General discussion
-
CreatorTopic
-
May 18, 2006 at 6:18 am #2186284
Countries in the UN against the U.S.
Lockedby old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
Someone sent the following information to me in an email. I went to Google to try to verify the information. According to Snopes.com, http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp , their results were even worse (An excerpt from their page is below).
Now, I know that the U.S. tried Isolationism before and found out it didn?t work very well, for us, or for the rest of the world. And, I don?t think it would work now. However, I?m beginning to wonder, since there are so many countries that hate us and are so against us, if we should quit sending all this money to them and start using it here. I think it could very well help fix our own house to where it should be. Even if we just cut all of it in half. That way the other nations are still getting money from us but just not as much. Also, we would have a whole lot more money here to fix things. Of course, I know if we did that these other countries would start in even more loudly than they are now about how the ?U.S. should do more for us because they are so rich and we are so poor.? Well, they hate us already so what would it matter if they did start yelling louder?
Now, do I think we could or should do this? I don?t know but it sure is getting more tempting? What do you guys think?
(The email sent to me)
How they vote in the United Nations:Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the timeU S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States, and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States, and receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States, and receives $143,699,000 annually.
Well, you get the idea …….
Perhaps it’s time to get out of the U.N. and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are skimping and sacrificing to pay the taxes they receive as aid, and to buy their oil.
Disgusting isn’t it?___________________________________
“The results of this tally were even worse (from a U.S. perspective) than the message quoted above indicates, with the countries named voting contrary to the U.S. position on U.N. resolutions an aggregate 88% of the time. (Even though India is neither Arab nor particularly Islamic, we included it in our chart because the widely-circulated e-mailed list did.)
Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Kuwait 10 61 86%
Qatar 9 64 88%
Morocco 8 62 89%
United Arab Emirates 8 61 88%
Jordan 9 64 88%
Tunisia 8 63 89%
Saudi Arabia 7 62 90%
Yemen 9 64 88%
Algeria 9 63 88%
Oman 9 63 88%
Sudan 10 60 86%
Pakistan 9 59 87%
Libya 8 63 89%
Egypt 10 63 86%
Lebanon 7 62 90%
India 14 52 79%
Syria 7 59 89%
Mauritania 7 63 90%” http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp(Note: I’m not sure how to format the table in here like it was from Snopes but you can click on the link above and read their whole page.)
Topic is locked -
CreatorTopic
All Comments
-
AuthorReplies
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 6:25 am #3160571
you missed an important part of that
by jaqui · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Countries in the UN against the U.S.
However, we also surveyed the U.N. voting records of several countries generally considered to be close allies of the U.S., and those results were none too impressive either. Only Israel consistently voted with the U.S.:
Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Australia 33 26 44%
Canada 31 32 51%
Israel 56 7 11%
Japan 26 36 58%
United Kingdom 40 27 40%
France 36 31 46%when even countries perceived to be friendly are getting close to 50% against the us on average, it really indicates that the us is screwing up in a large way.
-
May 18, 2006 at 6:29 am #3160565
Or it could indicate something else
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to you missed an important part of that
.
-
May 18, 2006 at 6:43 am #3160551
No, actually I didn’t
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to you missed an important part of that
That’s the reason I posted the link so people could read the whole message.
However, that may be an even stronger point for isolationism again. (Note: as I stated earlier, no I don’t think that works but it sure is tempting.)
Edited to add I knew my original post was going to really long any way so I did try to compact it.
-
May 18, 2006 at 10:33 am #3159032
Sometimes The previous Administrations
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to you missed an important part of that
Were a real Piece of work… And, John Bolton is right, The UN is a haven for those who despise the USA.
It is a horribly corrupt environment.
Cuba, Syria and Red China on human rights committees. Give me a break…
The corruption for oil for food hits Kofi Annan’s family, but they didn’t pay it back to the Iraqi people. The UN is a safe place for piss-ant countries to tweak the USA, and try to give the USA crap. I have met British people who still call the USA “The colonies”. The Biggest problem is the USA is just about the only friend Israel has in the whole world.
Look to see how often the Arab states and Muslim countries vote against Isreal. That is the real telling story…
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:29 pm #3158853
Don’t even go there
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Sometimes The previous Administrations
The US was just as irresponsible and breached many sanctions THEY imposed as part of the OFF program. The US was encouraging small third world countries breach sanctions and trade for oil, that the US in turn was buying from them.
Just two months after the US Embassy’s report to congress outlined this in a 60 page document (that was posted on the White House Site) they AMMENDED it and removed all but a few mentions of US breaches. Conveniently drilled for just over 60 pages to 22.Why didn’t your government want the information made available to US public? The document WAS provided by the US Embassy as their official report to congress.
It certainly didn’t echo the Bs coming from Washington though, and the war was being justified (if they consider it justified) at the same time. Heap O shite from your government if you ask anyone with a brain.
Your country isn’t all peaches and cream, trying to fend off the evil world around it, don’t disillusion yourself.
-
May 19, 2006 at 6:58 am #3159950
Yeah, let’s go there.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Don’t even go there
Let’s look back just one previous incumbancy to the Oval Office.
He started conflict in Bosnia, We are still there. He started conflict in Haiti, We are still there.
He tried to join conflict in Argentina, ostensibly to cool things down between Great Britain and Argentina.Thank God the Argentinians refused to cooperate with a US presence after the Faulklans conflict… That was the last gasp of the Pro-German leftovers such as the Peronistas left over from WWII that were Argentinian Army VS what was Pro-British Navy… There is a country always devided against themselves…
Argentina was a Nazi refuge after WWII, and the Pro-German sentiment ran deep. Many Army officers from Argentina were educated at the German Kreigschool or War college. Sort of like Levenworth with Schnitzel… Understand how deep the Argentine dislike for the USA is, and you’ll find socialists at every turn.
Our socialists are trying to enact the same kind of policies that has kept Argentina from becoming a great world power.
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:51 am #3159816
Nice rant
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Yeah, let’s go there.
Ridisculously wide of the topic at hand and the comments you made, even the reply I offered but still a nice rant all the same. Bit of a waste but whatever.
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:07 am #3159944
I have a better answer than you would like.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Don’t even go there
Governments and the people in them rarely tell the truth… Would the OFF program have gotten to a previous President named Clinton, or Bush… We may never know…
How about the name of the person who told the shooter at Ruby Ridge to “Shoot the next person who walks out that door.” That was a criminal act. but it is sealed for another 65+ years…
I believe it was either Janet Reno, or President Clinton. If it was either, they should have been tried alonside the shooter, even while in office… The records are sealed, and I will never know if the President gave a direct order to murder a woman and her baby, over a challenge to the legality of the IRS’s existance.
-
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:42 am #3159823
since when does disagreeing with someone mean you don’t support them?
by heml0ck · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to you missed an important part of that
as a rebuttal, I’ll post this:
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:52 am #3159741
heml0ck,
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to since when does disagreeing with someone mean you don’t support them?
thanks for posting that. I’m sure some people will look at that as dripping with sugary sentiment but I think it was a great document and said in sincerety. I wish that more people could read and look at the more positive statements such as this. Thanks, again.
-
May 21, 2006 at 9:57 am #3159084
-
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 6:28 am #3160567
And some people wonder. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Countries in the UN against the U.S.
…why I hate the United Nations.
And to think, we pay 25 percent of the costs to keep it operating!
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:27 am #3160504
Actually Max
by tig2 · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to And some people wonder. . . . .
Isn’t that figure higher? We provide the land the building stands on even though we have no legal power inside that building. As the building stands on some prime real estate and I do not believe that the UN pays taxes for the increasing value of that land, doesn’t that impact the actual costs we pay?
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:56 am #3160479
Not to mention. . . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Actually Max
….thirty one (31) percent of the peacekeeping costs.
AND
The largest donor to UNICEF
-
May 18, 2006 at 10:34 am #3159031
25% of direct cost + 100% of the utilities…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Actually Max
Thanks New York…
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:32 pm #3158851
Don’t be so stupid, Max.
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to And some people wonder. . . . .
That’s no different than saying, they don’t like me, so it’s no wonder I’ve always said I don’t like them.
Perhaps the whole issue is that your government has chastized teh UN for EVERYTHING they have ever done, though GWB does play a good lie when he says how much he trusts and relies on the UN.
Your citizens are mainly oppsed to the UN too.
So to reverse your clever comment, poerhaps THEY vote against you BECASE you don’t like them. And yet you see it as the other way around, how convenient. Obviously a completely irrelevant and inapplicable comment on yor part.
Unless you can prove that the chicken came before the egg, of course.
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:42 pm #3158846
And I think that’s a stupid thing to say
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Don’t be so stupid, Max.
So you think I’m stupid, I think you’re stupid. What else is new?
I will add this, however. I’ve been harping on the inept and corrupt United Nations for years, and you know it. This particular discussion had nothing to do with forming my opinion.
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:01 pm #3158835
No, the comment was unreasonable
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to And I think that’s a stupid thing to say
Okay, to rephrase, YOU are not stupied per se but the fact that people are actually seeing something in the stats posted is crazy.
As Julian said, WHAT were the issues they voted on? Judging by the countries opposed, I assume it ws not health care for Iraqi’s, better water systems in Kuwait etc. The US is very imposing to most other countries, the US is KNOWN for trying to throw it’ sweight around and these countries feel constantly bullied. I am sure you would see similar stats toward Canada and England too. Whomever is trying to impose a nw law or sanction against another country is NOT going to see too many supporting votes.
It would be more relevant and constructive to se ehow many FREINDLY nations, ALLIES were opposed. Not starving third world countires where you have imposed restrictions or other sanctions against then.
If you were always telling us what our government canand cannot do, we wouldn’t be voting in your favouir too often either.
And for you to say “they don’t like us but I’ve NEVER liked them because they don’t like us” is ridiculous. MAYE they never liked you BEACSUE you don’t like them. Who punched first? Again, chicken or the egg?
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:40 pm #3158811
The answer is. . . . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to No, the comment was unreasonable
…the egg.
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:20 am #3159929
The question
by jdclyde · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The answer is. . . . . . .
A chicken and an egg are laying in bed.
The chicken sits up and lights a smoke.
The egg says “Well, I guess we answered that one…”
-
May 19, 2006 at 8:54 am #3159863
Well done, jd!
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The question
Put that in the Friday yuk!
-
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:52 am #3159814
the story of the UN
by heml0ck · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to And some people wonder. . . . .
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 6:51 am #3160542
I don’t think these figures mean/indicate anything at all
by jardinier · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Countries in the UN against the U.S.
unless they are linked to the issues which were voted upon.
For example: A country may have voted against the US any number of times over a particular issue. So that country may have voted against the US 80 per cent of the time, but always over one issue or closely related issues.
In other words I think the statistics are meaningless in the form in which they have been presented.
-
May 18, 2006 at 6:57 am #3160537
you mean like
by jaqui · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to I don’t think these figures mean/indicate anything at all
the war on terrorism votes? when only england voted with the us?
the rest of the world said get screwed, we will not support this act of terrorism.
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:02 am #3160529
Jaqui, are you
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to you mean like
suggesting that the U.S. is the terrorist now although we are the ones who were attacked first?
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:07 am #3160520
the UN
by jaqui · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Jaqui, are you
voted against sending troops into Iraq, so by sending them in, the US is the agressor Nation.
England was the only country that agreed with the US on that.
remember the whole “Freedom Fries” issue? caused by France stating that it would be a terroist act to invade to get usama bin-laden.
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:15 am #3160514
Does that mean
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to the UN
that we are not allowed to retaliate for the destruction they caused in human lives here? To me that sounds like it’s ok for any country to come over here and kick us in the butt but we’re not allowed to do anything about it–just keep sending them the money. Would that make the rest of the world happy with the U.S.?
-
May 18, 2006 at 8:19 am #3160461
look at it this way
by jaqui · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Does that mean
x billions to build the freedom tower and clean up the mess.
y trillions for the military expenses
as opposed to having the regional government pay policing costs to turn him over to you for trial.
does having all americans suffer under debt for 200 years make sence over having the foreign government pay for getting those responsible?
does killing innocent bystandars and giving their relatives cause to BECOME terrorists against the US as opposed to having them respect the means used make sence?
the “war on terroism” is a means to increase the total number of terrorists, for every bystander killed, you create 12 terrorists.
