Kerry's False Plan For Peace - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-24-2004, 11:19 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 08:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Eliminate the UN!
Why not restructure? How will eliminating get us any closer to a world of peace?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-25-2004, 07:13 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Hmm, Krauthammer may be right.

Quote:
Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor Friday night, Holbrooke warned of a possible “Iran-type clerical dictatorship” in Iraq: This would be “very dangerous for Israel, the U.S. and the world.” Then Holbrooke segued into an account of how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: “He [Kerry] has said already he would start intense talks with the allies . . . and he would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He’d put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all.”

“He’d put more pressure on Israel.” Holbrooke, perhaps Kerry’s top foreign policy spokesman, confirms Krauthammer’s prediction. So there is a real difference between Bush and Kerry on Israel. Isn’t there, Sen. Kerry?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/832kszfc.asp

Don't worry Israel, Kerry will put more pressure on your government but he will also give the Mullah's nuclear fuel if they promise not to make nuclear weapons.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 07:45 PM   #18
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Why not restructure? How will eliminating get us any closer to a world of peace?
I also believe that the UN is necessary--as long as it is doing its job. Restructuring is a good first step to making sure this happens. The UN as it is--is no good to us or the rest of the world.
__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 07:51 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
The UN is worse than useless because it works and it works very well - to protect terrorists (e.g. Yassir Arafat) and genocidal dictators (e.g. Omar al-Bashir Hassan).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 07:57 PM   #20
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The UN is worse than useless because it works and it works very well - to protect terrorists (e.g. Yassir Arafat) and genocidal dictators (e.g. Omar al-Bashir Hassan).
Hence the necessity for reform that will probably never occur.
__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 08:02 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Reform will never occur, I wouldn't trust the UN for global security, even UNICEF has lost a lot of my respect after I saw the groups that recieve their assistance - watching PLO Arab children being brainwashed to scream that they want to become suicidal mass murderers seems like a violation of childrens rights.

The UN does do good in the world - but the question is can that work be done without the current beurocracy.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 08:07 PM   #22
Babyface
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pittsburgh,PA USA
Posts: 0
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Edit. No comment, master.
__________________
One Man is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 08:20 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Sadly, I think most of you see the U.N. only looking through the google of Iraq and the terror issues. I think you are misled and not informed properly.

"Eliminating" "the U.N." would include "eliminating" organizations like UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank Group including the IMF, the WHO, the UNODC, and the UNDP.

You want to tell me the UNDP is no good to the rest of the world? You want to tell me the DEA does a better job than the UNODC? Clean up your own country´s agencies first.

Before having the nerve to talk shit about the U.N. as a whole, I strongly suggest that you read up on all the organisations I have mentioned. And there are some more, this was just a tiny fraction of examples.

Also, it is not possible to "eliminate" the United Nations. The United States can choose to quit their membership. I don´t think that´s a good idea though, because the U.S. would be politically isolated.

Think twice before of whining. The United Nations can´t be exclusively directed by United States politics (and not by Australia, for that matter).
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 08:37 PM   #24
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 08:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The UN is worse than useless because it works and it works very well - to protect terrorists (e.g. Yassir Arafat) and genocidal dictators (e.g. Omar al-Bashir Hassan).
Well maybe Bush can invade and take it over.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-25-2004, 09:05 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
I am sorry, the UN is great - it shouldnt ever change.

What I am saying is that in the realm of international security the UN is innefective, it is made up of self interested nations; it was useless for security in the Cold War and it is useless now in the Post Cold War / War on Terror.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 09:26 PM   #26
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 399
Local Time: 02:56 PM
the problem is the ego of america. we would rather send our own troops to do the majority of the work than risk our soldiers under the command of other countries/UN. why are we so scared to do this? if those countries with 10 soldiers in iraq asked america to supply 10 soldiers to a domestic dispute in their country, would america comply? i'm not saying that john kerry would send US troops to fight for another countrye ... but his plan to create a real coalition would involve respecting the intelligence of the world community and let them be involved in the decision making process. if there was some threat to american security, and kerry knew about it, i'm sure he would deploy every aresenal the US's disposal to stop it. however, when discussing the rebuilding of iraq, providing security for THEIR citizens, providing food and clothing, and the structure of the government....what is the harm in gathering opinions from other countries? you guys are right that if we follow bush's mindset that EVERY detail in rebuilding Iraq deals with America's security, then a true coalition cannot be made. but since half the battle is grunt-work on the ground in Iraq...those duties could surely be shared by the world community if everyone was given an opinion in the planning. then when some information comes to light that may be harmful to American security...we can take over...just like any other country would want to do in a similar situation.
__________________
Anirban is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 09:29 PM   #27
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 399
Local Time: 02:56 PM
about the UN ... tell the survivors in ethopia, rwanda, and east timor that UN peacekeeping/peacemaking troops are useless. if every human life is valuable ... and if no other country is willing to put it's neck on the line to go it alone ... then what other option is there than the UN right now?
__________________
Anirban is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 09:33 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
I agree lets ask those from Rwanda the virtues of United Nations protection. Or those in the Sudan right now.

One question though, what is a "real coalition", does it have to include France and Germany - I mean are those countries prerequisites to having a true coalition and without them its not, if France became a member of the coalition and pleged 10 troops would it be legitimate then?

Kerry sent his sister over here to tell expat Americans and Australians that Bush has made them less safe and that we should cut and run from Iraq - drive away your allies and make nice with those that dont want any part in Iraq.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 09:51 PM   #29
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 399
Local Time: 02:56 PM
I mean a "real" coalition is one that isn't 10,000:100,000 troops foreign:US. a coalition of two countries (that have the resources) would be legitamate if they shared the duties equally (not involving the security of their own country -- because every country's security threat is different). i don't see how people didn't realize from the beginning that it's not the US's duty to route out injustice in the world with a 10:1 ratio of troops. yes, if there are security threats, i myself would be willing to go and defend the country if bush asked me ... however, there are many people dying and suffering from unjust rulers aroung the world. how are those problems dealt with? UN peacekeeping/peacemaking missions. where the goal is common among EVERYONE involved...to promote peace and humanity around the world. i know people will argue this but before the war, many experts believe that Iraq was not a threat to US security. therefore, his only crimes involved crimes against humanity and the UN (stress: UN!) oil for food program. the former sounds like a peacekeeping/making mission to me and latter is definitely the responsobility of the UN (to protect the integrity of its own program!).
__________________
Anirban is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 09:58 PM   #30
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 399
Local Time: 02:56 PM
also, what were the specifics of the UN disarmament resolutions? they said that saddam must cease any wmd/nuclear programs. cheney espeically keeps hammering home that saddam hussein did not comply with a decade's worth of resolutions. however, there were no weapons found. moreover, the last report claimed that there were no weapons before we invaded either. therefore, in terms of those resolutions, saddam's only crime was not allowing inspectors to thoroughly inspect his country. he should have been accountable for that crime and THAT crime only ... but the main point was to make sure he had no weapons programs .... and look how it turned out. he may have told a few lies, but he sure as hell wasn't making any weapons. moreoever, the argument that he would have made weapons is useless. that's like prosecuting someone for 1st degree murder saying that if he would have had a gun, he would have killed 50 people. you can prosecute that man for planning it, or haveing the intention of doing it (if he did) ... but you cannot prosecute to the full extent of the law as someone who actually did murder 50 people.
__________________

__________________
Anirban is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com