Right, a few rules before we start this time. No flaming. No intolerance of anybody else's viewpoint. No deciding you don't like the topic, and trying to tell people what they can discuss. This goes for everybody from now on.
Right, now we got the unpleasant bit out of the way, lets begin anew shall we?
p.s. yes Channler, those were the original rules, but seeing as how everyone seemed to forget them last time, I thought I'd make a little pointed reminder.
Full Version: Waiting4oblivion Parliament
Welcome to the Waiting4Oblivion Parliament!
---
Rules
1. Very simple, follow all W4O rules and orders, respect the moderators and administraitors, respect the members of W4O, and respect yourself.
2. Absolutely No Flaming One for Their Beliefs. Just because you do not concur with them doesn't require you to be disrespectful.
3. To keep this as neat and orderly as possible, please quote the statement you are arguing against or for. Please do not let quotes pyramid.
4. Please make posts relevent to the present topic. You can take breaks at the coffee shop across the street to ramble on.
5. For the sake of keeping this thread alive, PLEASE NO DISCUSSION OF RELIGION AT THE MOMENT. At least not until we can get the go ahead from the Adms. and Mods.
Lets make this as enjoyable and civil as possible, thanks.
Those were the original rules... but anything the mods and adms say is God compared to my words.
-=-=-=-
So what were we talking about?
---
Rules
1. Very simple, follow all W4O rules and orders, respect the moderators and administraitors, respect the members of W4O, and respect yourself.
2. Absolutely No Flaming One for Their Beliefs. Just because you do not concur with them doesn't require you to be disrespectful.
3. To keep this as neat and orderly as possible, please quote the statement you are arguing against or for. Please do not let quotes pyramid.
4. Please make posts relevent to the present topic. You can take breaks at the coffee shop across the street to ramble on.
5. For the sake of keeping this thread alive, PLEASE NO DISCUSSION OF RELIGION AT THE MOMENT. At least not until we can get the go ahead from the Adms. and Mods.
Lets make this as enjoyable and civil as possible, thanks.
Those were the original rules... but anything the mods and adms say is God compared to my words.
-=-=-=-
So what were we talking about?
What are your views on the US-India nuclear "agreement".
We have a US-India nuclear "agreement"? I didn't know that... 
I'll check on that tonight
Anyways, what are your veiws on it?
I'll check on that tonight
Anyways, what are your veiws on it?
The Indian Prime Minister visited earlier this month, and spoke with President Bush.
Anyhow, I don't mind it because India has agreed to have it's civillian nuclear facilities under UN inspection.
As well as it helps bring energy supply to a rather large nation. Perhaps nuclear energy may help replace oil for many appliances. That could help relieve the strain on the price of oil here in the US.
Seeing as how India's car industry just grew 17% the last year.
Anyhow, I don't mind it because India has agreed to have it's civillian nuclear facilities under UN inspection.
As well as it helps bring energy supply to a rather large nation. Perhaps nuclear energy may help replace oil for many appliances. That could help relieve the strain on the price of oil here in the US.
Seeing as how India's car industry just grew 17% the last year.
To be honest I don't know much about the US-India nuclear agreement. 
Perhaps someone could give a rundown of what it is.
As far as UN inspection goes. I don't have a lot of faith in UN inspectors, or the UN for that matter (but I supose thats an issue better left for latter), but some inspection is probably better than none. Personally, I don't have too many fears of India trying to exploite nuclear power for nefarious perposes, but I could always be wrong about that.
Perhaps someone could give a rundown of what it is.As far as UN inspection goes. I don't have a lot of faith in UN inspectors, or the UN for that matter (but I supose thats an issue better left for latter), but some inspection is probably better than none. Personally, I don't have too many fears of India trying to exploite nuclear power for nefarious perposes, but I could always be wrong about that.
"Perhaps nuclear energy may help replace oil for many appliances."
Oh I see, nuclear energy, not weapons, I wasn't sure what you meant. I'll have to check up on this as well because I'm confused.
Oh I see, nuclear energy, not weapons, I wasn't sure what you meant. I'll have to check up on this as well because I'm confused.
It reminds me of a episode of the Daily Show
Bush: We can't sit down and let this happen anymore. There is an energy crisis... coming up. We can't rely on oil anymore okay? We can't... we have to look at alternative fuels.
Stewert (commentary to this clip): Yes exactly, I agree. A fine point, continue.
Bush: We have many men looking into coal production...
Stewert: ...
Bush: Are you aware we have not had a nuclear power plant erected in this country since the 80s?
Stewert: I wonder why...
They say something like if every American household had 1 solar panel on their roof we would have enough energy for five nuclear power-plants or something. I think Bush is afraid to talk any sort of alternative fuels that the liberals favor, like the ones that work.
Bush: We can't sit down and let this happen anymore. There is an energy crisis... coming up. We can't rely on oil anymore okay? We can't... we have to look at alternative fuels.
Stewert (commentary to this clip): Yes exactly, I agree. A fine point, continue.
Bush: We have many men looking into coal production...
Stewert: ...
Bush: Are you aware we have not had a nuclear power plant erected in this country since the 80s?
Stewert: I wonder why...
They say something like if every American household had 1 solar panel on their roof we would have enough energy for five nuclear power-plants or something. I think Bush is afraid to talk any sort of alternative fuels that the liberals favor, like the ones that work.
QUOTE(DoomedOne @ Jul 27 2005, 06:04 PM)
They say something like if every American household had 1 solar panel on their roof we would have enough energy for five nuclear power-plants or something. I think Bush is afraid to talk any sort of alternative fuels that the liberals favor, like the ones that work.
What kinds of fuels besides solar energy do liberals favor?
I'm all for the hydrogen cells, if it can ever be made to work properly.
