Good things Liberals have done.

[ShamMol]

If by immediately, you mean 10 years after the UN imposed sanctions and requirements that Iraq had to meet or face reprisal, then yes.

How on earth can you say we invaded immediately with a straight face?

The planning of this war was nothing if not deliberate.

thats correct, it was deliberate. it was planned from the day he entered office. it was planned without any real evidence (read...against all enemies...i think that is the book to see this). they tried to find any link possible between 9-11 and iraq just to do this.

you bring up the un security council 10 years thing...my question is this, isn't that a un issue that should be dealt with by the un or was it our duty to go in and do it.

ill say it with a straight face, as soon as we could, as soon as humanly possible, with the most minimal of diplomacy on the part of the bush admins, the war hawks of the bush admin where able to invade iraq.

 

[RightinNYC]

thats correct, it was deliberate. it was planned from the day he entered office. it was planned without any real evidence (read...against all enemies...i think that is the book to see this). they tried to find any link possible between 9-11 and iraq just to do this.

I won't get into this, you know my thoughts on that already.

you bring up the un security council 10 years thing...my question is this, isn't that a un issue that should be dealt with by the un or was it our duty to go in and do it.

That's the whole point. Unfortunately, when the Security Council is rife with corruption and bribery, then nothing happens. What would have been better? Sit there for all eternity while Russia, France, etc continued to grow richer through illegally skimming profits that were intended to feed starving Iraqi children? If we had not acted, nothing would have happened, and that outcome was unacceptable.

ill say it with a straight face, as soon as we could, as soon as humanly possible, with the most minimal of diplomacy on the part of the bush admins, the war hawks of the bush admin where able to invade iraq.

You can believe what you like.

 

[ShamMol]

I won't get into this, you know my thoughts on that already.

actually i don't, i haven't been on this forum long.

That's the whole point. Unfortunately, when the Security Council is rife with corruption and bribery, then nothing happens. What would have been better? Sit there for all eternity while Russia, France, etc continued to grow richer through illegally skimming profits that were intended to feed starving Iraqi children? If we had not acted, nothing would have happened, and that outcome was unacceptable.

please give me some hard evidence of people accepting money to rig votes. please give me some evidence of corruption so i can know for myself. give me evidence that they were growing rich. i just see no evidence being given and if it is i might tend to agree.

You can believe what you like.

and i certainley will. you have the right to say what you want, and i have the right to disagree

 

[Arch Enemy]

No doubt that the UN is corrupt but we need the UN in order to stay at the top of the game, don't forget that the UN is like that special club at school that every worthy nation wants to be apart of.

From the beginning the UN was doomed to be corrupt, it is mixing people who have been down each others throats since the beginning of time and we're the regulators who make sure another full scale European war doesn't occur. It will only get worse now that the Asian nations are starting to show interest in the workings of the UN.

I wonder what would of happened if France and Russia were caught in a huge illegal action with Iraq (behind the UNs back).

I like how "Black Bush" from the Dave Chapelle Show deals with the UN

"UN, You have a problem wit dat? You know what you should do? You should sanction me, sanction me with your army.
OHH wait a minute... you don't have an army, I guess that means you need to shut the **** up that's what I'd do if I had no army, I'd shut the **** up.

.... go sale some medicine bitches... I'm trying to get that oil (coughs)"

Yes it is evident that the UN does have corruption, who does have corruption? But in order for America to succeed we have to willingly support and respect the decisions of the UN.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The reason I don't blame Bush for it is because I think it's hypocritical for the left to criticize him for not doing something that there was no public support for, and that would have resulted in a crucifixion from the left.

Right, you mean like the vast support that he created through lies re Iraq, or is tryigto create now re Iran? You're telling me that if Bush put as much energy into exposing Sudan as he does in Social Security he would be unable to rally support to stop the genocide? You're saying that, right?

Our trade defecit is growing slightly, but thats not the reason for the weak dollar.

Really, growing slightly? Hmm...not what I've read or heard:

Trade gap hits record
Shortfall between U.S. imports and exports reaches $61 billion in February, well above forecasts.
April 12, 2005: 12:09 PM EDT
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Rising oil prices lifted the U.S. trade gap to a record $61.0 billion in February, the government reported Tuesday, as the difference between the nation's imports and exports came in well above Wall Street expectations....

