Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?  
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

So far, he seems to be rehashing stuff that UN folks already know. Education, free trade, human rights, etc. It's like he's preaching to the choir. And bordering on hypocracy at times.

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

The real question is, given his credibility rating, does anyone care any more what the guy has to say?


Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 1):
The real question is, given his credibility rating, does anyone care any more what the guy has to say?

None whatsoever, but I am sure he is playing president, not his usual role of conqueror.





"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Thread starter):
Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

I was wondering the same thing myself. Bush should have refused to speak because the UN is impotent and serves no useful purpose. They are a leech on the economy of the US.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

I liked it , (of course).. I think it was right on time. He highlighted all of the international efforts that the US is involved with. These are not President Bush's efforts all in all, but he went down the list of all of the "good " positive things that the US does in the world. If I am not mistaken I believe he even credited the administration in the 90's for its efforts against AIDS .. and highlighted the continued commitment of his administration.

I guess you would have liked him to get up and announce that we are oppressive , warlike en slavers of poor Iranian children... ?



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3705 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Queso (Reply 3):
I was wondering the same thing myself. Bush should have refused to speak because the UN is impotent and serves no useful purpose. They are a leech on the economy of the US.

I agree. The UN is an impotent organization that serves no purpose. We should withdraw from it and let the headquarters move to another country.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 5):
The UN is an impotent organization that serves no purpose.

Translation -- it doesn't do what the US tells it to do, or support what the US does unilaterally.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 5):
We should withdraw from it and let the headquarters move to another country.

Agreed. The sooner the better.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 6):
Translation -- it doesn't do what the US tells it to do, or support what the US does unilaterally.

Wrong translation. Perhaps a better one would be that it is so ripe with corruption, nepotism, and theivery that it is incompetent and incapable of achieving much. Sure it does good things but imagine what it could do if the third world banana republic dictators wouldn't try to line their pockets with UN cash and instead use it as intended for their people. Crazy thought I know but maybe, just maybe, that is the real goal of the UN and that has long since been forgotten.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3705 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2133 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Arrow (Reply 6):
Translation -- it doesn't do what the US tells it to do, or support what the US does unilaterally.


Translation, the UN serves no purpose for me on a daily basis. It is a corrupt thieving organization. Furthermore, I don't give a damn about the welfare about the people in third world countries, it may be the fact that I am a bastard German, but it is the way I feel. I know you're sitting there shocked and appalled, but I just don't care. The billions of dollars that the US dumps into the UN every year could be better spent on making sure are own citizens are fed, educated, and not living in poverty. Why should developed countries should the burden of the un-developed countries?

[Edited 2007-09-25 17:41:10]

[Edited 2007-09-25 17:41:37]


Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

I am sorry guys, but I have to defend the UN. Although I don't defend the US being part of it, or one of their main offices located in our territory, I think the UN is highly necessary.

After WWII, our world needed an organization to gather all nations and have great diplomatic relations. One of the reasons we had 2 world wars was because the parties involved failed to become amicable enough to sit down and work the problems (well I don't think Hitler would have enjoyed doing that) but still I think that having the UN is better than not having it at all.

And I think that because the cold war never got to become officially WW3 (although it was at some times), was because of the UN.

[Edited 2007-09-25 17:44:33]


"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineBigOrange From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2371 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 5):
We should withdraw from it and let the headquarters move to another country.

No, don't do that. It's the only excitement (aircraft wise) that we get in NY and that's only once a year  Wink


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 3):
Bush should have refused to speak because the UN is impotent and serves no useful purpose. They are a leech on the economy of the US.

Then Mr. Bush fits perfectly there: he's impotent, serves no useful purpose, and has been a leech on the economy of the U.S. What a great marriage.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 5):
We should withdraw from it and let the headquarters move to another country.

 Yeah sure


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 9):
And I think that because the cold war never got to become officially WW3 (although it was at some times), was because of the UN.

I think the fact that the Cold War never became officially "hot" had very little to do with the UN.


User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 12):
I think the fact that the Cold War never became officially "hot" had very little to do with the UN.

Oh, please then by all means, elaborate for me.



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 13):
Oh, please then by all means, elaborate for me.

It had much more to do with spheres of influence (NATO, Warsaw Pact), mutually assured destruction, massive retaliation, and both the US and USSR being unwilling to take steps that would spark a hot war between them. All of the de-escalating events during the Cold War came about as a result of direct US-USSR negotiation or action, rather than as a result of anything the UN did. Examples of such would be: the Berlin crises, Cuban Missile Crisis, ABM Treaty, SALT I and SALT II, the INF Treaty, and START.

Can you think of an example where the UN itself prevented war between the superpowers during the Cold War?


