Question to those that dislike the UN.

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smoothdrive
Well if we'ld all be speaking German in Europe now than the Nazi's would be regarded the good guys..history has allways proven the victor to be the good guy somehow...I feel there are no "good guys".

I'm not so sure the US does not have an evil government at present.

Well, in my judgment as well as most of the world's - "good" and "bad" have many meanings. In the conext I was referring to however, as it pertains to governments in general, I think most most people would agree that governments that respect the human rights of its population and is elected by and for the people, and does not attack it's neighbors would be the "good" kind of government.

A government that rules with fear, murder, rape, torture, and disrespect for it's population and steals the nation's wealth for building extravagant palaces while it's people are starving is what I would consider a "bad" government. Do you disagree? If so, what are your definitions? All you say is this---- "I'm not so sure the US does not have an evil government at present"- whithout any explination at all.

Just because someone is in power doesn't mean they are the "good" guys, that is absurd. I think my definitions make more sense than just accepting the notion that whoever is in power is the good guy- did you read the post I wrote- It kind of explains why things don't work like that.

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by merry
The UN is the only worldwide organization with it's destination(s), it maybe ineffective, but it's the only one. Dismissing it won't do anything, reforming - it might.

Or maybe dismissing the UN and forming another more agreeable and usefull organization. One that holds true to it's resolutions!

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eyeguy616

Actually, the "democracy" we experience in America is slowly turning into a Democratic-Totalitarian kind of shape. Most people obey laws and trust the government in most issues not out of fear but because they've grown to accept it.

Let me tell you why this is wrong. We can vote out our government and change it without going into civil war. I think you left that part out. --

Remember when the democrats were running everything and Clinton just let terrorist attack us again and again? People didn't like it so the voted all the democtrats out. Now we have a republican government that doesn't take crap from terrorist without a fight and doesn't make the treasury print up a whole bunch of extra monet, then traise intrest rates to "slow down" the economy so huge piles of empty wealth is built up until the bubble bursts. People didn't like that crap, so now we have a whole new government. One where the leader is faihful to his wife and doesn't let any and every little girl suck his "cigar"-- Peole were fed up with the socialist direction we were headed so the voted the offenders out of office. Like it or not, that is what happend. It looks like I am in the magority too-- As I will be in 2004 when Bush gets re-elected

If your statement was true, the oldest living president would still be in charge. We have the constitution so what you said cannot possibly be true. Until the constitution is competely raped (as it being all the time) we still have a lot better chance to remain free than any other country in the world.

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
and if the World Bank and the Internation Monetary Fund allow IRAQ to rebuild itself before repaying debts then the country has a chance. I wonder how the U.N. will be a part of all this, it is a monumental task....

You mean their debts to France and Russia? They are gone- Saddam owes them money, not the Iraqi people, who are in control now and in the future, if France and Russia want to collect their money from Saddam, let them find him and collect it.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 14, 2003, 03:13 PM

Yeah but you ough more than anyone else for the war you supported and probably initiated that killed more than 3 milllion people and lasted ten years and for bringing Saddam into power in the fÃ*rst place.

The one reasonabale thing would be...you pay it all.

Bluelight

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
The only thing that has been proven is that

The world does not accept DICTATES..from the EMPIRE...

You even had to buy off some of your closest allies to get them on your side.. Some still......refused..

Bluelight

Saddam accepted a huge dictate didn't he? It's called come out with your hands up or face the consequence. Now he is running away- with no power or control. LOL I love it.

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Yeah but you ough more than anyone else for the war you supported and probably initiated that killed more than 3 milllion people and lasted ten years and for bringing Saddam into power in the fÃ*rst place.

The one reasonabale thing would be...you pay it all.

Bluelight

How about they get nothing and the Iraqi people keep it. And pay us back in oil for liberating them. France and Russia can take the loss for all I care- they were dealing in illegal arms for oil anyway.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 14, 2003, 03:18 PM

You put him in place.You pay.

Simple.

Truth and consequense.

Wont be like that though.

Too bad.

Bluelight

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 03:25 PM

He put himself in power- You think we should pay what? We don't live in a socialist "give all the money away" society like so many around the world. Those people think they are entitled to everything, to those people I say- go get a job and pay for it yourself. I know it is difficult to imagine this idea for most people, but that is the way it is. France and Russia can go rot.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 14, 2003, 03:35 PM

No actually...he didnt.The Cia was involved.Just like they were involved i getting Khadaffy into power.After they got into power several thousand people were killed immidietly by the new government.

