I bet
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: I completely understand your point, but I am a citizen of the USA and not the world. That's the problem. You are a citizen of the USA, but you are also a citizen of the world. In my cute small town analogy, you're a citizen of your house and a citizen of the town. You're both unless you never leave your home. Mike Gaskey wrote: The best way to gain peace in the world is not some one central government, that will some become corrupt. Would you say that the American (or Canadian, or British, or German) govt is absolutely not corrupt? We have a small scandal here in Canada right now about corruption. It's inevitable with government and thus the posibility that it could happen with a theoritical world government is not surprising, nor is it a reason not to try. That said, I haven't given it much thought, but I'm not in favour of a world government at this point in history. Ask me again in 20 years. Mike Gaskey wrote: Free trade and democracy, creating interlocking dependencies and open dialog while delivering to each country's self interest is the correct way to "govern" the world. I completely agree, and it's one of the reasons why I think the USA should not have invaded Iraq without the agreement of the UN.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I completely agree, and it's one of the reasons why I think the USA should not have invaded Iraq without the agreement of the UN. Remember, we did have agreement. That agreement was secured through the final resolution that promised consequences. Then had we and others not gone into Iraq there would ultimately be one less (but in my opinion many less eventually) democracy, thus one less interlocking dependency. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I completely agree, and it's one of the reasons why I think the USA should not have invaded Iraq without the agreement of the UN. Remember, we did have agreement. That agreement was secured through the final resolution that promised consequences. Then had we and others not gone into Iraq there would ultimately be one less (but in my opinion many less eventually) democracy, thus one less interlocking dependency. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: Remember, we did have agreement. That agreement was secured through the final resolution that promised consequences. Poppycock. There is accepted diplomatic language in UN resolutions and "serious consequences" does not imply war (it doesn't rule it out, but war would be a distinct further step). In any case, Iraq was cooperating with weapons inspections sufficiently for the weapons inspectors to want to continue their work. Accordingly, the test of non-cooperation justifying "serious consequences" was not satisfied from the UN's point of view, regardless of what the "serious consequences" were. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I completely agree, and it's one of the reasons why I think the USA should not have invaded Iraq without the agreement of the UN. Remember, we did have agreement. That agreement was secured through the final resolution that promised consequences. Then had we and others not gone into Iraq there would ultimately be one less (but in my opinion many less eventually) democracy, thus one less interlocking dependency. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
I thought the invasion of Iraq was because of the imminent threat of Iraqi WMDs^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H humanitarian concerns.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: I beg to differ. France, Russia, China and Germany had been pushing and lobbying for years to drop the sanctions. Yeh but you got to figure that with the US wanting war, they would have been able to get tighter sanctions against Iraq. I mean think about it, with over 20 billion in bribes, it did not save himself from being overthrown. Mike Gaskey wrote: This, as well as Iraq, had to be dealt with it was just a matter of which to tackle first. If you pay attention to the news (I am not being sarcastic) you'll note that Europe is unwilling to do anything other than "huff and puff". Iran is going to be left to us (the US) and Israel to deal with, the same as it would have been prior to Iraq. Yeh but i do not think that Iraq was as big of a threat. In fact Chalabi (hope i spelled his name right) had given us nuclear missle plans that Saddam was supposedly using. Intelligence said that the documents looke more "Iranian" in dialect and writing, now look, Iran seems to be the bigger threat. Listen all I am saying is that there could have been a more diplomatic approach, at the very least, a more effective one. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
JimRivera wrote: Intelligence said that the documents looke more "Iranian" in dialect and writing, now look, Iran seems to be the bigger threat. Well . In fact none can do anything about a nation trying procure nuclear weapons . IAEA can do more to stop nuclear proliferation spreading from rouge nuclaer states like pakistan and north korea . One imprtant thing I want to make here 1)N Korea got some nuclear tech assitance from pakistan in exchange of missle technology tranfer ( the sol called gauri missile of pak is just a over coated missile stright out of NKorea) 2) Its a open secret that pak's **father of atom bomb ** notorius Mr Khan was clearly behind whatever progress Iran made in this direction . I dont know how you prefer to call pakistan as - I will prefer to call it a rougue state and a terrorist state . When it comes to nuclear technology - the nations which possess the power have to become "good" states or they have to be made "good states " . But I dont see any progress made in this direction by US or UN or IAEA . Iran's possession of an atomic bomb means threat to isreal's existance . Its time US ponder about what to do with states like pakistan who dont hesitate to sell nuke techs like tomatos in a super market ... Dharani Babu S
-
The US leaves the UN as the UN moves closer to a one world government. My opinion is goofi's plan[^] is step one to that one world government. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Heh, yeah, I can just see swathes of Africa, South America and Asia submitting to UN governance. regards, Paul Watson South Africa Michael Dunn wrote: "except the sod who voted this a 1, NO SOUP FOR YOU" Crikey! ain't life grand?