Down with the U.N!!!!

The United Nations has failed so many times. Many talk of the need for the United Nations but the truth is that the only good thing that the UN has done was done mostly by the America. UN stood by while millions died worldwide. You all talk as America is evil and only wants oil. Many countries just want oil, at least America does good for people even if they are looking out for themselves first. Thank you Bush for freeing Iraq. Bush should be president again. Many of us love Bush. I know all you hear hate Bush and the America but many also just talk without knowing what they are saying. I do not mean to make enemies I mostly read this site but have posted. It is a great site where people from all over the world can speak there mind.

 

Since you don't live in the US, I suppose it's easy to say "let Bush be pres. again!" because, well, ya don't live here... Eh...

 

Its actually kind of nice to read that someone not from America actually likes America...I didnt agree with a damn thing he/she said but at the same time, I hate the feeling that the rest of the world looks down on my country.

 

it is nice that some people from kuwait are actually grateful what america did for their country, unlike some nato country, which will remain nameless, but is famous for their cheese and whine(oops i mean wine) and was under hitlers boot.


The UN has failed so many times...under kofi annan how many people have been killed? We had genocide in rwanda, this shit in sudan, and the shit in somalia..how many times can kofi annan fail? These people cant be brought back to life...

 

Ah so simply because more than half a century later, the French gocernment decides not to play lapdog to the imperialist ambitions and total contravention of Congressionally ratified international conventions and charters of the presiding US administration, France is now ungrateful for American assistance in WWII???

Please grow up and start using your brain for more than the unceasing regurgitation of Bill o'Reilly-esque polemic.

Criticism of US policy is right and proper when, as now, it is Washington which is presuming to dictate the world order in total disregard for .

Given your penchant for WWII analogies, perhaps youll recognise with which party in the WWII scenario our current PNAC agenda of unilateralist militant aggression against other sovereign nations puts our nation directly in line?

Clue for you: A country known for its autumn beer festival.

 

Where in the world did i say they were ungrateful bcause they didnt follow us into iraq? Oh wait, i didnt. You just made that assumption and made an ass out of yourself, again. I have np with france deciding to not follow us on iraq, while i disagree with their position, they as a sovereign nation have that right. No, i was speaking of stories i've heard from right after WW2 when the allies liberated Paris. For example, my grandfather tells a story of a french maid who got snooty with him because "the germans tipped better." C'mon are you serious? How ungrateful can someone be?

Now shall we talk about De gaulle? Lets see, his insistance to build a nuclear weapon was constantly a thorn in our side and a strain on our relations. Him withdrawing France from nato and weakening it horribly(though not fatally). He even halted letting the brits into the ECC, oh yes, what a greatful person he is.

I guess they were miffed over Dien Bien Phu.

 

So all you've done is to make a sweeping generalisation on the entire nation of France from your grandpa's story of one crotchety waitress (as if you can't find innumerable cases of rudeness in the US) and De Gaulle's personal beligerence.

Bravo, youve just painted yourself with the same brush you routinely paint all those who dare criticise our wayward policies.

The only fool here is you Megara and your tiresome regurgitation of ignorant remarks against all other nations as if that in any way excuses or justifies our own present national disposition in the world.

 

you seem to push over de gaulle's grudge as 'personal.' What you forget is that the nation voted for him as their leader...even after all of this instances he was voted in. It seems his willingness to stick it to his "allies" was not a personal grudge, but a national one. It seems the french pride was hurt.

 

Like every nation, the leader does not represent the entire nation and quite routinely not even a significant majority if any majority at all. In the case of the French following WWII, yes you could easily say that their pride had been wounded, as would our own had we been invaded, occupied, saddled with a government favorable to our occupiers (very much like our current role elsewhere in the world) and subsequently forced to undergo a period of nationwide division as neighbour pointed accusing finger at neighbour with the oft heard moniker of "collabo" (collaborator).

But of course, from your comfy vantage point 60 years on and fueled with hand me down stories of the experiences of others, you glibly pronounce indictments against entire peoples (and regions of the globe) with whom you've no personal experience upon which to base such sweeping indictments.