-
May 18, 2006 at 8:33 am #3160453
If I understand your message correctly
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to look at it this way
I think you said to let the regional governments pay for policing costs. If you mean let the local governments in those countries take care of turning over the terriosts then it’s quite obvious they don’t have the means, knowledge, or desire to do so without being pushed.
I think you are correct in the fact that this probably is increasing the number of terrorists. Unfortunately, I don’t think we could nuke all muslim countries and completely wipe out anyone who even desires to be a terrorist at one time without really having problems. For a lot of people a typical kneejerk reaction would be just that–nuke ’em all. I don’t think that is a viable option. However, to say that we are now the “terrorists” because we want to stop that from happening again is just totally incorrect. It seems that these actual terrorist just wants to hurt America in any way they can. How do you stop them?
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:07 am #3160434
OG
by cactus pete · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to look at it this way
If you nuked all Islamic countries, would you get all the terrorists?
If you nuked all Muslims, would there be any countries not affected?
If you nuked all Islamic countries, would that be a rational and equal reaction?
If you nuked all the Islamic countries, would you prove the terrorists right?
The action in Afghanistan wasn’t (isn’t) finished, but I’m sorry to say that I feel resources that should be there are now diverted elsewhere.
The answer, I think, should have been to stay focused and remove the proven terrorists completely. At the moment, I think we’ve abondoned the known for the unknown.
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:23 am #3160422
I just want to reiterate
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to look at it this way
that I personally do not think that the answer would be to nuke anyone. That would not actually resolve the issue and would actually cause untold more issues.
I wish I had a perfect answer. However, due to all of these circumstances it certainly is take care of our own house first. That would mean cutting off a lot of aid. Maybe if President Bush and/or Congress sent a message to all the other governments, “you keep your terrorists away from the U.S. and then we will send you money.” Otherwise, no money–take care of your own stuff. That could let us have more money and resources for better security on our own shores to maybe keep out the terrorists. Hmmm.
-
May 18, 2006 at 8:31 am #3160455
The problem is
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Does that mean
(and it’ll probably wind Maxwell up) but it’s not “country to come over here and kick us in the butt”.
Al Qaeda – who are the at the root of all of this – are an “organisation” for which the main aim is to overthrow the Saudi Monarchy. Yes, Afghanistan may have sheltered some of them as the government there was radical islamists who probably had the same ideals. Anyway, you seriously taught them a lesson for doing [b]that[/b]. Unfortunately, I fear that the lesson is going to be taught straight back over the next few yearsas you’re doing a wonderful job for their recruitment drive. Good Morning, Vietnam. Reprise…
But to move on from there and use 911 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq is still too much for me to swallow. That one isn’t going too well, either. Good Morning, Vietnam. Reprise…
Just as an afterthought. What do you propose the UK does to the area responsible for providing the terrorists who carried out the 7/7 suicide bombings in revenge for the Iraq invasion? We know exactly where that is : – http://tinyurl.com/jm73j
Personally, I’d nuke the place.
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:16 am #3160428
Culture question
by cactus pete · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The problem is
OK, I’m familiar with the M1 and roads of such designation from my travels, but What’s with all the As? Autoways?
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:38 am #3160412
English road naming
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The problem is
The A-roads are the main trunk routes that existed pre-motorway. They work in a rough radial system out of London – A1 goes North up the East side, A2 East, A3 South West, A4 West, a5 North West around to the A6, North up the West side.
Within each “pie-slice” there are more roads with two-digit numbers and these are usually main routes also, either running parallel to the main route or in some cases running between them. i.e. between the A2 and the A3 there is, moving clockwise, A20, A21, A22 and so on. They carry on subdividing from there. We do not do grids! 🙂
Leeds has the A1 – main N/S route running to the East and has the A6 running up across the other side of the Pennines in the West so most of the roads are A6x or A6xx. The green routes are major routes and the red ones less so and this is not always reflected in the numbers.
We carry on until we’ve got to the end of three digits. Then we start on the B roads…
Motorways are named (roughly) after the most appropriate A-road although the M5 doesn’t fit a damn thing.
There’s a similar scheme for for Scotland starting with the A7.
Neil 😀
Provided free of charge by NITS ™ so visiting Yanks don’t get (very) lost.
p.s. A lot of the roads were there before population shifts and have been widened – some have not. Others have been replaced by the motorways and have been left so you have absoulutely no idea what sort of road you’ll find once you stray off the Motorways. Since the M1 motorway was opened, for instance, the A5 disappears for one long stretch running out of London, being replaced by the A5183. This can be really confusing seeing as the damn road has been in the same place since 62AD!
Just assume that our roads are five time busier than yours and much narrower and you’ll be a little better prepared.
-
May 18, 2006 at 10:05 am #3160397
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:44 pm #3158845
Get with the right war!!!!
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Does that mean
You are talkin gabout events leading up to teh Iraq invasion.
The war that WAS justified, had your president callign it a victory and removing the vast majority of troops and funding while others try to fight the continuing war on yor behalf. Iraq wasn’t the terrorist organization that attacked you and neither was Saddam.
Don’t get the two so easilt mixed up as millions of Americans do each day.
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:05 pm #3159001
That is flawed
by jdclyde · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to the UN
Having or not having UN support is NOT what defines an act of terrorism.
The UN is corrupt from the top down and has nothing valid to add to anything.
The frogs can go back to their own racist ways as they deal with their own 25% unemployment amoung third generation citizens that are still regarded as immigrants. By that standard, I would still be considered an immigrant instead of a US citizen. The hell with the french.
-
May 19, 2006 at 6:16 am #3159980
but jd,
by jaqui · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to That is flawed
england was the only country that voted with the us in the un on that particualr issue, even the us protectorates like singapore voted against the us.
the move into iraq was only supported by the us government and british governments, every other country gave the exact same response as france.
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:54 am #3159903
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:40 pm #3158847
neither the UN or Iraq attacked you
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Jaqui, are you
NT
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:37 am #3159918
Actually, Iraq committed several acts of war against the USA.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to neither the UN or Iraq attacked you
1. The failed assasination attempt on Bush 41 after he was out of office.
2. The failed attempt to take over the US Embassy in 1979. Iran had just fallen, and The US Ambassador got locked in the basement and kept away from communications until the attackers quit trying to take over the Embassy. Were many Iraqis killed trying to take over the Embassy? No, but 5 instigators were removed by precision rifle fire… 3 of them were Mullahs.
3. They supported the Iranian hostage takeover of the US Embassy, and tried one themselves…
4. They declared war on the US in 1974 for our support of Israel.
5. They supplied arms to terrorists for the Mayaguez incident 1975.
Do you really want a full list?
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:57 am #3159804
try and stay on topic.
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Actually, Iraq committed several acts of war against the USA.
I replied to
“Jaqui, are you suggesting that the U.S. is the terrorist now although we are the ones who were attacked first?”this was shortly after another post that directly mentioned it was retaliation for 9/11. It wasn’t, and if you’re SO educated on teh happenings of the past century of war, you would have recognized that too. Iraqi’s didn’t fly planes into US buildings on 9/11 to wage war on behalf on Saddam.
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:58 am #3159740
Oz, the topic is
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to try and stay on topic.
terrorism. So, yes, he is on topic. I don’t remember the exact title or phrase used but President Bush started with the terroristic acts from 9/11 and widened it to include this is a war on all terrorism. Some of the ways and acts that have been put in place may not have been the best way. However, since most of the terrorists originate in these countries, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc then yes, we are defending ourselves from their terroristic acts.
-
May 19, 2006 at 1:40 pm #3159700
Too simple, and again it’s not on topic
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to try and stay on topic.
If you follow the segue that I replied to and he further commented on, the theme is insinuating once again that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Iraq did NOT attak the USA.
As for your own summary, it’s FAR to broad a brush, just broad enough make it seem so fine and simple. It’s NOT fine and simple though.
“since most of the terrorists originate in these countries, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc then yes”
Actually it is said that the largst part of AlQaeda resides OUTSIDE of the middle east, but this is okay because terrorists are far from the Afghan pipeline and it’s incredible revenue stream. They are out of the way and unable to extort and control oil revenues.
Anyhow, if we are to target ALL terrorists, in blanket invasion style, then we will be invading over 60 countries one by one, including the good ole USA. YEs, AlQaeda terrorist sects are known to reside in the US, Canada, UL, and literally dozens of other countries, in stronger numbers than before, perhaps not quite as organized yet but getting there.
This will not end by turning the MIddle East into glass, someitmes there needs to be a different solution found, beyond brute force.
No I don’t have that solution, it’s pretty bloody clear that THIS isn’t working though, it hasn’t even worked in Afghanistan with far less resistance.As the old saying goes, know thy enemy, and in this case you don’t.
-
May 22, 2006 at 2:02 pm #3151478
Old guy, OZ can’t stand the truth…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to try and stay on topic.
He hates the fact that not everybody hates Bush.
He really hates the fact that Max is so eoquent and makes him appear to be semi-literate… He hates my blunt: “These are the facts.” He won’t address the facts if they don’t fit his worldview.
Well, I’ll address the last bit in this manner. I was dead on topic, but not what OZ wants to read…
-
May 22, 2006 at 6:44 pm #3161287
You got it
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to try and stay on topic.
in a nutshell, perhaps you should begin your career in psychiatry.
As for your rash and way off base judgement, I’ll just chuckle and let you feel clever.
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:48 am #3159910
Often the UN has stood against the US after Korea.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to neither the UN or Iraq attacked you
Did the UN come storming out of the building and shoot? No.
Do UN members enrichen themselves on US Dollars. Yes.
Did UN members enrichen themselves of OFF? Yes.Does the UN support Thugs and dictators? Yes.
Does the UN allow genocide? Yes.
Does the UN stand against oppressive regimes? No.
Does the UN do any good. That is questionable… -
May 19, 2006 at 10:01 am #3159801
And once again, off topic
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Often the UN has stood against the US after Korea.
You stray so easily, if you have so much to say on a different topic, start a new thread.
My comment again was : “Neither the UN or Iraq attacked you.”
Perhaps you can dig through some of your fact finding websites and post a link that proves such a statement incorrect instead of running of on a tangent.
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:01 am #3159800
And once again, off topic
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Often the UN has stood against the US after Korea.
You stray so easily, if you have so much to say on a different topic, start a new thread.
My comment again was : “Neither the UN or Iraq attacked you.”
Perhaps you can dig through some of your fact finding websites and post a link that proves such a statement incorrect instead of running off on a tangent.
-
May 19, 2006 at 12:06 pm #3159736
This is one
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to And once again, off topic
of the problems with a lot of things. There are some people who have tunnel vision and can only see one thing at a time. Again, in this discussion, there are very broad views and very broad conflicts that come into play. To tell someone they must speak only of one sentence or question you may pose is extremely narrow mindedness.
Does President Bush have a sinister, hidden political agenda in taking the war to Iraq? Maybe he does or maybe he is sincere in trying to stop all terrorism. Your opinion of what a person intends or my opinion of what a person intends may be far off the mark.
-
May 19, 2006 at 2:04 pm #3159396
NO it’s not
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to And once again, off topic
A thread was started, posts flow in tiered fashion. We were talking about something and he replied to my comment with something irrelevant an dnot even on topic, and it was intended to be in response to what I said. So YES, it is off topic and was somewhat mindless as it had no point or protest to begin with.
As for GWB’s intents being good or bad, his INTENTIONS I am sre are good, though may not be completely pure in that he most likely has an ulterior motive. Much heavier evidence of his scheming than there ever was about Saddam having stockpiles of WMD on hand to atack America (complete BS because his weapons would not be ABLE to attack America if he had them anyway. So the Republican smokescreen was wafer thin.
But as you say, we won’t know, at least until the next administration uncovers the proof on it.
You seem to be missing a very important and VERY relavant point though. As a leader, your primary task at hand is to make the right decision and when you don’t you will be harshly criticized. That is called politics in a democratic nation. If this was Kerry at the helm you would all be having a field day on his EVERY move regardless of intent.
Bush may have had god intentions, though I think a personal motive too, but teh bottom line is HE FAILED, regardless of his intent, it was/is a large mistake.
