Eurozone crisis could rip EU apart

What's really disturbing is how many people don't see what's really going on here. The Crisis is a mass deception. On one hand you have the banks and global corporations who are making record profits wich shouldn't be happening if there really is a crisis. On the other hand you have goverments wich continue to fail to resolve the crisis. They go to the banks asking for a loan and are turned down because the banks view them as unstable unless governments agree to a couple of terms. Some of these terms are limiting social safety nets for people who have lost everything due to the crisis. They also want to limit the social power of unions and limit workers rights. They want to keep the old capitalistic system in place and expand their political influence @ the cost of the individuel while they all point @ each other saying it's the others fault. No one want to accept their responsibility in the current situation wich is why the current ways of dealing with the crisis will faill in the end. It's a game being played by those who have money and power to become even richer and more powerfull and they don't give a damn what happens to you and me.

:yesyes: :yesyes: :yesyes: :thumbsup:

Yes.

:goodpost:

Capitalism is good as long as monopolies are not allowed to be formed and eventually an Oligarchy.

:yesyes: :yesyes: :yesyes: :thumbsup:

Here's how it works.



They are screwing us folks. Let's start a revolution right here at Freeones.
:yesyes: :yesyes: :yesyes: :thumbsup:
 

emceeemcee

Banned
We can also leave when we feel it's no longer suiting our needs. Like, since its inception. (before, really) Also, the UN has changed since it was created. Back then, it was our puppet (for the most part). Now it's not, and is trying to be the overlord of the world and tell us all what to do. To that I say, we are Americans, and we will be ruled by no one. No more support, get the hell out of my country, and take a very long walk of a short pier into the trash heap of history where it belongs.


Of course the UN doesn't suit the demands of the American government - it calls for all members to adhere to the UN charter and the US doesn't want to bound by the kind of laws it judges other countries by. No powerful country does.


What does that have to do with anything? (And by the way, I seriously doubt Switzerland or any other country would arrest our President.

It was serious enough for Bush to take the advice of his legal team and cancel his trip.

Now we gotta tip-toe our way through wars and that drags things out.

Rules of engagement are there for a reason. Iraq should have been a good lesson on what happens when nations act unilaterally. It seems you haven't learned that yet though :dunno:

I know exactly how it functions and what is done. Billions of dollars and tons of food and medical supplies (from wealthy the member nations, as a form of wealth redistribution)

now helping starving people who can't get access to clean ******** water and medicine is 'wealth redistribution'...:rolleyes:


Then when one goes too far, after hundreds of non-binding, limp-wristed 'threats' of possible action at some future, undetermined date if you don't stop after hundreds more non-binding, limp-wristed 'threats' of possible action at some future, undetermined date, either we (the US) go in, or if the UN blue-hats do go in, it's not good. They do all the atrocities our troops get blamed for.

The US has vetoed more than it's fair share of resolutions which could have prevented a lot of war.

The only time the UN is strong on something is in regard to Israel. It's a place for anti-Semites to gather, bad-mouth Israel, and call for their punishment for just defending themselves. The only reason nothing ever happens is because we stand up to all the non-sense.

The resolutions against Israel don't ask for anything more than for it to adhere to it responsibilities as a member state. If you'd read any of those resolutions you'd know that, but you haven't. Many of the charges against it involve detailed reports of war crimes (yes Israel is capable of committing them too)


On top of that, the whole (public) point of the UN, and its equally ineffective League of Nations predecessor, was to give counties a place to talk, to prevent more wars. How's that working out?


Not very well when, for example, the US keeps vetoing resolutions to prevent conflict. Some examples:

-vetoing the two state solution for the last 30 years

-single handedly blocked deployment of peacekeepers to Rwanda when the genocide started

-along with Israel was the only two member states in the world to vote against a resolution against the militarization of space

-along with the other 'allies' refused to let the UN inspectors do their job in Iraq and then invaded anyway without security council permission

The UN would work quite well if members actually adhered to the charter instead of ignoring it.

But to those who know, the LN and UN were made precisely to create one world government so people who think they know better can tell all us little people what to do and how to live our lives. Progessivism 101.


:rolleyes:


What is the UN telling the 'little people' in America to do? Provide an example.
 

ban-one

Works for panties
The USA, as a UN member, agreed to abide by the UN charter along with all the other UN members.

I didn't really get to this part because I had to go.

