It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Votes to Reduce U.S. Dues to U.N.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
My opinion is the only one that matters, everyone else is just alway wrong..


Nope, opinions are usually biased...but they can useful I just think yours wont be.
It seems racist and hateful most of the time..



But the lack of war in europe in the 1930's proves my point well. It didn't take Germany's ability to make war away by "force". The 'diplomacy" allowed Hitler to build a better war machine and "caused" WWII.

Now your makeing an arguement to say that diplomacy is wrong and we should always be at war?
It was our inability to fight a war in 1933 that allowed him to fight.
Also it was versailles that caused WW2.


Just like gulf war I didn't take Saddam's ability to make war away, that took GWII. The "diplomacy" after the Iraq/Iran war only helped build up to GWI.

So you believe in killing thousands for no reason?
You dont believe in people defending themselves?




posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Diplomacy does not nor has it ever "stopped" a war. Diplomacy only buys time for the weak or losing side. The root cause of war can never be addressed with dipolmacy.

Example, diplomacy in Vietnam prolonged the war for decades and cost thousands of lives from the 1950's through 1975 when the US and others withdrew (lost) the war. After that time "peace" came to vietnam because one side "won".

Diplomacy has allowed millions to die in the Sudan over the last 30 years there. Diplomacy allowed the genocide in Rawanda.

The UN argues over diplomacy while millions die. Diplomacy is stupid and a failed "experiment" or war. The UN is a failed "experiment" and has become a den of thieves and rapist.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Diplomacy does not nor has it ever "stopped" a war. Diplomacy only buys time for the weak or losing side. The root cause of war can never be addressed with dipolmacy.

So wait, your saying that you would rather be at war 24/7 365 days a year every year because it only "buys time" you would rather have hundreds of your brothers, sisters, children, fathers, mothers and friends die every day because you think diplomacy doesnt work?


Example, diplomacy in Vietnam prolonged the war for decades and cost thousands of lives from the 1950's through 1975 when the US and others withdrew (lost) the war. After that time "peace" came to vietnam because one side "won".

One example of bad diplomacy, does that condem the whole thing?


Diplomacy has allowed millions to die in the Sudan over the last 30 years there. Diplomacy allowed the genocide in Rawanda.

Would you rather we go in guns blazeing wasteing everyone who holds a gun inocent or not and then "restore" peace?


The UN argues over diplomacy while millions die. Diplomacy is stupid and a failed "experiment" or war. The UN is a failed "experiment" and has become a den of thieves and rapist.

This is yet again your opinion which is extremely biased, can I ask do you like death, war and bloodshed?



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

as posted by devilwasp
This is yet again your opinion which is extremely biased, can I ask do you like death, war and bloodshed?


And this is relevant to the UN how, devilwasp?
Is this a regional question?
Is this pertaining to a few regions?
What?

Seven words: What have they done for AFRICA lately?
"Death". Check.
"War". Check.
"Bloodshed" Check.

All that you mention that the UN is supposed to stop....
Did I miss anything else?
Rape? Check.
Child molestations. Check.
Prostitution rings? Check.
Pilfering of money? Check.
Starvation? Check.
Wants to control the internet worldover? Check.
Wants worldwide population control? Check. [Africa is prime example of this policy]
Give me more time, devilwasp, I can come up with more.


The UN is in soooooooooooo need of a major, major REFORM that if it doesn't come real soon, it will be more than it already is when applied to being relevant.







seekerof

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And this is relevant to the UN how, devilwasp?
Is this a regional question?
Is this pertaining to a few regions?
What?

Seven words: What have they done for AFRICA lately?
"Death". Check.
"War". Check.
"Bloodshed" Check.

All that you mention that the UN is supposed to stop....
Did I miss anything else?
Rape? Check.
Child molestations. Check.
Prostitution rings? Check.
Pilfering of money? Check.
Starvation? Check.
Wants to control the internet worldover? Check.
Wants worldwide population control? Check. [Africa is prime example of this policy]
Give me more time, devilwasp, I can come up with more.


The UN is in soooooooooooo need of a major, major REFORM that if it doesn't come real soon, it will be more than it already is when applied to being relevant.

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Okey seekerof welcome to the arguement..
Firstly we were talking about diplomacy but nice attempt at a tangent.
What have they done in africa?

Mabye this picture might help....its a picture of the aid workers giveing out aid to starveing people but they mabye their liceing the food with poisen or mabye its just a trick and the apache gunships are just 1 mile away and waiting for the order to waste them?
Firstly I said the UN is to help stop them the UN cant do anythine if its members dont want to help, might I remind you that america is a member and if it wants to leave it obviosly doesnt want to help these people.
Also if it wanted to control the world it would use military force, need I remind you that dictatorships MUST use force.
I dont remember them authorising population control, hmm mabye I missed this UN meeting seekerof kindly point me to a draft of this meeting so I may know more.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
This is yet again your opinion which is extremely biased, can I ask do you like death, war and bloodshed?


Yo again beekeeper guy..................example

Diplomacy didn't end WWII in japan. In fact 2 large ugly nukes ended the war. The alternative to the nukes was countless millions of live lost with an invasion. If fought today, the loss would b in the million because "diplomats" would plead for minimal damage during the war.

The best and only war to fight a war is to end it quickly by "Killing" the enemy and removing the capability of fighting back.

