Czechoslovakia because those other countries were sovereign and apart from Germany. When was the last time that there was a sovereign Palestinian nation?

[Easy Drifter]

To my mind Eki has totally lost any credtibilty on the issue of Israel on this thread or any future thread on Israel.
He refuses to accept that Israel has a right to exist despite it being a creation of the UN. When the UN does something he likes he accepts it but refuses to accept anything they say or do which he disagrees with.
He is also basically saying that a sovereign nation has no right to accept immigrants.
I suppose all democracies should turn everyone away based on that totally flawed premise. Both South America and North America plus Australia and New Zealand were founded on immigration. Canada and the US accept many thousands of immigrants every year plus huge numbers of refugees.
As far as I can recall there never has actually been a Palestinian nation.
If we accept that Christ existed (maybe Eki does not) then there have been Jews in that area for centuries and if we accept most or all of the concepts of the old testament far longer than that.
People may disagree with me but I believe that Eki is anti semetic and basically espouses hatred of the Jewish nation.
That is my opinion and I stand by it.

[Roamy]

It would be actually quite easy to wipe Israel off the map without a shot fired if enough countries agreed. The Palestinians would declare Palestine independent and Israel as a part of it, then other countries would acknowledge and verify it. The Israeli Defence Forces would become a rebel army and terrorists over night, and Palesitine a legal country. Then we'd just print new maps.

EKI you rockpile ! Israel would just push he big red button and blow he crap out of the entire middle east and probably give you guys a little glowing of your own. You need to bone up and realize that Israel is probably the 2nd or third nuclear power in the world. Now go back into the cave and compute what would happen if they set them all off at once. So just tell us how you figure you are going to "wipe" them out. You will be sucking glow clouds for many years to come.

[Bob Riebe]

In what sense 'less' or 'more'? One great problem with debate on this issue is that one side is constantly trying to outdo the other when it comes to the depth of the injustice that they perceive is being meted out towards them. I don't think either party can claim any sense of moral superiority at all, and feel that anyone who tries to claim otherwise has an overly skewed moral compass.
It is based on Eki's premise.
If the "palestinians" do what they do because they were evicted from and want back "palestine" then for them to only want back that, that is occupied by Israel, makes them prejudiced liars and hypocrites as most of "palestine" is located in Jordan.

It actually only shows a horridly weak link in Eki's line of reasoning. It has noting to do with good or bad, Isarael or refugees.

[Eki]

So you are totally against immigration then? What about the Jews that were already there?

No, I'm only against organized religiously or politically motivated mass immigration that has only one goal; to occupy an area and build a nation. In the old days it was called imperialism. I'm not against individual immigration.

The Jews who were already there didn't invent Zionism. It was invented in Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

[Eki]

When the UN does something he likes he accepts it but refuses to accept anything they say or do which he disagrees with.

That sounds like the good ol' USA too.

[glauistean]

All you do is insult those who disagree with you instead of providing a logical argument supporting your beliefs.

Well here is you chance.

Explain in your own words how Hitler and the Nazis weren't socialist.

Remember it has already been shown that the Nazis believed in Government control of industries, Banking, media, arts, universal health care and benefits and advocated putting the state above the individual.

And

Provide some examples of how the UN has been a benefit to all.

This is getting to the level of lunacy. You are serious and want me to answer your idiotic questions. You know the fact that you have asked me to answer those two inane and obtuse questions and to prove the merit that you purport that they hold, in that your argument is, that you believe that the UN never did anything that benefited everyone, or all (an impossibility as the "all" is subjective) and that the Nazi party was socialist.

My first response to the UN question which would include most but not all is that there has not been a nuclear disaster since the age of the atomic bomb.

Secondly, the rate of hunger has diminished worldwide because of UNICEF and it's programs.

Women in third world countries now have more say per capita than they did thirty years ago primarily because of the intervention on their behalf because of the UN.

The most significant achievement of the UN was the elimination of Apartheid in South Africa. Now I've given you a number of answers to one question. If you want me to add the cessation of war between Iraq and Iran I can. Do you?

Now, to the most idiotic question and the established knowledge worldwide that the US is rated so low in it's academic levels and education is this angering and lingering infestation of tripe that seems to permeate the hollow cerebral mass of most adult Americans.