User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 14):
Can you think of an example where the UN itself prevented war between the superpowers during the Cold War?

I do agree with you, the UN is somewhat of a symbolic institution. However, it did have at least some repercussions during the cold war.

Let's take the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example, both sides were contemplating in having the UN in charge of carrying out of the commitments of supervising the removal of missiles from Turkey and Cuba, although the UN didn't at the end, it was a plausible measure. The UN was the center of the debates. The world saw throughout the UN meetings the pictures of missiles in Cuba. I bet that if those pictures were presented or the meetings held in some NATO meeting place it wouldn't have an unbiased value. All parties involved spoke in the General Assembly of the UN relating to the crisis. They had the debates there, and people got to hear both parts. The people were informed and that is more important, were we able to read or listen to the negotiations that both parties had if it were outside the UN?

Although they resorted to a solution directly Kennedy and Khrushchev, I am quite sure that the UN did keep us on our toes with everything going on with those debates.

My point, the UN did somehow present to the world what was going on, and at least saved us from a third world war. And yes it was an insignificant institution.



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 15):
The people were informed and that is more important, were we able to read or listen to the negotiations that both parties had if it were outside the UN?

If you think the UN is good for being a place for nations to voice their differences, then yes, the UN has value. It gave Adlai Stevenson a global audience to basically indict the Soviets of foul play on the world stage.

For most of the Cold War it was merely a forum for the US and USSR to whine at each other while achieving little substantively, which was my point originally.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 9):
After WWII, our world needed an organization to gather all nations and have great diplomatic relations. One of the reasons we had 2 world wars was because the parties involved failed to become amicable enough to sit down and work the problems (well I don't think Hitler would have enjoyed doing that) but still I think that having the UN is better than not having it at all.

The UN wasn't instrumental in the Vietnam conflict.

The UN wasn't instrumental in ending the Cold War.

The UN wasn't instrumental in the Balkans/Kosovo... indeed President Clinton and NATO bypassed them altogether!

The UN was useless in enforcing their own resolutions, when it came to Iraq.

The UN is useless when it comes to Darfur.

The UN was impotent when it came to the genocide in Rwanda.

The UN was useless when it came to bringing stability and peace to Somalia.

The UN has proven totally useless when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

The UN has proven totally useless when it comes to the Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian issues.

The UN has been completely irrelevant during the War on Terror, and calming radical Islam.

The UN has proven to be grossly corrupt and morally bankrupt.


....For an organization that we pay for nearly %25 of their operating budget, why shouldn't we expect more?

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 15):

Let's take the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example, both sides were contemplating in having the UN in charge of carrying out of the commitments of supervising the removal of missiles from Turkey and Cuba, although the UN didn't at the end, it was a plausible measure. The UN was the center of the debates. The world saw throughout the UN meetings the pictures of missiles in Cuba. I bet that if those pictures were presented or the meetings held in some NATO meeting place it wouldn't have an unbiased value. All parties involved spoke in the General Assembly of the UN relating to the crisis. They had the debates there, and people got to hear both parts. The people were informed and that is more important, were we able to read or listen to the negotiations that both parties had if it were outside the UN?

That's one example of a 40year war. And even then... it wasn't a primary player in defusing the conflict. After Adlai Stevenson went before the UN and exposed Soviet missiles in Cuba, the situation intensified. At the time of his speech we were at DEFCON 3, and we went further down to DEFCON 2 days later. Soviet missiles also went online after the UN event. A US U2 aircraft was shot down, and pilot killed, after the UN event... which propelled us even closer to nuclear war.

Yeah the UN was an important factor in the PR aspect of the conflict... but it certainly didn't defuse the crisis. Just like the list above, the UN has a history of irrelevancy.

-UH60


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 3):
I was wondering the same thing myself. Bush should have refused to speak because the UN is impotent and serves no useful purpose. They are a leech on the economy of the US.

Bingo!

Nuf Said.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 8):
The billions of dollars that the US dumps into the UN every year could be better spent on making sure are own citizens are fed, educated, and not living in poverty.

Ditto . . .

How many children in this country could we save by keeping the $$$ Billions here? How many schools could be rebuilt? How many collapsing bridges could we repair? How quickly could we upgrade ATC? There are hundreds of things I feel my tax dollars could be better spent on than helping some third world country that doesn't even try to help itself. . .

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Thread starter):
So far, he seems to be rehashing stuff that UN folks already know. Education, free trade, human rights, etc. It's like he's preaching to the choir.

Mark, my friend, show me ONE leader of a country on this planet that speaks at the UN and doesn't do EXACTLY the same thing?!


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21486 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1975 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 17):
....For an organization that we pay for nearly %25 of their operating budget, why shouldn't we expect more?

