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.

 

Chavez wants United Nations out of New York

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes DW, you can shake your head, but its me that has to shake the wallet for men that do nothing but bend over backwards to oppose my country.

Yeah and its me that has to shake my head at the BRITISH dead and not the american dead because we take up your spaces on the missions, also WE lose men while YOUR country vetos.
Just because they disagree with you DOESNT mean they oppose you, if that was so then why are they helping you?



I cant seem to find any law that says one member due to its status has to pay more than the rest.

Funny you wont find a law because there is no world government.
Also you'll find that you pay more because your bigger, your willing and the fact that you can afford it...mabye you'd like it if britain paid instead?
Hell yeah lets swap places, you can lose the same percentage of troops on military operations.
Frankly I get annoyed at this bickering, this US and THEM attacking from BOTH sides.
So you go ahead, you mock the UN, you insutl the UN, you complain ABOUT the UN, but frankly when it comes to people dieing I see 0 complaints from YOUR or from MY country.




posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathabeanz

Chavez has been challenging the U.S. in several different areas and it seems he's trying to use the U.N. for leverage. These things are never good situations, economically or politicaly



Ok...I'm good with that. Let's agree that Venezuala gets the UN heaquarters. Quick...send Annan an email. It's a great idea cuz when its winter here, it's SUMMER there!!! WooHoo!

Now all those happy heads of state can get good tans and enjoy the wonderful amenities of S. America December thru February...that's just perfect.

When I think of the UN, I think of Rwanda and Sudan and how timely they were at stopping genocide...not.

(we're not talking about those problems anymore, though...shhhh)

I also think of the 'Oil for Food' scandal and Annans' son, (not to mention Canada's own Maurice Strong's involvement. (shhh)

There's only one time it was good for anything...Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Oh yeah...I forgot...I liked Nikita Kruzchev smacking his shoe on the podium too.

We need to rethink this Leaque of Nations idea, IMHO...a good start would be a new venue. Any good spots in mind Mr Chaves?

Lots of luverly bile to swallow, really...

[edit on 16-9-2005 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Yeah or mabye we can think of the UN anti mine campign or mabye the UN aid programes but hey those mistakes made by individuals seem able to wreck an orginisation, does that mean we shouldnt trust the UK or US military since both have had men and women commit acts of terror?
isnt critising fun?

Mabye next we can move onto the salvation army or the red cross?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

the UN anti mine campign or mabye the UN aid programes but hey those mistakes made by individuals seem able to wreck an orginisation, does that mean we shouldnt trust the UK or US military since both have had men and women commit acts of terror?



**IMHO**

That's just the problem, then, isn't it, devilwasp? The organization is ineffectual because it cannot do what it needs to, due to footdragging by the very ones to profit from the misery. Individuals and/or countries of means and power influence what goes on to the detriment of those with less or no influence at all.

Personally, it is still my opinion that Princess Diana was assasinated because of her involvement in the effort to reduce production of land mines. And yet, what do we read in ATS about who is going to make more land mines? You know and I know, because we both read the boards enough.

Romeo Dallaire BEGGED for help to stop the Rwandan genocide and was refused! Why? "Because we don't have the manpower". Why? "Because the wealthiest won't pitch in to help". Why? Well...what's in Rwanda which is of interest to them?

Same thing in the Sudan...and those were Christians being massacred by the tens of thousands. Why? What's in it for the rich?

Don't get me wrong...I still believe in the faint hope that someday the world could be a better place, where I won't be cynical and see some sort ofinternational body (with teeth) govern the nations fairly. (read NWO)

But NYC ain't the spot for that...America, for the most part hates the U.N., so I say, move it. Maybe the change of air will do it some good.

Let Chavez have the dog and pony show.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
**IMHO**

That's just the problem, then, isn't it, devilwasp? The organization is ineffectual because it cannot do what it needs to, due to footdragging by the very ones to profit from the misery. Individuals and/or countries of means and power influence what goes on to the detriment of those with less or no influence at all.

Who the hell defines "what it needs to do"? Seriosly I see all these "the UN cant act " or the the "un wont do what it needs to" , who the hell defines that?
I thought the job of the UN was to act as third party and allow nations to TALK about diffrences, not fight over them.


