Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 82
  1. #21  
    As for the UN not supporting democracy, it's helped set up several democracies in recent years, far more succesfully than the US! (Although not as successful as Britain )
    Animo et Fide
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Recognising reality is also an important part of the UN's function. Just because someone is democratic it doesn't mean they have control of a country, or any right to it. Don't forget that the current status of Taiwan has come about largely because of the civil war in China after WW2 when the Kuomintang Nationalist forces retreated there. The Kuomintang forces were certainly not democrats any more than the Communists were.
    I honestly dont know about any of that, and the reality is that it certainly doesnt make any difference. The UN is a joke, bankrupt of any real value in today's world. Rather then be the way to expand freedom in the world, it is nothing more then an opportunity for dictators and bums to show their contempt for free societies.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Well that makes sense. Pick the totalitarian not the democtaric government. Pick the government with the human rights violations. But it all fits. Most of the UN Human Right Commission abuse the rights of their citizens. China, Cuba, Sudan, Saidi Arabia, Syria , and of course the US was voted out. Well so much for the UN. It doesnt support democracy, nor is it a defender of human rights.
    some might say it is a defender of human rights only when it suits the interests of the individual members not I of course
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Oh really? The UN has been anti-Semitic and anti Israeli far more often than anti-US.
    I have read about all the resolutions against Israel. The UN charter says "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…to practice tolerance and live together in peace as good neighbors, to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security." So much for UN successes in the Middle East.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I'd first ask Iraqis if they feel liberated, before asking the UN for commitments there. Having said that, I have to tell you about my own experience. I lived in Israel for a year and saw first-hand how the "UN troops" (they were mostly Scandinavians) worked so hard and under dangerous conditions, to help citizens on both sides of the conflict. They often put their own life in danger to help others. These troopers represent the beauty the UN can offer to the world.
    I'd ask them if they like the school open, teachers earn up to 23 times what they earned 18 months ago, hospitals working, the level of electrical production in Iraq exceeded prewar levels after only 12 months.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...5738-5773r.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Why not Boulder?…
    We have zoning laws that dont permit buildings over 4 stories
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5. #25  
    I think UN makes more sense than ever. Remember Rumsfeld toured countries like Bangladesh which otherwise would never be in his radar in hopes of getting troops to support the occupation. No matter where he went asking for help he got the same answer. If there is a UN backing they would gladly send troops.

    If US had UN backing the causualties would alteast wouldn't be a 1000 men/women.
  6.    #26  
    LUGANO, Switzerland -- "Investigations have shown that the former Iraqi dictator grafted and smuggled more than $10 billion from the program that for seven years prior to Saddam's overthrow was meant to bring humanitarian aid to ordinary Iraqis. And the Sept. 11 Commission has shown a tracery of contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda that continued after billions of oil-for-food dollars began pouring into Saddam's coffers and Usama bin Laden declared his famous war on the U.S.

    Now, buried in some of the United Nation's own confidential documents, clues can be seen that underscore the possibility of just such a Saddam-Al Qaeda link — clues leading to a locked door in this Swiss lakeside resort.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. #27  
    FOX new? That says it all! And what did he do with all the money? WMD? Where are the test tubes?
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    FOX new? That says it all! And what did he do with all the money? WMD? Where are the test tubes?
    At least these are facts, not fabrications like C-BS and NY Times
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    ...
    If US had UN backing the causualties would alteast wouldn't be a 1000 men/women.
    where do you get this stuff? Do you have a crystal ball up your uh sleeve?
    you cannot possibly say this with any real basis in fact. UN support may not have had any bearing on troop levels or anything else.

    Unless of course you are foolish enough to think that the enemy would have been nicer because they knew the UN was there. Feh!
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Good points. Unfortunately, just yesterday morning, I have heard an interview with an Iraqi official and several "ordinary" Iraqis blasting the US. They want the US out of Iraq immediately. Roads, school and money do not compensate for freedom.

    Since you put ordinary in quotes I assume that that meant they weren't really ordinary. So what you are saying is that since we have gotten there, they have lost their freedom??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    where do you get this stuff? Do you have a crystal ball up your uh sleeve?
    you cannot possibly say this with any real basis in fact. UN support may not have had any bearing on troop levels or anything else.

    Unless of course you are foolish enough to think that the enemy would have been nicer because they knew the UN was there. Feh!
    Woof, first learn to respect other peoples opinion. Using terms like 'you are foolish', 'no baiss'... it doesn't take a lot of guts to hide behind the pc and type what comes to one's mind. If you can so can I, but then I'm not 'Woof'!

    Where do I get this stuff? Instead of watching Fox networks I also read google news. Yeah that's my crysal ball. I thought folks were smart enough to google, but anyway here's one link from hundreds of link from Google.

    http://www.southasiamonitor.org/dipl...jun/5dip2.html

    For the hard-of-reading:

    "Soldiers lined the road, which was closed to traffic and pedestrians, as Rumsfeld's motorcade moved into the capital, Dhaka, which was unusually quiet due to an opposition strike unrelated to his visit.

    "We hope they will contribute troops to Iraq at some point," a US defense official told reporters traveling with Rumsfeld on Saturday (June 5). "We're still having discussions about that.

