 |
| |
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Having the history, capability and the will to use force also does not lead to security.
They are also extraordinarily effective at giving non-aggressive nations pause, and are also extraordinarily effective in the hands of aggressive nations. If they are so effective, why are you still launching them? |
umm this isnt even a rebuttal. u've obviously ran out of points. u can't get over that sometimes the peace needs enforcing. and as the UN has made abundantly clear and as I will repeat for the 4th? time. the UN has neither the history, will or capability to use the force neccessary to keep the peace.
and I don't understand ur last sentence in the slightest. maybe it should be, "if they are so effective why dont we build more?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yavoon
umm this isnt even a rebuttal. u've obviously ran out of points. u can't get over that sometimes the peace needs enforcing. and as the UN has made abundantly clear and as I will repeat for the 4th? time. the UN has neither the history, will or capability to use the force neccessary to keep the peace.
|
This is perhaps the most worrying part of the UN bashers. They're serious about quitting, about every state out for it's own again, with no forum for debate and decision making outside of the Bilderberg group.
You want a safer place to live? Cos that isn't the way...
The UN may be a hamstrung, beaureaucratic peice of junk - fixing it makes more sense than ditching it.
Put it another way - how many world wars since the UNs been operational?
Do you WANT to glow in the dark?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cruddy
This is perhaps the most worrying part of the UN bashers. They're serious about quitting, about every state out for it's own again, with no forum for debate and decision making outside of the Bilderberg group.
You want a safer place to live? Cos that isn't the way...
The UN may be a hamstrung, beaureaucratic peice of junk - fixing it makes more sense than ditching it.
Put it another way - how many world wars since the UNs been operational?
Do you WANT to glow in the dark? |
the UN was not the cog in the cold war. nato was. and while I didn't explicitly say it I suppose you are inferring it from my other opinions.
I am not saying ditch the UN instantly. but I am beginning to wonder if the price we pay to the UN+ the sovereignty we give up to the UN is worth it.
if I left the UN(as the US). I would still work jointly w/ them on goals, but I would remove their ability to encroach on my sovereignty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Well, fair enough Yavoon - I've got no problem with people questioning the UN, or trying to improve it, or otherwise feeling uncomfortable with it.
Fact is, it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. I hope it can do a lot more and act as an alternative to war.
If it can't - well, there's no harm in trying, is there?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cruddy
Well, fair enough Yavoon - I've got no problem with people questioning the UN, or trying to improve it, or otherwise feeling uncomfortable with it.
Fact is, it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. I hope it can do a lot more and act as an alternative to war.
If it can't - well, there's no harm in trying, is there? |
there are some unilateral goals that the UN can do.
remove landmines
lower the mortality rate in africa so we have larger #'s of starving people(no skepticism here!).
maybe even troops in africa. since I imagine only two camps concerning africa, ppl who don't care and ppl who know its a craphole.
maybe even disaster relief, tho it hasn't proven that great in tempering the difference between disaster relief and just a nation thats fundamentally screwed up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
How do you explain:
The thousands of peacekeepers on duty around the world, the constant attempts to negotiate peace settlements, the attempts to control the proliferation of weaponry and the fact that we're not piles of radioactive sludge?
Since you're using big words like rebuttal, I expect you to explain what all the peacekeepers are doing in various warzones around the world, and how it shows that they don't have the will or capability.
When something is "extraordinarily effective", you need fewer of them to do the job. It's elementary common sense. |
exactly what you said. they are peacekeepers, police w/ bigger guns. the United States has an actual military. and you need that sometimes. sure if u wanna try to patrol the streets of some horrifically third world nation w/ a few thousand troops to satisfy bleeding hearts in the western world thats all nice n good.
but can u keep china out of taiwan? could u have removed saddam from kuwait? could u keep Israel from being ethnically cleansed? What kind of leverage does the arsenal of the UN posess in relation to places like north korea?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
When something is "extraordinarily effective", you need fewer of them to do the job. It's elementary common sense. |
didn't see your last sentence. ur tripping a lil on logic there though. ur assuming 12 is enuff to do the job. maybe we actually need 20, or some equivalent monetary expenditure(not all on carriers). and that 12 is merely doing our best to fulfill our needs given our constraints.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TCO
Typical Euro love of process over content. |
Stereotyping 8itch aren't you?
Well, let's here it for how the US made the world a safer place...
Over to you TCO. Let's here how ditching the UN, ignoring the wishes of anyone but the ruling US admin, is going to keep the radiation level down.
You up for explaining that? Any fool can criticize, it takes a bit more smarts than you've got to come up with something better.
Chat tomorrow about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
No, you are not up to it. I knew you weren't, just wanted your own words to damn you.
You're great at slagging opposition - but when it comes to presenting facts to back up your case, you really are Mr Hector Blowhard, aren't you?
Guess some folks really do want to glow in the dark.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TCO
Typical Euro love of process over content. |
Hmm...