-
May 18, 2006 at 10:42 am #3159029
Other countries do not want the USA to defend itself…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to you mean like
We will not let even our buddies to the North tell us we cannot defend ourselves.
There should have been no question about what should have happened. The whole world should be against terrorism…
Many countries don’t want to stand against terrorists as they worry about becoming a target…
-
May 18, 2006 at 11:37 am #3159009
If you aren’t with me you are against me
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Other countries do not want the USA to defend itself…
And thats the attitude that wins friends and influences people all over the world.
When the US decided that Afghanistan was the target, we supported you. We sent troops. We are still there, we still support the mission. We even changed the Canadians role from peacekeeping and development around Kabul to Taliban hunting at Khandahar.
But we disagreed with your approach on Iraq. You apparently think that makes us weak. It would have been easier to cave in to the tremendous pressure from the US and go join the coalition. It was not a knee jerk or quickly made decision in Canada.
You didn’t join us in WWI and WWII until it suited you. The whole world should have been against Hitler. But hindsight is 20/20.
Your buddies signed a pact with you in 1940, before you entered WWII that we would mutually defend each others borders. We participate together in NORAD (North American Air Defence). NORAD is being expanded to include maritime as well as air defence. On September 11, our fighter planes were placed directly under NORAD control and we sent air patrols off the US coast.
Canada is already an Al Qaeda target because of our participation in Afghanistan (we just extended our participation in Afghanistan for another 2 years BTW).
Whether you like it or not, we are a separate sovereign country and we have the right to decide what we will and will not do with our military, beyond the pacts we have already signed. You get upset when people cast aspetions on America’s motives, but you don’t seem to have a problem insulting your neighbour and calling us cowards.
Would you like to tell that to the widows of the Canadians killed in Afghanistan? Would you like to say that to some of our soldiers?
That was over the line. I thought better of you.
James
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:03 pm #3158896
You have different ideas about what we should do.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to If you aren’t with me you are against me
Americans are the kind who don’t tend to back down from a fight. Gen. G. S. Patton said, he also said Americans lova to fight, and we love a winner…
I agree that the US should have been in WWII about 1937… Right after the Kenepetai strafed the US PANAY on the Yellow river… Before either Canada or the UK had declared war on Japan or Germany.
If we hadn’t had a Democrat socialist FDR as our President, we probaly would have been in WWII much earlier… As we hadn’t reacted to a ship being attacked, and the rape of Nanking, and many other Japanese and Italian atrocities around Shanghai, where the Marines had a heavy weapons division… Most of the world thought we’d never get into the war… The US has a tendency to get into wars much later than we should.
Some people think that we jumped in early this time…
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:26 am #3159784
THERE IS NO FIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to You have different ideas about what we should do.
You keep going on and on about defending yourself and how you are justified in defending yourself.
Even after it has been explained that you are NOT defending yourselves and are instead takign an initiative to invade and declare war on what is now a growing enemy across the middle east.
Yet your reply is the same as those who were posting here several years ago, before anyone knew what was really going on.
“You have different ideas about what we should do.”
Americans are the kind who don’t tend to back down from a fight. Gen. G. S. Patton said, he also said Americans lova to fight, and we love a winner…”
Now you are quoting a general’s comments made several years after war had been declared in Europe, thousands were dead and countries had been brutally invaded.
How do you then equate such a comment as justification for the premature and questionable invasion of another country?
the only TRUE part is “Americans lova to fight”.
The only reason you LOVE to fight is because you are all lied to until you believe that it is justified and you must defend yourselves. This plus the fact that you refuse to let other countries develop similar weaponry so that you are always on top.
It’s like the pansy who takes a gun to a fight and tells his opponents thay can only use knives. Of COURSE he wants to fight.
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:35 pm #3158971
Defend=Yes, Invade=????
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Other countries do not want the USA to defend itself…
I do believe that almost every country wiil buy into the Defence of ones land. But, invading another, weaker land, just because you can, No! The Romans did that, The Otomans did that, Napolian did that, Hitler did that, and, and, and……. No, there’s a line there somewhere, and the US looks to have crossed it. (again!)
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:20 pm #3158884
Dawg You’re wrong, again…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Defend=Yes, Invade=????
We have the full rights of any sovereign nation to do what is in our best interest. If you don’t like it, that is your opinion. If you are a voter in the US. Vote your conscience.
If we follow the Geneva convention then the world has no bone to pick with us… The terrorists in Iraq and the Mid-East can be executed by any officer as a spy, or saboteur. We aren’t playing that rough though.
Conquering a land at one time was the desire of many countries. The US may be called Imperialist, but that is erroneous.
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:51 pm #3158841
“Conquering a land at one time…..
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Dawg You’re wrong, again…
was the desire of many countries.” Key word “was”. I thought the world had progressed beyond that. oh-well, Back to the “Crusades” than.
-
May 19, 2006 at 6:35 am #3159970
The crusades were the attempt to free Jerusalem.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to “Conquering a land at one time…..
edited — > emoticons not working..
Don’t tell me you got your history from Robin Hood Men in tights 😉
We aren’t trying to kill them all, or posess the land. You spew that garbage and some moron believes it. We are still in Bosnia and Haiti. Why isn’t the left angry at that “6 month” engagement started by Bill Clinton… Are you as upset we have troops in harms way there?
-
May 21, 2006 at 10:26 am #3159081
I think everyone agrees that we need to fight terrorism
by heml0ck · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Defend=Yes, Invade=????
but the disagreement comes in how to do it.
As a side note, it is often overlooked that citizens of something like 16 countries were killed in 9/11.
I find it curious that the US and countries involved in the ’91 Gulf war did not choose the legal avenue available to them. The end of the Gulf War was a ceasefire, not an armistice. This means that technically a state of war still existed between Iraq and the coalition countries. I think it would have generated a different response to have invoked the terms of the ceasefire as the rationale for invading Iraq. Hussein’s government was in violation of those terms, and as such it ( the cesefire)was no longer in force. As far as I can see there was no need to go back to the UN to resume hostilities. -
May 18, 2006 at 2:15 pm #3158887
James,
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Other countries do not want the USA to defend itself…
When sombody tries to kill you, things get much simpler.It becomes Us vs.Them. Don’t be stupid and support the people who attacked the USA. That is stupid. Don’t have celebrations…
So don’t be or support a Them…
I really think that Canada and Australia have stepped up big time… That is to their credit.
They aren’t the pissant counties to which I was referring. Nor is Great Britain. I am referring to France along with the Sudanese,etc.I do think that it is that simple. When I am under attack, those who won’t fight with me are against me. Canada has been one of our staunchest allies. No question about it.
In particular, I mean countries that we are feeding that should show some gratitude. Ethiopia, Sudan, Mali, Nigeria, etc. They take the effort to stand against the USA when they can, biting the very hand that feeds them… I have quit sending money for food to Mali. It won’t make a whale of a lot of difference, but $500.00 for twenty years buys a lot of rice…
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:05 pm #3158833
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:55 pm #3158838
What rock have you been hiding under?
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Other countries do not want the USA to defend itself…
Have you been asleep since 9/11 or something???
Your ‘buddies to the North’, are currently occupying Afghanistan and the surrounding areas, along with your enemies from Germany and France, while dying to fight the war on terrorism, as they have been at your side all along.
Remember, ‘your buddies to the north’ were also four years ahead of you in joining WWII an fighting that Hitler terror (WWI started in the late 30’s and Hitler was already beaten down after trying to invade England for two years, long before D-Day and America’s wakeup call in Pearl Harbour), so don’t start pointing the ‘unhelpful, passive neighbour’ finger without knowing the facts.
Since when did Canada tell you not to defend yourselves? Please post a quote from somewhere in teh last 60 years anyway.
As for Iraq, you were not terrorized by Iraq, you THOUGHT you had a reason for invasion, yet you even ignored you OWN policy behind invading Iraq. You were SUPPOSED to use force to finish inspections (not to invade the country), in the end inspectors WERE completing inspections as promised, they had found NOTHING of any relevance at that time.
Allies requested they wait until the inspections were finished, estimated at 2-6 weeks, and GWB refused to wait, ignored his OWN resoutions that others had agreed to, and invaded prematurely against the wishes of the allied nations.
But hey, THAT’s OKAY, now they are expected to support you anyway??!?!? Give your head a shake, son, and get with the ‘ucking program for once!
-
May 19, 2006 at 6:45 am #3159962
Read what I write, not what you think I wrote.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to What rock have you been hiding under?
We will not let even our buddies to the North tell us we cannot defend ourselves.
I agree you are our buddies… Canadian, you are too quick on the trigger with this one…
I said even… Canada, I consider our closest ally.
The point is, as Bush has said, “No foreign country will dictate American security and foreign policy… I respect the Canadian presence, and I think you need to read what I said. No country has the right to tell the US what we can or can’t defend ourselves… The UN is in the same boat. I suspect if the UN was abolished there would be no more or less conflict in the world. I think they were dynamic in the Ruwandan genocide. The UN ran from Iraq, and they real point is without the WWII allies the UN is a joke…
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:10 am #3159797
How self righteous
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Read what I write, not what you think I wrote.
But if Iraq wants to develop the technology to defend itself, YOU have the right to stop them?(after initially providing them the munitions for such defense)
Nobody has said you can’t defend yourselves, except your elected presidential liar, whom you all seem to buy into like he’s a religion.
The whole point is, YOU ARE NOT DEFENDING YOURSELVES BY INVADING IRAQ.
Perhaps one could POSSIBLY hang onto the teeny thread of a hope that he COULD have developed the ability to attack, but he didn’t.
Remember the inspectors that you removed from completing inspections just weeks before a qualified decision could have been made?
THAT’S wher eyour president lost the suport of your allies, THAT is why ore Americans have died than would have if there was a broader coalition, THAT is why your country has invested hundreds of bilions of YOUR tax dollars to rebuild the damage they inflicted on Iraq. THAT is why America is on her own and has the world saying, FU, we TOLD you to wait and you ignored us.
It has NOTHING to do with not being able to defend yourseld, that’s just pathetic media hype created to build loyalty from Americans and show everyone else as the bad guy, as always.
-
May 22, 2006 at 9:45 am #3159432
Is that your problem? Righteousness.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to How self righteous
I always thought you were an anti-religion person. You don’t seem to support faith in God, now you lambaste faith in a system or a person…
OZ, that is where you live. The name fits you to a “T”. You live in a fantasy where the rest of the world agrees with you. Most of the countries who should have been on our side were tainted by OFF money. Even Russia was tainted. So too, is China.
You think the Sudanese who still practice slavery are more riteous than those who call for an end to slavery?
You think the Chinese, who kill people for finding out the truth and disagreeing with the government over their treatment of other disidents, or those of a religious faith?
These are the people you siode with OZ. Righteousness would be a problem for any menber of the above groups… Your positional allies.
France may change positions depending on which way the wind blows. So you can’t count them on your side more than 50% of the time…
-
May 22, 2006 at 10:19 am #3159405
tjsanko@… – Oz has often . . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to How self righteous
….blasted people for being “self-righteous” (and I mean he’s done it a LOT), and always in his usual self-righteous manner. There’s no point in trying to reason with him in that regard.
He’s right, you’re wrong, end of story. Consider this. The stereo-typical “self-righteous” people want, in some way, to control other people. Speaking for myself, as long as another person doesn’t infringe on me (or on others), I don’t presume to control anyone and/or suggest how that person should live. Oz can’t say that. And he gets on his “self-righteous” soapbox in an attempt to qualify and/or justify it. (But he’s not alone. A lot of people do it.)
It’s okay, at least in my opinion, to be self-righteous in a self-control and/or self-responsible kind of way. “This is how I want to live my life.” This is how I choose to believe.” And as long as that doesn’t interfere with another, being “self-righteous”, in that regard, is no more than being “self-responsible”. But as soon as a person starts to say, “This is how YOU should live and/or believe……”, then it is THEY who are the “self-righteous” who disgust me, and who should be dismissed as people who only want to control others.
