The U.N. is ridiculous, seriously ridiculous

[Lucius]

I'm the one who said taks is a great member of the community.  Of course, I must think that you are also, Lucius, else I wouldn't sign off on all your posts. 

 

Some of you might notice that I've changed the word "retarded" to "ridiculous" in the title.  I did so because, after reviewing the guidelines, it seems to me that retarded might be an innately offensive term, even if it is leveled at no particular member of these fora.  as always, I endeavor to find the least offensive word that best conveys the original meaning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah well, although it's good that you do, it's way too late for anyone to see em. Not that I have that much to contribute with anyway.

I did PM the green fly thingie, but that was four days ago and no answer.

 

But as for his post, just showing up and calling everything about the UN and its members commies or whatever, and disappearing again without a trace seems strangely... odd to me.

[Cantousent]

I think he was joking. Then again, taks is a hardcore capitalist, so nothing burns him more than a commie. :Eldar's shaking his head about the nature of commies and capitalists icon:

[metadigital]

Uh... so why the hell is anyone still paying attention to the UN? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sssshh!

 

 

 

 

 

It's there for all the little countries to think they have a higher authority to report the biggesr countries to. Bigger countries don't need to take it seriously, and therefore don't.

[taks]

You read this whole thread and that is the thing you choose to comment on?

because that was the stupidest statement in this whole thread. otherwise, there is some good debate to be read...

 

 

Theres a whole big world out there, you know outside of George Bush's pants

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ok, now wait... it's NOT ok for me to comment on an ideological rant, but it's ok for commissar to make it? particularly one that has nothing to do with the thread in the first place. folks like you just need to air your gripe that such a dumb republican got elected again.

 

you're right, there's a whole big world out there and idiotic statements dwelling on irrelevant issues need to be dropped for substantive discussion. get over yourself...

 

taks

[Lucius]

You read this whole thread and that is the thing you choose to comment on?

because that was the stupidest statement in this whole thread. otherwise, there is some good debate to be read...

 

 

Theres a whole big world out there, you know outside of George Bush's pants

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ok, now wait... it's NOT ok for me to comment on an ideological rant, but it's ok for commissar to make it? particularly one that has nothing to do with the thread in the first place. folks like you just need to air your gripe that such a dumb republican got elected again.

 

you're right, there's a whole big world out there and idiotic statements dwelling on irrelevant issues need to be dropped for substantive discussion. get over yourself...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Substantive" as in calling everything about the UN communist?

[taks]

Chuckle all you want.  Trust me, we're laughing just as much whenever those folks on the right suggest that Bush has anything of an intellect. 

well, he did do better than kerry at yale, so i guess you guys on the left ran a bigger idiot. both of which, again, have degrees from yale...

 

and btw, exactly where does YOUR lofty perch come from allowing you to comment as such?

 

Something other than sit there.

yet, no ideas on what he should have done. pretty good poll there. an even better argument.

 

and let's digest your argument... hmmm, WTC hit by planes, president speaking to children, AHHHHH! run, run now, quick, hold up the towers! yes, that's it!

 

If Kerry had done it, I'd have called him on it.  If Clinton had done it, I'd have called him on it.  If George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln had done it, I'd have called them on it.

now you're simply being a hypocrite.

 

Why not just say, "Yeah, that was a bad move, but we've recovered from it and I like what he's doing now."

because it wasn't.

 

Anyway, I like the UN, but changes definitely need to be made, both in terms of reforming the actual institution and the way America interacts with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it should be eliminated, or at least the US should withdraw.

 

taks

[taks]

BTW. What mod was it that said Taks had a lot good stuff to contribute with? LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're right... i can't even contribute substance as great as this, an obvious flame. oh boy, you're really posting from a moral high ground, aren't you? good job, such moderating powers are obviously well earned.

 

taks

[Cantousent]

cut out the flame baiting, folks. Don't use up all your flame now or you won't have any left for the mid-term elections.

[taks]

But as for his post, just showing up and calling everything about the UN and its members commies or whatever, and disappearing again without a trace seems strangely... odd to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or maybe, strangely, i was at work and unavailable?

 

i regularly slam the UN. every chance i get. i have made my views more than available to anyone who asks. it was founded by communists, it's documents were forged by communists (algier hiss, anyone?), it is run by communists and has plans for communist world rule.

 

the UN is an unelected, and therefore unrepresentative, bureaucratic cluster**** that has its own interests at heart. the UN does not care about the people of the world. it cares only for putting the powerful in their place, subservient to the "elite" leadership of the world. evidence for a pattern of abuse and corruption is not only readily available, it's blatantly out in the open. the UN is a scourge and any freedom loving individual in the entire world should openly object to continued support of such a criminal organization.

 

taks

[taks]

"Substantive" as in calling everything about the UN communist? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if the shoe fits...

 

better than your flame, even if it was weak.

 

taks

[draakh_kimera]

i regularly slam the UN.  every chance i get.  i have made my views more than available to anyone who asks.  it was founded by communist, it's documents were forged by communists (algier hiss, anyone?), run by communists and has plans for communist world rule. 