Yeah. See the thing is, unlike in a video game where the programming ****** you to abide by the rules, play fair, and not be crafty humans because the game can't, in real life, people and countries can and often do say or agree to one thing, and then do another. Happens all the time. (Why do you think we 'trusted' the USSR, but still verified? We 'trusted' them as far as we could throw them.) So just because you agreed to abide by the UN charter (or the EU or any other agreement), doesn't mean you actually do it (Especially if said agreement or later rules/laws ****** by the others are deemed unfair to your country and people. Like, say, making sensible and hard working Germany pay for Greece and Spain's stupidity and laziness?) or had any intentions of ever doing it. The only reason you agree to something you had no intention of abiding by from the start is for strategic purposes. Buys you time to do what you really want to do, while everyone else is (supposedly/apparently) abiding and thinks you are too. (See Germany and Japan's build up for WWII. Agreed to one thing regarding military strength and ship sizes, that the US and UK [sorta] abided by until we realized what they were doing, and then ignored them.) Welcome to the real world of strategic diplomacy.
 

ban-one

Works for panties
Of course the UN doesn't suit the demands of the American government - it calls for all members to adhere to the UN charter and the US doesn't want to bound by the kind of laws it judges other countries by. No powerful country does.

Not just us and not just the powerful ones either. And actually, right now, it probably does suit the man in charge. Oh, and what laws do we enforce on others but don't follow?

It was serious enough for Bush to take the advice of his legal team and cancel his trip.

First of all, I meant what did it have to do with the discussion. Second, we got approval from the UN, and third, as a sovereign country, we can ****** anyone we damn well please.

Rules of engagement are there for a reason. Iraq should have been a good lesson on what happens when nations act unilaterally. It seems you haven't learned that yet though :dunno:

Unilaterally? So, all those other countries that went in with us and helped, are what, chopped liver? Also, ROE and the laws of war are two different things. ROE is set by the higher ups to tell the soldiers when they can and can't return fire (Like, say, they can't return fire at hostiles hold up in a mosque, costing us many, many lives? I say if they're using it for wage war from, it's a fair target, and level it. They obviously have no regard for their places of worship, so why should we?). Rules of war say you can't harm civilians, use ammo that causes undue suffering (hollow points), bio or chemical weapons (which includes tear gas by the way, that the police can use on their own populations), or use the red cross (the emblem as a symbol for medical, not the organization) as a shield for armed units, etc. The things our enemies do without a second thought.

And by the way, Iraq is not a good lesson on what happens when nations act unilaterally. It and all the other wars we've fought since WWII are good lessons on what happens when you don't fight to utterly destroy your enemy and win a war, and then leave once you've completed that objective to let them deal with the aftermath. You wind up there forever and spending lots of money.

now helping starving people who can't get access to clean ******** water and medicine is 'wealth redistribution'...:rolleyes:

Well, it is if you take money from one group to give to another. By its very definition, that's 'wealth redistribution.' There's all kinds of charities that do a much better job of actually helping those who need it, and the best part is, contribution is voluntary. And did you not read the part about how the food, medicine, and money doesn't even get to the starving and ill people? Their dictator leaders use it to fund, feed, and cure them, their families, and their militaries, with the express intent of making their people starve and suffer, so they'll get even more. It's a scam. The only way to help those people is to get rid of their corrupt leaders, so the help goes right to those who need it.

The US has vetoed more than it's fair share of resolutions which could have prevented a lot of war.

Which resolutions have we vetoed that would've stopped a war?

The resolutions against Israel don't ask for anything more than for it to adhere to it responsibilities as a member state. If you'd read any of those resolutions you'd know that, but you haven't. Many of the charges against it involve detailed reports of war crimes (yes Israel is capable of committing them too)

You mean defending themselves? Yes, that's such a crime to defend yourself. They get warned not to respond to attacks (like they're just supposed to sit there and take it, or like any of the countries telling them to just sit there and take it would), and get blasted at the UN every time they respond to something a terrorist group does.

Not very well when, for example, the US keeps vetoing resolutions to prevent conflict. Some examples:

-vetoing the two state solution for the last 30 years

You mean, ******* Israel to give up land it seized while defending itself? Oh, and by the way, all that land the Palestinians are supposed to have? Yeah, see, Jordan took it, but the Palestinians don't want that land. They want Israel's land because they all **** Israel and the Jews. (They've said as much and that they wanna drive them into the sea and have a 'Jew-free' Palestine.) And another thing, don't tell anyone, but, there is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinians. They're Syrians.

