If elected I will get the U.N. involved.
- Thread starter Billnew
- Start date
So, and bear with me again in this. Saddam Hussein, using his oil money, bought and controlled the UN: directed it as it were.
Share the detail and proof with me? I'm fascinated.
Upvote
0
Motor City Christian
Senior Veteran
- Jun 24, 2003
- 5,472
- 190
- 41
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
LOL, think of all the flip flopping and U.N. loving Kerry would do if he gets in office. The terrorists would probably die laughing. That would be Kerry's defense against terrorists. 
Upvote
0
The USA influence in the UN goes far beyond one vote: you are on the security council, as permanent member, and with veto. But the massive power of the USA comes from the position it has, and acts out in the world. What the USA gets involved with, is such a massive part of the total world process: that if the USA is absent; then you simply are not dealing with a viable whole any more: although that is changing; and more apace since this latest war.
Upvote
0
We need to get the UN involved before we decide to bomb children. But of course Bush just went ahead and started the murder without getting UN's approval. We need UN to get in Iraq and help us. No matter how "great" and "superior" and "powerful" you believe the US is, we need help. Fast. Each day the US is arrogant (sp?) the more lives and money it costs us. We can't do this alone.
Upvote
0
Deacon
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 2,321
- 154
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I quite frankly don't think we need the UN's help. Heck, half of the UN is made up of US Soldiers...as is the NATO forces. It would be just sending more US Soldiers over there...Yea great idea!PrNcSsChRmNg91 said:
Upvote
0
Yitzchak
יצחק
- Jun 25, 2003
- 11,250
- 1,386
- 58
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Correct me if I am wrong, but things like the league of nations, the U.N., the geneva convention rules for war all came out of the aftermath of huge and devastating wars. Maybe we should do something proactive instead of waiting for the next disaster to start thinking about how to handle diplomacy and the global arena.
Upvote
0
burrow_owl
Senior Contributor
- Aug 17, 2003
- 8,561
- 381
- 47
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Was it ever supposed to be anything other than that? As far as I know, it's pretty much just a forum.
Upvote
0
The 87 million before refers to a bill he voted for that would have partially repealed the Bush tax cut, and used the money to help pay for the Iraq war. Once that part of the bill was cut, Kerry voted against it. So he did literally vote for the 87 billion before he voted against it. Kerry is a fiscal conservative - he believes in not spending more then the government takes in.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Then why all the hub hub about getting the UN to do things or being backed by them if it has no real power?burrow_owl said:
Upvote
0
- Apr 23, 2004
- 21,246
- 1,234
- 58
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
The resolutions that Iraq complies with weapon inspections- or else....aLx said:
The requirement to provide evidence of WmD material destruction.
Every resolution had the clause- threatening punishment for failure to comply.
The World has been authorized to resume the conflict each time Saddam
broke the Terms of Surrender.
Every time they had radar lock on a Coalition warplane.
Every time Saddam would not allow inspectors into his many mansions.
The U.N. is a league of Nations with greed or power driving them.
Justice is not a U.N. mandate.
It was a good Idea, but it will fail.
The UN will probably be the power for the Anti-christ to rise to power.
Unfortunately, The vocal few are the Peace pukes that think war is the worst thing there is. Peace must be earned and to earn it you must fight for it.
WAR IS BAD, But to maintain your way of life they must be fought.
Upvote
0
aLx
Gracias dios por Jesús
Resolution 687, 1991.
The same resolution that said "Affirming the commitment of all Member States [including the US] to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq"
It looks like the US broke this one too as they did not respect Iraqs 'sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence'.
Also from Resolution 687, but where is the evidence that Iraq acquired or developed nuclear weapons etc? Infact Hans Blix was "agnostic" and said "Only time will tell - although that is passing by "quite fast and instead of talking about [finding] WMD they're talking about the programmes." before the war.
Not ture. Read above:It looks like the US broke this one too as they did not respect Iraqs 'sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence'.
Absolutly ludacris. Let me know where you got this information stuff from.
The anti-Christ remark you make there is also absolutly silly. Please provide us as to where you got information that the UN is 'anti-christ'.
True in 1945, but how was my way of like being threatened by Iraq?
Upvote
0
- Apr 23, 2004
- 21,246
- 1,234
- 58
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Wow lots to reply to, means I am getting peoples attention.
-Datan- I am not a politician, But i heard on the news the UN resolutions were as I said Please post what they actually said.
-ALX7- 1.The US did not break Iraq borders, Inspectors were part of the cease fire.
The no-fly zone was a part of the surrender by Iraq.
When a peace treaty is broken war is one alternative. There is no other without showing weakness.
2. The statement I said is the U.N. will be the power for the Anti-Christ not it is the Anti-Christ.
How else will one "man" rise to power? They will be easily influenced by strong will, promising everything to everyone. This man shall bring peace to the nations of Isreal...Revalations if I remember right.
3. Your way of being could be threatened, as our nation was, by terrorists obtaining wmd's. Saddam used Chemicals on the Iranians and the Kurds in his own land. Chemicals would kill a whole lot more then jet liners into skyscapers.
