PDA

View Full Version : Is Goofy Annan Missing?



human
04 Mar 04,, 14:30
Is Koffi Annon Missing?


Friends;

Over the last two years and half 1000 Israelis have been brutally murdered by terrorists. Through it all Kofi Annon the UN Secretary General has been quiet, I thinks he know why. Kofi must be missing.

Take a look at this satirical search for Kofi Annan at:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0304/dunetz_kofi.php3

Thanks

Jeff
Http://www.jeffdunetz.com

Ray
04 Mar 04,, 17:10
Goofy or Spooky or Stupid, it makes no difference.

In spite of all the condemnation, side lining, ridiculing of the UN, the greatest power in the world is now running to the UN to help them out. Remember that?

Just be patient. Given all the infirmities and idiocyncrasies of the UN, it is the sole 'voice' of the international community. Please understand that the international community is not the US and Europe. In fact, they are a minority.

My question to most forum members including my friends here who were quite vocal against the UN (and they must have had good reason), can they answer, how come Bush wants the UN to help in the election in Iraq?

OK, the UN is an useless organisation and the Coalition of Bush and Blair and a few other inconsequential countries are the greatest and they know what is the best for the world. So, go ahead and reject the UN not once but for all times to come. Why go running scared to them. Have one policy - Ignore the UN if indeed they are bums.

I, for one, didn't grudege the view that Bush told the UN to push off. He had an agenda and if the UN was weak kneed and could stand up to Bush, then they could shove off.

Therefore, I am surprised that now the US is practially pleading with the UN to salvage them out.

That way Blair was clever. He never decalared the UN was a moribund and decadant organisation.

Today, Iraq is a mess. Yet, I hope the US can bring some semblance of order. You have to be an Asian to understand the sectarian and ethnic divides. Though Muslims, the Sunnis hate the Shias and all that. The Kurds hate the Arabs. Understand the psyche. Iraq is a divided country. It was made one entity by the British for their purposes. Such a country requires a rascle like Saddam. Much that I hate to say it but it is in their psyche to be ruled with an iron hand. Therefore, a genie has been uncorked.

If one 'Balkanises' Iraq, it will not sustain itself and will bring more misery, not only to themselves, but more dangerously to the world. Therefore, instread of peace and order, more disorder and international confusion has been made for rushing into war without adequate preparation for the future of not only western interest but also international peace.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ray
04 Mar 04,, 18:29
Concentrate on issues. Emotions have NO place.

Try this - Concentration is -
the INTELLECT , SUPERVISED by the MIND to be in the PRESENT.

Don't, laugh it off. Give it a thought.

Confed999
04 Mar 04,, 18:59
1) Nobody has said the UN is useless at humanitarian issues. In fact they're good at it most of the time, they should stick to that.
2) Asking is begging now? Nobody here thinks it will come to any good so I don't see how it can be begging.
3) The UN, like everything else, just needs alot of work to make it anything but the bureaucratic nightmare it's become.
4) Without emotion we're no better than the UN, they really don't care, a computer may as well be making decisions.

Confed999
04 Mar 04,, 19:00
Originally posted by Ray
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
I learned somethin' today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truely great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft pussy protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too." - Cartman, South Park, Season 7, Episode 04, "I'm A Little Bit Country"
:D

Praxus
04 Mar 04,, 19:53
The UN is bad at nearly everything it does including Humanitarian Aid.

human
04 Mar 04,, 22:54
Hi Ray,

>>>Goofy or Spooky or Stupid, it makes no difference.<<<

Since Goofy rhyme with Koffi, then I insist…

>>>In spite of all the condemnation, side lining, ridiculing of the UN, the greatest power in the world is now running to the UN to help them out. Remember that?<<<

Actually, despites the many excuses and causes given for the war in Iraq left, and right, it still legally in accordance with an UN resolution that the goofy UN, and its resolution boy tried to ignore siding with the French against his own resolution…

Here the proof:

“The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

Therefore it is the UN who is trying to beg its way out of its responsibility, exactly the same way it did with resolution # 42 (the re-establishment of Israel), while Goofy boy is very horny when it comes to talk about resolution # 242, which was the result of not implementing resolution # 42…
Believe me, Goofy Annan is a very just name.

>>>Just be patient. Given all the infirmities and idiocyncrasies of the UN, it is the sole 'voice' of the international community. Please understand that the international community is not the US and Europe. In fact, they are a minority.<<<

Patient is Molier’s (old French writer) remedy to violence, but don’t you think our future deserves something better than the status quo?
If they the international community is a minority like you are saying, then why we don’t call them in their real name instead, I think “The United Nations of Mortal Remains” will be more precise, don’t you think?

>>>My question to most forum members including my friends here who were quite vocal against the UN (and they must have had good reason), can they answer, how come Bush wants the UN to help in the election in Iraq?<<<

Read the answer above.

>>>>>>>>OK, the UN is an useless organisation and the Coalition of Bush and Blair and a few other inconsequential countries are the greatest and they know what is the best for the world. So, go ahead and reject the UN not once but for all times to come. Why go running scared to them. Have one policy - Ignore the UN if indeed they are bums.<<<<<<<

Despite the legitimacy question of the war in Iraq, I think you got all the effects of the anti-war propagandists in a tight spot in your head, which is called
Neuron-acly, the opinion forming spot…

>>>I, for one, didn't grudege the view that Bush told the UN to push off. He had an agenda and if the UN was weak kneed and could stand up to Bush, then they could shove off. <<<

Bush told the UN to push off because they sided with the French to delay the implementation of the UN resolution…

>>>Therefore, I am surprised that now the US is practially pleading with the UN to salvage them out.<<<

I think you are more confused than surprised…

>>>That way Blair was clever. He never decalared the UN was a moribund and decadant organisation.<<<

I hope this is not his only sign of cleverness because if it is, then we all became part of the world of denial…

I hope not…

>>>Today, Iraq is a mess. Yet, I hope the US can bring some semblance of order. You have to be an Asian to understand the sectarian and ethnic divides. Though Muslims, the Sunnis hate the Shias and all that. The Kurds hate the Arabs. Understand the psyche. Iraq is a divided country. It was made one entity by the British for their purposes. Such a country requires a rascle like Saddam. Much that I hate to say it but it is in their psyche to be ruled with an iron hand. Therefore, a genie has been uncorked.<<<



Certainly there is difference between organized and unorganized mess while the unorganized mess of the French and American Revolution lead to the human rights, and the constitutional community, and if today, dictatorship is the order to bring balance to Iraq then the UN and not the USA who is the one who is promoting such regimes to exist.


>>>If one 'Balkanises' Iraq, it will not sustain itself and will bring more misery, not only to themselves, but more dangerously to the world. Therefore, instread of peace and order, more disorder and international confusion has been made for rushing into war without adequate preparation for the future of not only western interest but also international peace. <<<

For me, if I have to choose between united dictatorship, and three or four self ruled democracies, I will chose the later anytime because if the unification of those people by then hold water in their head, they will unite as provinces to one country, if not, then I rather see them living by their own merit than killing each others like what happened lately…


>>>Can't have your cake and eat it too.<<<

If I am a good cook and hungry, I can have what ever I want, don’t you think

human
04 Mar 04,, 22:58
Hi Confed999,

>>>I learned somethin' today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truely great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft pussy protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too." - Cartman, South Park, Season 7, Episode 04, "I'm A Little Bit Country"<<<

I think you have a point here…

Thank you for your response...

Confed999
04 Mar 04,, 23:56
Originally posted by Praxus
The UN is bad at nearly everything it does including Humanitarian Aid.
Really? I allways thought they did a good job organizing food and/or money and/or personel. As long as it is for something that won't offend anyone else, everything will go fine, but as soon as someone complains the whole thing goes down the drain.

Originally posted by human
I think you have a point here…
Hello Human ;)

Nah, not really, just me messing with Ray a little. Glad you liked it though.
:)

smilingassassin
05 Mar 04,, 00:42
"In spite of all the condemnation, side lining, ridiculing of the UN, the greatest power in the world is now running to the UN to help them out. Remember that?"

What a load of crap!.....its more like the greatest power in the world just did the UN's job and is now giving them the chance to take over, kinda like when I was in shop class and my teacher first showed me how to do something and then let me do it.......unfortunately the UN didn't learn the lesson.

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 05:48
Good arguments.

I find I have needled you all on your favourite hobby horse. However, I am pleasantly surprised that I have not been hauled over the coals, which I was expecting to be.

Let's look at the UN a wee bit in depth without the emotions coming in the way.

You consider it to be a redundant institution or as 'crap' if you wish. The third world and the developing world don't. The reason for your disdainful view is valid and maybe flawless. You are not the beneficiary of the actions of the UN. You do not 'experience' the good work they are doing because you don't require to experience it. You have everything that a human being aspires to have. Therefore, you are entitled to hold the view that the UN is a whole set of harridans and humbugs.

On the other hand, the under developed nations of the world have a whole lot of problems - illiteracy, abysmal health care, no money for basic medicines if indeed they can afford or even find a doctor who is not a quack or a witch doctor, insurgencies, failing democracies or dictatorship, poverty, obscurantist clergy, fundamentalists ridden, sectarian divisions. I could go on. The UN plays a major role in somehow organising some semblance of human existence to these under privileged in fields they are assigned to.

Therefore, you folks can declare the UN redundant without a tick on your conscience, the underprivileged can't. That's the difference.

The UN is not perfect. There are quite a few clods, dolts and prized human posteriors in the UN. The Colonel has had some bad experience with some. Fortunately, I did not. But it was Colonel's ill stars that he met the aberration that give the UN a bad name. The way the Colonel handled that bloke would be the same as I would or even worse. We have operated with the UN many a time including Somalia where the US had a rough experience. We handled the show quite well. We have been in Korea, Lebanon, Congo and our experience is that we have managed to do the task assigned to the satisfaction of the UN and I dare say the world.

The work of the UNICEF, WHO et al have been quite commendable. Today, we are a better world because of these organisations. The fact that more nations in the world are not holding out their begging bowls to the US indicates the good work done by the UN. I would hasten to add that the US and the developing world can take a fair share of the credit too.

Those of you who have worked in the Peace Corps would realise the horror of the miseries the underprivileged faces daily and the immense satisfaction in bringing a modicum of happiness by selfless work.

To understand the horrors of chaos and deprivation just visit Haiti now and experience the reality that is called the 'rest of the world'. It is the ideal case to for you all, to quote the Beatles song, 'open up your eyes now, tell me what you see, It is not surprise now, what you see is....' .

Go there and tell me what you see!

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 05:52
SmilingAssassin,

Your logic is behind some dark cloud? Smile my friend, assassinate logic later. Just let some "Ray" of sunshine enter your heart and mind.

Officer of Engineers
05 Mar 04,, 05:57
Gentlemen,

Back up. The UN by itself does not have authority to enforce anything. It is up to member states to enforce UN resolutions. Even for Blue Berets, their National Command Authority overrules ANYTHING coming from the UN.

The next step, which was never taken, was to authorized the use of force, akin to warning orders to member states.

I am severely disappointed in the UN post war. The UN Non-Government Organizations did not step up as they did in Bosnia and Kosovo. They're ran away when things got harried.

What the US is doing when going to the UN is perfectly within a member state's rights - to demand the UN step up and do its job.

As for Annan, who cares. He's just a figurehead who gets paid big bucks for showing up at parties.

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 06:13
Hi Human,

I concede you have done well in your rhymes.

If UN is goofy, then the war is mickey mouse.


Hi Confed,

Nothing can bring the US down. On the other hand, it can bring the world down. That is why every action of the US is observed the world over with bated breath.

One WTC trumatised you to let loose the war whoops that have still not abated. Remember, the rest of the world has WTC daily, be it at the hands of the terrorists, disease, poverty, starvation deaths etc.

I am aware it is not your business to look after the world, but then let the milk of human kindness flow without compromising your Nation's security or principles.

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 06:19
The Colonel is right. The UN is all aura, no authority!

Confed,

Who is your next President is a matter of deep concern to all of us. Lest you 'misunderestimate' me, inspite of my Bush bashing, he has been a great friend of India. But, he scares me. He is too blasted gung ho. And your Kerry is too damn 'cute'. So, I vote for you as the next President and the Colonel as the next PM of Canada, provided he does not go to war at the drop of a hat.:D :D

Officer of Engineers
05 Mar 04,, 07:11
Originally posted by Ray
Good arguments.

As always, Sir, so is yours. However, I hope you don't mind that I wish to debate some of your points.


Originally posted by Ray
You consider it to be a redundant institution or as 'crap' if you wish. The third world and the developing world don't. The reason for your disdainful view is valid and maybe flawless. You are not the beneficiary of the actions of the UN. You do not 'experience' the good work they are doing because you don't require to experience it. You have everything that a human being aspires to have. Therefore, you are entitled to hold the view that the UN is a whole set of harridans and humbugs.

This is no longer the case. Countries have learned how to use the UN, not to better their own people, but to further their own agenda. I cannot think of recent UN success story.


Originally posted by Ray
On the other hand, the under developed nations of the world have a whole lot of problems - illiteracy, abysmal health care, no money for basic medicines if indeed they can afford or even find a doctor who is not a quack or a witch doctor, insurgencies, failing democracies or dictatorship, poverty, obscurantist clergy, fundamentalists ridden, sectarian divisions. I could go on. The UN plays a major role in somehow organising some semblance of human existence to these under privileged in fields they are assigned to.

Unfortunately, no one is going to the UN anymore when real work needs to be done. Sierra Leonne and Haiti required American intervention as reluctant as those may be. One of the biggest lies that is currently being spread is that while Western countries cannot guarrantee the success of any peacekeeping mission, their absence guarrantees failure.

I seriously believe that InA General Jetley (my apologies for misnaming him Gen Jefferies) more than disprove that lie. Yet, the Royal Marines Ready Amphibious Group (not wearing UN blue) got the credit for stopping the downslide.

Yet, the myth has taken hold and the demand for Western troops have skyrocketted.


Originally posted by Ray
Therefore, you folks can declare the UN redundant without a tick on your conscience, the underprivileged can't. That's the difference.

Nor can the underpriviledged benefit anymore. Not without major military presence to enforce proper distribution. And again, the myth of Western troops.


Originally posted by Ray
The work of the UNICEF, WHO et al have been quite commendable. Today, we are a better world because of these organisations. The fact that more nations in the world are not holding out their begging bowls to the US indicates the good work done by the UN. I would hasten to add that the US and the developing world can take a fair share of the credit too.

Two very good NGOs which I would be the first to acknowledge their good work. However, they are not as good as they could be.

SARS, bird flu, foot and mouth, Mad Cow, much, much more work is needed.


Originally posted by Ray
To understand the horrors of chaos and deprivation just visit Haiti now and experience the reality that is called the 'rest of the world'. It is the ideal case to for you all, to quote the Beatles song, 'open up your eyes now, tell me what you see, It is not surprise now, what you see is....' .

Go there and tell me what you see!

United States Marines and Canadian Special Forces and no blue berets anywhere.

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 09:05
Colonel,

I love a debate. One can hold divergent views and still be friends. In fact, that would enrich me at least.

That is what I am saying. UN has been made defunct by the US. Therefore, its value has downslided. Now, none believe that the UN can deliver so let Uncle Sam come. And Uncle Sam comes in tooooooo late. Iraq is a mess, Haiti will be a mess, Afghanistan is a mess.

If the US keeps jumping in, then their economy will be in a worse state. And if they dont, there will be a total chaos in the world, all because the US wanted to be the supercop and when the crunch came, they quit. OK US has more money than any country in the world. But, if she is to shovel money in military interventions at the US tax payers' cost, how long will it last? If it doesnt then there will be chaos. And then, what?

If I had been a US taxpayer, I would have hollered enough is enough. My money is not for monkeying around. If someone is behaving like a barbarian and killing his own kith and kin, then let him do so. I have not fathered him to be responsible.

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 09:21
Colonel,

As far as getting credit, the West control the media including ours. So, I don't think one can grudge if the Western media credit their own.

I know exactly what happened there with Jetley and the pressures of the West on him and the intrigues that were there and who actually controlled the diamond trade. So, Colonel, we suffer for the sins and greed of others.

The 'darkies' (I am not being a racist, I am just giving the colour combinations) still are pawns and at the mercy of the fair little cute guys. As they say, Money speaks.

human
05 Mar 04,, 13:52
Hi Ray,


>>>I find I have needled you all on your favourite hobby horse. However, I am pleasantly surprised that I have not been hauled over the coals, which I was expecting to be.<<<

As long as you don’t use name calling like some of the free lance moderators on some forums, the coals will remain cold…


>>>Let's look at the UN a wee bit in depth without the emotions coming in the way.<<<

Since your “depth” implies a partial disagreement with my point of view, I say lets go wide East, West, North, and South; by that I mean, lets go as far as the deep-end goes…

>>>You consider it to be a redundant institution or as 'crap' if you wish. The third world and the developing world don't. The reason for your disdainful view is valid and maybe flawless. You are not the beneficiary of the actions of the UN. <<<

Since 'crap' is the result of an enforced redundant action by nature, I say it’s not our wish, but rather our dream come through…

Enjoy…

For you to describe our view as disdainful, valid, and flawless at the same time, tells me something about you and not our views, and that is, you are confused as I said before…

But then you confused me when I heard you saying, “You are not the beneficiary of the actions of the UN” because that told me that you are illiterate when it comes to world affairs.

