Of course the UN can't complete tasks if its member states ignore their obligations to it. You're complaining about a problem that the US is playing a big part of. That's kinda like shooting yourself in the foot.Horseman 77 wrote:
When the UN can actually complete some task in a competant manner I will give them my whole hearted support. Untill then, I will view it as it as institution with a poor track record, rife with corruption, an anti American stance with questionable motives on the whole.
You dont need to copy the last 30 responses every time. And no one is more arogant than you.
You ever think that *maybe* the reason it's unable to do anything is that much of it's member countries are a little concerned about a repeat of Somalia. And who screwed that one up?Horseman 77 wrote:
When the UN can actually complete some task in a competant manner I will give them my whole hearted support. Untill then, I will view it as it as institution with a poor track record, rife with corruption, an anti American stance with questionable motives on the whole.
well, defend is the key here. The UN specifically reckognizes each member's right to defend itself against a military attack by a another UN member. Which leads us to the question ( again ) wether the US was ever attacked by Iraqi forces....lowing wrote:
Nothing sad about it. the US has every right to defend itself and its allies without the UN permission, and Saddam was deemed a threat by the US to itself and its allies ( so did the UN as I proved earlier.)B.Schuss wrote:
well, if the US considers a military attack on Iran without a UN resolution as being in their best interest, then that's their choice. Being a souvereign nations, it is certainly your right to make that decision.lowing wrote:
I think the decade of terror attacks on US interests was waiting long enough to do something, other than talk about it.
The sad thing is, though, that the UN were created ( with the US being one of the driving forces behind that and a founding member ) with the intent to prevent exactly what happened when the US attacked Iraq and what might happen with Iran.
Not the USA. We gave the majority of the money, Food, provided the total infastructure and medical Aid. When our Supplies where going straight onto the Black Market (pretty typical for a UN operation lately is it not )? We sent in Military Support as a Police Force. The UN Police Force being ineffective. Seeing a pattern yet?Bubbalo wrote:
You ever think that *maybe* the reason it's unable to do anything is that much of it's member countries are a little concerned about a repeat of Somalia. And who screwed that one up?Horseman 77 wrote:
When the UN can actually complete some task in a competant manner I will give them my whole hearted support. Untill then, I will view it as it as institution with a poor track record, rife with corruption, an anti American stance with questionable motives on the whole.
You make a good "Legal " point for lack of a better term. But the world is changing. So must the Rules. This ( attack and defend ) are quickly becoming antiquated terms. Our enemies will Rarely show up in a Boat Bearing their nations colors and Fire a Shot across our Bow.B.Schuss wrote:
well, defend is the key here. The UN specifically reckognizes each member's right to defend itself against a military attack by a another UN member. Which leads us to the question ( again ) wether the US was ever attacked by Iraqi forces....
The answer is obviously no.
Moreover, did Iraq pose a threat to the US ? You gotta be kidding me. Even if they had had WMD, they didn't have ICBM's, bombers or submarines to launch them from. Their weapons program was under tight supervision and any considerable movement would have been picked up by US and british spy satellites.
I am sorry, but arguing that Iraq posed a threat to the national security of the US is just ridiculous.
You might argue that saddam was a cruel dictator who killed his own people, but that is true for so many other countries.
There were many reasons to go to Iraq ( I'd say a mix of strategic interests and economical interests ), but fear of that country's military forces sure wasn't one of them.
I applaud you, because supporting your own country, no matter your political views, in times of war is needed. However, I don't believe I always type in caps lock?Pernicious544 wrote:
I like how these forums about the war in Iraq and Afganistan usually involve the Liberals saying the word 'truth" alot when they themselves believe tabloids and newspaper clippings and interpret it as god-like news. I also like how conservatives like to make ALL THEIR WORDS IN CAPS LOCK...I CAN READ THE FUC**N THINK WHEN ITS IN LOWERCASE......what we need are more people like me...people that support the troops, understand whats going on, Know what we are doing right AND (dammit caps lock) what we are doing wrong.
The Liberal in Me: Bush is a tard, busted up in iraq because he A) wanted to have a war B) wanted to "finish" the fight
The Conservative in Me: Bush is smart, busted up iraq because he A) gave Saddam (dont care if its misspelled...its 4 am i want sleep ) a chance to get inspected B) Knew they were harboring terrorists.
I dont want to get cought up in this forum and I really hope that I dont get quoted because I dont want to keep responding but you dudes need to realize that everyone thinks differently...some people like explosions and others like un-explosions
As has been said quite often now, the UN is only as strong as their members make it to be. It is not a government, it has no armed forces. It depends on the support of its members to work effectively. So why not try to give the UN your whole hearted support to allow it to complete some task in a competant manner ?Horseman 77 wrote:
When the UN can actually complete some task in a competant manner I will give them my whole hearted support. Untill then, I will view it as it as institution with a poor track record, rife with corruption, an anti American stance with questionable motives on the whole.
You dont need to copy the last 30 responses every time. And no one is more arogant than you.
the UNBubbalo wrote:
You ever think that *maybe* the reason it's unable to do anything is that much of it's member countries are a little concerned about a repeat of Somalia. And who screwed that one up?Horseman 77 wrote:
When the UN can actually complete some task in a competant manner I will give them my whole hearted support. Untill then, I will view it as it as institution with a poor track record, rife with corruption, an anti American stance with questionable motives on the whole.
Fantastic. The brute force of your collective arrogance throughout this entire thread is now exonerated.Horseman 77 wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Are you sure you know how the real world works?
Would you consider this an Arogant statement ? I did.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-12 06:59:57)
No, America acting outside the UN chain of command *without* UN markings.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the UN
Hmmm, did I say that the threat long range missiles would pose wasn't the concern of the resolution? No. I simply pointed out that this statement had no grounds in reality:lowing wrote:
unorginalnuttah, you should have been a biologist the way you disect. The long range missles that could carry WMD's from Iraq was EXACTLY the concern the UN was addressing and you damn well know it. Or are you saying that resolution was NOT meant for Iraq?
This isn't the case, and isn't acknowledged in the resolution as you claim. There are significant semantic differences between what the resolution says and what you claim it says. A document like this must be interpreted by the letter, especially if you plan to use it to back up an argument like you attempted to do.lowing wrote:
It was ACCEPTED by the world that the INTEL about the WMD's was accurate!! It wasn't a Bush war monger conspiracy theory.
whittsend, school this cat, please.Bubbalo wrote:
No, America acting outside the UN chain of command *without* UN markings.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the UN
UN created it, not the U.S. acting outside UN chain of commandGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
whittsend, school this cat, please.Bubbalo wrote:
No, America acting outside the UN chain of command *without* UN markings.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the UN
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-05-12 09:42:03)
Anytime you want to point out the Brute force of my collective arogance feel free.mikkel wrote:
Fantastic. The brute force of your collective arrogance throughout this entire thread is now exonerated.Horseman 77 wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Are you sure you know how the real world works?
Would you consider this an Arogant statement ? I did.
It was a serious question.
I'll make sure the punch bowl is adequately filled with the proper ratio of ice cubes to punchHorseman 77 wrote:
When the UN Runs Operation " Get The F***K out of my favorite City and Stay Out " I will volunteer to help out, serve cupcakes and such.
Add LSD maybe.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'll make sure the punch bowl is adequately filled with the proper ratio of ice cubes to punchHorseman 77 wrote:
When the UN Runs Operation " Get The F***K out of my favorite City and Stay Out " I will volunteer to help out, serve cupcakes and such.
I believe that if you need me to point it out again, you've answered your own question. What you interpret as condescending is simply the depths I have to go to for you to understand what I'm saying.Horseman 77 wrote:
Anytime you want to point out the Brute force of my collective arogance feel free.mikkel wrote:
Fantastic. The brute force of your collective arrogance throughout this entire thread is now exonerated.Horseman 77 wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Are you sure you know how the real world works?
Would you consider this an Arogant statement ? I did.
It was a serious question.
You are condesending and insulting. When did I insult you?
thats a very profound statementdelta4bravo*nl* wrote:
lets get it over with,, so we can have 50 years of peace again.
Sorry you can call it arrogant if you want, the fact is the UN is made up mostly of countries that do not support the US or are out right hostile toward the US. So basically as a taxpayer and a US citizen who has a voice in our govt. I say screw all of you, and what you THINK we should do with our money and how much of it we should be giving to a bunch of countries that hate us anyway.mikkel wrote:
“In recognition of the special importance of the role that can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 percent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the decade.”lowing wrote:
Please show me where the US is "obligated" to finance its enemies, and explain to me why we should??mikkel wrote:
The problem here is that you keep saying the same thing in every single post, irrespective of my answer. If you're going to convince me that it's okay for the US to ignore their obligation to the UN and the world, then you're going to have to come up with something a little more justifying than simply saying that you have the right to be arrogant and dishonour your alliances. What you keep making it out to be is that the US have some extraordinary demands when it comes to foreign aid, and that their contribution is the only one that matters. I'm sorry, but I've spent 4 posts explaining to you that in the words of the US itself, the US has precisely the same requirements as those other 21 countries, and it falls drastically short, so you are infact complaining about the US having to honour their obligations.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you bring some valid points, but i still disagree with you in spirit. I see what your saying, but still, that doesnt change my opinion about this.
The US is like the welfare system to the world apparently. And if we dont wanna give country X as many food stamps as we promised, all of sudden were greedy.
we also have nearly 300 million americans that have priority over the rest of the world. The same I assume would go for your nation as well.
No, no-one thinks of the US as the welfare system to the world, because it's clear that they can't deliver. The only thing I'm asking is that the US either lives up to its obligations to the UN, or opts out of it all together. Until either of those happens, you simply cannot defend the US not reaching those 0,7%, and actually complaining about the supposed "burden" the US has just by sending 0,22% is completely stupid.
Again, and please read this; these are US obligations that the US are free to opt out of. Until they do, they're open to every single bit of criticism they can get if they don't meet those obligations, and rightly so.
We have 6 million Danes that are just as important as every other person anywhere. We have free schooling, free healthcare, more government financial help to citizens than any other developed country on the planet by far, and yet we still find the money to honour and exceed our obligations and respect the UN and the people in need.
In short, so we won't need a repeat of the last 5 posts: The US isn't living up to the contractual obligations they have to the UN. If you're going to complain about these obligations, complain about the US government, not the people in need, as that's just immensely absurd.
If that settles it? If you had read and comprehended my previous posts, you'd realise that it is infact not your right to decide how much you give when you've obligated yourselves to give at least 0,7%.
Honestly, posting on a forum means that you read and respond with constructive replies. Three lines above your reply is this exact same answer, just as valid as the one I'm giving you now, and just as devastating to your arrogant rambling. Not reading posts before you reply doesn't make you clever. I realise that you must put a lot of faith into the validity of that argument for you to completely disregard every other argument that has been made, but saying something like that after I've posted five posts that completely destroyed that argument and even told you, kind as I am, where to direct your criticism just makes you look extremely inept at carrying a discussion. I'm sorry, but it does.
Disagreeing with you does not mean your post wasn't read. It also doesn't make anyone arrogant.
(UN 1970, paragraph 43)
There you have it. This 0,7% goal has been reaffirmed by the UN over and over again.
I don't see anyone asking the US to financially support its enemies. Honestly, pulling something like that out of thin air has no place in a sensible discussion.
The problem here is not that you're disagreeing with me. The problem is that you're spoting arguments that have have already been negated by what I've quoted in previous posts, and yes, that does mean that either you don't read my posts, or that you're arrogant.
Yes the US screwed up by trying to help a poverty stricken, starving, warlord controlled country. Our fault. I promise you I hope it NEVER happens again.Bubbalo wrote:
You ever think that *maybe* the reason it's unable to do anything is that much of it's member countries are a little concerned about a repeat of Somalia. And who screwed that one up?Horseman 77 wrote:
When the UN can actually complete some task in a competant manner I will give them my whole hearted support. Untill then, I will view it as it as institution with a poor track record, rife with corruption, an anti American stance with questionable motives on the whole.