The UN responsible for WTC?

[Soback]

Silk is completly right. I would say the same thing but with stronger and very upseting words. So I am just going to say that Silk is COMPLETLY right.

[Guest $iLk]

Remember Soback, me and Silk are completely different people..

$

Use my PiMp tight dollar sign! and my big L

$iLk

As for me being right, yeah but I couldve worded it better.

I try not to get emotional, but when an organization is blatantly anti-American what am I supposed to do?

[Guest dnoyeB!]

I think if your country does not have the economy to sustain being sanctioned or is overly dependent on external trade, then you are a slave of the UN.

If you are a major contributor to the economies of other Nations, then you are the master of the UN.

Why should we leave the UN when we can act with impunity? What? woult they sanction the US. I fall from my chair with laughter

Its good that the US appears to be at odds with the UN at times. This leads credence to the false idea that we don't run the damn thing...

[Menchise]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

That's 66%.

Passing an international law through the UN GA requires a larger majority of votes than many national senates passing legislation. If the vote doesn't go your way, well, that's democracy for you. If the US can't accept that, then what the hell is it doing in the UN?! I'll get to that later.

---

First of all you cannot have a tyranny of the majority.

Second of all Democracy is not a form of government, and if it was it would be a step above anarchy.

The United States is not a Democracy, even though Al Gore won the popular vote, it was the state votes that counted.

If things were done on a popular vote, you wouldn't have a very happy citizenry. If the 60% or so of non-gun owners were to vote for everyone else to not be able to own guns, you have a minority of well armed badasses that might see things differently.

quote:

---

Then how do you explain the Trusteeship Council, whose sole purpose was to facilitate the formation of independant states from the old imperial colonies? How do you explain the dozens of UN agencies that work on humanitarian issues? How do you explain the World Health Organization's campaign against HIV/AIDS? Clearly, the UN was always meant to be more than just a "peacekeeper" between East and West.

---

I said at first, you are confusing what is going on NOW with what was the founding intention. The intention of the founding fathers of America wasn't to start a hundred social programs to take care of freeloaders, yet because it's going on now by your argument it is what was always meant to be?

quote:

---

Of course it needs reform. The issue is what reforms?

---

All governing authority, judiciary, and military power should be taken away. In it's place should remain a big debate table where all the players meet to discuss options. The UN should simply be a forum for talks and working out treaties between nations.

I really wish we would get out BTW and the reason we haven't is because of weak leaders in our senate and house of representatives.

[me]

quote:

---

I really wish we would get out BTW and the reason we haven't is because of weak leaders in our senate and house of representatives.

---

$iLk wouldn't it be better to work from the inside for the changes that you want, instead of just abandoning the entire thing?

[Soback]

Originaly posted by $iLk

__________________________________________________

The intention of the founding fathers of America wasn't to start a hundred social programs to take care of freeloaders, yet because it's going on now

__________________________________________________

Yeah, in my view Democrats are just like comunists. The people who make $200,000 a year have to pay 50% taxes to take care of the people who have 10 kids or pay social security for people who haven't worked here a day. I know that this is on a side note, but if you have 10 kids and don't belive in birth control or abortion then OBSTAIN from you know what instead of taking money from someone else who is trying to provide a better life for their kids or maybe wants to put off having kids untill he has a couple of grand a month to put away so that he can raise one and give them a kind of life they should have. Lets say you make $100,000 a year, and you don't have to pay for all the free loaders, that will be about 5% less taxes, that's 5,000 you can spend on your kids school, or whatever else they might need. I am not even talking about all the beurcratic, wastefull, unneeded social programs you have sucking money out of the government.

Also understand that I am not talking about wellfare for 6 months or student grants and other helpfull things. If someone lost their job and needs a little help to get back on track that's fine, but if you receive wellfare for over a year then you are a bloodsucking tick. How long does it take to find a job? If you are a student who wants a better education and learn more then you should have all the money to do so because then you will be able to better contribute once you educate yourself. But because of all the other things taking money away from where it really needs to go, people who want to have a better life, learn more, and provide more for thier families have to suffer.

[tagos]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

Yet the UN defined him as a "political prisoner". The same UN that promotes state sponsors of terrorism to the Security council.

---

Let's not forget that states do the same thing. Terrorist/freedom fighter etc. My own UK refused to extradite the murderous Pinochet and until five years ago the USA would not extradite convicted IRA terrorists on the run because they were considered political prisoners. It's not a black and white issue. Given my druthers I'd extradite in both cases.

[Guest $iLk]

Soback I agree 100% and those are the exact thoughts I have when thinking about leftists.

quote:

---

Let's not forget that states do the same thing. Terrorist/freedom fighter etc. My own UK refused to extradite the murderous Pinochet and until five years ago the USA would not extradite convicted IRA terrorists on the run because they were considered political prisoners. It's not a black and white issue. Given my druthers I'd extradite in both cases.

---

My whole point is - it's a state responsibility. Who wanted the S.O.B. turned over? The voting terrorist sponsoring nations in the UN no doubt.

