Tweet
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Really? I'm actually paid by the government to troll some yanks on internet fora...
Really? I'm actually paid by the government to troll some yanks on internet fora...
-
You certainly earn your pay.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio -
I agree. Have you tried to visit the UN quarters at Geneva? The entrance is terrible bad indicated! If they do everything the same tame they organize the touristic visits inside the quarters, and they treat everyone like the tourist that go inside (yes, I finally was able to enter, but in a different day) then there is no doubt that the UN is completely disorganized!Originally posted by Oerdin
Hey let's chill everyone. I don't like to see my threads get threadjacked. Let's bash the UN and not each other. Ok?
"Never trust a man who puts your profit before his own profit." - Grand Nagus Zek, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, episode 11
"A communist is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. An anticommunist is someone who has understood Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)Comment
-
AND they are supporting every organization that goes against the established order. The only thing that all of them have in common is that they hate what the US and New Europe represent. They will target ANY country or organization that is disturbing them.Originally posted by Oerdin
Hersh: Remember the last three foiled plots were in Europe. One to blow up the Vatican, one to let poison gas go in the London subway, and another to attack NATO ships in Gibraltor. Don't get to smug; these thugs want to destroy every nonfundamentalist muslim state out there including Austria.
(I love to say "New Europe". I was getting tired of living in "the old continent" )
"Never trust a man who puts your profit before his own profit." - Grand Nagus Zek, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, episode 11
"A communist is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. An anticommunist is someone who has understood Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)Comment
-
Of course I am serious about quiting. When you don't trust in an organization or a person, you cannot give credit to what they do, or even follow their orders. But what you don't realize is that this "UN bashing" is not something for fun. I didn't wake up one day and said "mmm, today I am in the mood for bashing the UN". I formed my (bad) opinion about the UN based in all the facts I know about that organization. For example: I know that basque terrorists are coward murderers, but the UN gives them a room in their Geneva quarters. Can this reinforce my trust in UN? Of course not! On the contrary, this is another piece of evidence that the UN has only one objective: To destroy the Free WorldOriginally 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."Never trust a man who puts your profit before his own profit." - Grand Nagus Zek, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, episode 11
"A communist is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. An anticommunist is someone who has understood Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)Comment
-
Reading all of this, Lonestar's Your Very Own Imperial Stardestoyer thread is looking better all the time.Comment
-
I recall your opposition to the war being on the basis of us not having UN approval. You did not make the argument that SH had abided with the cease-fire, etc.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
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.
The comment about process has to do with my experience doing a merger and reorg in a European conglomerate. I really saw this.Comment
-
Roland, you've always said for a long time that you have no love for the US. In fact, you have some wierd obsession about it. Lately, you are equating Iraq and the US and Bush and Hussein. You are off the deep end. We are definitely better served not catering to people like you. You've already backed off from your plan to go after Bush the fascist. So, you want to disassociate yourself from the US. And not be in the cross-fire. This is nothing new for you or for Austria. HAve fun. But don't expect me to pay much attention to your snide little remarks in the future.Comment
-
I'm gna mention this for the third and final time and I hope u grasp it this time. cuz its really causing u to argue on complete tangents.Originally posted by Sandman
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.
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.
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.
disagreeing with american policy does not diminish its role in global security.
this is very important, please understand this. cuz I simply am not going to continue to respond to u bashing american policy when it is all but an irrelevant point.Comment
-
more stupid
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -HomerComment
-
AH! That explains you point of view.Originally posted by TCO
.
The comment about process has to do with my experience doing a merger and reorg in a European conglomerate. I really saw this.
I can see where your coming from now - don't know about rest of Europe but I'd be first to admit UK business admin resembles something from the middle ages for correct protocol etc.Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
"The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84Comment
-
The tangents were of your making, I was simply replying to them. If you don't want me to examine your examples, then don't bring them up.Originally posted by yavoon
I'm gna mention this for the third and final time and I hope u grasp it this time. cuz its really causing u to argue on complete tangents.
disagreeing with american policy does not diminish its role in global security.
this is very important, please understand this. cuz I simply am not going to continue to respond to u bashing american policy when it is all but an irrelevant point.
Regardless of whether I disagree with America's policies or not, it's role in global security is not so obvious as you make it out. Mentioning NK, Taiwan, israel, carriers, may to you seem like ample proof of America's gigantic role in world security, but to me and other people these simplistic examples prove nothing of the sort. Furthermore, you can't demonstrate that the UN is useless purely by giving examples of what America has done, since UN actions and US actions are not mutually exclusive. Believe it or not, but sometimes the US and the UN work together. A successful US action may also be a successful UN action.
Now, to you, I can reply "disagreeing with United Nations policy does not diminish it's role in world security".Comment
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The tangents were of your making, I was simply replying to them. If you don't want me to examine your examples, then don't bring them up.
Regardless of whether I disagree with America's policies or not, it's role in global security is not so obvious as you make it out. Mentioning NK, Taiwan, israel, carriers, may to you seem like ample proof of America's gigantic role in world security, but to me and other people these simplistic examples prove nothing of the sort. Furthermore, you can't demonstrate that the UN is useless purely by giving examples of what America has done, since UN actions and US actions are not mutually exclusive. Believe it or not, but sometimes the US and the UN work together. A successful US action may also be a successful UN action.
Now, to you, I can reply "disagreeing with United Nations policy does not diminish it's role in world security".
ur absolutely right. sometimes the UN has to call the big dog in. and sometimes the US is nice and comes. I never said the UN is useless. but someone stated that their role in global security was vital, and its just not. I think ur trying to extrapolate this disagreement into something of much more massive in scope than it is. which is typical when ppl w/ bias' get worked up.Comment
-
Technically you can use either more stupid or stupider. I looked it up.Originally posted by flash9286
more stupid
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Not quite. I'm happy Uday and Qusay were biting the dust. For the Bush regime, I'd prefer a regular trial for their criminal war.Originally posted by TCO
Lately, you are equating Iraq and the US and Bush and Hussein.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
On what charge and on what authority?Originally posted by HershOstropoler
For the Bush regime, I'd prefer a regular trial for their criminal war.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
Comment