First off. You are basing your argument on a party that existed under the name Nation Socialism for a very very short time. A party that incorporated the tenets of both left wing and right wing ideology. This was until Hitler came to power and any semblance to a left wing organization disappeared.

As William Shirer wrote and you should read in , The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich " Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic , incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from left and right wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a form of politics"

Furthermore, the use of the word socialism in the name of the party was only symbolic and was dispensed with even before the war. It was used primarily within Germany to garner the support of the Ayran Master Race. Supremacy. Hitler was a Fascist. When was the last liberal fascist you came across?

It has been pointed out time and again ad nauseum that the Nazi party in it's ideology of self was a far right wing organization that made parasites of Jews and lower forms of humanity. (in their minds). In fact it is written in Marching order and I quote "Jewish ideology such as;enlistment, liberalism,Marxism and Trade Unionism could and would infect the mind of the Aryan".

Real left wing stuff there Anthony. The only reason socialism was used was to benefit the German alone and to protect the country from exploitation.

Rohm was your one socialist Anthony and he was executed. By the way, to save you from having to find out who he was I'll tell you. He was the leader of the Sturmabteilung (SA). He was killed because of his socialist ideals (Ooops) and because he was homosexual.

Now I can go on but I fear you can't read this far and it is too complicated.

Just take it from me and the other 99% of the world. Hitler and the Nazi's were far right wing.

Anthony, next time you meet a guy with a Swastika tattoo and a Hells Angels jacket on call him a lefty and see what happens. Or go to the next neo-Nazi gathering and call them a bunch of bleeding heart liberals and then explain to me and everyone in the room why Homeland Security has Neo Nazi groups and Aryan Nation Groups all labeled as right wing hate groups?

[Hondo]

Again, another strong statement that I will question.

I googled Arafat and found many opinions opposite to yours.

And if yours is an opinion then fine, but please don't state it as a fact.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=650

[chuck34]

No, I'm only against organized religiously or politically motivated mass immigration that has only one goal; to occupy an area and build a nation. In the old days it was called imperialism. I'm not against individual immigration.

If you're not against individual immigration then it should not matter what the reasons are. There are many reasons people immigrate, economic freedom, better climate, religious freedom, etc. That applies to all immigration not just to Israel. Israel is a soveriegn nation. As such they can allow in anyone they please.

But again, that does not really go to why the Palestinians have more right to that land. Even if I would agree with you about the immigration deal (which I do not), why does it follow that then the Palestinians have the right to a country there?



The Jews who were already there didn't invent Zionism. It was invented in Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Who cares? What does that have to do with anything?

[ArrowsFA1]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=650
Brought to you by the David Horowitz Freedom Centre (http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/)which provides "Ammunition for the culture war against the Left."

Glenn Beck calls discoverthenetworks.org a "fantastic" resouce.

[anthonyvop]

My first response to the UN question which would include most but not all is that there has not been a nuclear disaster since the age of the atomic bomb.

Hahaha....Only a fool would believe that. The US and their policies prevented nuclear war.
Name me one significant act that the UN did to prevent a Nuclear war.


Secondly, the rate of hunger has diminished worldwide because of UNICEF and it's programs.

Show me exactly how UNICEF did that? UNICEF is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet and despotic Governments have been using UNICEF supplies to manipulate their people for decades.


Women in third world countries now have more say per capita than they did thirty years ago primarily because of the intervention on their behalf because of the UN.

Show me how and where the UN did that.


The most significant achievement of the UN was the elimination of Apartheid in South Africa. Now I've given you a number of answers to one question. If you want me to add the cessation of war between Iraq and Iran I can. Do you?

The UN had nothing to do with that. Apartheid ended due to strong political pressure and negotiation from the US and the UK.




Now, to the most idiotic question and the established knowledge worldwide that the US is rated so low in it's academic levels and education is this angering and lingering infestation of tripe that seems to permeate the hollow cerebral mass of most adult Americans.

Keep on with the insults. It only shows how weak your philosophy is


First off. You are basing your argument on a party that existed under the name Nation Socialism for a very very short time. A party that incorporated the tenets of both left wing and right wing ideology. This was until Hitler came to power and any semblance to a left wing organization disappeared.

