Bush's Address to the UN this morning [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Bush's Address to the UN this morning

Haute
09-14-2005, 09:07 PM
I don't know how many people saw him address the UN this morning (10 am EDT, EST, or whatever we are right now lol), but it just proved once again that his words and actions do not match up. He talked about how human rights needs to be a big priority for the UN and its members, but then you remember how Bush has done squat about what's happening in Darfur and how that's the biggest breach of human rights currently...

He probably needed to rephrase his words to, "human rights in any region with oil reserves should be a priority." :rolleyes: Honestly, if it's that big of a priority then why hasn't he been putting pressure on the UN earlier to start intervening in Darfur, West Africa, and Central Africa?

Just needed to vent about that. :p

KoOlMaNsEaN
09-14-2005, 09:23 PM
I dont know why they even let him speak there when he obviously doesnt respect or pay attention to them after the Iraqi War where he ignored their opinion when they didnt agree with him

its.like.that
09-19-2005, 06:39 PM
He'll surely go down in history as being the worst president ever.

he was already destined for that honour before he even started

:haha::haha::haha::haha:

and his father was an arse clown too. :retard:

nermo
09-19-2005, 09:54 PM
don't know how many people saw him address the UN this morning (10 am EDT, EST, or whatever we are right now lol), but it just proved once again that his words and actions do not match up.posted by Sol Apollo

:yeah: it's the best way to rule ...the question is, do these kind of personalities really believe themselves ?? :angel:

probably needed to rephrase his words to, "human rights in any region with oil reserves should be a priority."posted by Sol Apollo

now, u know too much... :timebomb:

buddyholly
09-20-2005, 03:26 PM
He talked about how human rights needs to be a big priority for the UN and its members, but then you remember how Bush has done squat about what's happening in Darfur and how that's the biggest breach of human rights currently...

Of course you are going to be politically correct and blame Bush, while completely ignoring the fact that Kofi Annan has done nothing about Darfur because if he does not turn a blind eye to the genocide of black people by Muslims, he will lose support at the UN. What do you expect Bush to do, if the leaders of the UN want the genocide to quietly continue?
It would be difficult for Bush to do something about an entire General Assembly that is made up mostly of reresentatives of corrupt governments that are not at all interested in having the UN look at what goes on in their countries.
Look at the oil-for-food scandal. The UN is an ''old boys club'' for criminals (and their sons).

buddyholly
09-20-2005, 03:42 PM
He'll surely go down in history as being the worst president ever.

I think the peanut farmer has a lock on that title.

buddyholly
09-20-2005, 03:52 PM
What has Britain and the rest of Europe done about Darfur? Surely Europe is more responsible for the present map of Africa than the US.
A country that could send an armada to the Falklands not long ago should surely be able to do something about Darfur.

Dirk
09-20-2005, 03:57 PM
Buddholly, this place is a liberal la la land. Why should bush send troops in to Darfur so all these leftists can yell " NO WAR FOR OIL"?????? The UN is a worthless organization that hasn't solved one major conflict in the world.

Dirk
09-20-2005, 04:01 PM
I dont know why they even let him speak there when he obviously doesnt respect or pay attention to them after the Iraqi War where he ignored their opinion when they didnt agree with him

He enforced their resolutions on Iraq, how could that not be respecting them? Also he is trying to save the UN by appointing someone like Bolton to give them the medicine they need to survive because otherwise we will probably end up pulling out. The House passed a bill already limiting the funds to the UN.

Dirk
09-20-2005, 04:02 PM
Of course you are going to be politically correct and blame Bush, while completely ignoring the fact that Kofi Annan has done nothing about Darfur because if he does not turn a blind eye to the genocide of black people by Muslims, he will lose support at the UN. What do you expect Bush to do, if the leaders of the UN want the genocide to quietly continue?
It would be difficult for Bush to do something about an entire General Assembly that is made up mostly of reresentatives of corrupt governments that are not at all interested in having the UN look at what goes on in their countries.
Look at the oil-for-food scandal. The UN is an ''old boys club'' for criminals (and their sons).

Why just months ago Annan was debating whether or not Darfur was really a genocide? :haha: He is liberal so the mainstream media will give him a pass.

