»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Let's Hear it for the U.N.......
| The Alley |
|
Let's Hear it for the U.N....... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Today the U.N. reappointed Cuba to a seat on the Human Rights Commission. With Libya as the head of the committee, this creates a perfect panel. Last week they decided to suspend monitoring activities in the Sudan, that little place where over two million non-Muslims have been murdered and another four million have been relocated to "Peace" camps or towns. A resolution submitted by the European Union appealing to the Sudan government to respect human rights and basic freedoms was voted down by 26 of the 53 members of the UN Human Rights Commission, with 24 in favour, and three abstaining. Let's have a big hand for such a fine organization  |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hmmmm, it seems that you and Fidel agree on the impotence of the UN: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2959917.stm What do you think we should do about this? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Seems like Fidel learned the secret... Human rights groups said this year's elections carried on a trend of increasing domination of the commission by noted human rights violators, many of whom, like Cuba, were proposed on a regional slate without opposition. "You have a huge powerful and very well organized bloc that doesn't want any country criticized, opposes U.N. human rights monitoring and wants to weaken the office of the U.N. high commissioner for human rights," Joanna Weschler of Human Rights Watch told Reuters. "It's almost a rule now. You get criticized by the commission or you might be, so you get a seat on the commission and you vote as a bloc against criticism," Weschler said. What to do about it, Brad? Beats me...personally, I would turn the UN building into an apartment complex and tell them to take a hike but I'm just a hothead. One thing I wouldn't do would be overly concerned about being criticized for ignoring or disregarding the U.N....as we have been for some time now. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
As far as the Sudan is concerned, do you want a list of the number of times they have been condemmed by the UN (which is all it can really do) for human right violations? What do I think we should do about the current debacle in the Human Rights commission? I think we should fight back, I think we should play politics, I see the UN, or rather the way many people see the UN, as an opportunity, not an obstacle, to furthering good things like human rights, rule of law, democratic governments etc. While obviously I think we should tie ourselves to the UN more than either you or Local Rebel, I simply don't see any reason for an all or nothing approach. If we don't, then the UN will probably become an apartment complex.  But don't we need some kind of deliberative body like the UN? Or maybe I can put it this way, even with all its faults, isn't the idea of a UN valid? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Well the UN has failed let's dissolve it. It's time for Bush to now fly over to Cuba and liberate the Cuban People from their oppressor because that's what he does the champion of freedom. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You're tying my name a little too closely to being anti-UN there Brad... I'm not. I merely continue to point out that it is a consular body -- not a governing one... and it's one that is needed. But, due to the nature of the world -- it's always going to be a source of frustration -- just as it was all during the Cold War (which was it's formative years). Aenimal -- I think you'll find some people who were hoping for diplomacy to work in Cuba chanting your jest in earnest after the execution of the latest three would be refugees. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, I think the idea of a U.N is perfectly valid. Of course the idea of a League of Nations was perfectly valid, too. In that ideal world we would like to see an organization made up of the world's most powerful countries in terms of military, economic and leadership roles would be ideal policemen to monitor the human rights situations of all countries and bring pressure to bear on all violators of those rights. The problem is that the countries who are the biggest violators are members of the U.N. Fight it, you say? How does one do that? In the example of the HUman Rights Commission, composed of Libya, Cuba and many other countries whose human rights policies are deplorable, how does one change them? They only have to band together and veto whatever change you are trying to make, which they do. They know they don't have to answer to anyone. The U.S. should fight them? Hell, they even voted us off of the human rights council two years ago. Fighting them or trying to change them is a losing battle...you would be asking them to turn on themselves which they're not going to do. In that perfect U.N. these countries would not even be allowed to be members unless inspections of their countries verified that their citizens had their civil rights honored. As you showed in your link, Cuba told them to shove it when they suggested it and so, two weeks later, they voted Cuba on to the commission! There is no way to fight that. You never beat people at their own game no matter how smart or how right you think you are. The other way is to ignore them and when you