Canada withdraws from UN organization.

[gsvol]

Canada quits UN agency over monster Mugabe appointment, Obama admin silent, shame on us - Atlas Shrugs

Even the pathologically leftist NY Times has said that Mugabe should be tried for war crimes.

And this just last week: President Robert Mugabe and his henchmen are accused of crimes against humanity, a British newspaper reported on Saturday, for among other things, "slowly hacking off the limbs and pulling out the teeth with pliers of his opposition's supporters. He had 'enjoyed' torturing victims."

And the UN appoints Mugabe special toursim ambassador ...to where? Hades? And Obama stood by. Silence is sanction. You could just vomit at how third world we are under Obama. And the media says nothing.

Candidate Itamar Gelbman is right, "defund the UN."

Kudos to Harper's Canada, whose brave and righteous leadership once again shames America, but gives freedom lovers hope that all is not lost.
-------------------------

OTTAWA — Canada is withdrawing from the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) over the appointment of President Robert Mugabe as a special tourism ambassador.

Canada’s Foreign Affairs minister John Baird said Mugabe’s appointment as international tourism ambassador symbolised what was wrong with the UN.

Mugabe is currently under a European Union travel ban because of human rights abuses in his own country.
--------------------

United States House Foreign Affairs chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in a statement said: “The continued rewards the UN bestows upon the world’s dictators has reached the point of absurdity. An organisation devoted to world peace and stability is propping up and aiding the very regimes that oppose such ideals.”

 

[therealUT]

Can we (the US) withdraw in disgust from the UNWTO if we are not members of the UNWTO?

World Tourism Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gsvol]

Did I say anything about the US withdrawing from the
UNWTO?

NO!

There should be a statement from someone very high
up in the administration condeming the UNWTO but then
if it weren't for the democrat socialist party's Jimmy
Carter we probably wouldn't have Mugabe ruling as
the brutal communist dictator that he is.

The UN is corrupt to the core and this is just one more
event to prove that fact.

But hey, these are the people you trust more than
Americans, you must really hate America.

 

[Weezer]

Did I say anything about the US withdrawing from the
UNWTO?

NO!

There should be a statement from someone very high
up in the administration condeming the UNWTO but then
if it weren't for the democrat socialist party's Jimmy
Carter we probably wouldn't have Mugabe ruling as
the brutal communist dictator that he is.

The UN is corrupt to the core and this is just one more
event to prove that fact.

But hey, these are the people you trust more than
Americans, you must really hate America.

You are so damn strange. Have you considered getting laid? It might ease the tension a bit.

 

[therealUT]

Did I say anything about the US withdrawing from the
UNWTO?

NO!

There should be a statement from someone very high
up in the administration condeming the UNWTO

Something along the lines of, "If you do not stop, we will yell at you a second time"?

 

[gsvol]

You are so damn strange. Have you considered getting laid? It might ease the tension a bit.

Why, are you volunteering for the postition?

 

[LibertyVol]

Why, are you volunteering for the postition?

Give em hell, GS. That is funny. I don't care who you are.

 

[MG1968]

being outraged over something stupid that the UN does is a full time hobby for some people and is about as pointless as worrying that gay marriage is going to destroy civil society

 

[Weezer]

Why, are you volunteering for the postition?

Nope, but you are the kind of person that scares me. You blindly follow an agenda without creating an original thought. You prejudge based on your Republican beliefs. I am not a Democrat and would guess ultimately I have more Republican leanings, but I don't claim any political affiliation as I do not believe in political parties. They do nothing to unite our nation and everything to divide it. You seem to carry on that tradition here. There are times you fail to see beyond common sense simply because it goes against what you choose to believe. Truth doesn't seem to matter to you. All you care is that you demonize Democrats in general. I see no point to it. For every negative piece you post on Democrats, I'm sure there is one that could be posted on Republicans as well. I keep waiting(hoping even) for you to offer intelligent, rational conversation, but that seems impossible for you.

Honestly, you come across as a brain-washed Republican zombie. Politics are not the end all, be all. Think of the nation and what is best for it, not what is best for your party affiliation. I much prefer to call myself a patriot rather than a Republican or a Democrat.

