|
|
#62
07-13-2005, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So now I will explain you something, [censored]
[ QUOTE ]
You expressed in the [censored]-ology thread that you felt that some/many/all liberals do not fully respect democracy [/ QUOTE ] What does democracy have to do with the US? 
|
|
#63
07-13-2005, 11:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So now I will explain you something, [censored]
Interesting point. We don't live in a democracy, so, indeed, what does democracy have to do with the US?
|
|
#64
07-13-2005, 12:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So now I will explain you something, [censored]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting point. We don't live in a democracy, so, indeed, what does democracy have to do with the US? [/ QUOTE ] Technically true, but in the previous thread which this one was based on. We had be discussing a democratic government simply as a government who allows the people to decide the laws with any number of types of mechanisms. In the US this happens to be the mechanism of a republic. Also once again morewin has failed to understand the entire point of thread and thus is reduced to rather silly posts like the one before yours.
|
|
#65
07-13-2005, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So now I will explain you something, [censored]
Actually, I didn't even read most of the thread. Just that particular phrase in the OP stood out and I felt compelled to comment on it.
And loosen up dude, it's just a discussion. In the grand scheme of things, it means nothing. No need for insults or barbs.
|
|
#66
07-13-2005, 12:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So now I will explain you something, [censored]
[ QUOTE ]
loosen up dude [/ QUOTE ] sounds good.
|
|
#67
07-13-2005, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So now I will explain you something, [censored]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick: Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004 [/ QUOTE ] The choices are stark, because of the attitudes expressed by [censored] in this thread, who seems to think because you are bigger and stronger you can act like an arsehole with impunity, this is ignorant and far from true. Mack [/ QUOTE ] Clearly this is true. Is the US subject to any form of international law that it does wish to be subject to? the anwser is no and therefoe currently the US can act with impunity when it wants to. You may not like this, but I don't see how you are argueing that it is not the reality. [/ QUOTE ] How far do you your national sovereignity go, [censored]? Could the US build a chemical plant in Southern Texas close to Mexico which would only eject the waste into the air when wind blows southwards? I know it is an extreme example, but what I am curious about is if you think a nation has full freedom to act in self-interest when dealing with other nations or does a nation carry a moral responsibility that disallows it to do harm to other nations?
|
|
#68
07-13-2005, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So now I will explain you something, [censored]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick: Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004 [/ QUOTE ] The choices are stark, because of the attitudes expressed by [censored] in this thread, who seems to think because you are bigger and stronger you can act like an arsehole with impunity, this is ignorant and far from true. Mack [/ QUOTE ] Clearly this is true. Is the US subject to any form of international law that it does wish to be subject to? the anwser is no and therefoe currently the US can act with impunity when it wants to. You may not like this, but I don't see how you are argueing that it is not the reality. [/ QUOTE ] How far do you your national sovereignity go, [censored]? Could the US build a chemical plant in Southern Texas close to Mexico which would only eject the waste into the air when wind blows southwards? I know it is an extreme example, but what I am curious about is if you think a nation has full freedom to act in self-interest when dealing with other nations or does a nation carry a moral responsibility that disallows it to do harm to other nations? [/ QUOTE ] Could the US? Clearly so. What could possibly stop the US if that is what it wanted to do? The only question is should the US? And that is a value judgement. I would choose no.
|
|
#69
07-13-2005, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The UN is a Corrupt Den of Snakes and They Deserve......
[ QUOTE ]
There was an armistice signed after the first Gulf war. Iraq promised to abide by the terms of the armistice. They did NOT on SEVERAL occasions. They even fired upon coalition aircraft. Hussein even tried to assassinate Bush41 on his visit to Kuwait. Because of the actions of Saddam Hussein and his violations of the armistice, the USA was free to attack Iraq at any point they chose to (clinton did several times). But Bush43 chose to go thru the UN. This was respect the UN did not deserve. What he encountered was a corrupt UN taking bribes from Saddam Hussein and ignoring their own resolutions. I would love to see the USA leave the UN and kick them out of New York... [/ QUOTE ] Would you start killing criminals in the US if you thought your government was corrupt? [ QUOTE ] Take North Korea. Are you aware that the USA is still legally at war with North Korea? North Korea would not sign a peace treaty. There is only a cease fire. When I was in the Army is was common knowledge that fire fights occured between US soldiers and North Korean soldiers. North Korea is also a mass counterfeiter of US dollars. The equipment to make money is made by a Swiss firm and North Korea purchased this equipment and is engaged in mass counterfeiting of US money. To me, this alone is grounds for war. [/ QUOTE ] North Korea is a different legal issue as you point out because the war never ended. [ QUOTE ] Right now the USA is involved in worthless negoiations with North Korea. Bush43 thinks the Chinese will help to keep North Korea from going nuclear but he is wrong. The policy of China is to surplant the USA influence in that region and they see North Korea as a way to tie up the USA. Don't be surprise if the USA attacks North Korea without the UN's 'permission'. We do not need it. The USA is a sovereign nation subject to ONLY its laws. [/ QUOTE ] US would never do it without a silent acceptance from China. China would attack South Korea and maybe Taiwan leaving US in a difficult position (remember that the truce was made so that US would not have to deploy more troops into Korea).
|
|
#70
07-13-2005, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So now I will explain you something, [censored]
[ QUOTE ]
Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament. US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire. ************************************************** *** A strong economy is the foundation for having a strong military. This has been truth for every war since the beginning of man-kind. Western-Europe has adopted a social welfare state economy that is anti-business (high taxes puntive laws) with high overhead due to the social programs. Europe can't support a strong military and their social programs at the same time. I have my doubts they can continue to fund their social programs. It is WISHFUL thinking to believe Europe can build a strong military. [/ QUOTE ] The US society is more structured towards a strong military than European societies. Many nations in Europe prioritize helping the poor in society to buying weapons while US is somewhat in a "state of war". Thus it is natural that US military spending will continue to be higher than in Europe.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