We may be the doers, but we still are part of this world (we may become Mars-ian latter, but this another matter), and you know why we are the doers here?

We are the doers, not because of our capability; we are the doers because not only we have to fill in for the UN reluctances and bad handling of the world’s affairs, but also because of what ever the UN miss responsibility does, it affects the very core of our lives (surprisingly, yours included)…

>>>You do not 'experience' the good work they are doing because you don't require to experience it. You have everything that a human being aspires to have. Therefore, you are entitled to hold the view that the UN is a whole set of harridans and humbugs.<<<

Let my tell you this my human friend, if it wasn’t for our civilized communities in the western hemisphere and our experience in humanity, the UN and the third world wouldn’t experience except the misery of the birth rate, which is the main reason behind their lack of any capability of having everything that a human being aspires to have, which we do because that what we want, and because we will remain the thinkers, planers, and the forecasters of our future, and they will remain the achievers of the indicate community of unthinking poor.

With the daily depletion of the Earth resources, I have no clue how far Ahmed, and José can go in their rabbit habit of producing children for Allah and God.

Not long I guess, so what the majesty of Goof doing make me wonder…

Is distributing anti-pregnancy pills in the third world is all what the Goofy UN can do?

Is that what International role for the UN means?


The wide gap between the rich and the poor is not what the rich countries made, but rather what the poor unthinkable human and their leaders, religious or otherwise did, and still doing every single day…

Maybe not through immediate action, but through denial…



>>>On the other hand, the under developed nations of the world have a whole lot of problems - illiteracy, abysmal health care, no money for basic medicines if indeed they can afford or even find a doctor who is not a quack or a witch doctor, insurgencies, failing democracies or dictatorship, poverty, obscurantist clergy, fundamentalists ridden, sectarian divisions. I could go on. The UN plays a major role in somehow organising some semblance of human existence to these under privileged in fields they are assigned to. <<<

To tell you the truth, I am in theory against this type of aid because that will only encourage dependency, I think a better role to stop all that will be, let them learn how to live, how to plan, and how to be doers instead of bunch of beggars, and it doesn’t matter if Allah or God said so to them because even the Gods will change their opinions in accordance with the spirit of living instead of dying…


>>>Therefore, you folks can declare the UN redundant without a tick on your conscience, the underprivileged can't. That's the difference.<<<

Not only without a tick, but also without a tack too, but you are right when you said that the idiot who you called out of love the “underprivileged” sure can't, and it’s obvious why too…


>>>The UN is not perfect. There are quite a few clods, dolts and prized human posteriors in the UN.<<<


You make me laugh at your choice of words…


>>>The Colonel has had some bad experience with some. Fortunately, I did not. But it was Colonel's ill stars that he met the aberration that give the UN a bad name. The way the Colonel handled that bloke would be the same as I would or even worse. We have operated with the UN many a time including Somalia where the US had a rough experience. We handled the show quite well. We have been in Korea, Lebanon, Congo and our experience is that we have managed to do the task assigned to the satisfaction of the UN and I dare say the world.<<<

If you are calling the UN is a success in Lebanon, in Korea, and especially in the Congo, then allow me to say this…

Putting blue (blew) beret between two warring factors with the both factors approvals is not such a heroic act, limiting their presence to the advancement of peace talk it is…

Turning refuges camps into TERROR factories, and attack zones (South Lebanon) is not a heroic act either, normalizing between the two people, and cracking down on the hate walls that is built with the UN assistance is…

Instead, how the Goofy UN is handling the Issue of peace there, the UN is cracking down on the security barriers Israel is building but hate to lessen the parable aggressiveness of the unwarranted genocide in the name of creating a hole for the serpents of Terror…



>>>The work of the UNICEF, WHO et al have been quite commendable. Today, we are a better world because of these organisations. The fact that more nations in the world are not holding out their begging bowls to the US indicates the good work done by the UN. I would hasten to add that the US and the developing world can take a fair share of the credit too. <<<

I can understand why the US, Canada, and the rest of the doers should share the credit for such organized bodies of passion, but the what you called “the developing world” should take more self rolled action to overcome its difficulties.

We are obliged to help as long as we can with accordance with our resources, but unless the developing word really develop in accordance with its resources and capabilities, I see no much of long lasting hope for such organizations…

Therefore both world should accomplish the success formula, otherwise dependency will always triumphs.


>>>Those of you who have worked in the Peace Corps would realise the horror of the miseries the underprivileged faces daily and the immense satisfaction in bringing a modicum of happiness by selfless work. <<<

“The Peace Corps” is a stunning name for an imaginary dream that will never be realized by the human race under the goofiness of denial…

>>>To understand the horrors of chaos and deprivation just visit Haiti now and experience the reality that is called the 'rest of the world'. It is the ideal case to for you all, to quote the Beatles song, 'open up your eyes now, tell me what you see, It is not surprise now, what you see is....' . <<<

Haiti???

Hmmmmmmmmmmm….

Oh, you mean let’s kick the poor Canadian installed President Jean-Bertrand Aristide for the rich American dollar?

What this has to do with politic?



>>>Go there and tell me what you see!<<<

I’ll go, just because you don’t see…

Therefore, I told you…

human
05 Mar 04,, 14:10
smilingassassin

"In spite of all the condemnation, side lining, ridiculing of the UN, the greatest power in the world is now running to the UN to help them out. Remember that?"

What a load of crap!.....its more like the greatest power in the world just did the UN's job and is now giving them the chance to take over, kinda like when I was in shop class and my teacher first showed me how to do something and then let me do it.......unfortunately the UN didn't learn the lesson.

---------------------------------------

No doubts it's a good example, you used here.

Thank you for your response...:)

human
05 Mar 04,, 14:14
Hi Officer of Engineers

As always, Sir, so is yours. However, I hope you don't mind that I wish to debate some of your points.



This is no longer the case. Countries have learned how to use the UN, not to better their own people, but to further their own agenda. I cannot think of recent UN success story.



Unfortunately, no one is going to the UN anymore when real work needs to be done. Sierra Leonne and Haiti required American intervention as reluctant as those may be. One of the biggest lies that is currently being spread is that while Western countries cannot guarrantee the success of any peacekeeping mission, their absence guarrantees failure.

I seriously believe that InA General Jetley (my apologies for misnaming him Gen Jefferies) more than disprove that lie. Yet, the Royal Marines Ready Amphibious Group (not wearing UN blue) got the credit for stopping the downslide.

Yet, the myth has taken hold and the demand for Western troops have skyrocketted.



Nor can the underpriviledged benefit anymore. Not without major military presence to enforce proper distribution. And again, the myth of Western troops.



Two very good NGOs which I would be the first to acknowledge their good work. However, they are not as good as they could be.

SARS, bird flu, foot and mouth, Mad Cow, much, much more work is needed.



United States Marines and Canadian Special Forces and no blue berets anywhere.

--------------------------------------

Your truth should always prevail...

human
05 Mar 04,, 16:05
Hi Ray,

>>>Concentrate on issues. Emotions have NO place.<<<

Now, I know that two things you are clueless about...

I mean Concentration and Emotions; therefore, you must be some kind of deadbeat propagandist some how...

You tell me...


>>>Try this - Concentration is - the INTELLECT , SUPERVISED by the MIND to be in the PRESENT.<<<

Since you are advising me to try something you don't have yourself, I have to assume that it didn't work with you, and that why you telling people to try it...

Don't be surprised, a lot of people are born naturally intellectual; therefore, unlike you, they don't need concentration to do such a simple task of being...



>>>Don't, laugh it off. Give it a thought. <<<

I usually don't laugh such serious thing as you; therefore, give it a thought or two, and don't make me...

human
05 Mar 04,, 16:35
Hi Ray,


>>>As far as getting credit, the West control the media including ours. So, I don't think one can grudge if the Western media credit their own.

I know exactly what happened there with Jetley and the pressures of the West on him and the intrigues that were there and who actually controlled the diamond trade. So, Colonel, we suffer for the sins and greed of others.

The 'darkies' (I am not being a racist, I am just giving the colour combinations) still are pawns and at the mercy of the fair little cute guys. As they say, Money speaks.<<<


Your anti-western prejudiced opinion echoes AMERICA IS SATAN…

Is the time for your fifth prayer came up already?

human
05 Mar 04,, 16:59
Hi Ray,

>>>That is what I am saying. UN has been made defunct by the US. Therefore, its value has downslided. Now, none believe that the UN can deliver so let Uncle Sam come. And Uncle Sam comes in tooooooo late. Iraq is a mess, Haiti will be a mess, Afghanistan is a mess.<<<


I think, the UN creates every single mess around the world, and that includes the mess in your thoughts…


>>>If the US keeps jumping in, then their economy will be in a worse state. And if they dont, there will be a total chaos in the world, all because the US wanted to be the supercop and when the crunch came, they quit. OK US has more money than any country in the world. But, if she is to shovel money in military interventions at the US tax payers' cost, how long will it last? If it doesnt then there will be chaos. And then, what?<<<

One thing for sure, the USA will not be shoveling any money for you to breed more incompetents, terrorists, or underdeveloped as you like to call some of them; Canada in few years will be barely able to shovel the snow off its roads; therefore, since Arabia don’t know how to spend the money to develop their people, maybe they should give it all to the UN to develop them…

But then, since they always bite the hand that is trying to help them, I think the UN will be blown to pieces as an Arabic appreciation gesture…

>>>If I had been a US taxpayer, I would have hollered enough is enough. My money is not for monkeying around. If someone is behaving like a barbarian and killing his own kith and kin, then let him do so. I have not fathered him to be responsible.<<<

I doubt if you are a taxpayer anywhere, but then you may be “monkeying” around here…

Promoting Fascism, Nazisim, and Dictatorship just because you don’t want to spend the money while talking about the UN world of cooperation, humanity and peace is pretty Ironic, don’t you think?

As far as fathering goes…

I think you shouldn’t be fathering any thing at all…

Tata’

human
05 Mar 04,, 17:06
Hi Praxus,

The UN is bad at nearly everything it does including Humanitarian Aid.

-------------------------------------

I say, lets put your gun control legion in charge of the UN Humanitarian Aid...

Never know they may do better than Goof then...:taynk

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 18:10
Human,

So, I am confused and an illiterate. Thank you. I enjoyed your certification since you have assumed the mantle of a self professed Lord of Tartary for yourself. Actually, you emerge as the little Lord Fauntleroy. Talk of self aggrandisation. You take the cake. So, you were born a 'natural intellect'? Excellent. Do display some around here so that we benefit from the second coming of Christ.

I refrain from taking your cue and 'stoop to conquer' (read the book?) in resonance and decibel to your name calling. It would place me in your league, Can't have my upbringing sullied, can I? It is most amusing that you call yourself 'Human" and talk of the civilised world and civilisation. If your display is civilised from a great civilisation, then I would abstain from participating in such civilisation. However, I would hasten to add that those on this board and the same part of your world belie the impression that you personify. I should thank God for small mercies. What ho, old fruit?

It was hilarious that you should feel I should partake in the 'fifth prayer'. Far from it. I don't pray. You have recently exposed yourself great self on us, ye Prophet, and hence you would not know I am not in the continuum of the five prayer followers. In fact, I don't believe in religion apart from it being in your heart. It requires no flaunting around since it is not material to 'prove' anything. Only insecure persons require doing so. I however believe that each person has his right to follow what he desires.

What makes you believe that America is SATAN? What makes you come to the conclusion that I subscribe to that view. For your info, sir, I have been ticked off as a 'white sahib's' lackey by some Pakistani friend and now you are accusing me of being with anti western prejudices! There is no peace. By your logic, Goofy be damned and lets beat around the Bush.

I could reply you point by point, but then I am an illiterate as per you. How could I explain? Heard of the idiom - pot calling the kettle black? You remind me of the Wailing Wall. Now, don't go off the handle by thinking I am Jew, but going by your inclination you might you the derogatory word that is used to typecast them. I assure you, sir, every bit of flesh I was born with, remains with me.

You talk of Haiti? You reinstalled Aristide when he was thrown out in a coup. Read the Bible, sir? Sow and ye shall reap. It has happened repeatedly for all the illegal and unpopular regimes foisted on the people by the US. Remember Panama as a starter? Remember the Taleban? Remember, Osama? Read the 'Unholy War' by Cooley, sir. Read. Even illiterates are now reading.

All the same, sir, You are a great relief to seriousness around here. Keep up your good work and maybe I will recommend your beatification. Note I wrote 'You' and not 'you'. Got the gist, Prophet?

And before you take off on your religious Tarrot card, I am not a Catholic. Maybe I am Hitler and the Pope likes me.

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 18:26
Human,

Your handle, 'Human' and your signature does speak for your foibles.

Do condone my statement; after all I am not from Mars, but maybe I dwell on Pluto.

:D

human
05 Mar 04,, 18:37
Hi Ray,

So you are what you are and I am what I am, but beyond that when you said that our view is disdainful, valid, and flawless it didn’t sound coherent because disdainful, and flawless can’t be valid on any scale except the scale of confusion; therefore, you shouldn’t take it as an insult, certainly unless you can’t read either…

And can you tell how a politically literate person can say, “You are not the beneficiary of the actions of the UN” just because we are the spenders and the doers, doesn’t means we are not benefiting from the UN action, we are part of the world literates like you are living in too; to tell you the truth, If I said what you did, and someone accused me of what I did, I will not feel bad like you, and you know why?

Because unlike you, I am politically and intellectually literate

---------------------------------------
Debating is an Art most debaters don’t know how to approach (included high rank debaters)

human
05 Mar 04,, 18:57
Ray

Your handle, 'Human' and your signature does speak for your foibles.

Do condone my statement; after all I am not from Mars, but maybe I dwell on Pluto.

--------------------------------------------

A Plutonian after all, no wonder you speak Ironically straight backward...

That explains it...:00

Ray
05 Mar 04,, 20:01
Human,

It is wonderful to learn that you are politically and intellectually literate. Do exhibit with sound logic and not Sir Oracle -ish statements. You are not the Pope giving you Divine wisdom and the rights to be Infallible. I hope you know about the 'Infallibility of the Pope' theory.

Please don't hector about civilisation. It shows your ignorance. Haven't you heard about the Indus Valley civilisation? I reckon it is as new as the one you wish to profess as the best.

Further, don't belabour under the fond delusion that we feel that the US is bad. No chance. We appreciate what they have done. But, I am afraid you can't expect me to bigoted. As I said, Open up your eyes. I believe in pragmatism and not blind jingoism. Blind Faith is of the medieval era and not to be practised in modern times where people with education should be and should display intellectual literacy and not shroud the failing with aggressive and narrow chauvinism.

I am glad that you have informed me that the US has been a beneficiary of the UN activities. Till now I thought it is the underprivileged that did. Great to know that you are also underprivileged. We have stopped being underprivileged, but we gratefully acknowledge the Western and especially the US assistance that helped us to achieve this. We could have pretended it was all our doing, but then that would be akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand as you are doing. Reveille to reality my good friend.

Your signature states - The truth taught me to hate her.

That speaks volumes of your intellect.

Don't consume yourself with hate.

I don't hate truth. Truth hurts. But I rather be a man and face it.

This is my last post on the subject since I don't wish to perpetuate your charade of intellectual awareness that you alone seem to have and flaunt in vain.

Heard of the idiom - Pride goes before a Fall?

I could have quoted from the Bible, just to please you, but read the Good Book and see what it say's about Pride.

The arrogance that you display because of your intellectual insecurity makes me even quit my hypothetical exile in Pluto for another celestial body to be far far from your ilk.

Read the book, Far from the Maddening Crowd?

The 'political intellect' on display from your side is as majestic in volume as that claimed by the frog in the well, my dear Lord Flauntleroy.

Jolly good show, sir.

Blademaster
05 Mar 04,, 20:07
Human,

I read your statements. I reread them again. Then i reread them again. :brick :brick Still can't get anywhere. Since you are Human, I guess your statements represents everything that's wrong with humans.

Take a piece of advice, shut your piehole.

Confed999
06 Mar 04,, 03:01
Originally posted by Ray
the war is mickey mouse.
All war is Mickey Mouse, at best.

Originally posted by Ray
Nothing can bring the US down. On the other hand, it can bring the world down. That is why every action of the US is observed the world over with bated breath.

One WTC trumatised you to let loose the war whoops that have still not abated. Remember, the rest of the world has WTC daily, be it at the hands of the terrorists, disease, poverty, starvation deaths etc.

I am aware it is not your business to look after the world, but then let the milk of human kindness flow without compromising your Nation's security or principles.
I'm willing to reduce security to see that people get enough to eat, medicine and etc., you know that Ray. I expect to get the same support in return.

Originally posted by Ray
Who is your next President is a matter of deep concern to all of us. Lest you 'misunderestimate' me, inspite of my Bush bashing, he has been a great friend of India. But, he scares me. He is too blasted gung ho. And your Kerry is too damn 'cute'. So, I vote for you as the next President and the Colonel as the next PM of Canada, provided he does not go to war at the drop of a hat.:D :D
If you think Bush is too gung ho then you would hate me, I applaud "you're with us or you're against us" and think it's a statement that should have been made long ago. I would enforce said statement by every means possible, even if it's the UN we're talking about. No games in war time, none, no enemy of my enemy crap either, no games at all.

If OoE becomes PM, I'll start thinking about immigrating to Canada. Don't know if they would have me though.

