Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Bush attacking U.N.......Follow

#27 Jan 20 2005 at 12:51 PM Rating: Decent
*****
14,454 posts
Quote:
Nooo...

You don't use a color to break the filter. For ****'s sake.


Well for fucks sake that's how Ive been doing it! Damnit there's yet another way? Dont make me look even lamer. Tell me before my respect is completely gone puh-lease
#28 Jan 20 2005 at 12:59 PM Rating: Default
**
881 posts
Sorry, Jophiel, I only knew about the OOT forum. Outside of that I don't know jack or sheet about the forums. I post here for my own amusement and to spread cheer and GFYs. I am simply a wooden boy in the stomach of that uber-whale known as the Asylum.

However, if I learn to properly break the swear-filter maybe one day I can be a "real" boy!

tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Over-react much?

It's easy, don't F*cking bother.


tarv, did you have your sense of humor removed as well when they neutered you?

Quote:
Your mind is like a Parachute it only works if it's open


Your mind is like a liberal's reasoning. Unused.
#29 Jan 20 2005 at 1:07 PM Rating: Default
The U.N. is an outmoded concept. Even 20 years ago the U.N. was a good idea. Sadly, it has become an "Let's do whatever we possibly can to put "The United States of America" down" society.

Go back and look at the last 20 years. The U.N. has done nothing but make America look like a bunch of Warmonggering barbarians in that time.
=---------------------------------------------------------------

yes, the U.N. needs work. trying to get them to agree on an action and act on it is about as easy as getting any ten of you to agree on a post without flaming it.

they are not ideal. they lack cohesivness, and unity.

but.....they are necessary. if not for the U.N., WE would be policing Hati, or Hati would be left to fend for themselves. if not for the U.N., WE would have footed the entire bill for the first Gulf war, and would have been in the mess we are in now 12 years ago.

getting the leaders of differant countries to agree is not easy. but, NOT acting against what they do agree on has stopped MILLIONS of people from dying. and their efforts during times of crises has saved MILLIONS of lives. and having a place to pool substantial resources, be it military, humaitarian, or just plain cash, has dampened the strain on many counrties during a crises.

a world community is very necessary for world peace and stability. world wide, the U.N. is more necessary than any one of the countries that make it up.

people dissagree. and if we can get them together, and agree to abide by the decissions the majority of them make, irreguardless of weather any one particualr member agrees with it or not.......we can save lives. we can have world stability. we can have peace.

the world must be involved. what does it matter if, say, the U.S. has the perfect plan for world peace, but 3/4 of the world HATE us? they will not listen. but if 3/4 of the membership of an international community come up with a plan, or support a members plan, and the rest agree to abide by the decision, reguardless of weather they agree with it or not, it WILL suceed.

no single nation can do it alone. no matter how powerfull they are. we wittnessed that with Germany, and again with Russia in afganistan, and now in Iraq, ourselves.

we need to be SUPPORTING the U.N., not subverting it.

this addministraitions dreams, right or wrong, WILL FAIL unless they have the support of the world. we dont. this addministraition has killed that path for us. and now they are making overtures of trying to gain public support to withdraw from the interntaional community alltogether.

Hittler took this same path. this EXACT same path. Germany was a democracy before Hittler. he passed laws stripping away individual rights. he used propaganda to turn the people against his political addvasaries. he controlled the media, the people did not see anything he did not want them to see. he withdrew from the international community. he LIED to his people toget support to invade poland. he used PROPAGANDA to make the german people feel there was a jewish plot to take over the world...........replace jewish with islamic, and you have OUR propaganda machine pegged.

now he is pushing for peace by fighting for democracy through out the world, and dimminishing the impact of the U.N. by using PROPAGANDA to discredit them in YOUR EYES. a go it alone policy for the better of the world.

we do not have the right to force our beliefs on ANYONE. be it negros and segregation, islamic and christian beliefs, homosexuality and religion.

force is met with force. we accept people the way they are, and learmn ot live WITH them, or we become the new Third Rich.

we become PART of the world, or we will be at WAR with the ENTIRE world. we do not need to eliminate the U.N., we need to eliminate the Bush addministraition....

all hail Bush.
#30 Jan 20 2005 at 1:10 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
I post here for my own amusement and to spread cheer and GFYs.
Well you obviously easily amused since 99% of your posts consist of nothing more than brainless drivel.

