Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should the U.S be stop?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
The Belling Of The Cat


Originally posted by Heartagram
I say we should put a stop to this and let the U.N decide what's best.

Wonderful. Good luck with that project.


that was funny.........




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram


Why the hell does the Security Council never change over time?

Seems the ones in power will always be in power.The veto power is quite useful when you're up to mischief.


The security council does change over time it was a rotation of members that does just that. What does not change is it permanent members.

US,UK,France,Russia and China

BTW how the heck did France get on that list?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Why the hell does the Security Council never change over time?

It wouldn't be able to do what its supposed to do if it was constantly changing membership. When the great powers got together after the war they were the ones who had enough influence to decide who goes into the council. So it was set up to be permanent. Even if it expands in the near future the new members aren't going to be given veto power.


Seems the ones in power will always be in power.The veto power is quite useful when you're up to mischief

If a country is doing something universally reviled, then the General Assembly can vote on a resolution that the Security Council cannot veto. Also, since its all politics anyway, if the security council made and passed a ;'The Iraq war is illegal and the US must stop' resolution, and the US vetoed it, that in itself would be a tremendous blow to the US. It didn't.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Arguments Among Friends
The reason the U.S. remains a member of the U.N. is that the leaders of the U.S. consider continued membership to be in the best interests of the U.S.

That's it, basically.


Ok, but what would happen if the UN was actually dissolved?
Would international law as it stands now be lost?
Who would take its place?
Would the US simply 'assume' the position the UN leaves absent because it is 'powerful'?

If that is the alternative I would rather the UN, always.

The UN was created directly after WWII to make sure that those acts never happen again, so in my mind, any nation that wants to dissolve it is content to see such history repeat.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I think the US should stop and lick its wounds and calm itself down, it lost life and its got its , "eye for an eye".
Why should they continue to go after these "terrorists" or "WMD" or what ever the hell they want to go after now?
Why is the loss of life to get revenge for loss of life good?
Its idiotic!
Also, might I add the UN is not a seperate country so in that fact the US cant leave it since they are part of it.
Secondly the US is part of the UN so it should be helping to clean house not destroy it!
Come on, do you want us to go back to pre 1945 diplomatics where a two camp system worked dandy?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
What International Law Is


Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Ok, but what would happen if the UN was actually dissolved?
Would international law as it stands now be lost?
Who would take its place?

Most of the answers to your questions can be inferred by reading about what International Law actually is.

Assertions that international law and the U.N. are somehow inseparable indicates an ignorance of what both are.

The United Nations is not the government of the world, despite the passionate desires of those who have no idea how terrible such a thing would be if it ever became reality.

My advice is to study the matter and let reason guide you where emotion betrays you.

The U.S. has had plenty of chances to “take over the world”, yet we have chosen not to. Still, that doesn't prevent liars and propagandists from insisting otherwise.

I would think our allies in Germany, Italy, Japan, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union (you're welcome for that), Afghanistan and now Iraq should be able to set people straight on how America operates versus how its enemies operate.

It's a shame how many of their children are being allowed to live in ignorance of it, though, because that just assures a repeat of past miseries.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
How can iraq call you an ally, you just killed thousands of thier people.
You call yourselfs peacekeeping, war is not peace.
You call yourselfs liberators, ocupation is not liberation.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Subject Matter Inexpertise


Originally posted by devilwasp
I think the US should stop and lick its wounds and calm itself down, it lost life and its got its , "eye for an eye".

You claim to be "angry at America” as your mood, yet make posts showing an utter lack of understanding of my country and what it is doing.

So you're angry at what you don't understand. Wonderful.

I'll make you a deal: I won't claim to know what's better for Scotland than you do, and you give us Yanks a little credit, and we'll get along fine.

Or feel free to carry on and get all the consideration your statements merit – which is currently very little.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
No Accounting For Reason


Originally posted by devilwasp
How can iraq call you an ally, you just killed thousands of thier people.
You call yourselfs peacekeeping, war is not peace.
You call yourselfs liberators, ocupation is not liberation.

A lot of people said that in Germany at the end of WWII. They attacked our troops and used the same ambush tactics being used in Iraq now.

They were called "werewolves". Nazi holdouts.

Don't forget: the U.S. was the "aggressor" in that war because we "invaded Europe".

A lot of people opposed U.S. involvement in that war, too. They marched in the streets then, as they do now.

And now look at how the people of Europe suffer under oppressive American rule.


Post what you like, but be mindful of what you advocate.

You're telling us a lot more about yourself than America or its goals.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Great point Majic They said the same about Japan too Im sure we just dropped two atomic bombs on them after all.

Germany and Japan really turned into American puppets as well
Like so many claim will happen in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
it makes no difference, the damage has already been done



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
A lot of people said that in Germany at the end of WWII. They attacked our troops and used the same ambush tactics being used in Iraq now.