Originally posted by Ray
One can hold divergent views and still be friends.
Very true. ;)

Originally posted by Ray
And Uncle Sam comes in tooooooo late.
Allways too soon or too late, damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Originally posted by Ray
all because the US wanted to be the supercop
I don't remember choosing the USA to be the cop, seems the US was stuck with the job.

Originally posted by Ray
If I had been a US taxpayer, I would have hollered enough is enough. My money is not for monkeying around. If someone is behaving like a barbarian and killing his own kith and kin, then let him do so. I have not fathered him to be responsible.
Then I'm glad you're not a US taxpayer.

human
06 Mar 04,, 03:19
Ray

The Colonel is right. The UN is all aura, no authority!

Confed,

Who is your next President is a matter of deep concern to all of us. Lest you 'misunderestimate' me, inspite of my Bush bashing, he has been a great friend of India. But, he scares me. He is too blasted gung ho. And your Kerry is too damn 'cute'. So, I vote for you as the next President and the Colonel as the next PM of Canada, provided he does not go to war at the drop of a hat.:D :D

----------------------------------------

You don't pay USA tax, but you are voting still...

Democracy is a great concept for others when they don't use it in their own country; it feels even better here on the forum…

Just because the Imam will not allow it in the name of Allah too…:clap:

smilingassassin
06 Mar 04,, 03:34
"That is what I am saying. UN has been made defunct by the US. Therefore, its value has downslided. Now, none believe that the UN can deliver so let Uncle Sam come. And Uncle Sam comes in tooooooo late. Iraq is a mess, Haiti will be a mess, Afghanistan is a mess."

No ray the U.S. did not make the UN defunct, they did it all by themselves with the whole Iraq issue. 12 years of defying UN resolutions that were not enforced enough were what discredited them. Then when for a change the U.S. needed the UN to back it up it failed miserably and sided with a nation (France) with a questionable agenda, so the U.S. took matters into its own hands and took down a dictator who posed a threat to his nabours and supported terrorists, co-incedentially terrorists are our enemy right now. What boggles the mind is the whole "your either with us or against us" speach was quite simple, unfortunately some nations seem to enjoy watching a world superpower take it on the chin and then try to prevent them from exacting the justice that their enemy's deserve.
If we let the UN deal with Iraq initially we would be in for 12 more years of sanctions and more terrorist funding would be funneled to terrorist organizations and would eventually find its way to Al Quida. Preaching world peace is a nice idea, unfortunately there are some in the world who ain't listening.

human
06 Mar 04,, 04:00
HI’ Ray,

>>>It is wonderful to learn that you are politically and intellectually literate. Do exhibit with sound logic and not Sir Oracle -ish statements. You are not the Pope giving you Divine wisdom and the rights to be Infallible. I hope you know about the 'Infallibility of the Pope' theory.<<<

The only Oracle -ish statements I heard in this debate is yours, and friends if you don’t believe me, just read his posts and my responses and tell me who was trying to show off his ill knowledge, spewing poisonous words about the west, America and Canada…The only word was left is “America is Satan” and I said it for him to relief his resistance of not saying it…

You know why?

Because if he said it, he will sound like Iran’s Mullahs, don’t you think, and then in this it post he talks about how great are the American…Is this called confusion in your book or what?

Common, you have to give me a break, even if you don’t like me…

The guy is confused, but he doesn’t know it….


>>>Please don't hector about civilisation. It shows your ignorance. Haven't you heard about the Indus Valley civilisation? I reckon it is as new as the one you wish to profess as the best. <<<

Please read my post and see for yourself if I even mentioned the word civilization because that means a broad subject, which I will not raise with such short circuit debater.


>>>Further, don't belabour under the fond delusion that we feel that the US is bad. No chance. We appreciate what they have done. But, I am afraid you can't expect me to bigoted. As I said, Open up your eyes. I believe in pragmatism and not blind jingoism. Blind Faith is of the medieval era and not to be practised in modern times where people with education should be and should display intellectual literacy and not shroud the failing with aggressive and narrow chauvinism. <<<

We appreciate what they have done…

Who are we, if I may ask?


>>>I am glad that you have informed me that the US has been a beneficiary of the UN activities. Till now I thought it is the underprivileged that did. Great to know that you are also underprivileged. We have stopped being underprivileged, but we gratefully acknowledge the Western and especially the US assistance that helped us to achieve this. We could have pretended it was all our doing, but then that would be akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand as you are doing. Reveille to reality my good friend.<<<

I didn’t informed you, I just told you that even we are the doers and the spenders, but we still we are part of the entire world that benefit from such action…

I think you either a tongue twister propagandist, or you are trying to out smart my response with your rubbish…


>>>Your signature states - The truth taught me to hate her.<<<

It states The truth taught me to hate her; I couldn’t, but certainly since you always do, then you think that everyone is like you…

>>>That speaks volumes of your intellect.<<<

Talking of volumes, I think yours was shot down by your Super Ego…

You know the guy?


>>>Don't consume yourself with hate.

I don't hate truth. Truth hurts. But I rather be a man and face it.<<<

Wow Match Bolomba who like hurts, only what hurts your soul matter here; therefore, if you have one, it shouldn’t hurt, even if it was twisted against you, just because the truth cleans the soul…

However, the only party get really hurt in the process is your Super Ego…

Just think of it…

>>>This is my last post on the subject since I don't wish to perpetuate your charade of intellectual awareness that you alone seem to have and flaunt in vain.<<<

Why you people preach of the free speech and use it at will, but then retort, boycott and use ignore lists…

I think you are incompetent debater any way, but only you can do something about it.

>>>Heard of the idiom - Pride goes before a Fall?<<<

What I think is this is the first time you read it because you sounded like peacock for a while lecturing about how good is the UN, and how bad is the USA in comparison with the UN, and even accused the USA of being the reason for the Goofy UN sad failure…


>>>I could have quoted from the Bible, just to please you, but read the Good Book and see what it say's about Pride.<<<

You could’ve quoted from the Halley Galley for all I care, but still pride is the reason you told us all here, that you are educated biblically; though, this post has nothing to do with religion…

Pride is the invisible hallucination of your Super Ego…


>>>The arrogance that you display because of your intellectual insecurity makes me even quit my hypothetical exile in Pluto for another celestial body to be far far from your ilk.<<<

The truth is always arrogant in her own legitimate land, who say it should be careful because it is contagious…

>>>Read the book, Far from the Maddening Crowd?<<<

How many book you read a week ray?

I think you use the leap year as guide here…

Let say a book every four years is about right…


>>>The 'political intellect' on display from your side is as majestic in volume as that claimed by the frog in the well, my dear Lord Flauntleroy.

Jolly good show, sir.<<<

What’s majestic in your words is that we forget it as soon as we read it…

human
06 Mar 04,, 04:02
Blademaster

Human,

I read your statements. I reread them again. Then i reread them again. :brick :brick Still can't get anywhere. Since you are Human, I guess your statements represents everything that's wrong with humans.

Take a piece of advice, shut your piehole.

-------------------------------------------

:LOL

Blademaster
06 Mar 04,, 06:05
Humans never fail to disappoint, don't they?

Ray
06 Mar 04,, 08:56
Confed,

Under no circumstances can one infer that you are gung ho. It’s always interesting and educative to hear your views. It is always a pleasure to be exposed to divergent views that are logical and without arrogance and without pretension of high intellect oozing though every pore ;) yet manifesting vacuum between the ears. Exposure to divergent views does enrich one’s knowledge and intellectual and political maturity.

I am not too sure if one should reduce security. I am sure none will grudge that. After all, one must guard one’s country from people who wish to terrorise. For instance, if it is felt that all must be finger printed and photographed, so be it. Or, if it so bothersome to some, then they needn’t go to the US.

Smilingassassin,

Agreed that the UN dithered for 12 years and then the US acted. The question is why did the US not act 12 years ago? It was known that Saddam was a tyrant, he was gassing his own people, and he gassed the Iranians. Therefore, that was the ideal opportunity to strike and none could complain. No one, not even the so called Islamists could have condemned or picked holes in the logic as it is doing now because no WMD, the rationale for war, remains disproved. He would have been caught with WMD and more!

The problem now is that the Pandora’s Box has been opened. The Islamist terrorists are having a ball and the Shia majority of Iraq wants to exact their pound of flesh and they and Iran are both Shia affiliates and Iran is building military nuclear power! One has already seen how the Pakistani ‘Father of the Islamic Bomb’ has sold nuclear secrets to all and sundry including Iran. The danger will be compounded since Iraq has the second largest oilfields in the world, but what is the trump card that the sulphur content is lower. Therefore, they can skew the world economy and bring more distress. The Kurds, the Sunni, the Turkoman and all the others will be up a gum tree as will those economies dependant on oil.

However, one point I will disagree with you. Much that Saddam is disgusting, he could not have helped the Islamic terrorists or even then, it is a moot chance. He was hated by the Islamists since he was as disparaging to them as he was with others. That he was a tyrant, of that there was no doubt and he deserved to go. Even so, I would even give the devil his due, Iraq under Saddam was the only zone free of the Islamist fundamentalist vermin. What seriously worries me is that another hotbed of Islamist fundamentalists is being created and to be released upon the world like misguided missiles. The situation is like a dung heap which is the ideal breeding ground for maggots.

Under no circumstance I feel that people gloat at the superpower being giving an undercut and knocked for the counts. That would be suicidal. Where there is a divergence is that one must understand the psyche of the opponent and not go gung go. How can you teach or impose ‘Freedom and Democracy’ to a Nation that NEVER knew it because of religious diktats? It would be better if one went about it like the psalm “Tell me the story gently as to a little child, for the dew of morning has gone away by noon”, that is if I can remember the psalm off hand. Haven’t sung it for ages!

See the case of the Al Queda and Osama. Even those who fostered Osama and his weirdoes are today going hammer and tongs to wipe out this vermin. None are complaining and none will do. They are a menace to organised society and the world societal order. While many on this forum have said he is inconsequential, I said he is consequential. One must strike at all these false messiahs. They are messiahs of evil.
There is also an interesting book written by the Oxford historian RW Southern titled – Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. I reckon, Islam is still in the Middle Ages. I am sure they will evolve. Sooner, the better.

If indeed I read a book every leap year, I would be one of the Biblical patriarchs, Methuselah, who lived 969 years: Gen. 5:27!

So much for the intellectual prowess of interesting folks that I meet around here.

Ins't it also interesting that I here can speak from the Bible and yet am assigned a five prayer ritual as also that I listen to the good old Imam? I wonder who is not only confused, but a bigot, a racist, a intolerant person and even worse masquerading as a Homo Sapien.

Forgive them Father for........

Give me a chance and not ask me to elaborate the last line above.

Do you know what is great to be a Christian priest. We learn Comparitive Religion! Others don't and live in a niche.

Do you realise where Christians win over other relgions? It is Christian COMPASSION. We preach LOVE and not Hate.

So wake up. Don't spew venom. Convert with compassion. I could have taken all arguments with venom and even facts, but that was not my aim. I only wanted compassion to be the watchword. That is the sole aim in life and that will ALWAYS conquer arrogance, idiocy, intolerance and every evil snetiment that queers rationale thought.

Go ahea and Haul me over the Coals even if they are cold. Rekindled them and burn your heart and soul!

Ray
06 Mar 04,, 09:25
Originally posted by Blademaster
Humans never fail to disappoint, don't they?

BM

Not to worry. But for such protoplasm of evolution the epinephrine, also adrenaline, wouldn't pump and make life interesting even if intellect is deficient in the one who is such a Saviour.

It is sad and a slur that he pretend to be the second coming of Christ. This pretension does offend my sensibilty and undertanding of the scriptures.

He could be the last member of the Charles Manton group!

Officer of Engineers
06 Mar 04,, 09:38
First,

Let's qualified a few things. The UN has worked and worked damned well - Korea, Cyperus, Suez, Congo, Cambodia, and indirectly Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, East Timor, Macedonia, and Angola.

Those are the strategic successes. If you want to include the tactical success - Somalia, Lebenon, Golan Heights, Haiti, Seirra Leonne.

I can go on.

Of all the people on this board, only two uniformed members served in UN missions, the Brigadier (aka Ray) and myself and only I have used lethal force to enforce UN resolutions.

So, THEREFORE, GET OFF IT WHEN YOUSAY THAT THE UN IS A MESS! I WAS THERE IN UNPROFOR. WE MADE IT WORK!

The UN has failed at points, no doubt, but NONE of you have qualified where and why it failed. Only the Brigadier and I are examining the specific issues while the rest of you are just spouting rehetoric.

You want to debate. Great. Detail exact failures and we'll go from there but this generalization is not worthy of this forum

Ray
06 Mar 04,, 09:52
Thank you, Colonel.

Thats UN for you. Good or bad, we are together to sort out a Mess the best we can.

But then as the Colonel said, action without authority. He did a great job, we tried.

Officer of Engineers
06 Mar 04,, 10:06
Sir,

Our countries share a very dubious but a very proud honour. We are by far the two top countires who have lost soldiers to UN Peacekeeping missions. To say that we have failed is to dishonour their sacrafices

and also to dishonour the truth.

human
06 Mar 04,, 14:14
Hi Blademaster,

Humans never fail to disappoint, don't they?

------------------------------------

Denial and the lack of vision perform it all the time:Beer

human
06 Mar 04,, 14:25
Hi smilingassassin

"That is what I am saying. UN has been made defunct by the US. Therefore, its value has downslided. Now, none believe that the UN can deliver so let Uncle Sam come. And Uncle Sam comes in tooooooo late. Iraq is a mess, Haiti will be a mess, Afghanistan is a mess."

No ray the U.S. did not make the UN defunct, they did it all by themselves with the whole Iraq issue. 12 years of defying UN resolutions that were not enforced enough were what discredited them. Then when for a change the U.S. needed the UN to back it up it failed miserably and sided with a nation (France) with a questionable agenda, so the U.S. took matters into its own hands and took down a dictator who posed a threat to his nabours and supported terrorists, co-incedentially terrorists are our enemy right now. What boggles the mind is the whole "your either with us or against us" speach was quite simple, unfortunately some nations seem to enjoy watching a world superpower take it on the chin and then try to prevent them from exacting the justice that their enemy's deserve.

If we let the UN deal with Iraq initially we would be in for 12 more years of sanctions and more terrorist funding would be funneled to terrorist organizations and would eventually find its way to Al Quida. Preaching world peace is a nice idea, unfortunately there are some in the world who ain't listening.

=============================

Thank you for your Valid point :)

Confed999
06 Mar 04,, 15:49
Originally posted by Ray
Under no circumstances can one infer that you are gung ho.
That's because you are talking to someone who is responsable only for myself and those in my immediate vicinity, as Prez I would feel responsable for the free world and all bets would be off.

Originally posted by Ray
I am not too sure if one should reduce security. I am sure none will grudge that. After all, one must guard one’s country from people who wish to terrorise.
Until everyone has the basic needs for life, food, medicine, shelter and a little love, I, and much of my family, am willing to chance it. If I thought for a moment my hunger would feed another I would never eat again.


Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
First,

Let's qualified a few things. The UN has worked and worked damned well - Korea, Cyperus, Suez, Congo, Cambodia, and indirectly Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, East Timor, Macedonia, and Angola.

Those are the strategic successes. If you want to include the tactical success - Somalia, Lebenon, Golan Heights, Haiti, Seirra Leonne.

I can go on.
As I said, when they act they do a good job, it's getting them to act that's the problem.


Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Of all the people on this board, only two uniformed members served in UN missions, the Brigadier (aka Ray) and myself and only I have used lethal force to enforce UN resolutions.

So, THEREFORE, GET OFF IT WHEN YOUSAY THAT THE UN IS A MESS! I WAS THERE IN UNPROFOR. WE MADE IT WORK!

The UN has failed at points, no doubt, but NONE of you have qualified where and why it failed. Only the Brigadier and I are examining the specific issues while the rest of you are just spouting rehetoric.

You want to debate. Great. Detail exact failures and we'll go from there but this generalization is not worthy of this forum
But you aren't the UN, you're on UN missions. Nobody has a problem with the men and women who have tried their best to make those UN missions a success, but they aren't the UN. The UN is a building, a charter and a bunch of 1/2 drunk, pencil pushing beuracrats. Want a detail of their failures? Name any country where the people live under a tyrant. Name any country where starvation is the normal cause of death. Their failures do not come from where they act, the failure is it's inaction.


Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Sir,

Our countries share a very dubious but a very proud honour. We are by far the two top countires who have lost soldiers to UN Peacekeeping missions. To say that we have failed is to dishonour their sacrafices

and also to dishonour the truth.
Again, you were on the missions, but you are not the UN. What one says about the UN has noting to do with you or Ray or any of the multitude who have died, bled or just spent time on UN missions. Those sacrifices bring honor that mere words can not erase.

human
06 Mar 04,, 16:18
Hi Officer of Engineers,

>>>Let's qualified a few things. The UN has worked and worked damned well - Korea, Cyperus, Suez, Congo, Cambodia, and indirectly Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, East Timor, Macedonia, and Angola. Those are the strategic successes. If you want to include the tactical success - Somalia, Lebenon, Golan Heights, Haiti, Seirra Leonne. I can go on.<<<

Though I never said that the Logistics of the UN Missions were a mess or failure, but rather the UN as an international body to enforce peace was, here I am being attacked for something I never can say, why?

