bluelight

Ok Brother George has just had a meeting with Blair......and what does he say after the meeting??



He says that the UN will have an important role in the reconstruction of Iraq that is not......limited to paying for the fun.




Ok all of you (shall i say screwed up .... BWX?....or?) Americans that has been puking on the UN...Why....does Brother Bush say this?

is it because he thinks that there is an actual need for international cooperation?


What do you think?

Bluelight

digitalwanderer

...that the price tag sort of staggered him and he's basically saying other countries can have a piece of the pie too if they help foot the bill. (He's honked he can't have his invasion AND his tax cut. )

__________________
WTF is up with the sigs?

JavaFox

The US pays for most of the UN's operating cost anyway. Therefore, saying that we want UN support to alleviate the cost of the war is somewhat illogical and incoherent. The reason Bush and Blair have said that the UN should play a role in reconstruction is, because, that is a function the UN might be able to meet. The UN can sometimes keep the peace, and can certainly help with aid. Certainly the international community can help in this regard.

Personally, I think that the future "role of the UN" is being overstated here, however.. I'm willing to wager that we will see the coalition handling most of post-war Iraq for a while. Which is good, considering the UN does a poor job at mostly everything.

The_Neon_Cowboy

becouse the U.N. is irrealavant and becomes nothing and desolves it self if they dont have a hand and also so people like u will have less to complain about...

Never forget The UNITED STATES started the UNITED NATIONS... so they feel to the need to keep it alive

__________________

bluelight

No the United states was one of the nations that started the UN and UN was the direct continuation of an organisation that existed before WW2.The reason it was started was that the old organisation had not been able to stop WW2 becasuse the single members didnt give a Fxxk about the organisation...pretty much the same thing as some do today.




Bluelight

JavaFox

No, WW2 happened because of appeasement, pure and simple.

BWX

Hey, any argument bluelight has should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt- He won't even answer these questions I posed to him in another thread:

So you guys-- bluelight and gog, tell me, YES or NO, do you want Saddam to win the war, and the US to lose the war?
YES or NO, are you happy when Bin Laden or some other terrorist commits a terrorist attack on the US?
YES or NO, do you think Bin Laden and these other terrorist groups have a reason to commit terrorist attacks?
YES or NO, do you think the US DESERVES terrorist attacks?
Yes or NO, do you think Saddam should be taken from power? And if not be the US then by whome?
Lets see you answer these questions without dodging the questions and spouting a bunch of America bashing.

Just so you all know where he stands on the issue of Iraqi/American relations. And NO, I didn't call YOU screwed up for the third time bluelight.

And to your question, Bush is being very generous to the UN and FRANCE. After they blocked our efforts to promote peace they shouldn't have any authority in Iraq after Saddam is gone. At least we are giving them something, which they don't even deserve.

Falstaff

U.N. intervention, how successful has it been in the past...The same Bush that went in alone with reliable allies, is surely going to be less than entusiastic about the U.N.

__________________

ToshiroOC

I heard a very interesting viewpoint recently - the UN wanted the war in Iraq just as much as the US, but they instead forced the US to move to war unilaterally both as a political PR sort of deal and also as a way to get the US to foot the $100,000,000,000.00 bill for this war. While I disagree with it, it is something interesting to think of.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

JavaFox

That makes sense, Tosh', considering Resolution 1441 authorizes force. Could it be that the UN wanted force in the first place, but didn't want to pay for their part?

bluelight

Well you never stop now do you??

AS I HAVE TOLD YOU THREE TIMES BEFORE!!!

You claimed i was screwed up.

You claimed i support Saddam Hussein.

You claimed i support terrorism.

The latter two you did twice.



Now......

Eithyer you give me an excuse...................
or...you find me one single qoute where i am actually sayting i support terrorism...........


If you prefer not to..............then i suggest you quit your BOLLOCKS and leave me out of you comments in the future.

This is the last time im saying it.



Have you clearly understood what i am saying?????



Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy

blelive what you want the leage of nations was crap and failed!!!!!
also tell what you know ... President Franklin Roosevelt set the ball rooling for the united nations........I have proof do you???

http://www.yale.edu/unsy/Oralhist/kr...l_history.html


and buy the way i'd also like to see you anwser those questiond above that you are avoiding .... becouse the answer will discredit you and make you look bad are the only reasons not to answer... so you defult and we assume your answers are the worst posable

__________________

Falstaff

I have read the same thing, I watch an interesting program hosted by Charlie Rose, several of his guests, one from the Washington Post mentioned the same thing. Just as a added comment. During several adventures into the deserts around the Sinai to gather intelligence, elements of several special forces units trained and conducted missions from several "U.N." sites...and look at the situation in the Congo, It is a fact that U.N. didn't intervene during atrocities that occured to allow a re-polarization of the country or the region. "REPOLARIZATION" is a just another word for geo political meddling...

bluelight

1.Does it say in my post that i think The league of nations was a working organisation???

