kumquatq3

It might be (tho israel would have something to say about that) But the UDNP doesn't have the job or the right to decide that

That's also a political message. But one that has to do with democratic reform, which is their main purpose No, their not suppose to go to Cuba and try to get a Democracy. They are suppose to help push along those states that seemingly want a democracy. But listen to their job in their own words: It's a stretch to bend any of that into paying for mugs that bear the UNDP symbol and the slogan "tomarrow jerusalem", don't you think? UNDP isn't just there to give money to any state that says they want to be democratic, they are there to coach them on the best way to go about it and to provide funds (with oversite). This they failed to do. Mugs with potentially hostile slogans on them are not the best route to a stable democracy nor are they a wise way to spend the worlds money. I think the message on the mugs will only take the focus away from a stable democracy and shift it to land, which has clearly led to terrorism and violence. That is not UNDP place. If the UN is paying for a message that could be counter productive to it's main goal of stable democracy, then something is wrong with that picture. If you pay for a message to be broadcast without doing the exact same thing for the otherside (why not give the gaza settlers mugs then?) then you effectively promote that view. Logo or not. Yes, to some degree, but generally people allow that to fall into more of a human rights/access to information territory.

! I just caught that

Different context. The United States has a long tradition of democracy and doesn't need the UN to come in and help them understand how democracy works in practice. I can't believe I just wrote that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Our mind control device is working perfectly I think there is something to be said for that stance

This is what happened: Republic Commando was pushed back, so Lucasarts needed to support it's holiday line up. So the Xbox version of K2 got fast tracked, at the cost of the PC version and general quality, to get it out the door asap.

I see a trend between your name and your music

Of course they were more concerned about Allied lives! It was a war! LOL! They damn well should have been. And remember who attacked who first. That being said, while I agree with the first bomb (mostly), I have reservations about dropping the second.

The first part is the problem. UDNP job is to get free speech and human rights, not to fund the use of them. Because it's not their job. It isn't supporting democratic reform or human rights reform, it's supporting a political message. I agree, but the UNDP isn't a democracy, and it isn't in the buisness of political messages. It's there to help get free elections and human rights. Not to help people say political messages. Thats their own job once they get the rights. Maybe they should have had the message: Now that you have Gaza back, you should hold free elections to allow those in Gaza to have a say in goverment. it's Simple: The UNDP spent money carelessly and thus it ended up being spent incorrect. That was wrong. They didn't, as far as I can tell, do it with the intent to over reach their stated agenda tho.

For starters: Just so it's out there, I enjoy debating like this. Not to say I don't very truely believe in my stance, but.....long story short I never keep hard feeling about stuff like this. I'm not in this because I think your a jerk for disagreeing with me. K? This is taken from UNDP's website: These mugs come under 'advocacy', in that they represent a campaign for a particular policy. It's an essential part of the democratic process, and I'm sure UNDP is working on all the others at the same time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, they are supposed advocate things like free speech and basic human rights, , hence the "to support national processes of democratic transitions" part, NOT a specific political message. Especially about land. Here is one of the heads of the UNDP: See the difference between advocating things like human rights and advocating a political message? this is also from their website, right below what you quoted:

I disagree, I think it is there to help ALLOW them to say what they want, legally speaking. Not to fund their specific propaganda which HAD THE UNDP LOGO ON IT. 1. I agree that we should give them the ability to speak, but I disagree that money is correctly spent on coffee mugs citing not only UNDP logo, but a specific message that does not sing the praises of the current withdrawal so much as it only demands more. 2. So, the best use of those funds was to make the case of the Palestinians to the..... Palestinians with coffee mugs? I don't think presenting the Palestinians case to themselves with coffee mugs was the best use. Or watch how the money was spent, but I think there was more. Here is the difference: If you bought a printing press and gave it to a respectable group to make newspapers, then I understand you can't be accountable for what they print and you are just supporting free speech. Even that is touch and go tho. I think, more correctly, it would be a case of the UNDP helping to let a goverment allow it's people to speak freely. But when you give them funds to print a specific message...than, logo or not, you are seen as giving support to that message. That is NOT the USDP place or service. and I don't by the "O, we just gave them the funds to use as they saw fit" arguement. The USDP needs to be accountable for what happens to the money it gives out, don't you think? What if it ended up going towards weapons?

