A Friendly Warning

[Cherry_Ripe]

Thanx Sarah, couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Sarah]

 

[trollface]

So, since I know you will agree the reason for Afghanistan was nothing similar to our "reason" for Iraq, we certainly eliminated the terror camps, dispersed/killed/captured many terrorists and ring leaders, and Bin Laden knows he hasn't got much longer.

But how true is that? Did we capture any terrorists? Nobody has been charged with anything. The only thing that has happened to people that have been captured is either that they've been illegally detained without charge or access to lawyers or human rights groups, or the same thing, only they've subsequently been released.

Have the terror camps really gone, or have they just gone underground and to different countrys? All a terrorist training camp is is a place.

And does bin Laden know he's not got much longer? He was no. 1 on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list long before Sept 11th. That was 3 1/2 years ago, and he's still hiding out, organising terrorist activities and releasing messages to the media threataning the Coalition and sending a call to arms to the extremist Moslems. The terrorism in Iraq? Partially down to bin Laden. Hell, the bombing in Spain was one of his, it seems. What's been achieved on that front in real terms?

[...] let them know there will be further such spankings if they insist on killing innocent people.

You mean "innocent people that we are allied with". Seems that killing innocent Palestinians or Syrians is fine.

I am hearing a bit more critcizing from you in that post, but would you be willing to champion the Afghani people's right to freedom and democracy? If so, did you put your $ where your mouth is?

I was championing the plight of innocent Afgahnis, particularly the women, long before 2001. I'm not a rich man, and what I can spare goes to domestic children's charities, but I've given plenty of time.

Look at the bottom line totals for the UN and other countries. And then compare it to the other major contributor listed at the bottom. And so I ask: Where is everyone else's generosity in helping other countries?

The problem with this is that the US is the richest country in the world by far. So it's not fair to compare the countrys on a level playing field. Look at it this (extreme exaple alert!) way; two men want to give some money to charity. One man gives $100 and the other man gives $200. so the second man is twice as generous as the first, right? But what if the first man earns $200 a month, and the second man is Bill Gates? Who is the more generous, then?

Us Americans are far from ugly, oppresive Nazis.

Never said you were.

And isn't the line item for Saudia Arabia telling?

Again, I'm not exactly amazingly positive about Saudi Arabia.

 

[creedo299]

Note that there have been reports on the testosterone level of Iraqis being very high.

Secondly the Tigris Euphrates River region, is the said area for the genesis section of the bible as well as the precepts of modern man.

 

[RainmanTime]

Nobody has been charged with anything. The only thing that has happened to people that have been captured is either that they've been illegally detained without charge or access to lawyers or human rights groups, or the same thing, only they've subsequently been released.

You seem to be confusing criminals with POWs here. The people incarcerated in Guantanamo are POWs. Geneva Convention is pretty clear that POWs may be detained until the end of hostilities, and need not be charged with anything, with the exception of crimes they may commit while under detention (see Chapter III, Disciplinary Sanctions). I'd appreciate it if you did not use errant concepts such as this (confusing POWs with criminals) in your continued criticism.

Hell, the bombing in Spain was one of his, it seems. What's been achieved on that front in real terms?

Maybe you'd like to ask the Spanish people? It seems the same attitudes of "it's not my problem" that permitted WW I and WW II to occur still exist in the majority of continental Europe. Few Europeans were even very interested in dealing with the Serbs in Albania. Once again, the US had to lead and coerce many Euro governments that it was the right thing to do. Oh yes, and let's not forget that in this case the US was trying to protect Moslems.

Seems that killing innocent Palestinians or Syrians is fine.

Please provide me examples of where coalition, or Israel for that matter, purposefully targets women and children with things like suicide bombs. Incidental deaths occur, and that is a tragedy. But it is something different than purposefully targeting them. And once again it all boils down to taking responsibility. The Palestinian people are more oppressed by their own leadership than they are by any foreign power. People need to understand when their leaders are terrorists in disguise, and have the ability to get rid of them. Take Arafat for example: He has the sham of legitimacy, but does he ever act to protect ALL people living in the areas under his rule? Hardly. Arafat acts for what is best for Arafat, and no one dares challenge him lest they end up dead. Arafat is a low-grade Saddam. I agree with Israel's wish to take him out. Only the criticizers of the world who seem to think he is a legitimate leader are worried about Israel killing Arafat. He was a terrorist, and he still is a terrorist.

