IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

**shartley** · 03-10-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Please read what I wrote again you seem to be missing a key point. I said "The US gives money to UN nations, but not to the UN as it is suppose to. The US uses the money that it is supposed to give to the UN to fund these expenditures directly to nations. It is in a sort trying to gain support for the US, while taking support away from the UN. It really doesn't matter if other countries owe us money, we owe them too. (I think last time I check we owed over a billion to China for some government bonds they bought off of Japan)" Thank you have a good day, please come back again.

**Collegeboy** · 03-10-2003, 04:20 PM

Maybe you can't read, but what I am saying is there in plain English. The US is supposed to give the money directly to the UN, but instead the US gives it to UN countries. This undermines the UN and takes away their responsibilities. Please take a reading comprehension test; I am getting tired of repeating myself so you can understand it.

I have put my views on the line and found them good, even against your illogical attacks on them and my character.

Again I await another illogical post for which I will have to restate what I said again.

**pito189** · 03-10-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by nippinout
I'm proud to be an American. Anybody who doesn't like me for that fact is wrong. They should be bombed.

**pito189** · 03-10-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Maybe you can't read, but what I am saying is there in plain English. The US is supposed to give the money directly to the UN, but instead the US gives it to UN countries. This undermines the UN and takes away their responsibilities. Please take a reading comprehension test; I am getting tired of repeating myself so you can understand it.

I have put my views on the line and found them good, even against your illogical attacks on them and my character.

Again I await another illogical post for which I will have to restate what I said again.

Probaly so the UN doesn't pocket half the money. Then when that half gets to the countires, the corrupt goverments pocket another half, then when the money finally trickles down to the people in need, they end up getting 1/4 of what we sent them.

If we give it directly to the countries, then they get half. Makes sense to me.

EDIT: spelling

**shartley** · 03-10-2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Maybe you can't read, but what I am saying is there in plain English. The US is supposed to give the money directly to the UN, but instead the US gives it to UN countries. This undermines the UN and takes away their responsibilities. Please take a reading comprehension test; I am getting tired of repeating myself so you can understand it.

I have put my views on the line and found them good, even against your illogical attacks on them and my character.

Again I await another illogical post for which I will have to restate what I said again.

**aaron_mag** · 03-10-2003, 04:56 PM

firstdeadeye-

You pretty much summed me up.:) Except for the PINKO part. Remember my manly exertions to my wife's Pilates video so I am not a Pinko in any way shape or form. By the way you I don't believe you saw my rebuttal to your MacArthur statement in the Korea thread!

Originally posted by shartley

**shartley** · 03-10-2003, 05:09 PM

**Hasty8** · 03-10-2003, 05:21 PM

Let them rant Army

That's the problem with extremists. You just can't argue with them.

**1stdeadeye** · 03-10-2003, 05:46 PM

Here!

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Maybe you can't read, but what I am saying is there in plain English. The US is supposed to give the money directly to the UN, but instead the US gives it to UN countries. This undermines the UN and takes away their responsibilities. Please take a reading comprehension test; I am getting tired of repeating myself so you can understand it.

I have put my views on the line and found them good, even against your illogical attacks on them and my character.

Again I await another illogical post for which I will have to restate what I said again.

Pito summed up what I was going to say. The UN is an extremely corrupt organization. The money wasted and stolen by the third world bureacrats is shameful. Most of them look at the UN as a trough.

Better to send it further down the line. The thieves there may steal a bigger percentage, but more will get to where it was intended!

Please do not try to argue that the UN is some benevolant charity. It is a rotting corrupt irrelevant organization.

**Collegeboy** · 03-10-2003, 06:34 PM

Well by the US giving money to these countries directly, the countries have to give up something important to the US. Now that could be good and that could be bad. Is the UN a bureaucrat who has the same problems as other bureaucrat yes, I never said they wasn't. But the US as a member of UN is suppose to give the money directly to the UN funds, instead of using that money to make friends in other countries. The UN was founded to prevent what the US is doing. But with the power the US has amassed no one can say anything against it for the US will just veto it.

Shartley, you are funny. You actually think you are some sort of intellectual genius compared to me. That is funny. You own post show that you have no understanding of human emotions, no understanding of the average guy. You somehow have this notion that a terrorist is born with some sort of mental imbalance that makes them a terrorist, but you say their surrounding has nothing to do with it. You some how think that a potential terrorist is different from me and you. You somehow think most everybody hates the US. That is about as wrong as it can get. I would be more then willing to square off in an intellectual match against you. Oh an no mater what, if I saw you on the street in need, no matter how messed up your ideas are I would still help you.

**shartley** · 03-10-2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Shartley, you are funny. You actually think you are some sort of intellectual genius compared to me. That is funny. You own post show that you have no understanding of human emotions, no understanding of the average guy. You somehow have this notion that a terrorist is born with some sort of mental imbalance that makes them a terrorist, but you say their surrounding has nothing to do with it. You some how think that a potential terrorist is different from me and you. You somehow think most everybody hates the US. That is about as wrong as it can get. I would be more then willing to square off in an intellectual match against you. Oh an no mater what, if I saw you on the street in need, no matter how messed up your ideas are I would still help you.

**Collegeboy** · 03-10-2003, 06:56 PM

You crack me up.

I don't need to go out in the "real" world to know I can take you on, all I have to do is look at your post here. Maybe you can't get by that "logic" of yours or that "experience" you have to know that maybe things are not like you think. I question everything I know everyday. Do you. Maybe you are tainted by your past to know the truth in front of you.

Don't you just love it when people result to the argument? Boy wait till you grow up, wait till you get out in the real world, wait till you get a job, then you will come to think as I do. Until then you are wrong. All without saying anything that would even come close to proving how the "boy" is wrong. I just love that don't you all. Shartly did you have to walk up the hill both ways to school in the snow with no shoes too.

**shartley** · 03-10-2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Well by the US giving money to these countries directly, the countries have to give up something important to the US. Now that could be good and that could be bad. Is the UN a bureaucrat who has the same problems as other bureaucrat yes, I never said they wasn't. But the US as a member of UN is suppose to give the money directly to the UN funds, instead of using that money to make friends in other countries. The UN was founded to prevent what the US is doing. But with the power the US has amassed no one can say anything against it for the US will just veto it.

**shartley** · 03-10-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You crack me up.

I don't need to go out in the "real" world to know I can take you on, all I have to do is look at your post here. Maybe you can't get by that "logic" of yours or that "experience" you have to know that maybe things are not like you think. I question everything I know everyday. Do you. Maybe you are tainted by your past to know the truth in front of you.

Don't you just love it when people result to the argument? Boy wait till you grow up, wait till you get out in the real world, wait till you get a job, then you will come to think as I do. Until then you are wrong. All without saying anything that would even come close to proving how the "boy" is wrong. I just love that don't you all. Shartly did you have to walk up the hill both ways to school in the snow with no shoes too.

**Collegeboy** · 03-10-2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by shartley

Yes veto as in what France, Russia, and Chinia will us probably.

This site is rather interesting.

http://www.iht.com/articles/88413.html

Also the UN can be useful and it can not be useful, depending on where your morals are. I find the UN rather useful.

IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment