Ron 10 #26 January 13, 2005 QuoteI don't think Clinton, Kerry, or Bush have anything to do with whether or not the UN can be trusted with a bunch of money. Agreed but maybe you should take that up with http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1431759#1431759 JCD11235 QuoteConsidering we have a convicted criminal in the whitehouse who can never seem to get his story straight QuoteI liked Clinton. I think Bush is an idiot I like Bush and have proof Clinton was a liar. The UN can't be trusted."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #27 January 13, 2005 lol, Ron....jcd said it so it must be so???? Surprising coming from you.... His slant on things is interesting, nonetheless.... Peace! linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #28 January 13, 2005 Quotelol, Ron....jcd said it so it must be so???? Surprising coming from you.... No but it is fun to blindly defend my God fearing leader. [zombie voice]Must defend leader....must defend leader [/zombie voice] QuoteHis slant on things is interesting, nonetheless.... Aw, I bet you say the same about me."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #29 January 13, 2005 Quote QuoteHis slant on things is interesting, nonetheless.... Aw, I bet you say the same about me. Ummmm......no. Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #30 January 13, 2005 I voted no, I do not think they can be trusted with all that money. That's why there are auditors and oversight committees. I think that almost everyone (with the possible exception of my mother) will cheat and steal if given enough incentive and opportunity. How bout it? Ever cheat? On your taxes? On a test? Speed? Flirt with someone at a party when you shouldn't? Doesn't mean you can't work with a crook, you just have to realize that you are dealing with an individual that has their own interests in mind as well as those of others. I'd be willing to bet that there never has been and never will be a completely non-corrupt politician or world leader. Just like the existance of GOD though it's going to be tough to prove!illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 January 13, 2005 QuoteYou claim Bush is a bad person due to a getting caught driving drunk... I think that is a bad act yes. I also think lieing under oath is a bad act and Kerry, well kerry is just bad to begin with Fact is, of the three he is the only one who got convicted in a court of law.......You have made comments in the past indicative of a thought process that it is only bad if you get convicted. Personally find it contradictory, obviously you don't.....and that will be the last I will say of that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #32 January 13, 2005 QuoteFact is, of the three he is the only one who got convicted in a court of law.......You have made comments in the past indicative of a thought process that it is only bad if you get convicted. Really? Where? Some claim things like "Bush never finished his National Guard service". And they have no proof. I call BS when they say that since they don't have proof. However, I don't defend Bush on his DUI. He did it. I will say I don't see it as that big of a deal. I know lots of folks that have had a DUI. If he had killed someone while drunk...Say by crashing a car in a river while drunk killing the passenger. Quote "On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 PM in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing hard left on Main Street. After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. The car went off the side of the bridge. There was one passenger with me, one Miss Mary ________( There was a blank space here because was not sure of the spelling of the dead girl's last name, and instead offered a rough phonetic approximation ), The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom. I attempted to open the door and the window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car. I was unsuccessful in the attempt. I was exhausted and in a state of shock. I recall walking back to where my friends were eating. There was a car parked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the back seat. I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown. I remember walking around for a period of time and then going back to my hotel room. When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police." I would have a problem...But it seems like others don't. Now as for Clinton...Like I said if he got a hummer in the Oval Office thats between him, her and his wife. Once he lied about it under oath...Well it is now a big deal. The most powerful man in the world lied about a blowjob...what else is he gonna lie about? QuoteClinton's troubles didn't end with his acquittal. Days before he left office, Clinton admitted that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Lewinsky in exchange for Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreeing not to press criminal charges. Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years, he was fined $25,000 by the Arkansas legal bar and he agreed to give up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In November 2001, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar rather than face automatic disbarment due the suspension of his Arkansas law license. The former president can apply to be reinstated to the bar if he regains his law license in Arkansas or elsewhere. So he only agreed to tell the truth after he was told he would not be charged. Kerry did whatever gave him political juice. He either committed war crimes or lied and said he did. Either was I don't trust the guy. So if you asked me who I would trust more: 1. A guy that had a drunk Driving charge in 1976 when he was 30, paid the fine, and stopped drinking totally 10 years later. BTW he was not the President at the time. 2. A guy that cheated on his wife, lied about it under oath, and finally admitted to it only after having been caught. And at the time was the leader of the free world. 3. A guy that either committed war crimes, or lied about committing them to get political juice. I'll go with the guy that drove drunk, got caught and finally quit drinking. QuotePersonally find it contradictory, obviously you don't Just to recap: 1. Don't have anyproof? I'll call BS. 2. Get caught but not charged...You are still guilty. 3. Tell Congress under oath you did something...I'll tend to believe you or think you are a liar."