If this war will stop now, it will be a giant failure for US , but for also all the occidental world. Saddam will be considered for an heroe, and his dictature will last until his natural death.
He already is a hero in the eyes of many people in the Arab/Muslim world, and, as time goes by, even more people will consider him one, whatever happens, and that is where the big problem lies.
I was especially against the manner in which we alienated the UN, which codified the original rules (laws) in the first place, and the idiotic way we reacted to the countries that did not want to follow our timeline and jump to war.
North Korea said on Saturday that it would not recognize any ruling made by the U.N. Security Council on Pyongyang?s nuclear standoff with the United States, because recent events have shown the U.N. to be irrelevant.
And just whom do we have to thank for the U.N. to be made to look that way?
North Korea said on Saturday that it would not recognize any ruling made by the U.N. Security Council on Pyongyang?s nuclear standoff with the United States, because recent events have shown the U.N. to be irrelevant.
And just whom do we have to thank for the U.N. to be made to look that way?
- T.I.
If the UN cared about how it looked, they would have been more concerned when their resolutions were being ignored by Saddam. And how did the UN look when North Korea expelled the IAEA inspectors last december? In february Mohamed ElBaradei said that North Korea has been "in chronic non-compliance (of the NPT) since 1993". How do you think the UN looked to North Korea during those 10 years of non-compliance? And whom do you think made the UN look that way to North Korea during those 10 years?
I did attack the idea. Go away. You obviously don't have anything useful to add.
Go away? Are you 12?
You attack the figure of speech used. If your argument is that Bush isn't at fault, or partially responsible, make that argument.
During those 10 years the U.N. looked strong enought that North Korea at least had the intelligence to hide its actions. Now they don't feel they have to because Bush has made the U.N. irrelevant.
You attack the figure of speech used. If your argument is that Bush isn't at fault, or partially responsible, make that argument.
I attacked the idea that Bush was somehow responsible for the way the UN looked. Even you could have figured that out if you weren't so busy making ad hominem attacks.
Quote:
During those 10 years the U.N. looked strong enought that North Korea at least had the intelligence to hide its actions. Now they don't feel they have to because Bush has made the U.N. irrelevant.
I attacked the idea that Bush was somehow responsible for the way the UN looked. Even you could have figured that out if you weren't so busy making ad hominem attacks.
The UN made itself irrelevant.
I wasn't making an ad hominem attack when I asked you to clarify your point.
Yes, I could have figured it out, but if someone here is making a point they should be explicit so a valid criticism can be made and the explicit point refuted or supported. If you weasel around with underhanded points they don't help a thread.
I assume your point is that the U.N. made itself irrelevant. That's explicit. It's an unsupported opinion, but explicit.
Failures don't mean it's irrelevant, then mean it's not perfect.
How about when the failures outweigh the successes 10 to 1 or worse?
It's far from perfect, I agree, it's far from good.
Quote:
How many wars have been avoided because of the U.N.?
I don't know, how many? I can't think of any.
---
Come on, bunge, tell me something good the UN Security Council has done, give me a nation they have actually saved. I'm sure they are there.
They did well with East Timor... come on. Surely there are more for this wonderful world body that is far more worthy to deal out death and destruction than the evil US.
The Emperor's new cloths is a myth about the collective willfull delusion of the people in the kingdom refusing to SEE that the Emperor's new cloths are in fact not cloths at all . . . it takes the innocence of a child to see through the hysteria that makes everybody believe the Emperor's new cloths are real when they aren't
that's the moral of the story . . . I recently uesd it on these boards to illustrate a very different position . . .
in this case, I believe, the point is that any child should be able to see that the UN is irrelevant
which of course any child of history will actually be able to see thatt it is not. . .
it actually is the opposite, the Emperor's new cloths in this 'feifdom' is that Bush's pronounciations of moral rectitude are what they purport to be rather than mere tactics of PR in a large scale strategy for American dominance aka: Pax Americana
What would have happened in East Timor without the U.N.?
Without the UN-SC? Oh you mean the same UN-SC that ignored the problem for over 20 years and hundreds of thousands were killed in a decades-long civil war? THAT UN-SC?
I'm letting you take this as a success. Do you homework and be glad I'm giving you ONE UN Security Council success.
Let's get some more, bunge.
UN Security Council success stories, let's hear them!
Success One:
The UN-SC watches a couple hundred thousand Timorians die in a 2-decade-long civil war (started in 1976) and then decides to do something in 1999.
Without the UN-SC's help they might have struck a peace deal, like Angola or Sudan. A few decades of the UN-SC watching your bloody civil war and you decide to make a peace deal.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
If this war will stop now, it will be a giant failure for US , but for also all the occidental world. Saddam will be considered for an heroe, and his dictature will last until his natural death.
He already is a hero in the eyes of many people in the Arab/Muslim world, and, as time goes by, even more people will consider him one, whatever happens, and that is where the big problem lies.
- T.I.
Originally posted by pfflam
I was especially against the manner in which we alienated the UN, which codified the original rules (laws) in the first place, and the idiotic way we reacted to the countries that did not want to follow our timeline and jump to war.
North Korea said on Saturday that it would not recognize any ruling made by the U.N. Security Council on Pyongyang?s nuclear standoff with the United States, because recent events have shown the U.N. to be irrelevant.
And just whom do we have to thank for the U.N. to be made to look that way?
- T.I.
Originally posted by The Installer
North Korea said on Saturday that it would not recognize any ruling made by the U.N. Security Council on Pyongyang?s nuclear standoff with the United States, because recent events have shown the U.N. to be irrelevant.
