New United Nations Human Rights Council


Johnny Utah
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Iran has simple rules to follow if it wants to aviod war....but I don't think they want to aviod it.

There is no rules that Iran could follow to avoid war with the Empire save total capitulation, if there were no Iranian nuclear program some other lame excuse would be fabricated and used to invade, the goal is not the WMDs it is the oil. The US will not allow the region to slip from it,s control, and that control must be complete.

Oil, Oil Oil it's always Oil isn't it?

Iran is the biggest sponsor of Terrorism, this is about stopping them from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon, your Anti-Americanism blinds you to the truth. Thankgod there are leaders who see the real picture and will stop Iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Incase you didn't know a Nuclear Weapon is a WMD.

The biggest terrorist nation that the world has ever seen is the USA. Your pro-americanism blinds you to the truth. Who,s going to stop the USA from building more WMDs.

So if you think the United States is the Worlds biggest Terrorists do you think Al Qaeda are innocent? Your blind as Stevie Wonder.

I have a few choice words to describe someone like you who calls the United States the Worlds biggest Terrorist, but I will refrain from using them as your nothing more then a joke. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
 
Jay
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Ann Coulter is right as she always is. This is a War against Islamic Fundamentalism which started before 9/11 and only came to North America on 9/11. This War started when The United States Embassy was taken over in Iran or perhaps even before that.

And Liberals don't want to fight it. They are willing to risk the West to Islamic fundamentalism....to their demise, as under the crazy's law and thumb screws, our liberals would be the first to be put under. Liberalism is intellectually bankrupt.
 
Johnny Utah
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Ann Coulter is right as she always is. This is a War against Islamic Fundamentalism which started before 9/11 and only came to North America on 9/11. This War started when The United States Embassy was taken over in Iran or perhaps even before that.

And Liberals don't want to fight it. They are willing to risk the West to Islamic fundamentalism....to their demise, as under the crazy's law and thumb screws, our liberals would be the first to be put under. Liberalism is intellectually bankrupt.

Radical Liberals(This does not mean all Liberals) in Canada and the United States want an European style form of Government. Look what happen to France who embraced that style of Government, they had the riots.
 
mabudon
#34
Personally I find that the only real complaints most folks can bring against the UN are pure talking points, plain and simple

A body such as the UN is necessary in these times of "free trade" and "pre-emptive wars" (or for that matter, wars fought undeclared against concepts rather than nations)

And to the Neo-Cans- why is it that North Korea isn't in the crosshairs right now?? By all accounts I have read from the propaganda mill, they already HAVE nukes (ask your average American and I think you'd find that most of the uninformed poulation believes this to be true.. likely the same about Iran, but whatever)
Korea doesn't have at least ONE resource (and remember the PNAC here, and the aims set out in their primary document) that Iran has, so despite the more imminent threat posed by North Korea (and I'm playing devils advocate here, I don't see a strike against North American civilians in a military sense from either nation as being a possibility unless either were to be struck "pre-emptively" first) the war drums are being beaten for the coming attempt on Iran....
I really hope we get "invited" to take part, since we lost out LARGE when we failed to join the Freedom Spreading in Iraq and we really have got to do something to get back in the good books....

If there really were a benevolent and omnipresent agency such as the UN is supposed to represent (rather than the Western-power-shackled entity we have now) I think there would already be charges laid against the Western media for fearmongering or some such thing, international defamation at the very least....

Here's hoping one day we get what we really need on this planet
 
Colpy
Conservative
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Sorry Colpy

But I don't think the Rwandan tragedy was Kofi Annan's fault. The Canadian general Dallaire just about drove himself crazy trying to get major member states to even look at what was going on.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/afr868.doc.htm

That is true, and the United States (under Clinton) bears a lot responsibility for refusing to respond, along with every other major nation of the west.

However, D'Allaire was prevented from doing what he could with forces under his command in Rwanda. He was forewarned, and intended to take out the radio station (thus making it impossible to issue orders to the militias in the countryside), and seize arms caches. He was ordered to stand down by our own Gen. Baril, who headed military operations for the UN, under Kofi Annan, who was director of the Department of Peace Keeping Operations.
 