So if you want a 'two-State' solution, go talk to Jordan about that. They got their land. The Israelis are on (very crappy and worthless) land that was there's from a very long time ago, and was given to them by the UN. The free-range Syrians have no claim to it.

-single handedly blocked deployment of peacekeepers to Rwanda when the genocide started

Hmm, blue-hats on the ground. I seem to recall that never turns out well for either the blue-hats, or those they're supposed to protect.

-along with Israel was the only two member states in the world to vote against a resolution against the militarization of space

Yes? So? And? Why don't we pass a resolution that we can't militarize the air? Or how about the sea? Or land? And by the way, while we may have been the only two to vote against it, I can guarantee you China and Russia are working on doing exactly that, and only wanted to tie our hands.

-along with the other 'allies' refused to let the UN inspectors do their job in Iraq and then invaded anyway without security council permission

We refused them from doing the crappy job they had been doing for a decade? And we invaded with allies, huh? I thought we went in by ourselves?

The UN would work quite well if members actually adhered to the charter instead of ignoring it.

No. No it wouldn't. There's all kinds of corruption in that place.

What is the UN telling the 'little people' in America to do? Provide an example.

Well, I don't know if you know this or not, but they wanna limit the weapons civilians can own. The weapons that protect us from an over-bearing government or the group that would like to run the world. It's alot easier to control people if they're unarmed. As someone once said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Also, they're kinda big on the whole 'man-made climate change' thing being real, and wanna ***** us to make drastic changes to our lifestyles, while the biggest polluter on Earth, China, gets a free pass. Also, they, and most of the world, don't seem to like the fact we have and impose the death penalty on those who deserve it, and want us to stop. Which is really weird, seeing as how alteast with us there's a trial involved first and many, many attempts at appeal before many years later, and if a Governor or Pres doesn't stop it, finally (and painlessly in their *****) happens. The rest of the world just has summary executions of people their leaders don't like. If we wanna have the death penalty, we'll have the death penalty.
 

ban-one

Works for panties
What is the UN telling the 'little people' in America to do?

I didn't catch this earlier, but I said 'all us little people.' I didn't say it was just us Americans they wanted to tell what to do. (that would be bad enough) It's everybody they wanna tell what to do, regardless of what country you live in. Unless you're in the political class that is.
 

emceeemcee

Banned
Not just us and not just the powerful ones either. And actually, right now, it probably does suit the man in charge. Oh, and what laws do we enforce on others but don't follow?

All those gushing affirmations about love of democracy and human rights etc while the US has supported dictatorships all over the world. I don't accept that you aren't aware of any of these.

Second, we got approval from the UN,


There was never any UN authorization for attacking Iraq. It's the only reason arab states voted in favor of UNSCR 1441.


It's propaganda to say otherwise.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was *******.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was *******. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."



and third, as a sovereign country, we can ****** anyone we damn well please.

It's not a matter of whether or not it's possible for one country to ****** another, it's a matter of whether or not it's lawful to commit a war of aggression. As it happens, it isn't.

Thus, countries who don't adhere to the law are criminal states.


Unilaterally? So, all those other countries that went in with us and helped, are what, chopped liver?


Unliaterally= without UNSC authorization. A handful of countries acted in defiance to the rest of the world.


And by the way, Iraq is not a good lesson on what happens when nations act unilaterally. It and all the other wars we've fought since WWII are good lessons on what happens when you don't fight to utterly destroy your enemy and win a war, and then leave once you've completed that objective to let them deal with the aftermath. You wind up there forever and spending lots of money.

Total War is indeed more effective in some instances. The only problem is you end up sharing company with Stalin and Hitler who also had no problem wiping out civilians in the persuit of their military objectives. Are you standards low for that not to be problem?

Well, it is if you take money from one group to give to another. By its very definition, that's 'wealth redistribution.'

or maybe it's called helping poor people who need help?

:facepalm:

And did you not read the part about how the food, medicine, and money doesn't even get to the starving and ill people?

really? ever?

so did I just imagine that the UN eradicated smallpox with it's vaccination program?

The only way to help those people is to get rid of their corrupt leaders, so the help goes right to those who need it.

Indeed, so I imagine you would be quite disapproving of the support your country has given and gives to various despots around the world.

Which resolutions have we vetoed that would've stopped a war?