Hmm, I'm not sure I like India having nuclear weapons. It may be this is the only way to keep India from getting out hand, so to say, with the weapons though. They already have shown they have, the tech. so the cats out of the bag if you will. Perhaps this is a way of holding india's hand to keep their nuclear power in check rather than not officially recognizing their nuclear power and essentaily turn a blind eye while they run free.
There could also be a middle eastern side to this. India and Pakistan have a lot off bad blood, and alowing India to offically develop nuclear wepons could be a way of trying to keep Pakistan from doing anything dangerous. Ofcourse, it's hard to predict in the middle east, this could just be the provocation Pakistan was waiting for. Who knows...
There could also be a middle eastern side to this. India and Pakistan have a lot off bad blood, and alowing India to offically develop nuclear wepons could be a way of trying to keep Pakistan from doing anything dangerous. Ofcourse, it's hard to predict in the middle east, this could just be the provocation Pakistan was waiting for. Who knows...
Tis true...
Oh yea Doomed, guess what =), my family just bought an SUV =P (remeber that old discussion?)
As for energy, I could care less, as long as it works and doesnt kill the world in 80 years.. that last part was a joke..
But I do agree with you doomed that Bush is to wrapped up in his own interests that he doesn't want to see these alternate fuel things pop up. Same with all these big oil company's
But I still don't think both sides are doing there best on the issue.. I'm sure if there was a poll going around about, Would you mind a nuclear power plant in your city?.. Many people would say, "as long as its cheap"
Oh yea Doomed, guess what =), my family just bought an SUV =P (remeber that old discussion?)
As for energy, I could care less, as long as it works and doesnt kill the world in 80 years.. that last part was a joke..
But I do agree with you doomed that Bush is to wrapped up in his own interests that he doesn't want to see these alternate fuel things pop up. Same with all these big oil company's
But I still don't think both sides are doing there best on the issue.. I'm sure if there was a poll going around about, Would you mind a nuclear power plant in your city?.. Many people would say, "as long as its cheap"
I think we ought to work with the hydrogen cell and research better methods of obtaining energy than ones that could... you know, destroy a whole city and spread cancer for generations as well as making that area uninhabitable for at least 50 years.
PS Channler, with consideration taken of you and the utmost respect, I hope you choke on your SUV. I recommend you watch that show called 30s days y the way, you'd like it, too bad the first season is over but they'll replay it.
PS Channler, with consideration taken of you and the utmost respect, I hope you choke on your SUV. I recommend you watch that show called 30s days y the way, you'd like it, too bad the first season is over but they'll replay it.
So I've been inspired by Channler to switch the debate to a new topic: The UN.
We can start by answering questions like these:
What purpose do you think thr UN serves these days?
What changes do you think should be made to the UN?
What are the pros and cons to the UN of today, and to the UN of your imagination?
We can start by answering questions like these:
What purpose do you think thr UN serves these days?
What changes do you think should be made to the UN?
What are the pros and cons to the UN of today, and to the UN of your imagination?
What purpose do you think thr UN serves these days?
A: Hmm . . that's a hard one . . .give me a few centuries to think about it.
What changes do you think should be made to the UN?
A: Destroy it and replace it with a council of chipmunks . . oh wait, too late.
What are the pros and cons to the UN of today, and to the UN of your imagination?
Pros: We are ruled by a group of Chipmunks.
Cons: Chipmunks are dumb.
Uh, yeah that's about all of my opinion.
Darn those chipmunks. . .
A: Hmm . . that's a hard one . . .give me a few centuries to think about it.
What changes do you think should be made to the UN?
A: Destroy it and replace it with a council of chipmunks . . oh wait, too late.
What are the pros and cons to the UN of today, and to the UN of your imagination?
Pros: We are ruled by a group of Chipmunks.
Cons: Chipmunks are dumb.
Uh, yeah that's about all of my opinion.
Darn those chipmunks. . .
So Gamer knows the tuth about the UN also.Purpose? They serve a few. Dop they do a good job at those few? Not really.
What changes? Agree with Gamer. They should be disbanded.
Pros? They help atlittle bit at keeping peace in some places.
Cons? Mostly they don't make any diffrence in the places they go.
Thats not true in the least, the UN troops draw plenty of fire away from Americans. 
Just kidding but seriously they aren't equipped to be in a firefight, they are equipped for peace keeping duties but at times the two are one in the same. They aren't given enough ammo and they aren't ordered to fire until it's way too late in most cases. There aren't enough of them in Iraq to make much of a difference anyways and thats where I stand on the matter.
Just kidding but seriously they aren't equipped to be in a firefight, they are equipped for peace keeping duties but at times the two are one in the same. They aren't given enough ammo and they aren't ordered to fire until it's way too late in most cases. There aren't enough of them in Iraq to make much of a difference anyways and thats where I stand on the matter.
Time to drop some knowledge.
On matters of War and Peace, it's the Security Council branch of the UN making decisions. They consist of 5 permanent members and 10 non permanent members that rotate in. The p5 get a veto vote, that means whenever they're trying to agree on a resolution (like they have been for the last few years in Israel) if one of the p5 members votes against the resolution, it fails. The veto power was originally pushed by Stalin when the Security council was created. None of the other p5 countries (France, UK, China and the US) were in favor of one, but they got one anyway.
During the Cold War, the USSR and the US were basically vetoing each other's resolutions so nothing could pass.
The same is happening in the conflict in Israel
When the UN does pass a resolution, it's mostly the US troops that enforce this resolution.
Aside from the Security Council, the UN is actually a very productive institution. They have spread funds all throughout the world and have used their money much more productively than most other Relief Organizations. It was through their council that many countries have found peaceful resolutions to large problems.
