I'm Beginning To Hate Bush ...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If so they why needlessly complict the matter with stupid phrasiology?

Hasn't Bush shown so many times now that he can't express any concepts on his own? If it weren't for his speech writers, he'd be the laughing stock of the diplomatic world. Even with other people putting words in his mouth, he still has a strong tendancy of putting his foot in it. It's obvious to me that he's just not capable of thinking on his feet, he needs his advisors to tell him what do to say.

[Jac de Molay]

Actually, he has trouble being articulate except when it comes to themes of violence, war, or vengeance. Then, he can articulate very well.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
I think that the fact that Bush has shown that he is determined to go after the terrorists creates confidence in the American people and they go about spending and investing.

So why is it that in the latest poll, a slim majority don't approve of the unilateral position that Bush is advocating? 52% of Americans want him to work within the UN, last I read.

PS At 52%, that's alot of uncertainty. Obviusly there's an awful lot of Americans who are uncertain and insecure about the current government policies. That's bound to be detrimental to the consumer economy, which represents at least 60% of the whole.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Whe stopped critisizing Imperialism around the end of the 19th century when we saw the possibility of becoming imperialists our selves.

But you haven't stopped being imperialists, you've just used economic means rather than military. A little more humane than the late British model granted, but hegemony by any other name is still imperialism.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

whatever, i think that especially saddam hussein is america´s own invention in some way. i will not blame america alone for things happening in the world but about some things i´m sure that the us is to blame.

If this is true (and it probably is), wouldn't it make sense for the US to get rid of what it created?

If I bring a child into the world who later becomes a juvenile delinquent, does that give me the right to end his/her life after the fact? Or should I work with the social agencies that are in place in order to try and turn his/her conduct around so that they can become a welcome addition to the rest of society? Which in this case would involve working with the UN, not against it.

[Az]

If I bring a child into the world who later becomes a juvenile delinquent, does that give me the right to end his/her life after the fact?

apples, oranges.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel


apples, oranges.

No it's not. In the eyes of the world, Saddam is a deliquent. If the US goes in on it's own, it will be engaging in vigilante justice.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
it will be engaging in vigilante justice.

Given that the state of anarchy that exists in the international system, how would this be any different fron any other "legitimate" exercise of international law?

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Given that the state of anarchy that exists in the international system, how would this be any different fron any other "legitimate" exercise of international law?

By moving against what little we have in place now in regards to international justice, the US risks forgoing any such system from ever taking hold. For the first time ever, we now have an international court to prosecute people guilty of commiting crimes against humanity. Ironically, the US was the only country to object to it's institution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As Azazel said: apples, oranges.

In what society can you kill people and have it justified because they are bullies?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


So why is it that in the latest poll, a slim majority don't approve of the unilateral position that Bush is advocating? 52% of Americans want him to work within the UN, last I read.

PS At 52%, that's alot of uncertainty. Obviusly there's an awful lot of Americans who are uncertain and insecure about the current government policies. That's bound to be detrimental to the consumer economy, which represents at least 60% of the whole.

I think it's very possible that they vote that way in the poll but they have confidence in the economy. After all the poll isn't even about the economy.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As Azazel said: apples, oranges.

In what society can you kill people and have it justified because they are bullies?

Who's talking about justifying that type of behaviour?

Why is it that when people advocate working within the UN that you Americans automatically feel that they support Hussein's regime? I don't know of very many people that wouldn't like to see him gone. It's just a question of how it's done.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who's talking about justifying that type of behaviour?

That's a suitable causes belli, especially if the bully is taking out your friends.

Coming to the aid of a friend without going to the blind principal first is well established in history.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Coming to the aid of a friend without going to the blind principal first is well established in history.

I'm sorry but I don't want my world run like some elementary school playground.

PS Slavery is well established in history as well, should we revive that institution?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What you 'want' is totally irrelevant. Why don't you focus on how the world actually is?