Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/9/06 09:25 PM, BanditByte wrote:

Yes, I think the US should infact, abandon the UN.

Why? Because it is simply an ineffective organization

If certain countries actually listened to what it said it wouldn't be ineffective

At 10/11/06 03:11 AM, Archon-John wrote: Wow... you totally overlooked the part of my rant that involved the SCUD weapons they weren't supposed to have.

Actually you are wrong there too. Iraq was allowed to have missles, but the maximum range of those missles had a limit on them, the missles youa re refering to exceeded that limit by 1 mile WHEN EMPTY, meaning when it was an empty tube with no payload (explosives, or the imaginary chem or bio weapons they ahd). Meaning that when laoded they complied with UN regulations, and firing an empty missle is kind of dumb.

Would you like to know some of the items the US banned Iraq from buying? Pencils and ambulances. Thats right the US pushed for sanction which incluede banning the sale of pencils and ambulances to Iraq. By the time the second invasion happend the Iraq economy had shrunk to 1/5 of its size pre-Gulf war 1.

At 10/11/06 04:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: What you just said was entirely wrong in all aspects other than that some US officials don't agree with UN programs. Other than that, you are completely full of shit. You need to learn how to NOT make up BS at the top of your head as you go along.

Unlike you, I can provide data to support my claims. So how about you stop making shit up.

That is because everytime a major humanitarian operation is undertaken by the UN, the money is diverted to other needs either because the UN pusses out, or their corrupt officials want the money for themselves. But the US still provides more than any other country.

Actually, Japan is the biggest contributor in terms of percentage of GDP given to the UN (right under 20%). We basically meet any little quota for some programs.

Also, the US independently provides more aide to Africa than all other countries in the

world combined through charities and non-profit organizations.

That's what I said; US citizens provide much aid to countries rather than the government. We basically provide services by selling shit to nations so that we can at least be profitable.

The last thing the US is going to do is let the UN decide where this money goes instead of making sure it goes where it is supposed to.

Oh god no! Ronald Reagan would turn over in his grave if anyone was ever to have a governing body spend their money for them!

The UN hasn't done awfully bad things, its what it DOESN'T do and CAN'T do that makes people want it to be either completely overhauled or disbanded. All they are nowadays is basically a venue for people to spout meaningless bullshit. Hopefully when the new South Korea dude presides over the UN replacing Kofi Annan he will put people in their place.

Imagine how ineffective the US Congress is at the moment; filled with corruption, idealistic opinions, partisan politics, etc. Now, imagine 192 representatives doing the same on a global scale. Like I've been saying, most large government bodies will soon become corrupted. You may actually be correct when you say a new leader would help, but like any government based of pleasing all of their constituents, there's bound to be plenty of bureaucratic tie-ups. People are just going to have to deal with it.

Fuck no. John Bolton is EXACTLY what we need right now. The US needs someone to light a fire under the ass of the corrupt and/or complacent UN officials who don't want to reform.The UN as it is right now is basically a lame-duck, its just exploited by some people as a venue to spout meaningless bullshit.

NO U! I can't believe you said that John Bolton is helping to bring reform. Bolton has been described on numerous occasions to seemingly want to bring down the UN. What the US needs (as well as any other country) is to select a person who is completely outside of the political realm and would make decisions to benefit the UN, not their own country.

Even though I agreed with some of what you said you are wrong about alot of things. Iraq DID have chemical weapons at one point in history, this is proven conclusively. And they DIDN'T verify that they destroyed these weapons when called upon by the UN, Saddam Hussein denied every having them in the first place.

Why is everyone ignoring the reasoning behind my points. YES, Saddam at one time had chemical weapons. It was in the 1980's when Iraq went to war with Iran. The United States sold Saddam chemical weapons, as well as Iran. And yes, Saddam turned around and used said chemical weapons against citizens. But were we told as a nation that we're expending our nation's military to prosecute Saddam for his crimes? NO! We scared everyone shitless with talk of nuclear holocaust. Yet to think that a nuclear test has occurred in North Korea, and we're not doing shit about it, because that would then piss China off, and we don't want to fuck with them at all.

Therefore it was pretty rational to believe that since we knew they had WMD, but they denied every having them in the first place and never even tried to verify that they destroyed them...that they DID infact have them.

By that logic, the US once had slaves, and I wouldn't doubt if they would want to have them again.

Also, its not as if all the false intelligence about Iraq was just from the US. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the UN believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD based on their own independent intelligence reports.

