1 Finish Profile

The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

Locked

Ever since November I have had an annoying little buzz in my head. I can’t say it was uncomfortable, just disquieting and a little savage in it’s own special way. It was not until the other say that I identified it. There is a new current in the world, it is that of the Karma Thug, and beware they are everywhere. The European Union has begun to sound an awful lot like an old nemisis, of almost lutharian proportion.
I have decided to just drop this out here, call it my catharsis, call it a rant, call it what you will; but, I feel I can no longer meaningfully post on this site without this being brought to light. The UN is foul and should be disbanded. I know this is a brash and rather abrupt statement, even for me. The UN is not what the world would have us believe, not by a mile. The UN is a Yoke, much like that we cast off in the Revolution, to keep America in check. I will allow you to elaborate further, trust me I will offer more just out of space here. I will also explain Karma Thugs- but you tell me am I wrong?

-duck

Topic

Karma Thugs

In reply to The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

A Karma Thug is someone who has lived their lives in total disreguard of Karma and the effect it has in our lives. I am not saying the deep Karma of religion, this is a duck karma thing. Karma is almost like a tally. The good the bad, the right the wrong, happy sad, it is all weighed out in karma.
Someone who is so inept as to scoff will have an unexplainable problem crop up and that my friends is the work of a Karma thug.

Karma thugs are people like saddam and peter arnett. Guys that have no regard for anything but their needs and wants. Men and Women who when they die get the big ole dose of Karma they deserve and are forced to dole the stuff out to the masses through out history. Right now the UN is teaming with them just waiting to hatch. Mark my words until the UN is disbanded there will be no rest in the world, they wont have it. the UN cannot function if there is No unrest in the world. Why else do you think they even entrtain the notion of Isreal? I can only say one more thing lest I turn this post south before it gets started.

God,
May you bless and lead us. Protect and comfort our soldiers when they need you most. And continue to guide our president in his time of trial. Thank you for listening.

-duck

The question

In reply to The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

Duck,

I see it in a similar way, but differently. The UN has become more than anything a dysfunctional and increasingly irrevalent counterweight to America’s power and influence.

In principle, a worldwide forum of representatives of all governments is a good idea when the scope of it’s activities is to grease the wheels of commerce and to provide global standards for shared use of waterways and the like. There is also a great advantage for the shared functions of disaster relief and issues that confront all of humanity.

As opposed to this, the UN has become a threat to the soverignity of member nations and seeks to make the greatest among us level with the lowest. This approach fails at both the micro and macro levels.

There are many nations that fail to conform to even the most basic standards of behavior that constitute a global norm, the ideal nor the real. When these nations are given a seat at the table where they have power to control nations that do comply with suchstandards, then they are given not only recognition, but acceptance. They also assert influence asymetric with their actual power.

The spectacular failure of the UN to enforce its own resolutions in the case of Iraq underscore the case that massive reform of membership in the UN and the composition of its security council is in order.

The Answer

In reply to The question

My answer to this is for the US to submit a list of nations to the UN enumerating which nations should occupy core seats in the security council and which should not. If the UN refuses to reallocate seats, then the US should reassess its own UN membership and determine if we should withdraw our membership. Should we withdraw, the UN will undoubtedly collapse due to our large share of operating revenues and the fact that any credible military might it has to enforce its own resolutions ultimately comes from us.

This is not as drastic as it appears on the surface, as the League of Nations faltered and failed in much the same way, although because several nations made this same determination and discontinued participation.

In the absence of the UN, there will arise many NATOesque groups built around economic issues in addition to common defense issues. These groups would probably coalesce into UNII, with another attempt at creating a workable operating model.

I think that the world would be better served by a UN that only allows nations that comply with international norms to occupy core voting positions.

Further, the idea of a single nation being able to “veto” an action of the security council is unjustifiable. Any single nation can stymie necessary actions if such actions are in the best interest of the collective good but are detrimental to that nation. This is a recipe for irrelevance.

“A little revolution on occasion is a healthy thing”

Captain Marco Ramius
The Hunt for Red October
by Tom Clancy

Reply To: The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

In reply to The Answer

Consider an earlier confederation of states, that of the 13 colonies in 1776. Many of the same issues existed for them that face the world at large today. Concerns of cultural differences, law interpetation, common verus local good.

The differences escalated to the War Between the States – driven by a difference in state versus federal power more so than the issue of slavery.

Almost a century later, these issues again reached a near critical point over racial differences in states like Arkansas and Alabama.

Similar issues remain in other confederations – Quebec in Canada, Ireland and Scotland in Great Britain. At the core, a fear of losing a cultural idenity as part of a larger whole. Of course, there are is no shortage of individuals who view the issues as an opportunity for personal gain, forged in the flames of general fear or discontent.

The issues covered

In reply to Reply To: The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

in the US Constitution are all based in the individual States’ desire for limited central authority and maximum autonomy at the state and local levels.

Unfortunately, over time the federal government has usurped many functions and rights originally mandated to the individual states.

I’m unsure how a return to such a circumstance would be orchestrated, although I am convinced of it’s necessity. Perhaps such a thing could be accomplished by a piece by piece dismantlement of many federal programs and administrations by Constitutional challenge in the courts. Although all of us have our pet programs that would probably be best served by federal control (the space program is mine), I would prefer the dissolution of NASA to the current state of affairs. Should it be the collective will to have a space program, it should stand Constitutional review and pass the mechanisms for amendment of the Constitution.

Those most divisive federal programs would probably not gain 3/4 state ratification for survival, such as social security and the department of education.

The effect of such a dismantlement would dilute out national identity and will, (probably to the relief of the world),but probably result in a more responsive delivery of services and a less intrusive and less expensive tax load.

Libertarian

In reply to The issues covered

We also lose site that under the US Constitution, individuals have rights, governments have power, and government power is derived from the governed.

Back to the UN. Historically, every major power has lost their position, whether that power wasa local, regional, continental, or global power. So far, the US is the sole exception.

Now, the other common factor in history is that every single major power had less powerful neighbors that became the catalyst of it losing that power.

Is it possible then that the only solution would be a single major power with no neighbors? That would be a UN central world government, with a recognition of individual rights, and some constantly changing level of power distribution between the central (UN) and local (national) governments.

An alternative would be anarchy achieved by recognition by all individuals of the rights of all other individuals, eliminating a need for externally imposed social order.

Anarchy

In reply to Libertarian

Contrary to popular opinion, people have to be in a somewhat enlghtened stste for anarchy to work IMO. Libertarianism is practical though, since it allows common enforcement of the cost of individual or corporate mistakes.

A Libertarian world government is the only reasonable solution I can see to world government. Besides, we’ll lose to China in a few years if we try to make a go of anarchy, even with the SARS crisis.

I agree

In reply to The issues covered

and a good start would be to over turn laws which are not founded in the constitution. The supreme court has become a vehical of huge power. Not one decision at a time, but the sum of all decisions. Oddly, this is one of the few bodies without elections or term limits. Some of the laws passed at the state and federal level are laughable. One that still has me ticked off is the new cell phone law. I don’t own a cell phone but I think that punishing an individual for an act that could causethat individual to break a law is one step away from the thought police. I don’t want to bring up specific federal laws, but you all know of one, I’m sure, that the Feds have no buisness imposing. You mention the pet projects, that’s the trap. You say yours is NASA, what is your projection of NASA without the Govt.? With out the bloat, I think NASA could turn a profit, imagine if they received some residuals from velcro. I think it’s only assumption that these entities can only exist by the benevolent hand (in the pocket) of the Govt.

Single nation veto

In reply to The Answer

While we are currently frustrated with how the some members used this in opposition to a war with Iraq, it seems to me we have used it when the UN overall had a direction in mind that we felt strongly opposed to.

Governments change, leadership and direction changes, and even a selective list of agreeable partners can later become consistent advesaries. After all, the Security Council permanent membership was initially made up of the winning coallition from WW2, with the addition of rotatingseats to pacify those other nations who felt that coallition may choose to dominate world affairs.

Thanks Oldfar

In reply to Single nation veto

You’ve answered very suscently a question that been bothering me for quite some time now. That was why is it all right for the US to Veto some things in the Security Council and not other Countries? But you have supplied a very concise answer in a short form.

So thanks again.

Flipside

In reply to Thanks Oldfar

Likewise, why is it okay for some countries to use their veto power on the Security Council but not the US? And why is it okay for some countries to act contrary to UN resolutions but not acceptable for the US to act in accordance with UN resolutions?

While many in the world like to accuse the US of a fully unilateral approach and a failure to understand, let alone respect, their perspective, how many have considered the US perspective? As the most powerful nation in the world in terms of economy and military the US has become the whipping boy for every world ill. Our assistance is begged for and accepted, but with derision. We are accused of a lack of leadership and at the same time of trying to dominate.

In today’s global environment, can any citizen of any other country expect the US to count on the world at large to take up our defense, provide us with aid, if any other people cry chaos and unleash the dogs of war?

Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow ofdeath I shall fear no evil, for I am the toughest SOB in the valley.

The problem is that

In reply to Thanks Oldfar

a veto stalls action on a resolution. The problem is with the process, not who exercises a veto on any particular issue. The failed resolution that was covered so heavily only made public the abject stupidity of the process and the ease with which it can be derailed.

The icing on the cake is France, Germany, and Russia’s insistance on a UN administered nation building effort in Iraq. Their two-facedness could not be better demonstrated to the world. Their blatant self-interest is showing, and can be reasonably interpreted as the cause for their resistance to regime change. Now that their financial relationship with Saddam is soon to be defunct, they are now scrambling to get back into the game with the new regime.