I'm not a rich man, and what I can spare goes to domestic children's charities, but I've given plenty of time.

I'm glad. You certainly do not appear to have the typically narrow-minded view that many Euros (esp. continental) have.

The problem with this is that the US is the richest country in the world by far.

So now we are penalized for our success, and this seems to be used as another excuse for why other countries should not step up to the plate. We could have a long economic discussion of how it came about that the US is in this position. Perhaps we don't have the same draconian tax policies that so much of the rest of the world (esp. Europe) impose on their peoples and their economies? And how is it that the US could fund rebuilding of Europe after TWO world wars, and still maintain our unprecedented economic growth and dominance? Could it POSSIBLY be that, on average, Americans do more work and less talk? I'm not being insulting here, I am pointing to what might be the scientific reasons why we are more successful (and therefore more able to contribute) than any other country. In any event, I reject your argument because it provides a convenient excuse for other countries to do nothing. This logic embodies a downward spiral: "If we don't aspire to do more, and to make our economy grow and lift the level of prosperity of all our citizens, then we have a way to avoid giving money and aid to people, thus keeping more money for ourselves. Let the US fund the bulk of it." That is the only message I get out of your argument.

And once again, please don't think I am beating my breast and stating all this to make people of the world bow-down to America as the ultimate model of how to do things. I am stating this because there are a LOT of Americans just like me who are SICK AND TIRED of hearing the whole world complain about what we do, and not doing much themselves. Older folks who lived thru WW II are even more vehment in their disgust for other countries than people of my generation. Maybe we should have been nothing but mercenary and FORCED Europe to pay back EVERY dollar we expended to rebuild Europe (and Japan)? Maybe THAT is the only way the world will really sit up and take notice for all the GOOD things this country has done for the world? Not likely.

It sucks at the top. Ask Bill Gates. No one appreciates or highlights the good things that you do, and all they can focus on is the "bad" or the "mistakes", and I think that is sheer jealousy and wanting to knock the top dog off his perch. There is a lot less wrong with America than international critics claim. Rather, the international critics use America as the "whipping boy" in order to deflect criticism for their own inaction. It's time for the rest of the world to grow up and accept responsbility. And when you read about "New World Order" in which the US takes care of the W hemisphere, European Union takes care of Euro-Africa, and Russia/Japan take care of Asia/Oceania...why is that such a bad concept? All we (Americans) want is to be relieved of our burden for having to police the ENTIRE globe! After two world wars, and now a war on terrorists, we are tired.

RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

I'm glad. You certainly do not appear to have the typically narrow-minded view that many Euros (esp. continental) have.

ahem... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Perhaps we don't have the same draconian tax policies that so much of the rest of the world (esp. Europe) impose on their peoples and their economies?

Thanks for reminding me...

And how is it that the US could fund rebuilding of Europe after TWO world wars, and still maintain our unprecedented economic growth and dominance?

Oil, weapons? Hey, I'm not accusing anyone, but I'm not sure if the US can wash its hands clean.

I am stating this because there are a LOT of Americans just like me who are SICK AND TIRED of hearing the whole world complain about what we do, and not doing much themselves.

Well, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm very aware of what the US (and Canada) meant to us in WWII. Only two days ago was Remembrance Day and yesterday we celebrated our liberation. I'm still very grateful and I was born 32 years after the war! But does that mean we have to accept and support every US action? I, for one, did not support the war. At least not on the grounds that it was fought. I agree that a regimechange had to happen sometime, but who put Saddam there in the first place? Furthermore, there are also a lot of Americans who agree with the rest of the world.

Oh and who ever said we're not doing anything? Holland is a small country, yet we have sent troops to many war areas.