"Let's have a war on Iraq"
"For what reason and purpose?"
"Uhm... don't know. But I want to kick some ass"
"Ah... ok"
Yeah, process over content.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
Louima and Diallou were a few years ago (and just the worst cases of NYC police misconduct - a certain stun grenade incident is a mere few weeks old). Native Americans have been screwed up to the present day (although now we are only cheating them out of money and taking their kids away - much better than the small pox blankets). Then there's the death penalty which puts us in the same distinguished club as some of the worst violators. Don't forget the report released by the inspector general at Justice about how well detainees were treated (detainees I might add who were hald for standing while arab). Seen Jose Padilla anywhere but on a milk carton?
Again, we're not in the same league as the worst offenders - but we're not Canada or Scandinavia either.
The slave thing was just to illustrate that the US has never had a particularly good record. In fact, the **** we did in the 19th century would have been considered crimes against humanity in the 20th. |
I understand where u r coming from but an isolated police incident is hardly a valid point in this context=[.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
In NYC, we have what you might call a consistent pattern of behavior. Diallou and Louima were merely the most agregious examples. Stuff like the recent stun grenade rolled into the wrong apartment (and literally scaring a 50yr old woman to death) isn't that uncommon. |
an accident is a violation of human rights? stretch it till it breaks?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The current Libyan dictator is one of the most brutal and repressive regimes in the world plus he has a history of executing political rivals as well as financing terrorist attacks upon civilian airliners.
|
I believe he heads the regime, but isn't actually the regime himself.
Interestingly enough, the United States funded assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, backed the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua (did you think they were passing out water purifying tablets along with the landmines?) and funded and supplied Mobutu Sese Seko, Jonas Savimbi, Pinochet, and other freedom loving tyrants and dictators, not quite ad infinitum, luckily.
Whilst telling its N.A.T.O. allies not to trade with Iran, it was quite happy to do the same behind their backs so the great human microphone Reagan could at last appear to do something right in his erratic foreign policy.
Civilian airliners? Gee, didn't the United States down an Iranian civilian airliner? And then lie about it? Why yes, so it did.
Does the United State shield terrorists who bring down civilian airliners? Why yes, it does. But only if they're Cuban airliners.
Let's not kill any real people, after all.
http://www.progressive.org/Media%20.../mpslj1702.html
http://www.tni.org/letelier/press/201076.htm
http://www.mailgate.org.uk/uk/uk.media/msg07071.html
Those of you who have so far assumed that Arab= anti-semitic and that therefore the United Nations must be anti-semitic because it has Arab member nations have clearly forgotten the countries with an even longer and more auspicious history of organised anti-semitism- France, Great Britain, Spain, Poland, Italy, Russia, Germany, and so on. Not a Muslim or Arab state amongst them. You might also do well to recall that Arab is not synonymous with Muslim- the world's most populous Muslim states being, if I recall correctly, Indonesia and Nigeria.
Even so, Libya heading any commission to do with human rights is like putting necrotizing fasciitis in charge of a plastic surgery ward.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Explains why we are in it, and explains why you are in it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
crappy save
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"We just like to raze you folks because it brings joy and entertainment to our dull lives."
Really? I'm actually paid by the government to troll some yanks on internet fora...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
exactly what you said. they are peacekeepers, police w/ bigger guns. the United States has an actual military. and you need that sometimes. sure if u wanna try to patrol the streets of some horrifically third world nation w/ a few thousand troops to satisfy bleeding hearts in the western world thats all nice n good. |
Sure you need an 'actual military' sometimes, but peacekeepers are also necessary, and are certainly not useless, as you suggested earlier in this thread. The UN can call on the US and other countries with powerful militaries to help if they need it.
As for patrolling the streets, you seem to suggest that the best approach to global security is to let things deteriorate. I disagree.
quote:
but can u keep china out of taiwan? could u have removed saddam from kuwait? could u keep Israel from being ethnically cleansed? What kind of leverage does the arsenal of the UN posess in relation to places like north korea? |
China will probably get Taiwan back diplomatically. Why would they go to the trouble of invading it? Israel can more than protect itself, thanks in part to the French giving them nukes, and it engages in ethnic cleansing of it's own. As for NK, the arsenal of the UN consists of weapons inspectors, treaties, embargoes and so on. They've not been very effective so far, but neither has American power.
quote:
didn't see your last sentence. ur tripping a lil on logic there though. ur assuming 12 is enuff to do the job. maybe we actually need 20, or some equivalent monetary expenditure(not all on carriers). and that 12 is merely doing our best to fulfill our needs given our constraints. |
There's no way to tell how many are needed to do the job. There are also other considerations, such as the 'cool factor' and giving jobs to defense contractors.
Anyway, how would the world become more secure if America had 20 super-carriers? Sure, America would be more secure, but the world would not.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2003 05:41
If the best thing you can come up with happened a century and a half ago then I feel I win this debate by default. 
|