Quote:
tarv, did you have your sense of humor removed as well when they neutered you?
Only one of us has a sence of humour it seems and the betting says it Ain't you popeye.

Quote:
Your mind is like a liberal's reasoning. Unused.
This coming from a sheep-like Bush supporter who still believes that you went to war to improve the living conditions of the Iraq people?

I would say that you have no mind let alone an unused one.
#31 Jan 20 2005 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
DarkRein wrote:
However, if I learn to properly break the swear-filter maybe one day I can be a "real" boy!
Or a Cabin-Man!

Anyone else find it funny that DarkRein wrote an attack on Shadowrelm's posting style and then defending his own errors to the death and implies that anyone who finds fault with him is a loser for taking the forum too seriously?

Pot.Kettle.Black Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Jan 20 2005 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
All of the different gaming areas use different colored style sheets. I don't know what game you play, so I can't comment on what color you're seeing. But since you use white to break the filter, I'd say you're coming from FFXI or EQOA.

Quite a few of us come here through the original EQ part of the site. It's coloring is quite different from all the other parts of the site.

What this means is, the Asylum looks different to me than it does to you, since I use the EQ1 part of the site to get here.
#33 Jan 20 2005 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
***
3,458 posts
shadowrelm wrote:
Blah blah blah. Im a troll.....


/nods
We know. Nice of you to keep reminding us though.
#34 Jan 20 2005 at 1:19 PM Rating: Decent
**
881 posts
Jophiel wrote:
DarkRein wrote:
However, if I learn to properly break the swear-filter maybe one day I can be a "real" boy!
Or a Cabin-Man!

Anyone else find it funny that DarkRein wrote an attack on Shadowrelm's posting style and then defending his own errors to the death and implies that anyone who finds fault with him is a loser for taking the forum too seriously?

Pot.Kettle.Black Smiley: laugh


Attack? Seriously? Pot? Ok the lastone I'll own, I do smoke alot of pot.

I simply stated that shadowrelm's post was poorly written.

People who find fault with me are observant. Not losers. Unless you got self-esteem issues.

Do I sense anger because I place myself on Bush's side vs. the U.N.? My politics are moderate. Social liberal, fiscally conservative.

In any case, to err is human, to forgive is divine. I'm more Human than Divine.
#35 Jan 20 2005 at 1:42 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
nadenu wrote:
Asylum looks different to me than it does to you[/b]


that fact always blows my fu[/b]cking mind.


Darkrein wrote:
[b]I do smoke alot of pot

Smiley: oyvey you degenerate junkie. DOn't you know that pot is responsible for the downfall of all the great civilizations?
Find an NA meeting immediatly before you hurt the ones you love even more with your debauchery.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#36 Jan 20 2005 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
***
2,878 posts
shadowrelm:
I don't care what your political leanings are. You are a fu[b][/b]cking ******. GFY.

Edited, Thu Jan 20 14:06:36 2005 by Bakkasan
#37 Jan 20 2005 at 3:19 PM Rating: Default
I simply stated that shadowrelm's post was poorly written.
--------------------------------------------------------------

agreed. the simple truth is, my typing skills are lacking, and my ambition to clean up my post after it is written is non-existant.

i am lazy. this is my free time. not gonna work to make my openion more palatable to anyone in my free time.

rest assured, if i was getting graded, or paid for this effort, it would be perfect.

but......how could any republican criticize my writing? your fearless leader is about as literate as a 5th grader, and he IS getting paid to communicate.
#38 Jan 20 2005 at 4:07 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Hati

At least he can spell Haiti.
#39 Jan 20 2005 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
At least he can spell Haiti.
Are you sure?
#40 Jan 20 2005 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
pretty sure...
#41 Jan 20 2005 at 5:12 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,213 posts
Quote:
agreed. the simple truth is, my typing skills are lacking, and my ambition to clean up my post after it is written is non-existant.

i am lazy. this is my free time. not gonna work to make my openion more palatable to anyone in my free time.

rest assured, if i was getting graded, or paid for this effort, it would be perfect.

but......how could any republican criticize my writing? your fearless leader is about as literate as a 5th grader, and he IS getting paid to communicate.


The simple fact is that you type like you're diseased or something.