Because I said to who can read and understand what he’s reading and therefore debate rationally, that we are the DOERS and the SPENDERS; therefore, since the USA, Canada, Britain, France, and NATO in general are the one who sponsors (most if not all the time) the logistic of any UN Mission (as Usual with an indicate weaponry and Authority, unless they are NATO)

Therefore our own children soldier who are carrying the logistic of the mission, and I have nothing in my heart except the utmost respect and appreciation for their effort, worthy success, and sacrifices...

So please don’t play this line on me, and leave it to Mr. Ray to do that because I know that you know much better…

Let start with this…

Angola.

"The U.N.'s involvement in Angola has basically been a disaster. During the Lusaka peace process the U.N. spent $1.5 billion, most of it down the drain. This policy of ‘See No Evil, Speak No Evil' (Denial at its best) completely backfired in Angola. Unless the U.N. learns from this fatal mistake, its new mission in Angola will also be at risk—and so will similar missions in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone."

Peter Takirambudde
Executive Director for Africa of Human Rights Watch

http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/sep/ang1310.htm

East Timor.

A United Nations official has pointed the finger at the UN police command for its failure to intervene effectively during riots in East Timor last December. A UN report just released also said East Timorese police had been unco-operative in an investigation into the riots. By Jill Jolliffe

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/etimor/2003/1119dili.htm


Guatemala Failed To Solve Civil War Crimes, U.N. Report Says

Tuesday, March 2, 2004

The three Guatemalan governments in power since a commission was set up five years ago to investigate the deaths and disappearances of more than 200,000 Guatemalans during the country's 36-year civil war have failed to follow most of the group's recommendations, says a new report released yesterday by the U.N. Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA).
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040302/449_13626.asp


Rwanda
United Nations - A report assessing United Nations involvement in Rwanda said on its release Thursday that the UN and its member states failed Rwanda in deplorable ways in 1994, ignoring evidence that a genocide was planned, refusing to act once it was under way and finally abandoning the Rwandan people when they most needed protection.
By Nicole Winfield

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda/rpt1299.htm

I came to the United Nations from commanding a mechanized brigade group of 5,000 soldiers. If I had had that brigade group in Rwanda, there would be hundreds of thousands of lives spared today."

--Major General Romeo Dallaire, Commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda, September 7, 1994

I certainly can mention the Three hundred Marines, and the 26 French, and the 17 Italians who were blown to pieces in Beirut by the Iranian, but then Reagan may feel better if no one mention it…

And I can go on and on and on, but if I did, I will never mean to disrespect the sacrifices and the effort of the people who handled the logistics with accordance with Goof’s instructions, which in reality are the problem.

Goofy Annan was an UN accountant, and he was chosen the because of the UN books and budgets, I think he’s a goof when it comes to giving orders, or handling peace plans, and so were his predecessors.

I think it’s the time for real change in UN mentality, if peace is to be achieved on earth..

Thank you Sir for your response, I may not be a Peace Mission soldier like you, but that it doesn’t mean you know better either, and I will not dignify what is not dignified by the truth.

As for the rest of your post, I’ll leave it to you to assess…

Thank you again.

human
06 Mar 04,, 16:30
Officer of Engineers,

Sir,

Our countries share a very dubious but a very proud honour. We are by far the two top countires who have lost soldiers to UN Peacekeeping missions. To say that we have failed is to dishonour their sacrafices

and also to dishonour the truth.

--------------------------------------------

Sir, you are wrong, please read my reply to your previous post.

Thank you.

Trooth
06 Mar 04,, 16:32
I have never quite understood why the US has remained part of the UN. On balance the US doesn't seem to be a happy member, and therefore perhaps it would be better if she withdrew.

Trooth
06 Mar 04,, 16:36
Originally posted by human

As long as you don’t use name calling like some of the free lance moderators on some forums, the coals will remain cold…



Perhaps you would do well to reread your own post, Human.

Trooth
06 Mar 04,, 16:54
One thing we should remember. The situation we now have in Iraq, is exactly the same one we would have had if the war on Iraq had been fully UN sanctioned and UN supported. If it had been supported by France et al, there had indeed been WMD. Whether the war is legal or illegal we would be were we are now.

The US would have supplied the bulk of the military and would be trying to get out of Iraq as early as possible.

The fact that the US "peace" is turning into a shambles illustrates merely the poor planning into the post-war Iraq. The fact that the US wishes to get out as soon as possible is only made more apparent by the current lack of UN involvement ti fill the vacuum. The reason the US is now going to the UN is because there isn't any other international organisation to go to in such circumstances.

This is the role of the UN. It is indeed powerless to act independently of it's member states, what it provides is a non-national umbrella for operations.

The US now has a duty of care to Iraq, as it created the current turmoil there. However the US would also like to pull out. But there isn't an umbrella organisation for them to use. Now it is "US withdraws" with the UN it would have been more akin to other nations relieving the US.

The unfortunate thing for the US is that there is only one organisation anyway that could operate on the scale of rebuilding an entire country - the UN.

The US is now doing what a large number of other nations do, and what the UN is there for and often what it is good at, providing a "neutral" framework by which nations can support each other in huge poitical, military and - most importantly -humanitarian endeavours.

As Ray said, the UN's role is there to provide assistance to its member states, and the US requires its assistance.

Some might view it like


posted by smilingassasin
in shop class and my teacher first showed me how to do something and then let me do it


But it might also be like those instances when someone tries to cook something, makes a complete mess of the kitchen, and then leaves it to their mum to clean up :)

Lunatock
06 Mar 04,, 18:20
Originally posted by Ray


Ins't it also interesting that I here can speak from the Bible and yet am assigned a five prayer ritual as also that I listen to the good old Imam? I wonder who is not only confused, but a bigot, a racist, a intolerant person and even worse masquerading as a Homo Sapien.

Human is a pro-Russian similiar to EMG, whom found this place because of my sig at Russia Community's message board.

That generalisation of his sounds a lot like Sadik Fahd's (A JAG baddie) assumption that Catherine Bell's character and the other three hostages were Israeli's.

Human does have a bit of an anti-Islam slant, and it appears the posters disagreeing with him are doing so as thier Imam requested. :roll

Fun fact: What's probably the closest thing I've got to an Imam has told me to not be so gung ho at least once. :lol

Ray
06 Mar 04,, 18:45
A Russian?

That says it all.

I have no time for Imams and the revealations of God as the scriptures of any rligion says. Show me God. Just take the ggod things of ANY scripture and DO GOOD to make this world a better place. That's about all.

Venom is for snakes.

Ray
06 Mar 04,, 19:03
My contention is that the UN is 'crap' as someone stated. Damn them.

Clean up the act now. Don't whimper and cringe from what has been done. Live up to the courage of conviction. Just like you got Saddam and you ahve got Osama (maybe it can't be admitted till the opprtune moment).

And I am sure you can the US can clean up the act without kowtowing to anyone, including the UN!

I think Trooth has hit the nail one the head.

human
06 Mar 04,, 21:36
Hi Trooth,

I have never quite understood why the US has remained part of the UN.

On balance the US doesn't seem to be a happy member, and therefore perhaps it would be better if she withdrew.

------------------------------------------------------------

Since the USA in the UN (UN Assessment) budget contribution set on 25% of the annual budget, and 26% of the peacekeeping budget, I think a withdrawal will create an uncontrollable balance, don't you think?

human
06 Mar 04,, 21:41
Trooth,

Perhaps you would do well to reread your own post, Human.

----------------------------------------------

I do, he called me names, I insulted him back after the second post...

human
06 Mar 04,, 22:42
Hi Trooth,

>>>One thing we should remember. The situation we now have in Iraq, is exactly the same one we would have had if the war on Iraq had been fully UN sanctioned and UN supported. If it had been supported by France et al, there had indeed been WMD. Whether the war is legal or illegal we would be were we are now.<<<

True


>>>The US would have supplied the bulk of the military and would be trying to get out of Iraq as early as possible.<<<

Also true because the USA solders are not trained for post war situation…

>>>The fact that the US "peace" is turning into a shambles illustrates merely the poor planning into the post-war Iraq. The fact that the US wishes to get out as soon as possible is only made more apparent by the current lack of UN involvement ti fill the vacuum. The reason the US is now going to the UN is because there isn't any other international organisation to go to in such circumstances.<<<

What I can say to that?


>>>This is the role of the UN. It is indeed powerless to act independently of it's member states, what it provides is a non-national umbrella for operations. <<<

Thank you for the truth… Therefore, instead of debating how good the UN and bad the USA, which is useless and endless, maybe we should consider debating how the UN would be more effective in implementing its mandate of peace, and how the UN and its general secretary shouldn’t be missed on the conflicts theater when they wish to play dead, and harmonically active when they shouldn’t…

>>>The US now has a duty of care to Iraq, as it created the current turmoil there.

However the US would also like to pull out.

But there isn't an umbrella organisation for them to use.
Now it is "US withdraws" with the UN it would have been more akin to other nations relieving the US.<<<

That how it should work, but since some other members (I will not name them, so I don’t stir the rosy sensitive one) want to see the USA if not humiliated, at least as weak as possible because their strategic agenda requires them to do that.

>>>The unfortunate thing for the US is that there is only one organisation anyway that could operate on the scale of rebuilding an entire country - the UN.<<<

Exactly.

>>>The US is now doing what a large number of other nations do, and what the UN is there for and often what it is good at, providing a "neutral" framework by which nations can support each other in huge poitical, military and - most importantly -humanitarian endeavours.<<<

No doubt.


>>>As Ray said, the UN's role is there to provide assistance to its member states, and the US requires its assistance.<<<

Here where we disagree…

Unilaterally and as an operation of war, the USA could’ve controlled the entire country and bring it to total compliance with its own will, but this is not what the USA planned to do in the first place because the aim was to free the Iraqi’s political will…

Unfortunately, Iraqis instead of gaining back their national will, they handed it over to the religious leaders, which is natural in a country with an aged dictatorship and no one to turn into except them.

Now…

As dangerous as it is, I say let the Iraqi will (what ever it is) win instead of forcing its route and creating another road map that doesn’t lead except to hell…

Blowing the UN compound and killing its top representative is a clear message, therefore, “in shop class and my teacher first showed me how to do something and then let me do it” is an accurate theory example, certainly as long as we think that Iraqis are mature enough to rule themselves if you show them how…

Isn’t it that the purpose?

However, since Saddam and not the USA is the one who tried to cook the region and made a complete mess in his kitchen, and the others kitchens without retribution what so ever, the UN “mom” called on the USA (dad) to clean up the bully’s mess…

Shouldn’t MOM reorganize the kitchen and the house with the children, or she’s so spoiled that she want dad to do it too?

Though Masho Dad cleaned the entire house while trying to clean the kitchen...

Thank you for your response...

Officer of Engineers
06 Mar 04,, 22:48
Originally posted by human
Though I never said that the Logistics of the UN Missions were a mess or failure, but rather the UN as an international body to enforce peace was, here I am being attacked for something I never can say, why?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You must have a different understanding of the word "Logistics." As for enforcing the peace, UNPROFOR engaged in corps level combat.


Originally posted by human
Because I said to who can read and understand what he’s reading and therefore debate rationally, that we are the DOERS and the SPENDERS; therefore, since the USA, Canada, Britain, France, and NATO in general are the one who sponsors (most if not all the time) the logistic of any UN Mission (as Usual with an indicate weaponry and Authority, unless they are NATO)

Therefore our own children soldier who are carrying the logistic of the mission, and I have nothing in my heart except the utmost respect and appreciation for their effort, worthy success, and sacrifices...

So please don’t play this line on me, and leave it to Mr. Ray to do that because I know that you know much better…

English is not your first language, is it? I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. You seemed to have a strange hang up with the word logistics, in whatever form you mean but it does not reflect what the rest of the world take it to mean.

Here's what Merian-Webster Online says.


Main Entry: lo·gis·tics
Pronunciation: lO-'jis-tiks, l&-
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: French logistique art of calculating, logistics, from Greek logistikE art of calculating, from feminine of logistikos of calculation, from logizein to calculate, from logos reason
1 : the aspect of military science dealing with the procurement, maintenance, and transportation of military matériel, facilities, and personnel
2 : the handling of the details of an operation

I'm sure you don't mean that. Thus, you better rewrite and be clearer about your meaning.


Originally posted by human
Let start with this…

Angola.

"The U.N.'s involvement in Angola has basically been a disaster. During the Lusaka peace process the U.N. spent $1.5 billion, most of it down the drain. This policy of ‘See No Evil, Speak No Evil' (Denial at its best) completely backfired in Angola. Unless the U.N. learns from this fatal mistake, its new mission in Angola will also be at risk—and so will similar missions in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone."

Peter Takirambudde
Executive Director for Africa of Human Rights Watch

http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/sep/ang1310.htm

East Timor.

A United Nations official has pointed the finger at the UN police command for its failure to intervene effectively during riots in East Timor last December. A UN report just released also said East Timorese police had been unco-operative in an investigation into the riots. By Jill Jolliffe

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/etimor/2003/1119dili.htm


Guatemala Failed To Solve Civil War Crimes, U.N. Report Says

Tuesday, March 2, 2004

The three Guatemalan governments in power since a commission was set up five years ago to investigate the deaths and disappearances of more than 200,000 Guatemalans during the country's 36-year civil war have failed to follow most of the group's recommendations, says a new report released yesterday by the U.N. Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA).
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040302/449_13626.asp


Rwanda
United Nations - A report assessing United Nations involvement in Rwanda said on its release Thursday that the UN and its member states failed Rwanda in deplorable ways in 1994, ignoring evidence that a genocide was planned, refusing to act once it was under way and finally abandoning the Rwandan people when they most needed protection.
By Nicole Winfield

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda/rpt1299.htm

I came to the United Nations from commanding a mechanized brigade group of 5,000 soldiers. If I had had that brigade group in Rwanda, there would be hundreds of thousands of lives spared today."

--Major General Romeo Dallaire, Commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda, September 7, 1994

I certainly can mention the Three hundred Marines, and the 26 French, and the 17 Italians who were blown to pieces in Beirut by the Iranian, but then Reagan may feel better if no one mention it…

And I can go on and on and on, but if I did, I will never mean to disrespect the sacrifices and the effort of the people who handled the logistics with accordance with Goof’s instructions, which in reality are the problem.

Goofy Annan was an UN accountant, and he was chosen the because of the UN books and budgets, I think he’s a goof when it comes to giving orders, or handling peace plans, and so were his predecessors.

I think it’s the time for real change in UN mentality, if peace is to be achieved on earth..

Thank you Sir for your response, I may not be a Peace Mission soldier like you, but that it doesn’t mean you know better either, and I will not dignify what is not dignified by the truth.

As for the rest of your post, I’ll leave it to you to assess…

Thank you again.

Circumstances have surpassed all those situations. I still have no idea what you're trying to say. You seemed to imply meaning which I cannot understand and thus would be damned impossible for me to reply.

human
06 Mar 04,, 23:19
Officer of Engineers,


>>>I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You must have a different understanding of the word "Logistics." As for enforcing the peace, UNPROFOR engaged in corps level combat.<<<

Are you really telling me that you are with UN peacekeepers, and you don’t know what the word "Logistics means?

>>>English is not your first language, is it? I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. You seemed to have a strange hang up with the word logistics, in whatever form you mean but it does not reflect what the rest of the world take it to mean.<<<

I will not comment on this statement.

But I’ll take back to your own quote from Webster Online.

1 : the aspect of military science dealing with the procurement, maintenance, and transportation of military matériel, facilities, and personnel

2 : the handling of the details of an operation



>>>I'm sure you don't mean that. Thus, you better rewrite and be clearer about your meaning.<<<

Look, I am not here to prove that you were or you were not in the UN peacekeepers, but I think you should consider refreshing your memory on what logistic means...

“Annan pointed out that even military supplies from the UN's Logistic Base at Brindisi, Italy, ''are now largely depleted.”

Learn what logistic from this readings…

http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/sept00/00_39_004.html

Making headway with logistics and capacity

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/yir97/logistic.htm

________________________________

Circumstances have surpassed all those situations. I still have no idea what you're trying to say. You seemed to imply meaning which I cannot understand and thus would be damned impossible for me to reply.

----------------------------------------------------

Enough said, thank you for your response...

human
06 Mar 04,, 23:40
Hi Lunatock,

>>>Human is a pro-Russian similiar to EMG, whom found this place because of my sig at Russia Community's message board. <<<

Is this what the job of a moderator entitle on this forum, or is it just you?

Are you sure, you’re not Rain?

Troll on people and put them in a hand made frame of your own with accordance to how you disliked their opinion?

>>>That generalisation of his sounds a lot like Sadik Fahd's (A JAG baddie) assumption that Catherine Bell's character and the other three hostages were Israeli's.<<<

Wow… You figured me out…

You always sounded like comic Ali, or just you do that with infidels?

>>Human does have a bit of an anti-Islam slant, and it appears the posters disagreeing with him are doing so as thier Imam requested. <<<

Unlike you, I don’t just sit and throw accusations left and right, If it sounded as such, it did because of what the poster said; therefore, I heard and responded..



>>>Fun fact: What's probably the closest thing I've got to an Imam has told me to not be so gung ho at least once…<<<

Certainly nothing better than natural gung ho; therefore, you didn’t comply…

Tata’

Officer of Engineers
06 Mar 04,, 23:44
That must be something real good that you're smoking. Logistics deal with supplies and materials, which has NOTHING to do with enforcment policy or actions. That's tactics. If that is what you mean, state it.