I already listed some- 2 state solution, Rwanda, militarization of space, 2006 lebanon war etc


You mean defending themselves?

No, I mean stealing other people's land and deliberately ******* their civilians, as has been thoroughly documented.


You mean, ******* Israel to give up land it seized while defending itself?

Check your history. The 67 war was an act of aggression.:

"In June, 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove that (President Gamal Abdel) Nasser (1956 - 70) was really about to ****** us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to ****** him."

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin


"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."

General Haim Barlev, Israeli Defense ****** (IDF) Chief


Yes, all countries who seize land during war should give it up. You weren't against your country ******* Saddam to give up Kuwait when he tried to annex that, were you?

Oh, and by the way, all that land the Palestinians are supposed to have? Yeah, see, Jordan took it, but the Palestinians don't want that land.
Jordan is a seperate state and has been since the 1940', before that it was Transjordan. Completely different to mandate Palestine.

(They've said as much and that they wanna drive them into the sea and have a 'Jew-free' Palestine.)

who drove who into the sea?

And another thing, don't tell anyone, but, there is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinians.

Palestine existed. That's why it was called the 'mandate of Palestine' and why Palestinians had passports marked 'Palestine' and money that said 'Palestine' on it.

British_Mandate_Palestinian_passport.jpg


palestine-6.JPG


They're Syrians.

The only mass migration into that area came from Jews.

The expert demographer on the topic called bullshit on it long ago. It's a claim that comes from a book which has been throughly discredited:

McCarthy explains, "... evidence for Muslim immigration into Palestine is minimal. Because no Ottoman records of that immigration have yet been discovered, one is thrown back on demographic analysis to evaluate Muslim migration."[40][41] McCarthy argues that there is no significant Arab immigration into mandatory Palestine:

From analyses of rates of increase of the Muslim population of the three Palestinian sanjaks, one can say with certainty that Muslim immigration after the 1870s was small. Had there been a large group of Muslim immigrants their numbers would have caused an unusual increase in the population and this would have appeared in the calculated rate of increase from one registration list to another... Such an increase would have been easily noticed; it was not there.[41]

The argument that Arab immigration somehow made up a large part of the Palestinian Arab population is thus statistically untenable. The vast majority of the Palestinian Arabs resident in 1947 were the sons and ********* of Arabs who were living in Palestine before modern Jewish immigration began. There is no reason to believe that they were not the sons and ********* of Arabs who had been in Palestine for many centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...uestion_of_late_Arab_immigration_to_Palestine



Even early zionists called them Palestinians:

Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.

It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same condition exists now.

We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of ***** which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."

-Jabotinsky


The Israelis are on (very crappy and worthless) land that was there's from a very long time ago, and was given to them by the UN.

What they were given was very generous, considering they only owned 6% of it while arab Palestinians owned 40% of it.

You'd do well to aquaint yourself with the resolution which gave them that land. It calls for two states for two people, not one big state just for jews at the expense of those who were already living there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

The resolution never made it ****** the general assembly, therefore is not legally binding, making Israel's legal claim even more ridiculous.

Yes? So? And? Why don't we pass a resolution that we can't militarize the air? Or how about the sea? Or land?

What do you mean 'yeah?' 'so?'. You asked for examples of how the US has foiled attempts to prevent war, I gave them to you.

We refused them from doing the crappy job they had been doing for a decade? And we invaded with allies, huh? I thought we went in by ourselves?

Which crappy job was that? They said there was no WMD. Are you telling me they were wrong on that one and Bush was right?

They were guarding suspect sites which were yet to be cleaned up. They had to leave because their safety couldn't be guarenteed because of the ****** on Iraq and the sites were subsequently looted. Of course you will blame them for that as well.

Well, I don't know if you know this or not, but they wanna limit the weapons civilians can own. The weapons that protect us from an over-bearing government or the group that would like to run the world.

Pissy cliche. I live in a country with tight *** laws and we have less of an authoritatian government than Americans are currently subjected to. I don't see the loudest American *** owners making sure government power is limited. They constantly vote to consolidate it.


I didn't catch this earlier, but I said 'all us little people.' I didn't say it was just us Americans they wanted to tell what to do. (that would be bad enough) It's everybody they wanna tell what to do, regardless of what country you live in. Unless you're in the political class that is.

You didn't provide an example.
 