AgassiDomination
09-20-2005, 05:14 PM
I'll always wonder how half the countries adults voted for him TWICE!

nermo
09-20-2005, 05:50 PM
Of course you are going to be politically correct and blame Bush, while completely ignoring the fact that Kofi Annan has done nothing about Darfur because if he does not turn a blind eye to the genocide of black people by Muslims, he will lose support at the UN. posted by buddyholly

well, first..in case u 're that concerned ,i guess that u should have known and said that those black ppl.u 're talking about in Darfur are also muslims,good ones ,but very poor too. reports say that about one or more million muslims are settled in refugee camps in very poor conditions.so,in case u 're implying this is a muslim war or any kind of religious concern,..it is not..it's all about a new story of corruption and greed.ethnity ,religion or anything like that is just a cover for what's really going on....that has nothing to do with religion..or if it does, then this is just another religion ignoring war...
second...supporting the issue by Koffi anan, 'll not in any case make him lose support in the UN..cuz arab leaders are supporting the case there, and even if they don't support it enough, (cuz they 're not supporting anything enough), then it won't affect Anan, cuz arabs aren't that powerful in the UN..

What do you expect Bush to do, if the leaders of the UN want the genocide to quietly continue?
It would be difficult for Bush to do something about an entire General Assembly that is made up mostly of reresentatives of corrupt governments that are not at all interested in having the UN look at what goes on in their countries.
posted by buddyholly

i don't think u really believe that Angel Bush is standing powerless infront of the case cuz he doesn't find support from the UN..when his Governoment wanted,to get to Iraq, everything was settled, good photographs of wondeful nuclear weapons stores :cool: were found , and although most of the countries in the UN refused the attack, it was and is done actually...
the truth is , sooner or later Sudan , besides other countries are going to be next on the list, and everytime, there'll be a new reason...

Fedex
09-20-2005, 09:09 PM
He'll surely go down in history as being the worst president ever.


Oh, without a doubt.

buddyholly
09-21-2005, 12:04 AM
Sorry nermo, I couldn't understand your post.

Haute
09-21-2005, 12:43 AM
Of course you are going to be politically correct and blame Bush, while completely ignoring the fact that Kofi Annan has done nothing about Darfur because if he does not turn a blind eye to the genocide of black people by Muslims, he will lose support at the UN. What do you expect Bush to do, if the leaders of the UN want the genocide to quietly continue?
It would be difficult for Bush to do something about an entire General Assembly that is made up mostly of reresentatives of corrupt governments that are not at all interested in having the UN look at what goes on in their countries.
Look at the oil-for-food scandal. The UN is an ''old boys club'' for criminals (and their sons).

And the US doesn't to anything to make the cooperation in the UN any better; we're just one more country that's looking out for our own interest instead of the collective interest of all countries in the UN. Part of the reason why the reforms will never work, because no one wants to compromise their position in the UN.

But the thing that really gets me and was really more of my point, is that why are human rights suddenly such an important issue for Bush? This has been going on in Darfur for at least 2 years now, and western Africa has been torn apart by civil war for decades... so why is he just now saying this? Why aren't we rushing in to these places as quickly as into Iraq? My brother-in-law works for the Department of Defense and has been over to Iraq numerous times already. Based on what he's seen while he's been there, he's told us that the only reason why we've rushed into Iraq so quickly was because of the oil (and he's very conservative and pro-Bush mind you).

This is just my guess now, but Bush is probably focusing on human rights after what happened with Hurricane Katrina and is seeking some redemption for the slow response.

Dirk
09-21-2005, 04:45 AM
Sol blame the local and state officials for that more than Bush because they failed them early on. Sol, Iraq owes us no money and doesn't have to pay back all the money we are putting up to rebuild it so how could this possibly be a war for oil. I wish Bush would say that but he doesn't respond to the michael morons of the world. The UN's problem is there are countries in there that are non democratic. Kicking them out would be THE SOLUTION and would help make the UN what it really should be. Giving them membership hasn't done a damn thing to make their countries better or swayed them to democracy.

Bolton is the medicine the UN needs and Bush and Blair saved it by enforcing it's resolutions.

Sol why don't you complain about the UN not sending in troops and other countries? Why does it always have to be us to solve it?