I just hope the new government of Iraq remembers the Mirage aircraft that gassed them, the German gas masks that Saddamm’s troops were issued, and the Russian tanks that shelled them.

And lets not forget…

In reply to The problem is that

the US/UK recipe and ingredients for the gas??Almost all of the global powers need to accept some form of responsibility for the gassings.

Oh not this again

In reply to And lets not forget…

Is this your true belief of where this stuff came from?

In response to dcosgrove

In reply to And lets not forget…

My true belief, and admitted blunder by the US. There is no discounting the fact that the US (CIA) assisted in supplying chemical weapons, to the Hussein regime. Debating the fact that the US is partly to blame for the current crisis in Iraq is useless. There has to be some share of the blame, granted the US will fix their mess up. But to only blame the coalition of the unwilling is blatantly wrong.

Arming Iraq

In reply to And lets not forget…

I won’t deny that the US as well as most of europe has contributed to the situation in Iraq. In hind sight, we made some big mistakes. We channeled weapons and vehicals and money to Iraq in order to prop them up against Iran, who at that time was the greater evil by far. Having said that, I have to take issue with the chemicals. The list of materials that were reported to have been is not only less than precise, but not quite as damning as some media outlets would have us believe. Most of the “highly controversial” agents came from the CDC as part of the effort to erradicate small pox and were vaccine grade, not weapons grade (two terms which have little actual meaning). I realise that the entire truth, and “who knew what when” may never be known, but how far can this go? If we sell them soap powder and they make napalm, are we responsible?

Response – Arming Iraq

In reply to And lets not forget…

I somewhat agree, and my initial rant was in regards to the statement by Road Dog – ? new government of Iraq remembers the Mirage aircraft that gassed them, the German gas masks that Saddamm’s troops were issued, and the Russian tanks that shelled them?. Trying to blame a country for their present view based on past indiscretions, is a two way street. The same could be said ( not a debate statement ) that the US is in this position because of their involvement in the Iran/Iraq war.
I have made no secret of my views on the war, but in the same breath have come to respect the decision of the COTW to take care of the problem that they had a hand in creating?..

Dual Use

In reply to And lets not forget…

A common debate during this overall WMD discussion seems to be that the US’s complicity in the “creation” of Saddam.

There are movements and organizations in the world with whom we are in a battle to the death. Such enemies include fascism, communism, and Islamic fundamentalism. Each of these denies our right to exist and defines peace as absence of resistance to them.

When dealing with these types of countries and philosophies, it is practical to confront them where possible and to prevent their spread.

Preventing this spread can only be done by supporting neighboring nations militarily and financially.

In Saddam’s case, his true nature only became known in the fullness of time and then we discontinued support. If one is looking for a nation to blame, one must look at nations providing support AFTER Saddam’s true nature had been revealed.

If one insists on blaming the US for propping up Saddam in the face of Islamic fundamentalism, then consider the liberation of Iraq as our “attonement”. The same goes for the Taliban, which grew out of our support for Afghan rebels resisting communist incursion in Afghanistan, and the removal of the pineapple in Panama.

Show me another country that fixes their mistakes like we do.

Dual Use – Response

In reply to And lets not forget…

I will sadly admit that we are in a somewhat constant state of war with Islamic fundamentalism, but to acknowledge that we are in a constant state of war with communists and facists is pushing it. I have read the communist manifesto and don’t recall anywhere where it denies the right of democratic nations to exist. We are beginning to live in world where political foundations are becoming less important, and global trade is the new keystone to civilization.

I have never out and out blamed the US for propping up Saddam, all I have ever said is that the US is as much responsible as the COTU nations. So let me ask you this, should China/Russia/N. Korea be able to support Iraq in fighting democratic incursion in the middle east? If not, is that not a double standard?

Dual Use – Response

In reply to And lets not forget…

I will sadly admit that we are in a somewhat constant state of war with Islamic fundamentalism, but to acknowledge that we are in a constant state of war with communists and facists is pushing it. I have read the communist manifesto and don’t recall anywhere where it denies the right of democratic nations to exist. We are beginning to live in world where political foundations are becoming less important, and global trade is the new keystone to civilization.

I have never out and out blamed the US for propping up Saddam, all I have ever said is that the US is as much responsible as the COTU nations. So let me ask you this, should China/Russia/N. Korea be able to support Iraq in fighting democratic incursion in the middle east? If not, is that not a double standard?

sullyman’s lie will travel 10,000

In reply to And lets not forget…

It’s said that a lie will travel 10,000 miles before the truth puts its shoes on. This is one such example.

It has been claimed (by Sullyman and others) that during the Iran-Iraq war (which lasted from 1980 to 1988), that we (the U.S) should beheld to task for sending massive arms to Iraq, thereby helping Saddam reach the state he is in today. (Or should I say, was in yesterday.)

Total arms shipments to Iraq from 1973 to 1990:

USSR – 57%
France – 13%
China – 12%
Czecho – 7%
Poland – 4%
Brazil – 2%
Egypt – 1%
Romania – 1%
Denmark – 1%
Lybia – 1%
USA – 1%

Source: The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (Look it up.)

In Addition – and this is Soooooooooo important – the geopolitical and geostrategic context of 1980 was vastly different than it is now in the 21st century – 23 years later. (Iran, remember, held American hostages well into 1980.) Moreover, the blanket statement that the United States (implying the U.S. government) “supplied” WMD to Iraq is just blatantly false. A more accurate statement would be something like this:

Even though U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as Russian or French companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the U.S. administration(Reagan’s at the time) turned a blind eye to the export of “dual use” items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have both military and civilian applications.

Anyone with even an ounce of knowledge and wisdom when it comes to world politics and history knows that 20+ years can make a HUGE amount of difference in determining the relations between two nations. (e.g. Japan and USA in 1941 versus 1964 or Germany and France – same time frame).

It’s a tired old argument that people fall back on, but they continue to provide no accurate context.

Maxwell – resorting to personal attacks

In reply to And lets not forget…

Max,

I don’t know you, or based on your blatant disrespect towards individuals that do not agree with your personal beliefs, I don’t think that I really would want to know you. Based on your own stated logic, do not put words into my mouth. I have not made claim that the US supplied massive amounts of arms, only that we (US) did supply arms to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq conflict. I do however maintain my stance that the US has supplied chemicals and biological agents that were used to create WMD’s.

Link to one article from the Washington Post in regards to the US supplying chemicals and weapons to Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

Sullyman – no personal attack from me

In reply to And lets not forget…

I’m sure you’ve heard the saying about a lie traveling 10,000 miles before the truth puts its shoes on. If you were offended because I plugged your handle in front of it, then I think you take these threads too seriously. Actually, I’m the one who’scome under quite the personal attack of late.

I think this illustrates how attempted humor, tongue-in-cheek, good intentioned sarcasm and the like can be misinterpreted and taken in a way other than how it was originally intended. Reading between the lines can lead to misunderstandings, as does not reading between the lines. So what’s a guy to do? In addition, political discussions such as these can certainly stir one’s passions. And a passionate opinion plus misunderstandings while interpreting a person’s written word can equal failed communication and lack of understanding.

What originally compelled me to post that saying in the first place is the fact that all too often people make a gross understatement or overstatement, and then run with it as though it’s “a-matter-of-fact” truth, when it’s really not. This chemical weapons issue, for example, is one that’s continually overstated and taken grossly out of context.

Look at it this way, on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being “no involvement at all”, while 10 is “fully involved and supportive”, ask the question how much the United States was involved in the process of Iraq acquiring chemical weapons. Your argument seems built on the premise that the answer’s a 10, when in reality it’s down around 2-3. How can a legitimate argument be built on such a shaky foundation? (Where would you put it on that 1-10 scale?)

So there ya’ go. Take my opinion for whatever it’s worth (maybe – probably – nothing), and take it however you’d like – be offended or not – it’s your own choice.

Your Point Then

In reply to The question

If I understand you, the key issue for you is the threat majority rule on the global level to the US political, social, and economic situation.

Some would consider this the classic battle between the haves and have nots. Of course, in every instance those leading the have nots primarily are concerned with an change in their position, to become the have, and not in any real change in overall social order.

Your proposal would be to establish a criteria for partnership with the US in dominating world affairs? Full partnership, or would we retain a 51% controlling interest?

No, I think I haven’t made my point

In reply to Your Point Then

Concisely, my point is that the UN is dysfunctional in it’s role relating to Iraq and many other current endeavours.

Universal membership by its very nature provides a place at the table for all, even when factions within it are completely at odds. If either party has veto power over action, then such action will be paralyzed and reduce the negotiation to an academic exercise, which has been the case.

I believe that the UN should be relegated to hammering out standards of conduct between nations and creation of internationally recognized norms.

The world will function better when countries act independently with coalitions of other nations with similar interests and goals. The UN by its very composition and rules defeats its ownputported purpose of conflict resolution.

Leaving the UN

In reply to No, I think I haven’t made my point

I think the dysfunctional perspective of the UN applies only if you give the UN more authority than its charter. The UN is in fact the body you describe, a forum for bringing nations together to cooperate where possible. In the final analysis, no nation surrenders its sovereignty to the UN so no nation is bound to be governed by its rulings.

What is ironic is that Bush and Powell presented the world via the UN an opportunity to take a more authoritive role in world events. It was an evolutionary step, versus the revolutionary approach that has shaped the governments in power today. Imagine, the most powerful nation in the world militarily and economically, almost begging the other nations in the world to share the authority and prestige of our efforts. An effort that begins with a fundamental belief in the sovereignty of the indivudual before any other authority, an effort driven by a sacred belief in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Someday, history will look back and point to when France, Germany, and Russia politicians set back world unity and individual human rights by placing personal and partison gain ahead of mankind. So sad.