All we (Americans) want is to be relieved of our burden for having to police the ENTIRE globe! After two world wars, and now a war on terrorists, we are tired.

There's more to all these wars than just charity. Don't get me wrong, (I like America and I'm not anti-America whatsoever) but you have to admit that besides all the good things America has done for the world, there have been some major mistakes in the past.

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Oil, weapons? Hey, I'm not accusing anyone, but I'm not sure if the US can wash its hands clean.

We only refine the oil. And by the way, isn't Royal Dutch Shell one of the biggest oil companies in the world? As to weapons... it is a market. No one NEEDS to buy them from us. And really we do not "push" them on other countries. But when you make the best of any kind of system, you usually have people beating down your doors to buy them. I am not trying to "wash the US's hands" of this. In fact, you are almost making my point for me that we "do" more than most people on the planet. That productivity is what fills our coffers. Nothing to be ashamed about, now is there?

Oh and who ever said we're not doing anything? Holland is a small country, yet we have sent troops to many war areas.

You're right...and we've had this dicussion before. I am really referring to those other two, bigger, countries...one to your south and one to your east.

but you have to admit that besides all the good things America has done for the world, there have been some major mistakes in the past.

Without a doubt. Don't we ALL make mistakes? The real barometer is the ratio of how much good you do, to how many mistakes you make. I would claim that what the US has done for many parts of the world since WW I is plenty of "absolution" for some of the mistakes we have made. It is certainly better than taking the Swiss route of not being involved at all in fixing world problems. How much would people in the world complain if the US stopped ALL foreign aid programs, brought EVERY one of our troops home, and refused to help any other country/people in the world? That would be like the police saying "We are only going to protect ourselves."

RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Hi Ray,

You usually have very good reasoning, but this time I'm not so sure. You made a pretty good point with Royal Dutch Shell and you almost convinced me, but it went downhill from there...

As to weapons... it is a market. No one NEEDS to buy them from us.

That's probably the worst argument I can think of. What practical use, besides killing, do weapons have? Oh yeah, they're great for threathening people as well. Now I'm not saying weapons are useless in this day of age, but saying "it's a market" is a bit shortsighted. It's like selling a crowbar to a thief and act surprised when he uses it to break into a house.

You're right...and we've had this dicussion before. I am really referring to those other two, bigger, countries...one to your south and one to your east.

I totally agree with you on this point. But in a way, those two countries are doing in Europe, what the US is doing in the world. Because they're so big, they feel like they can force their will upon us. But don't worry, I like the US much more than the two countries you're referring to. Have you ever watched a lipsynced episode of Friends? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

How much would people in the world complain if the US stopped ALL foreign aid programs, brought EVERY one of our troops home, and refused to help any other country/people in the world? That would be like the police saying "We are only going to protect ourselves."

Why do you find it so strange that so many people around the world are turning their backs on the current US policy? If the war had been fought on justified grounds, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. It's because of all the lies and twisted facts that people are loosing their confidence in the US. Also the way in which US government is forcing its will upon the rest of the world is disturbing at times. But that's just my opinion. AGAIN, I'm still convinced that the US is one of the most important forces in the world and I appreciate what they are doing for the world, but I refuse to unthinkingly accept any US action. I really hope that we're going to see a new US president after the elections. Think of it this way: I'm against current US policy because I love the US, not because I hate them

 

[RainmanTime]

Howdy Roel (had to throw that bit of Americana in!) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I realize that the whole weapons thing is bringing back to life our difference of opinion on hand guns. That same difference exists here, so there is no harm or foul. We just disagree, and I, for one, don't think it is a bad thing to continue to discuss it, as it at least helps us understand each other's positions more fully. And understanding, even if there is not agreement, is what will encourage reconciliation and the possibility of more peaceful solutions.

What practical use, besides killing, do weapons have?

Keeping errant people in line who do not respect laws intended to protect rights/freedoms. Police employ weapons for this very purpose.

It's like selling a crowbar to a thief and act surprised when he uses it to break into a house.

Crowbars don't break into houses, people do!