 

[gsvol]

Nope, but you are the kind of person that scares me. You blindly follow an agenda without creating an original thought. You prejudge based on your Republican beliefs. I am not a Democrat and would guess ultimately I have more Republican leanings, but I don't claim any political affiliation as I do not believe in political parties. They do nothing to unite our nation and everything to divide it. You seem to carry on that tradition here. There are times you fail to see beyond common sense simply because it goes against what you choose to believe. Truth doesn't seem to matter to you. All you care is that you demonize Democrats in general. I see no point to it. For every negative piece you post on Democrats, I'm sure there is one that could be posted on Republicans as well. I keep waiting(hoping even) for you to offer intelligent, rational conversation, but that seems impossible for you.

Honestly, you come across as a brain-washed Republican zombie. Politics are not the end all, be all. Think of the nation and what is best for it, not what is best for your party affiliation. I much prefer to call myself a patriot rather than a Republican or a Democrat.

You are the kind of person that really irritates me. You
blindly follow an agenda without creating an original
thought. You prejudge based on your Democrat socislist
beliefs. I am not a Republican and would guess
ultimately I have more libertarian leanings, but I don't
claim any political affiliation and I do not believe in
political parties.

The only party I believe in is the one I founded, the
"Party" party, generally I write in whomever I feel like,
most of the time since the '60s that's been Pat Paulsen
and Foster Brooks, except I had to vote for the other
party when the Dhimmis ran Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

The Party party did effect one change, at least in
Tennessee, it was funny when some precincts reported
votes for Mickey Mouse but when that got to tens of
thousands it wasn't so funny to either dhimmicraps or
republicrats and changed reporting rules so that such
write ins were reported to the media.

The two main parties, especially the democraps, do
nothing to unite our nation and everything to divide it.
You too seem to carry on that tradition here. There are
times you fail to see beyond common sense simply
because it goes against what you choose to believe.
Truth doesn't seem to matter to you. Truth does matter
to me. All you care is that you demonize conservatives
in general.


You say:

I see no point to it. For every negative piece you post on Democrats, I'm sure there is one that could be posted on Republicans as well.

While there may be some truth to that, there are some important differences.

You say:

I keep waiting(hoping even) for you to offer intelligent, rational conversation, but that seems impossible for you.

Same here!

You say:

Honestly, you come across as a brain-washed Democrat zombie. Politics are not the end all, be all. Think of the nation and what is best for it, not what is best for your party affiliation. I much prefer to call myself a patriot rather than a Republican or a Democrat.

Bob Hope, Zombies and Democrats - YouTube

The democrat party is responsible for the tyrant Mugabe in Zimbabwe, to say anything otherwise is a damned lie,
no wonder Obama and his company of socialist cronies won't speak out against him and as a matter of fact are trying to ratify a whole slew of UN sponsored treaties that are designed to empower more dipwads like Robert Mugabe, treaties we have declined to ratify for decades.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt
socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will
adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one
day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing
how it happened.”

“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for
the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”
Norman Thomas, president of the socialist party in 1944.

The Norman Thomas High School in Manhattan and the
Norman Thomas ‘05 Library at Princeton University’s
Forbes college are named after him. He was also the
grandfather of Newsweek columnist Evan Thomas.


The Reagan Obama Debate - YouTube

Thanks for your interest in my sex life though. :hi:

 

[Weezer]

And the Republicans were responsible for bin Laden. How'd that work out for us?

As for the rest of your arguement, color me stupid, because it really just comes out as a nonsensical rant vomiting my own words back at me. I have no political affiliations, only what I believe. When deciding my beliefs, I attempt to take a step back and see from all POVs. Some things I still argue over with myself everyday, and it is not uncommon for my opinion to change over time. I listen to logic and try to learn from it, but I rarely see logic in your arguements. Like others in this forum, you use big words and try to brow beat those who disagree with you. The only difference is you always include some lame-ass gif of BO, which is what led me to believe you are a dedicated Republican. Attack policies and decisions and leave out the gifs and your arguements might have more merit.