I hope we stick with it and not let anger or frustration kill our leadership towards a better world. It will take many small steps before nations are prepared to surrender their sovereignty to a global authority. Maybe when marches are held against governments that oppose the basic dignity of each individual.

Oldefar I’m glad to see

In reply to Leaving the UN

Taht at least one other person has read the UN’s International Charter on Human Rights I was beginignto think I was the only one to have actually read it. Keep up the good work.

Ironically, it sounds like Democracy

In reply to No, I think I haven’t made my point

can’t work globally would be the message of a lot of Americans against the UN right now. At least not until the members of the Democracy are somehow enlightened into a different set of beliefs.

As relates to the US

In reply to Ironically, it sounds like Democracy

government, my maxim is “gridlock is good” The two parties constantly undercutting eachother goes a long way toward evening things out. When the parties cannot agree on spending, then lesser spending happens. Unfortunately, we don’t require a supermajority to raise taxes, 66% should do it, so a tax increase would require a sizable number of “defections” from the other party.

As for the UN, the US and other COW members made their case within the UN framework. It became obvious that a resolution incorporating a firm deadline and authorization for use of force was going to be stymied by France, regardless of any evidence or opinion.

When a single party or minority block can stop the entire process, then the result is not democracy, as even a majority vote is insufficient to allow passage.

The process has failed because members are using the rules to exert undue influence over the process. When France indicated an intent to veto, all other votes were void.

Basic faults in the UN

In reply to The question

The fact that France can veto an action by the US is an indication of the inherant flaws of the system and, in general, all “eutopian” civilization scenarios. Why would France veto? Did they have a good reason, or are they against it for the same reason as Russia, blatant violations of the trade embargo imposed by the UN 12 years ago. As long as the hint of such motivations can exist, the organization cannot function. I feel that Marx was close, but incorrect, desire, not need, is at the root of most of the world’s evil. As long as one individual has more than another, the other will have desire. As long as this is the case, there will be evil.

Albatross

In reply to The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

In my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4 I propose some changes in the UN which would probably be approved by most of the people who have already contributed to this discussion, even if they think such changes futile. The trouble with any government is that it does not fulfil its function of securing such God-given rights as those to life, to liberty and to property; the first step towards a solution is ensuring that the government itself not violate those rights. The state moves forward like a many-headed snail, and the best we can do is to push the nsail a little in the direction we think best, with incremental imporovements.

Mixed Feelings

In reply to The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

While I have mixed feelings about the U.N. Your post is kind of scary as it seems that you view it as The U.S. versus the rest of the world. I hope we are not becoming so arrogant as to think we don’t need the support and respect of other nations.

My interpretation differs

In reply to Mixed Feelings

from yours. I saw an indictment of the UN and although I cannot understand the “Karma Thug” angle, I agree with the assertion that The UN is largely anti-US.

Many members of the UN (and Security Council) do not come even close to the standards of conduct enumerated in the UN Charter Article 55. I’m not sure, but I don’t recall any member being even being considered for expulsion per Article 6 in my lifetime. (I may be wrong)

This being the case, the UN has as members nations that routinely operate in violation of UN principles. If nations do not live up to the basic international norms, then they should not be given a voice or vote as to how the UN should conduct business.

The UN rules give nations the voting power to steer it’sactions. The rules should not allow nations that violate UN principles to negate the votes of nations who do.

The UN must clean house if it intends to remain a viable entity in the arena of international relations.

Article 6

In reply to My interpretation differs

Choose a UN Member that deserves to be expelled under Article 6. Write to your Congressfolk saying you want it pressed before the President that he should make the relevant motion in the General Assembly. It is better to light a candle than to cursethe darkness.

There is no reasonable expectation

In reply to Article 6

that even a vigorous letter writing campaign and a proposal to security council that an expulsion will occur. Hell, the UN won’t even reach a conclusion that Saddam should be expelled from power. This is more of the same insubstantial and ineffective approach that makes the UN the laughable boondoggle that it is.

Get real. Curse the darkness or light a match? No, we should simply leave the dark room!

I believe that we should let the machine break down instead of trying to repair it. We should withdraw funding the UN and use our dues to pay for our actions in Iraq. If the UN collapses, we’ll call it Darwinian justice.

When the US sees fit to provide aid or assistance, the rice bags should have “Donated by the USA” printed on red, white, and blue burlap.

We get blamed for the bombs, we should be blessed for the bags.

What about…

In reply to There is no reasonable expectation

What about the humanitarian aid programs the UN provides should they die with the UN?

The humanitarian

In reply to What about…

relief currently carried out by the UN would still be so. Humanitarian services is one of the few tasks that I believe that the UN does adequately.

I’m sure that if the US were to discontinue participation in the UN, we would still fund humanitarian efforts. Private citizens of the US donate also, via UNICEF (the halloween disease) and direct donation to the UN. Ted Turner, the creator of CNN donated a Billion dollars to the UN.

no other room

In reply to There is no reasonable expectation

You are a defeatist. And there is no other room, and the room we’re in is not so dark as it seems to glycoma victims wearing sunglasses. Since 1899, when the world state was started with the foundation of the International Court of Arbitration, there has been gradual improvement. Try to make a list of what the UN is doing contrary to the purpose of the state: not what you disagree with, not how it is failing in that purpose, nor what policies will have bad results. Then do the same for the US. Then for California, or whichever same-level state you live in; then for Alameda County or whatever; then for Oakland or whatever. When you know what is being done against the purpose you can make sane proposals for fulfilment of the purpose.

No, I’m quite the optimist

In reply to no other room

I’m optimistic enough to know that we (the US) can represent our (the US) interests. Defeatist would be to feel we were trapped in the UN and could not expect better. We SHOULD expect better.

As for your equating UN stupidity to good old Americanstupidity as relates to the policies of elected officials, your comparison is not valid on grounds of our electoral process. Bureaucratic incompetance is self-inflicted.

I have the option to vote against or run against our politicians. If I voteagainst a politician yet my more incompetent electoral peers see fit to cancel my informed ballot by demonstrating their stupidity at the polls, at least I lost in the democratic process. I will try again in the next election.

That saving grace is not a factor in the UN. Thusly, it is very optimistic to discard a failed process and cast one’s fortunes on another option.

The US should go its own way and influence the world with a coalition of the willing that changes membership with the self interest of other nations regarding the issue at hand. If we do something with 18 nations with us or none, then the world blesses or condemns our actions. At least we will not be paying the lion’s share of an organization that consistantly worksagainst our interests.

THERE IT IS!!!

In reply to No, I’m quite the optimist

That is what I wanted to hear. Let us (the US) be. We fund the organization we police the world for them and what do we get? A kick in teh teeth. Right on Road Dog, RIGHT ON.

ps someday I will explain karma thughs better, I promise=)

-duck

Let’s pop open a six-pack

In reply to No, I’m quite the optimist

of Windex and talk it over!

back to the question

In reply to No, I’m quite the optimist

I did not ask you to address a question about governmental stupidity. The question is: What are the states with which you are concerned doing contrary to the purpose of the state? Not: How are they failing in their purpose, or how they are being stupid or which of their policies you disagree with. I have several times found via such analysis that the things I thought more or less important are really less or more important.

As for the UN being consistently against US interests, you seem unaware that many people think the UN a US front. I do not attempt to defend that position, but you should be aware that it exists.

What’s best for the World

In reply to The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

The UN was formed in an effort to prevent a third world war.

The General Assembly and Security Council have to walk a very thin tight-rope in order to hold the ‘middle ground’.

In the US, the enduring cries against the UN fall into 2 camps:The UN costs too much.

The UN does not allow the US to do what it wants to do around the world.

Just because the UN does not follow the path chosen by the leaders of the US does not mean that the UN is a tattered or dysfunctional organization.

We Americans need to become more open minded.
We need to realize that our goals and dreams may not be what is best for the global community.

Until big business and our government leaders move from selfish short term results to long term global planning, the UN will continue to call us out for our greed.

Chas

I don’t believe it !

In reply to What’s best for the World

An American actually having the audacity to suggest in these postings that what the US wants may not be what the rest of the world wants!

And further, to even question the USA’s God-given right to be the most powerful nation on earth: what blasphemy !

Reply To: The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

In reply to What’s best for the World

I agree with TheChas on this point. Those who believe that the U.S. always wears the white hat are being naive. We have let our own short-sighted interests dictate our actions in the past. This is one of the reasons why we are viewed with fear and suspicion by much of the world. Like Gulliver, we should be extremely careful where we step. That said, I do believe that we do try to do the right thing much of the time (Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq) and are still hated. Yet we do it again and again because that’s who we are. After we get rid of Saddam (who has killed more Muslims than we’ve ever thought about killing), they’ll still call us the “Great Satan” and I don’t believe that will ever change. Jealousy and ignorance play a large part of that, but we must shoulder some of the responsibility ourselves.

BTW, I also agree that the UN veto should be abolished in favor of a straight up or down vote. Rogue states should have no place at the table.

This is something I’d thought

In reply to What’s best for the World

I’d never see on this site an Americian saying that they arn’t always right.

What a relief however as far as some of the above topics go I firmly believe the the right of Veto sould be abolished in the Security Council of the United Nations and just go with a majority vote on any propersisition put forward. If this was to happen then we just might keep the peace into the forseeable future.

I’m in neither camp

In reply to What’s best for the World

The UN doesn’t do what it is supposed to do very well and is heavily reliant on US military and financial contributions to be effective.

Take a look at such relief efforts as Somalia. The UN created a relief infrastructure and began piping tons of food and medical supplies which were seized by these “warlords” and used to establish and maintain their power bases. Starvation was stil rampant as civilians not affiliated with these warlords were denied food. This is typical of the UN approach, shortsighted and lacking in results.