Jay
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

Personally I find that the only real complaints most folks can bring against the UN are pure talking points, plain and simple

A body such as the UN is necessary in these times of "free trade" and "pre-emptive wars" (or for that matter, wars fought undeclared against concepts rather than nations)

And to the Neo-Cans- why is it that North Korea isn't in the crosshairs right now?? By all accounts I have read from the propaganda mill, they already HAVE nukes (ask your average American and I think you'd find that most of the uninformed poulation believes this to be true.. likely the same about Iran, but whatever)
Korea doesn't have at least ONE resource (and remember the PNAC here, and the aims set out in their primary document) that Iran has, so despite the more imminent threat posed by North Korea (and I'm playing devils advocate here, I don't see a strike against North American civilians in a military sense from either nation as being a possibility unless either were to be struck "pre-emptively" first) the war drums are being beaten for the coming attempt on Iran....
I really hope we get "invited" to take part, since we lost out LARGE when we failed to join the Freedom Spreading in Iraq and we really have got to do something to get back in the good books....

If there really were a benevolent and omnipresent agency such as the UN is supposed to represent (rather than the Western-power-shackled entity we have now) I think there would already be charges laid against the Western media for fearmongering or some such thing, international defamation at the very least....

Here's hoping one day we get what we really need on this planet

I'd be happy to send bombs into Korea...but we do have things to consider, like South Korea and do you think China will stay out of or even help? No, they enjoy the USA's hands being tied.

Come on China...step it up, make North Korea a crappie little province like you did Tibet.
 
Johnny Utah
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

Personally I find that the only real complaints most folks can bring against the UN are pure talking points, plain and simple

A body such as the UN is necessary in these times of "free trade" and "pre-emptive wars" (or for that matter, wars fought undeclared against concepts rather than nations)

And to the Neo-Cans- why is it that North Korea isn't in the crosshairs right now?? By all accounts I have read from the propaganda mill, they already HAVE nukes (ask your average American and I think you'd find that most of the uninformed poulation believes this to be true.. likely the same about Iran, but whatever)
Korea doesn't have at least ONE resource (and remember the PNAC here, and the aims set out in their primary document) that Iran has, so despite the more imminent threat posed by North Korea (and I'm playing devils advocate here, I don't see a strike against North American civilians in a military sense from either nation as being a possibility unless either were to be struck "pre-emptively" first) the war drums are being beaten for the coming attempt on Iran....
I really hope we get "invited" to take part, since we lost out LARGE when we failed to join the Freedom Spreading in Iraq and we really have got to do something to get back in the good books....

If there really were a benevolent and omnipresent agency such as the UN is supposed to represent (rather than the Western-power-shackled entity we have now) I think there would already be charges laid against the Western media for fearmongering or some such thing, international defamation at the very least....

Here's hoping one day we get what we really need on this planet

The complaints against the UN are real. They did nothing and let the massacare in Rwanda happen, they did nothing and let the massacare in the Sudan happen. Theres the UN Oil for Food scandal, those are a few real issues of how the UN is irrelevant. The biggest problem with the UN is they had a purpose when the Cold War was on, when the Cold War ended they didn't change to meet the needs of the new World in which they became irrelevant.

As for North Korea, well China keeps them on a leash, China doesn't want a War with North Korea in it's backyard. Another reason a strike doesn't happen on North Korea is they would strike back at Seoul with their WMD'S killing perhaps Millions. The key to keeping North Korea on it's leash and perhaps getting rid of it's Nuclear program is China.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

Personally I find that the only real complaints most folks can bring against the UN are pure talking points, plain and simple

A body such as the UN is necessary in these times of "free trade" and "pre-emptive wars" (or for that matter, wars fought undeclared against concepts rather than nations)

And to the Neo-Cans- why is it that North Korea isn't in the crosshairs right now?? By all accounts I have read from the propaganda mill, they already HAVE nukes (ask your average American and I think you'd find that most of the uninformed poulation believes this to be true.. likely the same about Iran, but whatever)
Korea doesn't have at least ONE resource (and remember the PNAC here, and the aims set out in their primary document) that Iran has, so despite the more imminent threat posed by North Korea (and I'm playing devils advocate here, I don't see a strike against North American civilians in a military sense from either nation as being a possibility unless either were to be struck "pre-emptively" first) the war drums are being beaten for the coming attempt on Iran....
I really hope we get "invited" to take part, since we lost out LARGE when we failed to join the Freedom Spreading in Iraq and we really have got to do something to get back in the good books....

If there really were a benevolent and omnipresent agency such as the UN is supposed to represent (rather than the Western-power-shackled entity we have now) I think there would already be charges laid against the Western media for fearmongering or some such thing, international defamation at the very least....

Here's hoping one day we get what we really need on this planet

North Korea is a very close friend of China.

The capital of South Korea is very close to the demilitarized zone, and would be instantly destroyed in any attack on North Korea, even using conventional weapons. (within 30 kilometers)

Korea is simply not as strategically important as Iran, which can close off oil shipments through the Gulf.