Left wing people. Yes :-)

:-)

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 14, 2003, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
He put himself in power- You think we should pay what? We don't live in a socialist "give all the money away" society like so many around the world. Those people think they are entitled to everything, to those people

I say- go get a job

and pay for it yourself. I know it is difficult to imagine this idea for most people, but that is the way it is. France and Russia can go rot.

I say...................Well it seems we are getting to the real depths of argumentation very fast here....How could i expect anything else from you....

Bluelight

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 03:47 PM

It does sound like something the democrats would do- I gues it takes some republicans to fix the mistake (not that it ever happend) and take him out for good. Well, that's what we did, so that is that, and we couldn't have done it listening to the UN.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 14, 2003, 03:55 PM

The democrats?Well...some times arguments are hard to find....

First..."Go get a job" then...."The Democrats"...

Bluelight

BWX · Apr 14, 2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
The democrats?Well...some times arguments are hard to find....

First..."Go get a job" then...."The Democrats"...

Bluelight

Well I could ague about this,

"You put him in place.You pay.

Simple.

Truth and consequense.

Wont be like that though.

Too bad."

But I already have and you still think everything in the world is the US's fault. LOL

eyeguy616 · Apr 14, 2003, 05:21 PM

Hmm... BWX232 is on a roll.

Anyway, you (BWX232) were right, I did forget the fact that we can vote them out of office..... but I put 'slowly' in there for a reason. I don't see mass protests over the DMCA, UCITA, or the Patriot Act.... but I sincerely hope electing new officials will change/kill those. Who knows.... it may not even change anything. The biggest reason 'slowly' is there is the fact that the public opinion is very easily shaped and molded to fit what the gov needs. There may have been lots of protesters that were against the war, but the majority of the population was in favor of it thanks to how it was presented. Anything can be given a spin for better or worse, so all the gov has to do in "war-time" is filter things the way that's needed, similar to how countries that hate the US filter out any US victories and focus on its shortcomings and casualties (not that that's bad, but there is a lot more to the war).
You were also right on another thing: the current oldest president would still be in charge if he were making good decisions on certain key issues. FDR got four terms becuase he presented himself like a father figure with his "fireside chats" every so often on the radio. He was well liked, and we also needed a strong president to get us through WWII, which he died before it was over. It's that kind of intellegence in a president we seem to be lacking now (especially with Dubbya). ....I don't think we'll ever get someone who can be as great as FDR, Lincoln, or Washington again. Oh, and after FDR got four terms, they put a cap

.... I guess those other politicians didn't like the fact that someone could get elected and keep getting elected if he did things right.

Sorry for getting mildly off topic. I'll try to make a more meaningful post next time..... if it hasn't already been hammered out with the master debaters here.

~eyeguy616

-keepin' it coo,' stayin' in schoo'

Falstaff · Apr 14, 2003, 11:14 PM

public opinion is very easily shaped and molded to fit what the gov needs. There may have been lots of protesters that were against the war, but the majority of the population was in favor of it thanks to how it was presented. Anything can be given a spin for better or worse, so all the gov has to do in "war-time" is filter things the way that's needed, similar to how countries that hate the US filter out any US victories and focus on its shortcomings and casualties (not that that's bad, but there is a lot more to the war).

Are you saying the government (ours) manipulates the media to polarize public thinking and opinion?

FDR got four terms becuase he presented himself like a father figure with his "fireside chats" every so often on the radio. He was well liked, and we also needed a strong president to get us through WWII, which he died before it was over. It's that kind of intellegence in a president we seem to be lacking now (especially with Dubbya). ....I don't think we'll ever get someone who can be as great as FDR, Lincoln, or Washington again. Oh, and after FDR got four terms, they put a cap .... I guess those other politicians didn't like the fact that someone could get elected and keep getting elected if he did things right.

FDR got four terms because he could, he was ambitious for sure, but he had put into place a powerful political organization, he was afraid that communism would rear it's ugly head, so he created a very strong economy from the vestiges of the depression and got americans involved in thier country by putting them back to work and squarely involved in lots of projects..He had been called a "socialist jew" by his enemies (and there were many).
I admired FDR for many reasons, but he made lots of mistakes, could he have been as effective in this day and age? perhaps, he was savvy, and as you said he did use the media to his advantage too. Most of all, he was a strong president and even earned the respect of Stalin, who knew that FDR couldn't walk.