The UN is not useless, want to know why they're chipmunks though? because the veto. Obviously nothing can be done as long as the veto remains. France voted against any resolution that favored Israel too much, for example. The US vetoed anything that did not favor Israel too much. Here's the best part, whenever a resolution comes up to destroy the veto, it's the US and China going against it. Here we have the entire UN being held by a tyrannical pillar, and the US and China can't even think democratically enough to realize it.
I find the UN to be an absolutely necessary instituion in this world. You guys only hear the bad though, like how the Security Council vetoes all of the US' decisions in matters of war.
My idea of a UN, though, would include every single country on the planet. From there they would all have to agree on a UN constitution, It would help Unite the world if we were all under the same basic constitution. Everything illegal would be agreed as illegal by every nation. There would be Universal standards. This way, once one country gets out of line, every single other country is against them.
On matters of War and Peace, it's the Security Council branch of the UN making decisions. They consist of 5 permanent members and 10 non permanent members that rotate in. The p5 get a veto vote, that means whenever they're trying to agree on a resolution (like they have been for the last few years in Israel) if one of the p5 members votes against the resolution, it fails. The veto power was originally pushed by Stalin when the Security council was created. None of the other p5 countries (France, UK, China and the US) were in favor of one, but they got one anyway.
During the Cold War, the USSR and the US were basically vetoing each other's resolutions so nothing could pass.
The same is happening in the conflict in Israel
When the UN does pass a resolution, it's mostly the US troops that enforce this resolution.
Aside from the Security Council, the UN is actually a very productive institution. They have spread funds all throughout the world and have used their money much more productively than most other Relief Organizations. It was through their council that many countries have found peaceful resolutions to large problems.
The UN is not useless, want to know why they're chipmunks though? because the veto. Obviously nothing can be done as long as the veto remains. France voted against any resolution that favored Israel too much, for example. The US vetoed anything that did not favor Israel too much. Here's the best part, whenever a resolution comes up to destroy the veto, it's the US and China going against it. Here we have the entire UN being held by a tyrannical pillar, and the US and China can't even think democratically enough to realize it.
I find the UN to be an absolutely necessary instituion in this world. You guys only hear the bad though, like how the Security Council vetoes all of the US' decisions in matters of war.
My idea of a UN, though, would include every single country on the planet. From there they would all have to agree on a UN constitution, It would help Unite the world if we were all under the same basic constitution. Everything illegal would be agreed as illegal by every nation. There would be Universal standards. This way, once one country gets out of line, every single other country is against them.
To bad for all this to happen we'd have to stop killing each other for at least 24 hours...
No joke, but I agree, the Veto kills the purpose of the UN..
No joke, but I agree, the Veto kills the purpose of the UN..
QUOTE(Channler @ Jul 28 2005, 08:51 PM)
To bad for all this to happen we'd have to stop killing each other for at least 24 hours...
No joke, but I agree, the Veto kills the purpose of the UN..
No joke, but I agree, the Veto kills the purpose of the UN..
I have an idea, let's give the veto to every nation. That way nothing would get passed.
Or we could just give it to a few nations that represent less than half of the worlds people and let them decide for everyone else . .
Wait, nevermind.
I don't think there should be UN vetos, or EU vetos or any vetos, beacause it's unjust.
This is my point.
The country that has a government that has been telling its people for the last 5 years that the UN is completely useless and should be disbanded, has been protecting the very thing that made it useless. It was the veto that stopped troops from acting in Iraq, and when that happened the US said the UN was useless, but when something turns up that involves pollution regulation, it's the US that hides behind the veto, and nobody else. The US government uses the UN to stop many other countries from doing something productive, but when we can't do something productive, suddenly the entire country comes rushing behind this "It should be disbanded" stance.
There, sorry I had to corner you guys like that.
The country that has a government that has been telling its people for the last 5 years that the UN is completely useless and should be disbanded, has been protecting the very thing that made it useless. It was the veto that stopped troops from acting in Iraq, and when that happened the US said the UN was useless, but when something turns up that involves pollution regulation, it's the US that hides behind the veto, and nobody else. The US government uses the UN to stop many other countries from doing something productive, but when we can't do something productive, suddenly the entire country comes rushing behind this "It should be disbanded" stance.
There, sorry I had to corner you guys like that.
Corner? I was on vacation.
You speak for a few US citizens. I believe the UN is pointless, it had its use in comunism now its a out-dated thing.
Frankly I think the US should just leave the UN.
You speak for a few US citizens. I believe the UN is pointless, it had its use in comunism now its a out-dated thing.
Frankly I think the US should just leave the UN.
Channler, I say this with the utmost respect.
You're on the bandwagon. How much do you know about the UN? Do you know about the hundreds of peace agreement the UN have managed to create over the years? Do you know about hundreds of different relief funds the UN organized in order to help other countries that faced disaster? What most Americans know about the UN was that France vetoed the US' resolution to wage war on Iraq. The UN did not support a selfish, greedy resolution, and in my opinion that's one of the smartest things the Security Council has done. Even without the veto the Security Council turned down the US' resolution, meanwhile the US, being the "grand democracy" that it is constantly hides behind the tyrannical veto in order to make sure resolutions do not pass that don't go in occordance with its own questionable agenda. That's the reason our current regime thinks the UN should no longer exist. No matter how much good it has done and continues to do, because it does not follow the US agenda it should suddenly be disbanded. What happened back in the Reagan era when the Soviet Union fell? Suddenly we were using the UN to our advantage. Suddenly we needed it, and though we acted ungrateful we used it to make ourselves the most powerful country in the world. Now what? A few countries decide to take advantage of the system the same way we did and suddenly it should be destroyed.
Oh, and here's something funny. This country, as of 2004, no longer consists of checks and balances. That entire system has been overturned. This country is split by, what is it? 4 million votes. That's like a drop of water in a bucket. Democrats and Republicans are almost exactly 50-50. However, Republicans control the senate, the house, the presidency, the supreme court... there no longer is equal representation. How does this tie into the UN you ask? Well, obviously that system is faulty, and instead of fixing the problems (any attempt to amend the security council has been harshly denied by the US) everyone wants to get rid of it. Well, this country's system is faulty, so why don't we just get rid of it?
