My (probably Impossible) dream [Archive]

Pete

30th March 2003, 02:55

Let me give you an example of the kind of person who should get the noble peace prize.

First of all they should push for peace not war. Therefore Bush is out, as he declared dimplomacy over and headed straight in with guns flaming. That is not peaceful. With that said Chirac, german dude, the small members of the security council or Chretien are much better for it.

Next, they should be intelligent and be able to face conflicts logically do avoid blood shed. Again Bush is counted out, as he pushed for war instead of thinking about peace. Never once did he say 'let us continue the inspections' he told the world again and again 'we need to go to war with iraq.' Peacefull? Ya right. This time we must also take out those in for finacial reasons. This leaves us with Canada, and the nonpermanent members (-germany).

A final prequesite is that you are not a hypocrite. Bush obviously is pushing for democracy when he was not democratically elected. He also is in control of the largest WMD stores of the world and has torn one nation apart already. This leaves the same people as before here, with a hilight on Jean Chretien who actually tried to work out middle grounds between American and France. America only blew this proposal off as delaying tatics. Sadly.

If Bush gets the Nobel Peace Prize the people in charge of selecting will be proven to be sick individuals. I have heard him say that the time for talk is over enough times to know that it is idiocity to even think that he is a peaceful person.

Some one who fits all three catergories I mentioned won the Nobel Peace Prize after the Suez Crisis. His name was Lester Pearson, the father of UN Peacekeeping, later the Prime Minister of Canada (before Trudeau). He looked at the situation, with the Soviets on one side, and the French/British on the other side and appealed to the UN to put troops inbetween. This saved teh world from WWIII being held about a decade after WWII ended. Bush is Pearson's antithesis, and if he is even nominated it shows the stupidity of some people!

Only in 1984 does WAR=PEACE. Aren't you glad America is adopting such policies?

Pete

30th March 2003, 02:56

Quote: from i hate pinochet on 9:41 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
"institution of parliamentary democracy"

Now, that's humour. Tell me who will lead this democracy? Will he be Kurdish (representing 20% of the population) Will he be Sunni Moslem (35%) Will he be Shi'ite (60%) How about a Kurdish Shi'ite, would that work?

It's easy to say, "lets make a democracy" but in realitythat will be a lot harder than that.

--IHP

The leader will be an American General.

IHP

30th March 2003, 02:58

That's where I was heading, but I didn't want to make too bold a statement just yet.

--IHP

synthesis

30th March 2003, 03:02

Quote: from RedCeltic on 3:45 am on Mar. 30, 2003
"Democracy" is always installed by the PEOPLE, and never FORCED on a population.
The thing that I always found funny about democracy is that the citizens can vote to get rid of it ;)

It's certainly a better argument against it than that silly '51% can vote to kill the other 49%' thing.

RedCeltic

30th March 2003, 03:04

Quote: from Ronald Reagan on 8:43 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
I'm back...

I think Saddam Hussein has a better chance of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. You have to be a terrorist, or denounce America to receive it. I think some of the Nobel Peace Prize judges may actually subscribe to the Che-Lives community.

Mr. President,

Just because you did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize for your massive military build up during the cold war, your firing of the air traffic controllers, the invasion of Granada, your support of a dictatorship in the Philippines, or your bombing of Libya, is not any reason to jump to conclusions.

Ronald Reagan

30th March 2003, 03:07

The peace prize is an abject farce. Who cares who wins it? When the people of Iraq are liberated, I can tell you that it will be in spite of people like Chirac, "german dude," and Chretien.

RedCeltic

30th March 2003, 03:11

Mr. President,

Can I ask you a question? During your first campain, why did you lie to so many of our union brothers and sisters? Why did you tell the union men who worked as air traffic controlers that you would support their bid for a higher wage, only to turn against us when in office?

Do cowards, and traitors of the people not deserve to be shot in their tracks? You sir, are a traitor to the american worker, and should have been hung from your gut.

With all due respect.... ;)

Pete

30th March 2003, 03:15

Regean. I boiled it down so that chirac and the german chancellor where out of the picture. I showed you why Jean deserves it more then George does. But I doubt he will even be nominated, and no one in Canada will cry. That is not our way.

Ronald Reagan

30th March 2003, 03:23

the air-traffic controllers broke the law. I supported unions and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, but I did not tolerate an illegal strike by Federal employees.

and it's "Mr. President" to you CrazyPete

Pete

30th March 2003, 03:27

That is Comadante to you.