-
May 22, 2006 at 7:05 pm #3161283
Brilliant deductions, both of you
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to How self righteous
First off, tsjanko, you state “I always thought you were an anti-religion person. You don’t seem to support faith in God, now you lambaste faith in a system or a person…” You thought WRONG, VERY wrong. If you had paid any attention whil ecreating your clever MO, you would know otherwise. Now in your defense, you did say “I THOUGHT” which is okay, but you thought wrong. I have never, ever discounted somone’s choice of religion or faith in any way whatsoever. As a person who has had a near death experience (actually I was declard dead) I don’t find faith in a specific religion, but do see some relevance in most religious morals. I also respect anyone’s choice of religion, whatever that rekigion may be. Other people have not experienced what i have, I have not experienced what they have, we have found different faith.
I have also NEVER told anyone on TR how to live or think, I simply put my comments forward, as do you, and use what I consider to be fact in order to support my claims, not any different than anyone else here. NOBODY has the full truth and nothing but the truth, including yourself or Maxweell.
I have chastized many for(what I deem)ridiculous reasons for supporting the world’s most questionable leader, but I have absolutely no power whatsoever to change people’s minds of beliefs, that doesn’t happen here.
Max, your snobbish little aside just doesn’t hold water.
And that’s with the third party crap? Only newbs try that here, trying to rally the troops again are we?So lets be quite clear here,tsjanko, you been implying everyone is the enemy as they all took advantage off OFF. One thing missing is the acceptance (of even aknowledgement) that the US was ALSO taking advantage of OFF AND the country’s the US says ignored the programs restrictions. In fact, the US FED a lot of the breaches with it’s demands and made Saddam play eye for an eye by continually stopping inspections.
Max, you were here when the document was first posted, we discussed it and it was quite clear who had played what role. The bottom line is that the US was no more innocent/guilty than any other offender of the program. I am not saying it was all your fault, just that you were not the innocent party there.
When I post facts that people don’t like, even with supporting evidence from your own sources, it is considered being self righteous.
Self righteous is when you both trumpet your support for your government and reduce any other country in any way you possibly can, simply to justify your government’s highly questionable actions. Whenever someone brings up somthing not in favour of your government, you instantly mention every other country that has ever donen anhthing wrong. France did this, England did that (often in the middle ages), Canada doesn’t do this, Chili does that…ANYTHING but address the facts posted against your governments actions. Now it has resorted in Max’s most amusing game, flaming the poster.
What’s amusing is this is all I expect from either of you, I could almost write the whole thread by myself it’s so predictable.
WHat’s not amusing is that you actually believe what you are saying and simply haven’t learned to look within, without first discounting the issues by looking outward.
Edited to add comments.
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:11 am #3159943
The Whole world should be against terrorism…
by onbliss · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Other countries do not want the USA to defend itself…
Quite true. But there have been other countries fighting terrorism before, and so when a country implies that others are not doing their part, no doubt some countries get upset.
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:50 am #3159908
OZ and I don’t see eye-to-eye often…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The Whole world should be against terrorism…
He really hates to read what I write. He reads into what I write, something to rant about…
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:52 am #3159905
We are 100% in lockstep on this one.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The Whole world should be against terrorism…
Shall we Tango?
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:31 am #3159831
USA sometimes does not….
by onbliss · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to We are 100% in lockstep on this one.
…chooses its friends or foes correctly, at least in long terms. It chose a “rogue state” as a (temporary)friend, and ignored one of the biggest democracies. I accept the “biggest democracy” was spear heading the NAM (Non Alignment Movement) and did side with U.S.S.R many times.
But let me tell people were pretty much frusturated when they saw USA helping out the “rogue state” even when they were supporting cross-border terrorism for years.
Oh well, past is past. Tides are changing 🙂 Hopefully the Democracies march forward.
Edited: Grammar.
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:54 am #3159812
When faced with two bad choices
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to USA sometimes does not….
I can’t count the number of times the United States (and other nations as well) has been faced with deciding which “bad choice” to make.
– Aligning with the Russians in 1941 or not.
– Going against the Russians (General Patton’s suggestion) in 1945 or not.
– The events in ~1980 Afghanistan are another such case. The people who mention this, while failing to mention the real alternative, in the context of that time, are being _________ fill in the blank.
– The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
– Courting the Saudis or not.
– Going along with the United Nations (in 2003) or not.
When faced with deciding which one of two bad choices to make, the outcome will be certain criticism from someone or somewhere.
I suppose there is a third option, but personally I like to stand with my head held high, not stuck in the sand.
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:56 am #3159806
Hopefully they can get away from a Vietnam mindset.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to USA sometimes does not….
They still think it is OK to not support our troops…
That and they really seem to hate the military.
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:36 am #3159748
tsjanko
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to USA sometimes does not….
To be absolutely clear on this, you KNOW that those opposed to the war are NOT necessarily opposed to the hard and sometimes seemingly impossible tasks of your military.
I can completely object to the REASON for war and object to those who start the wars, but in NO way whatsoever have I EVER opposed the work that the brave men and women of your (and most other military forces) do.
It is not the troops that start wars, it’ sthe troops that fight wars, mainly without question and without hesitation as they are completely set on just doing their job.
I don’t know how deeply you meant your comment to hit, but rest assured we don’t oppose your military, we oppose your leaders decisions.
If you were referring to other nations, your enemies for example, fine, but that’s not how most people see it at all.
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:58 pm #3159332
Oz,
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to USA sometimes does not….
Understand that there are many ex-military guys who appreciate the support. Most of the ex-Mil guys I know that were officers and moist of us do support our President.
I support the Mission and the troops and our President in the situation in Iraq… Sandy and I are at polar opposites in that…
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:24 pm #3159323
lumping it all together
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to USA sometimes does not….
lumping it all togetherIt seems to me that whenever you express distaste in the US government’s actions, that everyone gets overly defensive, as have you.
GWB was NOT justified in starting this war, Blair has admitted as much, GWB was smug and continues his charade.
Now whether you agree with this fact or not, that is entirely up to you. Blair apologized, Bush pretended he was right. Even though he HAS publicly stated that he hasn’t found the stockpiles of WMD he expected, he still feels it was right. IF it was right is irrelevant, he was set on finding WMD, he told the UN andallies so and then ignored their wishes and screwed up anyway. This is undeniable, he did it and we all watched as it happened.
But why does MY expressing my distrust for GWB have any effect on your troops and especially veterans? So what? Are you suggesting that just because someone serves then they must then heed every word of the rpesident for life? After you serve you no longer have freedom of choice in who you support?
So what, I oppose him and I have a lengthy list of valid reasons. This doesn’t mean I hate America, I am Anti-American, I am a terrorist or anything else, just that I don’t believe Bush and feel that the way so many blindly follow without question is absolutely laughable.
He failed miserably in business, he failed as president. He’s a cheat, or a fool if he’s so easily egged on, why would ANY country vote for him twice just because it is thier duty?
This is a democracy, we are allowed to view our opinions either way; unless of course, it is AGAINST the US president. Hypocrisy as always.
-
May 22, 2006 at 9:51 am #3159427
Look at the options we had…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to USA sometimes does not….
Before you tell me that he is so bad, Is Algore better? Is John “I make my name by slandering Vietnam Veterans” Kerry any better. As a Vet, I’d never vote for him as dogcatcher.
Before we invaded Iraq he was talking as Gung Ho as Bush. The real issue is if Bush says it, He does it. With some disappointing exceptions, he has been truer to his word than any President since Reagan.
Your anti-US sentimate is directed at me, and at our President. I didn’t vote for GB either time he ran. I am not all that thrilled on tactics, but I agree with the strategy. Fight them over there, not here.
-
May 22, 2006 at 7:23 pm #3161277
You are one of those
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to USA sometimes does not….
Talk about a template, your fresh from the mold, but with last years comments. But I’lll make this fair and show the same BS from both sides not just against Republicans.
Kerry, while he is said to have flip flopped on his vote to invade Iraq, he has not. What people see as him once accepting the the choice to invade Iraq was not so at all. As Bush himself had originally stated, IF (and that’s the big error) the inspectors were NOT allowed to inspect th esites as selected, in a timely fashion, then the USA (and her allies) would use force TO SEE THE COMPLETION OF INSPECTIONS.
Kerry supported this and so did most of the allied nations also, just as all of your allies came to your aid when you were terrorized by the Taliban (In Afghanistan, not Iraq).
Bush then pulled inspectors who were completing inspections as planned and were nearing completion. He went ahead and invaded Iraq and arrested Saddam Hussein.
Now, I am not opposed to helping Iraqi’s, removing repression, aiding in creating a democratic nation etc. But that was NOT the reason you went to war, as even YOU are echoing here.
Now while the right wing wrongly accuses Kerry of this flip flop, the left wing has done no better.
They quote Bush as at one time stating the he had found the labs and chemical warehouses he had sought. Then another quote that stated ‘we have not found the stockpiles of weapons we expected’.
THIS I saw him say, but in that case he was admitting he had been mistaken about the stockpiles of weapons. In his first comment he was reporting on the existance of buildings. These are not the same thing, but when in favour of your side, the facts are easily forgotten.
This is seen all the time coming from both sides (sometimes it’s better to remove yourself emotionally and look at the big picture instead of a chosen party), again from both sides, but fact of the matter is…Bush flip flpped on his decision to invade Iraq, allies didn’t support it and you went to war, without justification.
The end result must ultimately be positive, although Afghanistan is not looking as positive as it was at first. The justification is not enough though and THAT’S why you weren’t supported.
Edited to clean up a few misdirecting sentences.
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:01 pm #3159003
will not support?
by jdclyde · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to you mean like
Half the countries on the first list are the ones that are the CAUSE of most of the terrorists attacks around the world.
Can’t imagine them not wanting the UN to do anything about terrorists?
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 6:59 am #3160532
Well, they did specify
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to I don’t think these figures mean/indicate anything at all
that “Since we had to start somewhere, we tallied the recorded votes for all resolutions put before the General Assembly so far during the current session, running from October 2003 to mid-April 2004.” The key word here is “all” so that probably did include repeat resolutions. In the big picture, though, if that many countries, whether from this report or just from the general messages voiced from those countries, are against us or hate so badly then why shouldn’t we cut them off or funds in half?
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:22 am #3160509
Musings on a theme…
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Well, they did specify
If you don’t give them any money then they won’t have any money to buy anything off you and your industry will go down the pan and then you won’t have any money to give them anyway even though you’re not.
Wooo! Global Economics is complicated…
Anyway, why should [b]they[/b] “like” you? Because you give them money? Hmmmmm. Paul McCartney has just found out big-time that “Money can’t buy you love”. I would have thought that you’d have sussed it out by now as well.
Who is the worse person: the prostitute or the person who pays her for sex?
So, stop paying or don’t. The choice is yours. But please stop acting surprised or outraged that the majority of Muslim countries really don’t like you (both of us, really) for whatever reasons. We have an armed presence in their Holy places while we try to make them over in our own image. Hell. I’d be pissed if you then tried to buy me off.
Still, if you retreat into isolationism and the world economy goes down the pan then at least it’ll cut your oil imports.
Just my 2ps worth.
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:29 am #3160501
Quite right on the Global Eco
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Musings on a theme…
That’s one of the primary reasons Isolationism did not and will not work.
I’m not really surprised they hate us because our troops are in their country but didn’t they come over here and do the kicking first? Actually, I still think the Crusades made the Muslims hate us to begin with and, yes, I agree, if they did that to me I would hate the christians (from that area–I wasn’t there and didn’t have anything to do with it) too.
-
May 18, 2006 at 8:11 am #3160466
Not that simple
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Quite right on the Global Eco
If you look at the Muslim world after the crusades, there are instances where Christians and Jews were tolerated, and even integrated into Muslim societies. Many Muslim califates has Jewish administrators(the bureaucratic power behind the throne). You can argue that in Spain, the Muslims were more tolerant to the jews there than the Christians who threw out the Muslims.
I don’t support Terror from anyone, but I can come up with a short list of reasons why mulims hate the US;
1) The US supports Israel, with a huge chunk of aid, including military aid. Don’t underestimate how deep the feeling is regarding Palestinians in camps in Isreal.
2)The US supported dictators in the middle east. The Shah of Iran was every bit as vicious and cruel as Saddam in terms of political prisoners, use of torture etc. The US supports the Royal families in Saudi, Kuwait and Jordan, while the radical muslims would like these countries to be run by Imams not people they see as US puppets . The radicals also dislike Egypt’s rulers as they suppress radicals and made peace with Isreal.
I’m not saying the middle eastern Muslims are rigth and the US is wrong – thats far too simplistic. But it didn’t start that recently.