The UN is in a majority anti-US, anti-Israel. Maybe because we are more prosperous than other member nations? Terrorists in the UN can use the UN to further their goals since it is a "respected" body, instead of say, Iraq going straight to Kuwait, he can make a deal in the UN to screw Kuwait over.

quote:

---

$iLk wouldn't it be better to work from the inside for the changes that you want, instead of just abandoning the entire thing?

---

I agree that what I proposed up above would be a good form for it to take as it would be useful. What it is now is a government beuracracy. You can't get rid of things like that, all the social divisions and programs in our government can't be gotten rid of. We'd have to put Nazis in charge and execute the social leaders in order to get rid of it - which is too big a step in my opinion.

The UN has overgrown itself, as governments tend to do, and will not stop until it has become a globalist government with direct control over the liberty, privacy, and thoughts of every individual on the planet. Only then will it's hunger be quenched.

The US government would go just as far if the people would allow it. That's why our republican system is designed to prevent it.

That's why leftists hate being thwarted by trivial things like "constitutionality".

Sorry if I'm going off into rhetoric here, but the UN just gets me fired up thinking about it.

We need to put Michael Savage in charge of this nation.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

We need to put Michael Savage in charge of this nation.

---

Oh yea, then you would start seeing some major changes taking place.

Hypothetical situation.

Let's say that when you file your taxes you have like this 5 or 10 page booklet with all of the fields or social programs and other ways your money can be spend. So you have to check the check boxes next to them if you want some of your taxes to go there. Then we would see fast what is considered unneeded by the people and what is not. So that a program that few think is needed will get less money than a program that a lot of people support. That's just a less extreeme kind of way for those who don't like my hardcore, fist through the wall remarks.

[Guest $iLk]

[warren126692]

ok if the u.s. pulls out of the u.n. what will happen to it?

would it just collapse?

the u.s. does have a very large part in the u.n. most of the fighting power comes from the u.s. or other u.s. allied countries.

canada, u.k., france, and australia.

not to mention the money the u.s. just hands out in truck loads every year and the cuntries that get the money seam to want us all to die the most!

instead of worring about every body else [just let them kill them selves off] the people of the u.s. should worrey about getting rid of crack baby mothers who have ten kids who then will have crack babys to!

why is the u.s. giving the afgans food when they want to kill us and when i can go 20 miles from my house and find some poor pathetic excuse for a human who is leting his/her kid starve to death so they can take there welfair and get waisted off it?

i agree totaly whith what soback says!

fend for your self or starve is what i say, all this give to the needy when they dont need just turns my gut.

what a country this has become, it used to be you where shuned when you went and did somthing like getting pregnet at 14, now some people think its "cool", what has happened to us????

democrats!

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

[Menchise]

[Guest]

Without the US, the UN is NOTHING, it would come apart at the seams.

The sooner this happens the happier I will be.

It has no place in this country and should be booted out on its little collective socialist behind.

I don't care how much power the US has over the UN, when we are giving away some our own lands to the UN for thier International heritage garbage, and also giving manpower for police/peace missions, and giving up our contitutional liberties to some WORLD court crap. Sorry, it is time to throw this old beast away and start over. It has WAY too much power and should be thrown away like the original league of nations.

THe grand experiment has been a failure, FLUSH IT!!

[Menchise]

quote:

---

It has no place in this country and should be booted out on its little collective socialist behind.

---

Jaguar, in case you didn't notice, socialists are anti-UN.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I rebutted these arguments weeks ago (in the "Continuing the Debate" thread) and I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.

---

As I recall we soundly showed your arguments to be based on emotion and having no basis in reality and you withdrew from the thread without a credible answer to many of our points against your argument. Glad you won't repeat yourself though, we've had plenty of that in the past.

In case you're wondering why the UN is anti-Israel, take your mind out of the 1950's for a moment and realize that many things have happened to a once noble organization in the past oh... 50 years. A majority of it's members gained over that time HATE Israel and sadly have too big of a voice in the UN. Because they are disadvantaged... boo hoo.

Short but sweet... BTW, what happened to my Clinton thread? Did anyone see what the hell he said today?

[Guest dnoyeB!]

Unfortunately there are not enough jobs for everyone. Its not always a persons fault he has no work, this country will ALWAYS have unemployed people no matter what. So what becomes of them?

Remember the 90s were a decade of "streamlining." Which means firing a bunch of people and making the few left do the work of 2 men so the execs can pay themselves higher bonuses. Is this hard work? No this is theft. Same with NAFTA.

Take a store like K-Mart. How many neighborhood stores are put out of business by K-mart? How many more people would be employeed if there was no k-mart but everyone had a neighborhood store for clothing and car repairs and deli and kitchen equipment, etc. Then the profits from K-mart go to the shareholders elsewhere. Not back into the local community.

We effectively have a dynamic trade deficit between the rich and the poor. The democrats (claim) they want to take it back, the republicans want to call it good business. It is good business. Its just bad humanity.

