1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

UN tells UK to get rid of the queen

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by Libsmasher, Jun 13, 2008.

  1. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Strafing UN offices would probably kill people who had nothing to do with the report and killing people for speech with which you disagree is sounds like Muslim philosophy. Perhaps the Brits could just ignore the UN report with dignity.

    I don't generally read your posts because you are such an extremist that even when I agree with you in principle I don't wish to associate myself with your inflamed rhetoric, you come across as something of a parody of yourself.
     
  3. ilikeboobs

    ilikeboobs Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Up your butt, Jobu.


    This is the best:
    Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “With so many human rights abuses around the world, the UN should be busy reporting on issues of starvation, execution and the denial of the vote to huge numbers of people around the world.

    “Saudi Arabia and Cuba should pay a little more attention to their own human rights record.”


    The UN is a joke. When dictatorships and communists have as much say as democracies, you know something is wrong. The whole place is morally bankrupt. Gutless cowards is mostly what they are. Sending in "peace keepers" to hotzones, but then run away when they see that people have the nards to stare them down.
     
  4. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
  5. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I don't think England can Abolish it, only not be a part of it. And for all the bad, it does alot of good as well, it just needs reform.
     
  6. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I meant abolish it as it pertains to them. As I wish we would do the same.

    The League of Nations was corrupt and allowed ww2 to take place, because of their corruption we abolished it and started the UN. now they are corrupt, we should start from scratch again. I hate the UN; one day they will be the snake that bites us on the back side.
     
  7. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    The League of nations was not so much Corrupt as had no power , less with out US backing. And WWII happened because of how we ended WWI and other issues. the League of nations was just to weak to do much to stop it. I much stronger version may have helped it, as one it could have Given Germany a better way to try to push for changes to how the deal was forced on them, and forced harder action if the US was joined, and we would have got in a lot faster. With Hitler, its hard to say if anything would have stoped him though.
     
  8. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    When it comes to people who are not sane, like Hitler or the president of Iran, we should not try to use sane methods. You can not sit down and talk with people like them, you just have to smack them down with great force.
     
  9. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    what makes you think Aminnejad is not sane? Becuse he is radical? becuse he makes big speaches? Maybe he is, but evrything he has done could be done by a sane person. Big Speeches and retoric against some group who is hated by your people does not take a insane person to do. hard talk about Israel is one thing, but for all the talk, you notice he has not done anything about it? He is smart , playing polics the way he needs to stay in power. And Don't forget , he may be President, but he is not the leader.

    Also Obama has never stated I believe talks with him himself, but we should talk to those in power lower and build a groundwork. If you don't' agree then you must not like Bush for the same reasons, we are talking with Iran a lot over Iraq issues. And talk does not = agree or do anything they want, it means just that, talk and see if you can agree on something.
     
  10. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene

    I think yes Obama did say he would meet with the president of Iran.

    The question in the debate was:

    “Would you be willing to meet separately without pre conditions during your first administration in Washington or any where else with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea”

    Obama replied:

    I would. And the reason is this, The notion that not talking to countries, is punishment to them.

    The link is below, at no point did Obama say I would meet with surrogates, or send surrogates to meet first, or there would need to be some pre conditions or maybe not in the first year would we sit down face to face, or something. But he did not he said I would and here is why.

    In many other interviews he was asked about the question and gave basically the same answers, never saying well I meant with conditions or I meant I would not meet personally or anything. He even had it on his website that he was the only person running for president that was willing to meet without pre conditions with the leaders of these countries, as though that was some sign of intelligence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU&feature=related
     
  11. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I think anyone who advocates wiping out an entire race of people has to be insane. The president of Iran has advocated for this more times than I could count. Hitler was not sane either and he wanted to do the same thing to the same people just by different methods.
     
  12. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The comment was OBVIOUSLY a joke - there was even a smiley. Get hold of yourself. :rolleyes:
     
  13. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Recall that I've already called for this - the US should found a new United Democratic Nations. It would operate in parallel with the UN for awhile, while the democratic countries joined, then the US would take its money and operate only in the UDN. New members would be admitted as they democratize themselves. Eventually, being left out would be a well-deserved stigma.
     
  14. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    OH I never saw that post, I would have chimed in. I have been totally disgusted in the UN since about .....well the first gulf war.
     
  15. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I believe it was clarified later that there would be meetings at lower levels before such a meeting was to take place, as normal. To basically make sure they where really willing to talk, and talk about what issues would be talked about. IF you get that change you take it so long as you feel the conditions are correct. The Idea you just yell threats and never talk...and somehow that ends with peace, is just retarded. Also Leaders, does not mean Aminnejad anyway, he is not even in fact the leader of Iran. I am fore meeting with lower leval, and if it gets that high up, that means most likey we have some reason to belive they are being legit in there talks.

    The cost of no talks, could be war.

    the cost of talks , we can't lose much.
     
Loading...

Share This Page