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/12/news/economy/trade/record_trade_gap_feb05.gif

(snip)Several economists said they see no signs that the trade gap will fall in the near term. Critics of the trade imbalance charge that the increased imports can cost U.S. jobs and put downward pressure on wages.

"Large trade deficits divert consumer purchases at Wal-Mart from domestic factories to offshore producers in China and elsewhere," said University of Maryland professor Peter Morici, who predicted that the trade gap will be topping $65 billion in the coming months. "Wages adjusted for inflation will continue to fall as long as American workers must compete with subsidized Chinese imports."

But other economists argue that imports help U.S. businesses be efficient and more competitive in world markets and save consumers money in the form of lower pricing, helping the economy overall.

source & the whole story:

The bottom line is that we're both right, and we're both wrong. It's a tricky subject, and it is incorrect for either of us to claim we really know the effect of the gap.

The gap has increased by more than 33% in the last 12 months, hardly a slight increase as you wrote.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/12/news/economy/trade/

 

[RightinNYC]

actually i don't, i haven't been on this forum long.
please give me some hard evidence of people accepting money to rig votes. please give me some evidence of corruption so i can know for myself. give me evidence that they were growing rich. i just see no evidence being given and if it is i might tend to agree.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html

Headline "Saddam ‘bought UN allies’ with oil"

With all this, and Kofi's son getting implicated as well, I don't know how anyone can trust the UN.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I think that the nations in this should be punished.. but what do you expect from countries with leaders such as Chirac and Putin..

 

[RightinNYC]

I think that the nations in this should be punished.. but what do you expect from countries with leaders such as Chirac and Putin..

The problem with this is that there is NO way to punish them.

What can we do, take it to the UN, where they will veto any action in the security counci?

That's the problem with having an international board where 5 disparate powers have the ability to halt any action. Nothing can get done.l

 

[Arch Enemy]

ah

right and if we give one nation the power then it's global domination.

 

[RightinNYC]

ah

right and if we give one nation the power then it's global domination.

Exactly, that would be horrible. You and I agree 100%.

This is why the UN cannot function as a world legislative body, and should stick to the limited scope of serving in peacekeeping functions.

Maybe if its powers are limited, it will be able to do the basic jobs it was created for.

 

[ShamMol]

Exactly, that would be horrible. You and I agree 100%.

This is why the UN cannot function as a world legislative body, and should stick to the limited scope of serving in peacekeeping functions.

Maybe if its powers are limited, it will be able to do the basic jobs it was created for.

remember history? What happened with the limited powers of the league of nations (and thanks for that link, it was really interesting-gave me some insite). I see your point about some things in the UN being corrupt and how some of the countries were profitting, but i don't think we can implicate anon in this, it was his son's doing and not his.

and if it was not a legislative body, then we couldn't have world accord on pollution, landmines, the hauge, all that good stuff. if it was just peacekeeping, there would really be no point because if all nations came together for was to either war or prevent war, what does that say about our world? That we are only interested in that? that would suck.

 

[RightinNYC]

remember history? What happened with the limited powers of the league of nations (and thanks for that link, it was really interesting-gave me some insite). I see your point about some things in the UN being corrupt and how some of the countries were profitting, but i don't think we can implicate anon in this, it was his son's doing and not his.

and if it was not a legislative body, then we couldn't have world accord on pollution, landmines, the hauge, all that good stuff. if it was just peacekeeping, there would really be no point because if all nations came together for was to either war or prevent war, what does that say about our world? That we are only interested in that? that would suck.

It was Annan's fault that his son was given the job that he was. I can't think of a clearer case of the failures of nepotism. In addition, Kofi should be fired over the Sudan alone.

Here's the problem with your argument. The UN doesn't actually create any of the treaties you mention. Rather, it is a conduit for the creation of those treaties. They would most likely be signed into international "law" whether or not the UN was there, because they have the support of the majority of nations. The only purpose the UN serves in that is as a place to get it done (relatively) expediently. In that, it's acceptable.