I dont really care that much about politics lol, maybe i shoud but heyx
 

pitino

are you talking to me?
We germans really should not point fingers at other countries (Especially those we invaded back in the war)

Without massive external help and later bail-outs after WW2, we would be a third-world country.

well said ;)
 

PlasmaTwa2

The Second-Hottest Man in my ******'s Basement
I can't help but feel that this is slowly becoming the stupidest thread that FreeOnes has ever seen.
 

om3ga

It's good to be the king...



To quote from James Cromwell (as Hank Paulson, in BBC's "The Last Days of Lehman Brothers"):

"The West is fucked. We fucked it up. Oh, not just you and me [addressing John Mack, CEO of Morgan Stanley]. All of us. The West. It's done, it's over. You wanna call it a game? This is the game. You want your great-grandchildren speaking Chinese? The dollar is going to go. We had Rome, than Europe, than this. Us. This thing with cars and stereos and hoola hoops, and we screwed it all up. "
 

ban-one

Works for panties
First let's get all the Israeli stuff out of the way in one go.

No, I mean stealing other people's land and deliberately ******* their civilians, as has been thoroughly documented.

Check your history. The 67 war was an act of aggression.:

"In June, 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove that (President Gamal Abdel) Nasser (1956 - 70) was really about to ****** us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to ****** him."

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin


"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."

General Haim Barlev, Israeli Defense ****** (IDF) Chief


Jordan is a seperate state and has been since the 1940', before that it was Transjordan. Completely different to mandate Palestine.

who drove who into the sea?

Palestine existed. That's why it was called the 'mandate of Palestine' and why Palestinians had passports marked 'Palestine' and money that said 'Palestine' on it.

The only mass migration into that area came from Jews.

The expert demographer on the topic called bullshit on it long ago. It's a claim that comes from a book which has been throughly discredited:

McCarthy explains, "... evidence for Muslim immigration into Palestine is minimal. Because no Ottoman records of that immigration have yet been discovered, one is thrown back on demographic analysis to evaluate Muslim migration."[40][41] McCarthy argues that there is no significant Arab immigration into mandatory Palestine:

From analyses of rates of increase of the Muslim population of the three Palestinian sanjaks, one can say with certainty that Muslim immigration after the 1870s was small. Had there been a large group of Muslim immigrants their numbers would have caused an unusual increase in the population and this would have appeared in the calculated rate of increase from one registration list to another... Such an increase would have been easily noticed; it was not there.[41]

The argument that Arab immigration somehow made up a large part of the Palestinian Arab population is thus statistically untenable. The vast majority of the Palestinian Arabs resident in 1947 were the sons and ********* of Arabs who were living in Palestine before modern Jewish immigration began. There is no reason to believe that they were not the sons and ********* of Arabs who had been in Palestine for many centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...uestion_of_late_Arab_immigration_to_Palestine


Even early zionists called them Palestinians:

Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.

It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same condition exists now.

We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of ***** which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."

-Jabotinsky

What they were given was very generous, considering they only owned 6% of it while arab Palestinians owned 40% of it.

You'd do well to aquaint yourself with the resolution which gave them that land. It calls for two states for two people, not one big state just for jews at the expense of those who were already living there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

The resolution never made it ****** the general assembly, therefore is not legally binding, making Israel's legal claim even more ridiculous.

If you are of an opinion of how things are over there to state (and therefore must believe) these things, God help you. I'm obviously not gonna change your mind, and it's pointless to try to argue with you anymore.

However, there's one I can't let go.

Yes, all countries who seize land during war should give it up. You weren't against your country ******* Saddam to give up Kuwait when he tried to annex that, were you?

Key word there, '*****.' We ****** Saddam out of Kuwait, basically taking the land for ourselves, but then gave it back to the Kuwaitis. If a country seizes land in a war, and no one ****** them to give it back (or takes it for themselves), it's theirs. How do you think most of the countries in the world wound up with the boarders they have or some countries don't exist anymore? I mean we've still got islands in the Pacific we took from Japan and have no intention of giving back. They're ours now. That's the way things work. Israel fought for that land, and until someone takes it from them by *****, it's theirs to do with as they please.

Moving on.

All those gushing affirmations about love of democracy and human rights etc while the US has supported dictatorships all over the world. I don't accept that you aren't aware of any of these.

Yes, we and all the other countries support those dictators through the UN. And by the way, I like republics over democracies, and there is a very large and substantial difference between the two and why I like the one I do.

There was never any UN authorization for attacking Iraq. It's the only reason arab states voted in favor of UNSCR 1441.

