Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 73 of 73

Thread: Golan Heights move UN headquarters

  1. #61
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by omon View Post
    thank you for your opinion, but real world events prove you wrong on pretty much all counts.
    it does seem like you may be affected by TDS as well,
    Well at least I provided a couple of reasons why what I said is 'so'.

    While you just say it's 'so' and then it has to be 'so' because you say it's 'so'......

    And 'SO', go back and read my post #58 because it applies exactly to you!

  2. #62
    Field mechanik Senior Contributor omon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 06
    Location
    bk
    Posts
    3,628
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Well at least I provided a couple of reasons why what I said is 'so'.
    and you've been provided real world examples why it is NOT so, provided by a person who has real experience with UN, do you have any real experience with UN? i did not think so.
    in any case this conversation is really entertaining. looking forward for more, lol
    Last edited by omon; 05 Apr 19, at 18:53.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

  3. #63
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    That sort of rhetoric, in both cases, can be used to good effect in military circles. It's clearly a demonstration of an attitude of 'fu-k you', we'll do as we like. And I have no difficulty with it in the least because I understand it and it's also acceptable and popular on this forum.

    Just don't try to pass it off as acceptable with an audience that expects much more.
    No, some things are classified. Every country gets to throw that line out.

    Do you see how that all applies to your proclamation that Assad did use chem weapons? I'll just say that he didn't and leave it at that. Would you like to take this to a real world discussion?
    Russians said they'd take the chems away in 2013. Obama believed it so did the world. Then we found out five years later that things didn't quite work out that way. So now do you see how this applies ?

  4. #64
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by omon View Post
    and you've been provided real world examples why it is NOT so, provided by a person who has real experience with UN, do you have any real experience with UN? i did not think so.
    in any case this conversation is really entertaining. looking forward for more, lol
    I don't know of any real world examples on why some people think the UN is useless but I'm certainly interested in hearing some. Nobody has given me anything more than them just saying it's 'so'.

    So if you find the conversation entertaining, fill your boots and get back to me.

    Do you have any suggestions on why the US is spending so much money on the UN, now that it's useless? I have a hunch that Russia considers it to be useful but that's probably to be considered not applicable. Do you think that the UN is useful to those other countries that usually oppose the US/Nato countries?

  5. #65
    Field mechanik Senior Contributor omon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 06
    Location
    bk
    Posts
    3,628
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    I don't know of any real world examples on why some people think the UN is useless but I'm certainly interested in hearing some. Nobody has given me anything more than them just saying it's 'so'.

    So if you find the conversation entertaining, fill your boots and get back to me.

    Do you have any suggestions on why the US is spending so much money on the UN, now that it's useless? I have a hunch that Russia considers it to be useful but that's probably to be considered not applicable. Do you think that the UN is useful to those other countries that usually oppose the US/Nato countries?
    well it is not that you do not know, you ignore it, plenty of it was posted here, what is the point telling you more if you can't even read what you already given.

    how is the situation in mid east, and Africa, as far as wars, violence and genocide, like in Darfur not too long ago? what has UN done? not a damn thing.

    us pays for a lot of useless things, UN is just one of many. politicians profit on everything.

    in fact i think UN is danger to USA, with their small arms treaty they try to push on us for years. not to mention it is an ugliest building on east side. an eyesore, and traffic disaster, whenever they assemble. i want them out of my city, and i'm far from the only one. like i said they need to move to where they are needed. and it is not in nyc
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

  6. #66
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    No, some things are classified. Every country gets to throw that line out.


    Russians said they'd take the chems away in 2013. Obama believed it so did the world. Then we found out five years later that things didn't quite work out that way. So now do you see how this applies ?
    Now I see why you are confused. The US political spin on the issue is what convinced you. So in truth, things did work out and the US declared that they worked out. But then there was justification needed for the US planned war against Syria and so the Chem/bio weapons excuse had to be reinvented.

    The US nearly always charges it's enemies with having the same sort of WMD's it possesses itself. Or if it's not that then we can depend on the US claiming the victim country is insane, or what the fu-k ever might work?

    So I'm telling you, Obama ruined everything by colluding with Putin and Assad on the plan to get rid of the silly things. And regardless of how you try to spin it, the world accepted that the deed was done.

    Not that it would make a lick of difference later on though because Russia/Putin was given the greenlight to go into Syria. And they ain't movin out. So I'll just take your attitude toward the facts of the matter and tell you that all the whining and fussing over the fact that the WMD's/chems/bios, etc. is just noise and you trying to blow smoke up a dead dog's ass.

    Obama believed it so did the world.
    And the world still does. The dog is dead! That dog don't hunt!

    So how ya likin my PROOF so far? If it doesn't work for you then you may want to start offering something more than just saying something's so yourself?

    You can do it pal! You're more than just a one-trick pony!

  7. #67
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    No, some things are classified. Every country gets to throw that line out.


