The Middle East

[McTucket]

What is everyone's opinion on whats going on between Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon....

[Sammie]

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v260/sammysmithazt/hhh/th_ec74def7.gifcluster fuck?

[McTucket]

im glad you took your time on that one... lol/.


yeah, pretty much, to say the least.

[Animal]

For the sake of the rest of the world that entire region should just be leveled, Israel included. The majority of the rest of the world seems to have evolved and, for the most part, there is peace. Were it not for this "middle-east" bullshit, the world would be a quieter place. It seems that we need to force darwinism here and do the right thing.

My strategy would be to pull the troops out of this region. Once the troops have been evacuated, full scale bombing of every country in that region would commence. If there still was no peace and quiet I would escalate to nuclear weapons of increasing intensity. At some point, those people would have to know they need to shut up and get along otherwise they will eventually be extinct.

And no, I am not really joking or being sarcastic. The "good" people in that region of the world have had more than enough time to "rise up" against the "evil" people. The defense for those countries is always about the terrorists and how the regular population isn't like that and blah blah blah. If that's the case then why don't the normal citizens do anything? You know what? I dont really give a shit why they don't do anything. I would push the god damned button to blast everything to hell in that region if I could as long as it meant SILENCE for the fucking love of GOD!!

[McTucket]

For the sake of the rest of the world that entire region should just be leveled, Israel included. The majority of the rest of the world seems to have evolved and, for the most part, there is peace. Were it not for this "middle-east" bullshit, the world would be a quieter place. It seems that we need to force darwinism here and do the right thing.

My strategy would be to pull the troops out of this region. Once the troops have been evacuated, full scale bombing of every country in that region would commence. If there still was no peace and quiet I would escalate to nuclear weapons of increasing intensity. At some point, those people would have to know they need to shut up and get along otherwise they will eventually be extinct.

And no, I am not really joking or being sarcastic. The "good" people in that region of the world have had more than enough time to "rise up" against the "evil" people. The defense for those countries is always about the terrorists and how the regular population isn't like that and blah blah blah. If that's the case then why don't the normal citizens do anything? You know what? I dont really give a shit why they don't do anything. I would push the god damned button to blast everything to hell in that region if I could as long as it meant SILENCE for the fucking love of GOD!!

lol... i guess thats one way to look at it, eh?:shock: :lol: :lol: :biggrin: :biggrin: :wink:

[sylverarrow]

I agree with AR but that's not going to happen.

Israel to me is doing the right thing. It did start with a capturing of a Israel soldier. So they took action. I agree to that. Then Hezbollah decided to capture 2 more in Lebanon so Israel took action. From what I understand Hezbollahs are terrorist and Lebanon is housing them so let Israel work their magic. For the USA we should stay out of it the best that we can but we can't turn our backs on them, for the fact Israel is our only ally in the region.

In short I agree with Israel's actions thus far.

[Sammie]

and i thought it was SNK who was the jew


:lol:

[JimbobSS]

I'm with AR on that one. Seems like all those little whiney towel heads ever do is fight, take hostages, behead people, and cause general chaos in that area of the world. Giant glass parking lot is a quick and cost effective solution. plus it would make the rest of the world happy. (stupid jews)

[McTucket]

ignorance is bliss.

[Animal]

ignorance is bliss.

Not sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate please?

[Smashley]

U have to ask yourself... what would jesus do? I think we should turn the other cheek and forgive and forget... thats what jesus would do.

There sure is lot of killing in the name of jesus... the prince of peace.

[Sammie]

personally I think we (humanity) reap what we soe


causality:


action

reaction

momentum

potential




creation from a blank slank



an infinite amount possbilities

choices

action

reaction

momentum

potential

opportunity


the chinese symbol for crisis is the same as the one for opportunity

opportunity

change

resistance

attachment

sufferring:



causality:

action

reaction

momentum

potential




creation from a blank slank



an infinite amount possbilities

choices

action

reaction

momentum

potential

opportunity

change

resistance

attachment

sufferring:





So is the circle

And so is my buzz :cool:

[Hae-Yu]

There sure is lot of killing in the name of jesus... the prince of peace.

They are Jews and Muslims. Where does Jesus come in at?

[Phenix]

They are Jews and Muslims. Where does Jesus come in at?

Jesus was a Jew, so there's that. And don't Muslime believe that Jesus was aprophet( not quire the son of God, but still a great holy man)?

[Smashley]

They are Jews and Muslims. Where does Jesus come in at?

Did I say they were killing in the name of Jesus?

[McTucket]

uhhh.. hey fuck those towelheads... right?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Animal]

uhhh.. hey fuck those towelheads... right?

I joke about the towelhead thing too but I don't mean anything by it. I also make jokes about black people, asians, white trash and, yes, my own people, spics.

All that aside, I don't really give a shit about what you look like or anything else at this point. The only thing I am concerned with is the complete lack of discipline from either side. As I said before, the rest of the world has mostly gotten over the differences in religion and all that other nonsense.

