Kitty Genovese and the UN

[ted]

Ted, my point is that Jew's little scheme would require a draft.

I apologize for my ignorance, but I'm still not understanding something. Are you saying that you are in the military and forced to go to Africa, or were you intending that under Super Jews policies, we would be forced into a draft?

Thanks,

t.

[Ovedya]

I had to edit out the last few posts. This is s thread in which I believe the original poster would like to discuss the issue of the U.N. and its ineffectiveness int he world. Let's keep it on that subject and not rabbit trail into the issue of the Iraq war.

Also, let's keep it civil here. If you absolutely cannot find any common ground then move on to another discussion before it gets out of hand. We all have opinions here, and those opinions sometimes conflict. But let's remember who we serve, and who is watching.

Grace to you all.

[Guest DarkFenix]

?

I can only agree, and have come to the conclusion that the UN is ineffective, that the comparison of the Kitty murder to the us invasion is flawlessly valid, that yes it is a perfectly ok imperative to invade virgin countries ( in this case the ORIGINAL POSTER put forth the IRAQ INVASION as an example) to instil democracy as we see fit legal international norms be dammed, and that it is a relief that we are saved from having to read somewhat long post that were written with thoughtful, and deliberative effort that may somehow question this.

It is a wonders thing this "civility" that maintains things so tranquil, and has by the grace of God the power to censor that which may lead to the tremolo and movement of our waters.

But again, save me, to stay on topic. The UN is an ineffective and useless institution. Sure it was made to create a degree of democracy among states that otherswise functioned like ravaging wolfs fighting for food; but the consequence of that, byproduct of course of any demoracy of peoples, is that we as the US have to slog through beaurcary, and LEGAL procuedure. That is silly. And tiresome. The US is the sole arbiraty of morality in this world, and as such we shouldn't have to suffer such trappings.

Beside why would we want to WORK WITH our emenies, that is simply ridiculous. Emenies should be DESTRIOIED. Thinking that somehow there might be a more peaceful or at the very least a less bloody alternative is simple ignorant. I would go on a limb here and hope that the mayority of you agree with me here.

Really people why would we the US, in this modern age of connectivity, and as a bacon of democracy ourselfs, EVER want to sit, debate, negotiate and reach a compromise with the different peoples and nations of the world regarding all of our sometimes different cultures and policies. Why should we ever need to hear someone eles's opion if in the end we know we are right????

And what about them UN loving liberals? Aren't they so stereotypical.

Edited December 29, 2004 by DarkFenix

[apothanein kerdos]

All sacrcam aside, I'd ask that you look at the facts. The fact is millions have been killed under UN Supervision. The UN is worthless and has run its course and we need a new organization that is more effective and more practicle.

As for a legal process of going through the UN...where in the UN does it dictate we have to seek UN approval in order to go to war. Looking through the history...no nation has waited for approval of the UN before taking military action on another nation (once again proving the ineffectiveness of the UN). Even if there were a legal process, moral obligation outweighs any UN mandate.

Again, if you're going to respond please be kind and considerate and actually used facts.

[Guest DarkFenix]

You know, my ORIGINAL POST had a very good thing to say about what you have just posted. But being the case that it eraseed WITHOUT EVEN PMING ME, alas it is forever lost.

And I dont have the will to go trough the work of posting it all over again.

So. I will be blunt.

You are a crusader. You have a big heart, want to do good and be a hero. You want to make the world a better place. But your simplistic worldview has tragic and horrific consequences in the real world. The UN is not in the habit of invading forgine nations for two reason 1. it is anti-ethical to ivade only one nation not the other 2. to do so would mean global war, a thing the UN wants to aviod 3. even if it DIDNT CARE, it donst HAVE THE POWER to do go to war on its own. ( principally because there are many of people like yourself all over the world, who dont want to give more power to the UN )

Its like accusing a weaponless soilder for being a coward.

I think the idea is its ok to have UN,........ AS LONG AS IT IS A USUN.

Edited December 29, 2004 by DarkFenix

[Ovedya]

DF,

I do apologize for having to delete your response. For the record I thought it was very well thought out and considerately posted. But the thread was beginning to follow a rabbit trail into the Iraq war.

I welcome you to post your opinins on the Iraq war separately in the War on Terrorism forum. I'm certain that you will get a lot of responses, as others have in the past.

[apothanein kerdos]

But your simplistic worldview has tragic and horrific consequences in the real world. The UN is not in the habit of invading forgine nations for two reason 1. it is anti-ethical to ivade only one nation not the other 2. to do so would mean global war, a thing the UN wants to aviod 3. even if it DIDNT CARE, it donst HAVE THE POWER to do go to war on its own. ( principally because there are many of people like yourself all over the world, who dont want to give more power to the UN )

I am not suggesting invasion or transfering of governments. What I am suggesting is action to stop genocide...which the UN has not done. In fact, the UN seems to support murderers. The UN General Assembly gave a standing ovation to Ugandan dictator Idi Amin who had just finished murdering 300,000 of his own people. Yet you turn to the UN to make ethical choices? Do you not see the mutual exclusivity of the two? The UN gained money off Sadam and refused to enforce its own resolutions against him. Likewise the UN has stated time and time against that HAMAS is justified in all means by which to continue their struggle against Israel. This means that the UN has supported the use of indiscriminate killing of civilians. Yet you want to look to them as a moral authority?

You state that it is not ethical to place troops in another nation to stop murder. Why? Is it then not ethical to shoot a man if you see him committing murder? Shall we merely yell at him and say "Shame on you?" Why is it unethical to not do anything on the personal level but inaction becomes ethical on the national level? The only way to justify this is to assert that national soveriegnty is more important than lives...

[Guest DarkFenix]

Jew. Stop. The UN does not approve of genocide or of terrorist. We are both adults and so are the hardworking people at all the UN consel offices. They are people just like you and me, and I assure you that there are many christens working there so please do and try to show respect for the effort put in by countless professionals of varring areas from across the world. These people try to do their best to stop these horrible events, in fact IT IS WHY THEY CHOOSE TO WORK FOR THE UN, to have a hand of elimanating such things. Spweeing out the ever so typical UN hate line is not doing any good. I know on a personnal level many UN workers and take very OFFENSIVELLY that you would so ignoratnlly bash very many upstanding citizens of this world. I do not ask you to take the UN as a moral authority, I only ask you to respect the misson and aim of what the UN is TRYING to accomplish, the creation of an international forum for dabate and regulation that could possibly avoid the need of there EVER BEING A WAR. You think the UN DID NOT KNOW about rwanda. You think those officers were happy with the fact that they could do nothing about all that horror??? You think it is easy to know you cant stop someone innocent from dieing??? To disrecpet the very serious efforts of people around the world to try and stop this horror is to show a great deal of ignorance. And the greatest irony that you complain that the UN does not do more to stop violance, but in reality IT IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU who DO NOT lend support to the UN that they are INCAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING.

As for invading. Very simple. It is NOT illegal for a man to shoot someone commiting murder. It IS illegal for you to invade a nation for what YOU consider to be genocide.

[apothanein kerdos]

The UN does not approve of genocide or of terrorist.

Do you have proof of this at all? Over 2 million people have been killed in genocidal acts (genocide defined by the UN) while a UN presence was in the area. Furthermore, the UN resolutions have time and again come out in support of terrorism. Do you need to read them?

They are people just like you and me, and I assure you that there are many christens working there so please do and try to show respect for the effort put in by countless professionals of varring areas from across the world. These people try to do their best to stop these horrible events, in fact IT IS WHY THEY CHOOSE TO WORK FOR THE UN, to have a hand of elimanating such things.

Yes, they're working so hard. It takes a lot of effort to cover up the fact that peacekeepers in the Congo, Bosnia, and other nations have literally hundreds of rape cases pending against them. It takes a lot of work to cover up the fact that in Bosnia a UN Peacekeeping leader was using money sent for peace keeping to further his own estate while the UN knew all about it. It takes a lot of effort to cover up an Oil for Food scandle. I have no doubt that the UN workers are working around the clock to cover up the child prostitution ring the peacekeepers set up in Rwanda. What I do know they aren't working on is bringing these men to trial or even firing them seeing as how none have been fired nor brought to trial because the UN says its "outside of their jurisdiction". I mean, if the UN didn't support murderers and genocidal maniacs...why did they give one a standing ovation a few months after he had killed 300,000 of his people?

Spweeing out the ever so typical UN hate line is not doing any good.

And countering back with childish sarcasm all the while lacking important fats doesn't do any of us any good either Felix.

I know on a personnal level many UN workers and take very OFFENSIVELLY that you would so ignoratnlly bash very many upstanding citizens of this world.

I'm sure there are good UN workers. Unfortunately there aren't many. Read the books from some of the former diplomats to the UN...they don't paint a pretty picture.

You think the UN DID NOT KNOW about rwanda. You think those officers were happy with the fact that they could do nothing about all that horror??? You think it is easy to know you cant stop someone innocent from dieing??? To disrecpet the very serious efforts of people around the world to try and stop this horror is to show a great deal of ignorance.

Oh, I know that the UN knew about Rwanda. They were there and didn't allow the the oppressed people into the UN refugee camps. Of course, the ones that did make it have to face the fact they were raped by UN peace keepers...but I guess it's okay they didn't die. This is the point though...the peacekeepers are being held back when they could have stopped the genocide...yet the UN wouldn't let them and took a neutral stance. And you think the UN is working or even trying to work? Of the 185 nations that comprise it, the majority are totalitarian dictatorships...sorry, the goal of the UN is massively flawed.

And the greatest irony that you complain that the UN does not do more to stop violance, but in reality IT IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU who DO NOT lend support to the UN that they are INCAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING.

Why would I lend my support to an organization that has declared it will do nothing to stop genocide and has proven this fact time and time again?

As for invading. Very simple. It is NOT illegal for a man to shoot someone commiting murder. It IS illegal for you to invade a nation for what YOU consider to be genocide.

I was talking about moral obligation, not law. Also, if you could be so kind as to refer me to the law you speak of...being illegal to invade a nation for what I believe is genocide...that's be great. Also, as a side note...is killing 800,000 people solely because they're of another race qualify as genocide or just an accident? Just curious. Please though, if you choose to respond to this post, use facts.

[Guest DarkFenix]

Over 2 million people have been killed in genocidal acts (genocide defined by the UN) while a UN presence was in the area.

Millions more suffer in complete poverty, malnutriention, lack of medical care, and complete economical/social justice. That these conditions STILL exist, and in fact thrive is beyound me, as there are christens in EVERY CORNER of the world, in every nation, million upon millions of christens of every imaginable order, preaching and doing missionary work all over. Not only that, but there are even very powerful heads of state that have much influance in the world.

Yet they standby a let all these people suffer.

Christens must be horrible people.

That is the last I will post in this thread. I see you and me are not on the same page as far as objective observation is concerned.