I don't feel your remarks were off topic, to the point, the whole quagmire of different aspirations and motives for creating the United Nations finally gelled after interest by Roosevelt. That may a gross generalization. But the U.N. got off to a good start. The Famous writer, speaker, Alastair Cooke who discussed the history of the U.N. in his "letters from America" in the BBC4 special years ago, put it into perspective for generations of americans..
http://db.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features...ir-cooke.shtml

BWX232- It does sound like something the democrats would do- I gues it takes some republicans to fix the mistake (not that it ever happend) and take him out for good. Well, that's what we did, so that is that, and we couldn't have done it listening to the UN.

Democrats-Republicans-Government agencies-the list goes on......all mend fences, coverup mistakes or perform damage control.......it's a political reality...it implies flexibility in my opinion...

You mean their debts to France and Russia? They are gone- Saddam owes them money, not the Iraqi people, who are in control now and in the future, if France and Russia want to collect their money from Saddam, let them find him and collect it.

I wish that were true...but it is not..The U.N. was involved in arranging the debt's that Kuwait demanded from IRAQ...that is not going away...France and Germany and Russia are not the only countries that invested heavily in IRAQ...There were lots of political investments too. IRAQ will pay..to rebuild credibility, perhaps it's debts will be forgiven from one standpoint, but even now as we speak...they might as well be sitting in a taxi that isn't going anywhere, the counter is still clicking off the time or the mileage...IRAQ will have get some serious support to repay the debts that will still owe after this all over...it isn't Yugoslavia anymore...Its a darn good thing they have oil....

BWX · Apr 15, 2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eyeguy616
Hmm... BWX232 is on a roll.
Anyway, you (BWX232) were right, I did forget the fact that we can vote them out of office..... but I put 'slowly' in there for a reason. I don't see mass protests over the DMCA, UCITA, or the Patriot Act.... but I sincerely hope electing new officials will change/kill those. Who knows.... it may not even change anything. The biggest reason 'slowly' is there is the fact that the public opinion is very easily shaped and molded to fit what the gov needs. There may have been lots of protesters that were against the war, but the majority of the population was in favor of it thanks to how it was presented. Anything can be given a spin for better or worse, so all the gov has to do in "war-time" is filter things the way that's needed, similar to how countries that hate the US filter out any US victories and focus on its shortcomings and casualties (not that that's bad, but there is a lot more to the war).
You were also right on another thing: the current oldest president would still be in charge if he were making good decisions on certain key issues. FDR got four terms becuase he presented himself like a father figure with his "fireside chats" every so often on the radio. He was well liked, and we also needed a strong president to get us through WWII, which he died before it was over. It's that kind of intellegence in a president we seem to be lacking now (especially with Dubbya). ....I don't think we'll ever get someone who can be as great as FDR, Lincoln, or Washington again. Oh, and after FDR got four terms, they put a cap .... I guess those other politicians didn't like the fact that someone could get elected and keep getting elected if he did things right.

Sorry for getting mildly off topic. I'll try to make a more meaningful post next time..... if it hasn't already been hammered out with the master debaters here.
~eyeguy616
-keepin' it coo,' stayin' in schoo'

LOL, well I can say this- It IS getting worse and not better. I mean think about it, My grandFather had more freedoms in the US than I ever will. My Father had less freedoms than My Grandfather. Now I can almost be certain by the time I have kids that are old enought to come argue on a forum like this, It is possible it will be illegal to flip someone off. It is worse now, and that is the way life is, the fact that I have to wear my seatbelt or I get a ticket is BS!- I mean, I would and do wear it anyway, but I don't want some moron in Washington TELLING me I have to wear it-I also think it it completely stupid to talk on a Cell-phone when driving a car if you are incompetant and can't stay in your lane when doing so, but I happen to be of above average driving skill and If I had a cellphone I could do it just fine and don't want the blasted government telling me I can't. But if enough people said they didn't want those rules, they would be gone after a while- BUT- it is allot easier to MAKE a law than to get rid of a law, and since we are a country of laws, they tend to pile up on us. That's why I think you are partially right.

But I still wouldn't want to have been born and raised anywhere else!!!

BWX · Apr 15, 2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
[b]url]

BWX232- It does sound like something the democrats would do- I gues it takes some republicans to fix the mistake (not that it ever happend) and take him out for good. Well, that's what we did, so that is that, and we couldn't have done it listening to the UN.