Yeah, I'm sure they wanted a crazy dictator who had a habit of attacking his neighbors and ******* his own people for a neighbor.

By the way, there was all kinds of resolutions about if Saddam didn't comply, military action would be taken. But the UN being the UN (gutless where it counts), when he refused, they just ****** another "If you don't comply, we'll ******. And we really, really mean it this time. We really do. Honest we do." (Uh-huh. Just like the last fifty times?) We had plenty from all those to enforce compliance. Besides, isn't it a good thing a ruthless dictator is no longer in power?

It's propaganda to say otherwise.

No, it's not propaganda to say otherwise. Propaganda is apparently what you've bitten into about all this and alotta other things too.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was *******.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was *******. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

Oh, well if Kofi said it, it must be true. By the way, did you happen to notice what he said in your little quote there? "Yes, if you wish." ? He wish we may, he wish we might, what we did was still right.

It's not a matter of whether or not it's possible for one country to ****** another, it's a matter of whether or not it's lawful to commit a war of aggression. As it happens, it isn't.

Thus, countries who don't adhere to the law are criminal states.

So, how come no one's pushing for action against us if we were so in the wrong?

Unliaterally= without UNSC authorization. A handful of countries acted in defiance to the rest of the world.

Oh, well, if the rest of the world says so...

Ever heard the expression "What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right?"

Total War is indeed more effective in some instances. The only problem is you end up sharing company with Stalin and Hitler who also had no problem wiping out civilians in the persuit of their military objectives. Are you standards low for that not to be problem?

It's not a problem for me for people of a country that's an enemy to die. Oh, and Stalin and Hitler also had no problem with ******* their own people, that is wrong. ******* your enemy so they lose the will and ability to fight back is not. It's called war.

or maybe it's called helping poor people who need help?

What part of 'taking' do seem to not understand? Regardless of the reason, taking something from one person or group to give to another is wrong. If I rob you to give to someone, no matter how needy, I still go to jail.

really? ever?

so did I just imagine that the UN eradicated smallpox with it's vaccination program?

Actually, I was under the impression smallpox and several other diseases and illnesses were still a problem in alotta places, along with them still starving.

Beyond that, my point about how much aid is still gobbled up by dictators for their own purposes is still valid, even if the UN did manage to stop smallpox.

Indeed, so I imagine you would be quite disapproving of the support your country has given and gives to various despots around the world.

Oh yeah. I don't like that my country does that. (We're not the only ones.) We shouldn't be doing it. It's one of those nasty little things Progressives come up with that sounds all nice ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend," yeah, only when they're not too bad themselves or you face destruction) that comes back to bite you later. Sorta like our being so friendly with the USSR in WWII. (Or the Germans in WWI with Lenin. Might've gotten Russia tied up with something else, but wound up, after Hitler and Stalin ran out of usefulness for the other, not turning out so good in the long run for them.) Patton was right about that. Shoulda just kept on going until we hit the Pacific. Would've saved millions and millions of lives in Russia, China (maybe that should be billions?), Korea, Vietnam, and a whole bunch of other places had we stopped the first communist domino when we had the chance.

I already listed some- 2 state solution, Rwanda, militarization of space, 2006 lebanon war etc

As for the two-State solution, creating the two in the first place caused a war because the Arabs didn't like the Jews there. (During which, Jordan took the land the Palestinians were supposed to have. They must not be too sympathetic to their cause if they took their land and won't give it back.) They still don't like them being there (or anywhere for that matter), but I guess you won't believe them when they say that from who you get your info from.

As for militarizing space, the only space battles I know of occurred in science-fiction.

The other two I don't know enough about to make a comment as to whether if some UN resolution would or would not have stopped anything. However given the UN's track record of enforcing resolutions, I would guess not.

What do you mean 'yeah?' 'so?'. You asked for examples of how the US has foiled attempts to prevent war, I gave them to you.

Yeah, you gave me our vote against not militarizing space as an example. I was trying to mock your ridiculous example. Why else do you think I included air, sea, and land as things to demilitarize to prevent war? To quote Rush Limbaugh (Who you may or may not know who he is being in another country. If you don't, think of him as the kryptonite to Superman, or the cross to Dracula to liberals. Shield your eyes and hiss at the very mention of his name as you feel all the energy draining from your body.), "I was illustrating the absurd by being absurd." I could also include banning weapons to prevent wars. Or better yet, ban war. I'm sure that'll put a stop to all the conflict. Just like things being ****** around here prevents people from posting them. It doesn't. People and countries are gonna do what they wanna do, regardless of what someone else tells them to do. To borrow one of Rush's undeniable truths of life, "Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of *****."

