Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2007 12:29 pm
Quote:


So literally everything is our fault? I know this is what we are all supposed to believe, but everytime I open another thread, there it is again, and again, and again, and again, and again......and again. Frankly, it makes me sick at my stomach after a while, reading this absolute brainwashed liberal garbage. Where do I go to school to become educated to that mindset so that I can think correctly like every other little U.S. hating liberal robot?


Okie,

Everything isn't our fault. It isn't our (the US) fault that the UN is experiencing problems. There are plenty of individual members who were corrupt or at least looked the other way.

We didn't cause the problems; but we sure as hell aren't doing anything to either prevent or fix them!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2007 01:31 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I guess Bush's "axis of evil" speech had no meaning, since it "grew" during the past six years. both Iran and North Korea deveoped their nuike program during Bush's tenure - even after his "famous" speech.
Yeah, keep blaming Clinton for Bush's lack of action.


North Korea has been developing their nukes since before Bush got in office, that is part of the problem. You don't go from having no nukes to 3 with no program running in 6 years. It takes time to develope these programs and you know it. How long after Bushs speech was made till NK came forward and said they had nukes? Maybe 2 years or even 3 at most? The US govt knew something was going or had some sort of intelligence info when Bush made that speech and wouldn't you know it, he was right.

I didn't blame Clinton and if you read what I posted, you will see that. I didn't even mention Clinton till my last post so I'm not blaming him. The fault is that of the UN who is supposed to by giving these punks money and checking to see if they are doing with the money what it is claimed to be for.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2007 02:06 pm
But Bush is all talk and no action. NK tested a nuke under his watch, and still did nothing. Bush's axis of evil speech was all hot air with nothing to back it up. What didn't Clinton do that Bush has done?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 08:44 pm
What do you want Bush to do, bomb the nuclear installation, or attack North Korea?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 10:38 pm
So, what exactly did you expect from Clinton?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:46 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
But Bush is all talk and no action. NK tested a nuke under his watch, and still did nothing. Bush's axis of evil speech was all hot air with nothing to back it up. What didn't Clinton do that Bush has done?


All talk and no action? Isn't that part of the issue here. Bush has acted and everyone is pissed at him. So that isn't an issue.

Your right NK did test a nuke under Bushs watch. This isn't a presidential blame game. They developed them under Clinton and tested them under Bush. What are we to do now?

The UN supplied the money that was used to produce the nukes NK now has. They didn't give them the money out right of course but in not watching what NK was doing with the money and making sure they spent the money on the things they were supposed to. The total lack of over sight by the UN when dealing with countries like Iraq and NK and maybe even soon to be Iran is horrid.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:57 am
Baldimo wrote:
They didn't give them the money out right of course but in not watching what NK was doing with the money and making sure they spent the money on the things they were supposed to. The total lack of over sight by the UN when dealing with countries like Iraq and NK and maybe even soon to be Iran is horrid.


I agree.


Ehem, why does the USA oppose more rights for the UN?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:03 am
And just as a reminder (from yesterday's Chicago Tribune, page A1)

http://i12.tinypic.com/2qmdapz.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:39 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
So, what exactly did you expect from Clinton?

I won't say what I expected Clinton to do, because it wasn't much, but I would have hoped that he wouldn't have given them money and assistance to develop the nukes as he did. Clinton and Albright were so naive, it was pitiful. They acted like they could actually trust the leader of North Korea. What a laugh. At least Bush understands you cannot.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 07:41 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
They didn't give them the money out right of course but in not watching what NK was doing with the money and making sure they spent the money on the things they were supposed to. The total lack of over sight by the UN when dealing with countries like Iraq and NK and maybe even soon to be Iran is horrid.


I agree.


Ehem, why does the USA oppose more rights for the UN?


Has the UN proven that it can handle more rights? We have 2 huge scandles going on right now with the UN and both of them dealing with 2 of the worst govt in the world right now. They can't even keep their own people under control let alone do something as easy as monitor a country to see how they spend the money that is given to them for feeding and caring for their people.

This wasn't money that the UN earned and could do with as they pleased, this was money that was given to them by member nations for the sake of helping others. Instead they didn't do anything but hand out the money and now a country that was having a hard time feeding their people and keeping them warm now has nuclear weapons. The sad side of all of this is the fact that the people of NK are not feed any better and don't seem to be any warmer but they now have nukes. Does this make any sense to you?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 08:52 am
Baldimo wrote:

Has the UN proven that it can handle more rights?


To be honest, I don't like these "discussion circles".

On the one hand you say, the UN doesn't enforce enough. On the other, you wouldn't give them more rights - to do exactly that.


And besides all you always forget that the USA are a leading (sic!) member of the UN.

This discussion is a far├že.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 09:31 am
Then don't participate in it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 09:45 am
Thanks for your kind offer.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 08:18 am
The great U.N. is compiling such a wonderful track record isn't it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353944,00.html
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 08:45 am
It's interesting okie, that a church I attended in Denver Colorado canvassed the membership for increased cash donations every week claiming the need for more money, making it appear as though there was a crisis.
It was sitting on millions and was raking in $100 000+ per week.
Perhaps they had foresight, perhaps having money in the bank was not reason enough to sit back and just spend it all.

I'm not attemtpting to defend the UN, but how far does a billion dollars go when you consider world food programs?

It is noteworthy that the dollar figures stated, like the money "allocated" to the tsunami victims was pledge money, was not cash in hand for the victims to access.

I know the Denver church didn't make readily available their financial records because, as this article to me implies, no one wants to give to an organization that is perceived to have a lot of money already. Funding flows when crisis sets in.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 09:14 am
okie wrote:
The great U.N. is compiling such a wonderful track record isn't it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353944,00.html


Josette Sheeran is the eleventh Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP).
She began her tenure April 2007.
Prior to this post, she served as the United States Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs in the State Department since August 2005.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 11:13 am
If one doesn't expect too much from the UN, it still has some benefits. No independent politcal organization will ever run smoothly when there are over 150 countries trying to meet some goals; that's the reality.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 05:14 pm
I agree. The U.N. is a corrupt organization and the people who run it should be jailed as corrupt officials. All corrupt officials should be jailed. So when do we jail Bush and Cheney.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 09:04 pm
When and if they ever commit a crime, rabel. By the way, where is Kofi Annan these days?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 12:52 am
okie wrote:
By the way, where is Kofi Annan these days?


If you would follow the international news, you would have learnt that he was (last) trying to get the conflict(s) in Kenya resolved (as head of the Panel of Eminent African Personalities).

I think, he's living in Ghana. You may try to find his postal address yourself.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Another UN crime!
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/19/2020 at 04:49:20