Korea has not promised to use nukes to completely destroy a specific nation, as the leaders of Iran have.

More to the point, ex-President Carter negotiated a peace, love, and groovy deal with North Korea in the nineties, which was supposed to stop them building nukes.

Yeah RIGHT.

Let's NOT do that again.
 
Johnny Utah
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Sorry Colpy

But I don't think the Rwandan tragedy was Kofi Annan's fault. The Canadian general Dallaire just about drove himself crazy trying to get major member states to even look at what was going on.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/afr868.doc.htm

That is true, and the United States (under Clinton) bears a lot responsibility for refusing to respond, along with every other major nation of the west.

However, D'Allaire was prevented from doing what he could with forces under his command in Rwanda. He was forewarned, and intended to take out the radio station (thus making it impossible to issue orders to the militias in the countryside), and seize arms caches. He was ordered to stand down by our own Gen. Baril, who headed military operations for the UN, under Kofi Annan, who was director of the Department of Peace Keeping Operations.

The reason Clinton didn't respond is Rwanda happen around a year after the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia(Black Hawk Down).
 
Colpy
Conservative
#40
Yeah, I know.

Once burned, twice shy.
 
Johnny Utah
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

Personally I find that the only real complaints most folks can bring against the UN are pure talking points, plain and simple

A body such as the UN is necessary in these times of "free trade" and "pre-emptive wars" (or for that matter, wars fought undeclared against concepts rather than nations)

And to the Neo-Cans- why is it that North Korea isn't in the crosshairs right now?? By all accounts I have read from the propaganda mill, they already HAVE nukes (ask your average American and I think you'd find that most of the uninformed poulation believes this to be true.. likely the same about Iran, but whatever)
Korea doesn't have at least ONE resource (and remember the PNAC here, and the aims set out in their primary document) that Iran has, so despite the more imminent threat posed by North Korea (and I'm playing devils advocate here, I don't see a strike against North American civilians in a military sense from either nation as being a possibility unless either were to be struck "pre-emptively" first) the war drums are being beaten for the coming attempt on Iran....
I really hope we get "invited" to take part, since we lost out LARGE when we failed to join the Freedom Spreading in Iraq and we really have got to do something to get back in the good books....

If there really were a benevolent and omnipresent agency such as the UN is supposed to represent (rather than the Western-power-shackled entity we have now) I think there would already be charges laid against the Western media for fearmongering or some such thing, international defamation at the very least....

Here's hoping one day we get what we really need on this planet

North Korea is a very close friend of China.

The capital of South Korea is very close to the demilitarized zone, and would be instantly destroyed in any attack on North Korea, even using conventional weapons. (within 30 kilometers)

Korea is simply not as strategically important as Iran, which can close off oil shipments through the Gulf.

Korea has not promised to use nukes to completely destroy a specific nation, as the leaders of Iran have.

More to the point, ex-President Carter negotiated a peace, love, and groovy deal with North Korea in the nineties, which was supposed to stop them building nukes.

Yeah RIGHT.

Let's NOT do that again.



Yes that agreement with North Korea under the Clinton Administration sure paid off didn't it?
 
mabudon
#42
See, the posts quoting me kinda proved my point- Oil-for-food BAD, not getting involved in this or that, BAD, so therefore there's NO PURPOSE??
that's the same argument as saying the US doesn't need a government since th one they now have has buggered stuff up so badly. Just trying to keep folks honest
 
Jay
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

Personally I find that the only real complaints most folks can bring against the UN are pure talking points, plain and simple

A body such as the UN is necessary in these times of "free trade" and "pre-emptive wars" (or for that matter, wars fought undeclared against concepts rather than nations)

And to the Neo-Cans- why is it that North Korea isn't in the crosshairs right now?? By all accounts I have read from the propaganda mill, they already HAVE nukes (ask your average American and I think you'd find that most of the uninformed poulation believes this to be true.. likely the same about Iran, but whatever)
Korea doesn't have at least ONE resource (and remember the PNAC here, and the aims set out in their primary document) that Iran has, so despite the more imminent threat posed by North Korea (and I'm playing devils advocate here, I don't see a strike against North American civilians in a military sense from either nation as being a possibility unless either were to be struck "pre-emptively" first) the war drums are being beaten for the coming attempt on Iran....
I really hope we get "invited" to take part, since we lost out LARGE when we failed to join the Freedom Spreading in Iraq and we really have got to do something to get back in the good books....