Nope, Germany has said war is off the table for them. When you don't have force as a last measure, you don't seem to have a convicing arguement in this case.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you have, in fact, cited nothing. CORPUS SEPARATUM - Term used in the U.N. 1947 Partition Plan to describe the proposed independent status of Jerusalem that would not be the exclusive property of either the proposed Arab or Jewish state. Like all General Assembly resolutions, this was only a recommendation rather than an internationally legally binding instrument like the League of Nations' mandate for Palestine

Thats fine, but I want some money for north Korea next that says "Tomarrow South Korea" Their job is to help people get rights, not to help them get their politcal message out about indirectly related issues. or is Jerusalem nessasary for their freedom of speech now It has clearly been peaceful but without watching where the moeny went, they allowed themselves to be seen as supporting a side. A "our bad" after the fact isn't sufficent.

So, if I gave 10 million dollars to Bin Laden for him to by medical supplies for little kids, and he turns around and buys weapons with that, can I get out of it by saying "well, I thought it was for a good cause?" HELL NO There should have been watch dogs or no funding at all.

Jerusalem tomarrow?!?! at the very least the UN shouldn't, without voting, support that position. Much less fund it.

Like, I don't know, blow up a bunch of their young people who are dancing in night clubs? <_<

And, sadly, they are starting to prove Bush correct...

The story boils down to this: The United Nations is embroiled in a dispute with American Jewish organizations over the funding of Palestinian banners in Gaza, and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton on Wednesday protested the "unacceptable" payments. The dispute centers on the U.N. Development Program's payment for materials produced by the Palestinian Authority for Israel's disengagement from Gaza which include banners saying: "Gaza Today. The West Bank and Jerusalem Tomorrow" Link to Story You know, I like the U.N. and hate Bolton, but man do they just make you want to scream sometimes. I can't find the specific mug they meantion, but I found: Now, you might agree, but the UN should NOT be funding this kind of statement in any way.

I'm getting nothing. Is 'Yrkoon' the correct spelling? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I already did search, and I googled it. I saw this is a member who is registered with many forums named yrkoon, but not this one. I assumed that one of our members was yrkoon under a different name, as taks post would suggest, so I asked. Evidently the search function is my friend, but unfortunatly it's the only one who is civil enough to be freindly. I thought asking who "yrkoon" is, in a thread where no yrkoon posted and someone made a comment suggesting he/she did, wasn't too ambitious on my part. Clearly I was mistaken

anyone know who yrkoon is? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I guess I got what I asked for

that sounds dirty I'm surprised I don't get "Kummy" more.

September 21st. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> sooner than I thought

Hit the next button and you'll see a HIGH-larious clip, better than the ninja one

anyone know who yrkoon is?

Obviously, I didn't think I suggested anything that dramatic. At all. If you can be arrogant and correct, than I suppose thats what I was. Plain and simple: ALOT of people talked about the US election. How many people talk about the German elections or otherwise? How many non-americans? So I guess most people here DO want to talk about the US and not talk about other elections. I mean, if me saying what everyone is actaully doing out loud makes me arrogant, so be it. Yep, I never said I didn't follow things at all (after all I AM following the German election to a degree). I do very much follow along with Iraq and Afganistan. etc etc. But when people demand I pay attention to such and such election, it usually tells me it's not worth paying attention too. There is, but lets face it, many of our states are more economically and culturally relevant than most countries. It's not like Sweden is equal, in terms of world impact, to the US. I'm sure I could argue that some of our state goverments are just as sophisticated as some goverments. You think it's silly that we don't pay more attention to other elections, but we got ALOT going on over here.