    Russians said they'd take the chems away in 2013. Obama believed it so did the world. Then we found out five years later that things didn't quite work out that way. So now do you see how this applies ?
    Now I see why you are confused. The US political spin on the issue is what convinced you. So in truth, things did work out and the US declared that they worked out. But then there was justification needed for the US planned war against Syria and so the Chem/bio weapons excuse had to be reinvented.

    The US nearly always charges it's enemies with having the same sort of WMD's it possesses itself. Or if it's not that then we can depend on the US claiming the victim country is insane, or what the fu-k ever might work?

    So I'm telling you, Obama ruined everything by colluding with Putin and Assad on the plan to get rid of the silly things. And regardless of how you try to spin it, the world accepted that the deed was done.

    Not that it would make a lick of difference later on though because Russia/Putin was given the greenlight to go into Syria. And they ain't movin out. So I'll just take your attitude toward the facts of the matter and tell you that all the whining and fussing over the fact that the WMD's/chems/bios, etc. is just noise and you trying to blow smoke up a dead dog's ass.

    Obama believed it so did the world.
    And the world still does. The dog is dead! That dog don't hunt!

    So how ya likin my PROOF so far? If it doesn't work for you then you may want to start offering something more than just saying something's so yourself?

    You can do it pal! You're more than just a one-trick pony!

  8. #68
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    OH, and I would also suggest that to be consistent with the claims of your pals, you change your story to being that Syria 'did' get rid of all the chem/bio weapons, then got some new ones.

    At least theirs is a fresh way of peddling bullshit!

  9. #69
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    US invites Saudi into the nuke club.

    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...says-1.7086027

    Which gives Iran another good reason to join the club as quick as they possibly can.

  10. #70
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    .. any suggestions on why the US is spending so much money on the UN ..
    Who would otherwise pay for their spa hotels $10'000 per night, as previously suggested in discussion? The idea UN Headquarters stay on USA-soil because of the money is quite disgusting with the non-UN kind of behavior the federal government of American states demonstrates against the International law. Should they be ready even to abuse extraterritorial status of the agreed international territory in obstruction of justice for their crimes, against common expectations -- https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/05/...-investigation ? The ten billion dollars USA provide are nothing in comparison with the funds they push others to pay for military contingencies. Arms expenditure increase absolutely useless within a framework of working International law system that is not undermined by the heaviest donor of UN administration. China and Europe would rather pay 10 bil more for reliable United Nations development, than for further war abysmal collapse of the system. The earlier the reform starts, the better the chances are to be successful
    Last edited by m a x; 06 Apr 19, at 00:36.

  11. #71
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Now I see why you are confused. The US political spin on the issue is what convinced you. So in truth, things did work out and the US declared that they worked out. But then there was justification needed for the US planned war against Syria and so the Chem/bio weapons excuse had to be reinvented.
    You're the one who's confused. I'm narrating what was discussed on this board in as concise a summary possible as i understood it of a hundreds of pages long thread spanning several years. I remember the milestones and I mentioned them.

    If you must know i was probably the only person on this board arguing for an intervention in Syria. I got beaten back quite a lot and as time went on i understood why an intervention in Syria wouldn't be feasible unlike in Libya say, which again i was a proponent of. My motivation was so the Arab spring would take root and these cold war dictators would be gone.

    Mistake you're making is voicing the opposition's view. I don't care for the opposition i'm only interested in the incumbent's view whether right or wrong, their thinking, motivations and such for making an intervention or not. So what the neocons behind the invasion of Iraq wanted not what the opposition thought or whether it was right or wrong. That is how history will remember these events and i want to have the right take on them which this board almost always manages to figure out. Russia didn't get in the way of Iraq, they could have. Syria was different they very much wanted to prevent an intervention and succeeded. The Americans are cool with that. Let the Russians duke it out there, they might very well end doing a better job. But Assad will remain and we're just going to have to get used to it.

    I use this same approach with bilats & trilats. Only the incumbents matter. Opposition comes into view when they can win over the incumbent or prevent what the incumbent wants to do and views change, then i go with the new incumbent and the process repeats. I use the same approach of trying to be in sync with the incumbent of the country. Applies to mine as well as the US. It's a fantastic time saver where you don't end up going into unnecessary ratholes. Where this approach comes aground is with Brexit, that tail chase where the opposition can counter the incumbent. So i will wait for the dust to settle on that affair and review when things are more stable which by the looks of it won't be any time soon. Every time i think i've got an angle on what's going on the goal posts either shift or some new development occurs that invalidates prior assumptions. So its a wait and watch.

    The US nearly always charges it's enemies with having the same sort of WMD's it possesses itself. Or if it's not that then we can depend on the US claiming the victim country is insane, or what the fu-k ever might work?

    So I'm telling you, Obama ruined everything by colluding with Putin and Assad on the plan to get rid of the silly things. And regardless of how you try to spin it, the world accepted that the deed was done.