Final comment: The UN is not useless, it is outdated. It needs to be fixed up, amended to suit the current world order. However, ANY attempt made to amend to UN has failed because of the US. It is a great system, it has helped resolve many conflicts and aid many countries in time of crisis, but the US is willing to ignore that because they refuse to fix a faulty system.
You're on the bandwagon. How much do you know about the UN? Do you know about the hundreds of peace agreement the UN have managed to create over the years? Do you know about hundreds of different relief funds the UN organized in order to help other countries that faced disaster? What most Americans know about the UN was that France vetoed the US' resolution to wage war on Iraq. The UN did not support a selfish, greedy resolution, and in my opinion that's one of the smartest things the Security Council has done. Even without the veto the Security Council turned down the US' resolution, meanwhile the US, being the "grand democracy" that it is constantly hides behind the tyrannical veto in order to make sure resolutions do not pass that don't go in occordance with its own questionable agenda. That's the reason our current regime thinks the UN should no longer exist. No matter how much good it has done and continues to do, because it does not follow the US agenda it should suddenly be disbanded. What happened back in the Reagan era when the Soviet Union fell? Suddenly we were using the UN to our advantage. Suddenly we needed it, and though we acted ungrateful we used it to make ourselves the most powerful country in the world. Now what? A few countries decide to take advantage of the system the same way we did and suddenly it should be destroyed.
Oh, and here's something funny. This country, as of 2004, no longer consists of checks and balances. That entire system has been overturned. This country is split by, what is it? 4 million votes. That's like a drop of water in a bucket. Democrats and Republicans are almost exactly 50-50. However, Republicans control the senate, the house, the presidency, the supreme court... there no longer is equal representation. How does this tie into the UN you ask? Well, obviously that system is faulty, and instead of fixing the problems (any attempt to amend the security council has been harshly denied by the US) everyone wants to get rid of it. Well, this country's system is faulty, so why don't we just get rid of it?
Final comment: The UN is not useless, it is outdated. It needs to be fixed up, amended to suit the current world order. However, ANY attempt made to amend to UN has failed because of the US. It is a great system, it has helped resolve many conflicts and aid many countries in time of crisis, but the US is willing to ignore that because they refuse to fix a faulty system.
Typical... You don't want to actually confront someones opinion so you resort to an argument that could be accurately summed up with the childish slogan "well your just brain washed, so <=P!" I thought this was supposed to be a discussion and trading of opinions. I don't think social slandering falls under that description. 
QUOTE(Channler @ Aug 7 2005, 06:09 AM)
Corner? I was on vacation.
You speak for a few US citizens. I believe the UN is pointless, it had its use in comunism now its a out-dated thing.
Frankly I think the US should just leave the UN.
You speak for a few US citizens. I believe the UN is pointless, it had its use in comunism now its a out-dated thing.
Frankly I think the US should just leave the UN.
I hate using this emoticon, but
. So, the US is perfect, and the rest of the world is terrible, and we'll never need their help? We can exist detached from the rest of civilization?
The only help will ever get from the UN is constant reminder of how were supposed to run our goverment. "We should do this and that and if we don't do it then we'll start vetoing things." 
If we split from the UN we still would be part of G8 so we could still keep going without them.
Can someone please tell me what was the latest thing the UN did to help us out as a country? I can't remember... if there was anything in the first place.
If we split from the UN we still would be part of G8 so we could still keep going without them.
Can someone please tell me what was the latest thing the UN did to help us out as a country? I can't remember... if there was anything in the first place.
QUOTE(jonajosa @ Aug 7 2005, 11:11 PM)
The only help will ever get from the UN is constant reminder of how were supposed to run our goverment. "We should do this and that and if we don't do it then we'll start vetoing things."
If we split from the UN we still would be part of G8 so we could still keep going without them.
Can someone please tell me what was the latest thing the UN did to help us out as a country? I can't remember... if there was anything in the first place.
If we split from the UN we still would be part of G8 so we could still keep going without them.
Can someone please tell me what was the latest thing the UN did to help us out as a country? I can't remember... if there was anything in the first place.
They clean up our mess
Newt Gingrich likes them
QUOTE(Stargazey @ Aug 7 2005, 06:08 PM)
I hate using this emoticon, but . So, the US is perfect, and the rest of the world is terrible, and we'll never need their help? We can exist detached from the rest of civilization?
. So, the US is perfect, and the rest of the world is terrible, and we'll never need their help? We can exist detached from the rest of civilization?When did I say the US is perfect?... uh.. never? But it seems that we are doing alot of things that are agianst what PART of the UN thinks is right.
BTW Lemme say that I thought the UN should of been disabandoned when they thought about letting (If they did I have no idea) Fedal Castro (SP) on the security council.
QUOTE(Channler @ Aug 8 2005, 03:04 AM)
When did I say the US is perfect?... uh.. never? But it seems that we are doing alot of things that are agianst what PART of the UN thinks is right.
BTW Lemme say that I thought the UN should of been disabandoned when they thought about letting (If they did I have no idea) Fedal Castro (SP) on the security council.
BTW Lemme say that I thought the UN should of been disabandoned when they thought about letting (If they did I have no idea) Fedal Castro (SP) on the security council.
I never understood why everyone hates Castro. So, he's a communist, big deal. So are thousands of people in the US.
QUOTE(Stargazey @ Aug 8 2005, 03:25 AM)
I never understood why everyone hates Castro. So, he's a communist, big deal. So are thousands of people in the US.