The only way to be sure, was to invade. We did, and we have found "PROGRAMMES"
of all, just no actual wmd's. We found plans, labs to make them, mobile biochemical lab, and other paraphenalia.
So instead of saying he never had them why aren't we asking where Are they?
Are they buried in Iraq? Did he drive them to a neighboring country as he did with his planes?
Peace protestors want to believe the best in people, Saddam had no best.
The world is better off without his government. Maybe the new government of united Iraqis will allow peace to a war torn nation.
You anti-war people would rather have Saddam raking in the money while his people starved under sanctions, keep him raping and killing hundreds of people a day. His regime was brutal.
I am glad the world had President Bush and PM Blair to enforce treatys that demand a safe world.
-Datan- I am not a politician, But i heard on the news the UN resolutions were as I said Please post what they actually said.
-ALX7- 1.The US did not break Iraq borders, Inspectors were part of the cease fire.
The no-fly zone was a part of the surrender by Iraq.
When a peace treaty is broken war is one alternative. There is no other without showing weakness.
2. The statement I said is the U.N. will be the power for the Anti-Christ not it is the Anti-Christ.
How else will one "man" rise to power? They will be easily influenced by strong will, promising everything to everyone. This man shall bring peace to the nations of Isreal...Revalations if I remember right.
3. Your way of being could be threatened, as our nation was, by terrorists obtaining wmd's. Saddam used Chemicals on the Iranians and the Kurds in his own land. Chemicals would kill a whole lot more then jet liners into skyscapers.
The only way to be sure, was to invade. We did, and we have found "PROGRAMMES"
of all, just no actual wmd's. We found plans, labs to make them, mobile biochemical lab, and other paraphenalia.
So instead of saying he never had them why aren't we asking where Are they?
Are they buried in Iraq? Did he drive them to a neighboring country as he did with his planes?
Peace protestors want to believe the best in people, Saddam had no best.
The world is better off without his government. Maybe the new government of united Iraqis will allow peace to a war torn nation.
You anti-war people would rather have Saddam raking in the money while his people starved under sanctions, keep him raping and killing hundreds of people a day. His regime was brutal.
I am glad the world had President Bush and PM Blair to enforce treatys that demand a safe world.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
aLx
Gracias dios por Jesús
Well I am not talking about the no-fly zone. I am talking about the 'territorial integrity and political independence' of Iraq, which has so obviously been broken since 1991. Technically the US broke resolution 687.
I dont know, but Bush seems to be getting more powerful all the time. Maybe he is the one you should look at because no-one in the UN has much power over anyone else!
I think youll find that aeroplanes dont count as WMDs...
Did you really find mobile biochemical labs? Or is that just what Powell said at the UN before you invaded? By admitting that you did not actually find anything you are saying that the whole pretext to war was a mistake.
The world is better off? I dont feel any better off...infact I feel sick everytime I turn on the TV and see dead soldiers and civilians. Maybe Iraq is better off but by no means the world!
You are sick and so wrong when you think that. Thats always your excuse of us protesting. You dont see the evidence we see of US imperialism, its desire for oil, or anything. You just see us as supporting Saddam. I hate what Saddam has done to the extreme, but I also dislike what the US is doing right now. Killing about 10,000 civilians. His regime was brutal but not the only one, why not attack Zimbabwe, oh wait, cause that has little strategic importance and is not on one of the world's biggest oil fields! MEH!
I refuse to debate any longer with you until you apoligise for saying that I am supporting Saddams regime. I have a right mind to report you to a mod.
Upvote
0
crystalpc
Veteran
- Jan 11, 2004
- 1,364
- 42
- 78
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Politics
- US-Constitution
One Question I would like to know is HOW?Billnew said:Kerry has said If I am elected I will have the U.N. share the burden and reponsibility of securing Iraq....(not a direct quote but paraphrased)
HEY... GREAT IDEA.... WHY DIDN'T BUSH THINK OF THAT...
OH WAIT HE DID, 17 RESOLUTIONS LATER( and 12 years) THEY STILL WANTED TO TALK.
This loser must not be elected.
My family loves our SUV's, I don't own any SUVs:o
I voted for before I voted against....
I threw my medals, but they were someone elses.
Bill
Upvote
0
Kerry never seems to be concered with the hows, he is just offering empty promises.crystalpc said:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
burrow_owl
Senior Contributor
- Aug 17, 2003
- 8,561
- 381
- 47
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Its power is conferred upon it in by member states for specific purposes; so it can have a kind of power when its member states so desire. As for why it might be good to vest some power in the UN for present purposes: for good or ill, a lot of people - probably the Iraqis, and they're the ones that count - think of the UN as having greater international legitimacy, blahblahblah you know the rest.
Whether they do have more legitimacy is profoundly beside the point; all we should care about is getting those Iraqis to settle down. If they all believed that the leaders of Samoa were the most wise and powerful on Earth, I'd say bring in the Samoans; it doesn't matter if they actually are wiser and more powerful than America, all that matters is that the Iraqis would.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
