| Author | Message | ||
     cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2864 Registered: 8-2003 |
No one I know says there is no corruption in the US, and the reason people carp about the UN is because it's lorded over the world and particularly the US as some sort holy body that's beyond reproach. Enron didn't kill anyone in Rwanda, the Balkans, Iraq, Darfur...etc, or get paid off as it was going on. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2748 Registered: 12-2001  |
"and the reason people carp about the UN is because it's lorded over the world and particularly the US" Now, that is paranoia. If anybody lords it over the world, it is us. Moreover, since we are effectively the military arm of the U.N. whenever there is some heavy lifting to be done, I can't see how the U.N. lords it over us. P.S. The U.N. hasn't killed anybody in the places listed either except to the extent that their inaction has allowed more dying to happen. But by the inaction standard, almost all of us are murderers to some extent. | ||
| Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 441 Registered: 5-2001  |
"But by the inaction standard, almost all of us are murderers to some extent." You can play guilty and prentend we're all victims too, but I hold Kofi Anon acountable for what happened in Rwanda. Over 800,000 slaughtered. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2868 Registered: 8-2003 |
Yes, the UN is good, the US is bad. Amen. | ||
| Matthew Citizen Username: Basketball1127 Post Number: 77 Registered: 11-2004  |
I don't think it benefits anyone regardless of party to just write the UN off as corrupt and useless. Without the UN even as a presense if nothing else... it's once again simply every country for itself and no more world-unity. Yes there will be NATO and other ally groups around the world yet simply an organization that represents the interests of world peace (in theory), is necesary. John Kerry pretty much ran as the UN's choice? Some people will say anything to attack certain people I suppose, even if it has no base whatsoever. John Kerry ran and was superior on the issues, as shown in all three debates, yet lost the election due to.. well, don't get me started on that one. But running entirely as the UN's candidate? Give me a break. | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 746 Registered: 8-2003  |
cjc, take you black and white glasses of. Both the UN and the US have done good things and bad things. We should also remember that something as complex as the UN is the sum of it's parts. The US surely is a big piece of the UN. As far as Rwanda, etc. The UN can only do what it's memeber countries support. The US as the worlds last remaining super power should embrace the UN and help shape it, not condem it. This might be a tough investment for a while, but in the long run I believe it would be for the better of all of us. The current administration is clearly not interested in this, though. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1336 Registered: 6-2003  |
Kerry was the first choice of just about everyone in the world outside of Jesusland. If we ignore the international boundaries for a moment, what we really have is a Free World consisting of traditional America and its international allies, and the Jesusland enclave dominated by religious fanatics. The question to ask is how the Free World can liberate Jesusland while preventing its uncontrolled militia elements from carrying out further acts of terrorism. | ||
| Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 442 Registered: 5-2001 |
Montagnard thinks: "The question to ask is how the Free World can liberate Jesusland while preventing its uncontrolled militia elements from carrying out further acts of terrorism." I think a better question to ask is: Do you think those U.N. member nations who felt (or still feel) that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do were being bribed? John Kerry suggested that the coalition members were being bribed. Interesting, isn't it? | ||
| Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 443 Registered: 5-2001 |
How come the media isn't reporting more on this story? It's a major scandal; larger than Enron. Where are the in depth stories? | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 465 Registered: 6-2004  |
Corruption in the oil-for-food program does not logicially lead to the conclusion that the U.S. was right to invade Iraq, which seems to be what the wing nuts are implying. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 6898 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think there will be a lot more main stream media attention after the Volcker (sp) report comes out. I believe it is to be released this week. | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 1760 Registered: 5-2001  |
"Yes, the UN is good, the US is bad. Amen." Right. That's exactly what he's saying. Way to have a substantive discussion. I am so tired of wingnuts accusing liberals of "hating America". What simplistic garbage. By the same logic, any parent who is displeased with their children's behavior and trying to get them to shape up must hate their kids. This acceptance of the "liberals hate America" assertion by many of those who voted for Bush just demonstrates a disdain for critical thinking and self-examination. When those qualities are applied to the U.N. situation, we get brilliant conclusions such as the U.N. should be dismantled, or at least kicked out of NYC, etc. Sure, the oil-for-food scandal is truly horrendous, and the U.N. needs a housecleaning. But let's solve problems rather than abandon them. | ||
| overtaxdalready Citizen Username: Overtaxdalready Post Number: 292 Registered: 6-2001 |
Right notehead. And calling people "wingnuts" is an excellent way to advance a "substantive discussion". | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2869 Registered: 8-2003 |
notehead, I didn't mean to imply liberals hate America when they do their knee-jerk "UN is good, US is bad." I meant to imply they are clueless in their simple-minded embrace of the virtues of the UN and some worthless member states that make it up. It's a kind of religion to liberals, I guess. | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4070 Registered: 10-2001 |
Notehead, Name the last person you voted for who won (excluding McGreevey.  ) | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 754 Registered: 8-2003 |
He might have voted for Huemmer? | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4072 Registered: 10-2001 |
Huemmer? I was talking real elections. I mean Huemmer has less power than the President of the Columbia Senior class. plus I think Notehead's from S. Orange. | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 1761 Registered: 5-2001 |
Overtaxed: You're right, but if I'd said "conservatives" instead of "wingnuts" then Cjc would take me to task for speaking in generalizations. Cjc: The only time I see that "kneejerk" response mentioned is as a sarcastic and simplistic reduction of a liberal viewpoint used by those who disagree with it. Those who use it are showing their own inability to consider complex problems -- they need to frame everything into yes-or-no terms. That's lazy and unhelpful. Straw: In your sarcasm there seems to be a belief that there is some inherent righteousness in thinking like everybody else. That's dumb. The majority can be wrong. If enough people jumped off a cliff, you would happily follow them. Why don't you show some initiative and lead the way? | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 918 Registered: 6-2001  |
So you're talking the last Democrat presidential candidate who won the election? Probably the same one you voted for, Straw. | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4073 Registered: 10-2001 |
I did vote for Clinton in 96. And look what I got.  Won't make that mistake again. |