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that "it's a market" does not mean there should be no restrictions, nor discretion, in selling products in the market. We don't sell booze to youngsters, and we don't sell our weapons to Al Qaeda.

Have you ever watched a lipsynced episode of Friends?

I haven't watched many of them in English! Actually, I am glad that this sappy excuse for a comedy is finally over. I wish they would bring back REAL comedy, like Seinfeld! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Why do you find it so strange that so many people around the world are turning their backs on the current US policy? If the war had been fought on justified grounds, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

I agree, and as I have said before, I do not agree with everything this admin has done. But when we say "justified grounds" we have to look at the behemoth we call the UN in this regard. The Security Council is so slow, or inactive, at approving enforcement of its mandates as to be essentially an ineffective bureacracy, where nations one-up each other in vetoing needed action. Do you REALLY think the UN SC would have approved overthrow of Saddam under the (extremely valid) premise of "he has killed more Muslims, and his own people, than anyone else!"? The ineffectiveness of the UN SC is what effectively force the administration to follow the WMD tactic. And while this "worked" for the first resolution, even this issue did not pass muster and the US had to take action via the coalition. It seems to me that the UN SC is in a "reactionary only" mode. Thus, once a rogue state or terrorist org ACTUALLY USES WMD's in a major attack, THEN the UN SC would vote for doing something...now that it is too late. However, that sort of thinking is just NOT in the American thought process. We know it is cheaper and easier to take care of something before it festers and grows.

but I refuse to unthinkingly accept any US action.

No one would ask you to. But rather than sit back and simply decry the actions we do take to get something done, it might be a better use of energy to define better actions (and by this I do NOT mean pacification, because this is what got Europe into trouble in WW I and WW II), gain international support for the alternate actions, and bring it to the UN. France and Germany (let's name names!) were only interested in vetoing, not developing their own action plans. And oh by the way, one other reason F & G acted as they did was: They wanted the overthrow of Saddam to be on THEIR terms... which means they wanted a stipulation to be that ALL their loans would be repaid back, thus saddling the new Iraqi government and their people with massive debt from day one. This is especially insulting to America, who forgave European debt for rebuilding from TWO world wars! Why can't F & G follow the US model here? It would seem these countries are more mercenery minded than the US is, and yet all we hear of the US how "it is always about the dollar with Americans."

RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Howdy Ray (throwing it right back atcha),

...and we don't sell our weapons to Al Qaeda.

Mmmmh... not directly. But the US did do business with Osama Bin Laden in the late 80s.

Keeping errant people in line who do not respect laws intended to protect rights/freedoms. Police employ weapons for this very purpose.

But there are people on this planet who think Americans are errant people who should be kept in line... And they employ weapons for this very purpose as well... Perhaps even American weapons.

I haven't watched many of them in English! Actually, I am glad that this sappy excuse for a comedy is finally over. I wish they would bring back REAL comedy, like Seinfeld!

No way! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Friends is waaaaay better. I like the episode where they travel back in time (pssst, I'm trying to make this look on-topic... help me out here)

But rather than sit back and simply decry the actions we do take to get something done, it might be a better use of energy to define better actions

I agree. I'm not saying we "Europeans" have the answer to everything. There are problems in the world that are not sufficiently taken care of and America does take action where other countries don't. It's just that Bush and his administration have a certain arrogance in their actions. Sure, the UN are slow, but I can't say the US and the UK did any better by doing the exact opposite and rushing into it under (as of yet) false pretenses.

Roel

 

[Siegmund]

Regarding doing business with Al Qaeda and the mujahadeen in Afganistan...

Think back a little and put this into perspective. The "EVIL SOVIET EMPIRE OF NASTY BABY EATING COMMUNISTS" was the enemy. I'm old enough to remember this. The thought of Nuclear Winter overtaking the globe in an instant was a very real thing. Kruschev took off his friggin shoe and banged it on the podium of the U.N. (read: "Useless Nobodies") while screaming "We will BURY you," ferchrissakes. Ooh! Scary!