Haute
09-21-2005, 05:55 AM
So kicking China out would be a solution towards more peace in the world? Somehow I don't think that's going to happen, unless peace comes after World War III.

Why do we have to be the self-proclaimed leaders of the free-world? If we're supposed to have that position in the world, then we shouldn't be able to pick and choose which areas of the world we're going to intervene. And if we're so concerned with spreading democracy and ending terrorism around the world, shouldn't we have stepped into Sudan a long time ago? They're a non-democracy with gross violations of human rights, and connections to terrorism...why aren't we involved there?

And we've already established that the UN isn't capable of doing anything right now when it's constantly being undermined, so what good would it do me or anyone to approach them about not sending troops out?

If this is really part of Bush's foreign policy agenda, then there really needs to be more uniformity to it.

nermo
09-21-2005, 05:40 PM
Sorry nermo, I couldn't understand your post.posted by buddyholly

ohh, :scratch: never mind, it must be my english, sometimes it gets mysterious..

PaulieM
09-21-2005, 06:15 PM
Too little too late. Once again Bu$h is exposed to be the fraud that he is. That's two major disasters to happen on his watch now (Sept. 11 and Katrina). He'll surely go down in history as being the worst president ever.

sadly he probably won't. :(

Dirk
09-21-2005, 07:16 PM
So kicking China out would be a solution towards more peace in the world? Somehow I don't think that's going to happen, unless peace comes after World War III.

Why do we have to be the self-proclaimed leaders of the free-world? If we're supposed to have that position in the world, then we shouldn't be able to pick and choose which areas of the world we're going to intervene. And if we're so concerned with spreading democracy and ending terrorism around the world, shouldn't we have stepped into Sudan a long time ago? They're a non-democracy with gross violations of human rights, and connections to terrorism...why aren't we involved there?

And we've already established that the UN isn't capable of doing anything right now when it's constantly being undermined, so what good would it do me or anyone to approach them about not sending troops out?

If this is really part of Bush's foreign policy agenda, then there really needs to be more uniformity to it.

The UN is undermining itself by not doing anything because it would upset some of the non democratic and even some democratic members (FRANCE). THE US PUTS MORE MONEY INTO THAT CRAP ORGANIZATION THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY SO HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY BE UNDERMINING IT??? Bolten believe or not is there to save it. The fact is we can't send troops everywhere that is why we need other countries to have some fucking balls and help. Sudan could be handled by UN forces and other forces. I suspect at some point the US will send troops into Sudan but just wait honey, the moment we do the UN will start bitching and so will many of dumbass the do-gooder democrats.

buddyholly
09-22-2005, 12:08 AM
ohh, :scratch: never mind, it must be my english, sometimes it gets mysterious..

It was, but I did not say that to make fun. I know English is not your first language. I have studied it more closely and think I follow now.

buddyholly
09-22-2005, 12:21 AM
And the US doesn't to anything to make the cooperation in the UN any better; we're just one more country that's looking out for our own interest instead of the collective interest of all countries in the UN. Part of the reason why the reforms will never work, because no one wants to compromise their position in the UN.

This is just my guess now, but Bush is probably focusing on human rights after what happened with Hurricane Katrina and is seeking some redemption for the slow response.

Wow, you could just have called me an ass and hit the :rolleyes: That's the usual response.

So for that reasoned response I will let you into a little secret. Hopefully it will not leak into other threads. I despise GW. But I still believe the US is the best country in the world, so I usually get into these discussions, because most posters, including some Americans, are just out to bash the US, not just GW. Unfortunately he makes it easy. But GW is not the USA. The USA will survive him, but hopefully not at the price of embracing the much more despicable Michael Moore types. Fortunately, since Moore's website was inundated with messages thanking him for assuring GW's re-election he has been keeping a low profile. I hope the Democrats wise up and step away from him, otherwise GW-type politicians will keep winning.
There I've said it. My MTF reputation is down the toilet forever.

Haute
09-22-2005, 01:05 AM
Wow, you could just have called me an ass and hit the :rolleyes: That's the usual response.