Seriously, if it weren't for the middle east (and some parts of Africa too), I don't think the most powerful nations in the world would spend as much as they do on the military and defense. Yes, we still have threats like North Korea but that is different. We don't have radical Koreans coming over here, or anywhere else, and killing thousands of innocent civilians for no reason at all.

Korea is like a mean drunk at a bar. If handled properly and dealt with correctly, there should be no altercations. Even if there was an altercation, it would be a very small one with little impact.

The Middle East is like a full out bar fight. The fighting has begun and there is little to no chance of dealing with it diplomatically. Everyone in the bar is in on the fight and no one cares to stop. The only way to stop it is to get a neutral 3rd party in to break it up and lay the smack down on EVERYONE.

For me, I am way beyond giving anyone anymore chances. To be honest, I think that most of the world feels the same way. No country seems to be in a rush to go over there and play referee and no one should have to. That has been tried again and again and has always failed.

I don't know what the solution is and I don't pretend to know. What I do know is that I am so sick and tired of hearing about these people and their stupid differences and I'm tired of feeling the economical impact here at home. I would feel terrible if innocent people were killed and I don't want that all. But I feel like the only way to bring stability to that region is with force.

I wish people would post some actual opinions on this and maybe some things they think could be done. I am no politician and I don't give a shit how peace is brought about but I want that region to be stable and I want it NOW!

[McTucket]

you've made some valid points.

i liked the analogy. i thought it fit somewhat decently.

my question is this.


what the heck can we do? where do we go from here?


the only thing i can think of is to strengthen the UN. i think the UN is the key, but noone takes it seriously enough for them to do any good. it was a good idea, kind of like the league of nations back in the day... but its worthless.

the permanent members of the un security council is who... france russia us england and china or some shit?

the UN needs alot of work, and i seriously dont know what do suggest to fix it, but i think thats the key to peace in the world.

[Smashley]

Trying to get those tards to quit fighting is like trying to get the sun not to rise.

[Hae-Yu]

The only solution is to let them duke it out and stay out of it. This is 2 civilizations with irreconcilable differences. Hamstringing Israel with UN resolutions while allowing Palestinians and Hezbollah to use terror day in day out isn't going to stop anything.

We can make up for any economic turmoil by selling them arms. That area is not economically important to us because Palestine, Israel,and Lebanon have little or no oil. Israelis did invent ICQ and the new Pentium M and Core 2 chips though and I work on some Israeli-built equipment here, so they contribute intellectually.

It's just like Europe. Let them kill each other until they are tired of killing each other. Europe did it for a thousand years and it took WW2 to finally just kick the living crap out of everyone, leaving behind a starving wasteland. Now nutless pansies run everything. We gained economic preeminence because every other civilized country except Sweden and Switzerland had their infrastructure decimated. Same thing here, we send in the corporations and carpetbaggers after the dust settles.

The Balkans is the only area in Europe that still need resolving. Anyone who thinks the Balkans are over just because NATO peacekeepers are there is sadly mistaken.

[MonkofDoom]

Speaking of Korea...this was in our paper today...

Seoul, South Korea — North Korea's defense minister said his country will strengthen its nuclear weapons program in response to U.N. sanctions and American hostility, the North's official news agency reported Wednesday. North Korea will upgrade its arsenal “in every way by employing all possible means and methods” and will greet any aggressors with “all-out do-or-die resistance and unprecedented devastating strikes,” Kim Il Chol said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. Kim said such a move is necessary to counter the United States' “extremely hostile act and the irresponsibility of the U.N. Security Council.”


On the middle east....I tend to think nuclear carpet bombing may not be such a bad idea.

[Hae-Yu]

the only thing i can think of is to strengthen the UN. i think the UN is the key, but noone takes it seriously enough for them to do any good.
The reason why no one takes the UN seriously is severalfold

#1 - why do countries like Zaire, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Iraq, Syria, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Cambodia, N. Korea, and all the other fuckups have a say in anything? Until those countries are (largely) run by the rule of law and have achieved a somewhat steady society, who cares what THEIR GOVERNMENT'S position is? You aren't denying the people of those countries any say because they don't have a say anyway. I'm not saying every country has to be a bastion of liberal democracy. The USSR would qualify in my book. Russia as it is would probably be borderline.

#2 - because you allow the fuckups (who are a big chunk of the world) to have a say, you have fucked up rulings like the Israel crap. Hamas kills a schoolbus and Israel retaliates by assassinating Hamas (terrorist) leaders. The UN criticizes Israel. Real fucking great. It IS a joke.

#3 - It's only significant achievements are when the US was pushing them to act. If the US didn't actively lobby for peacekeepers in a region, no one bothered to send any. The peacekeepers are a joke too. If they start taking fire, they retreat. WTF? Everybody KNOWS they are a joke, so they put a little pressure on them, kill a couple, then the peacekeepers are pulled out. That's REAL committment. The only thing peacekeeping is "good" for is keeping the local brothels and sex-trade healthy.

