2 edits
Shavixmir: " ....... the UN, the arse-licking-puppy puppet of the US, ..... "
As it happens the European left (.... well, actually not all of them really, maybe I should say the fundamentalist left) considers the UN a body which actively serves the interests of the United States.
As you all may know the American right looks at this international body exactly the opposite way. They dislike the UN in the same manner, but for exactly the opposite reason.
Now this is an interesting political fact, don't you think ?
They can't be both right ... or can they ?
Does anybody have any rational ideas which explain this apparently contradictory phenomenon ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe UN is the lapdog of the intellectual left and consequently, it is often used as a forum to denounce or bash the United States and Israel. Therefore, it serves no useful purpose.
Shavixmir: " ....... the UN, the arse-licking-puppy puppet of the US, ..... "
As it happens the European left (.... well, actually not all of them really, maybe I should say the fundamentalist left) considers the UN a body which actively serves the interests of the United States.
As you all may know the American right looks at this international body e ...[text shortened]... oes anybody have any rational ideas which explain this apparently contradictory phenomenon ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe U.N. is foe to the left, the right and the center. I cannot for the life of me justify it's existance.
Shavixmir: " ....... the UN, the arse-licking-puppy puppet of the US, ..... "
As it happens the European left (.... well, actually not all of them really, maybe I should say the fundamentalist left) considers the UN a body which actively serves the interests of the United States.
As you all may know the American right looks at this international body e ...[text shortened]... oes anybody have any rational ideas which explain this apparently contradictory phenomenon ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeUN representatives must be chosen in free and fair elections, the UN must have a constitution spelling out powers the UN has vs. powers constituent countries have, and the countries on the Security Council who hold veto power must give that up.
Shavixmir: " ....... the UN, the arse-licking-puppy puppet of the US, ..... "
As it happens the European left (.... well, actually not all of them really, maybe I should say the fundamentalist left) considers the UN a body which actively serves the interests of the United States.
As you all may know the American right looks at this international body e ...[text shortened]... oes anybody have any rational ideas which explain this apparently contradictory phenomenon ?
Until then, yep, it's broke.
But not because either the Left or the Right hate it.
Another good idea gone bad.
It's broke.
Take all your stuff and go home, fix yourself first, then come back.
No more penthouses in NYC, No more high class NY hookers, lobster or fine champagna. No more free parking .. anywhere you want. No more diplomatic immunity .. just take your stuff and go home.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeLeft, right -- whatever. Your thought processes are handicapped by an obsession with labels that have little objective meaning. Surely the class of people you label "the right" does not march in lockstep like some kind of Borg collective, everyone doing the same thing. Some on "the right" scorn the UN by ignoring it, while others express their cynicism and derision by actively working the UN like a puppet. The former variety would view the UN as being pernicious because it does not serve US interests; the latter, however, wouldn't necessarily see things that way.
Shavixmir: " ....... the UN, the arse-licking-puppy puppet of the US, ..... "
As it happens the European left (.... well, actually not all of them really, maybe I should say the fundamentalist left) considers the UN a body which actively serves the interests of the United States.
As you all may know the American right looks at this international body e oes anybody have any rational ideas which explain this apparently contradictory phenomenon ?
Now apply the same kind of analysis to your "left" or "fundamentalist left" (whatever the hell that means).
Originally posted by SoothfastGet over yourself. Its an internet chess board. Generalizations are handy for simplifying matters. Nobody wants to get into boring, Al Gore style discussion.
Left, right -- whatever. Your thought processes are handicapped by an obsession with labels that have little objective meaning. Surely the class of people you label "the right" does not march in lockstep like some kind of Borg collective, everyone doing the same thing. Some on "the right" scorn the UN by ignoring it, while others express their cynicism and ...[text shortened]... ind of analysis to your "left" or "fundamentalist left" (whatever the hell that means).
Originally posted by ivanhoethe UN is a large, multifaceted conglomerate. anyone looking at it from any viewpoint can pick and choose much of what they choose to see, so that the UN appears to them however they choose it to appear.
Shavixmir: " ....... the UN, the arse-licking-puppy puppet of the US, ..... "
As it happens the European left (.... well, actually not all of them really, maybe I should say the fundamentalist left) considers the UN a body which actively serves the interests of the United States.
As you all may know the American right looks at this international body e ...[text shortened]... oes anybody have any rational ideas which explain this apparently contradictory phenomenon ?
Originally posted by MerkLabels like "left" and "right"*, as used on this forum, are totally worthless -- but I take issue with them only because they're nevertheless used here to make some kind of a case. A "leftie" in Europe is way left of the typical "leftie" in the US, and I myself in no way identify with what passes for a mainstream "leftie" in the US or Europe. So, in conclusion, I exhort certain people here to quit setting up meaningless labels for people as strawmen to be knocked down by blockheaded generalizations.
Get over yourself. Its an internet chess board. Generalizations are handy for simplifying matters. Nobody wants to get into boring, Al Gore style discussion.
* Wanna supersize that order of quotation marks? 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastI disagree. Generalizations are required. I'll show you why.
Labels like "left" and "right"*, as used on this forum, are totally worthless -- but I take issue with them only because they're nevertheless used here to make some kind of a case. A "leftie" in Europe is way left of the typical "leftie" in the US, and I myself in no way identify with what passes for a mainstream "leftie" in the US or Europe. So, in conclu ...[text shortened]... blockheaded generalizations.
* Wanna supersize that order of quotation marks? 😉
To some, perhaps a plurality, perhaps a majority of those who identify in some ways with the left in America and/or Europe and/or other parts of the world, the UN is seen as a puppet of the U.S. And to some, perhaps a plurality, perhaps a majority of those who identify in some ways with the right in America and/or Europe and/or other parts of the world, the U.N. is seen as a tool with which to bash the U.S.....
Is it nap time yet Mr. Gore?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe UN can never work while countries have the veto vote.
Shavixmir: " ....... the UN, the arse-licking-puppy puppet of the US, ..... "
As it happens the European left (.... well, actually not all of them really, maybe I should say the fundamentalist left) considers the UN a body which actively serves the interests of the United States.
As you all may know the American right looks at this international body e ...[text shortened]... oes anybody have any rational ideas which explain this apparently contradictory phenomenon ?
1 nation (US) invades another (Panama), the world wants to condemn it, the same nation says no. World is silenced.
1 nation (Israel) commits numerous war crimes against others, the world wish to condemn these acts, this nation's protector (US) vetoes. World is silenced.
1 nation (USSR) invades another (Afghanistan). The world wishes to protest. The invading nation says no. World is silenced.
How could it ever work with the Veto?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
D