 

the UN is an unelected, and therefore unrepresentative, bureaucratic cluster**** that has its own interests at heart.  the UN does not care about the people of the world.  it cares only for putting the powerful in their place, subservient to the "elite" leadership of the world.  evidence for a pattern of abuse and corruption is not only readily available, it's blatantly out in the open.  the UN is a scourge and any freedom loving individual in the entire world should openly object to continued support of such a criminal organization.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that there's a conspiracy theorist on the boards?

 

But seriously, the UN, out for global communism? They're the source of the HDI, UNICEF (is unicef communist too?), and they're constantly trying to get aid to where it's needed. In short, they try to help those that need help and at the same time keep a record of the development of the countries of the world. [sarcasm]That really really wreaks of communism, huh?[/sarcasm]

[SteveThaiBinh]

the UN does not care about the people of the world.  it cares only for putting the powerful in their place, subservient to the "elite" leadership of the world.  evidence for a pattern of abuse and corruption is not only readily available, it's blatantly out in the open.

UNESCO's Education for All Campaign

 

UNICEF funds sanitation, education and children's rights projects in India

 

UNDP helps Belarus government combat women-trafficking

[Cantousent]

Okay, let's not get off topic. Anyhow, taks, you've got Lucius at a disadvantage since he must wait for me to put through his posts. It's not exactly sporting, you know.

 

Now, let's get back to bashing or defending the UN rather than each other.

[metadigital]

... UNICEF (is unicef communist too?), and they're constantly trying to get aid to where it's needed.  In short, they try to help those that need help and at the same time keep a record of the development of the countries of the world.  [sarcasm]That really really wreaks of communism, huh?[/sarcasm]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, UNICEF is communist, moreso than any other part of the organisation.

...

the UN is an unelected, and therefore unrepresentative, bureaucratic cluster**** that has its own interests at heart.  the UN does not care about the people of the world.  it cares only for putting the powerful in their place, subservient to the "elite" leadership of the world.  evidence for a pattern of abuse and corruption is not only readily available, it's blatantly out in the open.  the UN is a scourge and any freedom loving individual in the entire world should openly object to continued support of such a criminal organization.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is sadly true. It seems a given condition of human nature, an unrepresentative organisation tneds to abuse the power invested in it.

 

Look at the EU, they sacked every accountant whistle-blower who refused to sign off on the blatant corruption that in endemic in the the organisation: from how it awards contracts, to who receives a kickback.

 

It's sickening, and arguably the real reason that the French and Dutch referrenda to approve the European Constitution were soundly defeated.

 

It's a pity that life is immitating art; how soon before there are UNATCO troops on the streets of New York ... :ph34r: ... come back JC (Denton), all is forgiven!

[Colrom]

You know, I like the U.N. and hate Bolton, but man do they just make you want to scream sometimes.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you say, although your views on a variety of topics seem to match Bolton's well enough.

 

Anyway, I find it interesting that the mug you show is in English rather than Arabic.

 

Most Palistinians wouldn't be able to understand a mug like that.

 

What is the market for coffee mugs over there anyway?

 

How much of this story will still be true 5 days from now or 30 days from now?

 

Perhaps it would be best to see the real thing and also how things develop.

 

God knows there is plenty of propaganda on display in the region by all parties and the original sources for this story (Israeli sources and FOX) seem to have axes to grind also.

[Calax]

Anyway, I like the UN, but changes definitely need to be made, both in terms of reforming the actual institution and the way America interacts with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it should be eliminated, or at least the US should withdraw.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you do that it become a League of Nations and ends up not having any jaws what so ever and people just ignore it (Not that they don't now, they would just ignore it in public.)

[Darque]

All I have to say is the UN is an outdated concept, with more corruption than the US government and should be disolved... or at least the USA should pull out (which would result in the same thing)

[jaguars4ever]

And here's what Black Bush has to say about the U.N. :D

[EnderAndrew]

All I have to say is the UN is an outdated concept, with more corruption than the US government and should be disolved... or at least the USA should pull out (which would result in the same thing)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ender pushes the Reboot button on the UN.

[Walsingham]

I don't agree that unrepresentative automatically makes rubbish. We were decrying partisan shenanigans just now, and the best examples I know of non-partisan government come from the House of Lords in the UK. It isonly very recently that I've seen any partisan behaviour and that was only from life peers put in by this govt.

 

UN good? Good at managing stable projects in stable situations. Terrible at taking effective action on anything more contentious than ordering paperclips. Communist? No. A recognition of the simple fact that there are such things as global problems that must be debated and dealt with globally? Yes. A common policy on disease control, for example, is not communist; it's common sense.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't agree that unrepresentative automatically makes rubbish.  We were decrying partisan shenanigans just now, and the best examples I know of non-partisan government come from the House of Lords in the UK. It isonly very recently that I've seen any partisan behaviour and that was only from life peers put in by this govt.

