Iraqi Troops kill al Zarqawi

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

...
Fuzzy can you honestly say your reaction to a successful attack on Canada would be "let's just leave them alone and they will leave us alone"?

Ya. Good question. My previous comment with regards to Berg was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But I do have to say that I agree with his intentions, as opposed to his ideas. If an attack was successful on Canada, my gut reaction would likely be 'lets fuck those bastards up!'. But then the circle of violence would only continue, and eventually, our fight would become our childrens fight. Something like this can slowly spiral into a lifetime of grief for alot of people. Just look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that we've been watching for so long now, that we just turn a blind eye to it when we see it on the news. 'Oh. That shit again.'. What Berg is saying is that we need to do something pro-active to stop the circle.
If we did pull out and leave them alone, that would be a positive step in that direction. If they then massed together and kept on our asses regardless, then it would be a simple case of: we made the first move, they obviously don't want to see things our way, so NOW lets fuck 'em up fer good.

 

[David in Van]

Circle of Violence

Ya. Good question. My previous comment with regards to Berg was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But I do have to say that I agree with his intentions, as opposed to his ideas. If an attack was successful on Canada, my gut reaction would likely be 'lets fuck those bastards up!'. But then the circle of violence would only continue, and eventually, our fight would become our childrens fight. Something like this can slowly spiral into a lifetime of grief for alot of people. Just look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that we've been watching for so long now, that we just turn a blind eye to it when we see it on the news. 'Oh. That shit again.'. What Berg is saying is that we need to do something pro-active to stop the circle.
If we did pull out and leave them alone, that would be a positive step in that direction. If they then massed together and kept on our asses regardless, then it would be a simple case of: we made the first move, they obviously don't want to see things our way, so NOW lets fuck 'em up fer good.

You are like my mother who said that violence does not solve anything. I am sure Hitler, Napolean and other dictatorial scumbags would disagree with you. The last time I was in Japan, it seemed pretty peaceful - in fact the Japanese people are quasi-pacificts. Japan post-Hiroshima is better than Japan pre-Hiroshima, even for Japan.

Numerous other examples exist.

One way or another, the "Terrorism Wars" will resolve and violence will be used. Frankly, I want to be on the winning side of this.

 

[bartendr]

Fuzzy, I saw Michael Berg on Fox News the other day. I am not sure why they let him on, because they did cut him short when he went on his rant.

I do feel sorry for him, all of us should be able to understand his state. If this happened to my son, I would be mad at every crazy asshole in the world.

I just do not believe that if the US withdrew (or as the spin master put it "cut and run") that this would end the violence. If you leave these guys alone, they will grow in strength and hit us even harder.

I wonder (God forbid) if the terrorists had succeeded. Stormed parliament, beheaded Harper, killed many MPs, blew up the CN Tower, committed mass killings in down town Toronto.

The media is reporting that was their plan and it was the excellent work of the RCMP that stopped them.

So what do you think would have happened?

There would have been an immediate call to Bush for help and Bush would have responded quickly. The world hates a bully, unless of course you need that bully to protect you from a maniac.

Fuzzy can you honestly say your reaction to a successful attack on Canada would be "let's just leave them alone and they will leave us alone"?

And I donot think that the world can be left alone whereas maniacal mindsets take control of lesser minds in what is a really peaceful religion.

 

[OTBn]

I just do not believe that if the US withdrew (or as the spin master put it "cut and run") that this would end the violence. If you leave these guys alone, they will grow in strength and hit us even harder.
.
.
.
There would have been an immediate call to Bush for help and Bush would have responded quickly. The world hates a bully, unless of course you need that bully to protect you from a maniac.
alone"?

Right - if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq there would'nt be an end to the violence within Iraq... but that violence would no longer be aimed at the invading, occupying U.S. forces. It would be the violence of one Iraqi faction against another Iraqi faction. Any Iraqis bent upon terrorism aboard, would be as a result of your country's aggression.

Your "If you leave these guys alone, they will grow in strength and hit us even harder" comment has merit... but in the context of Iraq? Seems you're also a fine ole spin-master. It's just so, so... mind numbing to have to continue to remind some of you Americans that Iraq posed no imminent threat to anyone. Luckydog, remind us again - why are you in Iraq?

LOL - Bush the maniacal bully saving the world from maniacs.

