British Hostages Going Free

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]157747[/snapback]</div>

Nothing I have done since the day I was born has taken away a thing from those people. I am not the UN, and I am not AMERICA ... they don't even know me bro![/b]

You are a citizen of the United Nations and a citizen of the United States of America, unless there’s a “Virginia” on Neptune that I don’t know about. You also support the views that the Arabs, Persians and Muslims VIOLENTLY disagree with. Therefore, they VIOLENTLY disagree with you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]157747[/snapback]</div>

I was just pointing out that poor people are angry anyways, and I didn't make them that way. I just think their own people and totalitarian rulers have cause this poverty to remain so rampant and widespread. They can blame America if they want...[/b]

If you went and told them some of them that they’re just using America as a scapegoat and they’re only angry because they’re poor, I would just expect to see some of them go HAK SHERPA SERHPA *BOOM* and blow you up.

You might be saying “oh, but they’re in denial”. They’re NOT in denial about their totalitarian regimes helping to keep them poor, since they generally realize that. They also recognize the fact that Hassan pointed out, which means they’re not using the United States as a scapegoat. They have legitimate reasons to hate America and the West.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]157747[/snapback]</div>

I just don't think America made Arabs and Iranians poor, if anything we made them rich from all the oil we consume... Of course you could always point to a moment in history and say "that's why they are poor and it's the West's or America's fault", but I just don't buy it...[/b]

We help to keep them poor, though. Because we are addicted to oil and the Bush Administration is basically refusing to research and develop alternative sources of fuel for our cars, factories, etc., we are giving money to governments that keep their people poor and sponsor global terrorism. If we were to get alternative sources of fuel, we could say “buh bye oil” and help collapse some of these fanatical regimes. Example: Iran. Oil is 40% of their economy. If the United States or another major nation develops alternative fuels and shares it with the rest of the world, then we can say “buh bye Ahmadinejad”.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]157747[/snapback]</div>

I realize they have other reasons to hate us (I have already said they have legitimate reason to hate us...), I just think that their hatred is fueled by their impoverished living situation, which is kept impoverished by their own governments which may be corrupt.[/b]

Which MAY be corrupt? MAY be corrupt? That’s like saying George W. Bush MAY be a lying retard.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]157747[/snapback]</div>

Wow ... first time I heard that watching the news makes you ignorant! LOL[/b]

If you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and then just go and watch Bill O’Riley or Wolf Blitzer all day then, yes, it won’t take long for you to become even more ignorant than you were before you started to watch them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]157747[/snapback]</div>

I agree our media has an extreme bias, thats why I try to watch international news on cable. I love that I live in a country where you can find un-biased news.[/b]

LOL. International news is still bias, dude. If you want unbiased news, you need to watch like local news such as Eyewitness News or Word News Tonight with Charles Gibson. THAT’S unbiased news right there. You think BBC is going to give you something unbiased? Please, I’ve seen BBC. It makes my ears bleed.

 

[JKey2003]

LOL at Gibson being unbiased ...

I agree that we give money to governments that are corrupt and keep the money from the people, just like Saddam Hussein did, and maybe Adminejad does (whatever his fuckin long ass name is...). But I just don't think it is our fault that these dictators keep the money from the public. It is their corrupt governments doing it, but I concede it is a cop-out to say we give them and $ and whatever the leaders do with it ... then so be it! But at the same time, it's like at what point do we stop caring for citizens of other countries and start worrying bout the impoverished of our own country? We cannot save the world, and if we can, then we should ... starting with the people in our own country!

BTW: we give tons of money to other coutries in aid, so we shouldn't worry if there are poor people in Saudi Arabia... but thats kind of like buying carbon-offsets and saying well thats covers my private jet fuel, when really you aren't saving the environment, just looking the part. America doesn't really care about poor people around the world, we just gotta look the part...

Also the international news i watch is more or less just new reporting, not news discussing. There is no bias and it is not BBC...