do the world condemns you for going against THE U.N! (spoken softly in reverent tones). For the life of me I cannot see how this change you - and I - would like to see could ever get off the ground. The U.S. pays 25% of the operating expenses of the U.N. and they play against a stacked deck. I cannot see any valid reason for continued membership in an organization that is basically as useless as they are. The U.N is a great idea in thought only - in reality they are a sham. I would put up the eviction notice tomorrow... |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Aenimal, I would be interested in your objective opinion as to points raised in the thread. For my own curiosity, just as another thread was to satisfy Brad's curiosity as to individual's thinking. Simple enough, just express your opinions and answer the questions Brad posed. How would you answer Balladeer's concerns? Is there any need for concern? [This message has been edited by Tim (04-30-2003 08:04 AM).] |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
(crossing myself over and over...!!) I agree with Balladeer on this issue, at least 90 percent. The UN is, for the most part, quite useless in policing the world. The 10 percent which I do not agree with has to with the issue of Cuba's human rights record. I won't get into that on this thread though. Maybe I will start a new topic related to that at some point. Now about my views on the UN, I believe that there has never really been a serious collective will to give the UN the strength it needs. The powerful nations which were mentioned earlier, are only just now beginning to question the effectiveness of the UN when it was always THEY who had the power to strengthen it. Bear in mind that when the UN started out, most of the current members were not yet members. Countries with proven bad Human Rights records should never even be considered for membership on certain commitees (certainly not the one related to Human Rights) In fact, if a certain country is proven to be blatantly anti-human rights, it's membership in the UN itself should be in question. I am not sure if the UN charter/constitution allows things like that, but if it doesn't, maybe it should. Having said all that, an institution such as the UN is necessary. So maybe a lot of re-tooling and re-formulating is required. I will continue to maintain though, that the ineffectiveness of the UN should be no excuse for maverick behaviour. Rather, serious attempts, with as many of the members as possible, should be made to fix what was aways a very leaky pipe. Balladeer, the UN Building would make a very ugly appartment building. So I disagree with you on that as well. Maybe I should have said 85 percent. Garfield |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Tim my views are as follows. The UN should not be dissolved but seriously overhauled. I think there's too many inconsistences, it has disillusioned many of its members and lead to as morefiah put it maverick behaviour. Because the system isn't working properly or justly doesn't mean it should be scrapped, otherwise you might as well tear down the all legal systems and governments. And if your going to make condos or apartments then, I'd suggest the White House(for upper scale clients), Pentagon(cool courtyard), parliament Hill in Ottawa(for the rustic feel) as well as city hall in Toronto (very modern) there are a host of other really good looking buildings of this nature so call dibs. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-30-2003 12:11 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Oh and local I know what's going on in Cuba and if it is truly about people and destroying evil regimes than by all means |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rather, serious attempts, with as many of the members as possible, should be made to fix what was aways a very leaky pipe. I couldn't agree more, Morefiah. I just have no idea how those attempts can be brought to fruition against the veto power by which the U.N. exists. Stick three law-abiding citizens in a room with seven Al Capones and I don't think the good guys will win many consessions. Nor do I see the leaders of Libya, Cuba, the Sudan, Syria, Iran, China, North Korea - and the list goes on - giving up the power they have over their citizenry simply to make the world a nicer place to live or the U.N more valid. It would be nice but I don't see it as realistic. I would like to be wrong. As far as the rest, I am prepared to agree with the consensus...the U.N. building WOULD make an ugly apartment complex.....although Hillary may find it appealing  85%? I accept it gratefully |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I just have no idea how those attempts can be brought to fruition against the veto power by which the U.N. exists That's the biggest change needed, no veto power. How does France get veto power anyway..oh well |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
I agree, the best change that could be made...........is no veto power. Jason |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
After the news came out that France had secretly provided information to Hussein about coalition plans all the way up to the beginning of the conflict, I'd like to know why France is even allowed in the front door... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
It's the bread..they make great bread for the luncheons |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