The US placed troops in the region to assure that the relief reached the people and ended up in an open warfare environment.

If the US bears the brunt of the human and financial costs of these humanitarian endeavours, then absolutely we should have the greatest control over how they are executed.

As for Iraq, If there are parties that is guilty of avarice and acting contrary to the best interest of the world community, look at Russia, Germany, and France. Their economic ties to the Saddam regime are well documented. Their actions in protection of this regime in the UN of late are obviously placing their national instances over the greater good of the world.

The US’s blunders and miscalculations relating to middle east affairs are numerous. Many times we have backed the lesser of two evils and been proven wrong over time. The fact that we have never seized oilfields and are still paying through the nose for oil does not indicate an intent to dominate or that we are being drven by “corporate america” as is commonly the accusation.

Why should the US shoulder the cost and the blame, while the UN is perceived as the savior? That is the crux of the matter.

Well said

In reply to I’m in neither camp

The only pity is that you didn’t read one of my postings entirely in which I said that oil was the Arabs only real weapon against the west and that they used it to the determinent of our econiminies while at the same time making millions for themselves which wasn’t spread across the countries but controlled by a minority of the rulling elete.

Other wise I agree totally with you.

I am with road dog

In reply to I’m in neither camp

I tend to think it is a little too easy for the UN to Save the Day on the backs of American MEN and WOMEN. If the UN wants to police the world, which it does poorly, then it must do so on its own accord. I do not care how much money we spend on the UN, nor do I think the US has any God given rights. I feel the UN is a Joke period. There is no reason, I repeat no reason, for the UN to be able to say to any other country, you cannot do this. They have no jurisdiction, nor do they even allow all countries the right to join. They want a New World Order, on a NATO budget and it is pure comedy. Kick them out of New York, tell them to fight their own battles and we’ll fight ours.

You know what the UN does? It allows the nations that hate us most direct our kids into battle and takes our good intentions and turns them into battle cries against us. That my Friends is the UN.

-duck

I think thta something similar

In reply to I am with road dog

Was said in Germany about the Leauge of Nations just prior to WW11. They however had the excuse that they where being bleed dry over war reperations from the First World War. This is how a person like Hitler was democraticly elected to office by preying on the general public dissatifaction of their then current plight that was no fault of their own but revolved aroung a Government seeking more power for its self. The United Nations has managed to keep the peace for well over 50 years without major icident and all the minor conflicts since that time where the UN was involved have relied on various nations supplying weapons & troops to carry out UN approved actions. You have to remember that the UN doesn’t have a standing army or any form ofmiletary it is nothing more that a group of nations that combine their resources to try to keep the peace. They have also on numerious occasions chose to ignore the plight of various countries owing to the power of the Veto being applied by one of the permant members of the Security Council.

With this in mind I can’t understand exactly why Tibet was allowed to fall into Communist hands without any incident but when Nam came along after the French where about to withdraw the Americians and their Allies rushed into the fray to stop the alledged spread of communistium.

<NP> Well said….!!

In reply to What’s best for the World

.

What’s best for the world is subje

In reply to What’s best for the World

What one person thinks is “best for the world” may differ drastically from what another may think. That’s why “collectivism” – in any form or degree – is flawed at best, disastrous at worst, while systems based on freedom and individualism are more successful and prosperous.

Moreover, no nation – NO NATION – ever has or ever will act, behave, or cast a UN vote based on what’s in the “best interest” of “the world”. ALL NATIONS, regardless of who or what they are, act, behave and vote their OWN self-interest. They always have and always will. To think otherwise in na?ve. (And that’s the way it should be.)

Some think the United States should follow the lead of the rest of the world – just “get in line”, so to speak. Others, on the other hand, think it’s the rest of the world that should “get in line” and follow America’s lead.

The United States has ALWAYS beena leader – never has been a follower. And it’s the opportunities and successes of the United States that has compelled – and continues to compel – so many to indeed follow its lead.

Anyone who has really read the founding United Nations charters would undoubtedly recognize the words and phrasing similarities with the United States’ very own Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If the UN charters are modeled after the U.S. system, who should the leaders and followers really be? Who should follow whom?

(continued…)

The title word should be

In reply to What’s best for the world is subje

The title of the previous message was cut off. The missing word is:

subjective

Max-careful you don’t fall off

In reply to What’s best for the world is subje

Whoa?. Don?t fall off the pedestal that you are propped up on. The UN Charter reads like most of the democratic charters or rights and freedoms in the world and the UN charters are based on a pseudo democratic model, not solely on the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Every individual in every nation has the right to be patriotic, but to say the US has always been a leader and is looked up to everywhere is a completely false statement.

Snip.. Before the formation of the United States, no nation?s population has ever – in all of history – enjoyed such freedoms and successes as Americans do ..snip..

How can you make such a blatantly wrong statement, many nations have enjoyed the freedoms, and success equal or betterthan the US.

America is blessed, and unique but it is not the destiny of mankind.

sullyman – again we disagree

In reply to Max-careful you don’t fall off

Name ONE nation in all of history that has been as free and successful (or more so – as you suggested) than the United States. Name just one.

And you put words in my mouth. Please don’t do that. It’s very disingenuous, and it only shows you incapable of debating an issue. I DID say that the United States has been a leader, but I NEVER SAID that the United States was “looked up to” (your words). To the contrary, America is not looked upon favorably by much of the world. But that’s their problem, not mine (or ours). And it doesn’t mean we (America) should capitulate to every whim or desire of other nations. (Especially those with socialist leanings – France, Germany, China, et al.) To the contrary, if I’m running a marathon race, and I cross the finish line an hour before my nearest competitor, why should I run the race the way the losers wants me to run it? In my opinion, other nations are just …….. well, I’ll reserve comment in that regard. But I can relate. I hated the New York Yankees for so many years because they kept beating “my team”, and they kept “my team” out of the World Series – those DAMN YANKEES!

(continued…)

Damn Yankees – LOL

In reply to sullyman – again we disagree

First of all let me offer you a compliment, on a well written dialogue. Especially your Damn Yankees closing.

The foundations of democracy as you state have roots in Ancient Greek society. But, the father of modern democracy is John Locke. Who wrote about the theory of government, and who?s writings were the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. John Locke is not an American, but in fact British. British parliament was established long before the American government foundation, discounting your theory about the “Before America came along and became a “beacon for the world to follow” there were only monarchies and dictatorships”. Therefor logic dictates that (without putting words into your mouth) that the US DOI and theUN Charter are based on UK/British Charters.

Now to answer your first question: “Name ONE nation in all of history that has been as free and successful (or more so – as you suggested) than the United States. Name just one.”

Depending on your perspective, there are many. Relatively speaking from a TIME perspective the British Empire has been more successful and free. Successful can be interpreted many different ways, if we look at it from a monetary perspective then no one can touch us (US). If you are looking at quality of life, health care for all, being able to travel freely around most of the world,, being looked at as a peacekeeper, then Canada. My point is that there are many different perspectives regarding success. It can be anything that is important to you……

sullyman – again we disagree – continued

In reply to Max-careful you don’t fall off

You said the, “…UN Charter reads like most of the democratic charters or rights and freedoms in the world…”.

Sure they do, but again – just like the UN charter – they have ALL followed the lead set forth by the United States. Before the United States came along, countries didn’t issue charters, or constitutions, or especially anything that even remotely suggested individual rights. Before America came along and became a “beacon for the world to follow” there were only monarchies and dictatorships. “Democracy” was something that only happened in ancient Greece, and it was something that most people couldn’t read about.

I know what your issue really is – it’s an issue of view. There’s a saying that is particularly popular in Alaska (a dog sledding state). If you’re not the lead dog, the view is always the same.

You just don’t like your view – Those DAMN YANKEES!

Sorry old boy but

In reply to sullyman – again we disagree – continued

The British had a docqument called the Magna Carta tyhat was first written in 1412 and then rewriten in 1425 giving more rights to the general population. The one interesting thing about Magna Carta is it can’t be revoked in any manner it can only be expanded upon. After the New Worlds war of inderpendance the leaders of this fledging fragmented country issused their own version of the Magna Carta and called it the Bill of Rights So all the current US law has its roots in British Law. The New World drew the best of the then British Law and expanded on it to suit their own ends but it was not universly accepted by all the states in the now current Union and this lead to the Americian Civil War to free the slaves which under the Bill of Rights had freedoms that wern’t accepted by the Southern States and even after the Americian Civil War these rights wern’t accepted for many years up until towards the end of the 20th century.

I can only wonder what Martin Luther King would have made of this so called debate if he had lived as it goes against everything he ever fought for.

And as far as the modern armies go well Oliver Cromell was the first one to bring these into existance as he recurited troops and trained them in fighting methoids the armed them and took them into battle these troops where paid {well should have been anyway}. Prior to this the various warlords just rode across the country and press ganged any able bodied males into their armies with no training, no weapons other than what they had usually farm impelments, and no pay. If they didn’t go willingly they where just killed so they had a choice of being killed on their farms or where ever or possibly being killed on a battle field that they really had nointerest in anyway.

Legions Rolling Over

In reply to Sorry old boy but

Seems to me the Roman legions were trained and paid in salt, from which our term salary is derived. But I could be wrong, for I was really young then according to my son. 🙂

The key difference is our core American value that has the root of power as the individual – life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I believe the citizens of the British Commonwealth are still subjects, a subtle but still significant difference that many Americans hold very dear. As I understand it, the Magna Carta dealt with the rights of the lords, not the common man. And yes, we have not reached our ideal in practice and have compromised on many occaissions to give that ideal an opportunity to grow.