Whether you want to prove or disprove me being a peacekeeper is irrevelent. What is revelent is that I still have no idea what you're trying to say. Your English is not clear and your logic even more dismal which I assume it to be a language barrier thing. I doubt anyone else here could follow your logic.

human
06 Mar 04,, 23:51
Officer of Engineers,

2 : the handling of the details of an operation

Sorry to say, but with your later post, I have to think you are a mare pretender, and fame seeker, or as Ray say PRIDE monger.:smoke

Lunatock
07 Mar 04,, 01:47
Originally posted by human
Hi Lunatock,

>>>Human is a pro-Russian similiar to EMG, whom found this place because of my sig at Russia Community's message board. <<<

Is this what the job of a moderator entitle on this forum, or is it just you?

Are you sure, you’re not Rain?

Troll on people and put them in a hand made frame of your own with accordance to how you disliked their opinion?

>>>That generalisation of his sounds a lot like Sadik Fahd's (A JAG baddie) assumption that Catherine Bell's character and the other three hostages were Israeli's.<<<

Wow… You figured me out…

You always sounded like comic Ali, or just you do that with infidels?

>>Human does have a bit of an anti-Islam slant, and it appears the posters disagreeing with him are doing so as thier Imam requested. <<<

Unlike you, I don’t just sit and throw accusations left and right, If it sounded as such, it did because of what the poster said; therefore, I heard and responded..



>>>Fun fact: What's probably the closest thing I've got to an Imam has told me to not be so gung ho at least once…<<<

Certainly nothing better than natural gung ho; therefore, you didn’t comply…

Tata’

All guesses. But bad ones, I'm not sure if your just used to ignoring clerics of whatever religion you follow. But I did take his advice.

And you certainly don't throw accusations like you claim I do.You guess and hit far off the mark.

And that means you deny all your slandering of Islam & Muslims on Russia Community? If so I'll just bust out links to certain threads.

And finally, no I'm not Rain. Any grief he gave you is going to be lightweight compared to what's in store if you act like you do on Russia Comunity. :smoke

Ray
07 Mar 04,, 03:01
Kak vashye dzarovye, tovarich?

Trooth
07 Mar 04,, 03:23
Originally posted by human
Hi Trooth,

I have never quite understood why the US has remained part of the UN.

On balance the US doesn't seem to be a happy member, and therefore perhaps it would be better if she withdrew.

------------------------------------------------------------

Since the USA in the UN (UN Assessment) budget contribution set on 25% of the annual budget, and 26% of the peacekeeping budget, I think a withdrawal will create an uncontrollable balance, don't you think?

If the US does not wish to be part of the UN, she should not feel compelled to be. If that damages the UN,. so be it, it will have to learn to live without her.

I was also under the impression that the US was not the most forthcoming of nations with its UN payments anyway.

Officer of Engineers
07 Mar 04,, 03:24
Originally posted by human
Officer of Engineers,

2 : the handling of the details of an operation

Sorry to say, but with your later post, I have to think you are a mare pretender, and fame seeker, or as Ray say PRIDE monger.:smoke

Son,

I know more about logistics than you have known women. This is a military forum. Thus far, your English is as confusing as it is illogical.

We have entire manuals (B-GL-345 series and FM 63 series) that devouts LOGISTICS include combat health, combat sustainment. Do you even know what I'm talking about?

If I read your post right, then my people were getting shot for being Santa Clause which I was asking you to clarify. Your failure to explain yourself and on this personal attack is a whole lot telling.

I've got the Queen's Commission to state who I am. I do not need you to be impress. I need you to be clear.

Trooth
07 Mar 04,, 03:24
Originally posted by human
Trooth,

Perhaps you would do well to reread your own post, Human.

----------------------------------------------

I do, he called me names, I insulted him back after the second post...

I must admit to reading it differently and to having the impression that you are continuing to insult people. But perhaps that is just me. I am a very sensitive soul.

Officer of Engineers
07 Mar 04,, 03:30
Originally posted by Trooth
If the US does not wish to be part of the UN, she should not feel compelled to be. If that damages the UN,. so be it, it will have to learn to live without her.

I was also under the impression that the US was not the most forthcoming of nations with its UN payments anyway.

You're just getting the most publicized debacles. American involvement in the UN is extreme and dominating. The War on Terror is a very good example. The low level intel and cooperation that has been coming through the UN is worth its weight in gold.

Trooth
07 Mar 04,, 03:38
Originally posted by human
>>>The US now has a duty of care to Iraq, as it created the current turmoil there.

However the US would also like to pull out.

But there isn't an umbrella organisation for them to use.
Now it is "US withdraws" with the UN it would have been more akin to other nations relieving the US.<<<

That how it should work, but since some other members (I will not name them, so I don’t stir the rosy sensitive one) want to see the USA if not humiliated, at least as weak as possible because their strategic agenda requires them to do that.


I think i understand. But i am not sure. There is no need to be vague here. If you want to level an accusation at a country go for it. What i would say is that it has since transpired that France and Russia thought they could achieve one of the aims (the removal of Saddam from Iraq) through peaceful means. They were wrong, but it appears to be because Saddam thought the US was bluffing.



>>>As Ray said, the UN's role is there to provide assistance to its member states, and the US requires its assistance.<<<

Here where we disagree…

Unilaterally and as an operation of war, the USA could’ve controlled the entire country and bring it to total compliance with its own will, but this is not what the USA planned to do in the first place because the aim was to free the Iraqi’s political will…

Unfortunately, Iraqis instead of gaining back their national will, they handed it over to the religious leaders, which is natural in a country with an aged dictatorship and no one to turn into except them.

Now…

As dangerous as it is, I say let the Iraqi will (what ever it is) win instead of forcing its route and creating another road map that doesn’t lead except to hell…

Blowing the UN compound and killing its top representative is a clear message, therefore, “in shop class and my teacher first showed me how to do something and then let me do it” is an accurate theory example, certainly as long as we think that Iraqis are mature enough to rule themselves if you show them how…

Isn’t it that the purpose?

However, since Saddam and not the USA is the one who tried to cook the region and made a complete mess in his kitchen, and the others kitchens without retribution what so ever, the UN “mom” called on the USA (dad) to clean up the bully’s mess…

Shouldn’t MOM reorganize the kitchen and the house with the children, or she’s so spoiled that she want dad to do it too?

Though Masho Dad cleaned the entire house while trying to clean the kitchen...

Thank you for your response...

Wahtever situation Saddam had installed in Iraq, it was the US that changed it. That change has led to the current situation, something that the US either planned badly for, or is simply unable to deal with. I hope that the Iraqi's get the government that they want and will respect. That is not necessarily a government imposed on them by the US or anyone else. The problem is that your comments above imply an outsiders disapproval of their choices. But, as i have already implied, i consider that to be irrelevant.

The US turned up in the kitchen, rearranged all the ingredients in the Iraqi cake and is now turning to the UN and asking the UN to clean up. Sadly for the UN, it is compelled to play mum in this situation. The US is not.

Which is why the UN is important, and why i believe the US/UK did damage it.

This, i believe, to be what Ray was saying - however Ray, if i have got this wrong please correct me, i don't want ot put words in your mouth.

My point is that it is ironic that the only organisation that can "bail" the US out of this and assist the US in its desire to leave Iraq is the very organisation that the US fought with before going into Iraq.

And of course, if the US did pull out of the UN, it would not be a member stat and could therefore not ask the UN for assistance.

human
07 Mar 04,, 05:13
Lunatock,

I don't deny at all that I am Anti-Islam if cutting throats, and blowing people to ashes is what send Moslems to heaven.

Those are terrorists, not Muslims, learn the difference.

And that's warning #1 for insulting a Moderator.

Ray
07 Mar 04,, 05:28
Trooth,

Its is exactly what I was saying.

Unfortunately, some here can only resort to profanities and I reckon English not being their cup of tea got it all mixed up and became confused. I presume thinking in one language and writing in another can become a tedium.

As far as Lunastock's contribution is concerned, I find his contribution much more illuminating than some tuchkus around here.

Basically, such elements wish to be rowdy and unfortunately their thoughts are plebian inspite of self proclaimed intellectual preeminence.

I wonder who is the Jester around here. I believe Danny Kaye was a Russian. Remember the film The Court Jester? Though Danny Kaye was a wonderful actor (He was a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN) and so was Peter Ustinov. Was Ustinov also a Russian?

human
07 Mar 04,, 05:56
Trooth,


>>>Wahtever situation Saddam had installed in Iraq, it was the US that changed it. That change has led to the current situation, something that the US either planned badly for, or is simply unable to deal with.<<<

Truth.



>>>I hope that the Iraqi's get the government that they want and will respect. That is not necessarily a government imposed on them by the US or anyone else. The problem is that your comments above imply an outsiders disapproval of their choices. But, as i have already implied, i consider that to be irrelevant.<<<

It is irrelevant in theory, as long as the Iraqi choice will not lead into a religious turmoil in the region.


>>>The US turned up in the kitchen, rearranged all the ingredients in the Iraqi cake and is now turning to the UN and asking the UN to clean up.<<<

No, the way I see it is, the USA rearranged the organized mess the Iraqis were living in, and now it's time for the UN to arrange the cleaning up, which is no ones job except the Iraqis in accordance with their own will, but that it doesn't means that the USA is not going to contribute to the clean up operation.


>>>Sadly for the UN, it is compelled to play mum in this situation. The US is not.<<<

So it did in Rawanda, and the rest of the world...


>>>Which is why the UN is important, and why i believe the US/UK did damage it.<<<


The UN importance is not up to grade with the type of conflicts we see today, much more complicated than the era when the UN was established; therefore, the UN must play more effectively in reforming its own mandate.


>>>This, i believe, to be what Ray was saying - however Ray, if i have got this wrong please correct me, i don't want ot put words in your mouth.<<<

But certainly Ray said it in a way as close as possible to America is the Satan who ruined the UN.


>>>My point is that it is ironic that the only organisation that can "bail" the US out of this and assist the US in its desire to leave Iraq is the very organisation that the US fought with before going into Iraq.<<<

It is not Ironic, but it is international politic at its best, and the UN reluctance, which would be interrupted by Saddam's regime as a total victory if the USA went along, will be much worth than what this war produced up until now.

>>>And of course, if the US did pull out of the UN, it would not be a member stat and could therefore not ask the UN for assistance. <<<

And that will be the end of the world, as we know it.

Because chaos will be the new world order...

Ray
07 Mar 04,, 06:03
The unfortunate issue to Freedom and Democracy is that westerners did not fathom the impact of the Islamic way of life. The Muslims live under strict societal rules. Their codes laid down in the time of the Prophet Mohammed is INVIOLATE and cannot be intrepreted otherwise, even if the times have changed. They are thus psychologically passive and always amenable to the leader's dictate, be he the Mullah, the King, Dictator, whatever. The authority is Supreme, of course within the interpretation of Islamic laws and codes. The spiritual and the temporal cannot be separated unlike elsewhere where Religion and State are two different entity. Therefore, Iraq will become a theocratic state unlike in Saddam's time. Subnationalsim however will add to the mess, even though there is the concept of ummah, which otherwise ended with the decline of the Caliphate. Yet, as one can see there is a resurgence of Pan Islamism. In short, Iraq will be the cauldorn of confusion and maybe more bloodshed.

Therefore, to expect Freedom and Democracy in such a society is well nigh impossible. This is what the US miscalculated.

Take Iraq's example. The Clergy is giving the directions as to what is to be done. What about Iran? The barred the Reformists so that the hardliners won. I believe the Ayotollahs decreed a vote for the Reformist is a vote for the Satan! Therefore, in such a society that feels the retribution of the Allah is most dangerous, with such a slogan for votes, obviously the hardliners had to win.

Ray
07 Mar 04,, 06:09
It is unfortunate that some people cannot understand English and draw their own inferences of what is being said is as good as saying Satan.

I take solace that an Englishman understood the English and certified it as correct :)

I pity them since they have emerged from a totalitarian dictatorial regime that brooked no criticism of the State. They won't understand that criticism of an issue in a democratic society is not heretical and is not equated with as calling a country Satan.

The intellectualism thus lies exposed!

human
07 Mar 04,, 06:17
Officer of Engineers,


>>>Son,

I know more about logistics than you have known women. This is a military forum. Thus far, your English is as confusing as it is illogical.<<<

Funny Pa... you sounded like you never heard the word before, but seems like after you did your extensive research about it, you are trying to reclaim your ground back...


>>>We have entire manuals (B-GL-345 series and FM 63 series) that devouts LOGISTICS include combat health, combat sustainment. Do you even know what I'm talking about?<<<


No, but you know what, I saw that too on that web site...


>>>If I read your post right, then my people were getting shot for being Santa Clause which I was asking you to clarify. Your failure to explain yourself and on this personal attack is a whole lot telling.<<<


No personal attacks, but I can't stand pretenders, liars and people who threaten other people from behind the keyboard, and I thought for a while, you are the same...

But since you joind the choir the moderator is trying to form against me here, then how I can say anything that sound English to you?


>>>I've got the Queen's Commission to state who I am. I do not need you to be impress. I need you to be clear. <<<

Unlike you I am not going to brag about my achievements on a forum because all what I am interested in is a rational debate...

Clear and true.

human
07 Mar 04,, 06:24
Hi Ray


Between criticizing and accusing there is a fine English line that you crossed carelessly, so stop your pity wining and go back to the subject at hand, or do what ever you want.

human
07 Mar 04,, 06:27
Hi Ray

The unfortunate issue to Freedom and Democracy is that westerners did not fathom the impact of the Islamic way of life. The Muslims live under strict societal rules. Their codes laid down in the time of the Prophet Mohammed is INVIOLATE and cannot be intrepreted otherwise, even if the times have changed. They are thus psychologically passive and always amenable to the leader's dictate, be he the Mullah, the King, Dictator, whatever. The authority is Supreme, of course within the interpretation of Islamic laws and codes. The spiritual and the temporal cannot be separated unlike elsewhere where Religion and State are two different entity. Therefore, Iraq will become a theocratic state unlike in Saddam's time. Subnationalsim however will add to the mess, even though there is the concept of ummah, which otherwise ended with the decline of the Caliphate. Yet, as one can see there is a resurgence of Pan Islamism. In short, Iraq will be the cauldorn of confusion and maybe more bloodshed.

Therefore, to expect Freedom and Democracy in such a society is well nigh impossible. This is what the US miscalculated.

Take Iraq's example. The Clergy is giving the directions as to what is to be done. What about Iran? The barred the Reformists so that the hardliners won. I believe the Ayotollahs decreed a vote for the Reformist is a vote for the Satan! Therefore, in such a society that feels the retribution of the Allah is most dangerous, with such a slogan for votes, obviously the hardliners had to win.

-----------------------------------------

I can't agree more with every word you said in this post.

Ray
07 Mar 04,, 09:04
Look Human,

If we are on the same side of the Rubicon, then where is the beef?

If you have not understood what I have written, how can you grudge me?

You have come new to this forum. Be patient and see what the the psychology of each and then slap leather. Premature action will only kill firiends to be regretted later.

Personally, I have nothing against you. In fact, I look forward to your post because it gives another view. Don't get personal. The Colonel (aka OoE) has much to educate and so does Trooth and Lunastock and the others. One may not agree (and that is fair), but listen and then shoot.

Lets not waste a bullet when the ballot can do the job.

For all you know, you maybe right and I am wrong. But what of it. If I can learn from you, I shall be richer in knowledge. I gain.

Trooth
07 Mar 04,, 12:42
Human, you are right, the current situation is not ironic, it is close to railroad politics. Whatever the US does in Iraq it shoulders the responsibility because it created the turmoil. I understand your desire to drag references to Saddam's regime, to deflect the US's responsibilites, but that isn't a valid argument.

Whether or not you approve of Saddam's regime (and i would be surprised if anyone on this board did) it is still a fact that the country was in a steady state condition. The change was the toppling of the Ba'athists. That toppling led to a power vacuum in the country, that power vaccum is being filled by all number of groups with their own axes to grind. In amongst this the US is trying to establish a free democratic society in a part of the world that knows not of freedom. A great many of them want to be free to worship Allah, and feel the US is depriving them of that freedom. A great many of them feel that any lawmaker or leader must be in daily contact with Allah. It is largely irrelevant if you or I agree with this desire on their part, or if you or i can truly understand it. We are not Iraqi's and therefore it has nothing to do with us unless we want to revert to the role of christian missionaries. In which we are having a crusade, a crusade for "democratic fundamentalism".

The US created this situation somewhat against the wishes of the UN. You are correct that the UN may not be equipped to deal with the world according the George Bush, but that just makes the US/UK's actions more damaging to the UN, not less.

One of the earlier comments was regarding Dubya's infamous "you are either with us or against us". The problem with this soundbite politics is that it is a platitude. One perfectly valid interpretation of that statement is "all nations must support the national interest of the US over their own" - that isn't exactly a rallying call for a great many people around the world and is actually what some of the Islamic fundamentalists have been claiming anyway for a great many years.

human
07 Mar 04,, 15:05
hI Ray,

Look Human,

If we are on the same side of the Rubicon, then where is the beef?

If you have not understood what I have written, how can you grudge me?

You have come new to this forum. Be patient and see what the the psychology of each and then slap leather. Premature action will only kill firiends to be regretted later.