(no,it's really the wine, Raph,  )And of course art, history, revered writers and thinkers such as Rousseau, Voltaire, Hugo etc etc and the fact they are humans with as much right to their opinions on this planet as Americans Personally, I think every single autonomous (and striving-to-be-autonomous) country on the planet should have a rep in the UN, and perhaps a world-oriented dialogue could begin. Even if it has to be done using babbelfish talk (don't laugh!). No single country should be allowed to hold the rest of the world 'hostage' to its views. Unless we all are willing to communicate in good faith and try non-violent problem solving solutions, we are doomed as a species. I still support the UN, though it really does need an attitude adjustment on some issues. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
quote: Just a point for reference: There are 191 members of the UN and only two non-members – The Vatican and Taiwan (replaced in 1971 by the Peoples Republic of China) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree, midnitesun... Would you happen to have an extra copy of a babblefish dictionary? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I truly have to apologize because I cannot differentiate the serious comments from the humor from the sarcasm in the thread. The Human Rights Commission has no veto powers given to any of its members. The U.S. is not a member. (it is, my error) The power is maintained by third world blocks. As to the Security Council, where veto power does exist, if that power was removed, the United Nations would cease to exist as a body. The U.N. can operate with some degree of effectiveness when dealing with humanitarian issues. The U.N.'s problem is the inability to deal with non-humanitarian issues. For starters, they lack necessary enforcement powers and more importantly, the majority of its member nations do not adhere to the principles the U.N. should be aspiring towards. To mediate or arbritate, you need a neutral third party with the power to enforce its decisions. Or in the alternative, those involved in attempting to arrive at solutions have to be seeking an end result which may not be particularly agreed upon, but at least acceptable enough to stomach. Ain't gonna happen in the present situation. Does the U.N. have worth? Yes, at least it puts everyone into the same arena and speaking to each other. [This message has been edited by Tim (05-01-2003 12:57 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
With all due respect, Tim, I understand that the US is part of the Human Rights Commission. They were voted off in 2002 but re-elected for a 2003-2005 term.. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I appreciate the correction Balladeer, I knew they had been voted off and recalled reading somewhere that they were not going to seek re-election. That is what you get for relying on your memory and not staying up to date. I do comprehend your position and on an emotional level concur. My view is you at least have to hold out the hope of the U.N. achieving its objectives and probably just as importantly, if someone is going to stab me, I would just as soon they would have to do it face to face rather than in the back. BTW...Please do not feel I am entitled to any due respect with my biased, rhetorical and disingenuous nature. I think it has something to do with the water here in the central U.S. [This message has been edited by Tim (04-30-2003 11:52 PM).] |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
The UN is a trojan horse we are not only allowing on our soil, but are feeding as well. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Part of the problem with the UN is a marketing one. The name is a misnomer from the get go -- United Nations... makes it sound like something it's not. if they would have just called it The International Pissing Forum we wouldn't be so confused about it's purpose. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (05-01-2003 12:14 AM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
News Flash! They have located Baghdad Bob. He has been hired by the U.N. as information officer for the Human Rights Commission. "Human Rights? Of course there are human rights in this commission. The infidels attempted to destroy them, but after the mother of all battles won with the assistance of peace loving and democratic Cuban dictators and Libyian Colonels, and a few assorted third world despots, we have been victorious in securing human rights for all oppressors." |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
ROFL  Thanks for the levity, Tim! It's quite refreshing in this world gone mad. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Question: Could someone please define UNITED NATIONS for me? My concern is that we (myself included, to be honest) criticise the UN but somehow we act as if it is an organisation which is exclusive of it's membership. As if the UN is more than just a collection of countries which ultimately depends on the efforts of all, or at least the most economic and militarily powerful members, to make it what it should be. Some of the arguments I have read on this thread give the impression that the UN is this entity which is refusing to assert it's relevance by upholding the principles of human rights, democracy, etc. We could shoot the breeze all day here if we want to, but I think that if we are going to argue that the thing needs fixing, we also have to acknowledge that it cannot be fixed by some omniscient being from God-knows-where... it has to be fixed by the membership. Through dialogue, cooperation, and if it comes to that, a willingness on the part of those countries I have mentioned before in grabbing the UN by the scruff of the neck and dragging it where it needs to go. This would of course be resisted by some of the smaller countries, but as long as there is a consensus among the powerful nations around the very same issues we are debating here, I believe that there would be some measure of success. I know that there are issues of sovereignity, and potential bullyism to be considered in such a scenario, but what I am proposing is a United Nations organisation which is almost like the Vatican: autonomous, with the power and ability to do some of the very things which we have here averred that it needs to be able to do. This requires economic strength and military strength. It also requires that the membership sit debate, vote on, and craft a constitution which all countries would have to accept into their own legal systems before being admitted into the UN. Quite frankly, I am not very knowledgeable on the EU but I think that there may be some examples in the way EU membership is obtained. There has to be some way to ensure that having been accepted into the UN, a country cannot just do as it likes. Any new UN organisation would have to look at issues such as that. The point though, is that it makes no sense just highlighting the faults of the UN without attempting to consider some kind of solution. Unless of course, we would rather the altenative: a world without a UN organisation or any other similar organisation. Garfield |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Could someone please define UNITED NATIONS for me? yes - there are a whole bunch of them: tax return, peace force, microsoft works, jumbo shrimp, same difference, government organization . . . . *wink* [This message has been edited by littlewing (05-02-2003 05:25 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Morefiah, there is a lot of wisdom in your words. I don't think, however, at this point the UN is fixable in its present form. You don't fix a condemned building by pulling out the bad bricks. You tear it down and rebuild it. I don't think one can tell the core members of the UN, including those who occupy positions on the Security Council, Human RIghts Commission, etc at this point they have to change to remain members. As Cuba did weeks ago, they will simply say "Shove it". Will these countries accept investigations into their civil rights procedures at this point when there are so many of them in violation? Highly unlikely, in my opinion. The only solution I would see would be to disband the UN and create a brand new organization where the requirements for membership would include those inspections, among others, and a willingness to commit, financially and militarily, to world peace. Sadly, I don't see that happening, either. So I'm afraid we are stuck with what we have..an inept organization that serves to be little more than a global "chat room" for representatives of countries around the world. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
With all due respect Micheal -- the bricks are the bricks.... a church is not brick and mortar -- it is the people... the UN is Nations -- and it is the same nations that would form a new 'organisation'. If Ron kicked us all off PIP and we started matching wits on another board would it change the arguments? Littlewing..... heh... Morfy I enjoy reading you -- I can agree with some -- and take issue with some -- but you are intelligent and decisive -- and that's a powerful combination!  (not to mention appealing)Let's not bother to define the UN right now though -- because Bill Clinton is shamelessly prepping for a run for Secretary General -- and after he gets through with it there's no telling what it's going to be.. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (05-03-2003 01:01 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Clinton would fit in very well in that position...it would be the perfect punchline No, Reb, my idea was to set up new requirements for admission...in other words, dictators who rule by force and murder need not apply. The face of the UN would change dramatically...ah well, it's a pipe dream anyway. Where's my Grape Nehi? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Yes, but didn't the Clinton military do a great job in Iraq? Deer -- that would either be a confederacy of nations -- which you wouldn't want because that would mean the U.S. would defer its' soveriegnty, or a strategic alliance like NATO. The UN is NOT a governing body -- it is a place for diplomacy -- if you leave nations out it defeats the whole purpose. It's the place where we must listen to the propaganda of the tin horn dictator whilst he has to listen to ours. It's not a body that can be ideologically bent. The UN gets into trouble when it does try to act like a government. Peacekeeping forces are exactly that -- the UN never declares war on anybody -- humanitarian efforts are the best thing the UN does. When you see the UN building just think of it as a huge, international, bottle of Midol -- meant to releive the discomfort of global PMS |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And who is to determine those qualifications? Who is to define the terms? As just one example of the difficulty in doing so, most modern nations consider capital punishment to be state sanctioned murder and absolutely refuse to extradite someone to U.S. custody if the possibility of execution is sitting on the table. Would any of those countries try to argue that America rules, at least in part, through the use of murder? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
and not to mention the fact beside sanctioning murder, the U.S. is imperialistic; amasses weapons of mass destruction; our president is a trigger happy prevaricator; the U.S. acts as puppetmaster for the Israelis; the primary aim of American foreign policy is to steal oil from under-developed third world nations; Americans do not realize French Fries come from Belgium; just to name a few reasons. I realize more than a few won't understand my point, but it is merely a different take on Ron's. No one is going to dispute an idealistic view of a "United Nations" organization. They are just going to envision such an organization within the context of their view of an idealized world. Humanitarian body, yes. Governing body, no. By the way, did I hear right that they had a food riot in the U.N. headquarters with diplomats and embassy staffs stealing food and cafeteria equipment. Yep, those are the folks I want deciding the fate of the world. [This message has been edited by Tim (05-03-2003 06:38 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Tim, Thought I'd rework those complaints a bit: quote: Or rather America doesn't do anything unless it is in its own self-interest. National security including market share takes precedence over human rights and the sovereignty of other nations. quote: Well, they usually just point to our nuclear arsenal and that we are are the largest arms dealer in the world. quote: "You are either for us or against us" quote: Hmmm, it's the other way around. America is the unwitting stooge of a giant Jewish conspiracy. We support them while they break the rules. quote: Not quite, the argument is actually that America pursues increasing and stabilizing markets for its companies but inequitably and with no regard for the consumers of third world countries. Don't forget the much talked about dehydrated milk debacle. quote: Well, they didn't. I didn't. My point is not to get into another tit for tat about whether America is good or bad (hedgehog argument), but that we should put the best light on the arguments and realize that they aren't absurd and can be talked about (fox argument) -- though that doesn't mean that they are correct all the time. When you don't do this, it sounds like you want to dismiss any and all complaints, that you don't care about what grievances that other may have against you. You compound the problem. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
When you don't do this, it sounds like you want to dismiss any and all complaints, that you don't care about what grievances that other may have against you. You compound the problem. You mean like just repeating hedgehog and foxes when asked to respond to direct questions, Brad? Nice to see your eloquence comes back when it wants to Tim....very well said. I understand you completely... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I thought french fries came from McDonalds |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
McBurglar is a Belgian operative... (it is not supposed to be common knowledge, but there is a reason peanut butter and mayonnaise are used on fries in the low countries, it really contains an antidote) And I won't even go into the true origin of Belgian waffles and the world wide conspiracy involving IHOPS and the southern connection with Waffle Huts. [This message has been edited by Tim (05-04-2003 01:14 AM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
You did miss my point Brad, I was not criticizing opposing views to the U.S. (I just had those views readily available from these forums) I could just as well could have taken the view of any country towards the policies of any other country. It doesn't matter if they are correct or not, because if the country believes their views to be correct, and those of the other country wrong, they cannot govern together in a truly idealistic and democratic fashion. I would suspect most Americans would not trust the majority of nations to be on an equal footing with them in deciding the security issues of the U.S. I would suspect most, if not all the countries of the world would hold the same position towards America. That makes it a bit tough to arrive at the concept of a United Nations, except for the limited purposes it serves. (and humanitarian is one area it can achieve results) You in essence have validated my position and why you may have some difficulty in believing, I concur in what you say to some extent. I just believe it has to go both ways, and I don't see that occuring. I have never said the U.S. has not made serious mistakes. Why would I, they have. But on the other side of the coin, have you ever admitted, or any of the individuals who bear such animus towards the president admit he is capable of positive action. Not that I have heard or expect to hear. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Whether or not you were actually criticizing these points of view is beside the point, you were ridiculing them (and anyway you got some wrong anyway). Can we talk about them in the way you described them substantively and either defeat or compromise with them or can we do nothing more than either agree or disagree? Michael, I was being my most eloquent and concise with my hedgehogs and foxes point. I can't describe it or you'll accuse me of bias, you'll just have to look them up. They are specific allusions, not nonsense. Personally, I think Ron's point is ridiculous. Capital punishment is accepted in the majority of countries in this world and most of the countries mentioned here practice it. One cannot draw any kind of moral equivalent issue from it and one shouldn't try. Sure, certain European countries think were backward for it, I think it's wrong, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. As for specific policy decisions, I supported the appointment of Colin Powell as Secretary of State (but who didn't?), believe it or not I thought Cheny was a good choice for VP -- and I still like his speaking style. I supported this war, was unsure about Afhanistan, glad that the Taliban was ousted. I support his commitment to fighting AIDS in Africa and am appalled that, last time I checked, it was being held up over abortion issues. Anybody know if that has changed or if I'm in error? I support his commitment to space travel. I had some doubts about the Kyoto protocols myself, just think we should have been there anyway. I thought he was quite statesmanlike after 911 and felt a surge of optimism that the world might just become a better place with that kind of united feeling behind America, the only country with the power to do anything. I am, of course, disappointed with the choices this administration's choices after that. I do think Rumsfeld is funny. I don't know, maybe he should start drinking again. [This message has been edited by Brad (05-04-2003 02:41 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
AHA! My mistake, Brad. I didn't realize we were answering questions with parables. Why, it's almost like reading the Bible - no, that's the other thread.  I've wasted a lot of words...I've got some zinger parables I can use in the future and save my fingers!! Only joshing with ya, Brad. You can be foxy and hedge your words as much as you want |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Again, you misdirect my comments Brad. You do so by indicating I was ridiculing the points. To the contrary, if anything (which I am, in reference to Ron, not doing and if so perceived do not intend) I could be accused of ridiculing Ron's point. Apparently you did consider his point ridiculous. I felt it severely lacking, but then again, he was not addressing the issue at hand in the most direct fashion either. Ron, to my recollection has had previous discussions with Balladeer in other threads and he was re-establishing his points concerning Balladeer's us vs. them regarding dictators and how you make the determination someone is evil. Not wanting to put words in Ron's mouth, but his seems to be more of a philosophical argument in reference to interpretation of words and viewing something from one's own perspective. But now I am guilty of not staying on point. *smile* I did not make the statements in ridicule, but attempted to put in positions I have perceived being put forth here in Passions. I in no way believe they are all legitimate or conform to generally accepted world views. And I apologize, there may well be some legitimacy to some of the points, some not. I purposely did not use the word liar in an attempt to soften the point which numerous individuals have made more bluntly and directly. (a personal bugaboo of mine as that is a term I avoid as I see it as a statement of derision and disrespect) I assume the first reaction is therefore going to be the french fry example. The french fry was brought out to show the insignificant matters that will prevent the U.N. from succeeding as an idealistic governing body. When the french fry issue was brought up, I did not see the point being made in humor, but a serious point. I did consider the whole french fry and freedom fry totally ridiculous, but unfortunately, a great many people did not, including high ranking government officials. It is not difficult to argue, it is much harder to effectively debate. I did expect you to respond with your positives of Bush and found them to be interesting. I detect a slight dislike of Rumsfield which I will not argue against and clearly would have expected the statement as to Powell. Cheney is somewhat perplexing as his views would appear to the most closely aligned to the policies of Bush that seem so troubling. But at least one thing, I now know you do not think Bush is incapable of any positive action. *smile* Now if I could just get a few more folks in here to admit the same I will have made some real progress. (by the way, that is tongue in cheek) Instead of hedgehog and fox, I would be more concerned of frog and scorpion. Or perhaps we should examine the end result both the fox and hedgehog are seeking. [This message has been edited by Tim (05-04-2003 12:39 PM).] |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LP quote: When you see the UN building just think of it as a huge, international, bottle of Midol -- meant to releive the discomfort of global PMS ******************************************* I just had to jump in on that one. LOL, nowadays a better product is available, called PAMPRIN. But this quote was a showstopper for me. ROTFL. As for the UN, the work it does in diplomacy and humanitarian issues is the fundamental reason I still support it wholeheartedly, even when it burps and gags politically. PS donald rumsfeld nauseates me |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
