FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Imagine that!do not foget what was found even through TV media.............Iraq/French and Soviet chemical suits in abandoned and partially buried in the sands bunkers
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Imagine that!do not foget what was found even through TV media.............Iraq/French and Soviet chemical suits in abandoned and partially buried in the sands bunkers
I remember when that was actually announced at the beginning of the war. The ones they found were thoroughly scrubbed and they surmised that they were whisked away to Syria and Iran. They thoroughly scrubbed them because they new that the US would fly UAVs with sniffers over Iraq to search them out. It was in the news for exactly one day. And then magically they no longer existed. No WMD program links. Saddam was innocent.
That doesn't make sense. They grabbed every little indication of WMDs to start this war, and now you're telling me that after the war the president wasn't told there were WMDs?It has already been mentioned that even the Pres and his cabinet were not given the full reports
That's not the point FlyboyJ, you said the EU was just an economical union on my claim that the EU countries donate more money than the US. Sure, they donate it seperately but the fact remains.Is the EU as a whole a UN member?
So now you're also a scientist and expert on WMDs? Personally, I couldn't be sure something is a WMD if you put it right on my desk. And then I start couphing up blood and my eyes start popping out...Yeap I was there at the site in Northern Iraq. I have pictures of it somewhere, as well as used anthropene injectors and other evidence of WMD's.
But hey Erich my own eyes were decieving me. It cant be true because someone else says it was not.
Erich, I'm sorry, but I don't understand a word of what you're saying. Well, not quite, the words are ok but I don't understand what you're saying. noncoms, eu, inspector board??also remember the video shot and posted so many times on the media of the overhead of trucks moving ? out and the units noncoms asking the Babylonian hierarchy where they were to go with the so called ?, because they were expecting the EU silly inspector board to show up as the EU had given the unit plenty of warning beforehand, and as a side note isn't it interesting that the EU seemed to give notification well beforehand where they were wanting to go and what they wanted to see.............. ? > do we see a set up here
Collectively they do - but they don't vote as the EU, they vote as individual nations, that's my point.That's not the point FlyboyJ, you said the EU was just an economical union on my claim that the EU countries donate more money than the US. Sure, they donate it seperately but the fact remains.
And you're absolutely right.Collectively they do - but they don't vote as the EU, they vote as individual nations, that's my point.
And you're absolutely right.
But like I said, it was about paying for the UN. So instead of saying the "EU pays more than the US" I should have said "the EU countries collectively pay more than the US".
Kris
True.Agree - but that still has little or nothing to do with UN clout if they all vote independantly
True.
The current situation is not manageable. Although the principle of having about 190 members having their say is a wonderful expression of democracy, it's really too difficult. Not only should the general assembly be modified so it would resemble more of a international parliament, the security council should be reorganized and the veto should have to go. I have often thought about this though it's damn difficult. Not only will one or another member refuse to give up their seat and will another refuse to give up their veto, or both, the other problem is how to have the entire world represented in this security council. And this works directly against the principle of every country equal to eachother.
For instance, I was thinking of having the following members: US, EU, non-EU Europe, Russia, China, Japan/S-Korea, SE-Asia, India, Commonwealth, Arabia, Black Africa, Latin America, Others but it is not perfectly balanced and especially the "others" are difficult to fill in: you'll have countries like Iran, Israel, Mongolia, Pakistan, which don't belong anywhere.
But I'm drifting off...
Kris
True.
The current situation is not manageable. Although the principle of having about 190 members having their say is a wonderful expression of democracy, it's really too difficult. Not only should the general assembly be modified so it would resemble more of a international parliament, the security council should be reorganized and the veto should have to go. I have often thought about this though it's damn difficult. Not only will one or another member refuse to give up their seat and will another refuse to give up their veto, or both, the other problem is how to have the entire world represented in this security council. And this works directly against the principle of every country equal to eachother.
For instance, I was thinking of having the following members: US, EU, non-EU Europe, Russia, China, Japan/S-Korea, SE-Asia, India, Commonwealth, Arabia, Black Africa, Latin America, Others but it is not perfectly balanced and especially the "others" are difficult to fill in: you'll have countries like Iran, Israel, Mongolia, Pakistan, which don't belong anywhere.
But I'm drifting off...
Kris
So you vacation where its warm - I got you covered....8)i would hate to be bunched up with the commonwealth a better one for us might be the Carribean, Central America, and Canada