Proof? From what I understand, many countries felt that we falsified our reports, and set out to only investigate Iraq. Mainly the reason the UN didn't assist in fighting Iraq.

So in the atmosphere after 9/11 we have a dictator who refused to cooperate with US and UN officials, and he refused to dismantle the terrorist camps that WERE in Iraq (this is proven) and to hand them over to the US. There were also intelligence reports from all over the world that Saddam Hussein had met with Al-Qaeda officials and the members of other terrorist groups.

None of that shit was ever proven. You sound worse than Bush in not admitting that any of that shit has no merit.

Now that we see that the intelligence of the world community was wrong, maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

HAHA, don't blame this on everyone else. We were the main, if not the only, reason that any country went into Iraq (not forgetting Poland).

You can't forsake Iraq because we made a mistake. You can't just allow Iraq to become a threat later in the future because we might have started a the problems it has right now.

Blah blah blah cut-n-run stay the course ignore that there was no justification in the first place rant rant rabble rabble.

America should leave the UN, we shouldn't have to deal with every countries problems, and be blammed for the outcome. Yeah, if a country is going to attack our country or harrass us, fuck we dont need the authority of the Turkish or the South Africans, we should just go in there bomb the people responsible and leave, then we wouldnt need this long war, and we could have started earlier and finished earlier. The UN just causes more problems then it solves.

At 10/11/06 11:53 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote:

At 10/11/06 04:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: What you just said was entirely wrong in all aspects other than that some US officials don't agree with UN programs. Other than that, you are completely full of shit. You need to learn how to NOT make up BS at the top of your head as you go along.

Unlike you, I can provide data to support my claims. So how about you stop making shit up.

The US is not 'in-debt' to the UN like you are interpreting it. That link you showed was how much the US was to pay to UN due to the agreements that the US has as a member to pay a certain amount, which the US DOES pay every year.

It's not like the US borrowed money from the UN and hasn't payed it back, or as if the US never pays the bill for the UN.

That's what I said; US citizens provide much aid to countries rather than the government. We basically provide services by selling shit to nations so that we can at least be profitable.

No, there are alot of non-profit organizations that send food and other supplies without benefiting from it personally in anyway. It's not like African countries are gigantic sources of consumer spending for evil corporations to exploit. Most of them don't have ANY money anyway.

The last thing the US is going to do is let the UN decide where this money goes instead of making sure it goes where it is supposed to.

Oh god no! Ronald Reagan would turn over in his grave if anyone was ever to have a governing body spend their money for them!

Thats entirely different. Ronald Reagan was elected because of his choices on how to spend money. He was President during the Cold War mind you. And in case you didn't know, his extravagant spending on military equipment was what caused the Soviet Union's economy to collapse. The Soviet union couldn't keep up with the US in an arms race and all the member states were dissatisfied with the fact that most of the GDP in the Soviet Union was spent on military-related fields and their people were starving.

AND... Ronald Reagans budget outlines were signed by the Democratically elected US congress, so its not like he was going against the will of the US just because a few hippies were upset with the fact that the US was at war and needed to defend itself with advanced weapons.

The UN on the other hand is NOT reliable to spend money on what it says it will. Many humanitarian projects have been failures because UN officials pocketed the money instead of distributing it like they were supposed to. Hello! Does "Oil-for-food" not ring a bell?

Fuck no. John Bolton is EXACTLY what we need right now. The US needs someone to light a fire under the ass of the corrupt and/or complacent UN officials who don't want to reform.The UN as it is right now is basically a lame-duck, its just exploited by some people as a venue to spout meaningless bullshit.

NO U! I can't believe you said that John Bolton is helping to bring reform. Bolton has been described on numerous occasions to seemingly want to bring down the UN.

Yeah people who have described him like that are Liberals, Democrats, and disgruntled Foreign officials who have an agenda.

What the US needs (as well as any other country) is to select a person who is completely outside of the political realm and would make decisions to benefit the UN, not their own country.

The UN is designed to meet the needs of the individual countries as well. You are saying you want a US representative to the UN to refuse to look out for his countries best interests???

Therefore it was pretty rational to believe that since we knew they had WMD, but they denied every having them in the first place and never even tried to verify that they destroyed them...that they DID infact have them.

By that logic, the US once had slaves, and I wouldn't doubt if they would want to have them again.

Thats fucking ridiculous. Not only is that irrelevant, it's completely fucking retarded for so many reasons. First of all, the US was only one of MANY countries to have slaves which people IGNORE. Secondly, the US banned slavery and went through a CIVIL WAR to make sure that slavery didn't exist in this country.