If there really were a benevolent and omnipresent agency such as the UN is supposed to represent (rather than the Western-power-shackled entity we have now) I think there would already be charges laid against the Western media for fearmongering or some such thing, international defamation at the very least....

Here's hoping one day we get what we really need on this planet

North Korea is a very close friend of China.

The capital of South Korea is very close to the demilitarized zone, and would be instantly destroyed in any attack on North Korea, even using conventional weapons. (within 30 kilometers)

Korea is simply not as strategically important as Iran, which can close off oil shipments through the Gulf.

Korea has not promised to use nukes to completely destroy a specific nation, as the leaders of Iran have.

More to the point, ex-President Carter negotiated a peace, love, and groovy deal with North Korea in the nineties, which was supposed to stop them building nukes.

Yeah RIGHT.

Let's NOT do that again.



Yes that agreement with North Korea under the Clinton Administration sure paid off didn't it?

She should have killed him then and there.
 
Jersay
#44
I wonder, who are the radical idiots? The ones fighting in Iraq,

or the idiots who support Bush who believes god told him to invade Iraq.

Its disqusting.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#45
That confuses me, how anyone could receive re-election in the midst of thinking that God spoke to him. Maybe he heard voices, but I would hardly think them to be "godly" rather, perhaps mentally defficient.
 
Johnny Utah
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

I wonder, who are the radical idiots? The ones fighting in Iraq,

or the idiots who support Bush who believes god told him to invade Iraq.

Its disqusting.

The attitude by people like you is whats disgusting.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Iran has simple rules to follow if it wants to aviod war....but I don't think they want to aviod it.

There is no rules that Iran could follow to avoid war with the Empire save total capitulation, if there were no Iranian nuclear program some other lame excuse would be fabricated and used to invade, the goal is not the WMDs it is the oil. The US will not allow the region to slip from it,s control, and that control must be complete.

Oil, Oil Oil it's always Oil isn't it?

Iran is the biggest sponsor of Terrorism, this is about stopping them from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon, your Anti-Americanism blinds you to the truth. Thankgod there are leaders who see the real picture and will stop Iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Incase you didn't know a Nuclear Weapon is a WMD.

The biggest terrorist nation that the world has ever seen is the USA. Your pro-americanism blinds you to the truth. Who,s going to stop the USA from building more WMDs.

So if you think the United States is the Worlds biggest Terrorists do you think Al Qaeda are innocent? Your blind as Stevie Wonder.

I have a few choice words to describe someone like you who calls the United States the Worlds biggest Terrorist, but I will refrain from using them as your nothing more then a joke. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Your wearing out your kool-aid joke, and you have only a few choice words to begin with which you keep using over and over because your little tiny brain can,t make a proper argument about snot. I don,t think anyones innocent who uses weapons to kill, and
Mr Wonder sees better than you ever will. And if I,m a nothing more than a joke maybe you wouldn,t mind me making you laugh with my boot. Yer head couldn,t possibly be kicked any flater than it is.
 
Johnny Utah
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Iran has simple rules to follow if it wants to aviod war....but I don't think they want to aviod it.

There is no rules that Iran could follow to avoid war with the Empire save total capitulation, if there were no Iranian nuclear program some other lame excuse would be fabricated and used to invade, the goal is not the WMDs it is the oil. The US will not allow the region to slip from it,s control, and that control must be complete.

Oil, Oil Oil it's always Oil isn't it?

Iran is the biggest sponsor of Terrorism, this is about stopping them from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon, your Anti-Americanism blinds you to the truth. Thankgod there are leaders who see the real picture and will stop Iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Incase you didn't know a Nuclear Weapon is a WMD.

The biggest terrorist nation that the world has ever seen is the USA. Your pro-americanism blinds you to the truth. Who,s going to stop the USA from building more WMDs.

So if you think the United States is the Worlds biggest Terrorists do you think Al Qaeda are innocent? Your blind as Stevie Wonder.

I have a few choice words to describe someone like you who calls the United States the Worlds biggest Terrorist, but I will refrain from using them as your nothing more then a joke. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Your wearing out your kool-aid joke, and you have only a few choice words to begin with which you keep using over and over because your little tiny brain can,t make a proper argument about snot. I don,t think anyones innocent who uses weapons to kill, and
Mr Wonder sees better than you ever will. And if I,m a nothing more than a joke maybe you wouldn,t mind me making you laugh with my boot. Yer head couldn,t possibly be kicked any flater than it is.

