moomini Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 America is not imposing its views on other countries, they take them from America. They see that Democracy is a good system.... so other countries instiute a democracy in thier lands... So I suppose there was no force involved in installing 'democracy' in Iraq? Just because they dared to try to interrupt the perto-dollar cycle, and with the Sudi's thinking of selling their oil in Euros like Iraq did, does that mean they're next? Or do they have to wait untill Iran have been enlighend by the USA? You keep going on about no governmant having the right to tell others what to do, but the US government is at this very moment trying to tell the government of Iran that its not allowed a nuclear program when the US has one, what right to they have?!?!? No wonder the world hates America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 America is not imposing its views on other countries, they take them from America. They see that Democracy is a good system.... so other countries instiute a democracy in thier lands... So I suppose there was no force involved in installing 'democracy' in Iraq? Just because they dared to try to interrupt the perto-dollar cycle, and with the Sudi's thinking of selling their oil in Euros like Iraq did, does that mean they're next? Or do they have to wait untill Iran have been enlighend by the USA? You keep going on about no governmant having the right to tell others what to do, but the US government is at this very moment trying to tell the government of Iran that its not allowed a nuclear program when the US has one, what right to they have?!?!? No wonder the world hates America. You wanna talk about the petro dollar cycle, why dont you first exaimine the Oil for food scandal. Sudamn Hussian bribed Jacque Chirac and other leading politicians in the EU, telling them that they will get the best oil feilds in IRaq for voting NO agianst the American resolution to go to war. That my friends is why i say F the Un b/c they try to tell us (every one) whom to attack and they are fully capable of being Bribed. Why does such a 'worthy' and 'Noble' orginaization like the UN have such corruption at the hightes levels of its orignization? and this war is fully lagitamet, At the end of the 1994 gulf war there was a cease fire agreement, not an end to a war like the treaty of versillies that ended WW1. The Agreement stated that if Sudamn Hussian would not allow the inspectors in his counrty, then the war would be contined. Since that time Sudman has viloated 14 resolutions from the UN more than justifying our presance in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 And America is not the only ppl who do not want Iran to have nukes... Russian, Germeny, Britian, France- they have just of latley sided with America on this issue. and thats exactly what this world needs... more Nukes. We have the same right to stop them just as we had the same right to stop hitler from killing jews. Is that really what you want, a Rouge Nation with out a stable Governemnt to have the ablility to whipe out entire countries... And Why would Iran Need Neclaer power... look where they are! on top of the worlds largest OIL LAKE! dont give me BS about them wanting it for only power, they want weapons and CIA has found facilities where they are makeing weapons grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indi Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 the un is a human orginaization so it has problems but i think the un does more for the world than the us does and you cant compare hitler killing jews and iran wanting nukes/nuke power no one wants to see anymore nukes being made but i bet the us has other reasons for trying to stop iran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moomini Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 I believe Iran wants nuclear power because it doesnt cause global warming, unlike burning oil, and wouldnt you want nuclear weapons if you had a country that does have them breathing down your neck? I know I would. They seem to have the same attitude as the usa and russia, during the cold war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 I believe Iran wants nuclear power because it doesnt cause global warming' date=' unlike burning oil, and wouldnt you want nuclear weapons if you had a country that does have them breathing down your neck? I know I would. They seem to have the same attitude as the usa and russia, during the cold war.[/quote'] Why have you not givin any evidnce. How do you know that they want them b/c they worry about thier enviroment. Or is that what you FEEL... How is the UN good? It is a parallel to the leauge of nations and that particular orginization strated wars, I.E. World War 2. As i have quoted before: "Not only does the Charter Organization (United Nations) not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us (the United States) the power to declare them to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting." --J. Ruben Clark, Jr., former Under-Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico, who was widely recognized as one of our nation's foremost international lawyers, stated on page 27 of the book entitled "The United Nations Today". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 its nice to know that Dubya has a its not me, its the rest of the world thats wrong day to. from time to time. it seems america or more particularly bush is unhappy that he cant do what he wants and is spitting his dummy out. he almost hi-jacked the UN over wrongly invading iraq and now seems to want to destroy it because he cant do what he wants. if he is making an issue of it dont forget about how badly he dealt with new orleans and needs to make himself look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moomini Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Ok then, I think the UN is a good thing, it means that no one country can take drastic action which is not a direct retalliation without consulting with other nations (at least in theory). kind of like on a nuclear sub when you have to have 2 people with keys or whatever to launch the nukes (at least thats what its like in movies) without the UN, one country under a Texan ruler could act illegaly and without provocation. The USA is like a 5 year old child stamping its feet in a shop because its parents (the UN) wont let it have what it WANTS, not what it NEEDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 And America is not the only ppl who do not want Iran to have nukes... Russian, Germeny, Britian, France- they have just of latley sided with