James
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:23 am #3160420
Perspective
by cactus pete · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Quite right on the Global Eco
If you consider the beginning of time to be the day planes flew into skyscrapers, then yes, “they” came over here and started the kicking.
However, (and I’m not saying that I agree with this) Osama has always upheld that US troops on Saudi sands was a desecration. In his mind, had we left, he would not have terrorized (or so I interpret) in NY, etc.
typo
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:31 am #3160415
Apparently,
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Perspective
the radical Muslims have always hated the infidels such as Western culture. And,they have been killing each other and other people that get in their way all through time. I think if you put those two things together they would have come after us one way or another at some point whether we were on their soil or not.
I may be wrong because I certainly wouldn’t be able to prove this but I can’t help but think that the Amercian government has always been asked to help with turmoil in these countries by either their governments or at least part of their government first. Can anyone show that we have at anytime just shown up on a country’s doorstep with the military without that country asking for help in their turmoil?
Edited for structure.
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:58 am #3160401
Is that a serious question?
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Apparently,
“just shown up on a country’s doorstep”
We interfered in Afghanistan when the Russians were there and it’s gone on since. When we invaded this time, of course the Taliban begged for our help. They didn’t? Ooops.
We certainly showed up uninvited in Iraq!
I’m not disagreeing with you about the Islamic threat, by the way, I just really think that we’ve gone about it in the wrong way and all we’re succeeding in doing is to make it worse in every way.
-
May 18, 2006 at 10:12 am #3159046
The US military
by cactus pete · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Apparently,
…has a way of kinda lingering for a while. Sure, the Saudis gave us permission to stage in their country while fighting the “first” Iraq war. But then we didn’t leave. Osama felt that we should have gotten out.
And yes, radical people tend to remain radical. That doesn’t mean we seek them all out. It’s better to isolate them and protect ourselves from the (perhaps) eventual. But if we remain somewhere down on the list (ie not at the top of the list) of grievences, then we won’t be a likely target.
And remember, we created the power that Osama wielded. We need to get out of that business.
(And we supported several other nasty guys throughout history, only to have them turn on us, or us turn on them, creating bigger issues than we had to start with)
-
May 18, 2006 at 10:52 am #3159025
The perspective of these Muslims
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Apparently,
….was that they pretty much ignored the west until the west started playing in the Middle east. Anyone recall any muslim terror attacks (other than during wartime or against Jews in Palestine) prior to the formation of the State of Isreal?
As for showing up with Military univited, lets see. Cuba – you showed up with a warship (the Maine) to intimidate, it was blown up, war started. China – boxer rebellion – not invited by China, but the Chinese government was fractured.
Cuba again – Bay of Pigs – not invited.
Afghanistan(helping Osama and co (covertly but not really covertly) throw the Russians out) – not invited.
Grenada – not invited.
Panama – not invited.
Somalia -not invited but no real government (there still isn’t)
Does that help?
James
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:48 pm #3158961
if that, than…
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Perspective
If Saudi was the problem, then why didn’t the US invade them instead of Iraq? (instead of pulling out what troops were there)
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:22 pm #3158883
The Saudi Government are Thugs
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to if that, than…
But they are our thugs…
I guess.
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:25 pm #3158882
What?
by cactus pete · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to if that, than…
You’re either confused or didn’t read what I wrote. Reread it, and if you still don’t understand, I’ll tryto explain it another way.
-
May 19, 2006 at 6:30 am #3159974
The Sauds run a repressive regime.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to if that, than…
But we get oil from them and they get tolerance, support, military equipment from us.
Britain set up the borders long ago.
I really think that the Sauds run a repressive regime that keeps women as chatel, treats outsiders in a manner best described as unclean, and hates the existance of Israel, and keeps anger at Israel at a high level in the Mid-East… It is easier to remove troops from being in harms way than to provide a safe haven in hostile territory.
The religious leaders in Saudi are anti-Israel. Saudi men tried to kill a US Air Force Sergeant because she was driving a vehicle. Get it SHE was driving… They think that women having freedom is the best example of what they call Western decadence, and weakness. If there were a viable alternative to the Sauds, I’d support it, unless we suspect that any other voice in the region is more anti-American.
-
May 19, 2006 at 6:50 am #3159958
The Saudi challenge
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to if that, than…
The Saudis may run a totalitarian regime, and while the Royal family are very western friendly and even cozy with the Bush clan, they have to walk a fine line with their citizens. No doubt if the Royal family is threatened, its by extremists like Bin Laden who would ahppily replace the Royal family with something more like the Taliban.
So what choices do the US face? Abandon the Royal Family and there will be a radical regime there.
James
-
May 19, 2006 at 7:56 am #3159900
I said the options are all worse…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to if that, than…
Not a happy place.
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:36 am #3160414
Neil and econimics
by jdclyde · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Musings on a theme…
If the money was not taxed so heavily on the citizens, they would have the money to buy our products ourselves.
It is a not hard to figure that HALF of all funds is wasted on overhead and corruption when ever there is a handoff between two countries. (assuming even HALF gets to anywhere but the corrupt leaders pockets).
Let the people that make the money, spend the money.
You are an ally or your not. Canada and the UK are seen to be allies. This does not mean they have to do as we tell them (all the time). It means they have similar ideals and goals that should lead both to similar conclusions more often than not.
The frogs? Just petty people pissed that they are not a world power in anyway. Like a yappy little dog.
Isolationism is not the answer.
To stop wasting money on people that are ungrateful and undeserving is a good start.
Get out of the muslim countries. let them go back to killing each other like the curs they are, instead of us.
Who ever is alive when it is over, try to make them a trade partner.
Natural selection at work? A weaker species is always replaced by a more stronger species.
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:43 am #3160411
Aptly put
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Neil and econimics
now when can we start this?
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:52 am #3160407
-
May 18, 2006 at 10:42 am #3159027
I was referring to
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
JD’s comments: “To stop wasting money on people that are ungrateful and undeserving is a good start.
Get out of the muslim countries. let them go back to killing each other like the curs they are, instead of us.”
When could we start wasting our money on people who are ungrateful and undeserving? Also when could we go ahead and get our of the muslim countries so they could go back to killing each other? Isn’t that what they want anyway, is for us to leave their countries? Then let’s leave them to their own devices.
-
May 18, 2006 at 10:59 am #3159024
England created most of the mess with the boundaries drawn up.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
The whole Mid-East was a large, vast wasteland of nomadic tribesmen. If we had less dependence on Foreign Oil, we’d only need to worry about Israel’s security.
England had a hand in those borders, too…
-
May 18, 2006 at 11:06 am #3159019
Modern borders in the Middle East
by cactus pete · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
Never really made sense to me. They do seem so arbitrary. I don’t think the winners of the World Wars did a particularly good job of inventing these countries, or even naming them, for that matter.
-
May 18, 2006 at 11:45 am #3159007
tjsanko: That was then. This is now
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
Sixty years on from the end of WWII and nearly that from the creation of Israel. Since then, the US has been the supporter of Israel and the guarantor of their security with all that implies.
The one little escapade that ourselves and the French tried during the Suez crisis, you f*cked us up royally. Eisenhower threatened to sell the United States reserves of the pound and engineer a collapse of the British currency if we didn’t withdraw. Strange, you didn’t do anything to Israel who were also on our side.
Anyway, we haven’t done anything in the last 50 years so don’t go blaming us.
-
May 18, 2006 at 11:50 am #3159006
Not “WE” Neil.
by jdclyde · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
“WE” did not invade a couple centuries ago.
I will now take it to the next step.
YOU did not invade a couple of centuries ago.
I don’t give a ratsass about what people 400, 300, 200, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago did, or didn’t do.
We have a parasite festering in the Middle East.
Stop supporting them.
Stop appeasing them.
Stop making excuses for them.
Stop letting people use the blame game to keep anyone from DOING anything about the problem.
Stop condoning them (and I hope you are rational enough to know what should be condoned and what shouldn’t.)Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Watson!
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:07 pm #3158999
jd: I wondered what you were smoking
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
but I understand, now.
Re-read my post. I said we should have stopped a couple of “countries” ago, not centuries. That is, we shouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq and should have found a better, sneakier way to deal with Al Qaeda that wouldn’t have got us so much bad publicity and got the bad guys so many recruits. That was never on the cards though as Bush had to be seen to be doing something and now we are where we are and I fear it’s all going to get worse.
I know that you didn’t invade the middle East two centuries ago – you were too busy invading Canada (that was ours!) and trying to work out a way to annexe Texas from the Mexicans.
They’re getting Texas back, now – a baby at a time.
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:24 pm #3158980
The REAL question Neil
by jdclyde · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
is how you went back and edited your post without it showing that it was edited? :p
Must be an exhaust leak in my car! 😀
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:39 pm #3158967
Wouldn’t that be a good trick?
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
I could have some fun with that!
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:54 am #3159773
Re: That was then. This is now
by onbliss · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to cough! cough!
50 years is not even 2 generations and is not sufficient time enough for the countries to raise and shine. I hate to say it but, erstwhile Imperialism and Cold war did cause additional damage to many countries.
Some countries have raisen, usually they are the smaller nations, city-nations, or where population has a semblance of homogeneous nature.
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:22 am #3160508
Obviously it is not for me, an Australian
by jardinier · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Well, they did specify
to make any comment on what the USA should do about foreign aid.
I was merely suggesting that these figures, in the form that they are presented, do not prove that any of those countries hate the USA.
Disagreement does not equate with hatred.
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:32 am #3160498
In my mind,
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Obviously it is not for me, an Australian
while writing my comments on the original post (we don’t have to comment on the shape or state of my mind 🙂 ) I actually looked at that as two separate aspects. It seems that a lot of countries claim to hate us with their general demeaner as well as their comments publicly. I do think that the votes would portray some of that as well, though.
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:47 am #3160483
On hating America
by jardinier · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to In my mind,
I am regularly accused at this website of hating America, but I don’t hate America and never have.
I am accused of hating Americans, but I don’t hate Americans and never have.
I don’t even hate George Bush and his administration.
I DO hate John Howard for sending Australian troops to Iraq and subsequently and inevitably making Australia a prime target for terrorist attacks.
In fact if John Howard hadn’t got Australia involved in Iraq, I doubt that I would have any particular interest in America or its foreign policy.
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:54 am #3160480
Wow! Now after
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to On hating America
reading some of your posts in other discussions it sure sounded like you (since hate may be too strong a word) really really dislike what America does. Maybe all of us misread your thoughts and comments…hmmmm. ?:|
Whatever on the past. At least in this discussion you haven’t said or even alluded to hating America.Jules, “I doubt that I would have any particular interest in America or its foreign policy.” did you really write that with a straight face??? 🙂
Edited to fix emoticon.
-
May 18, 2006 at 8:39 am #3160451
Disliking what America does
by jardinier · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Wow! Now after
does not equate with hating America or Americans.
And yes I did write that comment with a straight face because it is the simple truth. I joined TR shortly before the invasion of Iraq and the first long discussion I recall was titled: “Why?” I don’t recall the actual slant of the discussion but it was questioning the whole thing about terrorists and the imminent invasion of Iraq.
The Labor Party in Australia was strongly against the idea of joining the COW, but they were in opposition so there was nothing they could do about. Actually the whole business was shonky because my understanding has been (perhaps I am wrong) that before declaring war on a country the matter should be debated by the whole parliament.
Well I don’t know the legalities of it but it was pretty clear that it was Howard’s personal decision and I don’t really know why he made that decision.
I now see that it was a mistake to announce that I was a journalist because, as the only person in these discussions who has claimed a background in the media, I have been the scapegoat for everyone’s gripes about the media in general.
Although Max will never admit it, the reporting of the war in Iraq — especially by the Sydney Morning Herald journalist, Paul McGeough — has proven in retrospect to be totally accurate and fair in every way.
Apparently it is a concept which cannot be grasped by (some) Americans, that a major metropolitan daily newspaper can remain politically neutral.
Well I suppose Maxwell won’t be able to resist butting in here but I no longer take him seriously and so I’ll let him stand on his soapbox and blabber on with his predictable and unchanging views.