How does a voted representative necessarily make him or her partisan? Given that there is one representative for the US, we wouldn't have two representatives bickering over Democratic vs Republican platforms.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Actually, UNICEF is communist, moreso than any other part of the organisation.

Wow, I guess they got their wires crossed recently. They actually condemned their communist masters in Nepal for bombing schools, and defended children's attendance at private schools. That's not in the Communist Manifesto! What were they thinking?

 

UNICEF is not a perfect organisation. I take issue with the way it conceptualises women as mothers and little more, promoting women's education only for the benefits it brings to the children, not to the women themselves. I wouldn't say it was communist, though, and I wonder if there's anywhere it's not welcome.

[Commissar]

ok, now wait... it's NOT ok for me to comment on an ideological rant, but it's ok for commissar to make it?  particularly one that has nothing to do with the thread in the first place.  folks like you just need to air your gripe that such a dumb republican got elected again.

 

you're right, there's a whole big world out there and idiotic statements dwelling on irrelevant issues need to be dropped for substantive discussion.  get over yourself...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was actually making a fairly bipartisan point, Taks. You'll notice I included a Democratic example right after the Republican one.

[Commissar]

Chuckle all you want.  Trust me, we're laughing just as much whenever those folks on the right suggest that Bush has anything of an intellect. 

well, he did do better than kerry at yale, so i guess you guys on the left ran a bigger idiot. both of which, again, have degrees from yale...

 

and btw, exactly where does YOUR lofty perch come from allowing you to comment as such?

I'm pretty smart. That's where my lofty perch comes in. And I've always believed college transcripts show how well a person did in college, not much more.

 

Something other than sit there.

yet, no ideas on what he should have done. pretty good poll there. an even better argument.

 

and let's digest your argument... hmmm, WTC hit by planes, president speaking to children, AHHHHH! run, run now, quick, hold up the towers! yes, that's it!

I'm fairly sure that wasn't my suggestion, to tell you the truth. I didn't make one beyond a vague 'something.' Because yes, I feel that 'something' would have been better than 'nothing.' He could've gotten up, excused himself, and asked...oh, I don't know, something like, "Who is attacking us?" or "Are our fighters scrambled?" or even something as generic as, "What's being done? What can we do?"

 

If Kerry had done it, I'd have called him on it.  If Clinton had done it, I'd have called him on it.  If George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln had done it, I'd have called them on it.

now you're simply being a hypocrite.

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

 

Why not just say, "Yeah, that was a bad move, but we've recovered from it and I like what he's doing now."

because it wasn't.

And this is exactly my point. You can't have a rational argument with anyone who thinks the proper course of action for a president who has just been told the country is under attack is to sit there. Because they don't really think that, they just want to defend their side of the ball.

 

Anyway, I like the UN, but changes definitely need to be made, both in terms of reforming the actual institution and the way America interacts with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it should be eliminated, or at least the US should withdraw.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does it need to be eliminated? Other than the absurd communist suggestion, I mean. Simply because it disagrees with US actions a lot? Well, sorry to break it to you, but the UN is not our playtoy. It is usually a pretty accurate representation of what the world thinks, and the world quite often thinks we're doing the wrong thing. I know that doesn't matter to anyone who voted Republican last fall - them durned for'ners don't know what they're talking about, living in their little grass huts and hating Jesus - but it could become a problem in the future.

 

The UN, simply put, is the best forum for the US to get its world policy message out there - whenever it finds a coherent one. And like it or not, UN approval does provide a sheen of legitimacy to actions that would not otherwise be there.

 

Does it need reforming? Certainly seems to. But calling it a lost cause is, in my view, incorrect.

[EnderAndrew]

I was actually making a fairly bipartisan point, Taks.  You'll notice I included a Democratic example right after the Republican one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You said you would have criticized a Democrat for the same thing.

 

You didn't actually criticize Democrats on any level however. You simply critized a Republican for a situation that was akward.

 

The guy was surrounded by little children and television cameras while discovering news that the United States had just suffered an attack worse than Pearl Harbor.

 

I'll agree his reaction didn't come across as strong, but he didn't panic either.

 

I'll also note that I never once came across a single Democrat who criticized Clinton save for myself. The guy gave China favored trading partner status as China was threatening to use nukes on Taiwan. Amnesty International and the UN were up in arms over human rights violations, and American businesses were up in arms over China's admission of pirating billions of dollars of IP daily.

 

Clinton just said, "let me rape the trade deficit even more".

 

Clinton was also linked to a Chinese business official that was found buried in Arlington National Cemetary, and illegal campaign contributions from a foreign government, namely China.

 

The guy changed his story every two seconds and refused to admit anytime he was caught in a lie.

 

"It depends on what your definition of is is."

 

Surely Clinton had just as many moments, if not worse when he made himself and his country look bad.

 

To say that you would have criticized Clinton isn't necessarily a bipartisan statement. You only criticized Bush, and I sure didn't notice any Democrats criticize Clinton when he made mistakes.