Jump to content

More UN corruption

emprworm

By emprworm
in Politics, Religion, & Philosophy

 Share

Recommended Posts

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Oh god. Empr, do you have any idea what Europe looks like? Do you know what countries are in Europe, and how many there are?

do you have any idea what Europe looks like?

Yes.

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

So the kickbacks were additional charges imposed by Hussein, and went into his pockets?

And those who profited were basically businesses in China, France, Russia, and Syria?

Right, now we're getting somewhere. By European, you actually do mean just French. Frankly, half for Europe has no liking for then French when they do that sort of thing.

As per Newt.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Your stance that 'Whatever France approves, the rest of Europe approves" is like me blaming the US for what Argentina does because they're both part of America.

now cmon, France is the world superpower.  They own Europe, and are greater than the States.  Every country in Europe defers to mighty France...right?

;)

Megashrap

Megashrap

Posted
Posted

Initiative was taken by the Germans, they were the ones that declared war on you before you decided to play the role of world savior and give people like you a chance to rewrite history in a more pleasant shape.

  So are you saying then that the U.S. should have let Japan finish bombing us, as well as Germany?  Or just not intervene at all and somehow just hope our allies would simply "handle" it?

Afterall, why would the 1940's era, isolationist US start a war because they felt a certain nation committed crimes against a certain ethnic group while they themselves rounded up thousends of Japanese Americans in internment camps after Pearl Harbor?

The post-Pearl Harbor Interment camps are by no means comparable to concentration camps.  And since when did the U.S. start WW-2?

Forgive me for straying off topic a bit, but after reading a few of the comments like this, I'm now rather curious to hear exactly what the U.S should have done.

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

now cmon, France is the world superpower.  They own Europe, and are greater than the States.  Every country in Europe defers to mighty France...right?

What exactly is your well-hidden point?

So let me see: Saddam Hussein made billions of dollars by stealing from a UN program that was only necessary due to the genocidal effects of the American embargo on average Iraqi citizens...

So Saddam made money from UN programs that were implemented because of US actions. Take the buck back far enough and look where it ends up.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

again, I say, no one really KNEW what the Nazi's were doing to the Jews! Not even most Germans! (to this day, there are Germans who STILL think the Nazi's didnt attempt a Jewish Genocide)

Nobody knew that the Jews were actually being exterminated, of course, but everyone knew they were being oppressed, stripped of all their rights, and eventually thrown into ghettos or sent East to be "resettled". Also, the Nazis oppressed and killed far more people than just the Jews. For example, concentration camp prisoners were generally divided into 6 categories, each identified by a triangle of a specific colour:

Jews (yellow triangle or yellow Star of David)

Homosexuals (pink triangle)

Communists (red triangle)

Lesbians (black triangle)

Jehova's Witnesses (purple triangle)

Others (green triangle)

In addition, during WW2, the Nazis had a policy of exterminating conquered Slavic populations, especially Russians. 17 million Russian civilians died in WW2 (the military casualties are another 10 million on top of that).

It would be pretty hard not to have noticed ANY of that.

And by the way, while we're on the subject, IBM was far from being alone in doing business with the Nazis. Henry Ford actually supported the Nazis - and later received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest distinction Nazi Germany could award to foreigners.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You haven't answered Nema's or my last responses without being childish.

I answered Nemas (the first one he asked, anyway).  Yours, I did not, because it made no sense.

Dunenewt

Dunenewt

Posted
Posted

When you're asked why you brought Europe in to a topic and you just quote something France did in the UN, its like us *Europeans* blaming the USA for somethintg Mexico or Argentina did as they're part of the american continent.

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

Did I say it was wrong? No, no moral judgements there. I was just stating a fact. Selling weapons to the nazis? Good business practice. Did I mention IBM? Nope, not once. Try to keep up.

Edit: Is 'Dante' so hard to spell?

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Did I say it was wrong? No, no moral judgements there. I was just stating a fact. Selling weapons to the nazis? Good business practice. Did I mention IBM? Nope, not once. Try to keep up.

Edit: Is 'Dante' so hard to spell?

great.  as long as you admit that it matters not, and there is no moral significance whether or not people in Bush's family tree had dealings with criminals.  it almost sounded like you were making a moral call against Bush there. 

