• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law

If the US and UN are ready to throw Arizona under the bus, when are they going to do the same for Mexico and Switzerland, countries with much harsher immigration policies?
 
MrVicchio said:
There, some PERSPECTIVE.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting that image. That is, indeed, some perspective. Now that we have a nice pretty picture coupled with my links from the U.N budget I posted above, you can finally answer your own question from post #10, where you asked "The UN gets most of it's funding from where?"
 
phattonez said:
If the US and UN are ready to throw Arizona under the bus, when are they going to do the same for Mexico and Switzerland, countries with much harsher immigration policies?
Click to expand...

While i'm not familiar with the immigration policies of Mexico and Switzerland, that's a good point.
 
This one is pretty simple: Obama is in bed with the "UN Human Rights Commission" made up of countries that *exterminate* homosexuals, cultural minorities, Jews and Christians.

And he wonders why Americans dont beleive he's Christian?

Mr. Obama's version of Christianity was born out of 20+ years sitting in the pews listening (learning?) from Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Rev. Wright's bigoted view of Jews, Judaism, Israel and caucasions was blatantly racist, homophobic and intollerant.

Now you know why 30% of Americans see Mr. Obama as "a Muslim."

I personally beleive Mr. Obama is neither a Muslim nor a Christian but an atheist.

Mr. Obama is simply sympathetic to Islamic extremism.
 
Singularity said:
While i'm not familiar with the immigration policies of Mexico and Switzerland, that's a good point.
Click to expand...

Switzerland has the toughest naturalization rules in Europe. If you want to become Swiss you must live in the country legally for at least 12 years—and pay taxes, and have no criminal record—before you can apply for citizenship. It still does not mean that your wish will be granted, however, and the fact that you were born in Zurich or Lugano does not make any difference. There are no "amnesties" and illegals are deported if caught. Even if an applicant satisfies all other conditions, the local community in which he resides has the final say: it can interview the applicant and hold a public vote before naturalization is approved. If rejected he can apply again, but only after ten years.
Click to expand...

Switzerland: a Model for America on Immigration
 
Boo Radley said:
You mean it was bigger then the US allowing Saddam to smuggle oil, whiich brought in more money for Saddam than OFF did. What's the critieria for measuring corruption then?
Click to expand...

Let's assume you are correct that black market oil brought in more revenues. Once again, the UN failed, as did our president at the time (Clinton) and the press.

So yeah, Clinton's Eyes Wide Closed Policy to "keep the peace" added to the problem.

It's interesting... we had a corrupt president, that fomented an attitude of lies and deceit with every breath he took, and by your own admission, was a player on par or beyond the UN corruption. That is now established thanks to your post.

All this Eyes Wide Closed, UN corruption and Black Market Oil while the Clinton Administration believed and publicly stated the sanctions were worth the price of 1 million Iraqi's dying. Don't you find that a wee bit disingenuous and hypocritical of The Clintons to claim a million dying is worth the price of sanctions, yet knowing and allowing Saddam to lard up on black market oil money?

Where were the darling press? The Journolists? That's right... burying news and propagandizing for Clintons misdeeds; Republicans were the evil ones... that was Clinton's war.

Eventually a price is paid for incompetence and corruption. Someone has to deal with the harsh realities at some point... and that task landed on Bush 43's desk.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Let's assume you are correct that black market oil brought in more revenues. Once again, the UN failed, as did our president at the time (Clinton) and the press.

So yeah, Clinton's Eyes Wide Closed Policy to "keep the peace" added to the problem.

It's interesting... we had a corrupt president, that fomented an attitude of lies and deceit with every breath he took, and by your own admission, was a player on par or beyond the UN corruption. That is now established thanks to your post.

All this Eyes Wide Closed, UN corruption and Black Market Oil while the Clinton Administration believed and publicly stated the sanctions were worth the price of 1 million Iraqi's dying. Don't you find that a wee bit disingenuous and hypocritical of The Clintons to claim a million dying is worth the price of sanctions, yet knowing and allowing Saddam to lard up on black market oil money?

Where were the darling press? The Journolists? That's right... burying news and propagandizing for Clintons misdeeds; Republicans were the evil ones... that was Clinton's war.