Obviously my intelligence pales in comparison to your own, so how about you dumb it down for those of us who can't make sense of your posts. People might actually converse with you if you stopped being an a-hole.

As for your sex life, your welcome. I hope everybody gets laid because it makes life easier to handle.

 

[gsvol]

And the Republicans were responsible for bin Laden. How'd that work out for us?

As for the rest of your arguement, color me stupid, because it really just comes out as a nonsensical rant vomiting my own words back at me. I have no political affiliations, only what I believe. When deciding my beliefs, I attempt to take a step back and see from all POVs. Some things I still argue over with myself everyday, and it is not uncommon for my opinion to change over time. I listen to logic and try to learn from it, but I rarely see logic in your arguements. Like others in this forum, you use big words and try to brow beat those who disagree with you. The only difference is you always include some lame-ass gif of BO, which is what led me to believe you are a dedicated Republican. Attack policies and decisions and leave out the gifs and your arguements might have more merit.

Obviously my intelligence pales in comparison to your own, so how about you dumb it down for those of us who can't make sense of your posts. People might actually converse with you if you stopped being an a-hole.

As for your sex life, your welcome. I hope everybody gets laid because it makes life easier to handle.

Actually what led to bin Laden started during the Carter administration, Reagan did continue the program but then Clinton had a golden opportunity to put an end to bin Laden while he was in the Sudan but instead dropped bombs on behalf of the al Qaeda forces and their alies in the Balkans.

Two of those al Qaeda fighters repaid our assistance by participating in 9/11.

Thank you for all the information concerning your political leanings and your critique of me, including the assumptions.

Now do you want to discuss the topic of the thread or not?

As for getting laid, maybe you should do it more, perhaps it will improve your sense of humor.

I'll be glad to dumb it down, just don't attack my character and regurgitate propaganda.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Give em hell, GS. That is funny. I don't care who you are.

GS, bend over...I need to speak with LibertyVol for a second.

 

[Weezer]

Actually what led to bin Laden started during the Carter administration, Reagan did continue the program but then Clinton had a golden opportunity to put an end to bin Laden while he was in the Sudan but instead dropped bombs on behalf of the al Qaeda forces and their alies in the Balkans.

Two of those al Qaeda fighters repaid our assistance by participating in 9/11.

Thank you for all the information concerning your political leanings and your critique of me, including the assumptions.

Now do you want to discuss the topic of the thread or not?

As for getting laid, maybe you should do it more, perhaps it will improve your sense of humor.

I'll be glad to dumb it down, just don't attack my character and regurgitate propaganda.

On the topic of the thread, I find myself agreeing with Trut. What do you want us to do? Issue meaningless words or initiate yet another armed conflict abroad? Nothing we say will change things and Americans don't want to keep fighting wars abroad that result in us having to rebuild countries while ours is falling down around us. Give a reasonable solution and maybe I'll agree with you.

P.S.- I'd love to get laid more often. As for sense of humor, I guess our humor is just very different.

 

[gsvol]

On the topic of the thread, I find myself agreeing with Trut. What do you want us to do? Issue meaningless words or initiate yet another armed conflict abroad? Nothing we say will change things and Americans don't want to keep fighting wars abroad that result in us having to rebuild countries while ours is falling down around us. Give a reasonable solution and maybe I'll agree with you.

P.S.- I'd love to get laid more often. As for sense of humor, I guess our humor is just very different.

I would expect something more than silence from the current leadership.

My solution would be to leave the UN entirely!

Another article on the topic.

The Moderate Separatist: Perfect Time for Canada to Reconsider U.N. Membership

When the issue is something as controversial as Canada’s continued membership in the circus known as the United Nations, the reaction on both sides guarantees attention will be paid.

Ontario backbench Conservative MP Larry Miller wants Parliament to review our involvement in the international body.
------------------------

I have called before for Canada to reconsider the time, effort, and money spent on an organization that has long-ago lost its way and has morphed into a de-facto global government. The U.N., which repeatedly self-inflicts damage to their credibility by regularly allowing its committees to be chaired by representatives of the most reprehensible nations on Earth, has recently unloaded a string of criticism directed at Canada.