Democrats-Republicans-Government agencies-the list goes on......all mend fences, coverup mistakes or perform damage control.......it's a political reality...it implies flexibility in my opinion...

You mean their debts to France and Russia? They are gone- Saddam owes them money, not the Iraqi people, who are in control now and in the future, if France and Russia want to collect their money from Saddam, let them find him and collect it.

I wish that were true...but it is not..The U.N. was involved in arranging the debt's that Kuwait demanded from IRAQ...that is not going away...France and Germany and Russia are not the only countries that invested heavily in IRAQ...There were lots of political investments too. IRAQ will pay..to rebuild credibility, perhaps it's debts will be forgiven from one standpoint, but even now as we speak...they might as well be sitting in a taxi that isn't going anywhere, the counter is still clicking off the time or the mileage...IRAQ will have get some serious support to repay the debts that will still owe after this all over...it isn't Yugoslavia anymore...Its a darn good thing they have oil....

Well if any of the debts are on the "up-n'-up" if you know what i mean, they should be paid for by Iraq, but I truly believe that the mojority of debts owed to Russia and France are for illegal arms for oil of some other perversion of the food for oil program. I mean, you just can't hold the poor repressed Iraqi people accountable for the past debts of there insane past leader. They have an entire country to rebuild from the ground up. They should be responsible for SOME of the money it cost to rid them of Saddam, and any legitimate debts to other countries that the Iraqi people themselves benefited by (but I bet you would have a hard time finding any).....

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 15, 2003, 12:02 PM

He truly believes that Russia and France has been selling "illegal" arms to Iraq although Iraq has been under sanctions by the UN.Sanctions that has been withheld and controlled by among others USA and Britain....

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 15, 2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
LOL, well I can say this- It IS getting worse and not better. I mean think about it, My grandFather had more freedoms in the US than I ever will. My Father had less freedoms than My Grandfather. Now I can almost be certain by the time I have kids that are old enought to come argue on a forum like this, It is possible it will be illegal to flip someone off. It is worse now, and that is the way life is, the fact that I have to wear my seatbelt or I get a ticket is BS!- I mean, I would and do wear it anyway, but I don't want some moron in Washington TELLING me I have to wear it-I also think it it completely stupid to talk on a Cell-phone when driving a car if you are incompetant and can't stay in your lane when doing so, but I happen to be of above average driving skill and If I had a cellphone I could do it just fine and don't want the blasted government telling me I can't. But if enough people said they didn't want those rules, they would be gone after a while- BUT- it is allot easier to MAKE a law than to get rid of a law, and since we are a country of laws, they tend to pile up on us. That's why I think you are partially right.

But I still wouldn't want to have been born and raised anywhere else!!!

The highest level of freedom is to be drunk when driving.

Anyone that knows he can handle it should of course be allowed to be completly out of their heads and drive.

If you know...you can handle it that is...

That is freedom .

Freedom.

Bluelight

BWX · Apr 15, 2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
The highest level of freedom is to be drunk when driving.

Anyone that knows he can handle it should of course be allowed to be completly out of their heads and drive.

If you know...you can handle it that is...

That is freedom .

Freedom.

Bluelight

Yeah, I said I think you should be able to drive drunk-- NOT--

You are hearing things again there sparky, I didn't say you should be able to drink and drive- that would allow people to do something that endangers others while they themselves are in a state of non-control. Not something that I think anyone would condone.....

Quite different is the argument that the government should tell me I have to wear a seatbelt- Or whether or not I should be able to talk on the phone while driving- which is something certain people can do without affecting their driving ability and certain people can't..

There is a huge difference in what I said and what you said-- I guess maybe you have to think a little more about what I post before you just go off the deep end w/ your responses.

------------Furthermore the only reason I said any of that was an example of the way a government starts limiting your freedom- something you obviously have no response to so you just try to argu w/ the examples??? Seems like you just try to defend big government taking over the freedom of every single person on the face of the earth at all costs.

Damn, I am sure glad you aren't in charge- No one would have any freedom-

I'm glad to you live over there where you do and just pray to the government to put more restrictions on what you can and cannot do-- I for one enjoy my freedom and don't want to live like that and can't imagine what kind of brainwashing it would take to make me think like you --

"bluelight- the one with all the answers to why the US and all free people should let the government take over every aspect of their lives"... man, I feel sorry for you.