America on this issue. Obviously those that have nukes objects... And why didn't America object when Israel "got" some nukes? Is that really what you want, a Rouge Nation with out a stable Governemnt to have the ablility to whipe out entire countries... What is a rogue nation? Any nation that object to US policy is a rogue nation? And Why would Iran Need Neclaer power... look where they are! on top of the worlds largest OIL LAKE! USA have more than their share of the worlds total oil reserves... With all that oil, why does USA need nuclear energy and weapons? dont give me BS about them wanting it for only power, they want weapons and CIA has found facilities where they are makeing weapons grade. Having both nuclear weapons and energy is not OK? I'll agree on the weapons part. And we all know about CIAs "reliable" sources and objective "research". Have they found the weapons of massdestruction yet or have I missed it? .................. I fear USA will become a rogue nation capable of destroying the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 hear hear. it appears the stability of the world is bein put in jeopardy by a cowboy (it means a bad thing in the uk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahiyast Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 "Death to the yankee pig dogs!!" (US President Regonald J. Priest) (it's a quote out of lexx...it's on topic as it's sci fi ^^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Moderation remark: People, you're pushing it here! Let's not get overly offensive! At least, when I read it, it sounds pretty offensive, can't have that in here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 This whole topic MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL to me. People should really get their facts straight before making ridiculous assertions... For starters, the United Nations has no authority whatsoever to force anything whatsover upon the US, least of all any millitary action. CHECK YOUR FACTS - The US has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and is one of only 5 nations in the world with veto power, as in the power to VOID ANY Security Council resolution. Damn way too many yanks are way too paranoid about internationism. THE WORLD IS NOT OUT TO GET YOU FELLAS. Sure, you've got the whole terrorism issue to worry about... but so have the rest of us. And believe me, cooperating, say through such international organizations as the UN - well, that's gonna work a whole lot better than most of the alternatives. Just something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillguy85 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Wow. I can't believe this is important to anybody. I've always thought that a big step towards something like, ya know, world unification, was the UN. I'm an american and I'll tell ya, our government blows. I'm counting the days until I move to Canada. A grunt is supposed to act like it, and wear what he is told, go where he is told, etc. The purpose of a uniform is to identify the soldier. Which is kinda important. Does he think he can't serve his country by keeping the peace in others? I guess he can't look at the big picture. No ones looking at the big picture. We give imaginary lines so much power over us. But we can't begin to bother with interstellar disputes until we deal with our own little planet. And apparently we can't begin to focus on that until we all can agree what uniform looks the coolest. I bet Klingons never had this problem. If they did, it would just be a fight to the death anyway, which would probably be better off. Sorry ghostshadow, but, you need to re-examine the US. It's not everything you think it is. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspatial Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 It all sounds a little bit like: A school-yard bully, with an authority complex. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracoons Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 why care we are all gonna die anyways, its only a matter of when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Well with that uniform issue that soldier had - it was not the United Nations forcing him to wear the blue beret - it was his own army and nation. It was members of the UN, including the US that voluntarily decided that when acting together on a particular peacekeeping mission that they should be united symbolically and not just strategically. How a particular nations army decides to adapt its uniform for a particular UN mission is up to them. In Australia, the UN peacekeeping uniform has included the UN-blue baseball cap, a floppy bush hat in UN-blue and of course the traditional Australian millitary slouch hat, though with the cloth band in (you guessed it) UN-blue. Which is to say that the Australian army has largely never worn the blue beret. IE: The UN doesn't tell anybody what to wear. Their country does. And a country's government has full right to order their soldiers to dress in frilly pink dresses if thats what they want, and those soldiers can only have one thing to say about it - "Yes sir". That is how the millitary organizations of this world operate. If you have a problem taking orders - the millitary is not the place for you. So again ghostshadow - I feel that some fact checking would perhaps be in order before you mindlessly seize hold of the tirades of some ignorant redneck facing courtmarshall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 SNIPPET: And a country's government has full right to order their soldiers to dress in frilly pink dresses if thats what they want' date=' and those soldiers can only have one thing to say about it - "Yes sir". [/quote'] Cool. Where can I sign up? c4 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 So again ghostshadow - I feel that some fact checking would perhaps be in order before you mindlessly seize hold of the tirades of some ignorant redneck facing courtmarshall. I'm wondering if you could define 'redneck' for me? I'm under the impression that the term refers to a negative stereotype that many would say has no place here, or anywhere for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 In this context I'd define 'redneck' as a crazy ill informed bastard who is trying to carry out an ill thought out legal defence which is based on no principle of law whatsoever, but rather on some crazy notion of a UN conspiracy to violate the sovereignty of nations. If you feel that that collectively describes a negative stereotype, bear in mind that it also describes the facts of his situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts