|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 2:16:42 GMT -5
MO: Then why did you call it "The Left's beloved UN"?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 5, 2004 13:23:37 GMT -5
The countries who were to lose the most money in loans and in the Food For Oil scandal were the member countries who voted against the war. They had a vested, national interest in keeping SoDAMN Insane in power. For them, it was about the oil.
Many on the left will defend the UN no matter what, as this thread illustrates. We don't get to vote for these apes dressed up like statesmen. I do think that all true believers in democracy do not wish to give the power of our national security decisions to an unelected body. They do not wish for our social issues to be decided by unelected federal judges.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 5, 2004 13:27:45 GMT -5
You guys seem to be doing exactly the same thing with Nick Burg. Whats the difference (other than religion and skin colour of course)?
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 5, 2004 13:37:40 GMT -5
[
Have you seen any posts of mine that mention Berg?
You'd find more people to agree with you at DU. b/c you won't find anyone here to buy into your little games of semantics and assumption.
cherrio!
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 5, 2004 15:12:35 GMT -5
I only "drag out" Abu Ghraib because MO's argument, as implied, is that because the UN soldiers were running a prostitution ring, this is good evidence that the UN is corrupt. By that logic, the fact that the soldiers in Abu Ghraib beating and torturing and raping prisoners to death is good evidence that the Bush administration is corrupt. Get your heads out of your asses. The United States government is not "benevolent and wonderful either," and a prostitution ring for food, while horrible, is no comparison to beating innocent, YES INNOCENT, people to death and playing with their genitals after they have died. And the audacity of the Bush administration for trying to cover this up and not giving two craps about what state those soldiers are in?!! These are reservists, they don't even know what they're doing. "Rough 'em up a bit for the private contractors boys!" F***ing amazing.  Second of all, the last line is hypocritical because you are condemning an institution based on its having "engaged in crimminal(sic) activities for half a century". Why don't you condemn the United States government for having "engaged in crimminal(sic) activities for half a century"? What's the difference?!! Never said we were benevolent and wonderful. Where did you get that? I just said that the U.N. is corrupt and the situation at Abu Ghraib, while unfortunate, shouldn't be compared to a 50 year reign of crimminal behavior. Where is your evidence that the Bush administration is corrupt? I know that it must make you angry to have such low self esteem, so that you think that everyone else should think as little of themselves. Thats the liberal way. The self loathing mind set. Another thing brain-trust, You now scream that the Abu Ghraib prisoners are "INNONCENT". I'll tell you what you told me on another topic: "All right scummybear, I will consider who is held at Guatanamo Bay. Please give me a list of who is detained there, and what the charges are, and I will begin my investigation. Remember that one? Who needs to pull their head out of their *** now? Adios. |
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 17:48:34 GMT -5
Intelligence officers of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, the Red Cross said in a report that was disclosed Monday, and Red Cross observers witnessed U.S. officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in total darkness in empty cells.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/I'm sure at least some of them are innocent, just like I'm sure that it's very likely that some of those in Guatanamo Bay (what I was talking about before) are innocent. I don't know why they're innocent, or even if they in fact are innocent. But I do know that it is more improbable that none are innocent than at least some. Of course they shouldn't be compared, they are different situations. I am comparing what MO wanted people to believe: that the actions of the soldiers can be used to justify the notion that the institution in control of them is corrupt. That's just ridiculous. I think there is corruption going on in the US government, but that was not my point. My point was to show that the 'argument' is un-Socratic at its best, and at its worse, an obvious double standard. It's like "The UN is so evil, just look at its soldiers!" is just the same as the ridiculous liberal 'argument' that "The US is so evil, just look at its soldiers!" Without any other proof to go between, its just guilt by association, no argument at all. I know that it must make you angry to have such low self esteem, so that you think so little of yourself and your own cognitive abilities. Thats the conservative way. The self pitying and thought-defering mind set. Now let's see who gets edited for personal attack first.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 5, 2004 18:26:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 5, 2004 18:28:04 GMT -5
Oh, right, MSNBC  |
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 18:29:00 GMT -5