While the US borrowed and expanded on the ideas taking shape in Europe as well as those from ancient Greece and Rome, we also borrowed from the Iroquis who had a confedarcy that endorsed democratic principals as well. Theirs was not based on any European influence but was home grown.

No the Magna Carta

In reply to Legions Rolling Over

Curbed the power of the King and Lords/Barons ect it also curbed the power of the Government of the time and all subsequent times. For example “No free man shall have a complaint bore against him by an officer of the Crown”. This documents is TitledIn Perpurtery and For All Time. It’s preety clear to its exact meaning little things Like no free man sahl be deprived of his horse and cart and many others like that. It actually placed controls upon the peerage of the then time and all subsequent times to free the comon people from the excesses of the Perrage.

As far as being called subjests it just a word and I notice that the Queen of England/British Commonwealth draws bigger crowds when she visits the US than when she visits any of herso called members of the Commonwealth.

The Man with No Enemies

In reply to Max-careful you don’t fall off

AN Inoffensive Person walking in a public place was assaulted by a Stranger with a Club, and severely beaten.

When the Stranger with a Club was brought to trial, the complainant said to the Judge:

“I do not know why I was assaulted; I have not an enemy in the world.”

“That,” said the defendant, “is why I struck him.”

“Let the prisoner be discharged,” said the Judge; “a man who has no enemies has no friends.”

– Thank you Aesop’s

He that has many friends

In reply to Max-careful you don’t fall off

The Hare With Many Friends

A Hare was very popular with the other beasts who all claimed to be her friends. But one day she heard the hounds approaching and hoped to escape them by the aid of her many Friends. So, she
went to the horse, and asked him to carry her away from the hounds on his back. But he declined, stating that he had important work
to do for his master. “He felt sure,” he said, “that all her other friends would come to her assistance.”

She then applied to the bull, and hoped that he would repel the hounds with his horns. The bull replied: “I am very sorry, but I have an appointment with a lady; but I feel sure that our friend the goat will do what you want.”

The goat, however, feared that his back might doher some harm if he took her upon it. The ram, he felt sure, was the proper friend to apply to. So she went to the ram and told him the case.

The ram replied: “Another time, my dear friend. I do not like to interfere on the present occasion, as hounds have been known to eat sheep as well as hares.” The Hare then applied, as a
last hope, to the calf, who regretted that he was unable to help her, as he did not like to take the responsibility upon himself, as so many older persons than himself had declined the task. By
this time the hounds were quite near, and the Hare took to her heels and luckily escaped.

He that has many friends, has no friends.

-Aesop’s

From above

In reply to Max-careful you don’t fall off

We have been at war with socialism since Stalin, at different points in time with different countries and regimes.

This is a clash of cultures, where our culture is based on the soverignity of the individual versus socialism, where the citizen isproperty of the state. This is not only centralized control of industry, but a removal of self-determination.

Socialism is one thing in theory, another in practice. In order to maintain control, the individual must be erased. Since this is antithetical to the human condition, ever more rigid and draconian measures must be taken to destroy opposition from within, and then without. This has been a signature of Communism everywhere tried.

Peace being defined as absence to opposition to communism is not marxism as described by the man, it is an extension of practice where theory meets reality. It was a common term used in the infamous 5 Year Plan to describe the cold war during the 60’s and 70’s when expansion was a fundamental goal of the Soviet Union.

The actual battles occurred in Vietnam, Cambodia, Rhodesia, Cuba, Angola, Nicaragua, and any other countries where Communist nations fomented rebellions and revolutions in all areas of the world.

America: The Beacon of Humanity

In reply to Max-careful you don’t fall off

http://www.geocities.com/stlaasr/america1.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/93p7

Nice rebuttal a geocities web page

In reply to America: The Beacon of Humanity

Max, a geocities page as a rebuttal, come on….

You will not even recognize that fact that you are wrong, you made a blatantly incorrect statement got called on it, and are not secure enough to admit you are wrong. Democracy is a concept older than the US, and if anything Britain can lay claim to developing the modern democratic model.

Sullyman you are wrong here…..

In reply to Nice rebuttal a geocities web page

Pericles in Athens, Greece around 400 B.C. said:”

“Our government does not copy our neighbors, but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few.”

and although Greece may be the cradle, it didn’t start there either.

Either way it was long before Christ set foot on this planet. 🙂

…continued

In reply to What’s best for the World

Before the formation of the United States, no nation’s population has ever – in all of history – enjoyed such freedoms and successes as Americans do. America was formed, either intentionally or unintentionally – to show the rest of the world the “best” way. Too bad so many of then just “don’t get it”.

Some people think that America is blessed – that America is the destiny of mankind – that America is a beacon for all to follow – that America is a unique nation in THE HISTORY of ALL NATIONS.

OR the alternative – Sure, what would the world be like today if we had listened to and followed the lead of the likes of Russia, France, Germany, China, et al. I shudder to think.

Welcome Back

In reply to …continued

Hi Maxwell,

I have missed your comments.

I agree that the United States of America is the BEST country around.

That said, I fear that we are very close to loosing all that the USA stands for.

At no time in history has big business had more influence on US politics than it now has.
Be it the war with Iraq, or battles against the United Nations environmental and social justice initiatives, the stands taken by the US are driven by the short term profit goals of big business.

Consider all the deals being brokered as to what corporation is going to ‘re-build’ what portion of Iraq.

The ‘fix’ for this, is to get some sanity back into our election and nomination process.
With the millions of dollars it takes to even field a campaign for national office, we force our leaders to spend more time raising campaign funds then they spend running the country.
Couple that with the fact that the big spenders expect special considerations in exchange for their contributions, and we are quickly moving to a government of, buy and for big business.
(Yes, the ‘buy’ is intentional.)

We need to find a way to get the cost of running for office down so that the special interests no longer have undo influence on our politicians.

Chas

Sorry but there are

In reply to …continued

Numerious Christian groups who see America as everything evil and intent upon World Domination. The even site various symbles on your currency as signs that the US is in leage with the Devil.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t for 1 minute agree with these groups but they do exist and see the US as a far bigger threat to world stability than any other country or even the United Nations which they call the lackies of the US policy of the time. These groups site passages from the christian bible to suit their case.

My only observation from this is if you chose you can read what you want to into anything if you so desire.

Individual Sovereignty

In reply to Sorry but there are

This underlying concept, expressed in our Declaration of Independence, threatens a number of alternative social structures. Any religious, political, or social institution that has obediance to an all powerful thought, institution, or individual towhom all members must place ahead of their own thoughts is to an extent threatened by the concept that each individual is sovereign of himself. Some of these organizations deal with it by asking for an individual choice to surrender that concept. Even our armed forces do that with the Oath, but it is taken as free act and has a limited term.

For a dictatorship, our premise is at direct odds. The same applies to a communist state, where the state is placed above the individual. Most fundamentalist religious sects are also threatened.

President Bush threw down the gauntlet when he stated that “liberty is the creators gift to all people”, and no doubt many existing leaders will pick that gauntlet back up.

The more you talk …

In reply to What’s best for the World

Maxwell: the more you talk, the more you reveal what an ignorant, bigoted, self-opinionated idiot you are.

There is a well-known saying: “If you give a man enough rope he will hang himself.”

I suggest that if continue to clutter this posting with your rantings and ravings, eventually no-one will bother to give you the courtesy of a reply.

So rave on, Oh All-Knowing one, and talk yourself into total incredibility.

Wow – You really told me off

In reply to The more you talk …

Julian,

I thought we were on rather good terms, even though we seem to disagree on everything under the sun. (Maybe it’s because we’re under the sun at different times.) I guess I’ve somehow touched a nerve? (Is it because I’ve been procrastinating on that email I owe you for your Web site?)

I think its that

In reply to Wow – You really told me off

the posting she bashed you on was a tad over the top, jingoism wise.

Funny how some folks seem to believe that if you’re personally convinced that your country is the best, then you are somehow denigrating theirs.

Like my dad used to say, opinons are like a$$holes, everybody’s got one , they all stink, and only yours does you any good….

Weird “logic.”

In reply to I think its that

I trust that “she” is a typo.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I thought that anyone in any of these discussions about the war in Iraq was denigrating Australia.

On the contrary, many people have expressed their gratitude that our small (by population) nation is actively participating in the war.

Some people have expressed an interest in learning more about Australia, and I have done my best to answer their questions.

I’m in no hurry….

In reply to Wow – You really told me off

for an article. What with a complex war raging in Iraq, and significant political events occurring both at State and Federal levels in Australia, I’ve got my hands full keeping the website reasonably up to date.

With the broad spectrum that my website covers, I have more incoming material than I can handle.

But the invitation to submit an article on any aspect of IT remains open, and said article will be gratefully received if it materialises.

point-by-point rebuttal

In reply to The more you talk …

“ignorant” – Well I’m ignorant when it comes to many things. Nuclear physics comes to mind. I don’t know a danged thing about it. There are other things, too, that I’m totally ignorant about. Things like knowing how to keep a kite in the air or talkto an Aussie without getting his nose all out of joint.

“bigoted” – Not even close.

“self-opinionated” – Absolutely – just like most people who’ve been posting these off-topis messages.

“idiot” – Well, just because you and my ex-wife thinkso doesn’t make it so. In fact, being seen as an “idiot” is almost always a matter of perspective. And since you and I always disagree, we therefore have different perspectives, so your opinion doesn’t really surprise me, nor does it bother me.

Gee, can’t you be nice? (And you call ME a bigot?)

Hey Julius old boy

In reply to The more you talk …

Hey boy, didn’t your mama teach you any better manners that that? You’re rude and you’re crude, you’re wrong most of the time, you must just like to hear yourself talk if all the b.s. you vomit all over the place gives us any clue, and you’re in desparate need of an attitude adjustment.

