did you just call me a dork? lmao!
It's a united effort therefore all should be to blame, its not one country's failure but everyone's failure to communicate.
Alex and Hurley, stay on topic please.
can I change my answer, I blame Iran now. when in doubt.....
Bah,
this wasn't meant to be aserious thread anyway.
I say reclose it!
this wasn't meant to be aserious thread anyway.
I say reclose it!
The UN will always remain toothless so long as 1 country who has veto power can veto any resolution.
What can I say, it's true.HURLEY wrote:
bubbalo is a douche bag
I criticise Australia all the time.HURLEY wrote:
who thinks australia is the best place in the world
Oh, yes, reasonable, thought out arguments always lead to flames. Totally.HURLEY wrote:
all he does is try to start flames
Great another Anti-USA thread. I will probably join you list but lets take you through a little bit of history.
Do you know what the League of Nations is??? We there was a guy in AMERICA named Woodroe Wilson. He developed and helped create the League of Nations. The United States did not join this League and the League broke up around WWII. After WWII, using Mr. Wilson's plan again, the UN was created. This time the good ol' US of A joined. The UN has been around ever since, unlike the LoN. One of the reasons that the LoN did not fulfill what it was created to do, because it did not have the military power, nor the money to prosper. One of the reasons that the UN is around is because of the USA. We (I am American and Proud of it) provide the UN with a lot of support, both physically and via money. If the USA was not in the UN, the UN would not be the UN. We lead most of the conflicts for the UN because other countries:
a) choose not to
b) are not capable
c) do not care
America is the reason that the UN is so successful, not why it is not. Look at the graph on the source. They US has given more money every year since 2002 then anyone else. That site also states that since 2000 the US has given the largest amount of money to the UN. Sourc Globalissues.org
Now that we got some history and facts behind us. Before you post some stupid Anti-USA post again, at least have some fact to back you up. Matter of fact, when we choose to quit helping the world out, when we choose to quit maybe everyone will see how we have helped the world not hurt it. Maybe we should have not left our shores during WWI and WWII, maybe we should not have tried to help the French out in the Vietnam, maybe we should not help free the oppressed in the world. If we stopped doing all of these things who will then? The EU? Russia? China? South Africa? Kenya? No one will step up to the plate like we do. Right now we are part of the UN coalition in Iraq, if we were not there, who would be? Most nations are pulling out, but we are sending people to help out. If it was not for the US in Dec of 2005, where would the people effected by the tsunami be?
All of this reminds me of a saying here in America, it goes something like this. You do not know how much you appreciate something until its gone. Maybe America should do that. Before WWI we were not a large player on the international scale, we were here and there, but we stayed on our side of the pond, so to speak. Europe and the rest of the world asked America to come help out, to solve their issues, to fight their war. We answered the call. Once that was over, we choose again to stay on our side of the pond, not to join in on the international scene. WWII came along, and once again the World was crying out for America to come save her. We were neutral until Pearl Harbor, since then we have been answering the cry over and over again. If there is anything that goes wrong, America is the one that comes to save the day. We are the World's Superman metaphorically. Once we leave the international scene, what will the world do then?
Sorry for the long post, but people who make the Anti-America statements/threads should take a step back and look at what America has given the world. Look at how we changed the world. Look at what we gave the world. Our children, our brothers, our sisters, our money, we have given the world our blood, our sweat, our lives. What other nation has given the world that much?
