I'm fed up with the UN

After all this there are still Americans who claim that Saddham didn't finance terror, attempt to at least buy WMD's, or pose the least bit of a threat to the world. I love my country, but some of the people in it make me sick. :(
 
Anyone making the statement, "Sadam Hussein never had WMD." doesn't know what WMD is then. Nerve gas is one, and 100,000+ dead Kurds and dead Iranians would beg to differ with the opinion that "he never had them"
 
That doesn't bother me so much, it's just that international folk (like civlians) get mad at our invasion. It has liberated Iraq, either way you look at it. We at least have accomplished that much.
 
Well, the United States needs to be very careful when taking upon itself the role of "World Policeman" because toppling governments tends to make a lot of people nervous. We specifically didn't do it in the first Gulf War for that very reason. If the UN had an effective system to actually enforce ANYTHING then the USA playing world policeman wouldn't even be needed at all.
 
We will continue to be world policemen for awhile yet. The great war of terror has just begun. Or many in the international community might put it "OMG TEH W@R 4 O1L" :roll:
 
Wouldn't it be nice if the UN wasn't completlely powerless? If they weren't, they could play policeman and then the world could hate THEM for it.
 
Re: UN

Lupos said:
What the :cen: are you talking about, the majority feeling here is to get rid of the security council not give even more power to it!

The reality is we cannot get rid of it. The priciples of the UN are sound but no one will follow them. I found this article from the state department that makes sense to me.

Department of State vision statement

Three principles guide our engagement at the UN.

Principle #1: We want the United Nations to live up to the vision of its founders. America's leadership can mobilize like-minded nations and multilateral institutions to stand up for common principles. We have seen this outcome, for example, in the war against terrorism, efforts to protect refugees and provide humanitarian aid, and the consensus that world leaders reached in Monterrey, Mexico, on the most effective ways to finance development.

Americans want us to make sure the UN and its many agencies hold fast to founding principles. This is true whether the objective is to disarm Iraq, promote peace in the region, or ensure that the elected members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) respect, protect, and promote human rights. The credibility of the CHR rightfully came under attack after Libya was elected chair in 2003. We had opposed that nomination; we are now working within the Commission to make sure its actions reflect its mandate and uphold the principles elaborated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements. A revitalized CHR will find that it has the support of Americans and others around the world.

There be much more on the web site
http://www.state.gov/p/io/c9703.htm
 
Yeah, that is reason US support Japan to become one of the permanent members in UN security council. Instead, US is againt German's same proposal

Very simple, support a puppy (Japan is protected by US officially), then US will have two votes instead of one----Can you image japan will say any "no" to US regarding important security issue?. In addition, Japan need to pay any cost for any war started by US.....because: "come'on, you are one of the security council members now!"

Damn, what a smart action!
 
Ohh my, and I'm sure that's bringing Japan's economy down to the ground. What with how much they are involved and all. Poor Japan, being forced to burden so much by the yankees. Like slaves!
 
The UN pays very well for well trained and equiped soldiers. But happens when the governments of the countries that have been asked to supply their forces refuse (because they are worried about public opinion) what can the UN do then????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Anyone making the statement, "Sadam Hussein never had WMD." doesn't know what WMD is then. Nerve gas is one, and 100,000+ dead Kurds and dead Iranians would beg to differ with the opinion that "he never had them"

Ofcourse he had them.
Prior to the 91 conflict that is..Where are the socalled WMD,s now?
You know the ones we went to war over this time around.
There have been a few old gasgrenades found dating back prior to DS but I don´t think they were the reason to go to war.

Don´t get me wrong here I am not judging motives, I´m just stating the fact that no WMD,s have been found as of yet in Iraq.

KJ.
 
I'm not American and I have lived in Southeast Asia so seen quite a few UN things.

I think the UN is rather good in most of its roles except in security council and peacekeeping. In that they are simply utterly rubbish.
Probably the aid programs it has going in Africa and the post conflict help in East Timor and Cambodia are the finest achievements in the UN.
 
Makes me wonder...

All these gas grenades and such showing up in the hands of the insurgents gets me wondering. Do you think maybe these insurgents scooped up these WMDs before we did. Even if all the intel that came into Bush was flawed, if there is enough evidence then it must be somehow true. Just a thought.
 
There's always the possibility that he hid them away in Syria or perhaps in the sands in the deserts of Iraq to make Bush's invasion seem illegitimate. He would then count on the war to go bad, and America to pull out, largely due to the war being seemingly illegitimate.
Then he would crawl out of his spider hole and get back in power.

But this is a "conspiracy theory" kind of thing.
I wouldn't put much weight into it.
 
Sadam is from Syria, so it only makes sense that he would choose Syria as a place to hide WMD's for safe-keeping. Also, it should be remembered that when it comes to Nerve Agents and other Chemical Weapons, a tiny amount goes a long ways.
 
Come on guys, evidence.
Let's not speculate. If we do, let's say it's a possibility but let's not put much weight into it.
 
Back
Top