Personally, I have nothing against you. In fact, I look forward to your post because it gives another view. Don't get personal. The Colonel (aka OoE) has much to educate and so does Trooth and Lunastock and the others. One may not agree (and that is fair), but listen and then shoot.

Lets not waste a bullet when the ballot can do the job.

For all you know, you maybe right and I am wrong. But what of it. If I can learn from you, I shall be richer in knowledge. I gain.

------------------------------------------



Lets not waste a bullet when the ballot can do the job.


ENOUGH SAID, THANK YOU.

Confed999
07 Mar 04,, 15:16
Originally posted by Trooth
Whatever the US does in Iraq it shoulders the responsibility because it created the turmoil. I understand your desire to drag references to Saddam's regime, to deflect the US's responsibilites, but that isn't a valid argument.

Whether or not you approve of Saddam's regime (and i would be surprised if anyone on this board did) it is still a fact that the country was in a steady state condition.
Nope, Saddam and his supporters are responsable, the ball was in his court last. Liberal estimates are that 5000 people a month were dying in Iraq and people were being tortured mercilessly, if that's what you consider a "steady state condition" I'm never going back to the UK for any reason! =O


Originally posted by Trooth
One of the earlier comments was regarding Dubya's infamous "you are either with us or against us". The problem with this soundbite politics is that it is a platitude. One perfectly valid interpretation of that statement is "all nations must support the national interest of the US over their own" - that isn't exactly a rallying call for a great many people around the world and is actually what some of the Islamic fundamentalists have been claiming anyway for a great many years.
It's the truth not platitude. If you think about it there are only 3 choices, with us, against us or uninterested. The choice each government makes sets it's preference in my mind and I use my economic and voting powers accordingly. If you're against you're the enemy and deserve no quarter, if you're uninterested you're not helping so I won't help you, maybe ever. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, but grab my a** and I'll put you down. ;)

human
07 Mar 04,, 16:12
Hi Trooth,

>>>Human, you are right, the current situation is not ironic, it is close to railroad politics. Whatever the US does in Iraq it shoulders the responsibility because it created the turmoil. I understand your desire to drag references to Saddam's regime, to deflect the US's responsibilites, but that isn't a valid argument.<<<

If that was my intention, then you are right, but all what I said is in response to what you said about the US fighting with the UN, and all I said was “It is not Ironic, but it is international politic at its best, and the UN reluctance, which would be interrupted by Saddam's regime as a total victory if the USA went along, will be much worth than what this war produced up until now,” which in my opinion a truthful response to your accusation (fighting with the UN); therefore it must be a valid argument to me.

>>>Whether or not you approve of Saddam's regime (and i would be surprised if anyone on this board did) it is still a fact that the country was in a steady state condition. The change was the toppling of the Ba'athists. That toppling led to a power vacuum in the country, that power vaccum is being filled by all number of groups with their own axes to grind. In amongst this the US is trying to establish a free democratic society in a part of the world that knows not of freedom. A great many of them want to be free to worship Allah, and feel the US is depriving them of that freedom. A great many of them feel that any lawmaker or leader must be in daily contact with Allah. It is largely irrelevant if you or I agree with this desire on their part, or if you or i can truly understand it.<<<

I certainly agree with your 100% accurate analysis here.

>>>We are not Iraqi's and therefore it has nothing to do with us unless we want to revert to the role of christian missionaries. In which we are having a crusade, a crusade for "democratic fundamentalism".<<<

I guess planting the "democratic fundamentalism" plant in a sandy desert will teach the US carelessness that green thumbs can never guarantee the ground for the plant…

As far as the role of Christian missionaries, let me ask you this, since that part of the world wants only the freedom to worship Allah, why are they coming to our shores since they don’t like our ways, and while you are at it can you be kind enough to tell me what kind of missionaries they hold as a name?

Aren’t they here to convert us to the right way of theirs, people are totally hypocrites when they rise their voice against preaching the Moslems anything, but they don’t hesitate defending them here in accordance with our rule and freedom, though they want to convert us to become them…


>>>The US created this situation somewhat against the wishes of the UN.<<<

I know that the USA created this situation within the wishes of the UN resolution and according to the time set by that resolution, which the USA refused to extend its time limit in accordance with the French wish, which was supported by the UN. (This is not a personal attack) I think you should know the facts of the subject you are talking about because if you don’t then you will sound like an accusation distributor of some sort…
>>>You are correct that the UN may not be equipped to deal with the world according the George Bush, but that just makes the US/UK's actions more damaging to the UN, not less.<<<

No it is not, and the only one who’s damaging the entire whole world is the UN reluctance, denial, and political incompetence, beyond that I think the world should assign only humanitarian missions to the UN, and create an effective political body and a speedy task force that can deals with the massacres doers themselves…

Target them and get rid of them no matter who or where they are.


>>>One of the earlier comments was regarding Dubya's infamous "you are either with us or against us". The problem with this soundbite politics is that it is a platitude. One perfectly valid interpretation of that statement is "all nations must support the national interest of the US over their own" - that isn't exactly a rallying call for a great many people around the world and is actually what some of the Islamic fundamentalists have been claiming anyway for a great many years.<<<

That is one way to see it, but if America is against world terrorism, then is there a way to be in the middle?

human
07 Mar 04,, 16:28
Confed999

Nope, Saddam and his supporters are responsable, the ball was in his court last. Liberal estimates are that 5000 people a month were dying in Iraq and people were being tortured mercilessly, if that's what you consider a "steady state condition" I'm never going back to the UK for any reason! =O


It's the truth not platitude. If you think about it there are only 3 choices, with us, against us or uninterested. The choice each government makes sets it's preference in my mind and I use my economic and voting powers accordingly. If you're against you're the enemy and deserve no quarter, if you're uninterested you're not helping so I won't help you, maybe ever. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, but grab my a** and I'll put you down. ;)

-------------------------------------------------

I think you are fair and precise…

Ray
07 Mar 04,, 17:31
Human,

Its my turn to say THANK YOU.

Lets move on.

And what is more none on this board are against you. It is their views dont coincide, but then whats that between friends?

Lunastock is also a Friend of all. He is a nice guy. I have had much hassles with him too and by mistake I wrote Tunastock, but he was kind to forgive me.

As the British say - Shake hands and forget the past. I think you too are a fine old chap worthy of this forum.

The Colonel is a highly respected military man. Don't decry him. Learn from him. I am learning from him even though I have a senior military rank. Rank, as birth, does not give one the birthright to knowledge. We all learn from each other irrespective of age.

Let's put our heads together to analyse the problems of the world. We cannot solve it; But we can find solace that we tried. As Milton, the blind British poet, said - They also serve who stand and wait.

As a humourous conclusion, Human, I read books whenever I can and its not in every Leap Year. I am sure you read six every day :). I cannot keep pace with you.

Ray
07 Mar 04,, 17:45
Human,

Have you read the posts of Confed?

What imagery should confront one with a name like that?

Yet, he is the most sane and concerned person I have observed out here.

So, seeing is believing.

Let me tell you one thing. I had a hard time when I joined. They also mistook me to be a Islamist fundamentalist and they even blanked out my posts. Yet, I give it to them that they allowed me to still be on the forum and let me say, I have discovered many great friends around here. I love to be here, even though I may not agree with them.

I think you too will realise that this is one of the most liberal and friendly forum that could ever be. Make friends since each one is worth the effort.

Trooth
07 Mar 04,, 17:47
Originally posted by Confed999
Nope, Saddam and his supporters are responsable, the ball was in his court last. Liberal estimates are that 5000 people a month were dying in Iraq and people were being tortured mercilessly, if that's what you consider a "steady state condition" I'm never going back to the UK for any reason! =O


It is a different situation. It isn't the same people doing all the killing. Some are, yes, but others are those groups that Saddam had under control. Perhaps that ultimately doesn't matter, because at the end of the day it might just be a bunch of murderers killing each other, however it leads to civil unrest and possibly civil war, something that was not going to happen under Saddam. I am not defending Saddam, i am simply pointing out that the current situation was caused by the US. In previous post i made it clear that however Iraq was to be tackled we would be in the same situation. The difference is that since the US/UK decided to go it alone, they created a problem that they must now solve. However they are turning to the UN to solve it.



It's the truth not platitude. If you think about it there are only 3 choices, with us, against us or uninterested. The choice each government makes sets it's preference in my mind and I use my economic and voting powers accordingly. If you're against you're the enemy and deserve no quarter, if you're uninterested you're not helping so I won't help you, maybe ever. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, but grab my a** and I'll put you down. ;)

Its a platitidue because it is undefinable. At best it is a polarising statement, at worst it is one that indicates subservience. It isn't sensible politics. It is Hollywood politics. We haven't seen the dust settle, and won't for generations, what we have already seen is that things haven't worked out as easily as many people thought they would.

Also,


I use my economic and voting powers accordingly


You are fortunate, you have a vote that carries weight with those that develop US foreign policy. The vast majority of people on this planet (some 95% of the population) do not. It was for situations such as these that the UN was invented. However the US by deciding to act unilaterally weakens the only channel that 95% of the Earth's population had for getting their voices heard. That is why the UN is important to other countries and also why a lot of them are fearful of US foreign policy.

Trooth
07 Mar 04,, 18:00
Originally posted by human
[B]Hi Trooth,

[quote]
As far as the role of Christian missionaries, let me ask you this, since that part of the world wants only the freedom to worship Allah, why are they coming to our shores since they don’t like our ways, and while you are at it can you be kind enough to tell me what kind of missionaries they hold as a name?

Aren’t they here to convert us to the right way of theirs, people are totally hypocrites when they rise their voice against preaching the Moslems anything, but they don’t hesitate defending them here in accordance with our rule and freedom, though they want to convert us to become them…


I don't agree with coercing people to do anything. Religious beliefs are a private thing for people. They cannot be transposed to others, nor can belief be imposed or focred. however belief can be used for control. However if people want to believe, so be it.

I think you have mistken my post, it wasn't that i was supporting their desire to be ruled by Allah, it was explaining it. I would rather not have a leader who had just got off the phone to god, however there are others that would. That is fine by them. If they want that in their constitution they should have it, otherwise it is not theirs.



>>>The US created this situation somewhat against the wishes of the UN.<<<

I know that the USA created this situation within the wishes of the UN resolution and according to the time set by that resolution, which the USA refused to extend its time limit in accordance with the French wish, which was supported by the UN. (This is not a personal attack) I think you should know the facts of the subject you are talking about because if you don’t then you will sound like an accusation distributor of some sort…


Well, there are plenty of UN resolutions to back up the US/UK action over the last 12 years, before the actual invasion there was an aborted attempt to draft a subsequent resolution to firmly legitimise GWII in the eyes of the member states of the UN. We are in danger of getting into semantics, so i concede the point regarding the resolutions, but without doubt there was fighting amongst the members states and without doubt a certain level of unilateralism.



>>>You are correct that the UN may not be equipped to deal with the world according the George Bush, but that just makes the US/UK's actions more damaging to the UN, not less.<<<

No it is not, and the only one who’s damaging the entire whole world is the UN reluctance, denial, and political incompetence, beyond that I think the world should assign only humanitarian missions to the UN, and create an effective political body and a speedy task force that can deals with the massacres doers themselves…

Target them and get rid of them no matter who or where they are.

Well, this is where the UN is indeed ill equipped, because the current terrorists where once our allies. Because it is the United NATIONS it is going to be difficult for all those countries to quickly swap allegiences as quickly as one country can. Which is why i hold my views regarding "you are with us or against us" and i am pleased you can see my point.



>>>One of the earlier comments was regarding Dubya's infamous "you are either with us or against us". The problem with this soundbite politics is that it is a platitude. One perfectly valid interpretation of that statement is "all nations must support the national interest of the US over their own" - that isn't exactly a rallying call for a great many people around the world and is actually what some of the Islamic fundamentalists have been claiming anyway for a great many years.<<<

That is one way to see it, but if America is against world terrorism, then is there a way to be in the middle?

see my point above regaridng our current friends.

Confed999
07 Mar 04,, 18:19
Originally posted by Ray
Human,

Have you read the posts of Confed?

What imagery should confront one with a name like that?

Yet, he is the most sane and concerned person I have observed out here.
http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/2000/06/illos/confederate.flag.flying.jpg
I'm proof: it is heritage and not hate. ;) You're allways saying nice things about me Ray, I hope you realize I respect your opinions and beliefs as well.

Originally posted by Trooth
It is a different situation. It isn't the same people doing all the killing. Some are, yes, but others are those groups that Saddam had under control. Perhaps that ultimately doesn't matter, because at the end of the day it might just be a bunch of murderers killing each other, however it leads to civil unrest and possibly civil war, something that was not going to happen under Saddam. I am not defending Saddam, i am simply pointing out that the current situation was caused by the US. In previous post i made it clear that however Iraq was to be tackled we would be in the same situation. The difference is that since the US/UK decided to go it alone, they created a problem that they must now solve. However they are turning to the UN to solve it.
If you really want to get technical it was caused a long time before Saddam, when the borders of Iraq were drawn. It was/is a place of constant civil war, those people weren't being tortured for nothing. Heck, the Kurds were ruling themselves! The hope with the UN is that the "great devil" excuse won't work to turn the frightened and disparate into human bombs. The Iraqi's, and everyone's really, only hope is to demand a government that is as fair as possible.

Originally posted by Trooth
Its a platitidue because it is undefinable. At best it is a polarising statement, at worst it is one that indicates subservience. It isn't sensible politics. It is Hollywood politics. We haven't seen the dust settle, and won't for generations, what we have already seen is that things haven't worked out as easily as many people thought they would.
I guess that's where we see things differently, I don't see that statement as politics, I see it as life, and life is never easy.

Originally posted by Trooth
You are fortunate, you have a vote that carries weight with those that develop US foreign policy. The vast majority of people on this planet (some 95% of the population) do not. It was for situations such as these that the UN was invented. However the US by deciding to act unilaterally weakens the only channel that 95% of the Earth's population had for getting their voices heard. That is why the UN is important to other countries and also why a lot of them are fearful of US foreign policy.
Those are the governments I don't want to have a say in anything. I want them stopped and the people given their say. Everything is unilateral.

Trooth
07 Mar 04,, 18:24
Originally posted by Confed999

I guess that's where we see things differently, I don't see that statement as politics, I see it as life, and life is never easy.


I think this shows the danger of such comments. Because that statement was not intended primarily for US consumption, it was aimed at those outside the US. The fact i have a different interpretation of it than you perhaps indicates it wasn't a good statement to make?


Originally posted by Confed999

Those are the governments I don't want to have a say in anything. I want them stopped and the people given their say. Everything is unilateral.

Please explain. My 95% refers to non US citizens, My first read of your post gave me the impression you want everyone on the planet to have a vote in the US, but i expect that isn't the case.

Confed999
07 Mar 04,, 18:35
Originally posted by Trooth
I think this shows the danger of such comments. Because that statement was not intended primarily for US consumption, it was aimed at those outside the US. The fact i have a different interpretation of it than you perhaps indicates it wasn't a good statement to make?
I still only see the three choices, interpret it anyway you want. You're right, it was for governments outside the US, the us is the US.

Originally posted by Trooth
Please explain. My 95% refers to non US citizens, My first read of your post gave me the impression you want everyone on the planet to have a vote in the US, but i expect that isn't the case.
From your statements I believed your 95% refered to people without the ability to vote, and have that vote heard (i.e. Saddam's Iraq). I don't want places like that to have a say in anything, currently the UN is giving them a say and giving them validity as well.

human
07 Mar 04,, 18:52
Lunatock,

I don't deny at all that I am Anti-Islam if cutting throats, and blowing people to ashes is what send Moslems to heaven.

>>>Those are terrorists, not Muslims, learn the difference.<<<

The difference which you don't know however, is the difference between what you conveniently want to call them, and what they believe they are, and thus call themselves...

And that's warning #1 for insulting a Moderator.

---------------------------------------------------------

You insult me as you wish, and label me they way you wish,

>>>Human is a pro-Russian similiar to EMG, whom found this place because of my sig at Russia Community's message board.

That generalisation of his sounds a lot like Sadik Fahd's (A JAG baddie) assumption that Catherine Bell's character and the other three hostages were Israeli's.

Human does have a bit of an anti-Islam slant, and it appears the posters disagreeing with him are doing so as thier Imam requested. <<<


and then when I respond to your unwarranted attacks and threats, you delete your insult posts, and give me a warning???

I don't think you deserve to be a moderator...

Someone made a big mistake on this forum, but since sometime the only qualification to be a moderator is to volunteer free time, which seems like you have a lot on your hand...

Trooth
07 Mar 04,, 19:08
Originally posted by Confed999
From your statements I believed your 95% refered to people without the ability to vote, and have that vote heard (i.e. Saddam's Iraq). I don't want places like that to have a say in anything, currently the UN is giving them a say and giving them validity as well.

Ah i see. My 85% simply referred to all non-US citizens. I take your point that the UN gives a voice to some dubious regimes. But it also gives a voice to some small but worthy ones (whoe people have no say in US foreign policy but are effected by it). And, to be magnanamous, even the dubious regimes sometimes have a point.

I guess here we come down to interpretation of "with us or against us", we shall have to see how it pans out, like everything else i guess.

human
07 Mar 04,, 19:20
Hi Trooth,

I think for sure "with us or against us" will be the name of the game if GWB won the coming election, don't you think?