As William Shirer wrote and you should read in , The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich " Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic , incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from left and right wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a form of politics"

Furthermore, the use of the word socialism in the name of the party was only symbolic and was dispensed with even before the war. It was used primarily within Germany to garner the support of the Ayran Master Race. Supremacy. Hitler was a Fascist. When was the last liberal fascist you came across?

Mussolini and Franco were both socialists.


It has been pointed out time and again ad nauseum that the Nazi party in it's ideology of self was a far right wing organization that made parasites of Jews and lower forms of humanity. (in their minds). In fact it is written in Marching order and I quote "Jewish ideology such as;enlistment, liberalism,Marxism and Trade Unionism could and would infect the mind of the Aryan".

So you are claiming that the policies including eugenics, which treated Jews and other minorities as sub-human are Right Wing? You do realize that it is the Left that advocates population control of undesirables don't you?


Real left wing stuff there Anthony. The only reason socialism was used was to benefit the German alone and to protect the country from exploitation.
Isn't that always the argument for all who advocate Socialism? So how would that be evidence to the contrary?



Rohm was your one socialist Anthony and he was executed. By the way, to save you from having to find out who he was I'll tell you. He was the leader of the Sturmabteilung (SA). He was killed because of his socialist ideals (Ooops) and because he was homosexual.

Please, please......Try to acquire some historical knowledge.
Actually Rohm was killed in a power play by Hitler and Himmler. The Alleged homosexuality was used as a justification of the purging of him and the rest of the SA leadership.


Now I can go on but I fear you can't read this far and it is too complicated.

No. Actually you arguments are simplistic and naive




Anthony, next time you meet a guy with a Swastika tattoo and a Hells Angels jacket on call him a lefty and see what happens. Or go to the next neo-Nazi gathering and call them a bunch of bleeding heart liberals and then explain to me and everyone in the room why Homeland Security has Neo Nazi groups and Aryan Nation Groups all labeled as right wing hate groups?

That some backwards twit agrees with you doesn't make it a fact.

If you are not going to even seriously try to present and coherent argument don't even bother. You are just wasting everyone's time.

[Hondo]

Brought to you by the David Horowitz Freedom Centre (http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/)which provides "Ammunition for the culture war against the Left."

Glenn Beck calls discoverthenetworks.org a "fantastic" resouce.

Sorry you don't care for that particular source. I hope you'll understand me not spending my entire day finding a reference of which you approve. Any argument you have concerning facts in the article should be taken up with the publisher, not me.

I have heard of Glenn Beck, but do not watch or listen to him.

[ArrowsFA1]

Name me one significant act that the UN did to prevent a Nuclear war.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml


Show me exactly how UNICEF did that?
http://www.wfp.org/our-work



Show me how and where the UN did that.
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/


The UN had nothing to do with that.
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/lang/en/home/archive/issues2007/thesolidarityofpeoples/thestruggleagainstapartheid?ctnscroll_articleConta inerList=1_0&ctnlistpagination_articleContainerList=true


Sorry you don't care for that particular source. I hope you'll understand me not spending my entire day finding a reference of which you approve. Any argument you have concerning facts in the article should be taken up with the publisher, not me.
It's not about me not caring about the source, rather than me pointing out he origins of the article. When I saw that the content was not surprising.

We all link to pieces of information found online (see my - I'm sure - futile attempts above :) ) and those links generally have some "angle". Rather than just accepting what's written, knowing the perspective from which it is written sometimes helps :s mokin:

[BDunnell]

If you are not going to even seriously try to present and coherent argument don't even bother. You are just wasting everyone's time.

On the subject of whether or not someone is being coherent, that sentence makes no sense.

[anthonyvop]

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml


http://www.wfp.org/our-work



http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/


http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/lang/en/home/archive/issues2007/thesolidarityofpeoples/thestruggleagainstapartheid?ctnscroll_articleConta inerList=1_0&ctnlistpagination_articleContainerList=true



Ha Ha Ha.

Using the UN as evidence to show what a great job they do is funny.

[race aficionado]

. . . .Using the UN as evidence . . ..

as arrow's foretold:

(
see my - I'm sure - futile attempts above :) )

:s mokin:

[Bob Riebe]

as arrow's foretold:

(

:s mokin:
For good reason as it was a bit moronic to use such a source for proof.

[BDunnell]

For good reason as it was a bit moronic to use such a source for proof.