I agree. So Communism is different than what you believe in, big whoop. I've talked to people from Cuba and they said artists and doctors get big help from the government. Though the Cuban missle crisis hurt Communism's reputation.
QUOTE(Stargazey @ Aug 7 2005, 07:25 PM)
I never understood why everyone hates Castro. So, he's a communist, big deal. So are thousands of people in the US.
Yah, thats why hundreds of people risk their lives every year crossing the Gulf of Mexico just to get out of Cuba. That why free speech and religious freedom is so harshly suppressed in Cuba. But hey, big deal right...
Guys, theres way too much sarcasm flying around for this to be a respectful debate. Bring it down a notch.
We all know sarcasm leads to the Dark Side. As well as flame wars.
We all know sarcasm leads to the Dark Side. As well as flame wars.
QUOTE(Fade2gray @ Aug 8 2005, 06:24 AM)
Yah, thats why hundreds of people risk their lives every year crossing the Gulf of Mexico just to get out of Cuba. That why free speech and religious freedom is so harshly suppressed in Cuba. But hey, big deal right...
Do you ever wonder how many people leave the US because they don't like this government?
QUOTE
Do you ever wonder how many people leave the US because they don't like this government?
I don't think thats a bad thing.
I would rather have them complain somewhere else than here.
The world would be a better place if people didnīt complain all the time......all governments have their proīs and conīs.....
I A gree with doomed one in that the UN is old and needs serious remodeling.
QUOTE(minque @ Aug 8 2005, 01:59 PM)
The world would be a better place if people didnīt complain all the time......all governments have their proīs and conīs.....
That does seem to be a lot of what this boils down to doesn't it. People seem to have this fixation with the con's. If you only ever look at the problems with something they begin to seem greater than they really are, until eventually can't see anything else and come believe that that is all there is. That kind of thinking really colors a lot of people's views on everything from international politics to personal relationships. I see it all too often and it ain't pretty.
I dare you all to go to Keyna or Niger if all you want to do is complain about your government. THEY have a right to complain, and if I had my way in the UN, the nations leader would be disposed and a new democratic goverment would be voted in from the people.
First we get rid of their leaders, then we help them.
First we get rid of their leaders, then we help them.
QUOTE(jonajosa @ Aug 8 2005, 09:18 PM)
I don't think thats a bad thing. I would rather have them complain somewhere else than here.
I would rather have them complain somewhere else than here. QUOTE(Thomas Jefferson @ Founding Father)
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
QUOTE(Channler @ Aug 9 2005, 02:06 AM)
I dare you all to go to Keyna or Niger if all you want to do is complain about your government. THEY have a right to complain, and if I had my way in the UN, the nations leader would be disposed and a new democratic goverment would be voted in from the people.
First we get rid of their leaders, then we help them.
First we get rid of their leaders, then we help them.
QUOTE(Ann Coulter @ lying nut job)
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
So when did I say convert them to Christianity? Kill their leaders.. yes. I do believe we should, but since I don't feel that you believe that there that bad why don't you go stay there for a little bit, heh, and see what happens.
QUOTE(Channler @ Aug 9 2005, 03:35 AM)
So when did I say convert them to Christianity? Kill their leaders.. yes. I do believe we should, but since I don't feel that you believe that there that bad why don't you go stay there for a little bit, heh, and see what happens.
I don't disagree their plight is terrible, but killing their leaders is kind of an extreme way to fix it. Why not let the Evil UN deal with it, and let them help the people. We're too wrapped up in the Quagm...I mean, Iraq War.
I'm sorry but if you were alive when Hitler was killing off the jews and the war ended without him commiting suicide would you say his execution would be going to far???
There's a different situation. As of today, the majority of governments considered to be dictatorships were actually installed and backed by the US, most of the them in the Reagan era. Actually, jsut because Kenya and Niger are developing countries, it doesn't mean they have facist, murderous dictators.
But, I will get to that soon.
Fade2Gary, let me address this first. I didn't say channler was brainwashed, I said he was on the bandwagon, and it's true. People in the United States against the UN are on the abndwagon. I've explained why quite througfhly if you wouldn't mind reading. Please don't take this disrespectfully, but I dislike it when someone sets up a scarecrow in a debate.
Fidel Castro-
Paranoid guy. Killed 2 people in college for disagreeing with him, has made dissent illegal in Cuba (for fear that the formal regime will attempt to take back the country, like they could.)
100% of the people in Cuba can read, can get help when ill, have shelter, three meals a day, a job, and support to raise children. Fidel Castro himself never quite got it, but the fact that he was raised with communist ideals did help the people of the government. There are problems, and many things in his form of communism go directly against many american ideals. That's why people don't like Castro. Why people leave, I don't know. They all have everything they need, there is no oppression in cuba though police there I heard are arrogant and power-trippy (he gives his police too much power over the people, in direcft violation of socialist idealism, but of course he is paranoid).
Channler, Ann Coulter said it, not you. Ann Coulter is a retard, we can foget her. Just because a few other nut-jobs bought her books does not mean she's credible, and therefore I don't think its fair to name her as a voice of the right-wing. I will say this however, killing their leaders is arrogant. Self-rightiousness is the root of so many problems in the world these days the last thing we need is another person willing to cross a few lines to get something done, no matter how much they think it's the right thing. See, Channler this is why I'm against a violence, and no need to argue it just respect my opinion. I'm not against violence because I think I'm some enlightened messiah right about everything, I'm against violence because I may be wrong. You can understand this, because you have big goals as well, but basically what I'm saying is no matter how much I do in life, as long as I didn't show prejudice, kill anybody, torture anybody, or order someone else to kill anybody, no one will be able to write me in the history books as an ***hole.