-
May 18, 2006 at 11:01 am #3159021
I thought you made an exception for me…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to On hating America
I am an American…
-
May 18, 2006 at 9:18 am #3160424
Starting “somewhere”
by cactus pete · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Well, they did specify
They could have started at 1990, or 1980…
That would reveal trends and reactions to date-specific events.
These overly raw statistics don’t mean much of anything.
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:43 pm #3158964
did you say they should cut off the US?
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Well, they did specify
Now there’s a question no-one wants to answer. Almost every country in that pot supplies the US with something it needs to do anything. (except eat) Not to mention that the US is in debt to most, due to not paying for what is taken. You do realize that with-out forign products the US could not even have a war in IRAQ?? (geeez, the things they just don’t talk about in the US)
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:12 pm #3158891
Over simplification
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to did you say they should cut off the US?
That was just a stupid message.
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:14 pm #3158889
By the way, dawgit, are you. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to did you say they should cut off the US?
….a non-American who hates America, or an American who hates America?
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:01 pm #3158836
None of the above
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to By the way, dawgit, are you. . . . .
Sorry to dissapoint you on that.
American? Yes.
Hate America? NO.
I just wonder what happened to it.
The people no longer think. That’s not good.
The people no longer get acurate infomation. (as in truth, what will it hurt?) That’s not good.
Just how did America get that way?
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:20 pm #3158984
Agreed there, just what…
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to I don’t think these figures mean/indicate anything at all
constitutes ‘Voting Against’? One could also say that the US Congress votes against the US in almost every sesion, in that (hopefully) not everything proposed is passed. Who decided what ‘Against’ is? It just sounds like more ‘Neo-Con’, anti-UN, B.S..
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:30 pm #3158878
Anti UN You betcha…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Agreed there, just what…
Get the UN out of the US, the US out of the UN and the UN out of my pocket, forever.
Neo-con. I am not new, I am not a con, not even arrested.;-) It isn’t in my mind either. I am an arch-conservative, neo-cons are moderates.
I want spending halted on garbage, and the government back in doing what it should be doing constitutionally… Do I like the UN? You have got to be kidding. I think we should let the poor souls starve who oppose us. Reagan’s biggest mistake was sending wheat to the USSR. We should have starved them out. They’d have been in a better situation much sooner.
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:10 pm #3158828
“government back in doing what it should be doing constitutionally…”
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Anti UN You betcha…
if only….. None of this would be relevent.
-
May 19, 2006 at 6:18 am #3159977
I may win you over to my side eventually…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to “government back in doing what it should be doing constitutionally…”
I did my share of bleeding for this country, I hate seeing it get nibbled to death by the Ducks in Congress and their sycopants…
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:03 am #3159856
:D
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to I may win you over to my side eventually…
‘nuf said
(& who said we aren’t on the same side, just looking at things from different angles)
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:40 pm #3158848
THANK YOU!!!!!!
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to I don’t think these figures mean/indicate anything at all
Finally someone gets it.
Now look at the countries involved, do you REALLY think that they would be expected to agree on most of the US imposed issues at the UN? Would they be expected to vote WITH the US for sanctions against them?
How about other counties like England, France and Germany? Do these ocuntries side with THEIR issues at the UN, I would expect not.
It’s a completely ridiculous list of stats, it is 100% created to make Americans slam and slander the ‘bad guys’ and keep Americans PO’d with the middle east and other less prosperous countries and in favour of the war being posed against them.
Pretty bad, elementary school finger pointing actually. And as we see here, they gobbled it up like they were starved.
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 7:18 am #3160512
UN Human Rights Commission
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Countries in the UN against the U.S.
The UN voted not to reappoint the United States to its seat on the Human Rights Commission, but in the same vote, it gave a seat to Sudan, a country that tolerates the practice of slavery.
Source: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=903
Yea right, jaqui. I guess this “indicates” the US screwed up.
This is just one such example. I could find scores of others.
And if any other dipstick America-Hater, like jaqui, wants to suggest such a stupid thing as he did, list the issues on which the United Nations actually voted. Go ahead, jaqui, list the actual votes, qualify and justify them, and then make your stupid comments.
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:03 pm #3158948
on the UN-Human Rights thing
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to UN Human Rights Commission
I do believe the US has lost it’s creditability in that after the prision scandel in Iraq. And the rumurs of secret ‘jails’ (?) all over the place. And the fact that the US stilll has captital punishment. No, the US will have a hard time, and a long time get get it back. Sad as it is.
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:11 pm #3158938
That was in 2001 – before Iraq
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to on the UN-Human Rights thing
.
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:47 pm #3158842
I ment the one IN Iraq
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to That was in 2001 – before Iraq
That really did damage to the US. And the seceret prisons, They’re still looking at that.
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:46 pm #3158806
And the vote I’m talking about was in 2001
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to I ment the one IN Iraq
Before ANY of that was an issue — make that a contrived issue.
I pointed to a UN vote in 2001, any you’re using those ~2004 “contrived” issues as reasoning to justify it.
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:57 pm #3158799
where did you see 2001 ?
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to And the vote I’m talking about was in 2001
I saw no reference to a date in the post. and in both links, the year 2003 was referenced. A little help needed here on the dates. I don’t really see any reality in the info any, so no real point in arguing about it. I think it just the idea that some people have that it would terible if anyone dissagreed with them on anything. The real problem than would be narow mindedness.
-
May 19, 2006 at 1:44 am #3158724
here ya’ go
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to where did you see 2001 ?
Nations United Against Rights
by Robert W. Tracinski (May 30, 2001) -
May 19, 2006 at 1:45 am #3158723
Yea’ and you’re pretty narrow-minded
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to where did you see 2001 ?
Can’t even admit when you’re obviously wrong.
-
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 8:09 am #3160468
3 Questions
by wingedmonkey · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Countries in the UN against the U.S.
1. Has the money giving made a difference? The figures do not look good on paper now, but would the percentage of votes against the US have been higher if the money had not been given.
2. Does the voting mean anything anymore. G.W. went ahead with his plans inspite of the opposition.
3. I agree with the idea that the giving of the money is an attempt to curry favor. But if the end gain is not votes for the US, then what instead is being gained by the giving of the money gifts. There may a lot more to this picture.
-
May 18, 2006 at 8:25 am #3160458
I think you are right
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to 3 Questions
that there may be a lot more to this picture. Aside from all the aid the U.S. furnishes for different countries, especially in emergencies, such as Tsunamis etc. there is usually a tremendous amount of aid furnished by churches and private donations to countries during these times. Maybe the money might have a political agenda from the government but it sure seems like the U.S. has always tried to take care of people (countries) in need because we feel we should. When I have donated for specific causes, such as disasters it had nothing to do with trying to make these folks like us. It was just because we needed to. In spite of all this it seems that, according to a lot of these other countries, nothing we do is right or good enough for them. If that’s the case then why do we keep it up? IMO, that’s just us–we’ve always tried to help out people in need.
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 12:47 pm #3158962
Read the whole page.
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Countries in the UN against the U.S.
It mentions the challenges of looking at the stats without some further context.
For you chest thumping American patriots out there, just suppose I came up with a figue that said that the US voted against things Canada supported more than 50% of the time – would you think that the US was a false friend of Canada?? I somehow doubt it. But when the tables are turned….
James
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:09 pm #3158941
I did, and yes, that’s true
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Read the whole page.
It just looks like more ‘Neo-Con’ B.S. again. (now where did I just hear that ?:| ) Any college student learns who to make statistics lead people to believe almost anything. (at least they used to learn that) Statisitics alone mean nothing, if not accompanied with Documentation.
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:22 pm #3158933
And what does the vote mean anyway….
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to I did, and yes, that’s true
Did those countries vote against the US, or the motion put forward?
Last night the new Canadian Conservative government held a vote to propose that Canadian troops stay in Afghanistan for another 2 years.
Seems simple enough?
Except that the previous Liberals government had already committed to stay through Feb 2007. And of course, troop committments are not approved officially by parliament but by cabinet, so the motion was supportive not binding or substantive.
So what did it all mean? Some Liberals voted against it because it didn’t mean anything. Some voted against it because they think we should withdraw. Some support staying till 2007 and think we should wait till then to re-evaluate. Some Liberals voted for it, because they think not to do so would undermine the troops. Some voted for it because their favorite candidate for Liberal leader did too.
Anyone want to make this black and white? It isnt.
James
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:23 pm #3158932
Canada?
by wingedmonkey · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Read the whole page.
You mean Its not our 51st State?
**Runs for cover**
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:29 pm #3158928
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:07 pm #3158893
Some of which are. . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Actually
…Vermont and Massachusetts, and probably Oregon and California. Isolate some cities within the states, and you could include Boulder, Colorado, Austin, Texas, and Madison, Wisconsin, to name a few.
-
May 18, 2006 at 2:42 pm #3158870
Don’t forget Illinois
by cactus pete · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Some of which are. . . .
.
-
May 24, 2006 at 9:18 am #3147715
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:59 pm #3158902
There’s a difference. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Read the whole page.
….between being a “chest thumping American patriot”, and a person defending against the continual onslaught of verbal ridicule. Unfortunately, when you guys insist on continuing the latter, you’ll get even more of the former.
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:07 pm #3158831
Verbal ridcule
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to There’s a difference. . . . .
You can’t ridcule something without a valid argument. If you are being ridiculed it’s because people have valid arguments.
In THIS case you aren’t even making sense at all. First you make some comment that only 4 year olds make when they don’t understand how to look at both sides of something, then you are going on about people ridiculing you. When th earticle was posted by an American and didn’t have any comments about Canada ridculing the USA.
Chest pounding American? Well, what else would you call it? It was a completely meaningless stat, designed to fire you up over nothing and what do we see???? Americans getting fired up over a ridculous and irrelevant stat, designed to fire them up over nothing.
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:22 am #3159837
Ridiculing
by onbliss · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Verbal ridcule
USA is ridiculed unfairly, sometimes. So, when Americans protest and point out the invalidity, one ought to accept the invalidity of the points.
Like Max and other correctly point out, if citizens of other countries have the right to defend criticisms, is it not fair that Americans have the equal right? (constant)Chiding them is simply wrong!!!
As far as to valid arguments, is it SMART to keep constantly ridiculing USA or for that matter any country? In my opinion it is not smart and neither being nice.
It is not smart because, it only means the ridiculers fail to see the American’s point of view. There is always a disconnect between the people and the Government, in any country. Sometimes the Government has to do what it has to do. So when a common man sees ridicules from certain quarters consistently, they wonder why nobody is looking at the positive aspects of them and their country. The feel that their point of view and ideas are being dismissed summarily without due considerations. Hence they are pushed more to the corner and they (appear)take sides with the “chest thumpers”.
Also it is not smart because, the Americans will simply not trust the World, if it keeps crying Wolf all the time when there is really no wolf. So when we cry wolf, they will not give heed to our words.
It is not nice, because, well it is simply not appropriate 🙂 I don’t think I have words to articulate what is nice or what is not 🙂
My 2 cents
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:56 am #3159807
Every once in a while, I see a message that deserves the comment. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Ridiculing
….I want to buy you a beer!
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:52 am #3159776
How blindly stated
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Ridiculing
“Also it is not smart because, the Americans will simply not trust the World, if it keeps crying Wolf all the time when there is really no wolf. So when we cry wolf, they will not give heed to our words.”
GWB approaches allies and teh UN at an international meetng to determine the validy of the claims against Saddam.
If he WAS in possession of stockpiles of WMD and refused to allow inspectors in, the idea was to use force in order to complete inspections, not to INVADE IRAQ or RID THEM OF SADDAM, simply to force inspections.
Allies voice their objection to a rushed invasion as at that tme, inspectors were neaaring completion of their task and had found NOTHING they were predicted to find. GWB provided evidence of Saddams intentions, which was at that time questioned because the source, the informant known as “curveball”, was not reliable and had ulterior motives.
GWB decided to pull out inspectors and proceed with the invasion basedon the FACT that Saddam was still in possession of WMD and was plannign to use them against the USA.
In other words, he cried wolf, the sky was falling and America needed to defend herself.
What was missed here? Saddams WMD were NOT capable of intercontinental attack, they were just low end antiquated weapons for reasonably close combat. The said WMD were NOT a threat to the USA at all.
While they did find some unused delivery systems, they found no WMD, not even those not capable of attackign teh USA.