Max is a good old boy and he’s been around here for a long time. He’s helped more people on this site than you could ever hope to.

You owe Max an apology. Show that you’re a real man instead of a weasel and just do it.

Manners.

In reply to Hey Julius old boy

I am fully aware that Maxwell has the second highest score for Technical Q & A. However this has no bearing on his political views at which my criticism was directed.

I guess it must be me who has been “Asleep at the wheel” while you have spent hours perusing my postings in order to arrive at the conclusion that I am “wrong most of the time.”

And as for the language you use to describe me, I would never stoop so low as to use such vulgar terms in a Techrepublic discussion.

Whilst you hide behind an “alias,” both Maxell and myself make our email addresses readily available, and we have in fact exchanged emails in the past.

Democracy???

In reply to The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

The UN has its flaws. The very fact that it didn’t have the mechanisms in place to deal with either the tyranny of Saddam, or the aggressive response of the bush administration proves that. I just have a bit of a problem with lectures in democracy being given out by a government that was appointed in a supreme court, having successfully maganed to circumvent the electoral process in the brother Jebs back yard. I’m not being anti-american here, and I certainly don’t want to cause offence to my many american buddies. I just think that this was has nothing to do with the evil of saddam and the sufferring his people have endured for the past 12 years. The real motive for the war will be seen in the weeks and months ahead as we see the us corporations moving in to manage the rebuilding of the country, and ‘manage the transition’ of Iraq to its people. Having said all that, I hope and pray that the war will finish soon. There are too many ordinary people being blown to pieces in the name ofdemocracy.

Democracy.

In reply to Democracy???

The United States is not a pure Democracy. France tried the noble experiment in a pure form, and supported our efforts in this direction at one time, but it didn’t go well for them either. We are a blend of primarily a Democracy and a Republic. We also have means, when necessary, to become Totalitarian which I think most of us see as a necessary evil in certain situations. In a severe plague, we don’t vote on a lot of things in America anymore for instance. Sometimes we lean on one part or the other more, but overall this complex mix of political philosophy creates a balance to pure Democrocy.

Technically, if you really dissect it, you find that there are many different blends of political theory in almost every system on earth. There are many nations claiming Communism as well that are not pure to the form and include totalitarian and other forms of Government. These days for instance, of all things, Capitalism and Democracy are being thrown in with the Communist government in China to varying degrees in different regions as it industrializes.

Democracy is the rallying call, but of course to understand this war deeply, it is not a satisfactory answer. I would also conject however, that it is not about money entirely either. Nor is it just about oil, freedom, weapons of mass destruction, the U.N., Palestine, or U.S. superiority. At this point IMO we don’t yet know what it is all about. It may include these and others to some degree, and is worth speculating, but it is much more complex than “Blood for Oil” or “Democracy”.

Okay i gotta squelch that

In reply to Democracy???

THe election, it’s over. George Bush did not steal the election, nor did he start the controversy that ensued. as a matter of fact it was AL Gore that came up with the now infamous Hanging Chad.
As for the US saying no the un cannot play in ournew sandbox, well tough, we built it we’ll play in it. I do not think this is really a matter of Big Business squashing the little guy and forcing us to do their bidding. Iraq must be rebuilt, just as Japan, and germany and even france were rebuilt after WWII. We made the mess, we’ll clean it up. I don’t thnk anyone is stopping to think about this clearly. Where is the money to clean Iraq up coming from? Do you Honestly think the UN is gonna foot the bill? Do you think france is going tosend a massive aid package? nope, it will be US money shelled out by US taxpayers with our blessing. Why? Because we are America, because we believe all men and women should be free from tyranny, because it is the right thing to do. I don’t care what anyone thinks about GWB just imagine what we would be doing if AL Gore were in office right now.

-duck

The thing Gore-ites continually forget

In reply to Okay i gotta squelch that

The thing that these folks ALWAYS conveniently forget is that the U.S. Supreme Court was not the first body from the judicial branch of government to get involved in that election decision. Moreover, it was the Gore camp and the national Democrat party that started the legal battle to begin with. And it was the very liberal leaning Florida Supreme Court that attempted to circumvent and ignore Florida’s long standing and established election laws. The U.S. Supreme court in two decisions (a 7-2 and a 5-4) ruled that the Florida High Court overstepped their boundaries, and subsequently overturned those decisions. (And it was the Florida Supreme Court that actually, in the first place, overturned several lower state court decisions that would have put a stop to the continual recounts.)

Moreover – and this is ALSO conveniently forgotten – had the Florida Supreme court ruling NOT been overturned, and/or if the U.S. Supreme court declined to get involved at all, there would have been yet another recount (after many previous), and the results of that recount WOULD NOT have changed the outcome.

Scores of independent organizations (including many news outlets) conducted, or were otherwise involved in, many “what if” type recounts after the election was finally over – and ALL OF THEM would have had the same result. George W. Bush won the state of Florida. Whether he won it by 10 votes or 10,000 votes or 10,000,000 votes just doesn’t matter.

The thing is, when these folks use disingenuous statements and tactics such as these, the only thing they accomplish is to cast a shadow of suspicion on EVERYTHING they say. Geesh, these people must think that if a lie is told often enough it will become truth. (Which does happen, unfortunately.) I think it’s really sad when they actually believe their own lies and mistruths.

I call them Gorons

In reply to The thing Gore-ites continually forget

Another issue raised is the unfairness of the electoral college in the case of the 2000 election. Richard Nixon won a Presidential election in raw numbers but lost in the electoral college. He conceded, as principle and propriety dictate. I find it ironic that the most villified politician in the 20th century demonstrated greater respect for the law of the land than Gore did.

What all this boils down to is that these types have no respect for law, tradition, and basic fairness when they conflict with their pursuit of power.

Another issue of note is the same 3 precincts that were the root of the controversy were all run by a Democrat Supervisor of Elections and were embroiled in controversy in the last state elections for many of the same issues. What’s funny is the issues were raised in the Democratic primary where Republican Vs. Democrat was not an issue! The corruption and incompetance of these Democrat run counties was exemplified by the baskets of ballots that were found in the trunk of a democrat’s vehicle.

Further, there were active efforts in Florida to suppress the Military absentee vote. Democrat operatives filed lawsuits to throw out ballots cast before the election but delivered after, courtesy of the Democratic leaning United States Postal Service employees belonging to the Federal Employees Union. To have the same party decry “overthrowing the will of the people” and to attempt to do worse to our armed forces is patently dishonest.

Florida Politics

In reply to The thing Gore-ites continually forget

Not to re-hash dead news items, however.

I recall reading a recent (past 4 months) full recount evaluation for the 2000 Presidential election in Florida.
The report concluded that if a FULL statewide recount had of been done, the winner would have been Gore.

The reality of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida is that the elected and appointed bureaucrats did all that they could to help George W. win the election.

The best documented actions were the wholesale disenfranchisement of anyone with a name similar to a convicted felon. Interestingly, the areas with the most names removed from the voter rolls statistically vote for Democrats.

Now, I am not saying that Governor Jeb Bush did anything to make this happen. It is likely the result of party ‘machine’ politics. Similar to the Daley administrations control of Chicago politics.

There are many other areas in the US where similar political machines control ALL the local politics.

Where I live, 98% of general elections are won by Republican candidates. The only real chance for change is in the nomination and primary election process.

Chas

Actually I think the bulk of the

In reply to Okay i gotta squelch that

Money will come from the sale of Iraqie oil and this is what will be used to rebuild Iraq after this finishes. But I honestly can’t see America staying around for the time necessary to do the job properly they want the quick fix like all politicionsthey always think in the short term and never take the long term view, after all they won’t be in office when It’s Time To Pay The Piper they will be long gone and it will be some one elses problem.

As pointed out on other postings on this site the US did contribute both aid and weapons to both Iraq and Afaganstan which has led directly to the position we now find ourselves in. This in now way diminishes the responce of the time but it does show that poor Forien Policy always comes back to bite you almost always when lest expected.

When the current conflict is finished in Iraq it will take generations to rebuild the society and fix the hatered of the West in Iraq that is felt by many Islamic States. Anyone who was to suggest that Iraq actually stood a chance in this conflict needs treatment it was always only a matter of time until the Government of Sad Man Who Sucks was overthrown but it is not enough simply to remove Hussain all the Government MUST GO and the token effort ofrebuilding Japan after WW11 must not be allowed to happen again where real war criminals where given imunity and put in positions of power.

Interestingly enough it was the Emporer of Japan who ordered the raid on Pearl Harbour and after the war finished he was still Emporer of Japan up until his recent death. He was never tried for the War Crimes he ordered but his underlingins who where only following his orders where and even then only those very low on the totem pole where ever tried as those higher up where put into office in the new Japan in the rebuilding effort.

Nation building after war

In reply to Actually I think the bulk of the

Colin,

You state that the you doubt that the US has the will to stick out for the process of setting up Iraq. I couldn’t agree more.

Germany
Rebuilt by America – US is still there in defensive capacity.

Japan
Rebuilt by America – US is still there in
defensive capacity.

South Korea
Rebuilt by America – US is still there in
defensive capacity.

Your assertion about staying power doesn’t hold water.

The US did help Saddam Hussein get started. Saddam became a monster on his own. The tools and methodologies of his oppression were provided by our Russian, French, German, North Korean, and Chinese “friends”.

If you work at General motors, and a car you built gets used as to mow down a bunch of pedestrians, it is not you’re fault.

Hindsight is 20/20. One thing that I’m sure of is that any leader set up in Iraq back in the 70’s by Iran or the USSR would be just as bad or worse. This is a brutal region of the world that only respects force.