Not that I know any better, but can you actually prove that any of the content of those items on the UN website that were quoted is untrue?

[Bob Riebe]

Not that I know any better, but can you actually prove that any of the content of those items on the UN website that were quoted is untrue?
Did they give a proof to prove false, other than their other than unsubstantiated claims?

Anyone can claim to be doing anything, that is proof to nothing.

As I said to use their unsubstantiated claims as proof for anything is a bit moronic.

[glauistean]

Hahaha....Only a fool would believe that. The US and their policies prevented nuclear war.
Name me one significant act that the UN did to prevent a Nuclear war.[quote]
Created IAEA




Show me exactly how UNICEF did that? UNICEF is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet and despotic Governments have been using UNICEF supplies to manipulate their people for decades.


Biafra








The UN had nothing to do with that. Apartheid ended due to strong political pressure and negotiation from the US and the UK.


United Nation General Assembly boycotted certain tournaments that SA was to be the host. Springbox vs B&I Lions for one.

Most notably they stopped the sale of weaponry to SA and under threat of an embargo they held election open to everyone in '94.




Keep on with the insults. It only shows how weak your philosophy is



Mussolini and Franco were both socialists.

Don't make me answer this as it is too transparent that you are not an educated person. Franco a socialist..ahhahhaha




So you are claiming that the policies including eugenics, which treated Jews and other minorities as sub-human are Right Wing? You do realize that it is the Left that advocates population control of undesirables don't you?


Left advocates population control? Interesting. Eugenics got a great start here in the US. Tell me. Are the Aryan Nation, White Supremacists, KKK left wing or right. It should be rhetorical.


Isn't that always the argument for all who advocate Socialism? So how would that be evidence to the contrary?





Please, please......Try to acquire some historical knowledge.
Actually Rohm was killed in a power play by Hitler and Himmler. The Alleged homosexuality was used as a justification of the purging of him and the rest of the SA leadership.


Boy, you are obtuse. I stated he was killed because of his socilist ideals and homosexuality. Now, even you should have known to whom I was referring. I doubt you even knew of Rohm or the SA.



No. Actually you arguments are simplistic and naive




That some backwards twit agrees with you doesn't make it a fact.


If you are not going to even seriously try to present and coherent argument don't even bother. You are just wasting everyone's time.[/quote:88k1htjq]

Time is being wasted and now having spent ten minutes on this friggin post I am done with you. Arguing with an intellect such as yours is intolerable.

[Roamy]

Vop is he calling you a dumb Sh!t :)

[anthonyvop]

Time is being wasted and now having spent ten minutes on this friggin post I am done with you. Arguing with an intellect such as yours is intolerable.

Glockenspiel,

You have yet to produce one shred of evidence of any real success by the UN. Your revisionist history not withstanding. nothing you stated is proof.

So just go away and come back when you can at least make a mediocre attempt at defending your indefensible beliefs.

[markabilly]

I heard a rumor that Hitler not only had some Jewish blood, but that it included the genectics of black jews from africa........oh no what will the Klan do about such terrible lies

[Tazio]

I heard a rumor that Hitler not only had some Jewish blood, but that it included the genectics of black jews from africa........oh no what will the Klan do about such terrible lies

Plus he was born Catholic :dozey:
And that explains plenty :laugh:

[Bob Riebe]

Plus he was born Catholic :dozey:
And that explains plenty :laugh:
You can be born Jewish, but you cannot be born catholic or any other denomination.

[Tazio]

Tell that to my mother Dr. Spock! :rolleyes:
I guess you would have to experience it

:s ailor: never mind!

[ArrowsFA1]

All you do is insult those who disagree with you instead of providing a logical argument supporting your beliefs.
And your logical argument supporting your beliefs is where exactly?

You've asked what the UN has done in the last 30 years that could be considered effective and successful? You have been provided with examples of the work the UN has done, and continues to do. Dismissing them simply and only because they come from www.un.org (http://www.un.org) does not support your argument.

You don't provide any argument or evidence to suggest it has not been effective or successful, certainly not in a logical, coherent or reasonable way.

Perhaps rather than getting bogged down in the success or otherwise of the UN maybe you could answer this simple question with a logical argument:

If, as is clear, you feel the UN is a failure, why has it failed? What factors have contributed to this failure?