    Not that it would make a lick of difference later on though because Russia/Putin was given the greenlight to go into Syria. And they ain't movin out. So I'll just take your attitude toward the facts of the matter and tell you that all the whining and fussing over the fact that the WMD's/chems/bios, etc. is just noise and you trying to blow smoke up a dead dog's ass.
    I don't care whether Obama colluded. The Russians said they would take care of the matter. I hold them to their word and when i find otherwise i understand why those 70 odd tomohawks slammed into Syria with an hours heads up to the Russians to get out of the way.


    And the world still does. The dog is dead! That dog don't hunt!

    So how ya likin my PROOF so far? If it doesn't work for you then you may want to start offering something more than just saying something's so yourself?

    You can do it pal! You're more than just a one-trick pony!
    Zero clue what you're saying. You've not offered any argument to what is settled on this board long ago. I go with that. And you can take it or leave it.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 06 Apr 19, at 01:04.

  12. #72
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    You're the one who's confused. I'm narrating what was discussed on this board in as concise a summary possible as i understood it of a hundreds of pages long thread spanning several years. I remember the milestones and I mentioned them.
    That's nice?

    If you must know i was probably the only person on this board arguing for an intervention in Syria. I got beaten back quite a lot and as time went on i understood why an intervention in Syria wouldn't be feasible unlike in Libya say, which again i was a proponent of. My motivation was so the Arab spring would take root and these cold war dictators would be gone.
    So you're telling me that you got it right?

    Mistake you're making is voicing the opposition's view. I don't care for the opposition i'm only interested in the incumbent's view whether right or wrong, their thinking, motivations and such for making an intervention or not. So what the neocons behind the invasion of Iraq wanted not what the opposition thought or whether it was right or wrong. That is how history will remember these events and i want to have the right take on them which this board almost always manages to figure out.
    I don't recall voicing any opinion on the pros and cons of a US invasion. But I will now, and in a nutshell, I'm opposed to pretty much all US invasions. But you'll probably already know that.

    Russia didn't get in the way of Iraq, they could have.
    No, that's not correct. And it's incorrect for the same reason that Russia and China haven't intervened to prevent any of the US's or US/Nato wars until now. And now we see how that has changed with Syria and probably Venezuela. Russia's back. Ask me for an explanation if you have any difficulty with it.

    Syria was different they very much wanted to prevent an intervention and succeeded. The Americans are cool with that. Let the Russians duke it out there, they might very well end doing a better job. But Assad will remain and we're just going to have to get used to it.
    That spin doesn't make much sense. The US is definitely not cool with Assad staying and they're even more uncool about Russia owning the place. But then you just conceded that fact anyway didn't you!

    I use this same approach with bilats & trilats. Only the incumbents matter. Opposition comes into view when they can win over the incumbent or prevent what the incumbent wants to do and views change, then i go with the new incumbent and the process repeats. I use the same approach of trying to be in sync with the incumbent of the country. Applies to mine as well as the US. It's a fantastic time saver where you don't end up going into unnecessary ratholes. Where this approach comes aground is with Brexit, that tail chase where the opposition can counter the incumbent. So i will wait for the dust to settle on that affair and review when things are more stable which by the looks of it won't be any time soon. Every time i think i've got an angle on what's going on the goal posts either shift or some new development occurs that invalidates prior assumptions. So its a wait and watch.
    If you're suggesting that you can apply that method to Syria, then I would say that the horse is already out of the barn. And that appears to apply to Iran also. I blame that on Obama and not Trump. It's pretty likely Trump doesn't have a clue and in reality is being excluded from important foreign policy matters.


    I don't care whether Obama colluded. The Russians said they would take care of the matter. I hold them to their word and when i find otherwise i understand why those 70 odd tomohawks slammed into Syria with an hours heads up to the Russians to get out of the way.
    Yes, it was done in a cooperative manner with Russia. It sounds like you're actually trying to convince somebody that the US is content with Russia being firmly established in Syria? Geeeeee! Can you put some cheese on that whopper?

    Zero clue what you're saying. You've not offered any argument to what is settled on this board long ago. I go with that. And you can take it or leave it.
    Well then I'll remind you. The disagreement was on whether or not Syria gave up all it's chem/bio weapons. And my last reply on that issue was as I'll paraphrase:

    Ya'all need to get your ducks lined up on that question. WABS has already conceded that it was accomplished and Assad got new ones.

    I differ from you in that I care that Obama colluded, but big deal anyway, it's water under the bridge. The *US lost Syria.

    * the reason why I say, the US and not the US/Nato is because the US is Nato and the others are no more than legitimizers of aggression. The exception now being on Iran and the nuke deal in which the EU have gone renegade. Your thoughts?

  13. #73
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Another deleted double post.
    Last edited by montgomery; 06 Apr 19, at 17:40.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Should Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria?
    By Ironduke in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 05 Feb 09,, 09:29
  2. IDF prepares for Syrian attack on Golan
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04 May 07,, 21:20
  3. U.N. Chief Returns to Headquarters, Where Battles Await Him
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 Feb 07,, 17:41
  4. Trump: Let Me Rebuild U.N. Headquarters
    By Shek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Jul 05,, 19:27

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •