UN Summit 28 replies

Please wait...

Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,547 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,159 Posts

6 Threads

#21 13 years ago

The UN is a reactionary body, and it has become obsolete. In order to protect people, not just ourselves but others, we must act, not wait for the dictators to attack and then act. Now the US may have screwed up the Iraq war, but WMDs or not, something needed to be done. If the UN gets behind this sort of thing, to act not just react with more sanctions, then it could be done properly. But as long as the UN is content to sit in a nice office, decrying human rights abuses but doing nothing to remove dictators who do them. As long as that takes place, then the UN is worthless. "We believe in these things, but not enough to do anything about them." Is simply not good enough.




Sindrevike

I'm too cool to Post

31,580 XP

8th December 2004

0 Uploads

2,838 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago

The UN is only useful as a humanitarian aid organization. Besides, there is way too much corruption inside the UN itself anyway.

GreatGrizzlywhy bother? anything i give ya would be regarded as "liberal" propaganda and will promptly be ignored :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]Yeah ok. Way to crawl around the fact that you have no credible evidence.
GreatGrizzlythe whole reason we know about the UN corruption is because the administration is so hellbent on destroying the UN (reforming it) that they will employ every asset they have to find fraud so they will get the excuse to do what they want to it
Whatever. Consipiracy theories aside, it's a fact that members inside the UN personally profited form from Oil for Food and let known smugglers to get UN contracts. Not to mention the $10 mil pocketed by Saddam and the countless millions he made from the Iraqi people off of the limited access to food and medical supplies. [QUOTE=The Contender] pat robertson is a very influential figure with the Bush gvt

Completely untrue.




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago
Tap112Yeah ok. Way to crawl around the fact that you have no credible evidence.[/QUOTE] how bout you type in "Bush administration corruption" into google and check out about 5,770,000 websites that talk about it? http://news.google.com/news?q=bush+administration+corruption&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr oh look at that, google news, looks like a credible source to me http://www.thedubyareport.com/enron.html http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=116225 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/04/wnix04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/04/ixportaltop.html http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/bush_psychiatry.shtml http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=37 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/hark-o19.shtml but all this will be regarded as liberal lies and dismissed...
Tap112 the UN personally profited form from Oil for Food and let known smugglers to get UN contracts.
you mean like how bush's friends profited off the war in Iraq? (haliburton) [QUOTE=Tap112]Not to mention the $10 mil pocketed by Saddam and the countless millions he made from the Iraqi people off of the limited access to food and medical supplies.

you forgot to mention all the weapons America gave saddam :rolleyes:




Blood n Guts

Wolverine Starting 9/6/2006

50 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

758 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago

[color=black]

GreatGrizzlyhow bout you type in "Bush administration corruption" into google and check out about 5,770,000 websites that talk about it?

[/color] [color=black]Clinton[/color][color=black] administration corruption: 2,090,000[/color] [color=black]George HW Bush omitted because it would fall under the same results as your search [/color] [color=black]Reagan administration corruption: 1,270,000[/color] [color=black]Carter administration corruption: 832,000 [/color] [color=black]Ford administration corruption:706,000[/color] [color=black]Nixon administration corruption: 632,000[/color] [color=black]Johnson administration corruption: 166,000 [/color] [color=black]Kennedy administration corruption: 1,280,000 [/color] [color=black]Eisenhower administration corruption: 234,000 [/color] [color=black]Truman administration corruption: 278,000 [/color] [color=black]FDR administration corruption: 582,000[/color] [color=black]Hoover administration corruption: 254,000 [/color] [color=black]Harding administration corruption: 115,000 Considering the fact that the Harding presided over the second most corrupt administration ever, after Grant, it is quite surprising that we only find 115,000 sites about corruption under Harding. You don't know the meaning of oil scandal until you know about Teapot Dome.[/color] [color=black]Wilson[/color][color=black] administration corruption: 1,440,000 [/color] [color=black]Taft Administration corruption: 132,000 [/color] [color=black]Teddy Roosevelt administration corruption: 190,000 [/color] [color=black]McKinley administration corruption: 74,700 [/color] [color=black]The problem we have here is that google searches for every website that has the word "Bush" "Administration" and "Corruption" in it in no particular order unless you put quotation marks around it in the search box. Looking at the first page of results for Bush Administration Corruption, several of them are "UN corruption....Bush Administration"[/color] [color=black]

but all this will be regarded as liberal lies and dismissed...

