Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The UN's True Colors - from my local newspaper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The UN's True Colors - from my local newspaper

    I read this in the letters to the editor section of my local newspaper this morning and decided to share it with every one, it shows that the UN is really on the side of terrorism, anti Semitism, militant Islam, etc:

    UN exhibits wrong priorities

    Regarding "Fence adds to the divide" [Editorial, July 14]: Countless African Christians are being murdered by Arab Muslims in Darfur, Sudan. Islamic extremists are beheading innocent peacekeepers and contractors in Iraq. And now we hear that Iran helped the 9/11 hijackers. So where is the United Nations when we need it? Too busy condemning Israel for building a security fence to keep out Arab terrorists.

    Eliezer Schnall

    West Hempstead

    http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/letters/

  • #2
    Is that all the evidence you will provide, which as you say makes the United Nations a terrorist organization?
    It is quite vague to say the least.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by s_qwert63
      Is that all the evidence you will provide, which as you say makes the United Nations a terrorist organization?
      It is quite vague to say the least.
      Lets see here:

      - They refuse to help rebuild Iraq
      - They refuse to do anything about Sudan
      - They refuse to protect their own facilities in Iraq
      - They constantly vote for anything anti-Israeli (ex. condeming the barrier)
      - They constantly bash Israel and ignore the actions of the Palestinians
      - They are corrupted by greed (ex. The Oil for Food program)

      Comment


      • #4
        As Chris has stated they have shown where their true priority's are. The fact that they are demanding that Israel tear down a wall that reduces suicide attacks by 90% they also show their true colours. The UN is useless, give its remains to France.
        Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

        -- Larry Elder

        Comment


        • #5
          The UN is nothing but a bunch of globalists who want a one world government i dont know why the US allowed the UN too have their headquarters here in the US.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ChrisF202
            Lets see here:

            - They refuse to help rebuild Iraq
            Before the Iraq War, it was the US and the UK who refused to allow the UN to rebuild Iraq, even though they have complied with all UN resolutions. Let's be honest here. They did destroyed their WMD stockpiles.

            Originally posted by ChrisF202
            - They refuse to do anything about Sudan
            The US is refusing to call Sudan a genocide which will prompt a Chapter 7 Intervention. France has at least moved troops to the Sudan-Chad border.

            Originally posted by ChrisF202
            - They refuse to protect their own facilities in Iraq
            They did try but the effort was inadequate.

            Originally posted by ChrisF202
            - They constantly vote for anything anti-Israeli (ex. condeming the barrier)
            - They constantly bash Israel and ignore the actions of the Palestinians
            No, France was Israel's principal veto power. Now, that's the US's job. Thus, the UN never implemented any anti-Israeli resolutions.

            Originally posted by ChrisF202
            - They are corrupted by greed (ex. The Oil for Food program)
            That was an American compromise.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Semper Fi
              The UN is nothing but a bunch of globalists who want a one world government
              What's wrong with that? One world government would get rid of many of the innefficiencies of international relations, trade, and the global economy. Of course it won't happen in the foreseeable future.

              I believe the United Nations in its current form is often inneffective, but probably better than having no U.N. at all. They really need to reorganize themselves and modernize the security council.

              Comment


              • #8
                What's wrong with that? One world government would get rid of many of the innefficiencies of international relations, trade, and the global economy. Of course it won't happen in the foreseeable future.
                With a one world government there wouldn't BE "international" anything. And here is whats wrong with it. The UN is an unelected body that uses populist banter but is made up of dictatorships who use it as a front to remain in power. That the UN gives recognition to dictatorships at all means it is useless as a mechanism for a world government, even if world government would be desireable. The UN is also a forum for conflicting sides in international relations, which is the only thing about it that is useful, but it doesn't even do that well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I agree with the Colonel.

                  There are infirmities, but that is so with everything that one does.

                  If it were such a bunk organisation, it would not ahve been incorporated to give credence and help organise the interim govt of Iraq by the US which declared it redundant. Or what could be the reason?

                  Who inspected and ensured that Iraq does not have WMD? They did a pretty good job, so much so no one has found any WMD now!
                  Last edited by Ray; 05 Aug 04,, 18:14.


                  "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                  I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                  HAKUNA MATATA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If it were such a bunk organisation, it would not ahve been incorporated to give credence and help organise the interim govt of Iraq by the US which declared it redundant. Or what could be the reason?
                    I am not saying the UN is totally useless but there is an answer to your question. And that being that people might not be AWARE that it is bunk. If the Iraqi people think the UN is a benign and effective organisation, the lie can become truth since the Iraqis wouldn't be fighting against it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The UN is a bunch of bureaucrats, IMHO, that's it's only problem.
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                      They did destroyed their WMD stockpiles.
                      They did? Where is the evidence?
                      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                      I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Confed999
                        They did? Where is the evidence?
                        The UN doesn't have the burden of proof here, the US does.

                        Before the war, I kept hearing how the UN inspection team was bogus, and that an American inspection team will find the WMD within weeks of a successful invasion. I don't care if there were WMD in Iraq. Then there's the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. What can I say. . . I don't appreciate a President taking advantage of my feelings about a very tragic moment. I worked across from the WTC; I lost a relative and close friends there. The war on terror is personal to me.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Confed999
                          They did? Where is the evidence?
                          Where the expected ecological disaster hit the Iraqis where and when they least expecting.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bueller
                            The UN doesn't have the burden of proof here, the US does.
                            I'm not sure what you're talking about. The burden of proof was on Saddam, not the US or the UN.
                            Originally posted by Bueller
                            I kept hearing how the UN inspection team was bogus
                            Not from me, they were real, but they weren't recieving the cooperation required to do the job. It was an impossible task without cooperation. Unless you can think of a way to search 437,072 sq km.
                            Originally posted by Bueller
                            I don't care if there were WMD in Iraq.
                            Me either.
                            Originally posted by Bueller
                            Then there's the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
                            And? 9/11 commission says there were contacts too. AQ isn't the only terrorist oganization being hunted either, are you saying his public support of terrorist oganizations in Palestine were false too? How about his own terrorist groups? Do you believe the camps were really anti-terrorist training camps? Do you think he wasn't doing everything in his power to provide support to any/all terrorist factions with vaugely similar objectives?
                            Originally posted by Bueller
                            I don't appreciate a President taking advantage of my feelings about a very tragic moment.
                            Terrorists are terrorists, and Saddam was a terrorist. He should have been removed long ago.
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                            Where the expected ecological disaster hit the Iraqis where and when they least expecting.
                            Ahhhh, I'm waiting for that too. Without that, I'm not willing to assume they have all been destroyed though.
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Confed999
                              Ahhhh, I'm waiting for that too. Without that, I'm not willing to assume they have all been destroyed though.
                              Doesn't matter. Those seals on any WMD would deteriorate with time. That ecological disaster will happen whether the weapons were destroyed or not.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X