I like political discussions and don't back down easily from my stance. ;) Plus, calling you an ass would only be an ad hominem statement and undermine my own arguments. :p

So for that reasoned response I will let you into a little secret. Hopefully it will not leak into other threads. I despise GW. But I still believe the US is the best country in the world, so I usually get into these discussions, because most posters, including some Americans, are just out to bash the US, not just GW. Unfortunately he makes it easy. But GW is not the USA. The USA will survive him, but hopefully not at the price of embracing the much more despicable Michael Moore types. Fortunately, since Moore's website was inundated with messages thanking him for assuring GW's re-election he has been keeping a low profile. I hope the Democrats wise up and step away from him, otherwise GW-type politicians will keep winning.
There I've said it. My MTF reputation is down the toilet forever.

I think it's pretty clear from my posts that I did not vote for Bush in the elections (I'm still holding out for Kerry in '08!), but I also cannot stand Moore in least bit. Unfortunately, I have to live in the same area that he grew up in, so it's always Michael Moore this, Michael Moore that. The people in Davison obviously are not the brightest bunch because they wanted a sign created to officially announce Davison as the hometown of Michael Moore... I don't understand that for a lot of reasons, mainly because he never even admits to being from Davison, he always says the Flint area instead (and then politically rapes Flint for his "documentaries" :rolleyes: ).

Democrats for the most part never really claim any attachments to Moore; he's pretty much like a parasite and latches onto the party, doing more harm than good.

Haute
09-22-2005, 01:12 AM
The UN is undermining itself by not doing anything because it would upset some of the non democratic and even some democratic members (FRANCE). THE US PUTS MORE MONEY INTO THAT CRAP ORGANIZATION THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY SO HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY BE UNDERMINING IT??? Bolten believe or not is there to save it. The fact is we can't send troops everywhere that is why we need other countries to have some fucking balls and help. Sudan could be handled by UN forces and other forces. I suspect at some point the US will send troops into Sudan but just wait honey, the moment we do the UN will start bitching and so will many of dumbass the do-gooder democrats.

I feel like we're talking in circles now. lol The UN cannot do anything because so many of the member countries block the UN from taking any action. The US may be spending more money on the UN, but it's been undermining the UN for years now. It's pretty much safe to say at this point that it's all a mess and isn't about to be resolved anytime soon.

mandoura
09-22-2005, 04:16 AM
Sorry nermo, I couldn't understand your post.

:scratch: I thought the general idea was pretty clear.

buddyholly
09-22-2005, 05:41 AM
:scratch: I thought the general idea was pretty clear.

Well, two Irishmen could probably carry on a conversation and nobody else would understand what they were talking about :drink: :drink:

And I did say above that I later took the time to sort it out. It was all the full stops that confused me.

mandoura
09-22-2005, 06:27 AM
Well, two Irishmen could probably carry on a conversation and nobody else would understand what they were talking about :drink: :drink: .

In my previous post, I was going to say that being both (nermo and I) from Egypt is irrelevant because I was sure you were going to point it out. Thank you for not disappointing me ;) .

And I did say above that I later took the time to sort it out. It was all the full stops that confused me.

Yah I noticed but I had already posted. So it was a problem of punctuation not language. So the Irishmen example is irrelevant too. :)

Jim Jones
09-22-2005, 02:09 PM
Bush is in power becasause of the Arabization and Islamist policies of Arabs. One may not like him but there is a reason that he is in power. Blair though he seems a decent leader introduced human rights law into legal law and know cannot boot foreign extremists back to their homeland contrary to France, Germany etc...

buddyholly
09-22-2005, 02:13 PM
In my previous post, I was going to say that being both (nermo and I) from Egypt is irrelevant because I was sure you were going to point it out. Thank you for not disappointing me ;) .

I can read your mind :devil:

nermo
09-22-2005, 05:06 PM
but I did not say that to make fun. I know English is not your first language. I have studied it more closely and think I follow now.posted by buddyholly

your post was terribly funny though,especially with these two irishmen around.. :help:
as for ur comment on people attacking GW..well, ofcourse he's not the US,but still he and his governoment represents the country, what u should know that ppl.don't hate the US,nor the american people. They hate those double standard policies which rule decisions taken by the american governoment,and it wasn't and won't be restricted to Bush's era only..

thought the general idea was pretty clear.posted by mandoura
then it must have been ur english too.. :awww:

Fedex
09-22-2005, 10:04 PM
sadly he probably won't. :(
I beg to differ. Bush is hardly popular these days.