Does it qualify as evidence?[/color] [color=black]Do these prove a crime was committed?[/color][color=black] Some do. The ones that do talk about Enron.[/color] [color=black]Do these provide physical documentation or records that show that Bush was linked to these actions and played a direct part in criminal activity?[/color][color=black] Although they provide theories based on circumstantial evidence, they do not have any documentation linking Bush to any wrongdoing.[/color] [color=black]Because it fails one of the critical evidence questions, it cannot be considered evidence.[/color] [color=black]Now, the will it stand up in trial question.[/color] [color=black]Do these collectively provide enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of George W. Bush on the charge of corruption?[/color][color=black] No, they do not.[/color]




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#25 13 years ago

and you see why i cant just snap my fingers and bring you a good source :rolleyes: its buried under 1000's of others that dont have anything to do with the president Also, proof is all relative, if you dont want to believe it, no amount of proof that comes up will change your mind

Blood n Guts [color=black]Do these prove a crime was committed?[/color][color=black] Some do. The ones that do talk about Enron.[/color]

Oh, so that isnt corruption then?




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago

and you see why i cant just snap my fingers and bring you a good source :rolleyes: its buried under 1000's of websites alot that arnt good




Blood n Guts

Wolverine Starting 9/6/2006

50 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

758 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago

[color=black]

GreatGrizzlyand you see why i cant just snap my fingers and bring you a good source [/color] [color=black]its buried under 1000's of others that dont have anything to do with the president

I don't see how this helps your argument[/color]

[color=black]

Also, proof is all relative, if you dont want to believe it, no amount of proof that comes up will change your mind

It's pretty hard to deny something when you have official documentation proving it. How do you think people know about Watergate? It wasn't a bunch of people shouting political slander off rooftops that made Nixon resign, it was physical documentation of his illegal activities in the form of tapes recordings of conversations that showed that he took illegal actions to cover up the break in. I'm not asking for unreasonable amount of proof, only physical evidence that would be accepted by the universal standard of the law. [/color]

[color=black]

Oh, so that isnt corruption then?

Crime? Yes. Corruption? It exists, although not nearly on the levels that you believe it to. A link between that specific crime (in this case, Enron) and the people that you accuse of being illegally involved in it? There could be one but there is no physical evidence showing this so it remains in the realms of unsupported allegations, not fact. A crime occurred with the fraud that took place at Enron; there is no physical evidence to show that it is linked to any of the people which you and that web site accuse of taking part in it, therefore government corruption in the government through the Enron fiasco cannot be proven.[/color]




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago

This topic is about UN Summit and the UN in general, not about the corruption of Bush administration. Could you get back to the topic and start a new thread for corruption in Bush administration, thank you.

NemmerleThe UN is a reactionary body, and it has become obsolete.

Saying that the UN has become obsolete is an overstatement: the UN is very important organization from humanitarian & social perspective alone. It's true that it needs a lot of reforms that it would function properly, like:

- Rooting out the corruption and putting aside national interests in this issue in order to achieve this goal

- Forming new Human Rights Commission without the ones who clearly break them (all countries make some sort of minor Human Rights breaches)

- Taking off the Veto right from permanent members of UN Security Council: currently it reflects the situation in 1945 and Veto right effectively prevents taking actions, for example against dictators. Even 2/3 majority decisions would be better than the current model. Furthermore, the Security Council must not take new permanent members, it would only make things more complicated and it causes bitter rivalry in the UN that only hampers already poor cooperation in security issues.




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#29 13 years ago

you are right, we did get off topic anyways... of course the UN needs some modifying, nothing is perfect, but saying that they are all corrupt is a little extreme