#4 - about the only thing they are good for is supervising elections. Africa is a clear demonstration that they can't handle even relief shipments, disease, etc. Who's leading world AIDS relief for Africa? Bono. What's the UN doing? I don't know. Annan announced that was his great mission in 2001. What else? I haven't heard a damn thing since. The WHO seemed like it did OK with the flue scare a couple of years ago, but who knows. Bono almost singlehandedly lobbied for (and laregely acheived) debt forgiveness for Africa.

#5 - Since they are staffed and run by those with 3rd world upbringing, corruption is rampant. It's a monetary blackhole with no accountability. It doesn't matter that many were taught in Western universities. Their environment and their outlook is going to be that of "every man for himself."

#6 - The 3rd World BS is why Cuba, N. Korea, Myanmar, and other jokes were elected to the Human Rights Council.

#6 - Kofi Annan? WTF Why are we electing 3rd world turds to be secretary general? Because the 3rd world has a say. The only reason we were in Somalia is because we were helping Boutros-Gali's boys. Even the ex-Nazi Waldheim didn't have as much crap on him as these jokers did.

You can cry all day that 3rd world countries deserve a say, but until they are stable and governed by law that applies equally, they aren't represented anyway. Their corrupt governments choose who represents them and the policies to pursue. As long as that's the case, the UN doesn't have a chance. The bleeding vaginas will say I'm acting exclusionary (duh), but all they argue for is the right of corrupt dictatorships to steer the UN's course.

[Triple_6]

So corruption is only a third world problem now? LOL. Ultra, your posts are pure comedy gold. North Korea on the Human Rights Council? Do some more research please. The fact is, the track record of UN peacekeeping is mixed because it's an extremely difficult, complicated, and expensive job. The UN is smart enough to realize that both sides in a dispute think they are in the right and the other the wrong, so it tries to remain as completely neutral as possible. If it took sides in a conflict like you suggest by actively fighting then it would lose its legitimacy and warring parties would be suspicious of its real intentions when a peacekeeping proposal was set up. I have done some research on many peacekeeping missions and there is a clause where the peacekeepers can return fire if they're attacked, but of course they will try to withdraw and get their people out of harm's way while doing so.

The UN is only as powerful as its member states want it to be, and right now and throughout its history, its member states have wanted to retain too much of their "national sovereignty" and in doing so have ignored resolutions, refused to pay their dues to keep the UN going strong, etc. etc. If the UN had more support then things would probably be much better. It took World War 2 and its horror to set up the UN, and it may take World War 3 to give it the strength it needs to bring about real world peace. You are only critical of it because of your foolish Libertarian beliefs that all things government are bad and corrupt. What's that? Enron? I honestly can not believe that you haven't intellectually grown at all from years and years ago. But whatever. Type your ten page reply with all your nonsense to go with it and I may feel like responding in a few weeks when I've built up enough motivation to deal with you again.

[Sammie]

HA

kitty's got claws

seriously thu, sometimes you suprise me ultra

and triple you suprise me as well with the global government loyalty which is basically what the UN is.

I myself am leary of both nationalism as well as globalization.

The IMF, the World Bank, the UN, The World Court, Free Trade...capitalization in general is system prime grounds for corruption, manipulation, greed, inequality and conflicting interests.


I fear for humanity.

We will cut off our noses to spite our face.

[McTucket]

the UN is a great idea...

but everyone involved has their own agenda, and i think perhaps unless something drastic happens, the UN will continue to be worthless.

[Sammie]

the UN is a great idea...

but everyone involved has their own agenda, and i think perhaps unless something drastic happens, the UN will continue to be worthless.

I think it will prove very worthy, but perhaps not the way it's intended to be. The results could be rather grim.

[McTucket]

just like the league of nations was? i think ultimately the UN will follow the same path.

[Hae-Yu]

Type your ten page reply
Pathetic MTV generation attention span.
PowerPoint Presentation format appropriate.
I'll post in 5-word bullets.
Complex situation reduced to sound bites.
Convenience over understanding.

------------------------------------
Slide 2

Apology
I mistook the PRK for the RoK.
What about Cuba?
Your Composition Fallacy doesn't negate argument.
Algeria, Cameroon, Mali, Morocco, Tunisia?
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Russia, Azerbaijan?
Still valid Human Rights Council?

------
Slide 3
If it took sides in a conflict like you suggest by actively fighting then it would lose its legitimacy and warring parties would be suspicious of its real intentions when a peacekeeping proposal was set up.
Non-sequitur fallacy
Never said peacekeepers take sides.
Defensive actions don't equal siding.
Shouldn't "orderly retreat" when hot.
"Guarding" refugee camps, but retreat.
Refugees left for dead (Rwanda).
Using scarecrows to fight hyenas.

------------------
Slide 4:

Fiction: US root of UN failure
Reality: US root of UN's successes
191 other member countries
Tired, false arguments: blame US
National sovereignty a problem?
Surprised nations act in self-interest?
Government's job: Represent their people.
Why is that wrong?
Need people-based system built.
Not dream-based system.

--------------------------
Slide 5:Main Problem

UN needs entrance requirement.
Dictatorships too much say.
Legitimate nations: more acceptable resolutions.
No accountability and resists reform.
Too many duplicate agencies.

