[Haute]

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." 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.

 

[KoOlMaNsEaN]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'll always wonder how half the countries adults voted for him TWICE!

 

[nermo]

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 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]

He'll surely go down in history as being the worst president ever.

Oh, without a doubt.

 

[buddyholly]

Sorry nermo, I couldn't understand your post.

 

[Haute]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.