Liberty Lover

30th March 2003, 04:09

I'm fairly sure they are not going to give that award to the guy who started WWIII

People accused Churchill of wanting to start WWII when he argued that Britain and France must meet the threat posed by Hitler in the early 30's ...If only they knew.

By the way, It's ok to take down the union jack now, Austrailia independant now!

What? You don't even know the Australian falg? The union jack has been on it since federation in 1901.

Now, that's humour. Tell me who will lead this democracy? Will he be Kurdish (representing 20% of the population) Will he be Sunni Moslem (35%) Will he be Shi'ite (60%) How about a Kurdish Shi'ite, would that work?

It's easy to say, "lets make a democracy" but in realitythat will be a lot harder than that.

No one said it would be easy...It will take years. The Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites got along fine before the Baathists came to power and they'll get along fine after they are removed.

"Democracy" is always installed by the PEOPLE, and never FORCED on a population.

The US did it in Japan and Germany...and they'll do it in Iraq.

CrazyPete,
You probably think Chamberlain deserved the peace prize.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 5:12 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

Ghost Writer

30th March 2003, 04:12

"I'm fairly sure they are not going to give that award to the guy who started WWIII

By the way, It's ok to take down the union jack now, Austrailia independant now!"

What makes you so sure, RC? They gave it to the world's biggest terrorist, Arafat. They gave it to the world's biggest communist, Jimmy Carter, for brokering a deal that has made the world less safe, and more prone to WWIII. I see you objection. They won't actually give it to a man whose true interest is peace.

Zombie

30th March 2003, 04:15

They gave it to the world's biggest terrorist, Arafat.
and if i recall well, they also gave it to Rabin. Because at that time, BOTH parties were well on their way to a peace process. then came the horsemen of the apocalypse, Barak Netenyahu and... Sharon.

world's biggest communist, Jimmy Carter
thats right, now blame Carter for Bush's mess... how cute.

They won't actually give it to a man whose true interest is peace.
humor again!

Pete

30th March 2003, 04:16

"They gave it to the world's biggest communist, Jimmy Carter,"

edit: what I had here was stupid. How the hell is Jimmy Carter a communist??

LL, Chamberline was a fool, but I doubt you understand Jean's proposal. It was to set a deadline and then go in if the deadline was not met, a UN led continginate would go in. That is much more peaceful than what Bush is doing. Also my example of Pearson shows that I would not think someone like Chambline should get it. Pearson advocated to meet two opposing forces with a neutral force. Peace Keeping. That is the corner stone of the UN today, and is why he won the Nobel Peace prize and probaly had a lot to do with his election, but he was also elected because Dief was selling us out to America...but that is for another thread.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 11:18 pm on Mar. 29, 2003)

Liberty Lover

30th March 2003, 04:18

LL, Chamberline was a fool, but I doubt you understand Jean's proposal.

Like most people outside of Canada, I don't really care what it's leaders have to say

Pete

30th March 2003, 04:22

Well of course pro-yankees dont. They think they can walk over us and cry when they meet resistance, as Mr. Cellucii during the week.

But the proposal was supported by numerous of the Nonpermant members, and was picking up steam before Bush came crashing through with hightened war talks and there 'intense diplomacy' to gain backing for war.

I still do not see the arguement as for why Bush should be even thought of for this honour, and you didn't rebute my statement that he shouldn't.

Liberty Lover

30th March 2003, 04:32

But the proposal was supported by numerous of the Nonpermant members, and was picking up steam before Bush came crashing through with hightened war talks and there 'intense diplomacy' to gain backing for war.

Any proposal that did not advocate the removal of Saddam was a proposal of appeament.

I still do not see the arguement as for why Bush should be even thought of for this honour, and you didn't rebute my statement that he shouldn't.

Read my opening post. Also...he is preventing the likes of Maddas, Kim Jong ill and Assad from aqcuiring means that would allow them to plunge the world into chaos.

Ghost Writer

30th March 2003, 04:37

Let's not forget about Mohammed Anwar al Sadat won the prize in 1978, just take a look at his historical ties with peace. (http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/wa/HWCDA/file?fileid=318979&flt=High_School&pathTitles=/Leaders_Personalities/Al-Sadat_Mohammed_Anwar/Sadat_Anwar_al-_(Columbia_Encyclopedia)&version=2&tg=Regional)

Pete

30th March 2003, 04:40

You do not even know the contents of it! And you pass judgement that it is appeasement? *sighs* Educate your self (http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/documents/cdn_un_proposal.html).

