View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Big Kahuna Lieutenant
Joined: 18 May 2004 Posts: 219 Location: SE Texas
|
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:50 pm Post subject: Kick the UN out |
|
|
and don't elect someone like Frenchie who will want us to be the UN's whores.
The UN has outlived its purpose.
If President Bush wins, his first act should be to kick the UN out of the US, and let them operate in Hati or France. Let them sell the UN compond and keep the money to build elsewhere -- but just get out.
Also, I'm sick and tired of Billions upon Billions of our hard earned tax money going to Arabs that hate our guts -- in the form of "relief". Screw them! Let the rich Arab countries support their own. We should help friends -- not enemies.
I'm not saying we should build the Great Wall of China and be Isolationist -- just that we should be like every other country -- and not the World's dolts with foreign aid. US Foreign Aid has turned into US Extortion Payments. We should help -- but only when in the interest of our National Security. We should take military strike action, only in the interest of our National Security. The day after the election, I'd give the UN 120 days notice to get the Hell out of the US. That gives four years for it to work so the Democrats don't have points on it.
Tell Iran and Korea that we will not allow them to build WMDs; and that if and when we know of where they're being built, stored, or developed -- that they we will send our cruise missiles (and not our boys) over to destroy them and the people who authorized them in the first place. Any civilian casualties will be the blood on their hands for developing the WMDs and allowing people to live near them – not on our hands. They were warned. It is up to their citizens to revolt against the oppressive government -- not us. We'll destroy terrorist camps and WMD development and provide advice and maybe give other help to the Revolutionists with a plan for a peaceful government -- but it is up to them to shed their own blood. The biggest problem in Viet Nam was that we were shooting at the wrong Zipperheads. At least the North had men with some balls. The south had been under French control for so long -- that they were cowards (like the French) who stood aside while we fought their battles. We need to stop doing that for cowards. Destroy the things (including the people/governments) that can be proved to put us (and our closet friends) in danger -- let them (the citizens) sort out where to go from there. _________________ Top 10 Weasels.com is where Kerry is Weasel #1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fortdixlover Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004 Posts: 1476
|
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: Kick the UN out |
|
|
Big Kahuna wrote: | and don't elect someone like Frenchie who will want us to be the UN's whores.
The UN has outlived its purpose. |
What I would like to know is:
Exactly what is different about the U.N., compared to the League of Nations, that will make the U.N.'s handling of the Islamofascist terrorism problem more effective than the League's handling of the growing Nazi menace? (Which, for those posters here who do not know history, was "not entirely effective", to speak rather euphemistically.)
FDL
http://www.pomperaug.com/socstud/stumuseum/web/mrcidea4league.htm
Wilson envisioned a League of Nations that would keep the world at peace. After the first world war, it was clear that the powers of the world were willing to do everything they could to prevent another. In the years leading up to World War II, the League of Nations did not do its job. It did not enforce the Versailles Treaty, and did not protest injustices. While they may not have been "provoking" another war, they were contributing to the unrest of the period. The League of Nations may have had a chance to prevent war, but in not acting for peace sooner, they gave up that right.
In the years before World War II, the League of Nations seemed to be neglecting its position. They took no steps to protect Ethiopia from the advancing Italians until it was too late. They did nothing to stop German troops from rearming, even though the Versailles Treaty was meant to keep German military activity to a minimum. In another instance, the League of Nations failed to act against the Japanese advance into Manchuria and other territories. At a time of such military aggression throughout the world, the League had a chance to limit the activity of potentially harmful nations. In not acting, the League left the world vulnerable for another war.
The policy of appeasement also contributed to the start of another war. One leader who believed in appeasement was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain made concessions to both Hitler and Mussolini in an attempt to keep his nation out of war. But his policy only made Italy and Germany stronger. Both continued building a military, and both continued their conquests for land. It seemed that nations were too frightened of the new totalitarian states to protest their activity. In their neglect came a power that could not be stopped.
Appeasement and the indifference of the League of Nations let Hitler, Mussolini, and Japanese forces build up the power, prestige, and control they needed to launch a major war. And that is what finally happened. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Kahuna Lieutenant
Joined: 18 May 2004 Posts: 219 Location: SE Texas
|
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
The main difference was that we were smart enough back then to not be in the League of Nations. Wilson's idea -- but voted down by congress. _________________ Top 10 Weasels.com is where Kerry is Weasel #1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004 Posts: 4042 Location: Washington State
|
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe there have been more wars since the forming of the UN than before it. Other than making a few individuals very wealthy, I really can't see what good they have done.
Name one war they ever stopped. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GoophyDog PO1
Joined: 10 Jun 2004 Posts: 480 Location: Washington - The Evergreen State
|
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its interesting to note that the failure to prevent World War II can also laid in our lap. I refer to our ambassador to England at the time whose own interests and isolationist views kept our country from learning the real timbre of the Nazi movement.
That ambassador counselled Roosevelt on several occasions to NOT become involved and it wasn't until the ambassador was recalled that Roosevelt was able to proceed with the lend-lease program.
For those of you googleites, do a look up on Mr. Joseph Kennedy and WWII. It can be very educational.
And yes, that's Teddy's daddy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004 Posts: 4042 Location: Washington State
|
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
As well as John F. Kennedy's Daddy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|