Ray
07 Mar 04,, 19:24
I think Trooth is giving a view that is shared by a large majority of the world who have NO power to have their say because they are NOBODY to influence anyone, but yet crying to be recognised that they are also there and request plaintively that they also be recognised that they exist and are equal humans as everybody else.

If everyone is treated as equals and then their view is rejected by the Majority, I am sure there will be no reason to complain.

human
07 Mar 04,, 22:27
Hi Ray,

I think Trooth is giving a view that is shared by a large majority of the world who have NO power to have their say because they are NOBODY to influence anyone, but yet crying to be recognised that they are also there and request plaintively that they also be recognised that they exist and are equal humans as everybody else.

If everyone is treated as equals and then their view is rejected by the Majority, I am sure there will be no reason to complain.

----------------------------------------

How you can extract all what you just said from "with us or against us" ?

Confed999
08 Mar 04,, 00:52
Originally posted by Trooth
But it also gives a voice to some small but worthy ones (whoe people have no say in US foreign policy but are effected by it).
I have no say in, but am affected by their foreign polcy. Many of those, dare I say the majority, are allready with us, or at least aren't against us.

Originally posted by Trooth
I take your point that the UN gives a voice to some dubious regimes.... even the dubious regimes sometimes have a point.
I really don't care if some Hitler wanna-be has a point or not, I don't want to hear it, and I don't want them to live let alone have a say.

Originally posted by Ray
I think Trooth is giving a view that is shared by a large majority of the world who have NO power to have their say because they are NOBODY to influence anyone, but yet crying to be recognised that they are also there and request plaintively that they also be recognised that they exist and are equal humans as everybody else.

If everyone is treated as equals and then their view is rejected by the Majority, I am sure there will be no reason to complain.
That's what we're fighting for, and we can't understand why everyone isn't with us. Talking about it hasn't worked in decades, nobody has had any better ideas, so here we are, it sucks but it's what we're stuck with. I emplore you to get your countries to stand beside us or Americans will start to feel isolated and withdraw. If that happens now, we will all lose.

Trooth
08 Mar 04,, 01:14
Originally posted by Confed999

That's what we're fighting for, and we can't understand why everyone isn't with us. Talking about it hasn't worked in decades, nobody has had any better ideas, so here we are, it sucks but it's what we're stuck with. I emplore you to get your countries to stand beside us or Americans will start to feel isolated and withdraw. If that happens now, we will all lose.

I have maintained all along that the War on Terror is a "hearts and minds" war, which is the only way that this will be won.

Confed999
08 Mar 04,, 01:31
Originally posted by Trooth
I have maintained all along that the War on Terror is a "hearts and minds" war, which is the only way that this will be won.
Then this would allready be over. Tyrants and terrorists don't care about your words, they never have and they never will.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 04,, 01:36
As anything with the UN, alot of fluff and very little substance. The little guy, be he a mini-Hitler or mini-Ghandi has absolutely no say in the UN. It is only a soap box for him to stand on but as far as policy goes, that's restricted to the UN Security Council members and ONLY with the approval of the Big 5 (US, UK, France, Russia, and China).

Iraq is a perfect example. In all 3 of her wars, (Iran-Iraq, Kuwait, and the Iraq), she never had a say in getting help from the UN and one time, she was kicked in the teeth by the UN.

The UN works if and only if its member states make it work. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a soap box. This being said, what the US/UK did did very little damage to the UN because there's very little to damage.

Trooth
08 Mar 04,, 01:46
There is very little in the UN for the western nations. However for the developing nations the UN would, i imagine, represent a place whereby they can resolve humanitarian, military and other national interest issues peacably or, if peace is not an option, gain help.

Whether or not the UN currently fits that role is a different issue from dismissing it. If the US/UK et al wish to dismiss the UN they can easily leave it. If they believe it to be a talking shop, then withdraw and leave those nations that want to talk to talk.

Perhaps it does need to be restructured, the 5 permanent members oftent hreaten each other with their vetos. Perhaps what is needed then is to either remove the veto, or remove the permanence, if those countries don't wish to leave the UN.

Trooth
08 Mar 04,, 01:48
Originally posted by Confed999
Then this would allready be over. Tyrants and terrorists don't care about your words, they never have and they never will.

As i said,w e shall see. There seems to be no reduction in world terrorism at the moment.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 04,, 03:05
Originally posted by Trooth
There is very little in the UN for the western nations.

There is actually alot of benefit for Western Nations in the UN. It is the only place where trade routes, international law and enforcement, and multi-party disputes can be settled. The UN was instrumental in providing the legal context to settle the EP-3 issue (China was in the wrong).


Originally posted by Trooth
However for the developing nations the UN would, i imagine, represent a place whereby they can resolve humanitarian, military and other national interest issues peacably or, if peace is not an option, gain help.

My biggest problem with that statement is all that aid has to be externally force imposed and by Western nations. Canada had to set up the strike force into the Congo. Australia intervened in East Timor. The Brits were dragged into Sierra Leonne. You will note that none of the neighbours took charge.

The biggest collosal failure, Rwanda, disgusts me to no end. Rwanda's neighbours kept screaming that they could and would do a Chapter 7 but none of them took charge.

The Carribean nations are screaming today at the American/French/Canadian imposed solution in Haiti. The Carribean wanted Astride to stay, him being the legitimate leader of that country. Yet, not one sent troops to help him. Instead, they demanded American/French/Canadian troops prop up Astride.

Side note: Must pissed some forum members off that French and American troops are now working side by side in a unified policy in Haiti. :evil:


Originally posted by Trooth
Whether or not the UN currently fits that role is a different issue from dismissing it. If the US/UK et al wish to dismiss the UN they can easily leave it. If they believe it to be a talking shop, then withdraw and leave those nations that want to talk to talk.

You forget the other side of this issue. The UN did not condemned the Iraq War precisely because the US/UK holds the veto.


Originally posted by Trooth
Perhaps it does need to be restructured, the 5 permanent members oftent hreaten each other with their vetos. Perhaps what is needed then is to either remove the veto, or remove the permanence, if those countries don't wish to leave the UN.


Hehehehehehehehehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha - GOOD ONE!!!!!!

A bit of trivia. Canada is the only nation who was offerred a Permenant Membership and declined it.

However, name me one nation that would want to dilute its power voluntarily?


Originally posted by Confed999
Then this would allready be over. Tyrants and terrorists don't care about your words, they never have and they never will.

They do when you back it by force.

human
08 Mar 04,, 05:25
Hi Officer of Engineers,

My biggest problem with that statement is all that aid has to be externally force imposed and by Western nations. Canada had to set up the strike force into the Congo. Australia intervened in East Timor. The Brits were dragged into Sierra Leonne. You will note that none of the neighbours took charge.

The biggest collosal failure, Rwanda, disgusts me to no end. Rwanda's neighbours kept screaming that they could and would do a Chapter 7 but none of them took charge.

The Carribean nations are screaming today at the American/French/Canadian imposed solution in Haiti. The Carribean wanted Astride to stay, him being the legitimate leader of that country. Yet, not one sent troops to help him. Instead, they demanded American/French/Canadian troops prop up Astride.

Side note: Must pissed some forum members off that French and American troops are now working side by side in a unified policy in Haiti.
------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly what I am talking about when I said the UN is a failure when it handles peace missions on the ground, and not what the UN solders do or can’t do.

Did you wander why in every conflict all the neighboring countries around the scene of the Massacres talk peace and help when the UN intervene while in reality they are involved to their ears in every genocide?

Did in any time the UN hold those people to their responsibility?

Indonesia’s army went on killing spree in East Timor unfortunately against Christians, therefore the UN sent police instead, but can you imagine if it was all the way around what the UN will do?

And what Goof does, he adressed the Islamic conferance in Indonesia...What this tells the victims?

Be confidant with the UN...

Rwanda's neighbors who were the real vampires in that genocide never mentioned by the UN, and instead the UN took the entire whole blame…

When the UN demand respect from other, the UN at least must show some respect to its victims, so others can respect them…

You think the Rwandan’s neighbors (whom the UN holds their guilt) respect the UN?

What the UN doing with the Arabs who when they’re not conducting an immediate war against Israel, plotting massacres with Palestinian gangs?

Other than providing them with a safety zones from where the attack (south Lebanon is an example), and helping them through the UNRWA to turn their camps into bombs factories, and safe heaven for terror?

Even Mr. Goofy Annan legitimized their racist “Arab League Organization” that built the wall of hate around the region and now around the world, while he took Israel to Hague because of its security wall…

Resolution number 42 (the reestablishment of Israel) is much older than resolution 242, yet Mr. Goofy Annan wants to implement the later before the earlier.

While in reality implementing resolution #42 will solve the entire problem in the Middle East…

I say this, unless the UN call the spade a spade in his eyes, and handle the peace issues regardless of the members agreements with the full support of the entire 5 permanents members of the security counsel, I don’t see the UN except a useless dead body for a dying world.

Confed999
08 Mar 04,, 05:27
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
They do when you back it by force.
Exactly

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 04,, 05:50
Originally posted by human
This is exactly what I am talking about when I said the UN is a failure when it handles peace missions on the ground, and not what the UN solders do or can’t do.

And that is exactly where you're not clear. UN soldiers are responsible for the success or failure of the peace missions. How do you distinquish the two?


Originally posted by human
Did you wander why in every conflict all the neighboring countries around the scene of the Massacres talk peace and help when the UN intervene while in reality they are involved to their ears in every genocide?

Are you talking about the UN or the neighbouring countries? Can you please take the time to be more clear?


Originally posted by human
Did in any time the UN hold those people to their responsibility?

The Rwandan genocide leaders are on trail. The War Crimes Tribunal is in session over Yugoslavia.


Originally posted by human
Indonesia’s army went on killing spree in East Timor unfortunately against Christians, therefore the UN sent police instead, but can you imagine if it was all the way around what the UN will do?

They gave the Australians (not that they needed it nor the lack of it was going to stop them) the green light to do a Chapter 7.


Originally posted by human
Rwanda's neighbors who were the real vampires in that genocide never mentioned by the UN, and instead the UN took the entire whole blame…

ONE PERSON is responsible. My very own Lieutenant-General (Retired) Romeo Dallaire.


Originally posted by human
When the UN demand respect from other, the UN at least must show some respect to its victims, so others can respect them…

As I've already stated, the UN has no authority, only member states carrying out UN missions do. A Nigerian soldier wearing a UN beret is laughed off by the Croatian. A Canadian soldier, he stays out of range.


Originally posted by human
You think the Rwandan’s neighbors (whom the UN holds their guilt) respect the UN?

The UN or its member states? The Canadian formed strike group sure got their attention.


Originally posted by human
What the UN doing with the Arabs who when they’re not conducting an immediate war against Israel, plotting massacres with Palestinian gangs?

Other than providing them with a safety zones from where the attack (south Lebanon is an example), and helping them through the UNRWA to turn their camps into bombs factories, and safe heaven for terror?

Israel did their share crossing that zone.


Originally posted by human
Even Mr. Goofy Annan legitimized their racist “Arab League Organization” that built the wall of hate around the region and now around the world, while he took Israel to Hague because of its security wall…

Resolution number 42 (the reestablishment of Israel) is much older than resolution 242, yet Mr. Goofy Annan wants to implement the later before the earlier.

While in reality implementing resolution #42 will solve the entire problem in the Middle East…

WHO CARES? They're both just pieces of paper. No one is going to put the muscles to enforcing it. NEVER has in its entire history has the UN even asked for member states to committ to these enforcements. And it's not going to. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians got partners with veto powers.


Originally posted by human
I say this, unless the UN call the spade a spade in his eyes, and handle the peace issues regardless of the members agreements with the full support of the entire 5 permanents members of the security counsel, I don’t see the UN except a useless dead body for a dying world.

I was part of a force that was sabotaged by the CIA. The CIA tried to give the Croats the training and the planning to take on CANBAT. 2 PPCLI BG destroyed this carefully built CIA force. The year after that, the CIA gave fortification layouts, helped the Croats plan their offensives around our leave schedule, timed the offensive when everybody is away on Crhistmas

... Yeah, sure, full support of the member states.

In the world of realpolitik, even a positive vote, which the US gave to UNPROFOR, does not stop a member state from doing exactly what she wants.

Blademaster
08 Mar 04,, 06:51
I meant no offense, but how can you be sure it was the CIA that gave the information? Perhaps it was a rogue group that has gone renegade and gave the info to Croats? Or it was another group that used CIA as a front and fall man?

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 04,, 06:59
The Croats showed us some satellite photos of our layouts and asked us about them.

human
08 Mar 04,, 16:30
Hi Officer of Engineers,

>>>And that is exactly where you're not clear. UN soldiers are responsible for the success or failure of the peace missions. How do you distinguish the two?<<<


Let me be as clear as possible…

Any Organization hierarchy level starts as such…

1_Chair holders: is the one who hold all the cards (In our case it is the human race represented by the UN members)

2_Board of directors: is the one who carry out the Mission statement of the chair holders. (In our case it is the headed by the secretary-generals and the security counsel)

3_High Level Managers: Follow directions of the board of directors to carry out the short and long terms goals of the Mission, and consist of:

3a_Decisions Makers
3b_High Level Managers
3c_Medium Level Managers
3d_ Logistical Managers
3f_ Personnel


The four types of the high level managers: Are not responsible or have a say on why or how the mission statement was created; therefore, their responsibility of success and failure depends on the compliance of the parties involved on the ground, but as long as they carry their mission in accordance with the directive at hand, they are successful, and that despite what if there is flaws in the Mission statement that my bring the entire Mission into a halt or failure situation; therefore though they (high level managers ) were successive, but the Mission as a whole was a failure. And by that they can’t be responsible or blamed, which it never occurred to me to blame the people on the ground…

Maybe I shouldn’t assume that this is a common knowledge, but I hope this will clarify my position.

>>>Are you talking about the UN or the neighbouring countries? Can you please take the time to be more clear?<<<

Maybe I should have said: Did you wonder why in every conflict all the neighboring countries around the scene of the Massacres talk peace and talk help and talk compliance when the UN intervene; while in reality they are involved to their ears in every genocide of the conflict at hand?

Then I said: Did in any time the UN hold those people (neighboring countries) to their responsibility?


>>>The Rwandan genocide leaders are on trail. The War Crimes Tribunal is in session over Yugoslavia.<<<

That is the least the UN can do for the victims, but what about the real killer (neighboring countries) who supported every single leader of the genocide?

I think the UN is allowing the washing of the hand after the crime here.

And since the neighboring countries are UN members, maybe the UN should at least expose what they did and make them carry as partial responsibility as their involvements, so other members don’t think that they can do it too.

I think such approach will set the record straight and make member states think twice before supporting and encouraging genocide makers, don’t you think?

This is all…

Ray
08 Mar 04,, 16:49
Human,

I too do not appreciate the work of the UN in totality.

But pay heed to what the Colonel is saying. There is a lot that does not meet the eye.

You feel that the Rwandan hassle is the fault of the the UN troops? The Colonel is apologetic about his General. I don't blame either.

The UN is not pwoerful enough to remove the 'outside' influences which ruin their work. Understand, Africa is full of minerals and strategic minerals. Therefore, behind the ecene there is a whole lot of skullduggery that common folks like yo and me cannot see unless you face the brunt. Then also you can surmise.

Watch the French film 'Patrice Lumumba' nad you will get a whiff of the skullduggery behind the scenes. Read Indian history and you will see the skullduggery how a handful could control a nation with the second largest population.

If life was jsut black and white, it would be real easy.

I. for one, beleive what the Colonel (aka Officer of Engineer) says. He doesn't pull punches and is not a jingoist. Listen to him.

Ray
08 Mar 04,, 16:53
Human,

Do you know why Dag Hammnerskhold was 'killed' in an air crash and by whom? He was the UN Secretary General and from a country that was 'Western'. And yet, he mysteriously died in an air crash in Congo when all the civil war was on.

Do you realise the economic worth of Congo? The Belgians have returned with 'troops to help' Congo. Thats utter garbage.

human
08 Mar 04,, 17:32
Hi Ray

If you think that I never considered the ever past and the present difficulties the UN facing in every Mission, then you are mistaken. As for the colonel and partly you, it seems like we are talking turkeys...

Why?

If I am criticizing the past and current situation of the UN, I am doing it because as human I know if I touched the hot stove I'll be burnt; therefore, if I keep on doing it the same way I always did, I am going to end up with the same result.

Don't you think I should find another, better, and more sufficient way to touch that stove without the burnt results?

Or it is easier to just give up and just said that is all I can do under the circumstances; therefore, it must be the better way.

Why the secretary-generals like to play the Pawn, instead of the hand that moves the pawn?

I believe strongly (and that has nothing to do with black and white analysis) that calling a spade a spade will achieve more peace than firing dead end resolutions that only create more wars than peace.

Thank you for your response.

Seeing the big picture is much better than struggling with the details, and that if you are really looking for a better future.

Confed999
08 Mar 04,, 18:22
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
The Croats showed us some satellite photos of our layouts and asked us about them.
Makes me think the same thing, but not enough proof. :-(

Originally posted by Ray
If life was just black and white, it would be real easy.
I guess I'm lucky, that grey area is just a pencil line between the light and dark sides of life, in my vision. I'm not exactly normal though. ;)

Originally posted by Ray
Do you realise the economic worth of Congo?
The cobalt alone is of immeasurable worth, and less than 1/2 of the place has been surveyed.

Ray
08 Mar 04,, 18:37
Human,

You suggest a better remedy to the UN. I will go with you.