Do you know what the League of Nations is??? We there was a guy in AMERICA named Woodroe Wilson. He developed and helped create the League of Nations. The United States did not join this League and the League broke up around WWII. After WWII, using Mr. Wilson's plan again, the UN was created. This time the good ol' US of A joined. The UN has been around ever since, unlike the LoN. One of the reasons that the LoN did not fulfill what it was created to do, because it did not have the military power, nor the money to prosper. One of the reasons that the UN is around is because of the USA. We (I am American and Proud of it) provide the UN with a lot of support, both physically and via money. If the USA was not in the UN, the UN would not be the UN. We lead most of the conflicts for the UN because other countries:
a) choose not to
b) are not capable
c) do not care
America is the reason that the UN is so successful, not why it is not. Look at the graph on the source. They US has given more money every year since 2002 then anyone else. That site also states that since 2000 the US has given the largest amount of money to the UN. Sourc Globalissues.org
Now that we got some history and facts behind us. Before you post some stupid Anti-USA post again, at least have some fact to back you up. Matter of fact, when we choose to quit helping the world out, when we choose to quit maybe everyone will see how we have helped the world not hurt it. Maybe we should have not left our shores during WWI and WWII, maybe we should not have tried to help the French out in the Vietnam, maybe we should not help free the oppressed in the world. If we stopped doing all of these things who will then? The EU? Russia? China? South Africa? Kenya? No one will step up to the plate like we do. Right now we are part of the UN coalition in Iraq, if we were not there, who would be? Most nations are pulling out, but we are sending people to help out. If it was not for the US in Dec of 2005, where would the people effected by the tsunami be?
All of this reminds me of a saying here in America, it goes something like this. You do not know how much you appreciate something until its gone. Maybe America should do that. Before WWI we were not a large player on the international scale, we were here and there, but we stayed on our side of the pond, so to speak. Europe and the rest of the world asked America to come help out, to solve their issues, to fight their war. We answered the call. Once that was over, we choose again to stay on our side of the pond, not to join in on the international scene. WWII came along, and once again the World was crying out for America to come save her. We were neutral until Pearl Harbor, since then we have been answering the cry over and over again. If there is anything that goes wrong, America is the one that comes to save the day. We are the World's Superman metaphorically. Once we leave the international scene, what will the world do then?
Sorry for the long post, but people who make the Anti-America statements/threads should take a step back and look at what America has given the world. Look at how we changed the world. Look at what we gave the world. Our children, our brothers, our sisters, our money, we have given the world our blood, our sweat, our lives. What other nation has given the world that much?
i disagree too, so what now. and imo, your an idiot. you cant just GET RID OF people who always agree with you in life. and i personally think you did that because you dont like looking like a fool from all of the people on that list constantly owning you. by them not posting and disagreeing with you, you feel like a big man. america is at fault FOR EVERYTHING then isnt it bubbalo, stop fucking bashing america. the world would be a lot worse today if america never existed, or if america never took some of the actions it has in the past. your just jealous. i usually dont do this on forums, but i will.Bubbalo wrote:
My philosophy is I've just knocked out everyone who could disagree, and can change that list at any time.
FUCK YOU.
Last edited by eagles1106 (2006-07-30 20:55:17)
While I find this whole thread amusing and wish people did have a better sense of humor about his joke at the start. As an American I whole heartedly support our withdrawl from the UN. I agree with many that it is an outdated and ineffective system for dealing with the world's issues. The UN has lost focus on the greater goods it was founded to protect and is now filled with squabbling delegates who argue endlessly about their own country's interests.
I could rant about the rights and wrongs of the US being the "World's Police" but in the end it doesnt matter and I dont care. Because what it all boils down to is when someone needs something they are going to ask the US for it because at the current point in time the US is the richest country in the world. 100 years from now if the US has fallen and Mongolia imerges as the worlds latest and greatest super power everyone will ask them and complain about them. Endless cycle of love n hate for whoever is on top today and it all will pass.
In closing...quit wasting time here, if you dislike the US go play BF2 and beat up the USMC teams. If you dislike everyone else... Go play BF2 and beat up anyone who opposes the might of the USMC.
I could rant about the rights and wrongs of the US being the "World's Police" but in the end it doesnt matter and I dont care. Because what it all boils down to is when someone needs something they are going to ask the US for it because at the current point in time the US is the richest country in the world. 100 years from now if the US has fallen and Mongolia imerges as the worlds latest and greatest super power everyone will ask them and complain about them. Endless cycle of love n hate for whoever is on top today and it all will pass.
In closing...quit wasting time here, if you dislike the US go play BF2 and beat up the USMC teams. If you dislike everyone else... Go play BF2 and beat up anyone who opposes the might of the USMC.
There is one reason why I visited this section so much before I left.