It was a whole different world back then. So yeah.. some lefties whine that "The U.S. trained and supported the terrorists to begin with!!!" Yeah. So Fuggin what? We had bigger fish to fry at the time, and we certainly didn't expect them to turn into the Frankenstein monsters that they are today. This was certainly an unfortunate development.

I think the real issue under all of this is one that the apologists and PC police will never admit. We are, whether we choose to admit it or not, deep within the midsts of a Jihad. It IS a "Holy War". Not Christianity versus Islam, but Islamist Ideology versus the West. They're bound and determined to wage this war whether or not we want to, whether or not we choose to defend ourselves, and whether or not we choose to bring the fight to them. Make NO MISTAKE. Their goal is nothing short of an Islamic WORLD.

So the question becomes, "What are YOU going to do about it?" Wait for the next attack? Watch some other country get hit, and tell yourself "It can't happen here"? Or are you going to take a personal responsibilty for your safety, the safety of your nation, and of all nations that value peace and freedom?

Liberal historians like to paint the Crusades as if they were some attrocities committed by Christianity. Balderdash! Muslim law permits the killing of non muslims (they somehow "don't count"). It authorizes a special "tax" levied on non-muslims, and it allows the enslavement of non muslims. As many western pilgrims wanted to travel freely in the "Holy Lands", they found themselves being murdered, raped, and pillaged. It was in response to THIS barbarity that the Holy Roman Empire declared war on the Moors. It wasn't some xenophobic quest to convert the heathens. It was to secure SAFE PASSAGE for pilgrims.

"Scholars" like to say "Oh, but the Muslims made such great advances in mathematics, astronomy, and optics, and they worked for religious tolerance". Gee, that's great, but what the hell have they done that was POSITIVE in the past FIVE HUNDRED YEARS??? Nothing. Not a goddamned thing. I'm calling a spade a spade here. Muslims, as a group, have been a nusance at best, and more appropriately a cancer for all freedom loving and peaceful peoples of the world.


Now I'm not saying that this is the case for individuals within the group, but somehow, on an aggrogate level they become something foul and sinister.

Call me a racist. Fine. I just see a threat and have the candor and courage to name it. I don't hate Muslims, though I do find their religion barbaric and offensive, but I'm an atheist, so most religions seem rediculous to me. But you know what? You never hear about a Buddhist extremist blowing up school children, do you? Nope.. When THEY get pissed, they light themselves on fire. I can respect that.

 

[cerial]

Siegmund,

"U.N. (read: "Useless Nobodies")"

i had a small bit of respect for ur opinions ..but unfortunatly that has now dropped to nada .. the UN is still a great orgainisation that helps millions around the world ... jus beacuse it don't BOW WOW to all of Bush & the NeoCons demands and has a little integrity (ie. not auth'ing a war due to LACK of evidence)... this makes them useless ??? god i love right wing US views .. so balanced.(before u say it .... 1441 yes said that they could use force if sadman wasn't cooperating .. but that was for the security concil to decide ... not the US.)

"So the question becomes, "What are YOU going to do about it?" Wait for the next attack? Watch some other country get hit, and tell yourself "It can't happen here"? Or are you going to take a personal responsibilty for your safety, the safety of your nation, and of all nations that value peace and freedom?"

value peace and freedom ? what a fecking joke .. do u feel u live in a safer world now ?? this war is nothing to do with the peace and security of the world .. the coalition of the willing is mostly made of countries (cept UK and a few others) that are heavily relient on US aid so must do what daddy tells em so to speak ! this was so plainly evident at the securtiy concil when the US used the threat to pull aid as a coersion to vote their way ..

"So yeah.. some lefties whine that "The U.S. trained and supported the terrorists to begin with!!!" Yeah. So Fuggin what? We had bigger fish to fry at the time, and we certainly didn't expect them to turn into the Frankenstein monsters that they are today. This was certainly an unfortunate development."

ah the good ol' excuse of accountable denialbilty ... what a crock .. we did it .. but u can't blame us ..

and finally .. "It IS a "Holy War". Not Christianity versus Islam, but Islamist Ideology versus the West." rather .. the WEST(isreal) v's islam with the forces of the "willing" .. to give them some Living Space ... http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14695 (and try taking the blinkers off when reading this)

jus some thoughts

b

 

[Siegmund]

Wow. ROFL I was really angry when I wrote that, but I still stand by the content.