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 January 13, 2005 Those of you that voted yes..........................................I want some of what you are smokin"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #34 January 13, 2005 QuoteThose of you that voted yes..........................................I want some of what you are smokin Maybe a few people both know a little more about what the UN is doing every day (and has being doing for many years) and is not blinded by a campaign in certain US media. The oil for food issue looks bad and probably is, but that does not mean all parts of the large UN system is corrupt. The UN has a lot of experience in relief and done a lot of good things (by "UN" I do include sub-organisations like UNICEF, WHO etc.). Why do you think it was such a huge blow for the coalition when they pulled out of Iraq after the bombing? Here is an example taken from Fox News web site (just so you don't start ranting about left wing media). Quote U.N.: Relief Workers Feeding Over 1 Million Thursday, January 13, 2005 BANDA ACEH, Indonesia — United Nations (search) relief workers were feeding more than 1 million people across tsunami-stricken areas of southern Asia, the world body said Thursday. The U.N. World Food Program (search) said in its latest report on its aid efforts that it has delivered 10,741 tons of food to 1,069,000 people since the waves smashed into coastal communities around the Indian Ocean on Dec. 26 killing more than 150,000 people. WFP spokeswoman Bettina Luescher said agency workers are feeding 300,000 survivors in Indonesia's Aceh province. Luescher said the number is expected to grow to 500,000 within two weeks. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #35 January 14, 2005 perhaps you didn't know this QuoteUNICEF's 'Rights' Focus Is All Wrong Tuesday, December 21, 2004 Wendy McElroy Using words like "catastrophe," UNICEF's Executive Director Carol Bellamy warns that the "triple whammy" of AIDS (search), conflict and poverty has reversed previous gains on children's survival, health and education. But critics of UNICEF claim the agency and Bellamy have contributed to the crisis by focusing on political causes and steering UNICEF away from the "core business" of ensuring children's survival. Richard Horton, editor of the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, has published a blistering editorial, which calls Bellamy's direction "shameful." Bellamy’s “rights-based approach” (focusing on children’s “rights” as opposed to their simple physical survival), Horton said, has also been devastating to children, an estimated 10 million of whom die from preventable causes before the age of five every year. Horton noted, "All the indications are that the fourth Millennium Development Goal of reducing by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate will not be met in many countries." No sub-Saharan country in Africa, he said, appears to be "on target to reach that MDG." What is the "rights-based approach"? UNICEF was created in 1946 to provide emergency aid to the children of Europe who were starving after World War II. In 1989, however, the U.N. adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a legally binding, international document that extends to children "civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights." The CRC launched a fundamental shift away from UNICEF's original role of ensuring children's raw survival. This steady drift away from UNICEF's core purpose can be seen in two protocols added to the CRC in 2002. One addresses the issue of war; the other, child prostitution and child pornography. Horton said the “language of rights means little to a child stillborn, an infant dying in pain from pneumonia or a child desiccated by famine." He urged a "reorientation" toward the child-survival policies of Bellamy's American predecessor James Grant. Grant's "Child Survival and Development Revolution" stressed "four simple interventions: growth monitoring, oral rehydration therapy, breastfeeding, and immunization." The Lancet credits Grant with saving the lives of over 20 million children. UNICEF's implementation of its "children's rights" vision is also vulnerable to criticism. Indeed, UNICEF's Medium Term Strategic Plan is more of a blueprint for social engineering along radical feminist lines. The plan states, "UNICEF will advocate for legal reforms and adoption of policies and programs that will raise the status of girls and women both in the family and in society." Often, the programs it champions seem to have little connection to basic rights. A specific example of how UNICEF's vision is being implemented under Bellamy is the International Children's Day of Broadcasting. This program includes: — Alli Sotak (Speak Up), a two-hour weekly program created by and for Palestinian young people. — A 20-member programming board for India's newest kids' TV channel, which convenes for "board meetings"; all members are between 8 and 15 years old. (For an in-depth analysis of UNICEF's social engineering, please see The United Nations Children's Fund: Women or Children First? by Douglas A. Sylva.) There is clearly a conflict in Bellamy stating, "We believe AIDS is the worst catastrophe ever to hit the world," yet having UNICEF focus on programs such as ICDB. In a world of unlimited options and bottomless pockets, there would be no conflict between pursuing children's health and children's rights. But UNICEF's new report cries out for increased funding precisely because money is limited and all goals cannot be pursued in tandem. Indeed, overall funding to the U.N. may well tighten due to the backlash surrounding recent corruption scandals, especially the Oil-for-Food one. Horton's criticism of UNICEF is not merely a statement of conscience. It is also a matter of strategy. Next year, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan will appoint a new leader for UNICEF. Traditionally, the appointment has gone to an American. (Even though the U.S. is not a signatory to the CRC, it is the U.N.'s largest donor.) The appointment is made basically at Annan's discretion and the selection process is not publicized. As Horton commented, "This mysterious procedure leaves open the possibility of crude political deal-making in identifying an acceptable candidate." Clearly, Horton wishes to surround the appointment with a debate heated enough to melt away mystery and permit no deal-making. Bellamy's appointment was controversial and occurred only after a campaign on her behalf by President Clinton. Then-Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali had preferred a European candidate. Next year's appointment may be the most controversial in UNICEF's history. In part, it will be a struggle for the soul of the agency. But, as in all things U.N., it will also involve jockeying for political position. Members from the European Union seem particularly eager to diminish America's role in UNICEF without, of course, diminishing its funding. Horton's concern that "the next executive director of UNICEF is likely to be an American, irrespective of the person's skills or experience" is understandable given how ill-equipped Bellamy was for the job. But it would be easy for the goal of saving children to become lost in the politics of the U.N., especially with its increasingly anti-American atmosphere. It will be interesting to watch events unfold. Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #36 January 14, 2005 Quote That's why there are auditors and oversight committees. where were they during the oil for food program? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #37 January 14, 2005 QuoteI think Bush is an idiot. But he 'stole' two national elections. He can't be that much of an idiot. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #38 January 14, 2005 QuoteThey must be trusted, you say. The question is do -you- trust them? Let's just say I trust them more than Shrub.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #39 January 14, 2005 QuoteHow many groups are working there? I find it odd that you only think the UN is the best to handle such giving it's track record of looking the other way in other countries and the current oil for food scam. One does not ask a car thief to watch your car and expect nothing to happen. I don't see the UN as a car thief. What organization would you suggest take its place? I'm all for scrapping the UN if we can come up with a replacement that is more representative of the world, and does not give any country veto power. That's where the real fraud is in the UN.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #40 January 14, 2005 Quote Well, lets see Clinton lied under oath, but he kept his job. Accused is different than convicted. QuotePerjury fancy lawyer tricks. Creative, but not illegal. Quote Murder Well, you got me there. War is murder. How many peoples' blood do you think is on Kerry's hands vs. Shrub's, seeing how Shrub started the unjust war that Iraq is currently misfortunate enough to be experiencing. Quotedrunk driving Not murder, but irresponsible. Especially when one can easily afford a cab. Not a good quality in a leader.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #41 January 14, 2005 QuoteHis slant on things is interesting, nonetheless.... I'm glad I could entertain you! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vmsfreaky1 0 #42 January 14, 2005 Just out of curiosity, why do most americans I come across seem to distrust the UN? it almost seems like some kind of paranoia in some cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vmsfreaky1 0 #43 January 14, 2005 QuoteThank God ....... and Kerry lost You mean thank the Jesus land people that voted for bush? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #44 January 14, 2005 QuotePerjury -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fancy lawyer tricks. Creative, but not illegal. Really? Since when did lieing under oath become legal? Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #45 January 14, 2005 I can give you millions of reasons, oil for food. look at how they ran out of Iraq. Look at UNICEF : "Bellamy’s “rights-based approach” (focusing on children’s “rights” as opposed to their simple physical survival), Horton said, has also been devastating to children, an estimated 10 million of whom die from preventable causes before the age of five every year. " look at human rights: The General Assembly has hardly been a reliable defender of human rights. Just month ago, it voted not to take any action on or even discuss several resolutions against highly abusive states: Sudan, whose ethnic cleansing is responsible for ongoing crimes against humanity in its western region of Darfur, as well as Zimbabwe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #46 January 14, 2005 QuoteWhat organization would you suggest take its place? Nato, The American red cross. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #47 January 14, 2005 QuoteWar is murder. no it's not. I hope you never teach in our school system. 9-11 that was murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #48 January 14, 2005 NATO has the sme issues as the UN, except they are an all military organization so now the aid is going to buy $500 hammers and $1000 toliet seats. NATO might be able to do the logistics of getting supplies there but they are pretty poor at the rebuilding. Last time they were called in to rebuild they just outsourced it. American Red Cross/Red Crecent have get emergency care and initial responce abilities, but once again they lack the ability to say "We need 8 planes to be at airport X to get supplies and here are the full flight plans for each". They provide care to those that need it. They cook meals for the hungry, distribute water to those that need it. They are probally the best orginization to care for refugees. But they know absolutly nothing about rebuilding a village.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 January 14, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, lets see Clinton lied under oath, but he kept his job. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused is different than convicted. Huh, did you miss this part: QuoteDays before he left office, Clinton admitted that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Lewinsky in exchange for Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreeing not to press criminal charges. He admitted he was wrong, but only after he had brokered an agreement not to be charged. He was guilty, and he is a liar...Proven liar. Quotefancy lawyer tricks. Creative, but not illegal. If it was not illegal then why did he not admit it till after he was not going to be charged? Or why was he disbarred? Go fish. QuoteNot murder, but irresponsible. Especially when one can easily afford a cab. Not a good quality in a leader. He was not a leader then. Kerry was trying to be. I find lying to be abad quality in a leader...Something Clinton and Kerry both do."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #50 January 14, 2005 QuoteQuote That's why there are auditors and oversight committees. where were they during the oil for food program? Probably not paying enough attention. my point was that every organization large and small is plauged by theft and corruption. Should we eliminate all 7-11s because some of the clerks manage to steal from the till? Should we not allow trading on the NYSE because some traders cheat? The UN is far from perfect, but so is the US (how about Haliburton overcharging for services to the US army?) Give me a viable alternative, and I'll support eliminating the UN. Until then, it's a better plan to try to change the current system so it's tougher to cheat. Do you think that just because Nixon (Clinton/Bush-take your pick) was a crook we should have eliminated the Executive branch of the US government? Or just make it tougher for the next guy to cheat?illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