All the nations who have lined up behind America are appeasing a bloodthirsty regime. Bush is a tyrant in the Greek sense. He was not even elected properly under the messed up American system of Republican Democracy. Judges picked him over Gore. By threatening economic punishment Bush has proved himself an economic terrorist, using fear to propell possible dissenters to do his bidding. Chamberline was afraid of war, so he appeased Germany. Italy and Spain are afraid of economic punishment so they appease America. The true appeasers are those who support Bush, not those who support peace.

"Read my opening post. Also...he is preventing the likes of Maddas, Kim Jong ill and Assad from aqcuiring means that would allow them to plunge the world into chaos. "

I read your opening post. But he is allowing his generals to plunge the world into chaos.

And you are still avoiding the bulk of my previous posts, which refute your claim.

Pete

30th March 2003, 04:41

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 11:37 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
Let's not forget about Mohammed Anwar al Sadat won the prize in 1978, just take a look at his historical ties with peace. (http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/wa/HWCDA/file?fileid=318979&flt=High_School&pathTitles=/Leaders_Personalities/Al-Sadat_Mohammed_Anwar/Sadat_Anwar_al-_(Columbia_Encyclopedia)&version=2&tg=Regional)

He was assininated for supporting peace. He moved to end conflict, not begin in.

Liberty Lover

30th March 2003, 04:55

You do not even know the contents of it! And you pass judgement that it is appeasement? *sighs* Educate your self.

It did not involve the unconditional removal of Maddas from power...it is therefore a policy of appeasement.

He was not even elected properly under the messed up American system of Republican Democracy. Judges picked him over Gore.

I don't know enough about this particular issue to comment...I will leave it up to Stormin Norman.

But he is allowing his generals to plunge the world into chaos.

He is allowing his generals to end the reign of an agressive tyrant and liberate an opressed people

Italy and Spain are afraid of economic punishment so they appease America.

Jose Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi are conservative (and non-Gaullist) leaders, that is why they support the removal of Maddas.

Next, they should be intelligent and be able to face conflicts logically do avoid blood shed. Again Bush is counted out, as he pushed for war instead of thinking about peace. Never once did he say 'let us continue the inspections' he told the world again and again 'we need to go to war with iraq.' Peacefull? Ya right. This time we must also take out those in for finacial reasons. This leaves us with Canada, and the nonpermanent members

This policy was based on the correct belief that peace in a world with people like Maddas in it is impossible.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 5:56 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

Pete

30th March 2003, 05:07

The reason why countries like Canada opposed Americas move is because of something called Sovriegnty. I do now know if you understand this concept, but I will assume that you do since it is the pillar of international law. The change must come from the inside, by intervening in this way, which America has a history of, they are breaking the one essential piece of International Law.

We digress. Because Bush supports the removal of Hussien he should be given the Nobel Peace Prize? If the Bush advocated disarment maybe, but not regime change. Your claim is ridiculous.

I described what my view of todays appeasement is, you differ with me on that, that is your right. Yet, LL, try to look at it from a different perspective. I have looked at it from yours, the media shoves it down my throat so much that if I watch TV or listen to the radio or even read the paper I cannot avoid it. Maybe, just maybe, you will see something that you did not try and grasp. That the nations that do not support America's intervention are not appeasing a superpower. They are standing against the most powerful nation, proving their own sovriegnty and looking around to see friends incase America comes knocking at there door.

As for the appeasement of Saddam, most nations follow the law of Sovriegnty, and naturaly oppose America's move. That is not appeasing Saddam, that is respecting Iraq's selfdetermination which America will surely not do.

We digress. These arguements of Appeasement are for a different thread, but America is the one seeking appeasement, or else it would not b calling the nations who didn't pat it on its tummy names and threatening economic warfare.

Please. Think about it.

Liberty Lover

30th March 2003, 05:19

Social Democrat

30th March 2003, 05:53

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 9:19 pm on Mar. 29, 2003

9/11 reminded the world of the consequences of allowing dangerous people and groups to go about their business without armed opposition.

We brought 9/11 upon ourselves because of our foreign policy. We just need a scapegoat... Ah! That's it! Arabs! Them dirty ragheads just wanna disrupt our "freedom & democracy!"
9/11 WAS OUR FAULT. That doesn't justify it, but it was our fault.
Attacks will continue unless we:

a) Construct a more fair and just foreign policy

B) Conquer the globe, repressing the people who express dissent against our almighty, glorious, Blessed-by-God regime.