 

Oh Megara has no problem with the French position on Iraq he is so statesman like, just how dare you besmirch his character in that way Lick by suggesting anything else. Don’t you realise just how badly this sane and sober commentator is misunderstood, I mean in thread after threads he keeps having to explain that people get his meaning wrong.

No it is that ‘French attitude’ that he dislikes, Oh please megara I am so sorry if this is incorrect, and just don’t hesitate to put me right.

That ‘French attitude’ that makes them as a people, even if it is not the same generation, to be ungrateful for past deeds. I mean everyone knows that the US singlehandedly liberated Europe, I know that is incorrect but for some reason when I listen to a certain type of American I do get that impression, clearly just one of those misunderstandings.

Yes maybe the Free French were on holiday for WWII, but I think it must have been a very rough vacation with more French troops dying than the US. I did think myself that some of those deaths helped liberate Europe as an alliance, but I could be wrong and of cause there were the nearly half a million civilian French deaths but I suppose they are unimportant.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/Hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm

Oh and while some countries should be eternally ‘grateful what america did for their country’ that does not need to be reciprocal, I mean without the French there probably would have been no USA to save, the French. So the Americans don’t have to be grateful since it was just something the Frogs had to do to be saved later on. Or is that a misunderstanding?

 

Now on thoes french casualties you listed, did those include the french that betrayed their own people to the germans? Oh wait, that didnt happen, de gaulle said it didnt, i'm sorry.As for being eternally grateful? Again, where did i say anything about that? I spoke within context of that time period and the people involved. Once again, you have not read what i said and injected what you wished i would have said into an argument. Sorry that does NOT work.

Yes, i am thankful for lafayette and those who came and fought for America in our time of need. We returned the favor twice over with the world wars.

I'm am sure there were many drunk and arrogant americans. As the british saying goes, "the problem with the yanks is that they are overpaid, oversexed and over here"

De gaulle won with over 78% of the vote. Yes, he wasnt speaking for the majority. Yes, they didnt love him when he rebuffed both the soviets and the Americans. Yes they didnt love him when they denied the british entrance into the EEC. Thats why in 1962 they gave him a BIGGER MAJORITY in the parliament. THen in 1967 he spited the canadians by standing in montreal and claiming "vive le quebec libre!" He spited the 3 nations that helped free france from hitlers boot. And the french loved him. Sorry, the 78% that voted for him didnt represent the majority. I must be mistaken.

Also, i wasnt aware that i wasnt allowed to pass judgments on countries or times from periods before i was born. I'll remember never to speak about people before june 3rd 1983 and then, only if i've been to the country. I hope you do the same.

 

Oh and so once more the poor megara is misunderstood

When he said that France oh sorry nearly did it again, when he said that a "nato country, which will remain nameless, but is famous for their cheese and whine(oops i mean wine) and was under hitlers boot" should actually be grateful what america did for it, he didn’t mean they had to be eternally grateful he actually had a cut off point at which these people could in his opinion stop being grateful. I’m unsure what that time period is but I’m sure that megara will tell us or maybe that is a misunderstanding?

 

i just reject you spinning what i say to suit you.

YOu didnt start posting until after i clarified what period of french people i was talking about and still you reject that. Funny, wait no its not.

 

Damn, less than 2 pages and already we've gone off topic. I'll just try to bring us back:

I agree, the U.N. is worthless (on security at least. They do a lot for disaster victims and such). They bitch and moan about everything we do, but U.S. forces always make up more than half of any U.N. military operation. They did nothing when Sadaam gassed the Kurds (blatantly violating the Declaration of Human Rights), invaded Iran, and ran his country using censorship and a gestapo-like police force. They continue to do nothing about the blatant human rights violations in N. Korea and China except sanctions which only end up hurting the people, not the leaders (who don't give a shit about the people), because Kin Jong Il and his buddies will always have enough to eat.

So yeah you're right. Please stick around the forums, we could use a few more members who don't have their heads 3 feet up their asses.

 

Megara and Maxpower seem to be intelignet. Others who replyed on this seem to have a tendency to allways spin the issues off of line. They seem to have personal problem with what America is going in the world and ignore the real facts. I can understand this thought because as I have a personal problem with Saddam. My family is sure that Saddam murderded my uncle for refusing to join iraq army. I see that this is how I would justify the removal of Saddam but I do believe that one cannot deny that regardless of mass destruction weapons, the ousting of Saddam is better for the world. Who can honestly dispute that. Only a country as great as America would loose their lives to try to give oppressed country like iraq the freedom they have.