So why do the USA to a large extent sabotage and prevent it from achieving what it's there to do?  eyebrow 

In the case of Iraq the UN did enforce its own resolutions. And many people would still live today if the Bush administration hadn't gone off on a wild tangent instead of supporting the UN inspections which were fully correct and effective as even the later US inspectors had to confirm post-invasion.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
In the case of Iraq the UN did enforce its own resolutions.

 rotfl  By doing what Klaus my friend . . . passing yet more worthless resolutions!

Laughable.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21486 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
How many children in this country could we save by keeping the $$$ Billions here? How many schools could be rebuilt? How many collapsing bridges could we repair? How quickly could we upgrade ATC? There are hundreds of things I feel my tax dollars could be better spent on than helping some third world country that doesn't even try to help itself. . .

So how many billions do you believe the USA contributes to the UN, exactly? You're in for a surprise if you should actually check the relative dimensions.

Especially when considering that good-faith participation in the UN process would have saved the USA the massive expenses of the Iraq occupation the UN would be a bargain - if the investment wasn't simply wasted by failing to exploit the substantial chances the UN would offer - if the US government actually recognized them, that is.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):

In the case of Iraq the UN did enforce its own resolutions.

So when Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors... what exactly did we do? More importantly what did the UN do?

I think we lobbed a few AGMs into Iraq, dropped a few 2,000 pounders... and said, "Oh well." So the hell was the point of passing resolutions, if the organization was unwilling to see them fully implemented? What the hell is the point of putting our trust in that organization, when they were clearly uninterested in keeping their word?

-UH60


User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
Mark, my friend, show me ONE leader of a country on this planet that speaks at the UN and doesn't do EXACTLY the same thing?!

He sounded like he was schmoozing and trying to make good for blowing them off in the past.

What was he trying to accomplish? He's not exactly on the UN ambassadors' RU list.

[Edited 2007-09-25 20:52:45]

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21486 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
By doing what Klaus my friend . . . passing yet more worthless resolutions!

Among them being the UN inspections which were correct and successful (among other things destroying the only actual weapons systems which was found in violation) before they were aborted by the US invasion.

Had the process completed, the findings would have been the exact same the US invasion produced. Minus the massive damage. Plus the opportunity to deal with Saddam jointly instead of unilaterally.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
Laughable.

Not when you look at what actually happened and not some fantasyland wishful thinking which is crumbling before your very eyes.


