The point I was trying to make is that until you are in fact an American, you will never know what it means to be free.

We have so much more to offer then any other country out there.

Last post for me...on this thread.

tried to destroy the power of the u.n for 12 years or so is a more accurate statement.

why not? because the "big boys" don't think before they act, they wash dishes with chainsaws.

For the record Webby...

I think she's an idiot.

Doesn't change the fact that the UN is inept and the it's interest is that of 'member nations' and not the world community.

Please continue...

Care to go over the UN's 'books'?

Feline:

Ah... we are back to "US hating" and "making up lies" blah??

You still in denial that Saddam was placed into power by the US??
Is that one of these "lies"? If so, go look up some common knowledge and try and lean something!

BTW... A bitch is a female dog and, least as far as I noticed, I ain't no female. With all due respect to dogs, I'd hate em to be associated with you and your foul US street trash popcorn lingo. :winkwink:

Granted, I have never lived outside of the US, but I know 100% that life here is better then anywhere else on earth.

hummm.... typical and pathetic. USA! USA! USA!

The words "united states" & "veto" appear with remarkable regularity and density.

broke:

Sure.. there is definately an element of "member nations" interests - the UN is not some "perfection in paradise".

These "interests" are imposed by those who have, or assume to have "power" - including France, US, Germany blah.

Overall, there are many nations operating within the UN Charter and no alternative has been suggested so far, - so, tho it may not be perfect, it is at least a working framework to allow nations a voice and encourage communication.

The UN has served well since it was founded, - I doubt anyone would dispute that. Tho, it may be that it is now time for some "overhaul" and this is currently being implemented by the Secretary General.

So do USD.

:winkwink:

Who said Saddam never "attact" the U.S.? He refused to back down to Bush's demands and wouldn't allow the U.S. access to their oil reserves...that sounds like a direct attack to me, he definitely needed to go. That and the genocide and crimes against humanity.

I'm not convinced that the guy they have is the real Saddam though. It could be, but the story doesn't quite ring true, either they're not telling us the whole truth, or it's a complete lie.

Tell me this, if your potential captors have you surrounded but don't recognise you, would you own up to who you were without a fight? Seems a little fishy to me.

I would. What exactly has the UN done the benefited the world community?

The creation of Israel?

It's intervention in Serbia? Its work in Somalia, Rwanda, Chechnya?

Sanctions imposed, but not enforced?

Seriously -- someone please give me something the UN has done with any efficacy other than open the lines of communication?

slackologist:

Mmm.. noticed this! :winkwink: The keyword density is pretty high on these words :-)

As for the "USD" ... this appears with amazing regularity on the UN bills to the US which were never paid by the US for many years as part of their "UN subscription". It was only when the US President felt a "need" for UN involvement after 9/11 that the accounts were brought.. almost.. up to date.

BTW.. Ya ever noticed how the US never "asks" anyone?? It is always a "warning" :1orglaugh Tis little surprise there are some "attitudes" developing. Tis all crap! :winkwink:

bena1975ca:


That is funny!!! :Graucho

broke:

DUH??? Check out.. first.. why the UN was formed... then have a look at the massive amount of stuff that has done nothing but good... and then take account of the, in comparison, few amounts of "failures" and ya may get the beginning of a clue as to why it is still in existance :-)

broke:

And... gotta tell ya... there is not one single nation on the face of this earth that could have effectively given support to people dying (for whatever reason), than the UN.

The UN is only as good as it's active members, but as a combined unit, it has achieved much.

And I asked for one thing... why is that so hard? Give me one thing the UN has done that has not directly benefited a member nation.

They acted as a human shield around some plant in Rwanda during the war - okay it was involuntary, but you can always count on the UN to save the day :P

broke:

You actually serious??? :1orglaugh

Hell.. na.. I ain't going to educate you!! I've already hit upon one thing above - read it! Then look up all the rest - I gotta go!!

PS.. Last and one recent clue... what would happen if the US, instead of unilateral action, decided to follow along with the majority in the UN over the Iraq issue? Think about it and try to kill any baggage of nationalism and denegration of other organisations and nations while you do. Nobody can do "deals" with themselves - they may not like their bedfellows, but sometimes there ain't a choice when you are talking about 1000's of lives.

Peace out!! :winkwink:

Interesting question. Very deep if you think about it. GWB didn't crack down on Saddam just because he's a dictator. There's tons of dictators. Didn't crack down on him cause he gassed his own people... Sunnis don't consider Kurds their "own people" and US is kinda hypocritical about lecturing Saddam about Chemical Weapons when the US dumped TONS of Agent Orange on Vietnam.

Just come out and say We Did it for the OIL and I'd buy it. Sure its fucked up...but when you got the power you can get away with it. True 5000 years ago, stil true now.