 

[luckydog71]

Right - if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq there would'nt be an end to the violence within Iraq... but that violence would no longer be aimed at the invading, occupying U.S. forces. It would be the violence of one Iraqi faction against another Iraqi faction. Any Iraqis bent upon terrorism aboard, would be as a result of your country's aggression.

I am not sure how you draw this conclusion. The terrorists are taking direct aim at Iraqi’s, men, women, AND CHILDREN. They have targeted areas frequented by Iraqi’s citizens. When Zarqawi was killed, it was 2 Iraqiis that were beheaded.

Most Americans (me included) would like to see our military come home, not only from Iraq, but from many other places as well. I think you will see that occur, not on a timetable that you would like, but it will occur. Why is it that it is American soldiers that are on the front line? We have been in that position for decades. Long before Bush came to office. This goes back to the 50's.

We have by far the strongest best equipped, best trained military and we have used that to be the policeman of the world. Many times self appointed

I am ready to have a change of heart (or for those who believe Americans are heartless a change of mind) and I do not believe I am alone.

I am watching with great interest Iran and North Korea. It is time the US leaves this problem to the rest of the world to solve. We need to return to a policy of "second strike". We need to secure our borders and stop the influx of those who fit our profile of potential terrorists.

I would like to see us maintain a very strong military that would come to the aide of Britain or Australia if we were asked. The rest of the world can rely on the U.N. peace keeping force. To ensure the US does not influence the UN, we should pull out. No money. No troops. No delegates. We could supply Atlas Van Lines to help pack all of their shit and get them a one way ticket on Air France so they leave New York.

Our major defense should be patterned after our policy during WWII. We will stay out of any conflict as long as we are left alone. However if we are attacked like we were at Pearl Harbor, then will lob a couple nuclear bombs and see if anyone is left.

It is time for the US to adopt the policy you claim the terrorists have “leave us alone and we will leave you alone”. We have lost 2500 soldiers in Iraq and that is too much. It is time for a different approach.

 

[HankQuinlan]

I would like to see us maintain a very strong military that would come to the aide of Britain or Australia if we were asked. The rest of the world can rely on the U.N. peace keeping force.

Uh --- seems a little peculiar --- I realize that those two are among "the coalition of the willing", but I believe there were other nations that went along with the US that were not white and English-speaking. The criteria of friendly nations that the US should help are a) joined in to attack Iraq, b) white, c) English-speaking? Would you help defend New Zealand? (didn't join in on attack on Iraq)? Poland (not English-speaking)? How about Mongolia or South Korea (sent troops to Iraq, but not white or English-speaking)? If you are going to close your borders to the rest of the international community, it would seem odd to make those two exceptions. Maybe you are fond of kangaroos?

I notice you only answered the first paragraph. The second was the question asked. Do you STILL think there was a legitimate reason to have invaded and occupied Iraq? If so, I would love to know what it is.

 

[luckydog71]

Uh --- seems a little peculiar --- I realize that those two are among "the coalition of the willing", but I believe there were other nations that went along with the US that were not white and English-speaking. The criteria of friendly nations that the US should help are a) joined in to attack Iraq, b) white, c) English-speaking? Would you help defend New Zealand? (didn't join in on attack on Iraq)? Poland (not English-speaking)? How about Mongolia or South Korea (sent troops to Iraq, but not white or English-speaking)? If you are going to close your borders to the rest of the international community, it would seem odd to make those two exceptions. Maybe you are fond of kangaroos?

I notice you only answered the first paragraph. The second was the question asked. Do you STILL think there was a legitimate reason to have invaded and occupied Iraq? If so, I would love to know what it is.

Hank, the reason I singled out Britain and Australia is; these are the two countries that have had a long standing military alliance with the US and have armed forces ready, willing and able to come to our defense if need be. The other nations you mentioned would not be of any real consequence should military action be required. So a treaty with friendly nations that can make a major contribution if military action was required to beat back an attack on anyone of them. A NATO like treaty but without those F****ing Frenchmen.

There were lots of nations that sent small contingents into Iraq. There were even more nations that sent troops in Afghanistan.

But I and a surprisingly large number of Americans are ready to change our foreign policy. I do not think our politicians understand this major shift that is occurring, but it is. We no longer want to be the policeman to the world and we no longer want to bear the cost in lives and money to send our forces. Let the UN do their job. Let the world carry the cost in lives and money to police the world.

I can already hear your retort. Where would you get the oil. My friend, we could afford to pay 200 dollars a barrel for oil with the money would have saved in Iraq and Afghanistan alone.

