We should be helping these people instead of the Iraqis.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23152616

I'm just sayin'.........

Geeze.

Your point isn't lost on me, but I just can't even...

I just can't go there in my head right now.

What about these people Mr. President?
Herb?
Nwokie?
Anyone that stands behind DUHbya and the mess he started?
I'm ALMOST certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people need some help....

Do you really want Bush's help on this one? Hey, it took him 5 years to use the word Genocide regarding Darfur. I think he's about done with taking on new causes...fortunately. Let's not give him any new projects.

I wholeheartedly agree CJ! Wee shrub should continue concentrating on making pretty swirls in his custard.

The next President must act on Darfur. Our Congress must continue constructive discussions and act on bi-partisan solutions right now.

Bush will probably follow in his father's footsteps and send the US military into Darfur in December just before he splits - a big "ha ha ha!" to Obama or Clinton, as if they won't have enough problems to deal with in 2009.

Andrew

We should have done a LOT of things differently in the last eight years including finishing the war in Afganistan and if we were going to wage a war with another country over terrorism it should have been Iran NOT Iraq OR gone into Africa as Trixter suggests. That's what happens when you elect morons.

Moron is too generous. Imbecile or idiot is more accurate.

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bush_mad_mag-2006.jpg

http://maritimes.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/05/nation_big.jpg

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

What's the word form Obama or Hillary on this matter? They gonna take action in their first 100 days?

I'll get my ass kicked on this one, but.....


We really need to take care of our own first, and no, I don't imagine there are too many here as bad off as elsewhere in the world.

Yes, tragedy around the world tugs at our hearts, and many of these people live short dismal lives.

These tragedies from Chad, Angola, Congo, Biafra, Bangladesh,Rwanda, Cambodia, and on since the media started following these places in the 60s only shows the ineffectivness of the U.N. This is what this organization was set up for. Bankrolled by the U.S. for years, rather than jumping on a world trouble spot immediately these places are left in turmoil for far too long. To be sure, these mostly former european colonies were givenindependence without the supporting infrastructure and became personal bankrolls for whatever President for Life, happens to come to power. The opposition tries to take their piece by force and the general population is left to suffer.

So should we send troops to stabilize or just food and money to be looted?

IMHO, we should send a holistic assistance. That means leveraging international organizations, our own, military, dollars, goods.

I'm totally with you on getting our own house in order first! Makes great sense.

Really, that comes down to the huge ass drain Iraq has placed on us. That's not a quick 'n dirty thing to fix --will take time.

If that's actually happening, I've zero problem extending help to others while it does. If, at the least, we get anything out of it, we can get some of our reputation in good standing again.

That counts for an awful lot.

I think the US should withdraw from the UN.

Then we should take all the money that we are supporting the UN with and use it to directly help people that really need it, both here and abroad.

We should then send the UN packing, sell the buildings in New York to US investors or a US corporation (no foreign companies) and let those buildings generate revenue.

IMHO, of course!

The UN does a lot of things most people don't have a clue about - for example, dealing with health issues in developing countries. It's not just security council meetings. For better or worse, some sort of bureaucracy is needed to administer those programs, whether it's the UN or some United States-controlled agency. Would the US be better at it than the UN is? That's hard to say.

I most definitely think a UN-type body is needed. I think many conservatives use the UN as a whipping boy when things don't go as they hoped. The US certainly hasn't helped things - appointing John Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN is one way of showing the world you don't take it seriously. If you want any sort of meaningful UN reform, this is about the worst way to go about it and get people to go along.

Andrew

Skybill...
And the US is going to be 100% responsible for what Andrew just pointed out???

UN is pretty low key and behind-the-scene orientated.

I'm betting a bunch of ex-prezs got a number of high profile national Foreign Relations accomplishments that were for the most part achieved by a lot of back rubbing with actual UN "operatives".

I'm thinking its just the "in" thing to do to kick the UN. The U.S. couldn't function without it.

And the US is going to be 100% responsible for what Andrew just pointed out???

Why would we be? I'm not saying disband the UN, just boot them out of the US and withdraw the US from the UN and our support of them. Let them run their socialist agenda without the US.

The U.S. couldn't function without it.

What? WHAT?

We functioned just fine before the UN was brought into existence in 1945 and we can function just fine without their meddling socialist agenda now.

If the UN had stuck to their original intent (from Wikipedia); The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues. The UN was founded in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, in the hope that it would intervene in conflicts between states and thereby avoid war. It would probably be OK.

They have deviated way to far from that original intent.

Actually, we could function, but it would look like the Bush administration . . . wait a minute, I just proved my point!

The UN is a corrupt money pit.

Herb

So I guess what you are saying is that for the first 169 years the US didn't function properly and it's only been the last 63 years, since the UN has been in existence, that we've been functioning properly?

Skybill writes:
So I guess what you are saying is that for the first 169 years the US didn't function properly and it's only been the last 63 years, since the UN has been in existence, that we've been functioning properly?

We "functioned properly" before the 1960s, when blacks had real voting rights. We "functioned properly" before 1920 when women couldn't vote in federal elections. Why not just get rid of those things, too?

Or could it be that sometimes America does things for the betterment of itself and the world, in an attempt to move forward as a civilization? Nah.

Andrew

I have no problem with America doing things for its own betterment and that of the world. I'm all for it.

The UN is not the way to accomplish it.

The UN is a corrupt money pit.

So was the Bush administration... What's your point???

You want to place Libya, Syria, Cuba and North Korea in the UN Security committees, that's your democrat deal.

The place is already a spy nest.

No thanks.

Herb

How about helping the people Herb??
YOUR going to do it? I started this thread about the PEOPLE!!!! Your turning it into one of your MISguided crusades against one of your EXTREME RIGHT views.
WHAT ABOUT THE GD PEOPLE?????
Stop with your abortion BULLSHIT and the fact that you want out of the GD UN and FOCUS!!!!!!!!!!! FOCUS ON THE PEOPLE I STARTED THE TREAD ABOUT!
WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?????????????
There are meds you can take!!!!!!