As far as the US supplying weapons and training to the mujahadeen... C'mon man! We were fighting the Soviet Union. It was almost the same situation as Korea or Vietnam, except that we didn't send mass troop formations there. It's not an abrogation of responsibility. And No, you *can't* blame the US for the actions of bin Laden, al Qaeda, or any of those islamists. Are you trying to say that 9/11 was America's fault?!? If you are, then we, sir, have issues to discuss.

Regarding Israel (and I admit I only perused the link) let me say this. Do I think that the Palestinians need and deserve their own soverign state? You bet I do. It is in the destiny of all peoples to live freely in peace. But make no mistake. The Israeli people stand as the guardians of the gate. They alone stand as a force for peace and stability in that region. Think about that for a second. An easy knee jerk reaction is to say that everyone there hate them. Big deal. EVERYONE in that region hates EVERYONE ELSE in that region. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan... They'd all be killing each other if it weren't for Israel's presence.

There's an old muslim saying: "Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. My my brother and my cousin against my neighbor. All of us against the infidel." That's no joke man. That really is the mentality that those people have.

And "Useless Nobodies". Hell yeah. The current day UN is the modern analog to the League of Nations. It has no ability to enforce any of it's resolutions and edicts. It has become a joke. An impotent council of squabbling bureaucrats who do nothing but talk. So yes. USELESS. Utterly Useless.

 

[Bull]

What JTTS is referring to I believe, and it doesn't take TTer, is the apparent MASSIVE operation in force in Dublin the day of the EU meet described here

He implies its just the start and that the June 27-29 Nato summit?? is when the "event" occurs that starts the snowball rolling. I suspect with increasing use of NATO troops through Europe.
I note Turkey has the largest force fwiw.
I also note a few days after his post the "bombs" went off outside the Athens copshop, not injuring anyone, and clearly either a warning, or possibly I guess, providing Greece/EU/NATO/US "authority" to "prepare" Europe for the Olympics. There's my 2 cents. Cheers. No need to be a TTer but it probably makes it easier....everything is obvious in hindsight LOL.

 

[Bull]

finally I guess the Athen's bombs may have been the "rollercoaster event" and the group of Turks arrested were just shopping for carpets or copper wire to fix a clock or something unrelated to actual bombstuff and are another expression of the civil overkill occurring a/w the paranoia of our illustrious governments.

 

[Bull]

and the loss of the right to peacefully protest. See, anyone can be a TTer.

 

[RainmanTime]

Bull!

Nothing further needs to be said, as this says it all,
RainmanTime

 

[RainmanTime]

I'm with you, Sieg... and I am sure that is no surprise!

One need only do a cursory surface analysis of the mechanics of the UN Security Council to understand why it is so useless. And comparing it to the mechanics of the most successful democracy the world has ever know only serves to make the UNSC flaws even more apparant. Regulars here have read my posts that discuss many manifestations in our world that come in tripartate form. Some know of the saying "all things come in threes", but I would have to alter that for correctness to "all things that are stable come in threes." Big difference.

Why does the US form of government work so well? (And yes, it does, compared to most other governments on our planet). The reason is that it is based on tripartate balance of power. The Founding Fathers, being Masons who knew (sacred) geometry, knew exactly what they were doing, and they knew the success by which it would be measured.

Now let's look at the UN, especially the Security Council. See any tripartate balance of power forms in its structure? No. That's because it was devised by a bunch of idiots who didn't take time to study why the US Founding Fathers did what they did. And now can anyone guess what the single biggest procedural stumbling block is in how the SC operates? The ability for any ONE permanent member to VETO a SC resolution for action. Add to this the lack of an alternate means to reach a resolution for action/enforcement. This allows ONE permanent member state to hold the ENTIRE process in suspense as long as they want. The only remedy to a veto is more political bartering and distilling (watering down!) of words in the resolution so they can bring it back for another vote...and likely another veto if the one member state wants to kill the process.