    "They would prefer to see it more international with a bigger UN role," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "

    Learn to debate without shooting the messenger.
  12.    #32  
    "Kofi Annan’s attack on the United States over its decision to go to war with Iraq is indicative of the insecurity running through the corridors of power (or what’s left of them) at the U.N. headquarters in New York. The prestige and reputation of the U.N. is running at an all time low. The world organization failed spectacularly to deal with the Iraqi dictatorship under Saddam Hussein, is failing to provide leadership in disarming Iran, and is weak-kneed in the face of genocide in the Sudan. At the same time, the U.N. faces serious allegations of mismanagement and corruption relating to its administration of the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program."
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ions/wm567.cfm
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    That is what they are saying, yes. I put ordinary in quotations because I have no way of knowing how ordinary they really are.
    I would think the onlyist Iraqis that have lost their freedom is Sudam's **** buddies
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    Woof, first learn to respect other peoples opinion. Using terms like 'you are foolish', 'no baiss'... it doesn't take a lot of guts to hide behind the pc and type what comes to one's mind. If you can so can I, but then I'm not 'Woof'!

    Where do I get this stuff? Instead of watching Fox networks I also read google news. Yeah that's my crysal ball. I thought folks were smart enough to google, but anyway here's one link from hundreds of link from Google.

    http://www.southasiamonitor.org/dipl...jun/5dip2.html

    For the hard-of-reading:

    "Soldiers lined the road, which was closed to traffic and pedestrians, as Rumsfeld's motorcade moved into the capital, Dhaka, which was unusually quiet due to an opposition strike unrelated to his visit.

    "We hope they will contribute troops to Iraq at some point," a US defense official told reporters traveling with Rumsfeld on Saturday (June 5). "We're still having discussions about that.

    "They would prefer to see it more international with a bigger UN role," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "

    Learn to debate without shooting the messenger.

    Zack go back and look at what you said and then what I asked. Here I'll help you.
    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    If US had UN backing the causualties would alteast wouldn't be a 1000 men/women.
    Quote Originally Posted by woof
    you cannot possibly say this with any real basis in fact. UN support may not have had any bearing on troop levels or anything else.
    Since you are so sensitive to other peoples postings I'll try again and I'll do my best to be a little more gentle.

    How can you possibly say with any degree of certainty that have UN support would have saved ANY American lives? You can't You do not know how additional support from ANY organization or governemnt would change the outcome of the current situation. You cannot say that fewer US troops would have died You cannot say that there would have been any more troops from other countries and you cannot say that the overall situation would be any different.

    I fail to see where the links you provided support your statements because NO ONE can say what would have happened if things had been done differently. Unless of course you have a time machine and can go back and change things and watch the outcome and then report to us the proof of your statements. I dont think you do.

    All you were doing was bagging on the current administration because you disagree. Your statements HAVE NO BASIS IN FACT WHATSOEVER. If they do please provide the proof. All you provided so far is OPINION.

    I stand by my earlier statement that it is foolish to assume that changing one element of the Iraq situation would somehow drastically alter the events. You make it sound like the insurgents/terrorists or whatever label you want to use would suddenly be nicer if the troops all had United Nations on their shirts instead of United States.

    And for what its worth, I was "shooting" your statement, not you. Why do some people always cry attack when someone argues with their statements? Is it an attempt as deflecting the attention from your comments, because you know they are going to crumble under even the lightest scrutiny?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Unless of course you are foolish enough to think that the enemy would have been nicer because they knew the UN was there. Feh!
    I'm foolish, you must be Einstein?!!


    Woof now I know why most tend to ignore your postings! Of course you are right I'm wrong!
  16. #36  
    why cant you just respond to the content of the post instead of making inane remarks? You totally avoid the issue at hand.

    You ignore my posts because you cant come up with anything to say to them. If you can please do so. Respond to the points about your UN comments please.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  17. #37  
    For the group:

    Does anyone else here think it is foolish to assume that just UN presence will have any effect on the loss of life? Will the UN banner alter the other sides tactics or perspective? Is there any proof that this is the case?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18.    #38  
    I would suspect that more soldiers would have been killed. The difference being the UN Pieacekeepers. I doubt that any additional troops would be as highly trained or as well equiped as US soldiers. MHO
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    where do you get this stuff? Do you have a crystal ball up your uh sleeve?
    you cannot possibly say this with any real basis in fact.
    I posted a link as to where I got this. There are more polite ways to ask for the source of info.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    UN support may not have had any bearing on troop levels or anything else.
    Might not, atleast there would be troops from other countries to share the burden if you will. Mathematically if the major countries of the world sent troops, the probability of US troops dying is less than if US troops going it alone. That's what is my opinion. The basis is probability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    of course you are foolish enough to think that the enemy would have been nicer because they knew the UN was there.
    The less I say about the above, the better. There are a number of people here who disagree, but they are polite about how they disagree. Woof, with you I'm simply going to do what others do. Set the ignore bit.
  20.    #40  
    The true test of a liberal is being able to respect someone's political views even though you may disagree with them. Unfortunately. this mentality of "I'm right so you have no right to speak against me" seems to be the liberals newest game plan.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions