U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question - Page 2

**DudeMan** · 02-18-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Unless the non-US countries band together and actually get the balls to put sanctions on us, there will be no international governing body; short of WW3 that ends with a domination, that is. Those sanctions are never going to happen, though. When it comes to international politics, it tends to be the US way or the highway.

hmmm not sure i agree with this, was it Mr bush i saw posotivly cakking his pants next to the chinese president, (while walking pastthe armed guard) i dont see china bending over to please america, not that visa versa is happeneing, but i just dont think this view is true.

**DudeMan** · 02-18-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xRANSACKx

Right...and what pray tell would the detainees say?....perhaps, "I am innocent and the evil americans are torturing me, please help me o' great UN'. Give me a break.

good point go to any prison in the world, and everyone didnt do it, and the guards are always pals of hitlers grandchilldren.....

not saying nothing is going on at guantanimo, but you cant sanction something you have not even seen with your own eyes. all we have is rumours from people shady enough to be suspected of terrorist dealings. huh thats representative.

**CingularDuality** · 02-18-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I believe that historical evidence clearly shows that the U.S. contributed to the failure of the U.N. more than any other one nation

Heh... And which country contributed to the formation of the United Nations more than any other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarpan

Funniest part is, Iraq actually followed the UN regulations and still got invaded for it, heh.

Is that so?

My memory must be failing me... I could've sworn that the UN issued resolution after resolution demanding that Saddam prove that he had dismantled/destroyed his WMDs, "or else". Saddam refused to comply time after time and the UN did nothing about it.

**DudeMan** · 02-18-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

My memory must be failing me... I could've sworn that the UN issued resolution after resolution demanding that Saddam prove that he had dismantled/destroyed his WMDs, "or else". Saddam refused to comply time after time and the UN did nothing about it.

hmm he said he had, and his proof was refuted, unfortunatly it was refuted on bad evidence,

so infact he had dismantled them, and told us about it, but we did not believe him....

**CingularDuality** · 02-18-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

hmm he said he had, and his proof was refuted, unfortunatly it was refuted on bad evidence,

so infact he had dismantled them, and told us about it, but we did not believe him....

That's irrelevent to the fact that the UN and the IAEA required proof that he failed to provide... We all remember the deadline where he finally turned over his "proof", which turned out to prove nothing...

Ransack · 02-18-2006, 08:42 PM

I sure do miss Baghdad Bob, though!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/baghdad_bob/

**DudeMan** · 02-18-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

That's irrelevent to the fact that the UN and the IAEA required proof that he failed to provide... We all remember the deadline where he finally turned over his "proof", which turned out to prove nothing...

im not saying i wholy disagree with you cing, but that is not irrelevent... because intelegence at washington said it proved nothing... and any decision based on the inteligence we had about all the weapons he had was faulty...

and that includes the decisions by the UN....

AMosely · 02-18-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Heh... And which country contributed to the formation of the United Nations more than any other?

The United States of America, obviously. The aim was to construct an international governing body that would essentially act in the WWII Allies' best interests - which essentially meant America's best interests because it was bankrolling the Marshall Plan for economic recovery in post-WWII Europe. This evolved into a belief that the U.N. should work to preserve U.S. and Brittish interests, of which the first and perhaps most significant was the formation and subsequent preservation of the state of Israel. It's fascinating to me how things have come almost full circle as America now seems to be fighting against the very thing it helped create (does this sound familar... flashback to 1980 and the 'Afghan Freedom Fighters'?)

Some argue that the U.N. has been doomed from the start because it is in actuality controlled by the U.S.' supreme veto powers. The U.N. is increasingly not necessarily acting in America's best interests by condemning its foreign policy decisions (including military action). Currently, the U.S. seems openly determined to 'reform' the U.N., which I take as meaning to bring it back under control and reshape it so that this control can be better preserved. The issue of the definition of torture as it relates to Guantamo Bay is only the most recent example of this growing disconnect, but it is certainly not the first issue.

I think this summary of U.N. Security Council vetoing tells a very interesting tale of global struggles over the past 3/4 century: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...o/vetosubj.htm. It seems quite obvious to me that the U.S. has been in sharp (and mostly solitary) disagreement since about 1980. More interestingly, notice the the turmoil during the Cold War - when U.S. dominance clearly hung in the balance.

I apologize for my lengthy diatribes, but this subject (concept, history and future of the U.N.) is very interesting to me right now.

**TheFeniX** · 02-18-2006, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

My memory must be failing me... I could've sworn that the UN issued resolution after resolution demanding that Saddam prove that he had dismantled/destroyed his WMDs, "or else". Saddam refused to comply time after time and the UN did nothing about it.

Saddam didn't just not comply: he order his men to fire upon the UN weapons inspectors to drive them off. I guess he should score some point for making sure no inspector was actually shot....