Eventually a price is paid for incompetence and corruption. Someone has to deal with the harsh realities at some point... and that task landed on Bush 43's desk.

.
Click to expand...

As we knew about the smuggling, were monitoring, and allowed it ebcause we wanted it, I'm not sure I would call it a failure. it was however sign of how little we actually worried about Saddam. Bush did not have anything concerning Saddam or Iraq "land" on his desk. Instead, you had a fool act the fool and reckless start an unnecessary war, costing thousands upon thousands of lives and billions of dollars. And all for next to nothing.

Hoorah for Bush!!!!
 
But let's not forget the point. Corru[tion is not limited tothe UN. In fact,the UN is made up of nations, of which we are a part. And we contribute to some of that corruption. What seems to make most American's most angry, it seems to me, is that the UN hasn't always done exactly what we tell them to do. And as we all know, that makes the UN very, very evil.
 
The UN sucks, and not because they don't follow our will. On the contrary, the problem is that an international organization tries to usurp our sovereignty. If it was just a peacekeeping organization then I'd probably have a great respect for the organization, but since it is nothing but a tool of the progressive movement I have nothing but disdain for it.
 
phattonez said:
The UN sucks, and not because they don't follow our will. On the contrary, the problem is that an international organization tries to usurp our sovereignty. If it was just a peacekeeping organization then I'd probably have a great respect for the organization, but since it is nothing but a tool of the progressive movement I have nothing but disdain for it.
Click to expand...

Our sovereigny has not been usurped in any way. We freely signed agreements, and like any contract, some expect us to honor our agreements. But that is not te same as usurping anyone.
 
Boo Radley said:
Our sovereigny has not been usurped in any way. We freely signed agreements, and like any contract, some expect us to honor our agreements. But that is not te same as usurping anyone.
Click to expand...

Right, the UN never pressures us into doing anything.
 
phattonez said:
Right, the UN never pressures us into doing anything.
Click to expand...

No, they can't pressure us. Seriously, they can't. They couldn't even stop us from invading Iraq.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they can't pressure us. Seriously, they can't. They couldn't even stop us from invading Iraq.
Click to expand...

And the UN never persuades the US into doing anything?

Conflict between the U.S. and the UN predates the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1971, the UN adopted Resolution 2758---which effected the admission of the People's Republic of China and the removal of the Republic of China---despite objections by the U.S. government's (see China and the United Nations). The U.S. government changed its own China policy shortly afterward, however, so the conflict between the UN and US foreign policy was short lived.
Click to expand...

United States and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Has the UN ever encouraged foreign aid? Involvement in distant wars?

America's court system -- the most fair, free and transparent in all the world -- isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean its power should be usurped by jurists 8,000 miles away who are not elected, selected or directed by anyone responsible to American voters.

Yet that's exactly what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) tried to do recently in a case involving two brothers, both German nationals. The pair had been convicted of robbing a bank and killing a 63-year-old bank employee in Arizona, and both were executed by state officials in 1999, despite a last-minute call by the Court to stay one of the executions until it could review the case.

In a ruling on the case issued on June 27, the ICJ said the United States should have allowed the brothers to contact German consulate officials after their arrest. They also said that ICJ rulings were binding on the United States and that American law had to be altered to conform with the country's international obligations.
Click to expand...

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=1176
 
Last edited:
Singularity said:
You may wanna check the math on this, because I could have made a mistake in the calculations, but I was curious, so I looked it up to see if your statement was true. In 2008, the United States contributed around 24% net to the general budget of the UN (http://globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/UN_Finance/assesment2007.pdf). In 2009, we ponied up roughly 23% (http://globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/UN_Finance/assesment2009.pdf). In 2010, roughly 23.8% ( http://globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/Member_States_Assessment_for_Regular_Budget_for_2010.pdf).

Just so we are on the same page, did you mean the largest single contributor? Because in the last two and a half years, we haven't 'paid most of the bills' - we paid a little less than a quarter of them. So if your speculation that the organization would fold is based upon your assumption that the United States was the only contributor, or that our contributions alone totalled up to the majority of the net budget, then you may wish to recind. Either way, we are both engaging in speculation here, so I vote we dismiss the theoretics and move forward with the discussion.
Click to expand...

Thats right. We pay the most. How is that hard to understand?