I did not say we would close our borders. I said we need to defend our borders. We need to implement controls like Mexico does on its southern border with Guatemala or the controls similar to China. We need to start profiling, yes profiling, those entering our country and denying entry to those who can not explain why they want to enter. If you want to come in get a visa. When you enter be prepared to provide bio-metrics like retina scans or finger prints.

We could have prevented 9/11 if we had been more vigilant on who came into our country and why. Shame on us for allowing it to happen and shame on us for allowing the same conditions to exist 5 years later.

Bush’s policy of fight them over there so we don’t fight them here has worked. It has stopped further attacks, but that is not a long term solution. It was a good idea to buy some time while we fixed our internal problem, but our politicians did not fix the problem. They did not even try.

I did not answer the second part of the question because we have had this discussion numerous times. Here was his exact question "Luckydog, remind us again - why are you in Iraq?"

Let me try again:
- We went into Iraq because we believed Sadam had WMD. Everyone knows he had WMD because he used it on the Kurds. He then decided to play with the UN inspectors and maybe even with the US. He continually delayed and or denied them access. It is a very similar game to what Iran is now doing.
- It turns out there were no WMD when we invaded. To bad Sadam was not more open and willing to show the UN he did not have WMD.
- Now we are there. For what ever reasons we are there. The next step is to help Iraq establish its own form of self government.
- Every American wants our troops home. Unfortunately many of our liberal politicians think we should pull out today and leave Iraq fight it out. I oppose that idea.
- I want out of Iraq as soon as the local government asks us to leave. I hope it is soon.

So we are in agreement. The world wants us out of Iraq. We want out of Iraq. Now we just need to figure out how.

I am also watching with interest as to how Canada will prevent Iran from lobbing a nuke into Israel. Or how Canada will prevent North Korea from over running South Korea. Or what Canada will do about the atrocities in Africa. You and many others have had the luxury to be the rock throwers, the bitchers and complainers. You are very good a criticizing the US and the actions we have taken. Most Americans are more than willing to turn this role and the huge costs that go with it to Canada. I wish you good luck on your new assignment.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Okay --- I just couldn't believe that you still believed you weren't lied to by your government as to why you invaded Iran. I rather expected that you would be able to see beyond government spokesmen and press releases, at least in hindsight.

Sorry. I overestimated your critical thinking. I won't bother you again with questions.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Okay --- I just couldn't believe that you still believed you weren't lied to by your government as to why you invaded Iran.

Hank I don't want to be nitpickky but I will assume yoy meant Iraq here.

 

[luckydog71]

Okay --- I just couldn't believe that you still believed you weren't lied to by your government as to why you invaded Iran. I rather expected that you would be able to see beyond government spokesmen and press releases, at least in hindsight.

Sorry. I overestimated your critical thinking. I won't bother you again with questions.

I guess we must use different dictionaries. In the US dictionary, the word “wrong” and the word “lied” have two different meanings. They are not synonymous as you choose to use them.

Everyone including the staunchest Republican now believes the information was wrong.

BTW US did not invade Iran, it was Iraq. Using your logic and dictionary you would have to conclude you are a liar. I would conclude you were just wrong.

 

[georgebushmoron]

But I and a surprisingly large number of Americans are ready to change our foreign policy. I do not think our politicians understand this major shift that is occurring, but it is. We no longer want to be the policeman to the world and we no longer want to bear the cost in lives and money to send our forces. Let the UN do their job. Let the world carry the cost in lives and money to police the world.

Essentially what you're describing is a multi-polar world. In fact that is the natural order of things. No one nation deserves (or should be expected to) to be the policeman, judge, jury and executioner. This is a community of nations and of different peoples/societies/religions/governments/etc. The responsibility for peace and security lies with all nations, and perhaps the UN is the right tool.

I did not say we would close our borders. I said we need to defend our borders. We need to implement controls like Mexico does on its southern border with Guatemala or the controls similar to China. We need to start profiling, yes profiling, those entering our country and denying entry to those who can not explain why they want to enter. If you want to come in get a visa. When you enter be prepared to provide bio-metrics like retina scans or finger prints.

I'm with you on profiling before entry into the US, and for that matter, Canada. Too bad the laws as they exist today won't allow it. However, I'd steer clear of biometrics as I have intimate knowledge of that technology and I can tell you it is downright scary its potential that I would not want to untap it.