PS: Jonajosa, this is a parliament. We are not complaining, we are debating. What's to stop me from saying you're complaining about the UN because you don't like the way it's run? I understand that this is a parliament, that's why. For many problems there is a conservative side (the side that wants things to stay as they are) and the radical side (the side that wants to change things). In abortion, I think it should remain legal, therefore I'm on the conservative side. That does not, however, make me call someone who thinks it should be illegalized a complainer.
But, I will get to that soon.
Fade2Gary, let me address this first. I didn't say channler was brainwashed, I said he was on the bandwagon, and it's true. People in the United States against the UN are on the abndwagon. I've explained why quite througfhly if you wouldn't mind reading. Please don't take this disrespectfully, but I dislike it when someone sets up a scarecrow in a debate.
Fidel Castro-
Paranoid guy. Killed 2 people in college for disagreeing with him, has made dissent illegal in Cuba (for fear that the formal regime will attempt to take back the country, like they could.)
100% of the people in Cuba can read, can get help when ill, have shelter, three meals a day, a job, and support to raise children. Fidel Castro himself never quite got it, but the fact that he was raised with communist ideals did help the people of the government. There are problems, and many things in his form of communism go directly against many american ideals. That's why people don't like Castro. Why people leave, I don't know. They all have everything they need, there is no oppression in cuba though police there I heard are arrogant and power-trippy (he gives his police too much power over the people, in direcft violation of socialist idealism, but of course he is paranoid).
Channler, Ann Coulter said it, not you. Ann Coulter is a retard, we can foget her. Just because a few other nut-jobs bought her books does not mean she's credible, and therefore I don't think its fair to name her as a voice of the right-wing. I will say this however, killing their leaders is arrogant. Self-rightiousness is the root of so many problems in the world these days the last thing we need is another person willing to cross a few lines to get something done, no matter how much they think it's the right thing. See, Channler this is why I'm against a violence, and no need to argue it just respect my opinion. I'm not against violence because I think I'm some enlightened messiah right about everything, I'm against violence because I may be wrong. You can understand this, because you have big goals as well, but basically what I'm saying is no matter how much I do in life, as long as I didn't show prejudice, kill anybody, torture anybody, or order someone else to kill anybody, no one will be able to write me in the history books as an ***hole.
PS: Jonajosa, this is a parliament. We are not complaining, we are debating. What's to stop me from saying you're complaining about the UN because you don't like the way it's run? I understand that this is a parliament, that's why. For many problems there is a conservative side (the side that wants things to stay as they are) and the radical side (the side that wants to change things). In abortion, I think it should remain legal, therefore I'm on the conservative side. That does not, however, make me call someone who thinks it should be illegalized a complainer.
How do any rightwingers defend this? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/8/124941/6758
QUOTE(Stargazey @ Aug 9 2005, 10:01 AM)
Hunh.. David Swanson... wonder if hes related to Ryan Swanson
AmazingSo I don't quite have the time to read through the.. thing I get to go to work!
EDIT: Oh well what the hell I can be late..
I just skimmed through it but..
Whats the problem? I'm sure if Bill Clinton was coming through there during his prez term then the same probs would happen.
Liberal |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| Conservative
I am..............................right here |^| on the american political scale, but I really look like a hard core conservative when people ATTACK the prez, I don't personally like him but HE IS OUR PRESIDENT, and thus should be respected.
(Maybe I believe that cause I was raised in a family that taught me respect?
)
Gone for secruity reasons
Okay
Thomas Jefferson's statement rings true today. You can't ignore the statements you disagree with and say the ones you do agree with are timeless. I believe that quote goes side by side democracy, and therefore that quote is as timeless as democracy. That is the root of democracy, that the people are in control. The people choose. Leaders are supposed to be JUST representatives. If they do not represent my ideals, I'll exercize my freedom of dissent. Dissent is not only a right, but a responsibility for those of us living in a democracy. In this day and age, Jefferson's statement rings truer than before, because dissent is more necessary today, where checks and balances have been overturned, and bribery are not only accepted, but a norm for government officials.
Mrs. Sheehan is doing a completely admirable thing right now. The Iraq war is unjustified, and those soldiers are dying for corporate causes, that's where the evidence I see points to, that's what I've deduced. Obviously she won't accept the answer from advisors, because they're advisors. See, let me break it down, she's not looking for reassurance that her son died for a noble cause, she flat out doesn't buy it. She wants Bush to come face to face with what he is doing. She's not going to get violent, this protest is really about Bush, not her. He can stay in his hole and not face the truth is he wants to, and probably will if he can avoid it, typical.
Thomas Jefferson's statement rings true today. You can't ignore the statements you disagree with and say the ones you do agree with are timeless. I believe that quote goes side by side democracy, and therefore that quote is as timeless as democracy. That is the root of democracy, that the people are in control. The people choose. Leaders are supposed to be JUST representatives. If they do not represent my ideals, I'll exercize my freedom of dissent. Dissent is not only a right, but a responsibility for those of us living in a democracy. In this day and age, Jefferson's statement rings truer than before, because dissent is more necessary today, where checks and balances have been overturned, and bribery are not only accepted, but a norm for government officials.
Mrs. Sheehan is doing a completely admirable thing right now. The Iraq war is unjustified, and those soldiers are dying for corporate causes, that's where the evidence I see points to, that's what I've deduced. Obviously she won't accept the answer from advisors, because they're advisors. See, let me break it down, she's not looking for reassurance that her son died for a noble cause, she flat out doesn't buy it. She wants Bush to come face to face with what he is doing. She's not going to get violent, this protest is really about Bush, not her. He can stay in his hole and not face the truth is he wants to, and probably will if he can avoid it, typical.
QUOTE(jonajosa @ Aug 9 2005, 07:55 PM)
Joke Doomed. It wasa joke. I could care less about where you or anyone complains or "debates."
As for stargazey with his quote from Thomas Jefferson. You use that quote against me as if Thommas Jefferson was a radical who would believe in what you think is wrong today. There is no way to prove that if he saw what was going on today he would stick with his statement or go against it. So I find that not a valid excuse for Dissent or "debating."
The world has changed so much that if we stuck to statements like that today then the world would be in chaos. Some statements still ring true though. We just need to find them, get a understanding about them that would benifit the majority of us and make it work.
As for stargazey with his quote from Thomas Jefferson. You use that quote against me as if Thommas Jefferson was a radical who would believe in what you think is wrong today. There is no way to prove that if he saw what was going on today he would stick with his statement or go against it. So I find that not a valid excuse for Dissent or "debating."
The world has changed so much that if we stuck to statements like that today then the world would be in chaos. Some statements still ring true though. We just need to find them, get a understanding about them that would benifit the majority of us and make it work.
So, by that logic, the constitution is arcane, isn't it?
QUOTE
We should try that here... How about we start with Free speech?
I don't know. It seems that she is a little.... I mean, Listen to this.
"I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Sheehan told reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."
The presient did not kill your son. One of those good for nothing militia men did it!
The noble cause? As I have stated over and over. the noble cause is freedom. Freedom for the peope of Iraq. He was there helping those people out and giving them more of a chance to live a better life. We all know about the WMD reason because its the only one the news will talk about(because all of the other reasons are valid to most of us). The WMDs were not the reason he died. Shes just doesn't understand it. Were not here for WMDs anymore. If we were would we still be here?
"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."
"I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home immediately," Sheehan told reporters Saturday. "I don't want him to use my son's name or my name to justify any more killing."
If she wants to talk about her son then let her come talk to us. I bet she wont now or even after we come back. She wants to blame it all on the president. Theres nothing more honorable then being buried with a american flag over you and a twenty one gun salute.
The message also urges Bush to send his twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, to Iraq "if the cause is so noble."
Thats somthing they would have to decide to do. If you didn't want your sons or daughters to come then you should have tried to stop them. If they didn't listen to you then its not the presidents fault, nor the mothers or fathers, nor the commanders. Its the mans fault that killed your kid. No one elses.
I know how the womans feels. Not from personal experiance but from outside experiance. I have spent many times going to houses in the past and telling parents why their child died. I've seen it dozens of times and know how to comfort them. I feel her responsibility to go to the president and ask her questions but... then again she is letting the grief of her sons death get the better of her. The test for that was when Joe Hagin, White House deputy chief of staff, and Stephen Hadley, national security adviser, met with her to tell her what the reason was.
She failed that test when she told them she didn't want to believe what they were saying. You know what would have happened if she met with the president after failing that test? She would have given the president the same answer she gave those two men. She might have even goten violent, which is somthing that happens alot(from personal experiance again).
So im in favor of not letting her see the president. She got her answer from the advisors and she turned them down showing that she would have done the same to the president when he told her the same thing the advisors did. Overall? She needs the commander of her dead son to go and tell her what happened, how, when and why. Not the president.
I don't know. It seems that she is a little...
. I mean, Listen to this."I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Sheehan told reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."
The presient did not kill your son. One of those good for nothing militia men did it!
The noble cause? As I have stated over and over. the noble cause is freedom. Freedom for the peope of Iraq. He was there helping those people out and giving them more of a chance to live a better life. We all know about the WMD reason because its the only one the news will talk about(because all of the other reasons are valid to most of us). The WMDs were not the reason he died. Shes just doesn't understand it. Were not here for WMDs anymore. If we were would we still be here?
"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."
"I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home immediately," Sheehan told reporters Saturday. "I don't want him to use my son's name or my name to justify any more killing."
If she wants to talk about her son then let her come talk to us. I bet she wont now or even after we come back. She wants to blame it all on the president. Theres nothing more honorable then being buried with a american flag over you and a twenty one gun salute.
The message also urges Bush to send his twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, to Iraq "if the cause is so noble."
Thats somthing they would have to decide to do. If you didn't want your sons or daughters to come then you should have tried to stop them. If they didn't listen to you then its not the presidents fault, nor the mothers or fathers, nor the commanders. Its the mans fault that killed your kid. No one elses.
I know how the womans feels. Not from personal experiance but from outside experiance. I have spent many times going to houses in the past and telling parents why their child died. I've seen it dozens of times and know how to comfort them. I feel her responsibility to go to the president and ask her questions but... then again she is letting the grief of her sons death get the better of her. The test for that was when Joe Hagin, White House deputy chief of staff, and Stephen Hadley, national security adviser, met with her to tell her what the reason was.
She failed that test when she told them she didn't want to believe what they were saying. You know what would have happened if she met with the president after failing that test? She would have given the president the same answer she gave those two men. She might have even goten violent, which is somthing that happens alot(from personal experiance again).
So im in favor of not letting her see the president. She got her answer from the advisors and she turned them down showing that she would have done the same to the president when he told her the same thing the advisors did. Overall? She needs the commander of her dead son to go and tell her what happened, how, when and why. Not the president.
What does Bush lose by talking to her? Bush killed her son by sending him to an unjust war.
And he wants to arrest her as a threat to National Security. Yeah, you know how violent those greiving mothers are.
QUOTE(DoomedOne @ Aug 9 2005, 09:31 PM)
Okay
Thomas Jefferson's statement rings true today. You can't ignore the statements you disagree with and say the ones you do agree with are timeless. I believe that quote goes side by side democracy, and therefore that quote is as timeless as democracy. That is the root of democracy, that the people are in control. The people choose. Leaders are supposed to be JUST representatives. If they do not represent my ideals, I'll exercize my freedom of dissent. Dissent is not only a right, but a responsibility for those of us living in a democracy. In this day and age, Jefferson's statement rings truer than before, because dissent is more necessary today, where checks and balances have been overturned, and bribery are not only accepted, but a norm for government officials.