It was because of Bubbalo. I knew if he was involved it would be a great debate even if I disagreed with him. Those are the best people to debate with. And the funny thing is, in the past I disagreed with him a ton but I agree with lots of his points in here.
+1 Bubbalo for the great debates.
It was because of Bubbalo. I knew if he was involved it would be a great debate even if I disagreed with him. Those are the best people to debate with. And the funny thing is, in the past I disagreed with him a ton but I agree with lots of his points in here.
+1 Bubbalo for the great debates.
I find it funny the number of people who thought I seriously didn't want that list to respond.......
Anyway, since this has turned into a serious discussion:
The UN's failure, as a whole, is a result of the domination of the most powerful sub-division (the Security Council) by Western powers. As such, it is primarily the fault of those who organised. In this sense, it is largely the fault of the US, being the driving force behind the creation and the nation in best position to decide how to organise it. Having said that, it was designed for a different time. And even if it was unsuitable for that time (which can be debated all day), the problem America faced was difficult: they had to draw Russia to the table, without giving them too much power. As such, they created the veto, which has, in the long run, turned out poorly.
In the end: The failure of the UN long term cannot be blamed on anyone: the US could not be expected to know the geo-political setup of the modern world. The fact that we have made it this far without be blown to hell, on the other hand, is largely thanks to America being the driving force behind the UN. Whilst I feel that many of the times we came close to nuclear annihilation were due to the US and Russia, and both being arrogant and stubborn, the prevention of a war similar in size and nature to World War II is thanks, largely, to the US.
Anyway, since this has turned into a serious discussion:
The UN's failure, as a whole, is a result of the domination of the most powerful sub-division (the Security Council) by Western powers. As such, it is primarily the fault of those who organised. In this sense, it is largely the fault of the US, being the driving force behind the creation and the nation in best position to decide how to organise it. Having said that, it was designed for a different time. And even if it was unsuitable for that time (which can be debated all day), the problem America faced was difficult: they had to draw Russia to the table, without giving them too much power. As such, they created the veto, which has, in the long run, turned out poorly.
In the end: The failure of the UN long term cannot be blamed on anyone: the US could not be expected to know the geo-political setup of the modern world. The fact that we have made it this far without be blown to hell, on the other hand, is largely thanks to America being the driving force behind the UN. Whilst I feel that many of the times we came close to nuclear annihilation were due to the US and Russia, and both being arrogant and stubborn, the prevention of a war similar in size and nature to World War II is thanks, largely, to the US.
wow he made a post that i can actually say i 100% agree with
That's, erm, what I said...Bubbalo wrote:
I find it funny the number of people who thought I seriously didn't want that list to respond.......
Anyway, since this has turned into a serious discussion:
The UN's failure, as a whole, is a result of the domination of the most powerful sub-division (the Security Council) by Western powers. As such, it is primarily the fault of those who organised. In this sense, it is largely the fault of the US, being the driving force behind the creation and the nation in best position to decide how to organise it. Having said that, it was designed for a different time. And even if it was unsuitable for that time (which can be debated all day), the problem America faced was difficult: they had to draw Russia to the table, without giving them too much power. As such, they created the veto, which has, in the long run, turned out poorly.
In the end: The failure of the UN long term cannot be blamed on anyone: the US could not be expected to know the geo-political setup of the modern world. The fact that we have made it this far without be blown to hell, on the other hand, is largely thanks to America being the driving force behind the UN. Whilst I feel that many of the times we came close to nuclear annihilation were due to the US and Russia, and both being arrogant and stubborn, the prevention of a war similar in size and nature to World War II is thanks, largely, to the US.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Sure. But also this guy.Bubbalo wrote:
[...] the prevention of a war similar in size and nature to World War II is thanks, largely, to the US.
"Two pints of vodka please."
Well, bubablo you are certainly allowed your opinion. . .
But the REALITY is. . . . is that the UN is worthless!!
Can anyone name a DISTINCT success of the UN in the last 20 years??? A real "move forward" as a direct result of UN intervention? I dont want some blurb, I want something CONCRETE to justify the UN's continued funding of billions of dollars by my country (USA).