Lucky Shot · 02-19-2006, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

Some argue that the U.N. has been doomed from the start because it is in actuality controlled by the U.S.' supreme veto powers.

I thought there were other countries with Veto power too. I don't care for the UN and truly do not want to see a successful international legislative body. I don't want the UN to tax my airline fairs, and feel offended every time it holds it's grubby hand towards the US asking for donations to be funnelled through their organization. They do not hold my trust, do not represent my interests and do not deserve my money.

I am fine with seeing the US work treaties with individual countries and regional economic interests such as ASEAN, EU, etc...

Lucky Shot

Steeler · 02-19-2006, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Saddam didn't just not comply: he order his men to fire upon the UN weapons inspectors to drive them off.

What? When?

**DudeMan** · 02-19-2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

What? When?

yeah i dont remember this.....

icky · 02-19-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

My memory must be failing me... I could've sworn that the UN issued resolution after resolution demanding that Saddam prove that he had dismantled/destroyed his WMDs, "or else". Saddam refused to comply time after time and the UN did nothing about it.

Indeed. When did everyone forget about this? It is the reason for the war in Iraq.

Here's a simple summary (edit: well it started as a summary

)...
UN: Hey Iraq, we have a rule intended to prevent bad people from developing weapons of mass destruction. We want to send inspectors to check out what you are doing.

Iraq: Sure, we have nothing to hide

UN: Hey Iraq, you guys aren't letting our inspectors do their jobs

Iraq: We don't have to listen to you, we are kicking these guys out

UN: Iraq, don't do that or we are going to have to do something

Iraq: Screw you losers

UN: Iraq, we are going to squeeze you financially if you don't listen

Iraq: Fine, you will be responsible for thousands of starving babies in our country. We can't possibly afford to rebuild our army and feed our people at the same time.

... time passes and children starve ...

UN: Iraq, we suspect you are up to something, let the weapons inspectors back in please

Iraq: Screw you losers

UN: Iraq, please let the inspectors in

Iraq: Screw you losers

UN: Iraq, let the inspectors back in or we will have to take military action

Iraq: Screw you infidels (note the attitude change here

)

UN: Iraq, please let the inspectors back in (and the obvious lack of will)

Iraq: Ok sure! Just kidding. Screw you spineless dogs.

UN: Iraq, here's a deadline, let them in or we'll do something. We mean it!

Iraq: No.

... deadline gets close...

Iraq: Ok fine, we have nothing to hide. Send them in.

...

Iraq: No wait, we don't accept it.

(repeat above deadline thing)

US: GRRRR... FREAKING DO SOMETHING UN

Iraq: Ok fine, send them in.

UN: Iraq, you aren't letting them inspect anything.

Iraq: Of course we are, it just takes time to hide things, er I mean TIDY things before they visit sites.

Inspectors: Here's our report on what we were able to see in Iraq - something is better than nothing, I suppose

UN: Ok, I guess everything is ok in Iraq

Inspectors: Huh?

US: Wha? Come ON UN!!!

UN: Iraq, I guess this isn't good enough. We need better access or we really really are going to do something this time.

Iraq: That's all you get, pigs. Get these inspectors out of here.

UN: Iraq, you are naughty. Let's spend a few more years doing nothing and then see if you'll cooperate.

US: AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGG!!!! UN, someone has to do something about this. If you won't, we will.

UN: We really don't want to do anything. Do you have any more obvious incriminating evidence that we could ignore?

US: Well I'm sure we could come up with something if you really thought it would help. We'll just do like Barney says and use our imaginations!
(I'll skip the part about how the US tries to convince people that action is required.)

UN: Thanks for that US, we're gonna go ahead and do nothing.

US: UN, you are worthless. We're going to war.

UN: Please don't

US: Shut up

**Trooper** · 02-19-2006, 08:32 PM

yep, i think thats the details of it

freekyE · 02-20-2006, 03:44 AM

if the US government uses torture, it is no better than saddam

PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

02-18-2006, 08:42 PM	#21 (permalink)
Ransack Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Age: 39 Posts: 469	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question I sure do miss Baghdad Bob, though! http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/baghdad_bob/ __________________ \|TG-1stMIP\| Ransack 1st Mechanized Infantry Platoon (C-Team)

02-19-2006, 08:32 PM	#29 (permalink)
Trooper Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In my wifes house......if she says i can Age: 25 Posts: 8,894	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question yep, i think thats the details of it __________________ that sounds like a good idea trooper. -Vulcan

02-20-2006, 03:44 AM	#30 (permalink)
freekyE Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: indiana Posts: 1,000	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question if the US government uses torture, it is no better than saddam PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! Last edited by CingularDuality; 02-20-2006 at 02:27 PM. Reason: Exlamation points broke the forum's tables when quoted...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links