We could have prevented 9/11 if we had been more vigilant on who came into our country and why. Shame on us for allowing it to happen and shame on us for allowing the same conditions to exist 5 years later.

It goes as far back as Clinton in failing to take out Bin Laden (they knew of his potential at that time). You're right, essentially the same conditions exist today with the exception that a semi-police state has arisen in the US.

Bush’s policy of fight them over there so we don’t fight them here has worked. It has stopped further attacks, but that is not a long term solution.

The period of time between major terrorist attacks has normally been years. It is impossible to know just really how effective Bush's policy was in preventing a further attack, for there is no evidence, not even arrests (as in Canada), to show how well it has worked. It could very well be that the terrorists have not executed their plan yet. But the notion that fighting them over there to prevent fighting over here is to not understand terrorism as a doctrine of war. In fact, it is useless. Terrorism has no borders. It is a war fought in the shadows (as GWB had himself said). It is fought with Intelligence. Terrorists don't wear uniforms and they blend in with the larger society like a parasite on its host body. In short, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have much to do with fighting terrorism in the United States.

Let me try again:
- We went into Iraq because we believed Sadam had WMD. Everyone knows he had WMD because he used it on the Kurds. He then decided to play with the UN inspectors and maybe even with the US. He continually delayed and or denied them access. It is a very similar game to what Iran is now doing.
- It turns out there were no WMD when we invaded. To bad Sadam was not more open and willing to show the UN he did not have WMD.
- Now we are there. For what ever reasons we are there. The next step is to help Iraq establish its own form of self government.
- Every American wants our troops home. Unfortunately many of our liberal politicians think we should pull out today and leave Iraq fight it out. I oppose that idea.
- I want out of Iraq as soon as the local government asks us to leave. I hope it is soon.

So we are in agreement. The world wants us out of Iraq. We want out of Iraq. Now we just need to figure out how.

The steps as you describe them, if we are to accept them completely as they are, shows what an awful blunder the United States has made. To get rid of one (admittedly awful) dictator (among a world full of awful dictators) at the expense of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and several thousand American lives and BILLIONS of dollars later ... you have to wonder if there would not have been a better solution in ridding of WMDs and Sadaam than all out war and trying to keep the peace and rebuilding the nation. Had there been no AGENDA (by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al) to invade Iraq that prevented the accurate attainment of Intelligence, we would not be in this position today. I suspect the loss in terms of lives and money so far is not the end of it... there will be continued loss in those terms and in terms of American influence and power in the Middle East.

I am also watching with interest as to how Canada will prevent Iran from lobbing a nuke into Israel. Or how Canada will prevent North Korea from over running South Korea. Or what Canada will do about the atrocities in Africa. You and many others have had the luxury to be the rock throwers, the bitchers and complainers. You are very good a criticizing the US and the actions we have taken. Most Americans are more than willing to turn this role and the huge costs that go with it to Canada. I wish you good luck on your new assignment.

We all know Canadians are a bunch of whiners and complainers, sorry to insult you all. But part of the Canadian identity appears to be the self-appointed "conscience" of the United States. You're right, most Canadians whine and complain and offer no solutions but at the same time many Americans act with foolish beligerence. I like your idea about solving the problems through the UN. It is there that Canada and countries like it can contribute in a meaningful way to world peace and security.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

I like your idea about solving the problems through the UN. It is there that Canada and countries like it can contribute in a meaningful way to world peace and security.

Unfortunately, the UN's record of resolving ANYTHING is worse than abysmal.

The Preamble of the United Nations charter says, “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED:

---to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

---to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

---to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

---to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, etc. etc. etc.

The UN is a Clossal Failure.

The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Colombia.

The U.N. failed in Rwanda

The U.N. failed in Kashmir

The U.N. failed in Angola

The U.N. failed in Sierra Leone

The U.N. failed in Haiti

The U.N. failed in Kashmir

The U.N. failed in Cambodia

The U.N. failed in Aceh, Indonesia

The list is almost endless because there are so many more examples. Since the adoption of its charter in 1946, the UN has failed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” over sixty times. Wars have been fought all over the globe, with at least one, and usually both, of the participants members of the UN. Those wars were neither prevented nor curtailed short of the combatants’ desires to do so. Dozens of nations have undergone violent overthrow of government; hideous pogroms have been carried out by machete or machine gun; millions have died; economies have been wrecked; “fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person” have been brutally and savagely violated hundreds of times in virtually every nation on earth.