I don't like option b much, but it seems to be where we're heading... :(

synthesis

30th March 2003, 05:58

9/11 reminded the world of the consequences of allowing dangerous people and groups to go about their business without armed opposition. The funny thing about this statement and its phrasing in particular is that the Bush regime is a dangerous group composed of dangerous people and the 9/11 attacks were, in fact, the armed opposition :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

International law: The preventer of free nations spreading their ideals of liberty and democracyYeah, I'm sure you spread liberty and democracy to Chile, Laos... hell, I've given you this list before, and you still keep on talking this bullshit. Incorrigibility at its finest :biggrin:

Liberty Lover

30th March 2003, 07:53

Quote: from Social Democrat on 6:53 am on Mar. 30, 2003

We brought 9/11 upon ourselves because of our foreign policy. We just need a scapegoat... Ah! That's it! Arabs! Them dirty ragheads just wanna disrupt our "freedom & democracy!"
9/11 WAS OUR FAULT. That doesn't justify it, but it was our fault.
Attacks will continue unless we:

a) Construct a more fair and just foreign policy

B) Conquer the globe, repressing the people who express dissent against our almighty, glorious, Blessed-by-God regime.

I don't like option b much, but it seems to be where we're heading... :(

9/11 was a consequence of the weak foriegn policy employed by pre-9/11 governments. The failure of the Clinton administration to invade Afghanistan following the bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania was an open invitation to Al-qaeda to continue killing Americans.

Bin Laden has cited Australia has a terrorist target because we helped liberate East Timor from Indonesia, "invaded muslim land" as he puts it.

America and her allies are hated by terrorists for their determination to spread democracy. That is why they target us...a soft foreign policy is what allows them to suceed.

Liberty Lover

30th March 2003, 07:59

Yeah, I'm sure you spread liberty and democracy to Chile, Laos... hell, I've given you this list before, and you still keep on talking this bullshit. Incorrigibility at its finest

You tell me this often and each time I address it. America intervened in many countries throughout the cold war inorder prevent them from falling in to the hands of Soviet puppet governments. Sometimes dictatorships were necessary to fully abolish Soviet influence in these nations. Had America failed to do this the USSR would have won the cold war, and thus completley destroyed concepts of liberty.

synthesis

30th March 2003, 08:17

Yeah, but you still haven't addressed how violently upheaving the democracy and liberty of these countries was, in fact, bringing them democracy and liberty. All you've given are a bunch of bullshit what-if predictions and barely tangential justifications.

synthesis

30th March 2003, 08:19

double post

(Edited by DyerMaker at 9:19 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

Sirion

30th March 2003, 09:43

If Bush gets the Nobel Peace Prize, I will emigrate from Norway.

Well, untill that hapens, we must remember that Castro was nominated a few years ago

Pete

30th March 2003, 14:41

International law: The preventer of free nations spreading their ideals of liberty and democracy.

This statement is complete bullshit. I would like to tell everyone to disregard it.

9/11 reminded the world of the consequences of allowing dangerous people and groups to go about their business without armed opposition.

9/11 was a sad day. It was a day where a few thousand people died. Yet it was also the result of America's forgien policy since WWII. I remember Americans getting mad when CBC aired an interview where Jean Chretien said this. Those who support America refuse to view its faults, and see everything as a new begining, not the effect of old beginnings.

America and her allies are hated by terrorists for their determination to spread democracy. That is why they target us...a soft foreign policy is what allows them to suceed.

America and her allies are hated. That is true. Yet the terrorists also hate Saddam Hussien. I believe they called him an infidel, so your logic is flawed here, since Hussien has no connection to the Al Queada (which means "My Base" and Bush made a speech about his "base" therefore Bush is in league with the Al Queada using Americas logic).

It is a soft domestic will that has allowed the years of oppression by the American government to occur. With no choice in elections, they get the same basic deal from two extremely similar parties, America is forced to intervene and topple democracies. They have been doing it before the cold war, so it is not a phenomena of that era as you may hope to believe it is.

Liberty Lover, your reasons for Bush getting the Nobel Peace Prize are horribly weak. I suggest you look at them again and see if this bloodthirsty man is truly the one you think should be recongized for ending wars in this world.

Sirion

30th March 2003, 14:48

Well, I doubt we have to worry, only the leader of the Norwegian Progressive Party (Nationalistic neo-liberal party, racistic and etremely populistic. The largest party in Norway... outside voting times. Then, they shrink to half their size or so), Carl Ivar Hagen has been stupid enought to suggest to nominate Bush...