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]157751[/snapback]</div>

LOL at Gibson being unbiased ...[/b]

If you’re trying to sound like me, then please stop. Charles Gibson is a reliable source of news, unlike other hacks working for Disney. Example: Rosie O’Donnell, Barbara Walters, the rest of the View cast....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]157751[/snapback]</div>

I agree that we give money to governments that are corrupt and keep the money from the people, just like Saddam Hussein did, and maybe Adminejad does (whatever his fuckin long ass name is...).[/b]

Ahmadinejad. It’s not that hard.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]157751[/snapback]</div>

But I just don't think it is our fault that these dictators keep the money from the public. It is their corrupt governments doing it, but I concede it is a cop-out to say we give them and $ and whatever the leaders do with it ... then so be it! But at the same time, it's like at what point do we stop caring for citizens of other countries and worry bout the impoverished of our own country?[/b]

I fully agree that we should worry about people living in poverty in our own countries first The only time that anyone should really put citizens of other countries above their own is if there is a genocide, hence why I get pissed off every time I hear about Darfur because I know the only reason we’re not doing anything with Darfur is because there is no oil there. It’s like with Rwanda. Clinton fucked up with Somalia and he got scared during the Rwanda genocide. Experts called it “Somalia Syndrome”, which was the fear of going into another country and being afraid that they might turn it into a repeat of Somalia. If anyone that’s reading this is a Clinton supporter and you don’t believe me, then I DARE you to try to prove me wrong. It’s a historical fact.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]157751[/snapback]</div>

We cannot save the world, and if we can, then we should ... starting with the people in our own country![/b]

He who cannot successfully govern himself cannot be expected to successfully govern others.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]157751[/snapback]</div>

BTW: we give tons of money to other coutries in aid, so we shouldn't worry if there are poor people in Saudi Arabia...[/b]

So, if I’m reading this right, then you’re basically saying “we’re giving tons of money to Central America, South America and Africa so fuck Saudi Arabia.” Am I reading this right? PLEASE tell me that I’m now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]157751[/snapback]</div>

but thats kind of like buying carbon-offsets and saying well thats covers my private jet fuel, when really you aren't saving the environment, just looking the part. America doesn't really care about poor people around the world, we just gotta look the part...[/b]

I assume you mean that the American government doesn’t really care about poor people around the world. Even if that is what you’re saying, you’re still 100% wrong. Contrary to popular belief, the government DOES care about every single poor person on Earth. However, if helping them doesn’t suit the needs of the politicians and it doesn’t help further their own agenda, then all they will do is preach helping them but, in reality, they won’t do anything that they preach.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]157751[/snapback]</div>

Also the international news i watch is more or less just new reporting, not news discussing. There is no bias and it is not BBC...[/b]

You must have one hell of a satellite dish then.

 

[JKey2003]

NOPE! Cable... ;)

I was using Saudi as an example not as the sole county we do not care about ...


Your points are well taken, and I not trying to sound like you ... You are much too normal and I gotta keep it real yo!

j/k

This may be compeltly off topic at this point, but:
I think the reason we are not taking a more active role in Darfur is base on two main reasons. You are right, our gov't does care for poor people, I am a cynic tho, so exucse my earlier comments about us just playing the part ... America is one of the most compassionate nations ... (despite the wars). It is not as simple as 'there is no oil' though, IMO.

I think there are 2 reasons we are not taking a more active role in Darfur because:
1. Maybe the US gov't is actually giving the UN a chance to prove that it is useful ... and not just a mouthpeice. This is a golden oppurtunity for the UN to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
2. Also, I think it is risky for Bush to go into Africa at all. Partially due to the Somalia fiasco. It wouldn't be helpful for another white President to get involved with Africa, b/c of the sensitive race-relations in American Society. The last thing Bush needs is to look like he is shitting on Africa. Blacks already hate him in Amerca and have begun to blame him for a hurricane as if he can conjure up storms and shit...

Have we supplied any help to Darfur? I thought I heard that we sent over some military advisors or somethin to help logistics of manuevering the Sudanese Army. Plus, we have to give them a chance to help themselves before we go in all high and mighty like: "Oh the white people will save you once again, since you cant help yourselves..."