As for the empire ofJapan, the Emperor was a living god to the Japanese. To attempt to try him for war crimes would have reignited the war, causing either more atomic bombings or a conventional bloodbath.

The planning and execution of the war was carried out by Admiral Nogumo and other members of the Japanese military government, which was the true power in Japan, not the Emperor who was really a figurehead or symbolic symbol of the Japanese Empire.

Most of these Japanese High Command members chose suicide over surrender.

Max your condricting your self again

In reply to Nation building after war

But lets leave aside the bit about the Emperor for the time being, Yes a lot of the higher miletary chose to comit suside but there where still quite a few more who where installed into political office by the US after the ceasation of hostilities. Then ther was the U35 branch of the Japanese Government which did something similar to what J. Mengelar did in Germany. Once the war had finished the Allies rightly claimed that all Mengelars work where crimes against humanity, however the Japenise group that did the same things where transported into the US and formed the basis for your current Bio & Chem warfare weapons. None of this group was ever tried as War Criminals but then they only infected people and disected them while still alive tosee the rate of progress of the Bio or Chem contimanition that they had inflicted.

colinluck – get your head out of your

In reply to Max your condricting your self again

colinluck – get your head out of your down under.

This is about the fourth time in as many threads that you’ve responded to someone else’s message, argument, claim, or charge (against you), and you addressed me in your reply as though I’m the one who said it. It started with the “know-it-all” charge someone (someone else, by the way) made against you, yet you turned on me for it. (I did agree with him, however.)

You and Julian must spend your days seeing who can guzzle the most Fosters.I think you’ve had enough.

The only thing I’ve ever said about you is that you’re a blow-hard prevaricator, and a disingenuous, unintelligible moron. Well, okay, I’ve never really said that. (But I’ve sure thought it.)

You’re obviously obsessed with me for some strange or deranged reason. Get over it, already.

Well, now you’ve done it…

In reply to Max your condricting your self again

You have finally said something that I agree with. Operation Paperclip was the program where we absorbed German engineers and technology. This same treatment was also extended to Japanese war criminals. I’m not sure why, but I have a couple of theories.

1- The President considered the atomic bombs sufficient punishment nationally.
2- The world was tired of war, and the US was afraid that American citizens would call for the total destruction of Japan if the scope of the atrocities came to light, as would happen in an international trial. Of these atrocities, many were committed against Americam POWs, a little more inflamatory than the Holocaust committed against other nationals.
3- It had generally become accepted that Patton was right, and that we would soon be worrying about the USSR. If this were the case, then any weapons advantage would need exploit, regardless of source.

I think you’re confusing me and Max.

I can’t even remember what got us on the subject of Japan, but I must say I agree on this issue.

How True Regarding Poor Foreign Policy

In reply to Actually I think the bulk of the

By the way, who drew up those boundaries to create the Middle East countries? Who mucked up the India/Pakistan/Kashmir split?

So no country has shown a stellar record of always standing on the side of the angels, always looking down the road, always putting principal ahead of practical. If we can agree on this, maybe we can ease up on the verbal bashing of each other’s homelands and think in terms of resolving issues. The politicians and media types can handle the blame aspects.

I fully agree

In reply to How True Regarding Poor Foreign Policy

There has in the past been no colinising power who has ever provided a real form of Foregin Policy it has what has always been Politically expident at the time. The current India/Pakistan borders where drawn up purely on religious grounds when the Poms where forced out of India which covered both these countries. They also took no responibility for the mass killings that ensured in the so called transisition period.

But surely this type of supitidy is what we should be learning from and not continue to repeat it at every opportinuty.

You Must Consider

In reply to I fully agree

that the British Empire really had no control over the demarcations arising in their former colonies. They were leaving after rebellion and were in no position to dictate the terms of post war government and borders.

Perhaps the maxim should be:don’t overthrow your government unless you’ve thought through a new one.

Iraq is a different case, as we have overthrown an existing government. (let’s not debate justification again) The COW now has a direct responsibility to provide for all ofthe needs of Iraq to transition them to self-rule. If they are invaded by another nation in the interim, we MUST protect them. If they need food, It is our job to provide it. This is daunting indeed.

I believe that we are up to the task, and we now must keep all of the different factions from open warfare and get them to create a government that they can agree on.

I see a lot of

In reply to Democracy???

folks out there who seem to believe that this this is “corporate America” making a power play and making money rebuilding Iraq. Notably absent is a viable alternative or ANY alternative.

It’s always easier to criticise than offer alternatives.
Another ironic omission is that if the UN were to do the rebuilding of Iraq, it would do so using mostly American money. After the shameful actions of the “Axis of Weasles”, I’d be damned if I would stand for my tax dollars being spent to have a french company rebuild Iraq.

If the AoW is all fired up to fix Iraq, let them supply the money and let the US supply the expertise. Of course their refusal to do so would be construed as principle, not corporate greed, which many seem to believe isa singularly American phenomenon.

Love It!

In reply to I see a lot of

First time I have heard that particular phrase regarding France, Germany, and Russia. If you coined it, well done!

Not me

In reply to Love It!

Although it is marvelously descriptive and adequately insulting, I cannot claim this one. I’m glad you like it though!

One reason to let the others do it

In reply to I see a lot of

is that when it fails, we stand in the line with the rest of the world can blame them too.

This is reminding me of something I hated in High School. I am over 6’2″ and run a bit over 200 pounds. Not a linebacker, but not small. Until really forced into a fight, I’m very peaceful though. So, here’s what would happen.

We’d all drink around a keg and some little guy with some problem would come up to me and start picking a fight. I’d ignore him and eventually, sometimes he would continue, get physical and really leave me no choice. (I really AM quite happy being peaceful and prided myself in getting out of these things usually still, it happened a very few times). So after no choice I would finally haul of and hit him, and low and behold, usually I was then considered by bunches of the people around an a-hole for knocking someone down much smaller than me. No matter tha

I gotta get a new keyboard apparantly

In reply to One reason to let the others do it

this is the second time in as many days I hit “enter” by mistake! 🙂

No matter that I didn’t start it and I was patient and worked for peace. It came down to the fact that I was standing and so I got scalded.

It’s human nature really. The bully at first glance is always going to be the big guy. The one who is the underdog will always get their cause championed. We just have to accept that really. It’s not new to this war, it’s as old as human thought itself.

People that got to know meknew it was like this. I hate fighting, but without all the details, no one knew. 🙁

real motive

In reply to Democracy???

No, oil and the industrialists are not the motive for the war: AIPAC wanted people in the US to quarrel about something other than the Palestine Question, because the “Free Palestine” movement was looking like a long-term danger. Now it’s just an adjunct to some positions regarding Iraq, and of no danger to Zionist aims. I say nothing about the actual rights or wrongs of the war: to take either side is to play the Zionists’ game.

I just got off the phone

In reply to real motive

with my zionist master. He told me that I must focus this thread back on the Iraq war.

You are without credibility after that posting.

The Palestinian Authority stands for nothing less than the distruction of Israel. Look at the patch on thearm of the uniform on that terrorism friendly thug in statesman’s clothing Yasser Arafat. The map of “Palestine” (never was a country) on the patch, when superimposed on the map of Israel shows their true aims. It shows a Palestine that includes allof Israel, including the pointed southern region.

Your racism is showing. The world may focus on the creation of a Palistinian state after Hamas and Islamic Jihad are hanging from light poles in Jenin when the Palestinian people have had enough misery to prompt them to change their government and begin acting like civilized men. The spectacle of the Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9-1-1 effectively destroyed any hope of the world pushing for a free Palestine.

The Israelis have zero expectation of an end to the suicide bombers with the creation of a Palestinian state. Palestine is run by a scumbag that knows he will be packed off to the old terrorists home if Palistine becomes a reality. He is happy ignoring Hamas, as it assists his staying in power. He is more the equivalent of Mohammed Farrah-Aidid than George Washington.

I’m not controlled by the “zionists” any more than you are controlled by logic and reason.

correction re facts

In reply to I just got off the phone

You need to get the facts right. The Palestinians are in fact one of the oldest nations/ethnoses in the world. They are the first Jewish nation and the first Christian nation. However, even if we didn’t know that, we would know by objective analysisof the history since 1903 that Zionism is thoroughly immoral. The division of the territory into two states is largely irrelevant: the purpose of any state is to secure such God-given rights as those to life, to liberty and to property. If the Israeli state stops violating property rights a tenth of the exiled Palestinians will return home to freehold, and many more to other kinds of tenure. All the terrorism you condemn is the result of dispossession: you cannot name any justification, can you, for the 1903 decision to dispossess the Palestinians in the first place? As long as you spout pro-Zionist rubbish you ARE controlled by the Zionists, whether or not you admit the fact. And as long as you support the dispossession of the Palestinians as such YOU are a racialist, not I.

So “educate me”

In reply to correction re facts

Define zionist for me.

I understand zionism as the Israeli (post UN creation after WWII) assertion that they have a right to security within their UN established and internationally recognized borders. The term Zion historically meaning the Jewish homeland. “Zionist” doctrine justifies the occupation of what Arabs refer to as Palestine which was never a country, but a region of Jordan under “spoils of war” and as a buffer zone between Israel and hostile arab nations.

As I recall, Palestine as a province of Jordan was a problem where the King of Jordan forcibly put down secessionist movements, killing thiousands of Palestinians in the process. Is this the 1903 event to which you refer? If not explain further, please.

1903

In reply to So “educate me”

In 1903 the Zionists picked the Palestinians to dispossess. They could have had a then uninhabited territory elsewhere. This really belongs in a different discussion, mis-headed “Light on the Middle East”.