Ah, I thought of a good word for it: mental-masturbation. Sure, if you have good reasons to believe the UN is corrupt that's fine. But it's these kinds of things that push people apart on either side. It's not arguing, it's all from the point of view that the UN is corrupt, and noone has proved that to me at all, but people keep saying it all the time and it pisses me off because noone has made a good argument for it, and I never find any good arguments on any conservative sites. Its always assumed that its corrupt, and then people just add to it in ways that just reassure that proposition rather than define or elaborate upon that proposition. And it seems every message board I read is engaged in this kind of stupidity. I mean, if you can show good reason, and people can see why the UN is so corrupt, then there's nothing wrong with stuff like this, but when readers look at this kind of thing as the actual proof, they are doing themselves a disservice. The whole UN thing is fraught with tautologies and stupid crap that makes no sense, and I have yet to see a good argument. I mean, Saddam Hussein hates the UN too because even if he had destroyed all his wmds and proven it, the UN didn't do anything to stop the US, didn't even say it did anything wrong. Everyone hates the UN because of the actions of the United States! That doesn't prove it's corrupt at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 18:30:50 GMT -5
scummybear, you should say "oh right, Red Cross" instead  |
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 5, 2004 18:34:24 GMT -5
Maybe so ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 5, 2004 18:53:08 GMT -5
Probably you. I don't claim to be neutral. Even if that is so, that is detainees as a whole. The part of Abu Ghraib where the alleged abuses took place was reserved for the worst of terrorists. They were being held pending top level interrogations for trying to kill our soldiers. I assumed that this wasn't to be taken as proof that the UN is corrupt. It was just yet another piece of news that tarnishes its reputation. Very U.N.-Attractive A leaked audit gives hints of the Oil-for-Food corruption. BY CLAUDIA ROSETT Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT In the scandal over the U.N. Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, Kofi Annan's main line of defense has been that he didn't know. Perhaps he should take a closer look at internal U.N. Oil-for-Food audit reports, more than 50 in all, produced by his own Office of Internal Oversight Services--the same reports he's declined to share with the Security Council, or release to Congress. One of these reports has now leaked. It concerns the U.N. Secretariat's mishandling of the hiring of inspectors to authenticate the contents of relief shipments into sanctions-bound Iraq. (Obtained by a journalist specializing in the mining industry, Timothy Wood, a copy of this report can be found at http://www.mineweb.com.) www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005099The ambulances-for-terrorists scandal Michelle Malkin (back to web version) | Send June 2, 2004 The United Nations and Red Cross have been providing cover for terrorists -- literally. And American taxpayers are footing some of the bill. Last week, an Israeli television station aired footage of armed Arab terrorists in southern Gaza using an ambulance owned and operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Palestinian gunmen used the UNRWA emergency vehicle as getaway transportation after murdering six Israeli soldiers in Gaza City on May 11. The footage shows two ambulances with flashing lights pull onto a street. Shots and shouts ring out during the nighttime raid. A gang of militants piles into one of the supposedly neutral ambulances, clearly marked "U.N." with the agency's blue flag flying from the roof, which then speeds away from the scene. www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/printmm20040602.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 19:03:23 GMT -5
That means that those countries are morally corrupt, it doesn't mean the UN is. This should have come out sooner so people would know that the whole containment thing was being milked (er.. oiled?) by stupid countries. But just because there was a loophole that "noone noticed" (and of course the US noticed) it just means that the Food For Oil program was corrupt if they were letting people do this. Or it means the countries in the UN are corrupt. The UN itself isn't a corrupt way of doing things, it's because we're all kept in the dark about the deals that go on there. I understand if you "don't want to hand your national sovereignty over" to the UN: that is politics. I personally think having an open forum and full participation is the best way to diplomatically solve problems, and I think the Geneva convention is a good thing. Why does it matter if it makes money or is good for the economy or whatever. The Geneva convention, alarmingly enough, is part of United States law, and George Bush broke the law!!!!!!!!!!! The UN isn't dictating the rules, the US agreed to the rules and incorporated them into the "Law of the Land".
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;".
You may not like it, and you may not like the law, but George Bush could go to jail or be impeached for this because he broke an American law! If the democrats in congress ever get off their asses and stop being such pussies, they could easily impeach President Bush for high crimes. There's no question about it. Clinton's impeachable "high crime" was getting a blow job, and there's not even a law against that.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 5, 2004 19:18:47 GMT -5
No, top level UN officials are implicated in the UN Food For Oil scandal. You always seem to be a post or two behind. Run, Forrest, run.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 19:21:31 GMT -5
oh ok. I was mistaken.
the ambulances were probably stolen.
|
|