The sad thing, is that their ISN'T ONE!!!
A new world body of responsible governments needs to be set up in a more modern climate to respond to modern day conflicts etc. The UN needs to be dissolved(as it is still geared towards cold war doctrine), and the building in NYC needs to be demo'd! That prime real estate needs to be developed for American businesses etc.
You all know I'm right!! The UN continues to prove that it is unable to act in a crisis effectively, and its resolutions are mear ink on paper, with zero substance as far as enforceability.
DISSOLVE THE UN NOW!! Lets move on, and get some REAL work done in the world!!
But the REALITY is. . . . is that the UN is worthless!!
Can anyone name a DISTINCT success of the UN in the last 20 years??? A real "move forward" as a direct result of UN intervention? I dont want some blurb, I want something CONCRETE to justify the UN's continued funding of billions of dollars by my country (USA).
The sad thing, is that their ISN'T ONE!!!
A new world body of responsible governments needs to be set up in a more modern climate to respond to modern day conflicts etc. The UN needs to be dissolved(as it is still geared towards cold war doctrine), and the building in NYC needs to be demo'd! That prime real estate needs to be developed for American businesses etc.
You all know I'm right!! The UN continues to prove that it is unable to act in a crisis effectively, and its resolutions are mear ink on paper, with zero substance as far as enforceability.
DISSOLVE THE UN NOW!! Lets move on, and get some REAL work done in the world!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-07-31 01:47:19)
The US uses the UN as a political tool all the time. And where did you get billions of dollars from? Source?
As for successes: First Gulf War, for one. That one America was practically dragged into.
As for successes: First Gulf War, for one. That one America was practically dragged into.
And the terrorists don't use the UN as their tool either?? You dont think Hezbollah is re-arming/moving their long range missles into place as we speak, as Israel honors a UN ceasefire to the air campaign??
Success? hardley, Saddam snubbed his nose at UN sanctions, continued to disallow UN weapons inspectors to do their job, fired at "coalition aircraft" against UN mandate, and created his own "coalition" of UN security council members to exploit the money for food program(including Kofi Annan's son!!), all the while aquiring French fiberoptic technology to further sophisticate his radar technologies!!!! UN success. . .umm no!!
The US, and Britain were the only countries that had the balls to ENFORCE the UN mandate! Keep in mind that Clinton should have taken out Saddam under his reign, but he was too busy lying under oath on a federal deposition (but we dont have to go into that. . . .)
If your saying that the liberation of Kuwait was a success than YES IT WAS. . .the reason the liberation was a success was the US military wrecking shop on Saddams army, forcing his retreat!!
It wasnt UN tanks taking out the Republican Guard my friend. . .
You want a source to the billions of dollars that the UN gets from us(the USA), go look at the US BUDGET REPORT, its open to the public! Not too mention the billions of dollars it (UN)has received since its inception after WWII!
You do know that the UN building sits in NYC, RENT FREE/UTILITY FREE at the expense of the US taxpayers, in the most expensive dollar per square foot real estate in the world??
Success? hardley, Saddam snubbed his nose at UN sanctions, continued to disallow UN weapons inspectors to do their job, fired at "coalition aircraft" against UN mandate, and created his own "coalition" of UN security council members to exploit the money for food program(including Kofi Annan's son!!), all the while aquiring French fiberoptic technology to further sophisticate his radar technologies!!!! UN success. . .umm no!!
The US, and Britain were the only countries that had the balls to ENFORCE the UN mandate! Keep in mind that Clinton should have taken out Saddam under his reign, but he was too busy lying under oath on a federal deposition (but we dont have to go into that. . . .)
If your saying that the liberation of Kuwait was a success than YES IT WAS. . .the reason the liberation was a success was the US military wrecking shop on Saddams army, forcing his retreat!!
It wasnt UN tanks taking out the Republican Guard my friend. . .
You want a source to the billions of dollars that the UN gets from us(the USA), go look at the US BUDGET REPORT, its open to the public! Not too mention the billions of dollars it (UN)has received since its inception after WWII!
You do know that the UN building sits in NYC, RENT FREE/UTILITY FREE at the expense of the US taxpayers, in the most expensive dollar per square foot real estate in the world??
Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-07-31 02:36:38)
What ceasefire, have I missed something? And no, I don't think the terrorists use it as a tool. However, when countries overstep in their response, and then get punished, it does serve the terrorists. Simple solution: use a measured, targetted response to terrorism.
As to Iraq, other than a few superficial violations, Saddam did nothing (as was proven post invasion).
And, as I have said before, the only reason the US backed the coalition against Kuwait was because they were dragged there by the UN. And without them, it would likely still have been a victory, just slower and bloodier.
As to Iraq, other than a few superficial violations, Saddam did nothing (as was proven post invasion).
And, as I have said before, the only reason the US backed the coalition against Kuwait was because they were dragged there by the UN. And without them, it would likely still have been a victory, just slower and bloodier.
rubber baby buggy bumpers
its all Irans fault
i second to thatGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
its all Irans fault
Ha ha ha,dubbs wrote:
Great another Anti-USA thread. I will probably join you list but lets take you through a little bit of history.
Do you know what the League of Nations is??? We there was a guy in AMERICA named Woodroe Wilson. He developed and helped create the League of Nations. The United States did not join this League and the League broke up around WWII. After WWII, using Mr. Wilson's plan again, the UN was created. This time the good ol' US of A joined. The UN has been around ever since, unlike the LoN. One of the reasons that the LoN did not fulfill what it was created to do, because it did not have the military power, nor the money to prosper. One of the reasons that the UN is around is because of the USA. We (I am American and Proud of it) provide the UN with a lot of support, both physically and via money. If the USA was not in the UN, the UN would not be the UN. We lead most of the conflicts for the UN because other countries:
a) choose not to
b) are not capable
c) do not care
America is the reason that the UN is so successful, not why it is not. Look at the graph on the source. They US has given more money every year since 2002 then anyone else. That site also states that since 2000 the US has given the largest amount of money to the UN. Sourc Globalissues.org
Now that we got some history and facts behind us. Before you post some stupid Anti-USA post again, at least have some fact to back you up. Matter of fact, when we choose to quit helping the world out, when we choose to quit maybe everyone will see how we have helped the world not hurt it. Maybe we should have not left our shores during WWI and WWII, maybe we should not have tried to help the French out in the Vietnam, maybe we should not help free the oppressed in the world. If we stopped doing all of these things who will then? The EU? Russia? China? South Africa? Kenya? No one will step up to the plate like we do. Right now we are part of the UN coalition in Iraq, if we were not there, who would be? Most nations are pulling out, but we are sending people to help out. If it was not for the US in Dec of 2005, where would the people effected by the tsunami be?
All of this reminds me of a saying here in America, it goes something like this. You do not know how much you appreciate something until its gone. Maybe America should do that. Before WWI we were not a large player on the international scale, we were here and there, but we stayed on our side of the pond, so to speak. Europe and the rest of the world asked America to come help out, to solve their issues, to fight their war. We answered the call. Once that was over, we choose again to stay on our side of the pond, not to join in on the international scene. WWII came along, and once again the World was crying out for America to come save her. We were neutral until Pearl Harbor, since then we have been answering the cry over and over again. If there is anything that goes wrong, America is the one that comes to save the day. We are the World's Superman metaphorically. Once we leave the international scene, what will the world do then?
Sorry for the long post, but people who make the Anti-America statements/threads should take a step back and look at what America has given the world. Look at how we changed the world. Look at what we gave the world. Our children, our brothers, our sisters, our money, we have given the world our blood, our sweat, our lives. What other nation has given the world that much?
If you look in detail, you will see that the amount of foreign aid (ODA) a country is supposed to give is a percentage of their GNI (GNP). America does indeed give the most, but the lowest percentage of their GNI of any country - so America aren't giving nearly as much foreign aid as they're supposed to, every 'rich' nation is supposed to give 0.7% of their GNI in ODA, America gave 0.22% in 2005 (which is a big increase, 2002 was 0.12%) and most of that aid went to, guess who, Israel - and they really need it don't they (Although I suppose all those bombs do cost a lot).