What? These are my only choices?

In reply to correction re facts

I am either pro-Palestine or Zionist? Rubbish.

The truth is, there is not enough property for everyone, especially in that region. There will never be a “Right” or “Fair” decision for everyone, but there probably can be a workable one. It’s thefleas arguing over who owns the dog again, well, no one does, but for their own survival and well-being there are going to have to be some borders drawn not on the basis of what is right, but what is best for those involved. What is best is not a black and white decision and the extreme camps that think they are fighting for God (like a God by definition really needs us to fight FOR them anyway) or who was there first will only maintain the death counts and unrest in the region.

I’m going todeclare myself pro-human on this issue: I want the people of all races there to benefit and compromise. How does this make me a Zionist?

property rights

In reply to What? These are my only choices?

The Palestinians are not violating property rights. The Israelis are: most of the land in the 1948 territories is the private property of people being kept in exile. Practically all of the settlements in the 1967 territories are on stolen private property. This discussion is really about the UN; this item belongs more properly in the discussion entitled “Light shed on the Middle East”.

Good on you John.

In reply to real motive

Any point of view that differs from the “Bush Is God” view is refreshing to see on these postings.

Actually the two Aussie contributors, Colin Luck and myself, find certain postings to be a source of entertainment, as they are so one-eyed and bigoted as to be ludicrous.

The real loser in the this war will be the USA because, any countries which didn’t hate it already are quickly learning to.

I actually liked America and Americans at the beginning of these discussions, but my initial view has been proven to be naive in the extreme.

If you consider racism refreshing,

In reply to Good on you John.

then you are in a sorry state indeed. As for “Bush is God”, well I’m saddened that you see us this way. Since before this war began we Americans have been subjected to such tripe as:

-The war is for oil
-The war is for the enrichment of Bush’s induatrialist buddies
-Bush is trying to avenge the assassination attempt on his father.
-The US is arrogant
-The US thinks their war vets are expendable
-The US is wasting all of the world’s resources
-The US is polluting and destroying the planet
-The US is spoiled, ignorant, racist, and uninformed
-The US Media is slanted and distorted and we are mind-numbed morons for believing it
-The rest of the world understands the world better than we do
-The US forces are deliberately targetingcivilians and now Journalists.
-The US created Saddam Hussein and are guilty of his crimes
-we have been duped by the zionist conspiracy
-Our industry and consumerism exploits the 3rd world

Well, that covers most of the anti American drivel posted here. If we rise up and take offense for these, then we are a bunch of jingoistic cowboys that are not cosmopolitan enough to understand the big picture.

You have lost the last shred of credibility you had with me. If this is what the rest ofthe world has to offer, then they can have it. I’m through with this BS. If the rest of the world has such an attitude toward us so be it. The US has been a great force for good in it’s brief history. If we are going to get bashed by the world anyway, then screw world opinion and let’s continue on our way.

North Korea’s missiles will be able to reach Australia in about 18 months. Maybe the world should give us a reason to care.

Devastated.

In reply to If you consider racism refreshing,

Well gee Bob. I’m totally devastated. My whole self-esteem was totally dependent on your opinion of me.

Incredible !

In reply to If you consider racism refreshing,

Incredible as it may seem, whilst Australia has been involved in many of the same conflicts as the USA, no other country that I am aware of hates Australia.

It also puzzles me as to why, being the fortunate inhabitant of the most powerful and righteous nation on earth, you are so defensive and paranoid.

Puzzled?

In reply to Incredible !

While I recognize the sarcasm in your posting Julian, you have illustrated clearly why so many of us in the US at times get defensive and feel the rest of the world is out to get us. What is puzzling is how you and many other posters from countriesoutside the US have completely missed your own bigoted responses that lead to this.

Whether I agree or disagree with a particular perspective from John, Bob, Maxwell, Dave, James, Charlie, or other US posters, and regardless of their perspective of my positions, we all recognize that these are individual positions. None of us have been selected, elected, appointed, or anointed to speak for America. Neither have Dennis Smith or Michael Moore. Our opinions are as diverse as our country. A country, I might add, that you have pointed out has an administration that did not have an overwhelming victory when elected.

Your responses to postings with which you disagree, however, often take the bigoted view that its THE American position.Postings with which you agree are either flagged as amazing having come from an American, or treated as nation neutral.

Perhaps when your postings drop their bigotry against America, you will see less of the defensive and paranoid reaction from US contributors.

Of course, I am really not puzzled. Responses based on emotion and bigotry are a common tactic when a position based on logic and reason does not exist.

Oldefar – Best Post and Best Message

In reply to Puzzled?

Oldefar,

Very well said.

This has my vote for the absolute BEST message posted in all of the “off-topic” dicsussions that have been started lately.

A++

A strange phenomenon.

In reply to Puzzled?

What I perceive as I browse these disucussions is that if you are an American — and especially if you are also a long-established member of TR — you can express any point of view about America and that’s cool.

But if you are a foreigner, any posting that is perceived in any way as anti anything about America, you (well let’s say me, if you prefer) are immediately derided as a bigot, anti-American, oversensitive, or making an emotive statement not supported by facts.

I find the proof ofthis observation in the case of John Wills who, while continually trying to push his Zionist theories, is never labelled a bigot, fanatic, ratbag or anything else. He is apparently immune from criticism because he is an American.

I won’t accept the label of “bigot” just because my opinion may differ from yours. Nor am I over sensitive: I am genuinely concerned about how international events are evolving at the present time.

The Piranha Effect

In reply to Incredible !

Piranhas will ignore smaller prey and attack larger prey en masse. Just because a school of piranhas will ignore a monkey swimming in the river to swarm an ox doesn’t mean that the monkey isn’t food.

I find it intriguing that you saw fit earlierin this debate to remind us of Australia’s presence of the coalition of the willing, yet you take our enemy’s ignorance as evidence of the lack of animosity toward Austraila.

I’ve seen GB and the US as the primary targets of our enemy’s ire. I submit that this is because of our nations’ identification as the primary participants. Your PM did not participate in globally televised debates in the UN and the Azores Summit. We (the US) make the biggest splash on the world stage, and we are the primary personification of the COW.

Don’t take the fact that Arabs aren’t burning your flag in their streets as lack of animosity toward your country. Additionally, don’t take this posting as evidence of ungratefulness for Australia’s participationin the liberation of Iraq and other historic conflicts such as GWI and Korea.

Luckly you don’t listen

In reply to If you consider racism refreshing,

To any of Bob Dylans Songs as in most of these he points out exactly what you have been saying above.

Speaking of Dylan

In reply to Luckly you don’t listen

I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes,

and just for that one moment i could be you.

Yes, i wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes.

Then you’d know what a drag it is to see you.

-Bob Dylan

The US is not a Democracy

In reply to Democracy???

It is a Republic. There is a fundamental difference, in that the US recognizes individual rights that cannot be degraded by the collective will of the people.

Simply, in a true Democracy, 51 percent of the population could vote to identify, catch, kill, and eat the other 49. Our Bill of Rights prohibits this and other intrusions less extreme. Personally, I feel that this is a sign of the brilliance of our forefathers, as they knew that Democracy was dangerous to personal liberties.

THE WAR:

dhony, do you really believe that the US government decided that we needed a war to enrich our corporations? Why not just establish a lot of public works programs here in the US and build roads and feed people. We could pass off billions to our”corporate buddies” without firing a shot.

Please consider your own viewpoint more critically, or have the decency to provide some proof of your accusations. It’s easy to accuse the US of many things, but unfounded accusations ARE offensive.

offended

In reply to The US is not a Democracy

Interesting responses. Can I start off by saying I’m neither a Gore-ite or a Goron. I think you guys were stuck between a rock and a hard place on election-day. I agree with whoever pointed out how much easier it is to knock than to come up with a viable alternative. I don’t think the current state of the us political system offers much of a viable alternative, much like our own democratic republic of ireland. (yes road-dog, I do know the difference).
I read Michael Moore’s ‘Stupid White Men’ recently, and the description of the election as it took place in Florida was scary.
You guys have a fabulous country, that has achieved so much to be proud of. Unfortunately, this war is not something that does your nation credit. (Equally it doesmy nation no credit to have responded as we did). Also of course, allowing their sanctions to do so much damage to the Iraqi citizens between the 2 Gulf wars is something for which the UN should hang its head in shame. Finally, can someone explain to me the difference between the dictatorship of North (We’ve got nukes and we’re not afraid to use them) Korea, and Saddam Husein?

Re: Michael Moore and Florida

In reply to offended

If you formed your conclusions about the 2000 Florida presidential election from Michael Moore, you should do yourself a favor and give that view a little balance.

Read the election accounts from The Washington Times, The National Review and/or The Weekly Standard. You’ll be amazed at the different perspective put on the same event.

My personal opinion of Michael Moore forces me to be immediately skeptical of anything he says.

North Korea and Hussein

In reply to offended

Vast difference. Iraq has no reasonable chance at all of formidable alliances. Even if all of Arabia stood up in defiance of the U.S. between the U.S., the Brits, the Aussies, Israel and other alligned countries they would fail unless a great Comet hit the Earth or something to sway the balance.

North Korea on the other hand, due to it’s geographical position in proximity to China makes for a whole different balance of power and makes a diplomatic solution much more attractive. If Kim Chong-Ill and Saddam Hussein’s Geographical positions were reversed we would have taken out North Korea by now. They talk louder and have a more relevant threat, however the additional threat of Asia polarized against whatever COW that would bring about ismuch more threatening to the western world.

Kudos to Road-Dog for piping up about the U.S. NOT being a Democracy in fact.

It makes it a lot easier for people to understand when they grasp this IMO.

[Author]

Replies