And now before someone jumps on me, I will freely admit: Yes, the US has used this veto power to hold things up as I have described....that is only because WE CAN! Plain and simple... if other member states are going to use veto power to hold-up the resolutions for action that the US (and some of its allies) want to enact, then we are going to do the same thing to punish other states when they want a resolution passed.

Would someone like to try to argue against the logic that this structuring of single-vote veto is NOT the reason that the UN SC is so pathetically ineffective? Good luck, if you do. An alternate form of recourse is desperately needed. Just like the US Congress can override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority vote, so should the UN SC have alternate recourse to GET SOME MEANINGFUL WORK DONE!

And people wonder why Bush (and Reagan and others before him!) look upon the UN SC with disdain! I share that disdain because of the pitiful structure under which it tries to do work. No doubt that it was probably French insistance on the single-vote-veto power, because it is a decidely socialistic setup! And we all know how much the French government gets done!

RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

So yeah.. some lefties whine that

Yeah and some "righties" whine about other things. Now I'm not somekind of communist hippy, propagating peace across the planet but it sounds as if you're looking down on "lefties". Since I do consider myself to be a leftwinger I can only say... don't /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

"The U.S. trained and supported the terrorists to begin with!!!" Yeah. So Fuggin what?

Well, I'm inclined to say "what goes around, comes around". However, I think the 9/11 attacks were terrible and inexcusable, so I won't. But it is true in a way. Helping one terrorist organization to get rid of another doesn't help. It's plain stupid.

Or are you going to take a personal responsibilty for your safety, the safety of your nation, and of all nations that value peace and freedom?

Well, perhaps you are right and maybe we SHOULD take more action towards terrorists, but it's sure in hell ain't gonna be the way that sorry excuse for a US president and his supporters want it. I remember that before any of the terrorist attacks ever happened, Bush's foreign policy was to say the least dramatic (China, the Kyoto treaty, North Korea, etc.). While this doesn't justify anything, you should realize that by this time he didn't make any friends. So YES, I value my freedom and YES terrorists pose a threat, but I do believe there are other ways in getting what we want (and I don't just mean diplomacy if that's what you think).

Gee, that's great, but what the hell have they done that was POSITIVE in the past FIVE HUNDRED YEARS???

I agree with you on this point. Progress of most muslim states has stalled or even degraded (ie. Iran). But what do you suggest we do about that... wipe them off the planet? While we're at it, I can think of some christians I'd rather get rid off as well... Why are some people still against abortion, euthanazia and condoms? I mean, where does it end? I'm also an atheist and I see terrible things happening in Israel, but I also see terrible things happening in Ireland.

Just like the US Congress can override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority vote, so should the UN SC have alternate recourse to GET SOME MEANINGFUL WORK DONE!

That's a good point. I agree that something needs to be done about that.

And people wonder why Bush (and Reagan and others before him!) look upon the UN SC with disdain!

With all due respect, but I think Bush has no right whatsoever to look upon anything with disdain. You, as an American citizen, have a lot to be proud of and I acknowledge that. But I don't think anyone with common sense can be proud of (and please excuse my choice of words) a nutfcuk like Bush. So perhaps where the UN should take a look if there's any room for improvement, perhaps the US government can take another look at its voting system.


Damn, 2 a.m. Perhaps it's better if I get some sleep now. I realize that
I got a little bit carried away in this post, but although we disagree I'm pretty sure we understand eachother. If we'd ever get the chance I'm sure we would still be able to enjoy a good cold glass of Heineken and have a laugh together

 

[Keven]

I'd like a Heineken, but only if your buying, you know 15 and a all. LOL

I don't label myself left right or center, because i don't belive that our form of government works. Democracy will always fail because teere are to many opinions. You can never make everyone happy. If you went with the majority, then the minority becomes oppressed and then they start to complain, it's jsut a cirlce and never works.