Launching attacks at a wide array of targets from Canada’s policy in dealing with alleged war criminals and refugees to the U.N. defense of convicted terrorist Omar Khadr to our food quality and distribution systems, the U.N. has set its sights on our nation while turning a blind eye to real and actual atrocities happening right now around the world.
--------------------------

Olivier De Schutter’s ‘findings’ were the expected ramblings from a U.N. socialist, with arrogant and misguided recommendations such as a ‘cola tax’.

The United Nations has become just a rumor of its previous self and shows no traces at all of its original intended purpose. Voting blocs have hijacked the committee process, radical environmentalism has become the criteria by which all (developed) nations are judged and condemned, and resolutions are discussed virtually ad infinitum only to result in useless and powerless proclamations.
-----------------------

Our ambassadorial staff has repeatedly led walk-outs of the General Assembly when some of the loonier, anti-Israel world leaders have ranted at the podium. We have refused participation in committees chaired by murderers.
--------------------

With the ever-growing move towards an undemocratic, socialist one-world government with absolute global authority and its own surrogate military in N.A.T.O., he has done the timely thing.

Here's is my dumbing down effort, tell me what you think.

 

[Weezer]

Leaving the UN is an option, but is it the right option? I don't know. I do think we as a government should rethink our position there and what it is we hope to accomplish, but I don't see that happenning as our own government is just as inept as the UN.

I have to admire your tenacity. Once you get hold you just don't let go. Bravo to you. One caveat I'll give you, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. If you're not careful, there will come a time you are so convinced your right that the truth will no longer matter. Don't become that person. Challenge yourself to occasionally admitting you might be wrong. A humble man wins more hearts than a prideful one. And yes, I do accept I am wrong quite often. It's okay to be wrong. That's how we learn. Everyday I learn more. Peace.

 

[MG1968]

here's an idea, move the United Nations to Haiti.

It would: 1. get the UN off of American soil and 2. it would improve the economy and living conditions in Haiti almost overnight.

 

[therealUT]

One would have thought that with the UN having voted against the Iraq War and now with us being able to see that it was a complete disaster, that the UN would have served a valuable role in 2002 were the U.S. to abide by it.

 

[milohimself]

One would have thought that with the UN having voted against the Iraq War and now with us being able to see that it was a complete disaster, that the UN would have served a valuable role in 2002 were the U.S. to abide by it.

American Exceptionalism?

 

[therealUT]

American Exceptionalism?

I guess.

I certainly believe in individual liberty and, by extension, national sovereignty. However, when an individual physically harms another individual, their liberty is subjected to a governing body and they are removed from society, insofar as that is the only way to remove the threat of said individual. By analogy, I do not see why a sovereign nation should not be subject to a governing body, in order to remove the threat they pose, after they cause physically harm to members of another sovereign nation.

Recently, the U.S. and some of its allies have acted in ways that harm individuals in other sovereign nations. The U.N. should certainly take measures against the U.S. The fact that the U.N. has not taken measures against the U.S. over the past ten years is an indicator that the U.N. is failing; however, I do not see how so many in the U.S. are upset by this failure, as much as the rest of the world should be outraged by the U.N.'s failure to sanction the U.S.

 

[BigPapaVol]

an "indicator" that the UN is failing. That's entertainment.

and what, exactly, might the UN sanction the US over? Presumably you'll take issue with the collateral damage to civilians in the hunt for terrorists and then pretend that the host nations aren't complicit? Don't bother.

 

[therealUT]

an "indicator" that the UN is failing. That's entertainment.

and what, exactly, might the UN sanction the US over? Presumably you'll take issue with the collateral damage to civilians in the hunt for terrorists and then pretend that the host nations aren't complicit? Don't bother.

How many civilians did the "terrorists" kill on 9/11?

How many civilians has the U.S. killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Merely because we kill civilians with a uniformed armed force does not mean that we are not committing massive acts of terrorism.