You just lost all your credibility after saying such an idiotic thing like that.

Proof? From what I understand, many countries felt that we falsified our reports, and set out to only investigate Iraq. Mainly the reason the UN didn't assist in fighting Iraq.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about! First of all, most of the intelligence reports that the US had were from occumulated reports from other countries as well, including Britian, France, and Germany, two of which were against the war because they had illegal interactions with Iraq.

Also, the UN doesn't fight wars dipshit. Independent UN nations agree to fight wars, the UN is just a venue. AND, almost all of the countries that blocked the UN resolution for military action against Iraq were the countries that we now know had ILLEGAL arms trade and cooperation with Iraq. Germany, Russia, France, and many other countries were receiving bribes from Iraq in the oil-for-food scandal. They also received these bribes in exhance for BLOCKING UN ACTION AGAINST IRAQ!!!

So in the atmosphere after 9/11 we have a dictator who refused to cooperate with US and UN officials, and he refused to dismantle the terrorist camps that WERE in Iraq (this is proven) and to hand them over to the US. There were also intelligence reports from all over the world that Saddam Hussein had met with Al-Qaeda officials and the members of other terrorist groups.

None of that shit was ever proven. You sound worse than Bush in not admitting that any of that shit has no merit.

Dipshit, none of it was proven, but ALL of it was BELIEVED by almost EVERY COUNTRY IN THE UN! The US wasn't even the only country that developed those intelligence reports.

HAHA, don't blame this on everyone else. We were the main, if not the only, reason that any country went into Iraq (not forgetting Poland).

The entire world believed Iraq had WMD and had connections with terrorists. But the US had just been attacked so of course the US and its REAL allies were the only countries to actually want to do something about it. The countries who DIDN'T are the typically corrupt and selfish countries that were illegally profiting off of Iraq anyway!

At 10/11/06 10:40 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The countries who DIDN'T are the typically corrupt and selfish countries that were illegally profiting off of Iraq anyway!

France was profitting off Iraq? On the terms of what? Fuel for their crappy Peugeot French vehicles?

At 10/11/06 10:40 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The US is not 'in-debt' to the UN like you are interpreting it. That link you showed was how much the US was to pay to UN due to the agreements that the US has as a member to pay a certain amount, which the US DOES pay every year.

Umm I am pretty sure not paying membership dues while enjoying benifits of your membership (UNSC veto) means you have a debt to the UN, therefore the US is in-debt to the UN. If I owe the gym $12.50 they arent going to let me in untill I pay up, but the UN lets the US in when the owe nearly $1billion.

And if you are going to label the entire UN as corrupt because of the Oil for Food scandal, I am going to label every memebr of Congress a pedophile.

At 10/11/06 10:40 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about! First of all, most of the intelligence reports that the US had were from occumulated reports from other countries as well, including Britian, France, and Germany, two of which were against the war because they had illegal interactions with Iraq.

Also, the UN doesn't fight wars dipshit. Independent UN nations agree to fight wars, the UN is just a venue. AND, almost all of the countries that blocked the UN resolution for military action against Iraq were the countries that we now know had ILLEGAL arms trade and cooperation with Iraq. Germany, Russia, France, and many other countries were receiving bribes from Iraq in the oil-for-food scandal. They also received these bribes in exhance for BLOCKING UN ACTION AGAINST IRAQ!!!

Talk about the cheek!

Don’t you find the fact the war you’re defending was ILLEGAL slightly hypocritical?

Well no you wouldn’t would you? Because people like you wrap yourselves up in hypocrisy from dawn till dusk.

At 10/11/06 10:42 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/11/06 10:40 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The countries who DIDN'T are the typically corrupt and selfish countries that were illegally profiting off of Iraq anyway!

France was profitting off Iraq? On the terms of what? Fuel for their crappy Peugeot French vehicles?

The the original plan in the Oil-for-food program was that countries would give Iraq FOOD in exchange for oil, this food was supposed to alleviate the poverty in Iraq without benefitting the Iraqi government.

However this program was used as a cover-up for illicit communications and transactions between countries that provided food, the iraqi government, and the UN officials that over-saw the program.

France specifically pretended to provide food, but actually just received strictly oil, they sold this oil on the world market and some of the profits went directly to officials in the french government. What france did in return for the enormous profits was to give some of this money back to Iraqs government directly, which they weren't supposed to do due to sanctions against Saddam Hussein. France also agreed to block UN action against Iraq. This is the reason France opposed the Iraq war so deeply because A) they were profiting off of the suffering of the Iraqi people and B) if Iraq was toppled, the crimes of the French officials would be made known to the world.

The situation was much more complicated so I suggest you read up about it to understand it all.

At 10/12/06 12:48 AM, JoS wrote:

Umm I am pretty sure not paying membership dues while enjoying benifits of your membership (UNSC veto) means you have a debt to the UN, therefore the US is in-debt to the UN.

Where does it say that the US HASN'T payed the UN? Also keep in mind that there are different methods of payment, for instance some countries pay yearly, some pay monthly some only pay for the plane tickets to get to New York to attend UN meetins...

And if you are going to label the entire UN as corrupt because of the Oil for Food scandal, I am going to label every memebr of Congress a pedophile.

The entire UN isn't corrupt, I never said that. But incase you didn't know. High-ranking UN officials (not just Foreign representatives to the UN) were also receiving money in the Oil-for-food scandal. In fact, Kofi Annans son was involved, and people believe that Kofi Annan knew about it and did nothing. Therefore, since the leadership was in on it, all the deeds by the UN (not member states specifically) can not be credible.

At 10/12/06 12:48 AM, JoS wrote:

The entire UN isn't corrupt, I never said that. But incase you didn't know. High-ranking UN officials (not just Foreign representatives to the UN) were also receiving money in the Oil-for-food scandal. In fact, Kofi Annans son was involved, and people believe that Kofi Annan knew about it and did nothing. Therefore, since the leadership was in on it, all the deeds by the UN (not member states specifically) can not be credible.

Tom Delay was involved in a scandal involving taking illegal soft money and he was a party leader. Therefore all actions of the Republican party can not be credible.

See how obsurd this line of reasoning is?

At 10/12/06 09:50 AM, JoS wrote:

Tom Delay was involved in a scandal involving taking illegal soft money and he was a party leader. Therefore all actions of the Republican party can not be credible.

See how obsurd this line of reasoning is?

It also could be all the lying that it does to the public. Or that it covers up a pedophile because he was a friend. Or NSA unwarrented wire taps. Or a quagmire of a war that had no justification in the first place.

Anywho, the un won't work unless its participants actually cooperate.
But any system that we have that is built like the un will not work the way everyone wants it to.

The UN is a confederal system, and we know how well those work. If you actually wanted the UN to function more efficiently, you would have to give it unitary power, which I doubt will ever happen. The UN needs reform, but to outright leave it would be foolish. The same problems will arise in any new confederal organization you set up.

By that logic, the US once had slaves, and I wouldn't doubt if they would want to have them again.

...~You just lost all your credibility after saying such an idiotic thing like that.

Wah-hahahaha!!!

I haven't laughed like that in a long time.

Yes, I know this thread was made in late 06, but it's better for me to bump a few month old topic than make a new one with the exact premise. So mods, don't ban me yet.

Another reason the UN is useless is for the fact it appoints totalitarian leaders to power if it feels that those people will benefit the UN. I know the US and basically every government has done the same, but the US is a mediator or at least supposed to be, a mediator between nations.

Ask any american what they think of the UN and I assure you they will greet the idea with pessimism. Is it not the US government's rule to serve the will of the people? I stand by my stance that we should leave the UN.

At 10/12/06 09:50 AM, JoS wrote:

See how obsurd this line of reasoning is?

Who has oversight of the UN?

The UN was meant to be a forum for world leaders to discuss world actions, form alliances and impose sanctions upon nations whose agenda may include human rights violations, war and nuclear proliferation.

Tell me, how successful has the UN been in these regards?

At 10/9/06 09:50 PM, Begoner wrote: Sure. Then we'll go on an imperialistic invasion rampage and conquer the world! The truth is that the UN is America's bitch -- we are the most powerful member there, and important resolutions cannot be passed without our approval. As such, it is merely another implement of our foreign policy. We already break international and humanitarian law with impunity -- we are not much better than the countries to which you refer, if not worse. We effectively ruined the UN and molded it into our vision of the world. It would be pointless to leave.

Ya know, that conquer the world things sounds pretty good. An end to all wars once achieved (excluding those with alien forces). Capitalism around the world, with the freedoms given by he U.S constitution (though the US would probably pick out a different name. United States of Earth or something like that). One language, one currency. Freedom to travel anywhere in the world, and no more worrying about passports or going through customs.

Keep in mind that also Begoner, since the UN has no military of its own, it has no power. Might doesn't always mean right, but its what happens.