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brandon Rhea @ Apr 6 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]157753[/snapback]</div>

I assume you mean that the American government doesn’t really care about poor people around the world. Even if that is what you’re saying, you’re still 100% wrong. Contrary to popular belief, the government DOES care about every single poor person on Earth. However, if helping them doesn’t suit the needs of the politicians and it doesn’t help further their own agenda, then all they will do is preach helping them but, in reality, they won’t do anything that they preach.
You must have one hell of a satellite dish then.[/b]

The American government cares for 100% of the poor people in the world? That's completely fallacious. I want you to explain to me then, how the Maquiladora programs supported by the United States government help poor people in other countries. And then I want you to explain how encouraging the Race to the Bottom in the Third World helps poor people as well. You'd think, if the United States government cared about poor people they'd enact some sort of legislature that would improve the conditions in the Maquiladora and other Free Trade Zones in South America.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 6 2007, 02:53 PM) [snapback]157760[/snapback]</div>

NOPE! Cable... ;)

This may be compeltly off topic at this point, but:
I think the reason we are not taking a more active role in Darfur is base on two main reasons. You are right, our gov't does care for poor people, I am a cynic tho, so exucse my earlier comments about us just playing the part ... America is one of the most compassionate nations ... (despite the wars). It is not as simple as 'there is no oil' though, IMO.

I think there are 2 reasons we are not taking a more active role in Darfur because:
1. Maybe the US gov't is actually giving the UN a chance to prove that it is useful ... and not just a mouthpeice. This is a golden oppurtunity for the UN to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
2. Also, I think it is risky for Bush to go into Africa at all. Partially due to the Somalia fiasco. It wouldn't be helpful for another white President to get involved with Africa, b/c of the sensitive race-relations in American Society. The last thing Bush needs is to look like he is shitting on Africa. Blacks already hate him in Amerca and have begun to blame him for a hurricane as if he can conjure up storms and shit...[/b]

Both of your points are purely conjecture, there's no evidence supporting either claim.

This may be off topic, but I find it really funny when people criticize the UN for their lack fo ability to directly act. Because we're the reason they're like that. When the United Nations was formed, there were two attitudes taken towards it. One camp (The United States and Britain) wanted the UN to be a completely economic institution. The Soviet Union wanted it to be a global police force(Akin to Interpol on steroids). Now, I'm not saying that having it be a purely military institution would do any good, but I'm saying that Americans don't realize the UN is ineffective because we made it that way. So it's just hypocritical.

 

[Ser Yorick]

I think we DO need an international police force of sorts, but NOT controlled or influenced by the United States in ANY way, which is probably impossible at this point. Either that, or we just need WW III to break out real quick and get the World Presidency under way already.

 

[JKey2003]

This may be off topic, but I find it really funny when people criticize the UN for their lack fo ability to directly act. Because we're the reason they're like that. When the United Nations was formed, there were two attitudes taken towards it. One camp (The United States and Britain) wanted the UN to be a completely economic institution. The Soviet Union wanted it to be a global police force(Akin to Interpol on steroids). Now, I'm not saying that having it be a purely military institution would do any good, but I'm saying that Americans don't realize the UN is ineffective because we made it that way. So it's just hypocritical[/b]

I disagree. The UN could have influence if they tried. The United States, if anything, gave the UN what little teeth it has. Without the US, the UN is all bark.

Of course, America will never sign on to every treaty the UN and it's members come up with. Like the ICJ or the Kyoto pact ... Americans simply will not allow foriegn countries or citizens of foreign countries to tell us what we can and cannot do. We will not enter into a contract with other countries that limits our freedom to do whatever the fuck we want to.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 7 2007, 06:53 AM) [snapback]157901[/snapback]</div>

The American government cares for 100% of the poor people in the world? That's completely fallacious. I want you to explain to me then, how the Maquiladora programs supported by the United States government help poor people in other countries. And then I want you to explain how encouraging the Race to the Bottom in the Third World helps poor people as well. You'd think, if the United States government cared about poor people they'd enact some sort of legislature that would improve the conditions in the Maquiladora and other Free Trade Zones in South America.[/b]

You completely missed my point. I said flat out that if it doesn't suit their agendas then they're not going to do anything about it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 7 2007, 06:53 AM) [snapback]157901[/snapback]</div>

This may be off topic, but I find it really funny when people criticize the UN for their lack fo ability to directly act. Because we're the reason they're like that. When the United Nations was formed, there were two attitudes taken towards it. One camp (The United States and Britain) wanted the UN to be a completely economic institution. The Soviet Union wanted it to be a global police force(Akin to Interpol on steroids). Now, I'm not saying that having it be a purely military institution would do any good, but I'm saying that Americans don't realize the UN is ineffective because we made it that way. So it's just hypocritical.[/b]

Explain to me why the UN peacekeepers go into countries with their baby blue hats and guns that they're not allowed to shoot. How is that the US making the UN ineffective?

 

[Adamis]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 8 2007, 05:12 AM) [snapback]157910[/snapback]</div>

Of course, America will never sign on to every treaty the UN and it's members come up with. Like the ICJ or the Kyoto pact ... Americans simply will not allow foriegn countries or citizens of foreign countries to tell us what we can and cannot do. We will not enter into a contract with other countries that limits our freedom to do whatever the fuck we want to.[/b]

And yet they try to do it to every other country in the World! Examples: Iran and North Korea not allowed Nuclear Program, New Zealand HAS not allow to be nuclear free, Everyone has to listen to the UN and do as they say except the USA when it doesn't suit them.

 

[JKey2003]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Adamis / Kal @ Apr 7 2007, 06:32 PM) [snapback]157925[/snapback]</div>

And yet they try to do it to every other country in the World! Examples: Iran and North Korea not allowed Nuclear Program, New Zealand HAS not allow to be nuclear free, Everyone has to listen to the UN and do as they say except the USA when it doesn't suit them.[/b]

Tell that to Iran ... they don't do a damn thing the UN says

They trying to be like us ... but they cant!

Cut it out, HAHA!

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 7 2007, 08:00 PM) [snapback]157927[/snapback]</div>

Tell that to Iran ... they don't do a damn thing the UN says

They trying to be like us ... but they cant!

Cut it out, HAHA![/b]

No, they're not trying to be like us. They're sticking it to us. They're showing us how arrogant we were before the invasion of Iraq. We didn't follow what the UN said, so now this is Iran's way of saying "Fuck you, George Bush!"

 

[JKey2003]

Half of America is chanting Fuck You George Bush right along with em...

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Here's the thing with Americans, though. 70% of us say "Fuck George Bush" on a daily basis. However, when people from other countries say "Fuck George Bush" we're usually like "Hey, now. That's not nice!"

 

[JKey2003]

lol

yeah ...

why is that?

We the only one's who can say fuck george bush?

Because we elected him huh?

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Feris Kai @ Apr 7 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]157910[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. The UN could have influence if they tried. The United States, if anything, gave the UN what little teeth it has. Without the US, the UN is all bark.

Of course, America will never sign on to every treaty the UN and it's members come up with. Like the ICJ or the Kyoto pact ... Americans simply will not allow foriegn countries or citizens of foreign countries to tell us what we can and cannot do. We will not enter into a contract with other countries that limits our freedom to do whatever the fuck we want to.[/b]

Again. You're missing my point. It's ineffective because that's the way it was designed. The United States and Britain were the main designers of the UN.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brandon Rhea @ Apr 7 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]157911[/snapback]</div>

You completely missed my point. I said flat out that if it doesn't suit their agendas then they're not going to do anything about it.
Explain to me why the UN peacekeepers go into countries with their baby blue hats and guns that they're not allowed to shoot. How is that the US making the UN ineffective?[/b]

You know what we call that where I come from? Not caring. You're anthropomorphizing the American Government. The American Government doesn't have cares or likes. It cares about poor people as much as a spoon wants to be used to eat soup. The only thing that matters is what the people in charge care about.