Which crappy job was that? They said there was no WMD. Are you telling me they were wrong on that one and Bush was right?

That would be the crappy job. Saying Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. Why were UN inspectors supposed to be there and he not allowing them to look around if he didn't?

They were guarding suspect sites which were yet to be cleaned up. They had to leave because their safety couldn't be guarenteed because of the ****** on Iraq and the sites were subsequently looted. Of course you will blame them for that as well.

Oh, I see, they were 'suspect sites' huh? Well obviously someone at the UN suspected he had them or else they wouldn't be there. Of course their safety couldn't be guaranteed. It was a war zone. Oh, and I don't blame them for the stuff not being there (but if you're right, what would be there to be looted?), Saddam shipped his stuff off to Syria for 'safe keeping.'

Pissy cliche. I live in a country with tight *** laws and we have less of an authoritatian government than Americans are currently subjected to. I don't see the loudest American *** owners making sure government power is limited. They constantly vote to consolidate it.

What's a cliche? That when the government fears the people there is liberty, and when the people fear the government there is tyranny? I kinda think that's how it works. You can't have a tyrannical government if the people aren't afraid of it. You feel any safer with tight *** laws? See, there's an annoying little secret about *** laws. *** laws only punish and apply to law-abiding citizens, not the criminals, making things more dangerous and less safe. If someone is willing to break a law to say, rob or ******, what makes you think they won't just break another and use an ******* *** too? (It happens all the time.) Also, it's real comforting knowing help is just a phone call to police (if you can get to a phone) and a 10-15 minute wait for them to get there while you're robbed or ******, away. As opposed to, say, the security of having a *** to shoot them right then and there. So, which country is it so I know whether I should laugh or *****? And I don't know where you get your news, as you apparently don't live here in the US where I do, but the loudest *** owners do work to make sure government power is limited and don't want some huge central government telling us what and what not to do. Or are you wanting us to rise up in arms?

You didn't provide an example.

Well, if I didn't, what were you responding to about the *** control? I also gave you 'man-made climate change is real' inspired regulations and mandates, and capital punishment.
 

ban-one

Works for panties
But. What does Israel got to do with the EU?

In a nut shell, that would be I compared the EU to the UN and League of Nations, and it sorta wandered off from there.
 
Emceee can gargle all he wants about redoing the Israeli border to '67. It won't do any good. The Israeli border isn't going back to pre June '67. So all the leftists that wish otherwise can go bitch elsewhere.

Shalom.
 

emceeemcee

Banned
Yes, we and all the other countries support those dictators through the UN.

You don't channel all of your foreign aid budget through the UN, nor is that budget decided by anyone other than American politicians. You don't even have a clue how your own country's finances work :1orglaugh


first you say that America's constitution is the supreme law of the land and nobody tells you what to do, then when it comes to some inconvenient truths about your government's 'friends' all of a sudden it's the UN who writes your foreign policy for you! without any consultation!


As for the rest of your post, basically you just spent the last two pages bitching and whining about how people shouldn't be telling merika what to do then argued that America should be able to do whatever it wants, to whoever it wants, whenever it wants without any repercussions, screw other people's sovereignty etc


You are just arguing for exceptionalism.
 

emceeemcee

Banned
Emceee can gargle all he wants about redoing the Israeli border to '67. It won't do any good. The Israeli border isn't going back to pre June '67. So all the leftists that wish otherwise can go bitch elsewhere.

Shalom.



hark, the sound of desperation.
 

Supafly

Logged Off 4 Freedom of Speech Restrictions
Bronze Member
Emceee can gargle all he wants about redoing the Israeli border to '67. It won't do any good. The Israeli border isn't going back to pre June '67. So all the leftists that wish otherwise can go bitch elsewhere.

Shalom.

Of course, you are correct. There is no way that the borders of 1967 are being gone back to, just as little chance Germany will go back to the borders of 1940

(The 'Bund der Vertriebenen' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Expellees] still wnats to go back there, if not open in public)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia

But the state of Israel HAS to stop the wild settlers that keep on robbing the land of the palestines. And cutting down hundreds of year old olive trees is just a ********

Back to Europe :)
 
Top