Think about it, the main reason everyone thinks you suck *** is because your posts are horrendous. If you actually put some effort into posting then people might actually read what you are posting.

I know I don't, I just see the random capitals and just skip over it because I cannot be bothered to find out if you have something worthy to say or not. Not likely I know.

To put it simply, stop being such a fu[/i]cking ****** and either try and post something interesting/relevant or just fu[i]ck off.
#42 Jan 20 2005 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
**
634 posts
Quote:
Do I sense anger because I place myself on Bush's side vs. the U.N.? My politics are moderate. Social liberal, fiscally conservative.


*cough*

The UN is a weak attempt at world collaboration, but it is required.

Bush seeks to discredit the UN and replace it with United States of Earth (and the Wasteland Territories after he lets the ******* loose) - in HIS concept - or rather in the concept of daddy and the other evil neocons who want to own everything based on nothing more than greed and power lust.

It's amazing how many people say they are Bush supporters who obviously either ignore or don't comprehend the imminent threat to the world that he is. Better get used to speaking like the following, for Newspeak is all that will be permitted if the current trend is allowed to continue. (Courtesy of the great Orwell of course)

President Bush doubleplus warmonger, doubleplus cokefreak, doubleplus Antichrist. Mindwalker is guilty of thoughtcrime. Mindwalker killed for speaking his thoughtcrime. Doubleplus ungood. :<
#43 Jan 20 2005 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
The UN has been tried before (League of Nations), didn't work last time for the same reasons it isn't working this time. Countries in the UN are looking out for their own asses, instead of stepping up to the plate on tough issues, such as Iraq. I mean, if you are going to pass 14 resolutions saying that Weapons inspectors have to come into your country to check stuff out, then you da[b][/b]mn well better not kick them out. The UN, like the League of Nations, has no backbone; it's all bark and no bite. So what's the point?

EDIT: Typo

Edited, Thu Jan 20 17:39:32 2005 by Barretboy
#44 Jan 20 2005 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
The UN sucks in many ways, but it works in some ways as well. It's a decent locus for humanitarian works, response to acute situations like the tsunami, etc. Additionally there are always dozens of resolutions from the Security Council (which is only one aspect of the UN) every year which nay-sayers ignore when pointing to the one "failed" situation. Such as these from 2004:

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html

And of course, the UN had the right idea on Iraq. The sanctions worked 100% for prohibiting Hussein to restablish WMDs. Their failing was in Saddam's usage of the oil-for-food and other allowed monies, but that's not easy to deal with outside of open war. As the UN dictates though, the United States had the opportunity to write a new resolution and steps were taken to revamp the inspections. (Though it's kind of odd the emphasis the US placed was not on humanitarian concerns over sanctions). The US had the opportunity to write a new resolution concerning authorized force for an invasion, but chose not to as it wimped out at the last moment. The UN isn't pretty, but it works better than pure chaos.

The prime thing the UN needs to do now is revamp the Security Council. China, France, Britain, the US, and Russia no longer hold the top 5 economic/military/nuke positions in the world. Russia in particular has lost an enormous amount of influence aside from its former SSRs.

The SC should expand its permanent members to 7 or so, and include states such as India, Brazil, Japan for inclusion.

I'd also like for the veto power to be rotating, if there are 7 members it would have a 6 years on, 1 year off set-up. This would force countries to be more cooperative in on years to avoid being screwed in off years (hopefully).

The final failing of the UN is in its enforcement procedures. The UN has the right to suspend, then terminate any member state's membership in it for breach of procdure. Yet it lets countries (primarily Israel) get away with completely ignoring UN resolutions withou punishment, while nearly instantly sanctioning weaker countries (Micronesia for example, or was it Moldava) by threatening suspension. I'd rather it be more consistent in enforcing its rules, or change its rules.
#45 Jan 20 2005 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
On the OP:

OMG cna yuo BELEEVE wut the dnc is saying about GWB?
http://www.georgewbushisthedevil.com/

Everything you see on television or the internets is the work of the Bush administration. Are you really that fuc[/Black]king stupid? I hate to pull a shadowrelm and make a statement without anything to support it, but I'm going to anyway. I seem to recall hearing President Bush saying fairly recently that he has no intention of removing the US from the UN and also speaking out against those calling for the resignation of Kofi Annan.