and for that I would suggest Pepto Mismol. I have always thought politicians should get a kickback for Maalox sales, they have at least caused me a bit of gas pain or pain in the er... delete over the years. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
One final point Brad, I do think we ought to receive credit for at least being more civil than the continuing threads concerning the book. Fish's first law of tolerance dynamics. But what the hey, didn't Fish also indicate Americans have closed minds? (that is meant to be humorous) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
snakes and blind rabbits blind rabbits and snakes |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
thanks for the chuckle Balladeer. if you are going to make a point, no need to be subtle about it. At least there is not much chance for misinterpretation. Somehow I suspect you have heard the one about the blind baby snake and blind baby rabbit. [This message has been edited by Tim (05-04-2003 05:05 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL!!! That's the one... |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I once knew a judge who had a guy appear in front of him for no driver's license and dumping a dog. The man told the judge that he agreed he didn't have a d.l., but that he didn't dump no dog. That there dog had just came running up to his car when he stopped to check out his engine because it wasn't running right out there on that country road. The judge ruled, not guilty on dumping the dog and guilty of no d.l. Ten days in jail. The guy was incredulous, how could I get ten days in jail for no d.l.? The judge replied, any S.O.B. who dumps a dog deserves 10 days in jail. The point? The U.S. ain't the judge in the court of world opinion. We might not have the d.l., and it don't matter if we dumped the dog or not, we're guilty of the dog dumping. Don't think the U.N. is the proper court to issue judgments. [This message has been edited by Tim (05-04-2003 06:55 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
There was once a huntsman, who, in passing a quarry, found a serpent under a large stone. The serpent asked the hunter to liberate him, but the latter said, "I will not free you, for you will eat me." The serpent replied, "Liberate me, for I will not eat you." When the hunter had set the serpent at liberty, the latter wanted to devour him, but the hunter said, "What are you doing? Did you not promise me that you would not eat me?" The serpent replied that hunger did not observe promises. The hunter then said, "If you have no right to eat me, will you do it?" "No," answered the serpent. "Let us go, then," said the hunter, "and ask three times." They went into the woods and found a greyhound, and asked him, and he replied, "I had a master, and I went hunting and caught hares, and when I carried them home my master had nothing too good to give me to eat. No, when I cannot overtake even a tortoise, because I am old, my master wishes to kill me. For this reason I condemn you to be eaten by the serpent, for he who does good finds evil." "Do you hear? We have one judge," said the serpent. They continued their journey, and found a horse, and asked him, and he too replied that the serpent was right to eat the man, "for," he said, "I had a master who fed me when I could travel. Now that I can do so no longer, he would like to hang me." The serpent said, "Behold, two judges!" They went on and found a fox. The huntsman said, "Fox, you must aid me. Listen: I was passing quarry and found this serpent dying under a large stone, and he asked aid from me, and I released him, and now he wants to eat me." The fox answered, "I will be the judge. Let us return to the quarry to see how the serpent was." They went there and put the stone on the serpent, and the fox asked, "Is that the way you were?" "Yes," answered the serpent. "Very well then, stay so always!" said the fox. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Midnite -- glad you got a chuckle. Midol is still a better analogy though? Becuase the UN is not all that effective.... lots and lots of cramps out there. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Umm.... anyone else notice the shift in moods on this thread? Cool!! |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Lawks a'mercy!! 'Deere found "wisdom in (my) words". Be still my fluttering heart!! Why thank you, kind sir. Just teasing you Balladeer...  Aaaw shucks Rebel, thanks for the kind words. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Yes Morphy -- we're all just one happy, cantankerous, family. You can think of us as your eccentric American uncles. You'll have to humor Pappa Ron every once in a while though -- sometimes he thinks he owns the place. (egads -- I just had a flashback from Ah Wilderness!) |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
This article pretty well sums up my view of the U.N. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32432 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But why do you accept the authority of the Supreme Court? More later, had a great day today and just plain tired. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Because it was established by the Constitution as the Judicial Branch of our government. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