As far as making africa "dependent" on the UN for food, is that really a good thing? How long has the UN been emergency feeding the continent? Total dependancy on the UN is the goal of the UN.

Almost "give me all your money" so I can let you have some of it to survive.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Diplomacy didn't end WWII in japan. In fact 2 large ugly nukes ended the war. The alternative to the nukes was countless millions of live lost with an invasion. If fought today, the loss would b in the million because "diplomats" would plead for minimal damage during the war.

Why are you always returning to world war 2?
In some situations diplomacy doesnt work but in otheres it does.
[quot]
The best and only war to fight a war is to end it quickly by "Killing" the enemy and removing the capability of fighting back.

Thats true but diplomacy still has its place there, exchangeing of prisnors, allowing red cross into warzones, etc.
[qutoe]
As far as making africa "dependent" on the UN for food, is that really a good thing? How long has the UN been emergency feeding the continent? Total dependancy on the UN is the goal of the UN.

Well if the members of the UN got off their behinds **that includes the US and the UK then they would be able to let the continent feed itself, also the UN is not the NWO please discontinue this pathetic excuse for an attack.


Almost "give me all your money" so I can let you have some of it to survive.

Yeah the africans PAY the UN to give them the food...yeah you might just be far off on that one..



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
WWII and Vietnam in the end were the two only "decisive" wars that come to mind. All other only fought to and "truce" and the other side was given a chance to get stronger.

The UN is proposing a world tax on the internet and in fact control of the entire internet. UNICEF which was originally started to feed children now promotes abortion instead of feeding the hungry.

There hasn't been a single recent disaster that didn't "require" the US and UK to send troops and money in addition to the UN. Unless the disaster was in the US or the UK then we were on our own.

It comes to this.............the UN talks while humans die. Endless "debate" and "sanctions" while humans die.

If the UN were a corporation the CEO would have been in jail long ago along with the "managment". It not even a joke anymore, its global genocide by diplomacy.............



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
WWII and Vietnam in the end were the two only "decisive" wars that come to mind. All other only fought to and "truce" and the other side was given a chance to get stronger.

Thats your opinion but getting stronger is invetible.


The UN is proposing a world tax on the internet and in fact control of the entire internet. UNICEF which was originally started to feed children now promotes abortion instead of feeding the hungry.
[/qutie]
I think you'll find it was the co founder of the world wide web that wants this....and he is saying we should have liceanses just like a driver on the road...it would help in makeing the internet safer.



There hasn't been a single recent disaster that didn't "require" the US and UK to send troops and money in addition to the UN. Unless the disaster was in the US or the UK then we were on our own.

The US and the UK are big members of the UN and are part of the security council.
If they didnt take part it would be an insult to both nations.


It comes to this.............the UN talks while humans die. Endless "debate" and "sanctions" while humans die.

A human die's every 3 seconds.
The UN are saveing who they can, they cant save every one.
[qutoe]
If the UN were a corporation the CEO would have been in jail long ago along with the "managment". It not even a joke anymore, its global genocide by diplomacy.............

Thats your "expert" opinion yet again, unless your an international attorney then I wont take it as a fact.
It never was a joke to start off with, men and women dieing is not a joke.
Diplomacy is trying to save lives, not on the small scale but on the bigger scale.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I really do appreciate your devotion to a failed money pit. Please feel free to take up the funding privately. I will amke every possible effort to stop all funding for Koffi and his gang of theives



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
I really do appreciate your devotion to a failed money pit. Please feel free to take up the funding privately. I will amke every possible effort to stop all funding for Koffi and his gang of theives

Thank you for that insult but I wont take the bait.....thank you for conceeding this arguement so "graciously".....good day sir.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Don't trip over your feet while trying to defend the "righteous" United Nations, devilwasp, k?



I dont remember them authorising population control, hmm mabye I missed this UN meeting seekerof kindly point me to a draft of this meeting so I may know more.

Try this:
UN + population control
UN + control of the internet

You need anything, let me know, but I think you will find all the reading you want in those two links above.








seekerof



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by DrHoracid
I really do appreciate your devotion to a failed money pit. Please feel free to take up the funding privately. I will amke every possible effort to stop all funding for Koffi and his gang of theives

Thank you for that insult but I wont take the bait.....thank you for conceeding this arguement so "graciously".....good day sir.


My appologies for any "insult"....but how is sending your own money an insult unless you agree the UN is a failed organization?



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Since 1990 when the soviet union collapsed, no one has even approached the control of the U.N. that the USA has. Most of the corruption is coming from right here in the United States, unless perhaps the Nazis secretly control it!!!


The Soviet Union was boycotting the U.N. in the 1960s, and the U.S. sent them against North Korea. I would have liked to see anyone else try that.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Don't trip over your feet while trying to defend the "righteous" United Nations, devilwasp, k?

I wont, every orginisation has its thorns.



UN + population control

So?
Its abortion....still legal in most countries includeing the US and the UK.
This isnt exsactly executeing people stuff.


UN + control of the internet

So because developing countries wanted the internet under UN control that makes the UN bad?


You need anything, let me know, but I think you will find all the reading you want in those two links above.


No I think the weak arguement poses no trouble.





My appologies for any "insult"....but how is sending your own money an insult unless you agree the UN is a failed organization?


The insult was implying that I am wasteing my time and calling the UN a worthless money pit. Nethier are true.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join