25 Klaus : a) Unfortunately Saddam had actually been given plausible cause for evicting the inspectors back then, because some members of the inspection teams w
26 HuskyAviation : Hold on a second--I'll admit I'm not a huge lover of the UN nor am I a great fan of Bush's foreign policy, but singling out the US for making the UN
27 Klaus : Only because of the source of the criticism. It is perfectly clear that especially China and Russia have played a rather deplorable role in the UNSC
28 RFields5421 : Have you ever studied Louisiana politics in the 30's, 40's, 50's & 60's? Or Cook County IL during the 50's and 60's? Or Texas in the 40's, 50's & 60'
29 B752fanatic : Because everything you have said, It is imperative that the US be removed from the UN and the offices located in NY. For their disobedience to the fi
30 UH60FtRucker : Under your plan, can all of our money be removed, as well? -UH60
31 Post contains images B752fanatic : By all means, they ought to. If we do not abide by nothing they dictate or say that goes against our policies and defy the UN, meaning the rest of th
32 UH60FtRucker : Well...wait... that doesn't make much sense, does it? We'd have to expel a lot of countries, wouldn't we? How many countries have ignored the UN, or
33 Post contains images Aloges : Yay, another round of UN bashing... shocking!
34 Arrow : There is a legitimate debate about this. Of course a US withdrawal would mean a withdrawal of funding. How could it be any other way? There's a choic
35 DeltaGator : And yet nothing from you to counter any of the claims or opinions...not shocking.
36 B752fanatic : Well, you have to know, we are far too powerful for a simple UN resolution to affect our policies, whist if a UN resolution tackles some smaller and
37 UH60FtRucker : Come'on Arrow. There is a large difference between wanting to reform the presence of the US in the UN... and calling for isolationalism. I see nothin
38 Klaus : Most of it isn't even based on any actual knowledge of the UN but merely on unfounded and factually incorrect prejudices and long debunked talking po
39 Post contains images Aloges : I could write something on successful UN missions (such as UNDOF and UNFICYP), on their objectives (not to turn a place into a land of milk and honey
40 B752fanatic : You guys are only speaking of some of the most controversial subjects relating US-UN, but you guys haven't mentioned the Kyoto Protocol, which we swif
41 Arrow : I don't disagree with you, but listen to some of your politicians. The rhetoric that comes out their mouths makes it sound like the UN is a communist
42 Post contains images Falcon84 : The NHL, perhaps?
43 UH60FtRucker : ....and just what has the KP done? China is building over 50 coal plants a year, and their emissions are steadily growing - they have/or shortly will
44 B752fanatic : China ratified it (unlike us), although their emissions are half of ours, they say they will comply. But as you say its nothing but a symbolic accord
45 Springbok747 : One example of the UN's incompetence - Zimbabwe. There are literally millions of people starving and suffering under Mugabe. So why isn't the UN doing
46 Post contains images Klaus : Yeah, they should simply bomb everybody who doesn't fulfill their self-committed goals immediately and at the first try...! That argumentation doesn'
47 Klaus : The UN is an organisation which was designed to receive its spine from its member countries. Bitch at them while you're at it. The UN is a platform,
48 Springbok747 : So what you're saying is that the United Nations is unable to take direct and independent actions without support from its members. In other words, t
49 Post contains links and images UH60FtRucker : Wrong, they are roughly equal to ours. Or some, such as the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, predicts they recently passed us: http://www
50 Post contains links and images HowSwedeitis : Two very ignorant statements. Read up here. http://www.un.org/works/ Oh, like KBR-Halliburton stealing billions, (thats billions with a B) in fraudul
51 Springbok747 : No where did I say that? I'm saying the UN should be able to take action if one can plainly see suffering and misery - such as what is happening in Z
52 UH60FtRucker : Well first, if you're going to come in and act like a jerk - when everyone has managed to remain fairly polite and civil - you probably should just c
53 Post contains links HowSwedeitis : Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 52): Well first, if you're going to come in and act like a jerk - when everyone has managed to remain fairly polite and ci
54 B752fanatic : You also must consider that with the creation of NATO, the US is indeed creating a separate form of "UN", in which in lieu of having "enemies" and "a
55 Post contains links Joni : You point escapes me. Surely you're not saying that since the UN hasn't solved all the world's problems, it's useless? By that line of thought everyt
56 Arrow : An institution like the UN will be as successful as the major countries involved will allow it to be. The track record of all of them -- including th
57 DeltaDC9 : Given that Congress has an APPROVAL rating (not credibility) half that of Bush, whats the problem?
58 Arrow : Congress isn't giving a speech to the UN -- which is what this thread is about. Are you saying that because Congress has an even lower apporoval rati
59 UH60FtRucker : So you assumed what I believed? You know that old saying: One should not assume; it makes an ass out of you and me. You made this absurd argument tha
60 Springbok747 : The only solution that I can imagine is for each country that is a member of the UN to equally contribute a military force or equivalent money to the
61 Post contains images Klaus : Your conclusion is incorrect. You just have false expectations of what the UN is and how it operates. Any parliament is "powerless" without its elect
62 Post contains images Klaus : a) The UN didn't legitimize the disaster that we've been watching unfold since 2003. That is a major success in itself already. b) The UN inspections
63 YOWza : Typical shit from the same old A.netters. Well there has been talk of moving to Berlin and Toronto, both were squashed under US pressure so if your be
64 Post contains images HowSwedeitis : I see your argument, and I never intended to make it seem that way. LoL, I think we agree more than we disagree. I think I am done with this thread t
65 Joni : I think the UN was instrumental in preventing the Cold War from becoming World War III, and thus extremely successful. I'm not saying that there woul
66 HuskyAviation : They never used the UN to search for common ground. As I stated earlier, the UN was a forum for the 2 superpowers to bitch and whine at each other. J
67 DeltaDC9 : You missed the point entirely, but it is obvious why....
68 Joni : I of course suppose you're an expert in history to be able to present such blanket statements. Even if the Soviet Union and the US weren't members, t
69 Post contains images Acheron : The US made it that way.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is Israel Important To The US? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 02:28:00 by Mbj-11
6 Months Later - John Bolton At The UN posted Sat Mar 4 2006 10:50:24 by Cfalk
Is There A Terrorist At The Airport? posted Fri Oct 28 2005 22:09:40 by Airlinelover
Why Is Bush To Blame? posted Thu Sep 15 2005 05:30:14 by Usnseallt82
Is Pe@rson At The Glastonbury Festival? posted Sat Jun 25 2005 00:14:53 by SQNo1
Is Everyone Ill At The Moment?! posted Tue Feb 1 2005 23:18:11 by A340600
French Extortion At The UN posted Thu Aug 14 2003 21:31:13 by N79969
Jack Straw At The UN. Amazing. posted Fri Mar 7 2003 21:36:56 by KLAX
Why The € Is Stronger At The Year End? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 10:33:51 by F.pier
Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is? posted Wed Mar 23 2005 17:24:07 by MaverickM11