The UN's failure in Iraq played a major role in where we are today. Truth is the U. N. showed no inclination to force Saddam to abide by international law and Saddam counted on this weakness to maintain, and indeed, to prop up his regime. One glaring example is the failed U.N. Oil for Food program which was supposed to help the Iraqi people suffering under Saddam while denying the dictator the cash to build up his war machine.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that Saddam received $10.1 billion in illegal revenues from the U.N. Oil for Food program since the mid 1990's. Through apparent U.N. mismanagement and corruption, Saddam managed to pad his personal coffers with oil sales proceeds - money which may still be stashed away in private bank accounts. Furthermore, it is believed that as many as 270 U.N. and foreign officials and business people may have conspired and benefited from Saddam's skimming of these oil revenues.

In the fight to slow spread of AIDS their record isn't any better as noted in this LA Times article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...6860846.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Like the former League of Nations, the U.N. has degenerated into a debating society where the members talk about doing something and then do nothing.

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

...
- Now we are there. For what ever reasons we are there. The next step is to help Iraq establish its own form of self government....

Alot of people would argue though, that you, the U.S., are simply trying to get them back to where they were when ya first showed up there.

...
We all know Canadians are a bunch of whiners and complainers, sorry to insult you all. ...

Just as we all know that Americans are a bunch of warmongering self-righteous assholes? C'mon now. How do 'we' know this? Because we don't see things your way? WTF. If you want to make such lame generalizations, at least have the class to lay down an example or two. Might help in changing our pre-conceived notions about ya.

 

[luckydog71]

Alot of people would argue though, that you, the U.S., are simply trying to get them back to where they were when ya first showed up there.

I think there is a morale obligation to leave them better than we found them. Iraq has paid a huge price to get to where they are.

If our goal was to return them to the condition we found them, all we have to do is release Sadam and pull out.

Just as we all know that Americans are a bunch of warmongering self-righteous assholes? C'mon now. How do 'we' know this? Because we don't see things your way? WTF. If you want to make such lame generalizations, at least have the class to lay down an example or two. Might help in changing our pre-conceived notions about ya.

I believe that was a TnC comment.

Americans are cursed with this desire to protect the world. To right all wrongs. To liberate anyone who is not privileged with our form of democracy. We wave our flag. We are very patriotic. All to a fault.

We need to grow up. We need to see the world as many different cultures and beliefs. There are many parts of the world that do not hold life sacred as we do. Ethnic cleansing and genocide is a form of population control. Survival of the fittest is a good thing. Democracy is not a right of all people. If I say it often enough, maybe I will start to beleive it.

I still strongly believe I live in the best country in the world. I need to stop thinking that everyone needs to live like me. That is just not possible or even desirable.

 

[georgebushmoron]

Unfortunately, the UN's record of resolving ANYTHING is worse than abysmal.

The Preamble of the United Nations charter says, “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED:

---to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

---to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

---to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

---to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, etc. etc. etc.

The UN is a Clossal Failure....



The list is almost endless because there are so many more examples. Since the adoption of its charter in 1946, the UN has failed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” over sixty times. Wars have been fought all over the globe, with at least one, and usually both, of the participants members of the UN. Those wars were neither prevented nor curtailed short of the combatants’ desires to do so. Dozens of nations have undergone violent overthrow of government; hideous pogroms have been carried out by machete or machine gun; millions have died; economies have been wrecked; “fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person” have been brutally and savagely violated hundreds of times in virtually every nation on earth.

The UN's failure in Iraq played a major role in where we are today. Truth is the U. N. showed no inclination to force Saddam to abide by international law and Saddam counted on this weakness to maintain, and indeed, to prop up his regime. One glaring example is the failed U.N. Oil for Food program which was supposed to help the Iraqi people suffering under Saddam while denying the dictator the cash to build up his war machine.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that Saddam received $10.1 billion in illegal revenues from the U.N. Oil for Food program since the mid 1990's. Through apparent U.N. mismanagement and corruption, Saddam managed to pad his personal coffers with oil sales proceeds - money which may still be stashed away in private bank accounts. Furthermore, it is believed that as many as 270 U.N. and foreign officials and business people may have conspired and benefited from Saddam's skimming of these oil revenues.

In the fight to slow spread of AIDS their record isn't any better as noted in this LA Times article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...6860846.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Like the former League of Nations, the U.N. has degenerated into a debating society where the members talk about doing something and then do nothing.