It's impossible that this ad you saw could be the work of any private organization, though, much like http://www.georgewbushisthedevil.com/ simply must be the work of the DNC.

Fuc[Black]king moron.





Edited, Thu Jan 20 18:05:31 2005 by Natdatilgnome
#46 Jan 20 2005 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,213 posts
The reason the League of Nations failed is because it had no way of enforcing the regulations on disobedient nations because it had no effective military presence.

When the U.N was created each member state had to supply troops for the U.N 'Peacekeeping' force. So they U.N does have a bite it just has felt no need to use it.

Many people have this skewed view of what the U.N is supposed to do, many believe it exists to force western ideals on other nations. I think Bush expected the U.N to meet his demands on the Iraqi resolution without realising the U.N is not a warmongering force it is a peacekeeping force to safeguard the welfare of it's member states not to help a power hungry moron attack another sovereign nation without any conceivable reason.

And because of this U.N get's discredited by Bush because he possibly views it has a hindrance to his plans. Whatever they may be

I'd just like to add that I agree with the idea of introducing new members on the security council. I feel it needs the 'new' world powers on it to maintain control and safety.


Edited, Thu Jan 20 18:16:45 2005 by TheDave
#47 Jan 20 2005 at 6:21 PM Rating: Decent
TheDave wrote:
Many people have this skewed view of what the U.N is supposed to do, many believe it exists to force western ideals on other nations. I think Bush expected the U.N to meet his demands on the Iraqi resolution without realising the U.N is not a warmongering force it is a peacekeeping force to safeguard the welfare of it's member states not to help a power hungry moron attack another sovereign nation without any conceivable reason.


Good point. I remember a few months ago Bush proposed a "Democratization Institute" (or something) as an arm of the UN. I thought it a ludicrous idea--the UN's purpose is not supposed to be favoritism or denouncement of any particular governments' style, but rather to mediate between existing governments. It should approach all types of government the same, applying the same standards re: human rights, war, etc. on each.

I didn't follow that story though--does anyone know whether this glorious arm was ever created?
#48 Jan 20 2005 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Found it..

For some reason I don't think this has anything to do with the Bush "addminiastrations".
#49 Jan 20 2005 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
HA! I'd be surprised if they could get funding to get that on the air.
#51 Jan 20 2005 at 8:59 PM Rating: Default
I seem to recall hearing President Bush saying fairly recently that he has no intention of removing the US from the UN and also speaking out against those calling for the resignation of Kofi Annan
----------------------------------------------------------------

yes. i also remember him saying he didnt approve of the adds attacking Kerry,s war record also. one word from him could have stoped them from happening, and yet, they kept happening......

addvertising is expensive. a political add attacking Annen and the U.N. is designed soley to influence PUBLIC support for him and the organization.

if the public support of the U.N. is an issue, and being we are already a member of the U.N., the only other possible reason for addressing public openion of the organization is to CHANGE our current status with that organization.

mabe it is payback for calling our action in Iraq illegal. personal attacks are the trademark of this addministraition for handeling bad news.

mabe, and i hope i am wrong, it is a chess move to set the ground work for doing something NEW in the middle east the U.N. will not approve of. souring public openion on the organization so enough americans dissmiss any criticizm from that organization.....kind of like enough people dismissed "liberals" , when that was coined a negative word by this addministraition.

seems people forgot the most liberal person to walk the face of the planet was Jesus.

or, and i hope this is true, but doubt anything positive will happen in the next four years, so i kind of dissmiss it as a pipe dream.......the U.N. has found their balls, and is planning on charging us with WAR CRIMES and crimes against humanity. and this add campaign is an effort to sour public openion from anything comming from the U.N. before they do.

after all, truth is only what the majority percieve as true in politics. controll the openion of the masses, you can MAKE the truth out of the most audacious lie.

you need to use your head and think about WHY anyone would waste thousands of dollars to make the add in the first place. why anyone would care what public openion is of the U.N., why anyone would think public openion of an organization outside of our borders needs to be addressed.

why?

to discredit them.

why?

we will see. just sit back and see what comes out of the U.N. in the next few weeks and you will have the WHY of it.

just guessing,
1. bush wants something from them they are not going to give him, and plans on doing whatever without their support.
2. they are going to make a decision Bush does not plan on abbiding by, or does not want YOU influenced by.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 228 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (228)