Allies were told to heed GWB’s warning and said there was not enough evidence to justify premature invasion.
So WHO cried wolf???? America, thank you, well done.
As for the rest, it is just completely typical that you only see peopl epointing at America and refuse to acknowledge the way most Americans and TR peers spend day and night chastizing EVERY other country on Earth for not supporting their rash and unjustified invasion.
Get over yourselves.
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:22 am #3159757
Not completely Blind
by onbliss · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to How blindly stated
By saying “completely typical” if you meant that I am an American, I want point out that I am not an American.
You are talking about Bush and Iraq. That is one of the issues in this world. Quite important one though.
Let us take one of those countries mentioned in the list – Sudan. The present genocide is caused by the Sudanese themselves. Bush or America did not create that. [b]***[/b]
But, are ALL THE PROBLEMS of the WORLD caused just by America? Nope. Do I think America is the good-goody country that never creates a trouble. Nope.
I have elsewhere indicated the problems of the present world because of Imperialism and Cold War, but do not think that ALL the problems of the WORLD are just because of America, Imperialism or Cold War.
The domestic problems of any country SHOULD be attributed to DOMESTIC REASONS first, and then the FOREIGN REASONS.
My point is constant criticisms should not prevent us from giving the fair and due credit to USA or any country.
[b]***[/b]I do think that NO COUNTRY should sell ARMS and WEAPONS to such countries involved in genocide and brokering terrorism.
-
May 19, 2006 at 1:53 pm #3159397
Whaaaaaat?
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Not completely Blind
You were going on about crying wolf and how it’s always said to be America’s fault. I replied by showing that in this case, specifically described in my post, was completely America’s crying wolf and THAT’s why they are being attacked so. There is a war, a seemingly endless war that threatens the world as we knows it.
Was it started justly and fairly based on an allied agreement, as originally agreed to by Bush? Nope.
It was a result of deceit, misinformation and an extremely rude leader who decided to ignore the best wishes of his allies and his own assurances to go at it alone.
Wel now it’s a huge bloody mess, and we are all paying the price in one way or another. In Canada’s case, for example, we have deployed mroe and mroe troops, and more and mroe Canadians are dying in Afghanistan, because the US removed the bulk of it’s forces and left it to allies to police. Ths was nto the original goal at all.
Why was the force thinned so? So you could wage a resented war on another country.
Why are people so pissed and pointing the finger at you for this? .
Do people have a right to be pointing teh finger at Bush and discrediting his pathetic attempts at leadng a nation?
Well if it hasn’t sunk in by now, it obviously never will. How can you possibly pretend to be so naiive in wondering why everyone is against teh US?
-
May 22, 2006 at 10:02 am #3159420
OnBliss he is irrational..
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Not completely Blind
I am done here…
-
May 22, 2006 at 10:00 am #3159422
Let me address some of this…
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to How blindly stated
The said WMD were NOT a threat to the USA at all.
He stated he would use the WMDs on our troops in Saudi Arabia and on Israel. That was a legitimate threat, bunky.Any WMD is a threat. Saddam had used Gas on Kurds. He could have been ready to cook off a scud toward the Independence, or an Aegis cruiser in International waters.
You said
“Allies were told to heed GWB’s warning and said there was not enough evidence to justify premature invasion.”OZ, is every single intelligence organization wrong that Saddam had WMDs and projects in action, or did they get hidden in the Mid-East. Also the Nuke program in Lybia was paid for by Saddam.
-
May 22, 2006 at 1:30 pm #3151561
tsk-tsk
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Let me address some of this…
“…is every single intelligence organization wrong that Saddam had WMDs and projects in action, or did they get hidden in the Mid-East. Also the Nuke program in Lybia was paid for by Saddam.”
You should know better than to make that statement. (simply not true, anybody in that comunity would know that) -
May 22, 2006 at 1:53 pm #3151539
Ghaddafi sent the scientists back to Iraq all 240 of them.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Let me address some of this…
That was after non-payment…
It is also after having the Chinese ship boarded and the restricted machines found…
The High speed Centrifuges and 4 axis CNC MILLING machines are pretty much a dead giveaway when going with mercury switches.
-
May 22, 2006 at 7:34 pm #3161272
Look straight at it
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Let me address some of this…
“Saddam had used Gas on Kurds.”
Yes, during a war that you supported. The mass graves were left over from the war, not from Saddam huddling them up like Nazi concentration camps, as many have often insinuated here.“OZ, is every single intelligence organization wrong that Saddam had WMDs and projects in action, or did they get hidden in the Mid-East. Also the Nuke program in Lybia was paid for by Saddam.”
No, talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. The US right wing has grasped at every thread of an angle they can to justify an invasion.
Yes, the entire world KNEW he had WMD, I am sure the White House kept the receipts. That is the entire reason inspectors were sent in to Iraq. The plan WAS, ‘if they are kicked out, the US (and allies) would use force to complete inspections.’ Is this what happened? NOPE.
Inspectors were NEARING completion and had found very little, this (you may be right) was reason to believe they had been moved (not destroyed as promised). Instead of completing inspections and then deciding how to go about sarching elswhere for these’ stockpiles of WMD (ready to attack the USA), you invaded Iraq. WHY? You KNEW there were no WMD there. But WMD were used to justify a rash invasion, no wonder nobody with half a brain joined in for such reasons. Now Blair, on the other hand, admitted as much on public television wile addressing his nation. Bush just smugly said you were doing the right thong, not acknowledging his error until on a Barbara Walters special(of all places). Once again, Bush is too smug and proud to admit the error.
Blair had a VERY compelling reason to continue, several thousand exiled Iraqi’s living in England had pleaded for him to liberate and create a democracy in Iraq. Bush started tu murmer similar comments shortly after, just to try and win back a little lost support.
These are all events that happened, not what if’s.
Your defense is a what if? ANY country could attack you or I at any time, it doesn’t mean we invade them at random.
First you are going on about being attacked, then you are on about the OFF scandal being everyone’s fault but your own, then you were under threat of WMD, then you were under threat of nukes, then the WMD must have been hidden and though they weren’t able to attack America they MAY have been used against naval ships in the middle east….your story just gets weaker and weaker.
Bottom line, your president did NOT do what he had arranged to do and what allies had agreed to support, THAT is why you don’ thave support. When there is a JUSTIFIED reason for war, your allies are at your side.
-
May 19, 2006 at 6:07 am #3159984
Try answering the question
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to There’s a difference. . . . .
And by the way, I didn’t suggest all or any particular Amercians were chest thumping, so take that into context.
But let me ask you – if you feel that Americans feel very free to exercise the right to NOT support Canada, or UK, or your other close allies on their UN initiatives or even in their general foreign policy goals, why do you expect that your allies are disloyal when they do the same. Thats one of the major issues I see in attitude – there isn’t reciprocity.
You failed to stand up for Canada, when when of your fellow American posters called us cowards. And you accuse me of ridicule. Think about that Max.
James
-
May 19, 2006 at 8:09 am #3159892
Cowards are in America, too.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Try answering the question
Bravery is a personal trait. I am a coward about finding out what my daughter is up to now that she lives with her Grandmother… I could handle incoming fire more easily than that. Just like I did in the past.
I was not Impugning the bravery of Canadians, if you are referring to me. You spell appeasement France. From WWI through today. Their leadership specializes in appeasement. They really like the thought of dictatorships, and kings. That is why they support despotism all over the world…
The worst part is I think we have elected many of our cowards to Congress. Either that or they are using the conflict for strictly political gain…
Nah! They wouldn’t do that…
Sandy is the guy I just don’t get. All the current and past officers I personnaly know support the situation in Iraq. Sandy and a few others are in the vast minority.
-
May 19, 2006 at 8:46 am #3159871
Of course I’ll answer your question
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Try answering the question
Last thing first. You said, [i]”You (I) failed to stand up for Canada, when (one) of your fellow American posters called us cowards. And you accuse me of ridicule. Think about that Max.[/i]”
Well, James, whether or not I even saw the post to which you are referring is anything but a given, and I’m not sure you can make such a presumption. Even with a discussion in which I actively participate, I might not read all of the messages, sub-threads and tangents, much less feel compelled to comment on all of them. Feel free to point out the particular case, however, and perhaps I’ll comment further.
Even if I did see it, I’m not sure one’s silence equals one’s ridicule. That’s a bit of a stretch, if you ask me. How many times, for example, have YOU remained silent (regardless of whether or not you even saw it) when your fellow Canadians called me any number of things? Were you, too, “ridiculing” me with your silence? I would never suggest such a silly thing, and I’m rather surprised you just did. Think about that, James.
You said, [i]”And by the way, I didn’t suggest all or any particular Americans were chest thumping, so take that into context.[/i]
Okay, the context is my reply to your previous comment, [i]”For you chest thumping American patriots out there, just suppose ….[/i]”
You know, it’s rather disingenuous (oops, there’s “that word” again) to group a bunch of people into a description such as that, not name anyone in particular, and when an objection is raised you backpedal a bit. Stand by what you said, clarify if necessary, or even retract something if you feel uncomfortable justifying it. I notice, however, that while you didn’t necessarily include me in the description, you still didn’t exclude me when I raised an objection. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you can’t qualify it, or justify it, or defend it, perhaps you should consider not saying it at all.
Personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong or objectionable about “chest thumping” Americans (and “chest thumping” can be defined in a variety of ways), whether you think I’m one of them or not. (And in some ways, I probably am.) Just like I don’t think there’s anything wrong or objectionable about “chest thumping” Canadians (and “chest thumping” can still be defined in a variety of ways) — and there are plenty of you guys who post messages about how great Canada is. You’ll notice, however, that no, or at least very few, Americans (and never has this American), “ridiculed” you for it, and/or continually blast away at you, your policies, your country, or anything else about you. How many times have I read the most blatant, dishonest, misleading, and mean-spirited attacks from the likes of jaqui and Oz, and
how many times have you joined the ridicule with “your silence” ? If one isolated person, in one isolated case, called you or a fellow Canadian a coward, or calls Canada a nation of cowards, and you take objection to that, perhaps you should deal with that person and, as you advised me, take that into context (and perhaps even thump your chest a little bit ).On the real area of disagreement, here’s my take (for about the umpteenth time). I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. For the past forty or so years (prior to 9-11), every freedom-loving country in the world, including the United States (and including the United Nations), with the possible exception of Israel, has, at best, paid mere lip-service to the growing threat of Islamo-Fascist generated terrorism. The threat — and I mean the “big picture” threat — transcends the isolated 9-11 incident. The events of 9-11 are not the only problem, per se, but only a part of a bigger problem — a “bigger picture” problem. From that point forward, however, the policy of the United States towards Islamo-Fascist generated terrorism drastically changed. Part of the policy was, of course, a direct retaliation for those, and on those, who executed that particular attack on 9-11. The other part of the policy was intended to address the “bigger picture”, something, as I said, has been paid mere lip-service for so long. You may disagree with how we’re doing it, and that’s fine. But I (and others) disagree with YOUR way of dealing with it, which is just more of the same lip-service. Moreover, anyone who really sees the actions in Iraq as more related to the isolated 9-11 incident, and less related to the “big picture” is, in my opinion, a total and complete moron (or a total and complete uninformed moron ….. or a total and complete disingenuous moron ….. or a total and complete dishonest moron).
In a previous message you criticized the United States for its late entry into W.W.II. Well, James, the same sentiment right back to ya’ — but just 60 years later against a different enemy. Maybe the USA learned a lesson from 1936. Maybe Canada didn’t. And the United Nations especially, the initial subject of this discussion, has not only failed to learn that lesson of 1936 and act accordingly, but in the opinion of many people, including yours truly, not only is the United Nations failing dismally to address this growing threat to the world, but in many ways, they are actually facilitating it. And that is why, James, I absolutely despise the United Nations, and consider it an inept, incompetent, impotent, and even corrupt organization.
By the way, did I answer your question?
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:11 am #3159847
Where to start?
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Of course I’ll answer your question
I don’t see the chest thumping remark as disingenous at all. I did not call all Americans chest thumpers (or patriots) and I was addressing my remarks to those who have the my country right or wrong attitude. When I used that remark I wasn’t replying to you I don’t believe – why would you think I was tarring with such a broad brush. You’ve accused me in the past of being too sensitive to see insult, perhaps we share that trait.