There is no doubt the UN needs reform. But you have not looked at what the UN has done well, which is to bring all the major powers together in an institution along with minor powers - to set international treaties, to help establish a world court, to augment other international institutions (like the World Bank, the IMF). This is the only institution like it in the world, and it has helped in alleviating poverty, keeping the peace. Sure, it hasn't prevented the slaughter of Kurds but it helped Haiti from completely crumbling during the last "election".

A lot of detractors from the UN today are ones who have a political agenda in line with the unilateralists of the USA (ie: the Wolfowitz camp, and others). They see the UN as an obstacle to American expansionism, violations of international treaties established by the UN, and to wage illegal war ("illegal" according to UN charter). It is easy for them to publish papers that say the UN has failed at this or that, yet they never offer substantial solutions - the only thing substantial they ever talk about is dismantling it altogether. This would be a real shame for it basically took a World War and 50 million lost lives for the USA and the western nations to establish the UN.

As for your claim that the UN was not serious in keeping Sadaam in check, to blame the institution is really quite silly. The institution is made up of the United States, Russia, China, etc., as primary members. The fault likes with these states and others who could not agree in terms of decisions and actions to keep Sadaam in check. Why do Americans bother blaming the UN? Why not just blame the USA itself - for it is a principle player and the main funder of the UN? Surely it had the resources to force other countries into compliance at the UN with regard to Iraq.

 

[georgebushmoron]

We need to grow up. We need to see the world as many different cultures and beliefs. There are many parts of the world that do not hold life sacred as we do. Ethnic cleansing and genocide is a form of population control. Survival of the fittest is a good thing. Democracy is not a right of all people. If I say it often enough, maybe I will start to beleive it.

Pretend I'm Iranian for a moment:

We need to grow up. We need to see the world as having many different religions other than Islam. There are many parts of the world that do not hold life sacred as we do, for unlike the west, we do not protect baby killers and we do promote the natural order of life but instead punish abortionists and homosexuals. Genocide appears to be a form of population control, witness how many nukes these genociders have. Survival of the fittest has been a good thing.... for the west. Laws handed to us by God (Shariah Law) is not a right of all people. If I pray it often enough, Allah will grant it.

 

[tao]

There is no doubt the UN needs reform. But you have not looked at what the UN has done well, which is to bring all the major powers together in an institution along with minor powers - to set international treaties, to help establish a world court, to augment other international institutions (like the World Bank, the IMF). This is the only institution like it in the world, and it has helped in alleviating poverty, keeping the peace. Sure, it hasn't prevented the slaughter of Kurds but it helped Haiti from completely crumbling during the last "election".

A lot of detractors from the UN today are ones who have a political agenda in line with the unilateralists of the USA (ie: the Wolfowitz camp, and others). They see the UN as an obstacle to American expansionism, violations of international treaties established by the UN, and to wage illegal war ("illegal" according to UN charter). It is easy for them to publish papers that say the UN has failed at this or that, yet they never offer substantial solutions - the only thing substantial they ever talk about is dismantling it altogether. This would be a real shame for it basically took a World War and 50 million lost lives for the USA and the western nations to establish the UN.

As for your claim that the UN was not serious in keeping Sadaam in check, to blame the institution is really quite silly. The institution is made up of the United States, Russia, China, etc., as primary members. The fault likes with these states and others who could not agree in terms of decisions and actions to keep Sadaam in check. Why do Americans bother blaming the UN? Why not just blame the USA itself - for it is a principle player and the main funder of the UN? Surely it had the resources to force other countries into compliance at the UN with regard to Iraq.

hey GBM ... i would not waste any effort debating Randy Copy & Pastewald.

most of his reply was actually written by Alabama Congressman Terry Everett a year and a half ago.

Link to the original.

apparently Randy's opinions are as unoriginal as his jokes.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

hey GBM ... i would not waste any effort debating Randy Copy & Pastewald.

most of his reply was actually written by Alabama Congressman Terry Everett a year and a half ago.

Link to the original.

apparently Randy's opinions are as unoriginal as his jokes.

Oh is that so, I just double checked Mr. Everetts article and found no mention of how :

The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Colombia.

The U.N. failed in Rwanda

The U.N. failed in Kashmir

The U.N. failed in Angola

The U.N. failed in Sierra Leone

The U.N. failed in Haiti

The U.N. failed in Kashmir

The U.N. failed in Cambodia

The U.N. failed in Aceh, Indonesia.