RedCeltic

30th March 2003, 14:53

What? You don't even know the Australian falg? The union jack has been on it since federation in 1901.

I know that's the Austrailian flag... I was saying that they should take the Union Jack off. It's a symbol of imperialism.

Ghost Writer

30th March 2003, 15:16

Crazy Pete,

Let's just forget about the fact that Saddat was a German Officer during World War II, neglect to mention his use of terrorism as a political weapon, and his the attacks he ordered on Israel. Then let's put a big medal around his neck that is suppose to represent world peace. You don't see a problem with that? You don't think that defeats the whole meaning of the prize? Why are leftist so willing to defend such men, and undermine their own stated purposes in the process? If someone offered me the peace prize, I know I have a reserved seat in hell.

Pete

30th March 2003, 15:24

Ghostwriter, he still moved for peace in the end. That is why he won it, for becoming the first Arab leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Bush is not moving for peace now.

I am not defending everything that Saddat has done, only that he moved to end bloodshed in the end, which is why he won.

Why is that rightwingers tend to avoid the arguements that are difficult to answer? And just attack small points like this. Anyways, how does this support the original arguement that Bush deserves the Peace Prize?

Ghost Writer

30th March 2003, 15:29

Yeah, we tend to concentrate on the small things like being a German officer, a terrorists, and signing a peace treaty with Israel, only after losing multiple wars that Egypt started. Your right, Saddat was a real peacemonger, like Arafat.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 4:30 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

Pete

30th March 2003, 17:07

You are forcing me into a position where I must defend someone who I have no will to defend.

Saddat won the prize for supporting peace between his bitter enemy. He got his ass kicked and was a bastard. But before he died he was supporting Peace.

I will not defend that asshole past this post, since my heart is not in it to defend him. I do not support his actions.

Ghost Writer

30th March 2003, 17:21

Then it would be wrong for you to defend the integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize system as well.

Pete

30th March 2003, 17:43

I am saying that Bush does not deserve the Peace Prize. I have said why he does not deserve it. If the council that decides is corrupt I cannot change/control that. I would hope that they had there heads screwed on properly, but that is only a hope I can make.

I also hope that all the idoits that want Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize realize that it is about Peace not war.

noone

30th March 2003, 17:55

Can anyone guess what the nobel PEACE prize is for? Last time I checked it was an award for peace, it should not matter if what someone is doing is "right" or "wrong" and if they are liberating or opressing a people. Bush does not deserve the award for the simple reason that he is not promoting peace. That aside he does not deserve any award for impressing his false democracy on another country, and using the weapons he will not let them have against them. Does anyone know who will get the rights to the oil after we "liberate" Iraq? I beleive Halliburton (what's that you say? Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton? how convenient) Bush is in the war to avenge his fathers insult and make himself a tidy fortune.

Liberty Lover

31st March 2003, 07:45

9/11 was a sad day. It was a day where a few thousand people died. Yet it was also the result of America's forgien policy since WWII. I remember Americans getting mad when CBC aired an interview where Jean Chretien said this. Those who support America refuse to view its faults, and see everything as a new begining, not the effect of old beginnings.

American foreign policy since WWII has involved, primarily, eliminating communism from the face of the earth. In other words it involved defending democracy. So yes, you are correct in your belief that American foreign policy was one reason Bin Laden attacked.

America and her allies are hated. That is true. Yet the terrorists also hate Saddam Hussien. I believe they called him an infidel, so your logic is flawed here, since Hussien has no connection to the Al Queada (which means "My Base" and Bush made a speech about his "base" therefore Bush is in league with the Al Queada using Americas logic).

Saddam dosn't pose the threat to Al Qaeda's Islamo- fascist ideals that American democracy does. Therefore they choose not to attack him.

It is a soft domestic will that has allowed the years of oppression by the American government to occur. With no choice in elections, they get the same basic deal from two extremely similar parties

There are alternative parties in the US. The reason Americans don't vote for them is because they are intelligent.

America is forced to intervene and topple democracies. They have been doing it before the cold war, so it is not a phenomena of that era as you may hope to believe it is.

Before the Cold War America topled governments for their economic interests not for self-defence. Just like every other industrialised nation was doing at the time, the only difference being that the US did it far less.

Liberty Lover, your reasons for Bush getting the Nobel Peace Prize are horribly weak. I suggest you look at them again and see if this bloodthirsty man is truly the one you think should be recongized for ending wars in this world.