If we banned big businesses, America would be a utopia. Fewer filthy rich but much less crime and starvation.

I haven't solved the unfortunate side effect of banning big businesses which is to give us a trade deficit with neighboring countries...

[Menchise]

quote:

---

As I recall we soundly showed your arguments to be based on emotion and having no basis in reality and you withdrew from the thread without a credible answer to many of our points against your argument. Glad you won't repeat yourself though, we've had plenty of that in the past.

---

As I recall, you made a blanket statement that everything I said was emotional and ignored my latest rebuttals about democracy. I haven't withdrawn from the debate either. I've been pre-occupied with other debate threads.

dnoyeB!, your latest post was off topic. I recommend the "Continuing the Debate" thread.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dnoyeB!:

If we banned big businesses, America would be a utopia. Fewer filthy rich but much less crime and starvation.

I haven't solved the unfortunate side effect of banning big businesses which is to give us a trade deficit with neighboring countries...

---

This all sounds interesting, why don't you expand on that.

Here's the thing though. You ban Albertsons from my neighbourhood where 30 people work. You open up 3 or 4 little food stores where I don't know lets say 10 people each. First of all I don't know if little stores really need that much people, last time I was in one it had only 2 to 4 working in it but also then you have more competition between those stores and then some of them will have to close to leave 2 stores open, then instead of having one big store with 30 people you have 2 small stores with 15 and that creates more unemployment. Maybe I just don't understand it correctly.

[Guest $iLk]

If we banned big business the economy would either fail, or those who were sent to small business would repeat what made them successful and end up rich and big business again, driving out competition.

But like Menchise said, Continuing the debate thread is where a good place for that is.

Menchise the reason I believe your argument is based on emotion is because you, and now denoyB use the "poor disadvantaged" as an emotional tie to why your economic plan would be helping them. In reality we showed that in effect it would help no one only hurt the majority in the long run. I would rather be able to get ahead and rest and actually enjoy life rather than bust my ass my entire life to feed some social parasite.

Add that to the fact it wouldn't work and you got so peeved when human nature was brought into it you tried to ignore it - then tried to explain how eskimos from 300 years ago broke the pattern - wonder why they are dead?

Anyway we can take this argument there if you wish, as always it's a pleasure debating you

At least we don't have to debate the placement of our stuff in AW

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Menchise the reason I believe your argument is based on emotion is because you, and now denoyB use the "poor disadvantaged" as an emotional tie to why your economic plan would be helping them. In reality we showed that in effect it would help no one only hurt the majority in the long run. I would rather be able to get ahead and rest and actually enjoy life rather than bust my ass my entire life to feed some social parasite.

---

I was referring to my latest arguments about democracy in that thread, which are yet to be rebutted.

quote:

---

Anyway we can take this argument there if you wish

---

I'm on my way.

[Guest $iLk]

I'm tired but I put a pre-emptive reply in there.

Fun sparring with you, but my original challenge of lying out how you think this government would be set up goes unanswered. If you could outline it, here is what would happen.

1. You show how it would be organized

2. We show you where each point would fail

3. You would add more of a bureacracy to fix the flaws we find

4. We would show how that would simply gum up the works

5. You repeat ad infinitum.

But we'll see how it turns out.

[warren126692]

bohoooooooooo..................

give me money..

i am a third world country,

i am poor and my people are starving. send help now so that when my people are fead they can go make about 20 kids each!!! then they will be starving agen and you will need to send more help, boho wahaaaaa

THIS is what the world is like today, and this is why the population has exploded. becouse we help them live. instead we should NOT give them any thing and make them get off there arsses and fix there own place!!!

my policy to the needy (unless you dezerve need, which most people dont) is fend for your self or die!!!

[Guest]

I think Warreng has the cycle just about right..

And that would be my policy as well, if you have sight, hands and feet, then you can work. If you are missing a limb, it will limit you, but you can still work. You are retarded, still limited, but able to work. Now parapalegic, that's another story, indurance ought to cover you, or if you were born that way, then your parents took on that repoinsibility by having you. Otherwise, I might be able to lend a helping hand.

Disabled veteran? sit ye there young man, we will take care of you!!

[Guest Shingen]

That's what I can't figure out! All these 'third world' countries crying because all their people are straving (actually it's the bleeding heart liberals who are crying about it, and the church organizations that make BANK on donations) anywayz...

* they WON'T change the government or the economy to sustain a large population..

* They WON'T EXPLOIT the resources in the land to any degree that would benift the masses,

* They horde all of the viable wealth in a few select families..

* they won't develop an infrastructure to sustain a viable economy even if they DID EXPLOIT the resources within said country...

and to top it all off..

* They go and produce MASS children that they can't feed anyway!

Talk about a bunch of idiots!

PLEASE don't tell me that these countries can't change there governments or econmies...

PLEASE don't tell me they they don't have any resources..

and PLEASE don't tell me that they CAN'T stop making babies that they can't feed!

As for the UN, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't all the high ranking power position within the UN held by communist and ex-KGB officials? Could be the problem...

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]