And just whom do we have to thank for the U.N. to be made to look that way?
- T.I.
If the UN cared about how it looked, they would have been more concerned when their resolutions were being ignored by Saddam. And how did the UN look when North Korea expelled the IAEA inspectors last december? In february Mohamed ElBaradei said that North Korea has been "in chronic non-compliance (of the NPT) since 1993". How do you think the UN looked to North Korea during those 10 years of non-compliance? And whom do you think made the UN look that way to North Korea during those 10 years?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
If the UN cared about how it looked....
How about attacking the idea instead of the vocabular used to express it?
Originally posted by bunge
How about attacking the idea instead of the vocabular used to express it?
I did attack the idea. Go away. You obviously don't have anything useful to add.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I did attack the idea. Go away. You obviously don't have anything useful to add.
Go away? Are you 12?
You attack the figure of speech used. If your argument is that Bush isn't at fault, or partially responsible, make that argument.
During those 10 years the U.N. looked strong enought that North Korea at least had the intelligence to hide its actions. Now they don't feel they have to because Bush has made the U.N. irrelevant.
Originally posted by bunge
Go away? Are you 12?
You attack the figure of speech used. If your argument is that Bush isn't at fault, or partially responsible, make that argument.
I attacked the idea that Bush was somehow responsible for the way the UN looked. Even you could have figured that out if you weren't so busy making ad hominem attacks.
During those 10 years the U.N. looked strong enought that North Korea at least had the intelligence to hide its actions. Now they don't feel they have to because Bush has made the U.N. irrelevant.
The UN made itself irrelevant.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I attacked the idea that Bush was somehow responsible for the way the UN looked. Even you could have figured that out if you weren't so busy making ad hominem attacks.
The UN made itself irrelevant.
I wasn't making an ad hominem attack when I asked you to clarify your point.
Yes, I could have figured it out, but if someone here is making a point they should be explicit so a valid criticism can be made and the explicit point refuted or supported. If you weasel around with underhanded points they don't help a thread.
I assume your point is that the U.N. made itself irrelevant. That's explicit. It's an unsupported opinion, but explicit.
You want backup?
- Iraq
- Angola
- Rwanda
- Bosnia
Originally posted by groverat
The UN *is* irrelevant with regard to international peacekeeping.
Failures don't mean it's irrelevant, then mean it's not perfect. How many wars have been avoided because of the U.N.?
Failures don't mean it's irrelevant, then mean it's not perfect.
How about when the failures outweigh the successes 10 to 1 or worse?
It's far from perfect, I agree, it's far from good.
How many wars have been avoided because of the U.N.?
I don't know, how many? I can't think of any.
---
Come on, bunge, tell me something good the UN Security Council has done, give me a nation they have actually saved. I'm sure they are there.
They did well with East Timor... come on. Surely there are more for this wonderful world body that is far more worthy to deal out death and destruction than the evil US.
It should be easy really.
Originally posted by groverat
It should be easy really.
What would have happened in East Timor without the U.N.?
Now they don't feel they have to because Bush has made the U.N. irrelevant.
hmm, reminds me of the story about the emporer who had no clothes.
so you have a ruler walking down the street naked, thinking he's well dressed. everyone knows he's naked but is afraid to say anything about it.
then a child in the crowd (Bush in this case
now, who's fault is it that the king is naked?
Originally posted by alcimedes
hmm, reminds me of the story about the emporer who had no clothes.
so you have a ruler walking down the street naked, thinking he's well dressed. everyone knows he's naked but is afraid to say anything about it.
then a child in the crowd (Bush in this case
now, who's fault is it that the king is naked?
I am not sure that I follow. Is Bush a child-emperor? Is the 'child' part a reference to Bush's intellect? And why is the king also naked?
Confusing story.
that's the moral of the story . . . I recently uesd it on these boards to illustrate a very different position . . .
in this case, I believe, the point is that any child should be able to see that the UN is irrelevant
which of course any child of history will actually be able to see thatt it is not. . .
it actually is the opposite, the Emperor's new cloths in this 'feifdom' is that Bush's pronounciations of moral rectitude are what they purport to be rather than mere tactics of PR in a large scale strategy for American dominance aka: Pax Americana
http://members.tripod.com/~GaryCooper/emperor.html
maybe it will make more sense then, maybe not. as for the Bush/kid reference, just a little dig in regards to his intellect.
Originally posted by bunge
What would have happened in East Timor without the U.N.?
Without the UN-SC? Oh you mean the same UN-SC that ignored the problem for over 20 years and hundreds of thousands were killed in a decades-long civil war? THAT UN-SC?
I'm letting you take this as a success. Do you homework and be glad I'm giving you ONE UN Security Council success.
Let's get some more, bunge.
UN Security Council success stories, let's hear them!
Success One:
The UN-SC watches a couple hundred thousand Timorians die in a 2-decade-long civil war (started in 1976) and then decides to do something in 1999.
Without the UN-SC's help they might have struck a peace deal, like Angola or Sudan. A few decades of the UN-SC watching your bloody civil war and you decide to make a peace deal.
You can do it, bunge!
Let's see some more UN-SC success stories!
Originally posted by pfflam
... a large scale strategy for American dominance aka: Pax Americana
How does one work to secure something one already has?
We already dominate the world.
Originally posted by groverat
How does one work to secure something one already has?
We already dominate the world.
Apparently not enough for some folks.
Cheers
Scott
Like "very unique". If it's unique it is unique. If you dominate something you dominate it.
Explain what you mean.