You may argue that we do not "intend" to target civilians; however, when we made the decision dropped 2,000lb JDAMs in Baghdad and Kabul, massive civilian casualties were foreseen. We went ahead and dropped the JDAMs anyway. We knew we would kill hundreds and thousands of civilians; and, we went ahead and killed hundreds and thousands of civilians.

 

[BigPapaVol]

How many civilians did the "terrorists" kill on 9/11?

How many civilians has the U.S. killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Merely because we kill civilians with a uniformed armed force does not mean that we are not committing massive acts of terrorism.

You may argue that we do not "intend" to target civilians; however, when we made the decision dropped 2,000lb JDAMs in Baghdad and Kabul, massive civilian casualties were foreseen. We went ahead and dropped the JDAMs anyway. We knew we would kill hundreds and thousands of civilians; and, we went ahead and killed hundreds and thousands of civilians.

1. Don't know.

2. Inability to separate Iraq from Afghan is silliness. Iraq action was directly backing UN mandates over a decade old.

3. I don't know, but the number is substantial. Again, what is the basis for the UN sanctions against the US? That's what I asked. If you have a basis other than questions, state it. If the UN has any business telling us about the scope of our response, clearly we're better off without it.

4. Again, any organization that limits our scope of response is worthless to us and we should bow out.

5. If you can't get your arms around the collateral damage multiplier being employed against us by enemies, why bother with the debate. There are clear means for the bad guys to avoid damage to their civilian populace. You regularly make the argument that our response breeds the terrorist but somehow leave it out when discussing our response to their actions. This isn't a chicken and egg debate. This is a security debate.

 

[therealUT]

1. Don't know.

2. Inability to separate Iraq from Afghan is silliness. Iraq action was directly backing UN mandates over a decade old.

3. I don't know, but the number is substantial. Again, what is the basis for the UN sanctions against the US?

Iraq: we invaded a country that posed us no imminent threat; thus, we violated the Geneva Convention. Iraq was a preventive war (not sanctioned by the GC) not a preemptive war (no matter what Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld stated).

Afghanistan: we invaded a country in order to track down a terrorist organization, the leader of which was offered up to the international community to be tried. Moreover, we have killed hundreds and thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, and their deaths were often foreseen.

That's what I asked. If you have a basis other than questions, state it. If the UN has any business telling us about the scope of our response, clearly we're better off without it.

The scope of our response, and the irresponsibility with which we have carried it out, are absurd and criminal.

4. Again, any organization that limits our scope of response is worthless to us and we should bow out.

As an individual, you should probably "bow out" of any governing body/system then.

5. If you can't get your arms around the collateral damage multiplier being employed against us by enemies, why bother with the debate. There are clear means for the bad guys to avoid damage to their civilian populace. You regularly make the argument that our response breeds the terrorist but somehow leave it out when discussing our response to their actions. This isn't a chicken and egg debate. This is a security debate.

Thanks Rumsfeld.

We did not start this war. So understand, responsibility for every single casualty in this war, whether they're innocent Afghans or innocent Americans, rests at the feet of the al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Always great to say that we will knowingly kill innocent persons with our munitions but that the responsibility lies with someone else.

 

[rjd970]

1. Don't know.

2. Inability to separate Iraq from Afghan is silliness. Iraq action was directly backing UN mandates over a decade old.

3. I don't know, but the number is substantial. Again, what is the basis for the UN sanctions against the US? That's what I asked. If you have a basis other than questions, state it. If the UN has any business telling us about the scope of our response, clearly we're better off without it.

4. Again, any organization that limits our scope of response is worthless to us and we should bow out.

5. If you can't get your arms around the collateral damage multiplier being employed against us by enemies, why bother with the debate. There are clear means for the bad guys to avoid damage to their civilian populace. You regularly make the argument that our response breeds the terrorist but somehow leave it out when discussing our response to their actions. This isn't a chicken and egg debate. This is a security debate.

I wouldn't bother, I've been down this road with him before. He see's no difference with the way the US tries to avoid collateral damage at all costs and terrorists primary goal is to achieve as much of it as possible. You're right, there is no use in debating.

Besides, he smarter than everyone else on here. It's futile.