Personally, it is still my opinion that Princess Diana was assasinated because of her involvement in the effort to reduce production of land mines. And yet, what do we read in ATS about who is going to make more land mines? You know and I know, because we both read the boards enough.

Please with all due respect, leave the princesss out of this...
PS I have no idea WTH your on about BTW..
[quote[
Romeo Dallaire BEGGED for help to stop the Rwandan genocide and was refused! Why? "Because we don't have the manpower". Why? "Because the wealthiest won't pitch in to help". Why? Well...what's in Rwanda which is of interest to them?

Yeah and who would have sent it?
The Uk? we're overstretched?
The US? They're paying the bill why should they risk lives?
France? They're overstretched too.
tell me, WHO ? whoo???
[quote[
Same thing in the Sudan...and those were Christians being massacred by the tens of thousands. Why? What's in it for the rich?

Or whats in it for the families of the men and women being killed? A sense of right?


Don't get me wrong...I still believe in the faint hope that someday the world could be a better place, where I won't be cynical and see some sort ofinternational body (with teeth) govern the nations fairly. (read NWO)

But NYC ain't the spot for that...America, for the most part hates the U.N., so I say, move it. Maybe the change of air will do it some good.

Do what good? Simply moveing them shows a lack of co-operation, hell you do that and it SHOWS that the US has given up on diplomacy and will only use force.


Let Chavez have the dog and pony show.

Why? So one man can fufill his "patriotic duty"? So he can be seen as the "slayer of the UN" hell no, the man wants to move it fine, He just needs to give me one good reason that I like,
.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah and who would have sent it?
The Uk? we're overstretched?
The US? They're paying the bill why should they risk lives?
France? They're overstretched too.
tell me, WHO ? whoo???


Since we're talking about the UN, I would be considering asking China, Russia or Indonesia to send troops, for instance...scary, huh? But that's the problem...the UK nor the Us would contemplate asking 'the perceived enemy' for help. That's what makes the UN ineffectual...the fact that they can't get around politics.

interesting thread from bitraiser, btw...Paul Martin actually agrees with me!

abovetopsecret.com...

About Princess Diana...(and, as a Canadian, I'm allowed to speak), her father in law still agrees with my suspicions as well. The new statue in Harrods is quite beautiful, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Since we're talking about the UN, I would be considering asking China, Russia or Indonesia to send troops, for instance...scary, huh? But that's the problem...the UK nor the Us would contemplate asking 'the perceived enemy' for help. That's what makes the UN ineffectual...the fact that they can't get around politics.

Eh?
You relise countries like russia and indonesia send more troops than both the US and the UK combined....right...


interesting thread from bitraiser, btw...Paul Martin actually agrees with me!

abovetopsecret.com...

About Princess Diana...(and, as a Canadian, I'm allowed to speak), her father in law still agrees with my suspicions as well. The new statue in Harrods is quite beautiful, wouldn't you agree?


Look man please, dont bring the princess into this, I respected her and when people like that get brought into discussions theres usually some mudsligning that follows....please?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Eh?
You relise countries like russia and indonesia send more troops than both the US and the UK combined....right...


I did not know that...maybe I'm going to have to study this a bit more deeply. Thanks. Now I wonder who could have helped in Rwanda?

btw...I will respect your request because I respect you.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Agreed, it is time for the UN to find another location. Not because I have to deal with the traffic, not because I find some of its actions questionable and/or late in developing, and not because the the upper echelon of the administration appears to make under the counter deals for the benefits of the few. The biggest factor in why I think the UN should relocate is it's image that because it's located in the US, it is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as an extension of the US government and therefore loses it's credibility as an impartial body in which nations can solve international disputes. I do not think it would be in our best interest to withdraw from the UN, with an ever increasingly co-dependence between nations it is in our best interest not to become Fortress America. As to locations, Geneva or Rome. And if you really want to be bold, how about Jerusalem? Make it an international city similar to the Vatican! Talk about the end time conspiracies that would fly



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Not only should the U.N be taken out of the US, the whole U.N should go the way of the League of Nations. When the League ultimately proved incapable of its primary purpose it was scraped.

I think its the time for the world to do this all over again. I just hope it wont take a World War to get rid of it like last time.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join