Mrs. Sheehan is doing a completely admirable thing right now. The Iraq war is unjustified, and those soldiers are dying for corporate causes, that's where the evidence I see points to, that's what I've deduced. Obviously she won't accept the answer from advisors, because they're advisors. See, let me break it down, she's not looking for reassurance that her son died for a noble cause, she flat out doesn't buy it. She wants Bush to come face to face with what he is doing. She's not going to get violent, this protest is really about Bush, not her. He can stay in his hole and not face the truth is he wants to, and probably will if he can avoid it, typical.
Thomas Jefferson's statement rings true today. You can't ignore the statements you disagree with and say the ones you do agree with are timeless. I believe that quote goes side by side democracy, and therefore that quote is as timeless as democracy. That is the root of democracy, that the people are in control. The people choose. Leaders are supposed to be JUST representatives. If they do not represent my ideals, I'll exercize my freedom of dissent. Dissent is not only a right, but a responsibility for those of us living in a democracy. In this day and age, Jefferson's statement rings truer than before, because dissent is more necessary today, where checks and balances have been overturned, and bribery are not only accepted, but a norm for government officials.
Mrs. Sheehan is doing a completely admirable thing right now. The Iraq war is unjustified, and those soldiers are dying for corporate causes, that's where the evidence I see points to, that's what I've deduced. Obviously she won't accept the answer from advisors, because they're advisors. See, let me break it down, she's not looking for reassurance that her son died for a noble cause, she flat out doesn't buy it. She wants Bush to come face to face with what he is doing. She's not going to get violent, this protest is really about Bush, not her. He can stay in his hole and not face the truth is he wants to, and probably will if he can avoid it, typical.
Nice post DoomedOne, I agree with everything you said.
For Gods sake open the blinds! Obviously you can't see!
The President DID NOT KILL HER SON. Think about this! For us to go to war not only did the Prez have to agree but what, the congress too? Complain to them? Was the boy drafted? No, did he choose to serve in the military? Yes. In the military (as with everything else) you just might die! Hard to imagin aye?
Does the slaughter of innocent people not count as a justification for this war? What does anyone hope to accomplish by saying the war isn't justified? MORE DEAD US SOLDIERS. Damn I wish we had all those old WW2 posters hanging around still...
Wouldn't it be nice if a few posters like that were hanging around? The deaths of fallen would be for nothing if we were to pull out, as with the lives of the freedom loving and democratic Iraqi's too. It means if we pull out, and simply put, We Lost.
Just like Vietnam, we every major battle of the war, the enemies casualtys were 10 times more then ours. Oh, everyone was pumped up at the beginning.. "Something to match the greatest generation!" Some said, but then people learned the true, horrible, and most contraversiol(OMG SP?) thing of war. You had to fight it. And people did not want to fight the war, why? Because the uprise of TVs and other means of communications that show'd the horrors, and the trevasties of war. No longer was it the romantic cause that everyone was led to believe. Like stories of Alexander the Great, and our own War of Independence. People in their minds, fashioned them to be epic things, way more fantasized then truth should permet.
Untill the nations of the world can get to the level that we are at, can there be true peace (If short even). Many people think if we love them, they will love us. Every individual, that owns part of a brain should know that to not be true. Until those developing nations can ALL see the true horror of it all, will they know, and will wish for a peaceful life. And until that day happens, America, The United States of America, and every freedom proclaiming nation about, should fight for noble causes.
I realize this might hurt you to think this, but the New World was very rarely colonized by the meek. This means that we, are a nation of warriors. I will say, "peaceful" warriors, but we MUST NEVER forget our heritage in that fact.
Man, I love this country, and I would die for it. And I must thank you all for putting up debates such as this, for it really adds to my patriotic fervour(SP), makes me want to find out even more ways I can help the US.
The President DID NOT KILL HER SON. Think about this! For us to go to war not only did the Prez have to agree but what, the congress too? Complain to them? Was the boy drafted? No, did he choose to serve in the military? Yes. In the military (as with everything else) you just might die! Hard to imagin aye?
Does the slaughter of innocent people not count as a justification for this war? What does anyone hope to accomplish by saying the war isn't justified? MORE DEAD US SOLDIERS. Damn I wish we had all those old WW2 posters hanging around still...
Wouldn't it be nice if a few posters like that were hanging around? The deaths of fallen would be for nothing if we were to pull out, as with the lives of the freedom loving and democratic Iraqi's too. It means if we pull out, and simply put, We Lost.
Just like Vietnam, we every major battle of the war, the enemies casualtys were 10 times more then ours. Oh, everyone was pumped up at the beginning.. "Something to match the greatest generation!" Some said, but then people learned the true, horrible, and most contraversiol(OMG SP?) thing of war. You had to fight it. And people did not want to fight the war, why? Because the uprise of TVs and other means of communications that show'd the horrors, and the trevasties of war. No longer was it the romantic cause that everyone was led to believe. Like stories of Alexander the Great, and our own War of Independence. People in their minds, fashioned them to be epic things, way more fantasized then truth should permet.
Untill the nations of the world can get to the level that we are at, can there be true peace (If short even). Many people think if we love them, they will love us. Every individual, that owns part of a brain should know that to not be true. Until those developing nations can ALL see the true horror of it all, will they know, and will wish for a peaceful life. And until that day happens, America, The United States of America, and every freedom proclaiming nation about, should fight for noble causes.
I realize this might hurt you to think this, but the New World was very rarely colonized by the meek. This means that we, are a nation of warriors. I will say, "peaceful" warriors, but we MUST NEVER forget our heritage in that fact.
Man, I love this country, and I would die for it. And I must thank you all for putting up debates such as this, for it really adds to my patriotic fervour(SP), makes me want to find out even more ways I can help the US.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.