He his starting a small war in order to avoid larger ones later on. His goal is a lasting peace.

I know that's the Austrailian flag... I was saying that they should take the Union Jack off. It's a symbol of imperialism.

Yes well, we are going to have to wait until the next republican referendum.

Does anyone know who will get the rights to the oil after we "liberate" Iraq? I beleive Halliburton (what's that you say? Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton? how convenient) Bush is in the war to avenge his fathers insult and make himself a tidy fortune.

There are no plans to privatise Iraqi oil.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 11:16 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

Pete

31st March 2003, 12:56

"Saddam dosn't pose the threat to Al Qaeda's Islamo- fascist ideals that American democracy does. Therefore they choose not to attack him. "

False, Saddam is in Al Qaeda's play ground. All this war will do is strengthen Al Qaeda's and other group's power, since war causes fear, and fear causes people to do extreme things, such as suspended liberty in America or joining a terrorist organization.

"There are alternative parties in the US. The reason Americans don't vote for them is because they are intelligent. "

They have 1 alternate party, and it has no where near the funding to attract the tv-addicted (like soma) masses of America to them. The money wins the election in America.

"He his starting a small war in order to avoid larger ones later on. His goal is a lasting peace. "

I doubt this war will be small. He has already called on Syria and Iran for there citizens volunteering to fight against Americans. That is what happened in Canada and America and Britian, as well as most likely Australia, during the Spanish Civil war but the Nazi's did not tell our governments it was there fault. And the peace that comes will be a peace of Israel...

"There are no plans to privatise Iraqi oil. "

America is already selling the rights.

Liberty Lover

1st April 2003, 07:38

False, Saddam is in Al Qaeda's play ground. All this war will do is strengthen Al Qaeda's and other group's power, since war causes fear, and fear causes people to do extreme things, such as suspended liberty in America or joining a terrorist organization.

So because America may become a greater immediate target because of this war you think they should not have innitiated it? Britain were made a greater immediate target when they declared war on Germany. But in the end it was what allowed them to maintain there Sovereignty.

They have 1 alternate party, and it has no where near the funding to attract the tv-addicted (like soma) masses of America to them. The money wins the election in America.

They have a plethora of pointless parties that they can choose from (The "atheist party" the "arm the population party" the "three day weekend party" and even something as ludicrous as the "communist party" ). The Republican and Democratic parties are the only ones that offer something other than economic mismanagement.

I think what you are trying to say is that everyone who isn't a communist is either stupid or evil.

America is already selling the rights.

Incorrect. They are selling the rights to repair damaged oil rigs, not the rights to the oil itself.

I doubt this war will be small. He has already called on Syria and Iran for there citizens volunteering to fight against Americans. That is what happened in Canada and America and Britian, as well as most likely Australia, during the Spanish Civil war but the Nazi's did not tell our governments it was there fault. And the peace that comes will be a peace of Israel...

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you comparing the situation in Europe leading up to WWII to the situation in the Middle East today?

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 8:55 am on April 1, 2003)

Pete

1st April 2003, 12:30

So because America may become a greater immediate target because of this war you think they should not have innitiated it? Britain were made a greater immediate target when they declared war on Germany. But in the end it was what allowed them to maintain there Sovereignty.

You cannot compare terrorists to Nazi Germany. The parallel just does not exist. There are terrrorist organizations in the middle east. Terror is a product of push. The biggest push is fear. War causes fear. See my line of thought? If the people are afraid of you they will try to hurt you where you can't hurt them. Therefore more terrorist activity against America, and likely in America after the war has started as a direct side effect.

They have a plethora of pointless parties that they can choose from

In America you require funding, and lots of it, to win an election. It is more money than anything, as we saw with the last presidential elections. These parties have no chance to make themsevles heard even if they wanted to. The rich perscribe mostly to the two Big Boys and therefore they effectively rule the country. Some of those parties do seem pointless though. Atheist party? What the fuck??

The Republican and Democratic parties are the only ones that offer something other than economic mismanagement.

100 bill in tax cuts for the overly rich and the cut of programs is not good economic management. Aswell I believe that because of Bush's war spendings America has been in deficiet since his regime began.

I think what you are trying to say is that everyone who isn't a communist is either stupid or evil.

And I think you are somehow twisting my words.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you comparing the situation in Europe leading up to WWII to the situation in the Middle East today?

No I am comparing the way people volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil war to how Arabs are volunteering to fight in Iraq. No further than that.