But the problem then becomes, what about the treaties that not everyone wants passed? Nothing comes of them. The issues you mentioned are, relatively speaking, very minor ones. What about when it comes to Human Rights abuses, or Copyright infringement, or the assasination of separatist leaders.

None of these three issues can be touched. As the head of the Human Rights Commission, Libya can ignore its own problems. Copyright and assasination cannot be touched either, because the countries perpetrating them, China and Russia, are on the Security Council and can veto anything favorable to them.

Effectively, the UN has been neutered by the Security council. It can still bark loudly, and maybe take a nip at a few small rats running around, but when it comes to anything the size of a cat or larger, it turns tail and runs.

There is no need for the UN in its current capacity.

 

[Arch Enemy]

But honestly, who follows the laws of the UN fully?

I think that the whole land-mine thing was created by the Geneva Convention.. if I am not mistaken, which could easily be the case.

 

[Mixed View]

Sorry, another absurd comment. What has our strong military done for us, exactly? Wait, I know! We totally beat up on the Iraqi Army, and we sure know what a threat to the American way they were. Question? If our military is so great how come montly enlistments goals are never met despite very generous financial bonuses being offered? Please explain?

What has our military done for us? That is absurd! Since we aren't the leader in technology then why are we the national power? Because of our military. Without it America would be nothing.

Please prove to us all how Democrats are "easy on criminals"?

You let them live when they choose to kill. Why did you even ask that? I thought you had more knowledge than that! Wouldn't you know your own party?



Right again. Hitler would have been against the UN too. After all, why should we have any respect for the world community? What does the world know? We're the USA, we know better, we're smarter, right? :rofl

Prove it. The UN wasn't around so you can't! So stop all or your " Prove it. Your predjudice." crap! You just compared the Republican party to Hitler. And you want to call us predjudice?

UNBORN being the key word. BORN people do have more rights than UNBORN fetus. Don't like it? Why don't you pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Unborn, but living. You want to protect trees because they're living, but you don't care if it is a baby. A living BABY. You say fetus so you don't sound as sick as you are!

Prove it or be quiet! You're making assinine comments that have no fact base at all. Define respectable, please? I am very curious to find out what you and Republicans consider to be respectable?

People who got an education and didn't drop out of high-school. People who beifet America and aren't doing drugs, then go to haspitals, then complain that they don't get free healthcare. People who love and care un-like you.


Either prove each one of your accusations or stop making them. Come on now, you just called anyone who disagrees with you a traitor. PROVE IT or stop saying it. Show me how I hate capitalism? Freedom? Religion.

You apparenly didn't read the post very well then. You hate capitalism because you hate the rich because you take away half of their money, you hate freedom because you don't want anyone to have it, but you, you hate religion because your party doesn't follow one.

 

[ShamMol]

But honestly, who follows the laws of the UN fully?

I think that the whole land-mine thing was created by the Geneva Convention.. if I am not mistaken, which could easily be the case.

i believe that is true, but the geneva convention would not have happened but for the dialouge created by the un.

 

[RightinNYC]

i believe that is true, but the geneva convention would not have happened but for the dialouge created by the un.

You're right, the UN did help create the Geneva Convention...56 years ago.

During that 56 years, its influence declined, and it is now impotent.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I think we should have just let the pope write the Geneva convention...




...Kidding.

 

[ShamMol]

You're right, the UN did help create the Geneva Convention...56 years ago.

During that 56 years, its influence declined, and it is now impotent.

Impotent eh...well, that is your view, but many of the conferences that come together to discuss such things as global warming (which this country apparently doesn't think exists...) would not have happened but for the UN. It provides necessary aid to countries that need it. It does so much more than has been mentioned.

 

[RightinNYC]

Impotent eh...well, that is your view, but many of the conferences that come together to discuss such things as global warming (which this country apparently doesn't think exists...) would not have happened but for the UN. It provides necessary aid to countries that need it. It does so much more than has been mentioned.