At 2/21/07 02:30 PM, Durin413 wrote:

Ya know, that conquer the world things sounds pretty good. An end to all wars once achieved (excluding those with alien forces). Capitalism around the world, with the freedoms given by he U.S constitution (though the US would probably pick out a different name. United States of Earth or something like that). One language, one currency. Freedom to travel anywhere in the world, and no more worrying about passports or going through customs.

If there were to be a world unification, there would still be the need for pass ports, customs etc. Each nation would still like to retain its own sovereignty and borders (that being something NO nation would like to give up) so they would still like to protect their own people and borders.

To make it a little clearer, you could unify the world under one banner, but there would still be people that intend to do harm, and it would still be necessary to check ports, borders, etc for potentially dangerous materials. If you didn't criminals would run wild with explosives on oil liners, airplanes into buildings, etc.

The UN is corrupt. It is one of the leading sponsors of terrorism and genocide on the planet. Nations like slave-owning Sudan, terrorist-sponsoring Iran, and genocide-sponsoring Zimbabwe, are given the same moral credibility as free nations like the US, and Japan.

It makes absolutely no sense to grant any sort of credibility, to primitive despotisms, like the ones listed above.

I think a new international organization needs to be created... Where each nation should be required to go by a certain set of rules, These nations need to be held to a standard of freedom, or be booted from the organization.

At 2/21/07 03:12 PM, random8982 wrote:

At 2/21/07 02:30 PM, Durin413 wrote:

Ya know, that conquer the world things sounds pretty good. An end to all wars once achieved (excluding those with alien forces). Capitalism around the world, with the freedoms given by he U.S constitution (though the US would probably pick out a different name. United States of Earth or something like that). One language, one currency. Freedom to travel anywhere in the world, and no more worrying about passports or going through customs.

If there were to be a world unification, there would still be the need for pass ports, customs etc. Each nation would still like to retain its own sovereignty and borders (that being something NO nation would like to give up) so they would still like to protect their own people and borders.

To make it a little clearer, you could unify the world under one banner, but there would still be people that intend to do harm, and it would still be necessary to check ports, borders, etc for potentially dangerous materials. If you didn't criminals would run wild with explosives on oil liners, airplanes into buildings, etc.

What part of CONQUER do you not understand. conquering does not mean being nice and letting them keep sovreignity. It also might involve putting down insurgents. Passing through the nations would be similar to passing through States today. And the borders could be controlled in case of epidemic. The military would become essentially a large scale global police force. Local police forces would take care of more minor issues.

At 2/21/07 03:37 PM, TheNoLifeKing wrote:

I think a new international organization needs to be created... Where each nation should be required to go by a certain set of rules, These nations need to be held to a standard of freedom, or be booted from the organization.

It's time when we should just learn to cut our losses.

We've tried these organisations before, twice to be exact and they have failed miserably.

I say we just let the world go they way it does.

At 2/21/07 05:29 PM, Durin413 wrote:

What part of CONQUER do you not understand. conquering does not mean being nice and letting them keep sovreignity. It also might involve putting down insurgents. Passing through the nations would be similar to passing through States today. And the borders could be controlled in case of epidemic. The military would become essentially a large scale global police force. Local police forces would take care of more minor issues.

If you flat out CONQUER people, you'd never win. World domination can NOT be attained by military force.

At 2/22/07 12:58 AM, random8982 wrote:

At 2/21/07 05:29 PM, Durin413 wrote:

What part of CONQUER do you not understand. conquering does not mean being nice and letting them keep sovreignity. It also might involve putting down insurgents. Passing through the nations would be similar to passing through States today. And the borders could be controlled in case of epidemic. The military would become essentially a large scale global police force. Local police forces would take care of more minor issues.

If you flat out CONQUER people, you'd never win. World domination can NOT be attained by military force.

Keep in mind that it wouldn't be all at once. It'd be gradual, starting with Canada and Mexico,and spreading outwards, over a period of many years.

History HAS shown that military conquest can achieve domination of an area. Also don't discount something simply because it hasn't been done before,

sure, so US can now conquer the world.

At 10/9/06 09:25 PM, JakeHero wrote: Next, should the US be in league in an organization compromised of fascists, communist, monarchies and socialist governments that could care less about human rights and are only there so they can boost their own prestige and ego? We stand for fairness, liberty and justice for all, yet we ally ourselves with morally grotesque despots and regimes. Is that not hypocrisy on the part of Europe, Canada, the US and any other free nation?

Liberty is refreshing for time to time with the blood spilt of patriots and tyrants

Thomas Jefferson.

Some kind of fairness eh?

America should do what it wants. Its not exactly they do what their told, even if the idea is the most logical.