I searched those links you provided, and I can't find anywhere within them something that points to the goals of the United Nations being anything other than what I expressed, which is half of what he disagreed with, and which I asked for plainly. However, I did want a source which shows that the United Nations is a 'cesspool' as well, which you put forward in his defense. Let's discuss those, and see where we might agree or disagree with one another.
Click to expand...

Those links prove it is a cesspool. What more do you want?

I think you and I would both agree that Libya being on the council for human rights is a joke; however, we both realize that the country was democratically elected to be there by the 192 nation general assembly. I disagree with the election, though, as I think Libya has a pretty poor track record when it comes to such things. I think there are other nations with better records that would make fine councilmembers, and I think you'd agree with me there, too.

Where I think we disagree is on the conclusion. You think this illustrates that the UN is a cesspool, whereas I think it's just a stupid manuever despite it being done democratically. I think this stems from our differences in what we view the UN to be. For me, the UN is a place where countries that disagree can have a platform to discuss those differences between them, and like the link says, facilitate cooperation on international law, human rights, and world peace. Consider the good that organizations like UNICEF, and WHO have done for the citzens of the world, or at least attempted to in good faith. Hardly the mark of a 'cesspool' organization, given their goals.
Click to expand...

You're right. We don't agree. Any organization that would allow such a flagrant human rights abuser on the board for human rights is a cesspool.

Reading that article, would you REALLY say that they wanted to do nothing, or were limited in what they could actually do? The story said that was only 25 U.N. peacekeepers within five villages occupied by 200 - 400 rebels. While I think both of us agree that we wish there was more that they could do to have prevented such an atrocity, I think we disagree on the conclusion. But I would be curious as to why you come to the conclusion from this that the U.N is a "cesspool". After all, it wasn't the peacekeepers raping these villagers, and they did attempt to help. Is that the mark of a cesspool organization?
Click to expand...

Because they do nothing in face of such atrocity. They simply watch it while pretending to be a force for good. That is why they are a cesspool.

While we both agree that scandals should be dealt with, would you say that this is reflective on the U.N being a cesspool? I remember the S& L scandal, The Whiskey Ring, Teapot Dome, and Iran-Contra, yet I would hardly call the United States a cesspool. We are a great nation, but we've had our share of scandals.

Thanks
Click to expand...

There is no larger money scandal in the entire world than oil for food. None. That is why the cesspool label is justified.

And this isn't one or two incidents. Its a proven pattern of corruption and apathy to those that suffer. Everything this organization is supposed to be against.

cess·pool (sspl)
n.
1. A covered hole or pit for receiving drainage or sewage, as from a house.
2. A filthy, disgusting, or morally corrupt place.

We have a winner
 
Last edited:
I like Boo... me thinks he is a Republican dressing up as a Democrat.
Boo don't know Didley :)

Boo Radley said:
As we (CLINTON) knew about the smuggling, were monitoring, and allowed it ebcause we (CLINTON) wanted it, I'm not sure I would call it a failure. it was however sign of how little we actually worried about Saddam. Bush did not have anything concerning Saddam or Iraq "land" on his desk. Instead, you had a fool act the fool and reckless start an unnecessary war, costing thousands upon thousands of lives and billions of dollars. And all for next to nothing.

Hoorah for Bush!!!!
Click to expand...

Post 911 the world was introduced to "connect the dots". On 911 they claimed we didn't, now the Libs claim we shouldn't have.
Make up your ****ing minds.

Democrats are on record for years warning (during the Clinton years after the Inspectuers got tossed) and then voting to send troops post 911... in the Senate they begged for a second vote because Dems realized how feeble they looked on national defense issues... a 30-year record of hostility does that. Hell, even Hillary spelled it out for Code Pink... citing intel received as she was third mate at the WH... (I think Bill probably preferred the intern over Frauline Shriek).

Boo Radley said:
But let's not forget the point. Corru[tion is not limited tothe UN. In fact,the UN is made up of nations, of which we are a part. And we contribute to some of that corruption. What seems to make most American's most angry, it seems to me, is that the UN hasn't always done exactly what we tell them to do. And as we all know, that makes the UN very, very evil.
Click to expand...
Well at least you admit the UN is corrupt (you could have added... to the core).
So, we kow tow on human rights to a corrupt body for upholding the laws of the land and protecting our borders and citizens. That was Jan Brewer's point.