The fact is Tao, for 60 years now, the UN has not worked for its intended purpose in just about any one of its established goals. I don't think we disagree on that. (see list of failures - not from Tom Everetts article)

The $10.2 Billion spent on the Oil for Food program has been verified from several other / different sources, it wasn't Everetts imagination.

The Aids information came from a UN meeting held just last week (not from Everetts dated article).

Perhaps you could name me a few more UN successes not on GBMs very short list as I was able to locate a rather long list of failures.

Do we just keep pouring money in or do we fix it?

I gotta hand it to you about the jokes though Tao - you caught me red handed. They were pretty well all from different sources - eg. emails, the internet etc. But hey, so are 99.9% of all the jokes and pictures on this and all the other sites. Thats what makes the net so useful Tao - people sharing information. FYI - There are even entire websites containg every imaginable type of joke / picture on the net. Why, I'm even willing to bet $5 that the cute / sexy dancer in your signature even came from the net. However, if she's your relative I'd like to meet her. Care to take me up on that Tao?

 

[tao]

Randy i have no intention of debating you on the merits (or lack thereof) of the UN.

if i am interested in your position I'll google it myself.

---to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

---to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

---to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

---to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

Originally appeared verbatim in the following article. (including the dashes at the fore of the points ) Link to original article

The list is almost endless because there are so many more examples. Since the adoption of its charter in 1946, the UN has failed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” over sixty times. Wars have been fought all over the globe, with at least one, and usually both, of the participants members of the UN. Those wars were neither prevented nor curtailed short of the combatants’ desires to do so. Dozens of nations have undergone violent overthrow of government; hideous pogroms have been carried out by machete or machine gun; millions have died; economies have been wrecked; “fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person” have been brutally and savagely violated hundreds of times in virtually every nation on earth.

Originally appeared verbatim in the following article. Link to original article

The UN's failure in Iraq played a major role in where we are today. Truth is the U. N. showed no inclination to force Saddam to abide by international law and Saddam counted on this weakness to maintain, and indeed, to prop up his regime. One glaring example is the failed U.N. Oil for Food program which was supposed to help the Iraqi people suffering under Saddam while denying the dictator the cash to build up his war machine.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that Saddam received $10.1 billion in illegal revenues from the U.N. Oil for Food program since the mid 1990's. Through apparent U.N. mismanagement and corruption, Saddam managed to pad his personal coffers with oil sales proceeds - money which may still be stashed away in private bank accounts. Furthermore, it is believed that as many as 270 U.N. and foreign officials and business people may have conspired and benefited from Saddam's skimming of these oil revenues.

Like the former League of Nations, the U.N. has degenerated into a debating society where the members talk about doing something and then do nothing.

Originally appeared verbatim in the following article. Link to original article.


i saw this gem from the Ms. Luv thread. A post referencing advertising strategy in different cycles of an economy seemed curiously out of context with the subject being discussed.

Studies show advertising during any economy produces customer loyalty and a long-term competitive advantage .

If a business is not communicating with customers when they enter the market, then that business will not be considered in the buying decision. That fundamental truth does not change, regardless of the economy.

This originally appeared in this article ... Link to original article.

I gotta hand it to you about the jokes though Tao - you caught me red handed. They were pretty well all from different sources - eg. emails, the internet etc. But hey, so are 99.9% of all the jokes and pictures on this and all the other sites. Thats what makes the net so useful Tao - people sharing information. FYI - There are even entire websites containg every imaginable type of joke / picture on the net. Why, I'm even willing to bet $5 that the cute / sexy dancer in your signature even came from the net. However, if she's your relative I'd like to meet her. Care to take me up on that Tao?

Randy when you figure out the difference between sharing information and posting someone elses words as your own get back to me ...

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Randy i have no intention of debating you on the merits (or lack thereof) of the UN.

if i am interested in your position I'll google it myself.

Randy when you figure out the difference between sharing information and posting someone elses words as your own get back to me ...

Whatever Tao. You still have not provided a position on the matter under discussion.

Umm - one more thing TAO, do you think you could look up the links to all the jokes I posted here? I seem to have misplaced them. Sure would like to have all the links on one list. If you could do that one more thing for me I would be forever indebted to you. Thanks in advance for everything, especially your positive contribution to this thread.