No.

It says clearly...clearly that Un replaced it because of its ineffectiveness.



2.I dont gove a xxxx about how it looks or if anyone thinks i am discredited and i dont pay any attention whatsoever what you think IN THIS MATTER..........................

Either this dude EXCUSES himself...OR HE SUPPLIES ME WITH A QOUTE WHERE I AM SUPPORTING TERRORISM.

If he doesnt...no reply.

HAVE YOU GOT THAT?

Now i suggest you stay out of this.Its none of your business


Bluelight

BWX

Yeah, I understand you won't admit to NOT being any of those things.

Fine, run away from the questions, I don't really care. Funny how you won't deny any of my so called so called "accusations" though. I have never seen an innocent person so afraid of simple questions.




You want ME to leave YOU out of my posts? what is this above? That is the first post in a thread w/ my name in it. And you tell me to leave you out?? Ok-

Falstaff

You two just go to your corners, and finish digesting your angst, sheesh...Blue, your not a communist, your an idealist, I won't take off your objective lenses, so don't lose your cool man, Is there anything you like about Bush? or Blair?

__________________

bluelight

Bush.............Its not a matter of him as a person.To the contrary of most other "anti Bush politics people" i think he has a pretty strong personality and that he manages to get his message through...Somthing very important ...Just ..i dont like the messages he is sending.

Blair i like for his committment...he seems to have a true belief in what he does.I hope he will end up right in his convictions (If so Bush will also get credit for that...being right..that is.)

Politically...Blair is much closer to me in that he is a socialist thinker bassically and his party has that as a base for their politics...even if socialism as such today is not really a valid word.

To me the politically side that Bush represents actually means repression...very very conservative right wing politics...

Bluelight

Falstaff

Bluey,

I agree with you in principal, I like cowboys, like the cowboy mentality, like Reagan too, (catch hell for that)
Bush is strong, perhaps too strong, but you have to respect that, he has been accused of being inconsistent with his platform that he took to the polls, so be it, this was before 9/11.

He is wooping some serious ass, Afghanistan (feather in his cap) and now Iraq (bigger feather). I work with my staff, all women, who have husbands and boyfriends serving in the sand in IRAQ, they are terribly vocal about their opinions and never hesitate to mention that they would have their spouse and lovers home right now if Bush just let it all be and not got involved.....what can I say? I disagree with them but not with their pain...Americans make sacrifces to free nations..yeh, its the poor working class folks that do the dying for the most part. God bless us all. But I wouldn't confront them about they way they feel, I respect the fact that aren't waving flags in city streets and blocking traffic, they work and they live their lives and pray for their loved ones...That is Bush's America for better or worse...

Blair, can't seem to find any skeletons in his closet, he is impeccable in my opinion (catch hell for that)
I think he will be remembered as a man that stood by his friends, allies and his principals, but even honorable must fall on their swords eventually for the greater good of those they protect and serve...I wonder what the government of Postwar Iraq will do to Blairs political standing at home, what I mean to say is, will the Parliment finally give him credit for accomplishing a daunting task and then bringing his forces home....

I don't think that Bush represents repression or oppression or economic depression...he is making fundamental changes in our government and the changing the political climate of the world...He will root out and eliminate terrorist threats by any means necessary..some we haven't heard about yet, but we will in about two weeks, mark my words.....Osama and the tentacles of his terrorist beast will be looking over their shoulders for the hum of a missle laden drone..

merry

And also because Western countries thought that Hitler might rid them of the soviet threat.

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

Falstaff

Ouch...you had to go there didn't you, Yep, and we gave succor and shelter to Nazi's after the war too, Look at post war South American governments, we had a hand in much of it....Stalin never trusted our motives, but hey, we sent him lots of Lend Lease goods, and perhaps, it smoothed over the little political and economic ripples before the cold war...

__________________

BWX

LOL, I like that- "go to your corners."

BWX

Hey, where is he? If you know you better tell!

Falstaff

He is allegedly being guarded by members of the Pakistani army that for all intense purposes are being paid to hide him. He is being monitored, he is going nowhere, unless he dresses as a woman again...His relatives in America have been trying to contact him without success, but belive it or not, the CIA is helping them find him as well. but he remains hidden, blending in with the hillsides, he eluded the russians for years, no doubt he may be able to sneak out once in awhile...but I doubt it..

__________________

BWX

That scumbag will be eating worms soon anyway.

Ninza

BUSH! HA

Falstaff

or a negative one? lol

__________________

JavaFox

A spammicious one, I'm sure.