The US made the UN ineffective in that regard because we made it that way. We're the cause because we designed the way it's going to work.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 7 2007, 10:23 PM) [snapback]157935[/snapback]</div>

You know what we call that where I come from? Not caring. You're anthropomorphizing the American Government. The American Government doesn't have cares or likes. It cares about poor people as much as a spoon wants to be used to eat soup. The only thing that matters is what the people in charge care about.[/b]

You speak of people in government as if they are devoid of basic human emotions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 7 2007, 10:23 PM) [snapback]157935[/snapback]</div>

The US made the UN ineffective in that regard because we made it that way. We're the cause because we designed the way it's going to work.[/b]

Yes, we did, and back in the 1940s and 1950s it did work. It's up to the United Nations as a whole, NOT the United States, to reform it so it is effective in the 21st Century.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brandon Rhea @ Apr 7 2007, 10:27 PM) [snapback]157936[/snapback]</div>

You speak of people in government as if they are devoid of basic human emotions.
Yes, we did, and back in the 1940s and 1950s it did work. It's up to the United Nations as a whole, NOT the United States, to reform it so it is effective in the 21st Century.[/b]

No, I speak of the /Government/ as if it's devoid of basic human emotions. I'm talking about the Legislature and bureaucracy. But the point remains that if the People in charge don't care about Poor people, then your claim that the government cares about 100% of the poor people in the world is patently false.

The problem with the UN is that they can only operate within the framework that was established. Systems do not completely change the way you suggest. They just get more complicated until they're too complicated to exist anymore. Then they decay, and then something else takes its place.

The UN was designed as a purely economic organization. Therefore it has to remain within the framework of that system.

 

[Ser Yorick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 7 2007, 10:23 PM) [snapback]157935[/snapback]</div>

The US made the UN ineffective in that regard because we made it that way. We're the cause because we designed the way it's going to work.[/b]

Come again?

The US made the UN ineffective in that regard because we made it that way.[/b]

Care to elaborate on that? Or just restate what you already said as a reason for saying what you said?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 7 2007, 10:34 PM) [snapback]157937[/snapback]</div>

The problem with the UN is that they can only operate within the framework that was established. Systems do not completely change the way you suggest. They just get more complicated until they're too complicated to exist anymore. Then they decay, and then something else takes its place.

The UN was designed as a purely economic organization. Therefore it has to remain within the framework of that system.[/b]

I can't believe I'm saying this.
The UN can't do everything we want it to not just because the United States crippled it, or whatever you're trying to say (yeah, please explain in full detail how, when, etc). It's because the UN is not an international police force, it never will be unless one country rises above all the rest, systematically conquers the entire world, and enforces its rule over earth. THEN if that establishment chooses to name itself the UN, THEN it shall be able to do all the things we want it to. Such as international policing, making sure the rebels are destroyed once and for all... etc.

You're right, the UN is basically just an economic organization, but with a catch. It's basically like Canada, but with more restraint. It sends out peacekeepers, but doesn't allow them to shoot things. Pussies.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adroit @ Apr 10 2007, 11:07 PM) [snapback]158429[/snapback]</div>

It's basically like Canada, but with more restraint. It sends out peacekeepers, but doesn't allow them to shoot things. Pussies.[/b]

I do believe that I have just read the greatest analogy ever.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adroit @ Apr 10 2007, 11:07 PM) [snapback]158429[/snapback]</div>

Come again?
Care to elaborate on that? Or just restate what you already said as a reason for saying what you said?
I can't believe I'm saying this.
The UN can't do everything we want it to not just because the United States crippled it, or whatever you're trying to say (yeah, please explain in full detail how, when, etc). It's because the UN is not an international police force, it never will be unless one country rises above all the rest, systematically conquers the entire world, and enforces its rule over earth. THEN if that establishment chooses to name itself the UN, THEN it shall be able to do all the things we want it to. Such as international policing, making sure the rebels are destroyed once and for all... etc.

You're right, the UN is basically just an economic organization, but with a catch. It's basically like Canada, but with more restraint. It sends out peacekeepers, but doesn't allow them to shoot things. Pussies.[/b]

Read my other posts, I already described how the US doomed the UN from the start, and that the UN cannot simply "Change" itself.

And your point is foolish, you're not talking about an international police force, you're talking about a worldwide dictatorship. If this UN police force were to be a success it would have to count against /all/ nations.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 10 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]158434[/snapback]</div>

I do believe that I have just read the greatest analogy ever.[/b]

-greatest +worst