Your the one who is a joke, calling the United States a Terrorist while it seems your giving real Terrorists as Al Qaeda a pass. I didn't see you calling them the Worlds biggest Terrorists. Were you making a threat to me? Really have you sunk that low you resort to making threats? Come find me with your boot and show me what a tuff guy you are. L-) Have a nice day.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#49
darkbeaver , Johnny Utah , in the interest of keeping this thread appropriate and civil, I would ask that you exchange whatever future messages of this nature, in Wreck Beach; it is suited for the purpose, whereas this thread is not.

Not as an Administrator or Moderator , obviously, but as a member of Canadian Content seeking to ensure that civil discourse is facilitated in the echoing corridors of these forums.
 
Johnny Utah
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

darkbeaver , Johnny Utah , in the interest of keeping this thread appropriate and civil, I would ask that you exchange whatever future messages of this nature, in Wreck Beach; it is suited for the purpose, whereas this thread is not.

Not as an Administrator or Moderator , obviously, but as a member of Canadian Content seeking to ensure that civil discourse is facilitated in the echoing corridors of these forums.

Sure, no problem here.
 
Jersay
#51
Quote:

The attitude by people like you is whats disgusting.





That is nice of you.

Following the government around like a lap dog and not listening to other people labeling them as Anti-American and such. You people saying about Islamic radicals when you yourself are talking about radical means to do things when you are not a man or woman in uniform or the President or Prime Minister of a country. You are a couch potatoe general (and this is not you yourself Johnny) but all you radical people who want to go to war against Islamic people.

They may be radicals, yes, they may be terrorists and murderers of innocent civilians but following a man who listens to 'God' and wants to bomb journalists and supports the Christian right of America is just as radical as these Islamic extremists without as much questioning their (leaders) intention or reasoning.

And the ones who want to question him are called Anti-American and other such name calling, which is disqusting.

However, America and the west isn't truly free is it unless it follows it leaders.
 
Johnny Utah
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Quote:

The attitude by people like you is whats disgusting.





That is nice of you.

Following the government around like a lap dog and not listening to other people labeling them as Anti-American and such. You people saying about Islamic radicals when you yourself are talking about radical means to do things when you are not a man or woman in uniform or the President or Prime Minister of a country. You are a couch potatoe general (and this is not you yourself Johnny) but all you radical people who want to go to war against Islamic people.

They may be radicals, yes, they may be terrorists and murderers of innocent civilians but following a man who listens to 'God' and wants to bomb journalists and supports the Christian right of America is just as radical as these Islamic extremists without as much questioning their (leaders) intention or reasoning.

And the ones who want to question him are called Anti-American and other such name calling, which is disqusting.

However, America and the west isn't truly free is it unless it follows it leaders.

Sorry sport I don't follow anyone, on the other hand the ones who tow the Anti-Americanism line are the lap dogs sheep whatever you wish to call them.

Don't even try to compare me to Islamic Radicals sorry that doesn't fly nice try. Oh so now Christians are Radicals? Well sorry to again burst your bubble you can try to label me a Christian but I'm Catholic so you lose.

I am not a couch potatoe general, supporting the Mission in Afghanistan and Iraq isn't being Gung Ho or a War Monger it's supporting something I choose to believe is right. In the case of Afghanistan I support Canada's Mission there as I am proud of what Canada is doing.

The World is at War against Fundamentalism Islam/Radical Islam. The fact you don't see that is your choice to be blind.
 
Jersay
#53
Isn't Catholic people Christians?

Oh I support the Canadian mission in Afghanistan and even the American mission as well since I have 12 people from my unit there.

It is Iraq where there is a problem.
 
I think not
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Isn't Catholic people Christians?

Oh I support the Canadian mission in Afghanistan and even the American mission as well since I have 12 people from my unit there.

It is Iraq where there is a problem.

Tell me why you support the mission in Afghanistan, if you don't mind.
 
Jersay
#55
Because one

it is directed at terrorism, Iraq wasn't.

t was directed at a known person who is involved in terrorism, Bin Laden,

Saddam Hussein may have supported some forms of terrorism he never supported Bin Laden.

The Canadian mission and the American mission is helping to better the lives of most Afghani's. In Iraq the three sides are so divided that civil-war can break out at any time and where has reconstruction happened, has there been any?

Afghanistan has a democratically elected leader popular with most people while in Iraq it is cut along ethnic lines.

That is why I support the U.S and Canadian mission in Afghanistan.
 

Similar Threads

0
U.N. Human Rights Council
by Curiosity | Mar 26th, 2007
2
United Nations Human Rights COuncil
by Jersay | May 12th, 2006
4
Canada Elected to Human Rights Council
by FiveParadox | May 10th, 2006