I have read many things on hear about iraq and the Americas intention there but it is odd as if many of you are talking about some other war. I see that when all one does is read what the medias says that they can be easliy fooled.

-All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity.

 

OH no I’ve misunderstood megara again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Megara brings up the subject of France and its peoples gratefulness or seeming lack of it in the first sentence of his first post of this thread but others are accused of spinning the thread off line a strange view or one could say spin on the subject. But it is of cause probably just a misunderstanding.

**

I have been supporting anti –Saddam campaigns for over 20 years and know that he was a complete bastard a long time before most people in the west and especially the US discovered he was ‘evil’ when he invaded Kuwait. The thing is that the western powers including the US supported Saddam at the time he was his bloodiest because the US saw him as a way of getting at the hated Iranian regime. There have been a number of Americans on this very forum that have supported the US policy of supporting Saddam at that time for that very reason.

I supported the move to get Saddam out of Kuwait and I supported the Southern and northern uprisings that the US called for then refused to support. I also think that once that kuwait was free more pressure should have been put on it to become more democratic.

My problem with the US action in Iraq was not the toppling of Saddam but that I did not trust the Bush Admins intentions I did not believe they had the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart. So far my fears seem to be supported.

I would look at the history of US involvement in Central and South America and how US actions were dictated by there own interests or ideology often with little regard for the people of the countries involved.

**

As to the UN it needs to be reformed but then I think all the international organisations needed reform including the WTO and World Bank. The thing is that it is one country that is to a large degree dominant and could reform them for the better the reason why it isn’t happening is that the US’s has all to gain the way it is.

 

I think the Americans are doing what needs to be done. And i'm glad they have the balls to do it alone if need be. Iraq was a security risk, i don't care how you spin it. With a country run by a mass murderer like saddam, he had to be taken care of. I was glad to see a few country's join them with troops and support. Even though it was a tooken amount. I was dismayed to see my own country not give support (Canada). Even though we couldn't over much, but at least we could have supported our american brothers. I think Bush is doing a pretty damn good job, considering what he was elected into. He takes no bullshit and does not mind saying so through speech and action. And i honestly feel the world is going to be a safer place at the end of the day.

 

Megalomaniac

Oh gee like that’s fine then, but your post it hollow rhetoric it means and says very little, it gives us your opinions but they are useless without a context so I would ask you the more interesting question of why you hold them.

country run by a mass murderer like saddam, he had to be taken care of

He was a mass murderer back when he was being supported by the US in fact that was when his murdering spree was at its bloodiest so why was helping a mass murder ok back then?

I think Bush is doing a pretty damn good job

Why? If we take Iraq there has been a series of serious fuck ups, that I and other have documented (if you wish I can do again). The US has the largest deficit in history, even with a reduced dollar it is still I believe importing more than it exports, the economy seems based on government and personal debt, that is only sustained as long as China allows it.

He takes no bullshit and does not mind saying so through speech and action

Do you really think George writes his own speeches and do you honestly think he is a good public speaker?

As to action, as I’ve said his admin seems to fuck up a lot.

i honestly feel the world is going to be a safer place at the end of the day.

Why? Afghanistan is not pacified and the taliban are once more in charge of areas of it. The rest it held by bloody handed warlords that are no better than Saddam but happen to be supported by the US. Heroin production has sky rocketed and nearly all of it is heading west. Iraq is a mess. The recruiters for al qaeda don’t have to work to get new followers, the US does the job for them.

 

The real problem with this statement is that it presumes that Kofi Annan can somehow "do" something. With what? The UN army?

The UN is a forum for member states. The UN itself is nothing. Annan is not Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the Starship United Nations, and he cannot just say "make it so".

Do you think the US was chomping at the bit to go into Rwanda and save everyone, but were held back by the UN? Nobody wanted to get involved, so nobody did anything. Do you think Annan could have ORDERED any nation to intervene in Rwanda? Do you think the US would accept a standing UN army under Annan's command? Whenever the US can't be bothered, you blame the UN.