Originally posted by TheBloopThe family is well thanks Bloop. I've given you a rec - mainly for the Bobby Fischer bit but moreover in general as a thank you for answering the post thoroughly.
[b]There appears to be a problem for the UN that Americans just laugh at it. If Americans started to support and galvanise the UN rather than laughing at it and ignoring it might becaome a more dynamic organisation.
A lot of Americans love the U.N., but a lot of us also think the U.N. is a joke... they never accomplish anything, all they seem to do ...[text shortened]... le...congratulations on becoming a daddy earlier this year! Hope all is well on the homefront..[/b]
I have no problem being on a Human Rights Commision. There is no point having a commision with just one perspective.
I believe that the UN is impotent on Israel because it takes a different line on the issue to the Bush govt. Therefore nobody is keeping Israel in check. That said, this year has been the most progressive for peace Israel in recent years.
Originally posted by TheBloopYou forgot number 6. S*IT their pants.
I don't know why I didn't think of this before...
Jacques Chirac should put down his fiddle and take the following actions:
1) Call the U.N.
2) Convene a meeting of the U.N. Security Council
3) Ask Council to pass a resolution condemning the violence taking place in France
4) Include language in the resolution that further action will be taken if ...[text shortened]... n 120 days.
5) When violence does not end in 120 days, repeat steps 1-4
That should stop it.
Originally posted by chancremechanichey numbnuts, europe isn't one country. some of us "euros" have stood with america and some haven't.
Typical Euro response...your "smiley" faces speak a thousand words about "inaction"!!!
Personally I supported action against Iraq, and still support a presence there.
Europe does not necessarily equal liberal, tree-hugging, hippie crap.
But we are different from each other over here. You wouldn't like it if i started calling you Canadian.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightwestYou're right. You have been more than fair on threads I've read that you have posted. I don't think Chancremechanic was referring to you. He was answering the thread of that assclown Ragnorak.
hey numbnuts, europe isn't one country. some of us "euros" have stood with america and some haven't.
Personally I supported action against Iraq, and still support a presence there.
Europe does not necessarily equal liberal, tree-hugging, hippie crap.
But we are different from each other over here. You wouldn't like it if i started calling you Canadian.
Originally posted by knightwestSorry, mate, to generalize all Euros as the same...Slimjim correctly surmised what I meant. Besides, you're a Brit, I think, which generally means a different attitude, but not always, from that of mainland Europe. Cheers
hey numbnuts, europe isn't one country. some of us "euros" have stood with america and some haven't.
Personally I supported action against Iraq, and still support a presence there.
Europe does not necessarily equal liberal, tree-hugging, hippie crap.
But we are different from each other over here. You wouldn't like it if i started calling you Canadian.
Originally posted by TheBloop"Again, the U.N. is all talk, which is useless when you're dealing with someone like Saddam..."
[b]There appears to be a problem for the UN that Americans just laugh at it. If Americans started to support and galvanise the UN rather than laughing at it and ignoring it might becaome a more dynamic organisation.
A lot of Americans love the U.N., but a lot of us also think the U.N. is a joke... they never accomplish anything, all they seem to do ...[text shortened]... le...congratulations on becoming a daddy earlier this year! Hope all is well on the homefront..[/b]
We all know the Yanks are experts when it comes to 'dealing' with Saddam. (right Cheyney?)
Originally posted by howardgeeNow, now, Howard.....you know Bush exhausted every means of dealing with Saddam through the UN, dating back to 1991 when Iraq started violating UN mandates, not unlike Hitler violating the Versailles mandates after WWI....if the UN truly excercised its powers, Saddam would have been removed without bloodshed....or minimal at the least
"Again, the U.N. is all talk, which is useless when you're dealing with someone like Saddam..."
We all know the Yanks are experts when it comes to 'dealing' with Saddam. (right Cheyney?)
Originally posted by chancremechanicActually I am German, but I have lived in Britain for 22 years of my life (i'm 27 now) so I guess the mentality has rubbed off.
Sorry, mate, to generalize all Euros as the same...Slimjim correctly surmised what I meant. Besides, you're a Brit, I think, which generally means a different attitude, but not always, from that of mainland Europe. Cheers
With regards to Germany not supporting the war, I am ashamed of that, especially after all the US has done for Germany in the past. Two points need to be remembered about Chancellor Schroder's stance. First of, he needed to win an election and at the time, not going to was a crowd pleaser. Secondly, Germany has, since 1945 at least, been very shy about deplying troops in foreign countries. This is more understandable given the county's history.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Blair went to war against prevailing public opinion. I am not a labour supporter, but for that decision I respect him.
The french have always been dubious, and in the case of iraq, France had its hands so far in Saddam's pockets that its not surprising they were against war.
Other European countries helped out, Spain for a while, Italy too. And I am sure that there were some eastern European troops in the Gulf as well.
The US did everything they could to convince the UN that action was needed. I liken the whole situation to a small child. After a while it will realise that your threats of a slap are empty, and it will behave like it wants. Iraq acted like that child. I find it grossly irrespnsible of the UN to not now support the action in Iraq. Surely for long-term success that is a must.
To the people who say this war is only about oil, you're wrong. Oil plays a part for sure, but only in as much as that you can't let a proclaimed enemy of the West control a vital resource. To do so would be foolish to the extreme, and even those people who demonstrated against the war would think is sucks once their heating is turned off because Iraq has closed the oil taps.
Chancremechanic, I take back the numbnuts, it was uncalled for.
🙂
Originally posted by knightwestI would be very interested in your reasons for supporting the war. You state in other posts that it was not just about Oil.
Personally I supported action against Iraq, and still support a presence there.
Yes it was also about money in the arms business, middle east politics (oil related) etc. The theory that Sadam was a direct threat to the US was unfounded at the time and was used as an excuse. The theory that he was a cruel dictator and needed to be overthrown is a very good one but does not hold up to scrutiny as there are many other countries with simmilar or worse dictatorships and the US is doing nothing about them. There were also many other ways to achieve a simmilar result without war but those would not have resulted in US control of the oil and massive spending on arms and other businesses related to the war. I personally would have supported a precision bomb on Sadam himself. Followed by funding for education because until people are educated they can always be swayed by people whos motives are not the best for the country.
Originally posted by knightwestYou respect Blair for going against public opinion?
On the other hand, Prime Minister Blair went to war against prevailing public opinion. I am not a labour supporter, but for that decision I respect him.
I always thought that the point of democracy was that the people in charge controlled the country as the public wanted it to be. So you respect him for being like a dictator, and doing whatever he wants? And then arresting 600 people for voicing their anger at the fact that he doesn't represent the people using "anti-terror" laws that he introduced to help the fight on terror, but he actually uses it to stop dissention to his dictatorial like rule.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2028602005
You and those other bumchums make a great trio.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakSometimes heads of state have to make tough decisions that go against public opinion. Democracy does not equal mob rule. just because a large number of people demonstrated against war does not even make that public opinion. In fact during those demos there was a large silent majority in support of the war who didn't take to the streets. I count myslef in that group.
You respect Blair for going against public opinion?
I always thought that the point of democracy was that the people in charge controlled the country as the public wanted it to be. So you respect him for being like a dictator, and doing whatever he wants? And then arresting 600 people for voicing their anger at the fact that he doesn't represent the ...[text shortened]... //news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2028602005
You and those other bumchums make a great trio.
D
Also I used to live 2 minutes from Parliament and I saw how those marches were hijacked by the Communist Party, Greenpeace and any other fringe group with a grudge.
With regards to intelligence that the government had or didn't have I think the point is irrelevant, as it is certainly not necessary or beneficial that the public are made aware of information gathered byu the intelligence community.
Tony Blair is certainly not above board when it comes to pandering to public opinion. On example for this is the hunting ban. The gov destroyed a way of life and industry competely to give in to a large bunch of people who don't know what they were talking about.
So no, democracy is not about politicians blindly following wha the majority want. Democracy is about voting for the people who we believe are most likely to act in our interest. If we think they don't we can vote for someone else next time. The fact that Labour still holds a commanding majority shows that the majority of people do not feel misrepresented by the actions the government took. Even in Iraq, and sadly, fox hunting too.
Originally posted by RagnorakIf the majority of Britains are so alienated by the decision to go to Iraq, why is Labour still in power. And don't say because the Tories or Lib-Dems are no alternative, because if the people were really alienated about Iraq, they wouldn't have voted for Labour again.
Yes, they do. But normally, when the people don't want their country taking part in an illegal invasion, the head of state listens.
D
Fact is, a silent majority supported the war.