------------------------
Slide 5: Capitalist

Never defended Enron.
Capitalist but not pro-business.
Do you know the difference?
Believe in government-economy separation.
Limit interaction.
World Bank and IMF not capitalist.
Governments manipulating economies: not capitalist
Agencies caused 90's Asian Meltdown

------------------------------
Slide 6: Ad Hominem Fallacy

I honestly can not believe that you haven't intellectually grown at all from years and years ago
How can you justify that?
Me
Working out my own path.
Hardly a strict libertarian.
My opinion based on UN history.
Your opinion based on idealized dreams.
Fact vs Fiction.
Reality: bad people always exist.

[Thunder]

The UN is a complete waste of time. They have zero back bone.

Blue Helmets = Yellow backs and white flags.

[Sammie]

------------------------
Slide 5: Capitalist

Never defended Enron.
Capitalist but not pro-business.
Do you know the difference?
Believe in government-economy separation.
Limit interaction.
World Bank and IMF not capitalist.
Governments manipulating economies: not capitalist
Agencies caused 90's Asian Meltdown
.

Double talk

The IMF and World Bank are definately capitalist. It's their primary agenda to spread capitalism, which they refer to as " a sound economy"
They are not non profit organizations.
They charge interest.
They print their own currency for god sake's.........World Currency!!

They put themselves out there as an organization that promotes economic stablity. But enforce regulations for membership and bail outs that promote capitalist ideologies, such as privitization that often leads to disasterous results for the average citizen.
See Bolivia.
The IMF, The World Bank and the WTO present themselves as saviors but they are actually enslavers. They show up to protect corporate profits. They protect those who already have wealth, not those who have nothing.
Their practices may lead to new economic growth for a few but almost always lead to growing proverty for the many.
But hey, that's how capitialism works.
Maybe all that wealth will "trickle down" to the masses. lol



Business without government interference:
No regulation is exactly what a pure capitalist wants.


You are a capitalist, you just dont like the results of what that means.

Cant have your cake and eat it too



*That's all I wanted to add

[thegreaterbad]

the UN is a great idea...

but everyone involved has their own agenda, and i think perhaps unless something drastic happens, the UN will continue to be worthless.


This has been the only time I have wanted to slap you upside the head...The US pretty set the stones for the U.N.; Pretty much helps pay for half of what the U.N. does, and how does the U.N. help us out??

They send their ragtag inspectors in to check out nuclear programs like this:

Hello?? Iraq?? Iran?? N Korea??? This is the U.N. inspection team, we are coming to your house in 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 14 hrs, and 17 mins. Even though you know we are coming please don't hide your weapons and/or evil intentions. We told you when we are coming, so play fair and dont move anything.

And fuck this 3rd world country U.N. leader BS, They cant even take care of their own fucking country with countries aiding them, and they want to attend to the world's problems!!

Why do you bother with the splinter in youre brother's eye when you have a plank in youre own?
The U.N. which is a spawn of the League of Nations, which correct me if I am wrong, Woodrow Wilson helped create ijn 1919 was set in place to keep another WW from happening...
But we all know that worked sooooo well:rolleyes:

The U.N. is simply there to hinder the United States and any other "good"(i use this word loosely) country from doing the right(or better evil) thing.

The U.N. is the annoying babysitter who looks up from her seventeen magazine or the phone call with her BF and intervenes when you are actually doing something constructive

[Triple_6]

Don't bother, Sammie. Ultra loves to lambaste people for their "idealized dreams" but fails to realize his own notions of capitalism have never existed on this Earth and never will except in the pages of science fiction. A common theme from someone who believes a Heaven awaits them where eternal bliss and happiness will be theirs forever and ever, lol. Get real, you hypocrite. Your own beliefs hinge on faith just as much as mine, if not moreso. And yeah, I went there to drive home my point. And BTW, I have watched maybe a day of MTV in my entire life. Try again. My point about the ten pages is that you don't win arguments by logically outwitting your opponent but by sheer endurance alone. People just don't care enough to reply to your lengthy diatribes every single day and let it go, which I'm sure only solidifies your own beliefs because you think you won. *rolls eyes*

You choose to point out the UN's worst blunders while ignoring the good it's done and that shows you have an agenda. When you attack the UN you are saying one of two things: A) there is a better international forum for countries to air out their grievances, deliver aid, arbitrate disputes and conflicts, monitor elections, insure treaties are being followed from a completely neutral standpoint, etc. or B) such a forum is not needed. If it's A then you need to state a reasonable substitution, and if it's B then I don't know what to tell you except to read a book on international affairs and please stfu because grownups are talking.

TGB, you know I love you, brother, but I think if you read a biography on Kofi Annan you would see that he is a highly educated man who is just as qualified to run the UN as any person born in a first world country. I also urge you to think about why the UN would bother using someone from a third world country instead of say the United States or France. It's because countries such as ours generally have agendas that the rest of the world is suspicious of. Can you imagine if John Bolton, our UN ambassador, was head of the UN? The United Nations would lose every ounce of credibility it had because no one would trust it as an organization and would automatically assume it was just another tool of the Yankees to spread their imperial domination, or more recently of crusading against Islam. It wouldn't work.