That's part of my point though. The reach of the UN has been effectively limited to agreeable things such as global warming, landmines, and aid to the poor. These things are admirable, and should continue. However, it is worth noting that the minute one of these proposals begins to show teeth or offend someone, it is dead in the water, see Kyoto. The point is, the age of the UN making important, non-unanimous decisions is over. Never again will we see international action through the UN without the tacit approval of the Security Council.

 

[ShamMol]

That's part of my point though. The reach of the UN has been effectively limited to agreeable things such as global warming, landmines, and aid to the poor. These things are admirable, and should continue. However, it is worth noting that the minute one of these proposals begins to show teeth or offend someone, it is dead in the water, see Kyoto. The point is, the age of the UN making important, non-unanimous decisions is over. Never again will we see international action through the UN without the tacit approval of the Security Council.

I would tend to think that kyoto was very popular and was on its way to being passed until one country with a leader who only employs people who think that global warming doesn't exist decided to pull out, i don't know, that is how i remember it.

the un has to continue because otherwse we wouldn't have those things that you said were admirable. that is very, very important.

 

[RightinNYC]

I would tend to think that kyoto was very popular and was on its way to being passed until one country with a leader who only employs people who think that global warming doesn't exist decided to pull out, i don't know, that is how i remember it.

the un has to continue because otherwse we wouldn't have those things that you said were admirable. that is very, very important.

Interesting site, just for information

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

 

[ShamMol]

Interesting site, just for information

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

actually very interesting, though I do have to admit that without the implementation, it would go up far more causing possibly a climate shift, and we all know what happened last time there was one, lol.

"Many billions of dollars have already been squandered on this farce and now it really begins.

What a stupid game this is. "

I like that counter, shows how much has acutally been spent, I would love to know how close that is, cause I would tend to think it is very close. I would have guestimated at about 30 billion, but again, that is not including the us, so that probably threw my estimation way off.

and on another note...which is completely off topic...do you know anywhere i can get cheap mma media, cause the place i get it is closing down...sadness...

 

[RightinNYC]

actually very interesting, though I do have to admit that without the implementation, it would go up far more causing possibly a climate shift, and we all know what happened last time there was one, lol.

"Many billions of dollars have already been squandered on this farce and now it really begins.

What a stupid game this is. "

I like that counter, shows how much has acutally been spent, I would love to know how close that is, cause I would tend to think it is very close. I would have guestimated at about 30 billion, but again, that is not including the us, so that probably threw my estimation way off.

and on another note...which is completely off topic...do you know anywhere i can get cheap mma media, cause the place i get it is closing down...sadness...

I'm not sure how much the treaty is actually affecting temperatures. According to the site, if we hadnt implemented Kyoto, the worlds mean temperature would be 0.000266002 °C warmer. That is immeasurably small.

Also...what do you mean by mma media?

 

[4theLamb]

I'm Jewish, he's not the Lord in my opinion, sorry. Is it possible that Jesus is your God, but not other's and that other people's God is just as real and creditable? Hmm? Food for thought!

Evolution is bad science and the Bible is real science? Please, please use SCIENCE to prove your brash statements?

I believe in Evolution, completely. Am I a heretic?
:2bow:

There is only one God. I don't know enough about you to tell you if yo are a heretic. I do suggest that you actually take the time to study your scripture and you will find "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"Tell me what evidence would you accept that evolution is a lie? Here are a few I can get more detailed and scientific if you like though. There is no evidence that organisms can gian genetic information. Mathematically speaking there should be more transitional fossils than complete speices fossils and there isn't any tranistional fossils that are not proven fake if you research them properly. That's all I have time for now but I will leave you with this. If a mother kills or abbandons its young, which is evident in nature as well as on farms or if anyone has had puppies fall off a bed shortly after birth, to be killed if it finds defects in them then how could they have survived to evolve?

 

[Arch Enemy]

Natural Selection my good boy.

There is only one God?

Only one god? What about Yahweh, Jehovah?
How about the Holy Trinity?

You think evolution is false? What about Micro-evolution.. Micro-evolution is defiantly true and if you want to get scientific about it we can.

Jews are heretics? Jesus was a Jew.. does that make Jesus a heretic?

Was Mary Magdalen a prostitute?