Thanks Boo.

Boo Radley said:
No, they can't pressure us. Seriously, they can't. They couldn't even stop us from invading Iraq.
Click to expand...
Note to Boo. Bush 43 went in and got their support. Unanimous vote. He gave Saddam one last chance to come clean. As Hans Blix reported... this didn't happen.

After 12-years, 16 UN resolutions, kicking out weapons inspecteurs de la UN... one last chance after 911 is all that need be set on the table for the Despot to understand. He didn't take the out, and perhaps because he thought he bought off the UN. He pokered and lost.

And no, the UN can't stop us, but Democrats who hand over foreign policy as Clinton had... stop us.
The yellow bellied, corrupt to the core pervert.

.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
If the US and UN are ready to throw Arizona under the bus, when are they going to do the same for Mexico and Switzerland, countries with much harsher immigration policies?
Click to expand...

Won't happen...... they aren't as mean as the US is.
 
phattonez said:
America's court system -- the most fair, free and transparent in all the world -- isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean its power should be usurped by jurists 8,000 miles away who are not elected, selected or directed by anyone responsible to American voters.

Yet that's exactly what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) tried to do recently in a case involving two brothers, both German nationals. The pair had been convicted of robbing a bank and killing a 63-year-old bank employee in Arizona, and both were executed by state officials in 1999, despite a last-minute call by the Court to stay one of the executions until it could review the case.

In a ruling on the case issued on June 27, the ICJ said the United States should have allowed the brothers to contact German consulate officials after their arrest. They also said that ICJ rulings were binding on the United States and that American law had to be altered to conform with the country's international obligations.
Click to expand...

Except in this case, the ICJ was just noting the obligation the U.S. has to allow consulate/embassy personnel to contact their citizens if charged or undergoing court procedures that is borne out of a treaty the U.S. is party to and it itself insists on when Americans are imprisoned in foreign countries. This is not the only time this has happened in the U.S. and it jeopardizes the ability of the U.S. to gain access to U.S. citizens in foreign countries. Texas did the same with Mexican nationals. This is a violation of U.S. treaty commitments.
 
phattonez said:
And the UN never persuades the US into doing anything?



United States and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Has the UN ever encouraged foreign aid? Involvement in distant wars?



Capitalism Magazine - The UN's International Kangaroo Court
Click to expand...

I hope this isn't your evidence. Seriously. because they complain, like they did when we invaded iraq, in no way means we do anything. Nor when they present an argument someone here buys and takes to heart mean they usurped us. It is illogical to make the leap you appear to be making.
 
Boo Radley said:
I hope this isn't your evidence. Seriously. because they complain, like they did when we invaded iraq, in no way means we do anything. Nor when they present an argument someone here buys and takes to heart mean they usurped us. It is illogical to make the leap you appear to be making.
Click to expand...


Here we go typical Boo....come on man, answer the questions he asked. No one cares about the other distraction you posted above.

Here I'll repeat them for you....

1.Does the UN ever persuade the US into doing anything?

and

2. Has the UN ever encouraged foreign aid? Involvement in distant wars?

Now answer them or sit down.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Here we go typical Boo....come on man, answer the questions he asked. No one cares about the other distraction you posted above.

Here I'll repeat them for you....

1.Does the UN ever persuade the US into doing anything?

and

2. Has the UN ever encouraged foreign aid? Involvement in distant wars?

Now answer them or sit down.


j-mac
Click to expand...

J, I did answer.

1) persuading is not usurping. Arguments come from all over. A thinking person is swayed by a good argument. An idiot closes his mind to an argument because it isn't from his "team."

2) Again, encouragement isn't usurping. A completely different thing. Remember, they argued and tried to encourage us not to invade Iraq. how did that go?

Now, I know you want an answer that supports your belief. And like always, you see anything that is not that as not an an answer. I'm sorry tha's so. But answers are often more complete than you like, and frankly won't likely ever fit into the mindless stereotype so often looked for.

;)
 
Boo Radley said:
J, I did answer.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you did, at least not in any clear way.

1) persuading is not usurping. Arguments come from all over.
Click to expand...