[Hae-Yu]

please stfu because grownups are talking.
you don't win arguments by logically outwitting your opponent
Before you think you've suddenly grown a brain, let's analyze this argument.

I addressed problems: a) peacekeepers are scarecrows. b) open membership is corrupt c) no accountability. I proposed a) peacekeepers be given teeth. b) entrance requirement. c) monetary accountability. Apparently you don't think the UN needs reform because you only make excuses for their failings. You think the outside nations need to be reformed instead. Which do you think is more achievable? Who's talking science fiction? Yeah, I’m outwitted!

Look at your response on peacekeeping. "They can return fire if attacked," then you blame member states for weakening them and provide excuses. Since they don't engage, that authority is useless. Let’s explain this in easy terms:
A soldier’s primary duty is not to defend himself, but to defend others.
The soldier is supposed to put themselves in harm’s way so the refugees/ UN personnel/ aid workers whoever aren’t harmed. THEY HAVE THE GUNS. If soldiers avoid conflict, they already failed. If their only goal is to protect themselves, why are they there? The implementation is screwed up. Look at it: what is the mission of a peacekeeper? How do I accomplish my goal? If they aren’t going to defend the helpless, the UN should send bureaucrats.

Summing up your argument, you say, "The UN would be a wonderful place if all the nations would just get along and surrender sovereignty." But if all the nations got along, we wouldn't need a UN. Since its purpose is mitigating that screwed-upness, wouldn't it be logical for the UN to have a compensating structure? It doesn't, therefore the problem lies in the UN.

You choose to point out the UN's worst blunders while ignoring the good it's done and that shows you have an agenda.
Agenda? Yes. UN reform. I never said abolish it. You consider criticism an "attack." Ignoring its blunders means you accept its structure as satisfactory.
When you attack the UN you are saying one of two things:
I never bombed them or shot a representative. Who attacked them? Criticism is an attack? Passively accepting failure and blaming situational reality is intelligent?
A) there is a better international forum for countries to air out their grievances, deliver aid, arbitrate disputes and conflicts, monitor elections, insure treaties are being followed from a completely neutral standpoint, etc. or B) such a forum is not needed.
False dilemma. There are other options, such as REFORM.

Kofi Annan - the reason why he was selected instead of a 1st worlder is because the Secretariat rotates continents. 2 terms from each continent. He took Ghali's 2nd term. Degrees: Bush went to Yale. What does paper have to do with anything?

Kitty never had claws. Just an annoying piss smell.

[Smashley]

I'm about 99% positive that neither of you know what u r talking about.

[McTucket]

A soldier’s primary duty is not to defend himself, but to defend others.


negative homie. if that were the case, then every single infantryman would have received the medal of honor. they would all be dead since they didnt bother to grab cover and concealment before they engaged the enemy.

sorry, you're treading in my territory. my two basic responsibilities are to accomplish my mission and attending to the welfare of my soldiers. so to sum it up, a soldier defends himself AND his comrades while completing the mission at hand.



also, gb.... what exactly didnt you agree with me on? you did not make sense. i was merely stating that the UN was worthless because all countries know the UN sucks... they use the UN for their own agenda (see oil for food programs). i was stating that the UN was a good idea. i think it would work if everyone took it seriously, but i think it would take a major catastrophic event that involves EVERYONE for the UN to start clicking on all cylinders.

[Hae-Yu]

A soldier’s primary duty is not to defend himself, but to defend others.
OK, let's rephrase that.
Evaluate your mission:
You are supposed to protect a refugee camp.
Who are you protecting it from?
How are you to protect it?

You KNOW there are armed parties in the area.
If a place needs protection, that implies there will be those seeking to harm those under your guardianship.

"Grab cover and concealment" does not imply hopping on a truck out of the area and loading onto a plane.
"a soldier defends himself AND his comrades while completing the mission at hand."
Has 2 parts to it. Peacekeepers only accomplish the first part without accomplishing the mission.

Are you able to accomplish your mission if, at the first sign of armed parties, you retreat? Who are you guarding it from, if not armed parties? Bureaucrats? The Press? They are armed scarecrows. Much of the time, they can only fire if directly fired upon. If someone walks into that camp these "peacekeepers" supposedly "protect" and starts shooting civilians, but does not shoot at UN personnel, the UN personnel will not engage. How can you "protect" without engaging those harming those under your "protection." That is absolutely ridiculous. And it's stupid of Triple to defend that idiocy.

Why send armed forces into a region if they aren't going to do anything except protect themselves? They serve no purpose. You're a peacekeeper, so you aren't on offensive operations. That makes sense. But defensive (protective) operations implies possible engagement.

[Triple_6]

Disclaimer: This entire post is meant for Hae Yu. I'm not insulting anybody but him.

First of all, lol at me suddenly growing a brain. You seem upset? You don't know anything about me or what I've achieved academically so I suggest you keep your mouth shut or we can take this a step further by airing out our differences in person. Florida is a short drive from Atlanta, jack ass. Think about that the next time you think you can insult someone safely behind your little computer monitor. Judging by pictures I've seen you're a little ugly, nerdy bitch anyway. No wonder your wife left you.