As for me defending Americans against Oz, I have on occasion, as you well remember.
I will admit that the post about “our buddies to the North” and cowardice in the same post and within 3 paragraphs lead me to a leap. Perhaps its because a Canadian soldier with my wife’s somewhat unique first name was killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday. I never claimed to be anything but human and flawed.
My point about the US and WWII was not directed as a criticism, though I have in the past mentioned it in a different context. My point is that there is a double standard – the US expects its allies to toe the line, vote with it(as in the Original posts’ point) but doesn’t feel the same obligation to support the objectives of its allies. It is natural that even the closest of allies will disagree. As is our right as sovereign nations. I might be so bold as to suggest that Canada was punished by the US for our stand on Iraq.
I’ve not been the one going on and on about the UN. To me the body is a collection of states/countries. If the majority of them are “evil” or “corrupt”, its hard to expect the UN to be anything but, as the UN would have to be more than the sum of the collective worth. I support the ideals of the UN, the ideals that principally America imposed on the body when they founded it. But I agree that its ability to actually take relevant action to uphold those ideals is lacking.
And no you didnt address the question – if you expect us to support your UN votes, should we expect you to support our UN votes? Thats as simple as I can break it down. And the question isn’t just relevant to the UN but to each of our respective foreign policies.
James
-
May 19, 2006 at 9:34 am #3159829
The “question”
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Where to start?
You asked, [i]”If you expect us to support your UN votes, should we expect you to support our UN votes?[/i]
My simple answer is, no. Both countries should vote their conscience and/or their best interest.
And yes, I would also concede that this will clarify my opinion that the voting record described in the initial discussion message should be taken and viewed in the context of nations “voting” their conscience and/or best interest. And by extension, it becomes clear that many nations are operating from a different premise of conscience, or best interest, or both.
Does this necessarily make THEM wrong? Does this necessarily make the UNITED STATES wrong? The answer to both of those questions might be the same.
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:20 am #3159787
Not right and wrong
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The “question”
But thats the point regarding the original post. The US votes the ways it needs to or wants to, and should expect that others do the same. Of course that doesn’t mean that every vote contrary to the US is by extension bad, devoid of conscience.
About 15 years ago, we had a major set of amendments to the Canadian constition, and a national vote was held. You only had a choice of voting for the entire package or rejecting it. There were some points that everyone agreed with, some that were very hotly debated. Predictably the package was rejected by the voters – the vast majority didn’t agree on what they didn’t like about it, but the majority found at least one thing they didn’t approve of.
I think similar things happen with UN votes.
I don’t think the US is wrong to hope for support and even lobby its friends for support on major issues at the UN. But the mathematical approach from the original post doesn’t tell the whole story.
James
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:20 am #3159788
Not right and wrong
by jamesrl · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The “question”
But thats the point regarding the original post. The US votes the ways it needs to or wants to, and should expect that others do the same. Of course that doesn’t mean that every vote contrary to the US is by extension bad, devoid of conscience.
About 15 years ago, we had a major set of amendments to the Canadian constition, and a national vote was held. You only had a choice of voting for the entire package or rejecting it. There were some points that everyone agreed with, some that were very hotly debated. Predictably the package was rejected by the voters – the vast majority didn’t agree on what they didn’t like about it, but the majority found at least one thing they didn’t approve of.
I think similar things happen with UN votes.
I don’t think the US is wrong to hope for support and even lobby its friends for support on major issues at the UN. But the mathematical approach from the original post doesn’t tell the whole story.
James
-
May 22, 2006 at 10:09 am #3159412
Kudos Max, you are far more eloquent than I am.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Of course I’ll answer your question
The UN allows Sudan, and China on the Human rights commission, One practices de-facto slavery, and the other practices slavery…
Islamo-fascism has been growing since Carter didn’t stomp it out when it was mewling about in Iran.
-
May 22, 2006 at 1:34 pm #3151556
what about your Col Ollie???
by dawgit · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Kudos Max, you are far more eloquent than I am.
It was after Pres.Carter that a Marine LtCol named North was activly working with Iran (as in Helping the enemy) The damage he caused has never been publicly released (for good reasons)
-
May 22, 2006 at 1:58 pm #3151535
I am sorry, but I am not a fan of Col. North.
by x-marcap · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to what about your Col Ollie???
He was appointed by Carter. I can tell you that in December 2009, you will be able to read the book “Guatemala Gut Check” from Penguin books.
It was supposed to originally be titled “Iran-Contra from the inside”…
You’ll then know more about things that were happening in Carter’s administration with Iran.
-
May 22, 2006 at 2:12 pm #3151319
The damage he caused has never been publicly released?
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to what about your Col Ollie???
And I suppose you’re privy to such “information”? If yes, you just violated your confidentiality obligations (and people in such a position just don’t do that, especially on an Internet discussion site, so I strongly doubt it). If no, then you’re just blowing smoke.
Geesh! I get SO TIRED of people spouting things as “fact” that are no more than a guess, at best, or made-up fabrications, at worst.
I think I’ll make up a new word, f a c t o p i n i o n g u e s s.
Let’s condense it a little bit so it flows off the tongue easier, and we now get, [i]factopinguess[/i].
factopinguess: \fakt-o-pin-ges\ n : 1. To falsely present as fact something that is derived from opinion or pure conjecture.
-
May 23, 2006 at 7:25 am #3147006
Max: Off track….
by onbliss · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to what about your Col Ollie???
I just thought I will play little with the words..
[i]
factopinguess: \fakt-o-pin-ges\ n : 1. To falsely present as fact something that is derived from opinion or pure conjecture.
[/i]I silently pronounced the first part \fakt\ and it brought smiles. So here is my attempt to offer an alternate pronounciation to the standard 🙂
A “d” instead of “t” would sound even better :-). And how about splitting it as /fakd-op-inges/. The /op/ is pronounced as /up/ 🙂 /inges/ could convey how false statements, opinions and guesses are actually “ingested” as the truth. Nice, eh?
Disclaimer: This post of mine, directly or indirectly, is [b]NOT[/b] aimed at any TR member. It is just my silliness to amuse…
-
May 24, 2006 at 9:05 am #3147726
onbliss. . . .
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to what about your Col Ollie???
…post a message in my factopinguess thread (just to remind me), and you will indeed get credit and SHARE IN THE BOOTY.
-
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 3:11 pm #3158856
Think about what you are posting
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Countries in the UN against the U.S.
First of all, yuo are referring mainly to countries that the US is often looking to impose sanctions or other actions against. They are talking about how THEY vote against your ideas. Most of these proposals would not be in the majority favour of the country it is being appled to. It is obvious that during a vote for such issues they would not vote with the US. The whole poll is pretty ridiculous and nonapplicable to the way it has been presented.
As for cuting off aid, that’s your choice. you rely on too many others to keep your country prosperous, I would think twice before cutting that string though.
To top it ALL off though, how can you complain that country’s don’t vote YOU Rway in the UN when all Americans do is discount the UN and their abilities? You don’t want to play with others and that’s just fine because you shouldn’t have to in your eyes, but when others don’t want to play with you you get upset and imply they are the evil empire against the USA?
How typically and hypocritically American. It’s always THEM and never you. When are Americans going to start looking at and honestly judging themselves for once in their lives?
-
May 24, 2006 at 9:38 am #3147698
Oz, you can’t make a generalization like that stick
by heml0ck · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Think about what you are posting
“When are Americans going to start looking at and honestly judging themselves for once in their lives?”
I know many americans who have made it their life’s work to do just that.
It seems to me that one of the problems with the UN, the countries that belong to it, and our view of it, is that we only ever deal with generalizations. As we all know, generalizations may be accurate frrom a distance, but close up they just don’t hold water.-
May 24, 2006 at 10:07 am #3147678
The entire thread is based on a generalization
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Oz, you can’t make a generalization like that stick
The inistial post is a really broad generalization to begin with. It’s simply unsupportable BS simply printed to create stir, somewhat successfully if you ask me.
-
May 24, 2006 at 12:01 pm #3147438
generally speaking
by heml0ck · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The entire thread is based on a generalization
I agree it’s created a stir!
-
May 24, 2006 at 1:24 pm #3147361
No, Oz
by old guy · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to The entire thread is based on a generalization
it was not posted just to create a stir. I’m the one who posted it because a friend sent it to me in an email and I think, for the most part, this discussion has not gotten as totally out of hand as some have. Actually, I have been glad to read almost everyone’s post. During this I have been able to question and re-evaluate some things as well as better understand a few things. Since the majority of the “rants” in here have actually been a little subdued I have even been glad to read those.
What you think of as “unsupportable ..” is as supported as most of what anyone else has had to say. Most of it, from all sides including you, is subjective anyway.
Keep in mind that any of this type of discussion really won’t effect changes in any government. It is our opinions and feelings and, though it may help us to voice those, I’m quite sure it won’t get anything changed in goverment but who knows…if they’re “spying on our phone calls” then maybe they are watching our posts here and maybe some of it will seep through. 🙂 We may actually get some laws changed. Ya reckon?
-
May 24, 2006 at 1:45 pm #3147353
-
May 24, 2006 at 3:46 pm #3147316
Thats not what I said
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to No, Oz
I said it was PRINTED to create a stir. You’re the messenger, the media that writes such tripe is to blame, not you. Sorry if you felt it was directed at your comments, I don’t object to your posting it, I just think that the results are pretty meaningless as they are just not specific as to what has been disagreed with. And I wonder if Canada disagreed or agreed on those same votes? Or England, or France even.
-
-
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:04 pm #3158834
Easy answer
by dr dij · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Countries in the UN against the U.S.
get the UN to base voting power on how much each member contributes. That would encourage them to contribute. You don’t get shareholder voting rights in a corporation based on one person or investor company, you get the rights based on HOW MUCH you invested in the company.
-
May 18, 2006 at 4:13 pm #3158826
Niiiiiiiiiice
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Easy answer
But unfortunately the entire world isn’t focused on capitalism. We don’t run our companies the wway our government runs the country, thank god.
We have developed a system, that you have made your personal quest to spread globally, calld democracy. Each man is entitled to an equal vote regardless of who he is. or are we now Iraqi allies that are going to support a new dictatorship? Maybe Iraq Inc. and America Corp. would be for new country names? Canada Ltd. could be a new recreational day spa for tired and weary Americans who just can’t take it anymore. England & Associates would run an ESL school for Americans perhaps?
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:24 am #3159785
In the very least
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Easy answer
I sure understand your sentiment, and an easy “emotional” answer might be, “right-on”. It’s not very practical or realistic, however. (But I’m not sure you really intended it to be.)
But I will say this. In the very least, I believe the permanent members of the UN Security Council should all be nations that not only buy-into, but also promote the common ideals of freedom and basic human-rights. Canada or Australia, for example, are much more deserving and appropriate nations than either China or Russia; and either Canada and/or Australia would be a better permanent members of the UN Security Council to help promote, what should be, the real goals of the United Nations. If it doesn’t stand for something, as the song lyrics might suggest, it’ll fall for anything. In the case of the UN in general, and the Security Council in particular, it’s crumbled.
I don’t want to be a member of united “nations” just for the sake of it. Nor do I want to be a member of united “rogue nations”, or united “socialist nations”. I want to be a member of nations united to promote and advance the ideals of freedom and liberty and basic human rights for all. Anything short of that, and I’m not ashamed, in any way whatsoever, to say, I want nothing to do with it.
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:26 am #3159755
That’s a valid argument
by oz_media · about 17 years, 11 months ago
In reply to In the very least
well a valid comment anyway. Yes it woul dbe nice to see everyone on th esame page and focusedon making teh world a better place, but as always, and in American politics also, there are people in it for a personal agenda. So really, the way YOU see the UN as being failed due to poor choices in leadership, so do peopl esee America today as being failed due to poor leadership. REALLY, you don’t have a bad country, just the worlds nost insane leaders, well maybe not the MOST insane but definitely on a goal of personal agenda and all eh while convincing their entire nation to support them.
I agree, the UN has failed at many of it’s initial tasks due to poor leaderhship, had it been properly conducted we may not be having such a converstation. The same goes for the USA though, if you had leadership that was on teh same page as the rest of your allies, we too wouldn’t be verbally attacking your every, self servient move.
-
-
-
-
AuthorReplies