View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2008, 11:36 PM
commonsense's Avatar
commonsense commonsense is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 987
usa us texas
commonsense is a splendid one to beholdcommonsense is a splendid one to beholdcommonsense is a splendid one to beholdcommonsense is a splendid one to beholdcommonsense is a splendid one to beholdcommonsense is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 5,686
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABoyNamedSue View Post
I guess the REAL question is:

What's in it for the U.N.? If there ain't any blood-for-oil money, or under the table deals, then they really won't feel like doing much.
I've found a pattern among the permanent seats in the UN, where they use it much to their advantage rather than in cooperation. War is made ethical through the UN, which hardly agrees on anything of importance. Look at the Korean war, for example. Mainland China wasn't recognized, and Russia was boycotting their position, therefore the 'UN' recognized the war and was made right. This is the only thing the UN is good for, justification of war. Usually siding with western powers when the chance arises.
__________________
"Gimme some truth, now whose side are we on? Whatever you say, turn on the boob tube I'm in the mood to obey" Jack Johnson

Last edited by commonsense; 03-15-2008 at 11:55 PM.
Reply With Quote