Confed,

May I buy you a new pencil?

Confed999
08 Mar 04,, 19:24
Originally posted by Ray
Confed,

May I buy you a new pencil?
Not if it makes a fatter mark, life wouldn't be as easy for me. ;)

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 04,, 21:21
Originally posted by Human
Let me be as clear as possible…

Any Organization hierarchy level starts as such…

1_Chair holders: is the one who hold all the cards (In our case it is the human race represented by the UN members)

2_Board of directors: is the one who carry out the Mission statement of the chair holders. (In our case it is the headed by the secretary-generals and the security counsel)

3_High Level Managers: Follow directions of the board of directors to carry out the short and long terms goals of the Mission, and consist of:

3a_Decisions Makers
3b_High Level Managers
3c_Medium Level Managers
3d_ Logistical Managers
3f_ Personnel

SITUATION FINALLY UNDERSTOOD!!!! You're applying a business model to the UN. Doesn't necessary correspond to the military model from which we are assuming you're speaking of.

In this case, I'll give you the 3 breakdown that correspond to your posting as it applies to UN Peacekeeping missions

3a) Battalion Commanding Officer
3b) Battalion Deputy Commanding Officer, aka 2nd In Command, aka Executiv e Officer
3c) Company Officers Commanding
3d) Operations Officer (in the military sense, the OpsO is superior to Coy OCs)
3f) Battalion Force Personnel.

Your 1, 2, and 3 are also flawed.

National priorities supercedes UN Authority. Of 1, 2, and 3, The UNSC is the power, not the SG, and out of those, American, Russian, British, French, and Chinese national priorities supercede that of the UNSC. The UNSC has no authority to impose any solution by agreed upon unaminously by the Permenant Five.

Forget Annan, he's a nobody. The Generals assigned to UN Peacekeeping missions have more authority and clout than he does. No military personnel, even on assignment to the UN, is obliged to obey Annan. He is NOT in our Chain-of-Command, nor in ANY Chain-of-Command.


Originally posted by Human
Seeing the big picture is much better than struggling with the details, and that if you are really looking for a better future.

You're seeing the failures, no doubt but you're not seeing the causes (ie the details) of those failures and that's why your posts make no sense. It just doesn't jive with the headaches and heartaches that both the Brigadier and I went through. We cannot identify with you simply because you're not describing the problems we've faced and went through. Your primary mistake here is to assume that Annan has any power. He doesn't. So, we cannot understand why you're going on about anything with Annan.


Originally posted by Human
The four types of the high level managers: Are not responsible or have a say on why or how the mission statement was created; therefore, their responsibility of success and failure depends on the compliance of the parties involved on the ground, but as long as they carry their mission in accordance with the directive at hand, they are successful, and that despite what if there is flaws in the Mission statement that my bring the entire Mission into a halt or failure situation; therefore though they (high level managers ) were successive, but the Mission as a whole was a failure. And by that they can’t be responsible or blamed, which it never occurred to me to blame the people on the ground…

Let me see if I understood you clearly first. Are you saying that the Mission Operational Objectives are flawed? That the uniformed members are somehow hamgstrung from fully carrying out their orders (which there are legitimate reasons and cases that this may be so)?


Originally posted by Confed999
Makes me think the same thing, but not enough proof. :-(

Pretty easy to figure whose bird took the pics. The USSR was on the side of the Serbs. The Brits (BRITBAT) and the French (FREBAT) were both on the ground with us (CANBAT). The US DOD was mighty shocked to learn that the Croats had bird shots of any kind which leads to the only other org that have such access.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? In a court of law, no. On a battlefield, more than enough to piss me off.

Aside from that, Special Company, Lukid "Wolves" Brigade was supplied, armed, and trained by the CIA, including USArmy issued BDUs. Alot of other Croat units have BW issued BDUs ... and Germany don't have any birds.

human
08 Mar 04,, 22:17
HI Officer of Engineers,

>>>SITUATION FINALLY UNDERSTOOD!!!! You're applying a business model to the UN. Doesn't necessary correspond to the military model from which we are assuming you're speaking of. <<<

An ORGANIZATION IS AN ORGANIZATION.

That why it is called an organization.

Its hierarchy mandates does not change, if it was civilian, military or otherwise. The surnames and the titles maybe, but the function and the mandate will not.

Believe it or not, the UN is an organization.

>>>In this case, I'll give you the 3 breakdowns that correspond to your posting as it applies to UN Peacekeeping missions.

3a) Battalion Commanding Officer
3b) Battalion Deputy Commanding Officer, aqua 2nd In Command, aka Executiv e Officer
3c) Company Officers Commanding
3d) Operations Officer (in the military sense, the OpsO is superior to Coy OCs)
3f) Battalion Force Personnel.<<<<

>>>Your 1, 2, and 3 are also flawed.<<<


The only flawed I read up until now is what you are saying, and this is why?

All these belong to one section in the organization's hierarchy,

3a) Battalion Commanding Officer
3b) Battalion Deputy Commanding Officer, aka 2nd In Command, aka Executiv e Officer
3c) Company Officers Commanding
3d) Operations Officer (in the military sense, the OpsO is superior to Coy OCs)
3f) Battalion Force Personnel

And that is the high level Management; therefore, since they can’t just leave the mission by a decision of theirs, or enforce something that beyond their mandate directive, then they can’t be the influencers because they are the workers who do the job assigned to them by the board of directors, which is responsible in the front of the shareholders.


According to you the director of the board is a nobody, then let me tell this expert one, if that true then enough said because then the entire organization is nobody…


Now I know, that since you think you are the ultimate expert in the UN field on this forum, you are not going to settle for my clear, precise, and truthful argument, but let me tell you this just for the sake of advice…

Not to offend you or others, but everything you said to me up until now has nothing to do with the subject matter I am raising here, and from all what I read up until now I can say this, you are far off; therefore, may I suggest to re-read the initial post of this thread.

Thank you for your response.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 04,, 22:48
Originally posted by human
An ORGANIZATION IS AN ORGANIZATION.

That why it is called an organization.

You're joking, right? You're telling me that there is no difference between an organization like the US Gov't and a co-orporation like Microsoft?


Originally posted by human
Its hierarchy mandates does not change, if it was civilian, military or otherwise. The surnames and the titles maybe, but the function and the mandate will not.

That is where you're wrong. The mandates and authority do change. Microsoft Employees have no authority, let alone the expertise to employ lethal force. With different responsibilities comes different authorities comes different mandates. It has to. Otherwise, Bill Gates would be ruling the earth.


Originally posted by human
Believe it or not, the UN is an organization.

And a very unique one at that. There is NO other organization on earth like it and thus, you cannot compare with any other ogranization.


Originally posted by human
The only flawed I read up until now is what you are saying, and this is why?

All these belong to one section in the organization's hierarchy,

3a) Battalion Commanding Officer
3b) Battalion Deputy Commanding Officer, aka 2nd In Command, aka Executiv e Officer
3c) Company Officers Commanding
3d) Operations Officer (in the military sense, the OpsO is superior to Coy OCs)
3f) Battalion Force Personnel

And that is the high level Management; therefore, since they can’t just leave the mission by a decision of theirs, or enforce something that beyond their mandate directive, then they can’t be the influencers because they are the workers who do the job assigned to them by the board of directors, which is responsible in the front of the shareholders.

Again, that's where you're wrong. Indian General Jetley relieved his trapped coy through the force of arms. Canadian General MacKenzie relieved Sarajevo. French General Cot attacked the Croats at Medac - ALL WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE UNSC, LET ALONE THE SG.


Originally posted by human
According to you the director of the board is a nobody, then let me tell this expert one, if that true then enough said because then the entire organization is nobody…

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!


Originally posted by human
Now I know, that since you think you are the ultimate expert in the UN field on this forum, you are not going to settle for my clear, precise, and truthful argument, but let me tell you this just for the sake of advice…

Not to offend you or others, but everything you said to me up until now has nothing to do with the subject matter I am raising here, and from all what I read up until now I can say this, you are far off; therefore, may I suggest to re-read the initial post of this thread.

Thank you for your response.

I've re-read your post several times and I'm trying to match what you're saying with my service in UNPROFOR. When what you've stated does not match my experience, then I would like to know why.

human
08 Mar 04,, 23:28
Hi Officer of Engineers,

>>>You're joking, right? You're telling me that there is no difference between an organization like the US Gov't and a co-orporation like Microsoft?<<<

No I am not JOKING, and precisely what I am saying, one with larger bureaucracy, the other with a smaller one, which you as an expert must know, that will affect efficiency...

>>>That is where you're wrong. The mandates and authority do change. Microsoft Employees have no authority, let alone the expertise to employ lethal force. With different responsibilities comes different authorities comes different mandates. It has to. Otherwise, Bill Gates would be ruling the earth. <<<

I think you went back to turkey talking again...

Bill Gates is the chief officer of Microsoft, GWB is the chief officer of the USA government, and Goofy is the chief officer of the UN.

The mandates changes the authority of the mandates don't within the single organization...


>>>And a very unique one at that. There is NO other organization on earth like it and thus, you cannot compare with any other ogranization.<<<

Earth is full of organizations that each and every one of them has the hierarchy level, the Mandate Authority, and the function.

And that same function is called: Organizing the task.


Believe me I am not wrong…

Blademaster
08 Mar 04,, 23:38
ok then does Bill Gates have the authority to write an order to whack Steve Jobs?

Trooth
09 Mar 04,, 00:36
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers

Hehehehehehehehehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha - GOOD ONE!!!!!!


Its funny, i emant it as a joke when i said it. Then i thought about it for a while and wondered. Well it is a solution :)



A bit of trivia. Canada is the only nation who was offerred a Permenant Membership and declined it.

Well, obviously from my vantage point it was an opportunity lost. But being British (commonwelath, head of state etc), having Canadian friends and liking the place when i have visited i can see no wrong. Surprised the Commies agreed to it though.



However, name me one nation that would want to dilute its power voluntarily?


None, but if the UN is worthless, so is the power. Therefore surely the US and UK would be simply giving up nothing ;)

human
09 Mar 04,, 01:32
Blademaster

ok then does Bill Gates have the authority to write an order to whack Steve Jobs?

-----------------------------------

Well, I am not sure about the whacking authority, but maybe we should ask Steve:D

Confed999
09 Mar 04,, 01:48
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Pretty easy to figure whose bird took the pics. The USSR was on the side of the Serbs. The Brits (BRITBAT) and the French (FREBAT) were both on the ground with us (CANBAT). The US DOD was mighty shocked to learn that the Croats had bird shots of any kind which leads to the only other org that have such access.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? In a court of law, no. On a battlefield, more than enough to piss me off.

Aside from that, Special Company, Lukid "Wolves" Brigade was supplied, armed, and trained by the CIA, including USArmy issued BDUs. Alot of other Croat units have BW issued BDUs ... and Germany don't have any birds.
I believe you 100%, but I would need more proof. Though it's unlikely, the goods still could be from independant sources, stolen or worse. US intel and equipment have been found all over the world, alot of it given away by the US and alot given away by our "friends". Like I said before though, I believe you have it right.

Originally posted by Trooth
None, but if the UN is worthless, so is the power. Therefore surely the US and UK would be simply giving up nothing ;)
The UN is the diluter not the diluted.

human
09 Mar 04,, 02:15
Officer of Engineers,

The Croats showed us some satellite photos of our layouts and asked us about them.

-------------------------------------

Before making a definite conclusion that it was a CIA satellite, did you guys consider the fact that Russian, French, British, etc. satellites were hovering over the era too?

Trooth
09 Mar 04,, 02:19
Originally posted by human

Before making a definite conclusion that it was a CIA satellite, did you guys consider the fact that Russian, French, British, etc. satellites were hovering over the era too?

Yes, he did. Read his posts.

Officer of Engineers
09 Mar 04,, 03:38
Originally posted by Trooth
Well, obviously from my vantage point it was an opportunity lost. But being British (commonwelath, head of state etc), having Canadian friends and liking the place when i have visited i can see no wrong. Surprised the Commies agreed to it though.

This was during the formation of the UN when the world (more specifically Europe) still remember Canada was the third Western power (behind the US and Great Britain) to liberate Europe and aside from the Brits, the Americans, and the Russians, the only country to liberate another - Holland. Aside from that, Canada definetely deserved Permenant membership more than France or China did both in actual power projection at that time and what she did during WWII.


Originally posted by Trooth
None, but if the UN is worthless, so is the power. Therefore surely the US and UK would be simply giving up nothing ;)

Neither the US nor the UK stated the UN is worthless, just that it cannot do the job when things get tough. Both the US and France is getting ready to hand Haiti over to Canada under the auspicies of a Chapter 7 Intervention. Without that Chapter 7 legitimacy, both the US and France would be stuck in Haiti for a very long time.

human
09 Mar 04,, 18:18
Hi Officer of Engineers,

This was during the formation of the UN when the world (more specifically Europe) still remember Canada was the third Western power (behind the US and Great Britain) to liberate Europe and aside from the Brits, the Americans, and the Russians, the only country to liberate another - Holland. Aside from that, Canada definetely deserved Permenant membership more than France or China did both in actual power projection at that time and what she did during WWII.



Neither the US nor the UK stated the UN is worthless, just that it cannot do the job when things get tough. Both the US and France is getting ready to hand Haiti over to Canada under the auspicies of a Chapter 7 Intervention. Without that Chapter 7 legitimacy, both the US and France would be stuck in Haiti for a very long time.

--------------------------------------------------------

I have nothing against what you stated here eccept of one fact.

Now to say Canada (at the time and maybe now) is more deserving than France to be a permenant member is somthing accurate.

Not to defend China, but in my opinion the most human populated land on earth should've deserve much better treatment then, if it wasn't in state of inner and outer revolution against the free world.

But one thing for sure its population qualified her more than any other country.

Officer of Engineers
09 Mar 04,, 18:57
Originally posted by human
Hi Officer of Engineers,
I have nothing against what you stated here eccept of one fact.

Now to say Canada (at the time and maybe now) is more deserving than France to be a permenant member is somthing accurate.

Not to defend China, but in my opinion the most human populated land on earth should've deserve much better treatment then, if it wasn't in state of inner and outer revolution against the free world.

But one thing for sure its population qualified her more than any other country.

In the historical context, China back then was what Ethiopia is now. Do you think Ethiopia currently deserve a Permenant Seat? Strict population is not a measure. The country was divied into warlordism and a major civil war between the Nationalists and the Communists. It's qualifications as an Permenant Member was severely lacking.

smilingassassin
10 Mar 04,, 01:36
Heres a question for you all......what three aditional nations in your opinion should be given permanent UN status? I'd sure vote for Canada but a little of that would be bias! Seriously though Canada has contributed greatly to the cause of freedom. It does shock me though how some are quick to bash the U.S. for their determination to face dictators head on which is sometimes the only way to get the peace process rolling.

human
10 Mar 04,, 01:54
Hi smilingassassin,

Heres a question for you all......what three aditional nations in your opinion should be given permanent UN status? I'd sure vote for Canada but a little of that would be bias! Seriously though Canada has contributed greatly to the cause of freedom.

It does shock me though how some are quick to bash the U.S. for their determination to face dictators head on which is sometimes the only way to get the peace process rolling.

-------------------------------------------------------

Are we talking about "The America Satan" Bashers, their follower apologists, or the tongue twisters rangers? :)

Trooth
10 Mar 04,, 02:08
Originally posted by smilingassassin
It does shock me though how some are quick to bash the U.S. for their determination to face dictators head on which is sometimes the only way to get the peace process rolling.

O f course the US has done a lot for world peace and bashing the US is unfair and ridiculous, sometimes the US gets things right, sometimes wrong. Doesn't everyone?

Bashing the US is no more sensible than assuming everything it does is correct.

But generally speaking bashing can be seen for what it is, most bashing is unsubstntiated.

human
10 Mar 04,, 03:53
Hi Trooth,

O f course the US has done a lot for world peace and bashing the US is unfair and ridiculous, sometimes the US gets things right, sometimes wrong. Doesn't everyone?

Bashing the US is no more sensible than assuming everything it does is correct.

But generally speaking bashing can be seen for what it is, most bashing is unsubstntiated.

--------------------------------------

What I like about your answers is the unbiased fair tone, and the depth of your knowledge, you are a great debater my friend, at least in my book.

Officer of Engineers
10 Mar 04,, 07:54
Originally posted by smilingassassin
Heres a question for you all......what three aditional nations in your opinion should be given permanent UN status? I'd sure vote for Canada but a little of that would be bias! Seriously though Canada has contributed greatly to the cause of freedom. It does shock me though how some are quick to bash the U.S. for their determination to face dictators head on which is sometimes the only way to get the peace process rolling.

The three countries currently being "discussed" are Germany, Japan, and India. Note that there are no African countries.

My own personal bias. Who the hell cares! Canada, being less than 1% of the world's population, supplied 10% of the world's peacekeepers, sufferred the top two casualties in peacekeeping, and the only thing resutling from that is Annan unashamedly kissing our butts!

human
10 Mar 04,, 11:19
Hi Officer of Engineers,

I heard that Brazil also asking for a piece...

Ray
19 Mar 04,, 09:45
I vote for Seychelles. They couldn't care less.:P

Or even Canary Islands.

human
20 Mar 04,, 17:57
Ray

I vote for Seychelles. They couldn't care less.:P

Or even Canary Islands.

----------------------------------

You got me here, I love Canaries....:)