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

Doesn't mean I can't oppose it on non-moral grounds.

Reasons why Dubya's grandfather was logically incorrect to sell weapons to the nazis:


  • * He was backing the loser.
    * Selling weapons to anyone is a bad idea. They could use them against you, or your other business partners.
    * American government fights the nazis while American businessman sells them weapons. Great PR there, as well as damn hypocracy...
    * Unlike me, other people actually do claim to have objective morals. And then they ignore them. Hypocracy again.
    On the other hand, reasons that it was logicaly sound...
    * He made money.
    * His help wasn't enough for the nazis to actually win. Not that it could have been...

Moral relativist sees both sides of the coin.

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

"He was backing the loser."

And why is this logically wrong?  What makes someone "losing" wrong?  Last I checked, the Seahawks have several endorsements, even though they have lost every chance at the superbowl in their history.  Your logic fails.

Oh, so you're saying that there is nothing inherantly negative about losing? Stop disagreeing with me on principle.

"Selling weapons to anyone is a bad idea. "

Glock and Smith & Wesson are proof that this logic fails.

Boeing makes nuclear missles.  They sell them to the government.  NO one has ever nuked boeing.  Again, your logic fails.

People still die.

I know of no gun manufacturer that has had its employees shot by its own guns.

Some things happen too often to be noticed. Besides, what are guns for but for killing people? Or do they have some other, peaceful use that until now I have been unaware of?

Again, your logic fails.  You have no evidence.  Sounds like you are arguing on principle as if to assume that having weapons used against you is bad.   How can you assume anything to be bad?  Maybe having weapons used against you is actually a good thing!  (I can demonstrate through history several instances when having weaponry used against a civilization causes a direct increase in scientific technology and advancement, look at the history of the bow->crossbow for a great example)

Your logic fails.  Fails, fails, fails.

Oh how I missed the days when you were just a bad memory to surpress...

Weapons used against self = death. Death death death death death. Now I'm no person to argue against death in general but when it comes to specifics it seems that there are much better ways of dying than being blown up by weapons that one's own country has made.

Following your logic, when the weapons sold to the nazis by Bush's grandfather were actually used against American troops, it was actually a good thing! Care to rephrase?

"American government fights the nazis while American businessman sells them weapons. Great PR there, as well as damn hypocracy"

whats wrong with Hypocrisy?  Why is that a bad thing?

Oh grow up. You can't turn every argument with me into a pathetic crusade against my beliefs. Well, you can, but it's not very productive, nor very polite.

Hypocracy is anathema to me. It is breaking one's own rules, be they logical rules, moral rules, rules of law, rules of self, it doesn't matter what rules they are, they are being broken by those who made them. This is not only incredibly annoying, but also stupid, egotistical, and counter-productive.

"Unlike me, other people actually do claim to have objective morals. And then they ignore them. Hypocracy again."

and?  Why is this bad again?  Could this not be a good thing?

See above. Cretin.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"Oh, so you're saying that there is nothing inherantly negative about losing? "

I just dont want YOU to start saying losing is bad.  Endorsing a loser is not inherently bad.  You said that Bush endorsing a loser was "illogical" and I fail to see why it is such.  What rational basis do you have for such a principled claim?

"Weapons used against self = death. Death death death death death."

And?  Uh...ok.  But selling weapons to someone does not equivocate to "weapons used against self". TO state as such comits a fallacy.

"Following your logic, when the weapons sold to the nazis by Bush's grandfather were actually used against American troops, it was actually a good thing! Care to rephrase?"

#1.  Prove that weapons sold to the nazis by Bush's grandfather killed American Soldiers

#2.  Prove that (assuming it is true, which it is most likely not) it is a bad thing

"Hypocracy is anathema to me. It is breaking one's own rules, be they logical rules, moral rules, rules of law, rules of self, it doesn't matter what rules they are, they are being broken by those who made them. This is not only incredibly annoying, but also stupid, egotistical, and counter-productive."

Now this is a rediculous statement.  Hypocrisy breaks YOUR OWN PERSONAL RULES but not necessarily the rules of someoone else.

Q:  If the personal rules for Jim permit Hypocrisy, what logical right do YOU have to say its bad?  (and you did use the word bad)

A:  You have no logical right.

See above. Cretin.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.