And please don't put something in quotations and pawn it off as something I said when I didn't. I will attribute your mistaken summary of my argument to your poor reading comprehension. For the UN or any international institute to be its most effective, nations WOULD have to give up some of their sovereignty, but I did not say everyone would have to get along, and I did not say the UN needed no reforms. I was just speculating towards the future. But in fact, I couldn't be more supportive of the notion the UN could use some reform. We would probably disagree about what reforms were needed and how, but I definitely believe there is room for improvement. I believe our own government could use a little too while we're at it. Nothing is perfect.

I also don't ignore the UN's blunders like you seem to think, but I accept them, because I realize mistakes happen and all one can do is learn from them. Especially when one realizes how terribly difficult peacekeeping is, from a logistical standpoint, to militarily fulfilling your objectives while staying true to your mission of remaining neutral, to organizing your force consisting of many different nationalities, speaking many different languages, with many different cultural norms. You on the other hand want to ignore how complicated it is, point to some of its worst failures, and then say all the UN is good for is "monitoring elections." Good show, but even in its current form, it's capable of much more good than that and throughout its short history has proven it.

The entire notion of peacekeeping is that BOTH sides want peace. The UN can't force peace on any region because that goes beyond its authority. It would cease to be neutral at that point and none of the member states would agree with putting their troops in harm's way for a crisis that doesn't directly concern them. It can try to supply humanitarian aid to civilians caught in the crossfire of a conflict but only when two warring parties agree to peace, can peacekeeping succeed. That's because the will for peace is already there and the UN force acts as a buffer zone between two hostile and suspicious peoples. I think the problem of a lot of people is they don't understand the definition of peaceKEEPING.

As far as my notion that countries would have to give up some sovereignty for the UN or any type of global institution to bring peace and stability to the world. That's pure conjecture on my part, but I'll explain why I think that, since once again Ultra takes a single statement out of context, responds with a lengthy diatribe, then wonders why people get so sick of arguing with him. I DON'T think it's needed for the current UN to be effective, let me make that absolutely clear as you seem to be stuck on it, but sometime down the road it may be something humanity has to deal with.

It all comes down to the definition of government. Political Science 101. When you agree to a government being formed you are agreeing to give up freedom for order. Some countries give up more freedom for order than others. The US has traditionally favored much more freedom over order and that is why we are such a unique country historically. I am basically taking the same argument one applies to regional affairs and giving it a global scope. For the world to truly know peace it's necessary for a higher authority to come into being and apply that order at the loss of some national sovereignty, ie freedom.

Most people don't agree with the loss of some sovereignty because nationalism is a powerful force and is instilled in us at the earliest ages (such as pledging allegiance to the flag everyday at school). The fact is though if you were born in Uzbekistan you would be a patriotic Uzbekistani. You had no say in the geographical placement of yourself or your family when you were born so you should hold no exceptionally high regard for your own country over others. Again I know this is hard for a lot of people to accept but it's what I believe and fundamentally is true if you look at all the patriotism people have for their own countries and lack thereof for others. It doesn't mean you shouldn't defend your country against hostile neighbors or ideologies that are oppressive and evil. If an army landed trying to bestow an Islamic Republic on the US I'd be the first person to pick up a gun.

Like I said though, on that part, I was just speculating and you blew it up. The current UN could use some reforms but the infrastructure is already there to do wonderful things, it just lacks the resources and political will to get them done. You can see in this thread why. No one likes taking orders from someone from another country, especially a third world one. And people love to point to the UN's mistakes and completely ignore its successes.

The real idiocy is thinking that people would go even further and fight and die for a country they couldn't find on a map and its people all to bring peace to an area they've never known. That's basically what you're saying needs to happen for peacekeeping to be successful because you're saying the peacekeepers should lay down their lives and die to protect its people. That's unrealistic. Look at the political fallout after Somalia. We lost a few soldiers and got the fuck out of there. Iraq is another glaring example but only time will tell how that ends up. In short, I really think you need to do more research because your beliefs seem really misguided. Try looking at the good instead of wholly the bad and think about the wider consequences of your ideas in the real world. Fucker.

[thegreaterbad]

Whooo Calm the FUCK DOWN!

This is a forum, not a fuckin Rip someone to pieces fest, There is no need for that kind of trashtalking to be going on here.

Ok so you want to be childish and throw out the fight in person card, go ahead, but for God's Sake, dont start throwing someones spouse into your childish arguments.
Trade phone numbers and email address'es if you want to ridicule each other, but this is not the place for it. I come here to listen, add my 2 cents and learn, not to read about 2 grown adults resorting to immature insults.

I am throwing both of you into this because I havent had time to read the whole discussion, but DROP this PERSONAL BASHING SHIT NOW! People come here to debate, not insult each other and especially the persons family or hardships, grow the fuck up and control yourself please. This might need to be moved to the private channel for discussion :(

[McTucket]

well, i have read this whole argument, and i have to say... trip, you are out of line. we all know how passionate you are, we know what you stand for and what you believe in, but you went too far. wife-bashing IS NOT included in the debate. wtf. you're old enough to realize there are limits. trust me, i FUCKING understand where you are coming from. you want ultra to understand where the FUCK you are coming from, but holy shit. people KILL other people for comments like that.


JUST DEBATE THE TOPIC AT HAND. NOTHING ELSE. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?

i dont want to, but i will come down to newport news and
atl and florida to fucking regulate.


now listen.

however you take this, i dont care.

just talk about the topic at hand. dont personalize this. you two have never met eachother and probably never will. chill out. i know how passionate and how heated you guys get! ive said worse to sammie! but its not worth it. we are more mature than this!

i dont know how many different ways i can put this.

i know trip didnt mean it, so thats why im not worried. he was just caught up in the moment.


just talk shit about the UN and what not. thats it.

God knows theres more than enough bullSHIT going on there...


if you guys want to bring shit to me because you're bitter i called you out, just ask me for my address lol im not scurred....


good luck .

[Triple_6]

Man, fuck him. What does he do? Nothing. I haven't seen him in one game for damn near 10 years. I led the GNG division in GW, played the hell out of some CS with you guys, took a couple of guys to another RTS I played after Starcraft. Has anyone seen Hae Yu in a game? Because I sure the fuck haven't. All I do is see him post on these boards and flash his little epeen so everybody can know how smart he thinks he is. A waste of space, IMO. I'm not apologizing for nothing. If he can't handle insults then he shouldn't throw them.

[Smashley]

First of all GNG isn't this silly gaming group. D, or HaYue or whatever, is an original GNG. When I say that I mean the utmost respect. He is one of the peeps that was playing Dire Staits with me before u were even a tought in GNG. And he was in GNG before I was even a thought, so show some respect. D helped start this group and was and has been a constant factor. I give him his prop as far as GNG goes. He, along with Bill, have been here through the entire life of video game GNG and well before. Chill...

PS - Im in florida so next time u feel like wearing an asswhoppin just drive on down... Ill be glad to hand it to ya.. partna.

[Smashley]

This whole thing should illustrate the difficulty facing the UN. It's extremely hard to keep peace on this forum, yet you 2 want to argue how the UN should handle their busniness. I imagine that keeping peace among waring nations is a very very difficult job. Would either of u want to step up and lead the process or would u rather argue on this board. I thought so. It's not an easy job. Stick to what u know and leave each other alone... neither of u know wtf u r talking about.

World peace... lets ask the sun not to rise next.

[Sammie]

Actually he has done a hell of a lot for this community

Way above the call of duty

Let's keep the personal insults to a minimum

Not only is it unnecessary but it weakens your argument on the whole

[thegreaterbad]

Ohhh yeah FAWK you sammie, I hope you get cat-scratch fever, turn into a Independent Republican, and join the Army on a whim....

[Sammie]

haha! http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v260/sammysmithazt/hhh/th_6c370feb.gif


my dad keeps saying that as i make more money i will become more conservative and join the republican agenda.

6 figure income and still unshaken.

I will never join the dark side!!! :lol:

[McTucket]

hey.. the military makes 3 figure incomes as well!

[Sammie]

hey.. the military makes 3 figure incomes as well!

and?? your point is ................?

[McTucket]

100$ sucks.

[Sammie]

Capt. Scat, you confuse me :confused:

[zero]

Capt. Scat, you confuse me :confused:
I think you confused yourself Sammie :wink: , I think you meant 6 firgure income.

[Sammie]

I think you confused yourself Sammie , I think you meant 6 firgure income.



ha! I did :p

Sorry no coffee yet

:lol:

*blush

[Smashley]

3 figures hahahahaha

[Hae-Yu]

Trip see personal.

[Triple_6]

I got it. I see nothing else to add here. I got my salvo in, you got yours.

[Hae-Yu]

Ok. Well I had a long (non-insulting topical) reply to your last post and I erased it after I saw this last one. I got the insults out in the PM.

Anyway there's one point that begs pointing out.
The real idiocy is thinking that people would go even further and fight and die for a country they couldn't find on a map and its people all to bring peace to an area they've never known.
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Korea, Columbia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Guatamala, Haiti, Cuba, Somalia, Angola, Liberia, Tunisia, etc.

9/10 of Americans can't find them on a map, but most have had a relative or ancestor die in one of these places or another.

[McTucket]

lol. 8 posts about nothing relevant.

[Triple_6]

I already addressed Somalia. It's the same with each of the countries you've listed. None of them were popular wars or interventions. An administration can build up enough PR to get the troops there, but once American soldiers start coming home in coffins, the situation shifts. Nobody wants to risk the political fallout of losing lives on humanitarian missions. The Republicans will probably suffer in the upcoming elections because of Iraq. If they don't it's because Karl Rove once again put ridiculous agendas on the forefront like amendments to ban butt sex and every other thing no respectable, God-fearing American could tolerate. If it doesn't effect our national security, or have an inkling to do with US interests abroad, then it's not worth going in for apparently.

BTW, Kofi Annan was re-elected to a second term for a position which following tradition should have gone to Asia. If you can point to a specific UN resolution that says the secretary-general's position HAS to rotate continentally every election, I'd be grateful because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. Any nominee for the generalship can be vetoed by a member of the Security Council which means you will most likely never see an American, or a Russian, or a Chinese as a secretary general for the exact reasons I specified in the other post to TGB.

[Hae-Yu]

I already addressed Somalia.
Not quite. Somalia was viewed as a failure because the Republicans were looking to shoot off at Clinton. Bush 1 took us in there and Clinton was doing nothing more than continuing that policy. The raid was a success. They accomplished their mission. The Republican rabble rousers made it into a failure simply because they wanted to tarnish Clinton. The right-wing, anti-Clinton rabble obliged.

I see Iraq the same way. Democrat politicians fed into anti-Bush hate and stirred up the leftist rabble. Some people like Sammie have held a consistent view, but I've watched plenty of others shift stances as their party did. It's all dirty politics and both sides are guilty.

In any case, whether or not it was popular, troops were sent to far away lands they never knew existed and did their job. British troops did it for 500 years along with others. If countries vote to send peacekeepers in, they should dedicate forces, supplies, or some other version of "put up or shut up." They can't vote to send troops to country X then look to America, Pakistan, Fiji, or India to always do the grunt labor.

One thing I wanted to address was your paragraph on Government 101. The UN is not a government and that was never it's intention. It is a body for arbitration/ mediation and to deliberate/ resolve international problems. You can't apply governmental principles to it. I think that's where many go wrong and so it's aims become confused.

The position rotates according to tradition, not resolution. Most SG's serve second terms but Ghali was vetoed by the US. That created a hiccup in the rotation.

[Maull]

we need a global disaster. invading ET's, or threat of total annihilation would no doubt unify us as HUMANS. all this fucking shit is petty. war, religion, and race mean absolutely nothing on the universal scale. sit back and contemplate that and you, like me, might adopt the attitude of quiet indifference. im just trying to survive long enough to see if i can get the fuck off this miserable little planet.

[thegreaterbad]

you might think its petty shit, but go ask the families and battle buddies of all the slain soldiers how they feel that their loved one or friend since Basic Training is now dead because they are fighting to defend someones freedom that is all so petty.
Think a little longer nexttime before you call something that has cost so many young soldiers lives and will continue to take them petty. I dont think that was a good choice of words, but its your opinion:neutral:

[Hae-Yu]

Maull that underplays those differences. Even if we all were united for a short while, it wouldn't last. Except maybe under the iron hand of an alien overlord.

Even if we all believed in the same God, the same economic style, were the same race, and so on, there would always be bad guys. There will be some guy like Osama and the Islamists who take hardline views and want to impose it on others. They will attract others and sooner or later you'd have divided regions. Views diverge over time. All the major religions have denominations/ sects, even though each started from a common point. You'll have guys like Saddam, Sese Seko, Idi Amin, Mugabe, etc who are ruthless SOBs desiring power. Look at N. Korea's evolution - from Communist opposition to the Japanese into a dynasty.

There will always be groups with differences. Haves/ have-nots, people who live in one area vs people who live in another and so on, banking vs rural, urban vs rural, etc. Abortion is a divisive issue cutting across all kinds of lines and it is still illegal in most countries.

[McTucket]

i think that its very... mainstream to choose the popular (and wrong) side.

[Maull]

GB. i think you misinterpretted. i was rushing to get my thought out before lunch ended. no, of course the lives of the slain soldiers are not something that can be ended on a whim or flight of fancy. my point (and this is the important part) is that the REASONS for the soldiers' fighting are petty.

you hurt my feelings. so.....no nookie for you!

[thegreaterbad]

My apologies my dear Maul, I get all ansty in my pants when I see debates, so even if I think I smell blood, I go crazy. I did misinterparate(sp) you now that I look at it. But I had to be sure, there are some ignorant people in this world that wouldve meant exactly what I thought you said.

[Triple_6]

One thing I wanted to address was your paragraph on Government 101. The UN is not a government and that was never it's intention. It is a body for arbitration/ mediation and to deliberate/ resolve international problems. You can't apply governmental principles to it. I think that's where many go wrong and so it's aims become confused.

I already know that, but as I've tried to stress, I'm just being speculative. The UN charter states that it's primary purpose is to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", to promote social progress, and to guard against loss of fundamental human rights. You yourself have stated you don't believe the UN has been effective in this regard. I was saying currently, and throughout its history, I believe it has been effective and that it's learning from its mistakes. BUT, for any international organization to truly succeed in limiting war and insuring human rights, there must be a higher power that comes into play that dwarfs individual national sovereignty. Which means countries would be giving up some of their freedom for international order, which is a similar bargain we have all unwittingly made as citizens of the United States, or any country in the world for that matter.

I'm not saying it would end wars or anything like that, because as you say there will always be differences, but it would probably shorten their durations and scope.

[Sammie]

keeping people divided and fighting all the time is a good tactic for maintaining power

If much of the chaos isnt actually instigated, it certainly could be viewed as convenient.

[McTucket]

whahhh...