I dont remember iraq invadeing kuwait again this time....
I dont remeber iraqi ships sinking your merchant sailors...
Or iraq declareing war on you....


They were called "werewolves". Nazi holdouts.
[/qoute]
....SS troops who wouldnt surrender yes I know.


Don't forget: the U.S. was the "aggressor" in that war because we "invaded Europe".

Not really, there was a thing called "the allies" at work.


A lot of people opposed U.S. involvement in that war, too. They marched in the streets then, as they do now.

Yeah, might be because they thought it didnt matter to them.


And now look at how the people of Europe suffer under oppressive American rule.


Yeah, just like america lives under the oppressive rule of the all mighty canadian military

Jking canadians.


Post what you like, but be mindful of what you advocate.

You're telling us a lot more about yourself than America or its goals.

America and its goals are simple; divide and conquer.
My goals are more complex....



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The Simple Life


Originally posted by devilwasp
America and its goals are simple; divide and conquer.
My goals are more complex....

Hopefully more complex than your analysis of America and its goals.

Then again, there's much to be said about keeping things simple.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Hopefully more complex than your analysis of America and its goals.

Then again, there's much to be said about keeping things simple.

.....okey then.......

**starts edgeing away...***



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah, just like america lives under the oppressive rule of the all mighty canadian military

Jking canadians.




Sorry, as I Canadian I found that very amusing. Just as soon as we get some subs that don't sink (except when we want them to), and helicopters that can stay in the air, our plan for world domination can begin.....




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
devilwasp,

Just curious, why are you "angry at America"? Has my country made any hostile moves toward yours that I'm not aware of? Do you believe we aim to conquer Scotland? What is the origin of your anger? I dislike Bush, along with many Americans, but as an American I feel cornered by all the anti-American sentiment these days. Kinda like if you had a drunk dad that pissed you off, but people who weren't in your family started badmouthing your family because of him, would you join them in the bashing? Or would you be offended and defend your family name? I know it's alot more complex than that, it's just a way of looking at things.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Just curious, why are you "angry at America"?

Why?
I am angry at them for many reasons, do you wish to come round and discuss it "o'er ah pint?"



Has my country made any hostile moves toward yours that I'm not aware of?

America makes no direct moves instead relies on makeing moves to put itself into a perfect position to take advantage of any profitable or any situation with an advantage.
Like any good player in the game does.


[quoite]
Do you believe we aim to conquer Scotland? What is the origin of your anger?

America aim to conquer all you can, be it conventionally or economicaly or politicaly.



I dislike Bush, along with many Americans, but as an American I feel cornered by all the anti-American sentiment these days.

Note, blame your key diplomat, the pres...


Kinda like if you had a drunk dad that pissed you off, but people who weren't in your family started badmouthing your family because of him, would you join them in the bashing?

Depends, if he did make a complete and utter ARSE outa himself then probably yes, but not too much.



Or would you be offended and defend your family name? I know it's alot more complex than that, it's just a way of looking at things.

It is but I am afraid its not that easy, I wish it was.
Would make this whole BS that happens everyday go away....ah well...



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
do you wish to come round and discuss it "o'er ah pint?"


I wish. With the exception of a few local micro-breweries, our beer sucks. I'm forced to pay out the @ss for imported Newcastle.



America makes no direct moves instead relies on makeing moves to put itself into a perfect position to take advantage of any profitable or any situation with an advantage.
Like any good player in the game does.


But your country is playing on the same team, at least that's what I thought.




America aim to conquer all you can, be it conventionally or economicaly or politicaly.


Maybe so, but as an ally, your country gains as well, no?



Note, blame your key diplomat, the pres...


Only for a few more years, then we get a new one.





Depends, if he did make a complete and utter ARSE outa himself then probably yes, but not too much.


You would seriously join outsiders in bashing your family name because your dad made an arse of himself? I doubt that, our people are alot alike, if it actually happened I'm willing to bet it would piss you off.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
BTW how the heck did France get on that list?


Could it be that through a large part of the 20th Century France was still a major colonial power "controlling" a large part of the world and also a (don't laugh here
) a nuclear military power?

The UN Security Council Permanent members was based on the victorious powers after WWII, with PRC getting a seat in 1971 I believe replacing the illegitimate ROC.

It's a crime that Japan and Germany aren't on the Security Council as permanent members, being the second and third largest contributors and Germany being the second largest contributor of troops to UN mandated missions. Also I believe India should be a permanent member as well. Let's just hope that they take Annan's team of advisor's recommendation to increase the permanent seats by another 5.

And believe it or not, the UN may be a "toothless tiger" on many occasions and they are wrapped in scandal (oil for food) but the UN is a very important international forum where nations can meet and that does a lot of good humanitarian work for the world, programs such as UNICEF and the World Food Programme are really worthwhile investments and the world is a better place with them.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the world coordinating enough to take the US down.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join