I haven't been staying totally up to date with the Iraq situation, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any UN troops in Iraq, there are coalition troops, but that's different entirely. The US don't provide many troops to the UN, the majority of UN troops are European and Asian. NATO is not a benevolent effort by the Americans to help with European defence interests, it is a way for the US to interfere in European military politics, the Pentagon's 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States "must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO ... Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs." (Source - Globalissues.org), pretty much all of America's military involvement over the past century has been for their own benifit rather than for the benefit of others (which is not unusual, but isn't something to brag about either).
Americans are always going on about saving the world in WWII, when in reality it was the alliance with the Russians that was the major turning point in the war. A war which Britain is ultimately responsible for - by allowing Hitler to annex German speaking Czechoslovakia in return for a promise of peace, ha, if Britain had allied with Russia at that point and overthrown the Nazi regime in it's infancy (which would have made more sense than the Russian backed German invasion of Poland) a lot of money would have been saved in WWII and America would not be the financial superpower it is today, the European empire states would have retained their empires, the state of Israel would never have been created and Japans invasion of China in 1937 probably would have suceeded (too far away for western states to bother about, a bit like the US for the first 2/3rds of the war), everything would be very different. America's superpower status stems mainly from the fact they stayed mostly out of the 2 largest wars of all time, which meant they saved a LOT of money and had the financial (and with the defection of German nuclear physicists the scientific) head start to beat the Eastern block in the Cold War.
However, America's financial lead is dwindling, the US deficit has grown every year that Bush has been in charge (since, while spending rose (very liberal concept that) taxes fell (very bad fiscal policy that, spend more/earn less)). America is in a very precarious situation, one that may well lead to another Wall Street crash or something simillar, resulting in a, mainly American, but to some extent worldwide depression.
It has also been claimed by many respectable politicians (such as Tony Benn), that the Japan had surrendered when America nuked them (twice) and that the only reason it was done was to demonstrate to the Russians that they had the Bomb and were not afraid to use it.
The Veto power of the nations on the UN security council is what makes the UN a joke, as the major world powers are never going to agree entirely on what should be done, the Veto should be got rid of and the UN made into a more functional entity.
Oh yes - and none of it's Irans fault, Iran is irrelevant.
Oh, and the UN inspectors were allowed to do their job in Iraq, they just didn't find anything because there wasn't anything to find. Bubbalo is quite right about the UN resolution on Kuwait, they were dragged there by the UN (to probably the most just war the US have been involved in for the past 50 odd years) and they only went because the Kuwaitis are their allies and sell them lots of oil. The second war in Iraq, however, was totally unnescessary and had a huge negative impact on the war on terror as well as fucking over the world economy good and proper, (have you seen the price of oil lately?) which is why the UN were against it and there aren't UN troops in Iraq now. Saddam, while he was a very nasty ruler, kept Iraq running quite well - and NO terrorists came from there, they were all too busy hating Saddam.
So next time you're trying to get facts and history behind you, try to get them right - and as for using liberal sources, my sources are the same as yours (except on the WWII stuff thats just history) - just read properly.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-07-31 10:24:28)
The fact-master strikes again. Oh, wait, no... you're talking out of your arse.fadedsteve wrote:
You do know that the UN building sits in NYC, RENT FREE/UTILITY FREE at the expense of the US taxpayers, in the most expensive dollar per square foot real estate in the world??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_headquarters wrote:
The United Nations headquarters building was constructed in New York City in 1949 and 1950 beside the East River on land purchased by an 8.5 million dollar donation from John D. Rockefeller, Jr..
Surely not - the US have paid for everything always - they don't dodge their international obligations ever. Do they?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
The fact-master strikes again. Oh, wait, no... you're talking out of your arse.fadedsteve wrote:
You do know that the UN building sits in NYC, RENT FREE/UTILITY FREE at the expense of the US taxpayers, in the most expensive dollar per square foot real estate in the world??http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_headquarters wrote:
The United Nations headquarters building was constructed in New York City in 1949 and 1950 beside the East River on land purchased by an 8.5 million dollar donation from John D. Rockefeller, Jr..