When was the last time an argument was had in the UN in favor of America, or Israel for that matter?

A thinking person is swayed by a good argument. An idiot closes his mind to an argument because it isn't from his "team."
Click to expand...

I see, so those that disagree with the UN are either "non thinking individuals" or "Idiots" is that it? Really? Name calling is all you got?

2) Again, encouragement isn't usurping. A completely different thing. Remember, they argued and tried to encourage us not to invade Iraq. how did that go?
Click to expand...

As I remember, they backed our resolution to use force and a time line. Isn't that so?

Now, I know you want an answer that supports your belief. And like always, you see anything that is not that as not an an answer.
Click to expand...

No, I'd like for one time, just once, any of you internationalist to say in clear, unambiguous language what you'd like to see in terms of UN authority, and power in the world, and not weasel out of it when you get your backs against the wall for saying what you say.

But answers are often more complete than you like, and frankly won't likely ever fit into the mindless stereotype so often looked for.
Click to expand...

Again with the name calling? Do you think that makes you look anything but foolish?

How about you explain the premise behind the Land of the Sea treaty, and why you support it?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No, I don't think you did, at least not in any clear way.



When was the last time an argument was had in the UN in favor of America, or Israel for that matter?



I see, so those that disagree with the UN are either "non thinking individuals" or "Idiots" is that it? Really? Name calling is all you got?



As I remember, they backed our resolution to use force and a time line. Isn't that so?



No, I'd like for one time, just once, any of you internationalist to say in clear, unambiguous language what you'd like to see in terms of UN authority, and power in the world, and not weasel out of it when you get your backs against the wall for saying what you say.



Again with the name calling? Do you think that makes you look anything but foolish?

How about you explain the premise behind the Land of the Sea treaty, and why you support it?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, I gave a clear aswer. And it makes no difference at all whether the UN argued for or against the US or Isreal. No matter what they argue for or against, that doesn't mean the usurped us here at home.

And no, you missed the point about non-thinking, once again. I don't know if there is a reading comprehension problem here or a partisan blind spot. The point with people can be pusuaded by a good argument. being so persuaded doesn't equal usurping. Thinking people listen, think, and make judgements based on the argument, not the team.

And no, they did not back our resoultion to invade iraq. Coalition of the willing specifically means outside the UN.

As for what you'd like t see, I suggest two things;

1) Ask the right question.

2) Stop looking for validation of your skewed view of the world. Have some self esteem for pete's sake.

I would also add to stop trying to label people. I don't consider myself an internationalist. I consider myself a thinking person who knows what usurp means. A person that knows what it means to sign an agreement. A person who knows right from wrong. I know this doesn't fit neatly designed partisan stereotypes, which may be why you see any answer not in your narrow partisan view as not being an answer.

;)
 
Joe, Joe, Joe....I must really have touched a nerve here to have you insult me so....In any case you left out the most important question here....I'll repeat it for you.

How about you explain the premise behind the Land of the Sea treaty, and why you support it?


j-mac
 
ludahai said:
Except in this case, the ICJ was just noting the obligation the U.S. has to allow consulate/embassy personnel to contact their citizens if charged or undergoing court procedures that is borne out of a treaty the U.S. is party to and it itself insists on when Americans are imprisoned in foreign countries. This is not the only time this has happened in the U.S. and it jeopardizes the ability of the U.S. to gain access to U.S. citizens in foreign countries. Texas did the same with Mexican nationals. This is a violation of U.S. treaty commitments.
Click to expand...

Read the link. It notes the problems with that interpretation of what happened.
 
j-mac said:
Joe, Joe, Joe....I must really have touched a nerve here to have you insult me so....In any case you left out the most important question here....I'll repeat it for you.

How about you explain the premise behind the Land of the Sea treaty, and why you support it?


j-mac
Click to expand...

J, just because someone grows weary of the same nonsense over and over again is not a nerve being touched. And I was never asked whether I supported a treaty, but if we sign one, if we sign an agreement, just like when you and I sign agreements, do you think we have no obligation to what we sign? And if I sign a anagreement with you, will you accept me saying your usurping my soverngeny when I don't want to do it?

Please, stay with the confines of the issue we're addressing. No diversions. No snipe hunts. No silliness. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom