Thoughts on Global Government
I’ve been thinking about a comment made on the U.N earlier. And I agree with you conservatives, the U.N has become weak.
But, unfortunately I agree with you for a different reason.
The U.N is lacking Unity, It failed to stop the United States from going to war with Iraq, based on a hunch, that there were Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
The Fact Is that the United States didn’t even wait for the full report of the U.N weapons inspectors to declare war.
My proposal, is that the United nations needs a reformation, it needs to become the governing body of a world nation, with a written constitution of international laws that direct the grounds on how a nation can go to war, laws on nuclear and biological weapons, punishment for Genocide, etc.
This would keep war thirsty politicians in check, as well as dictators and fascists.
Most of all, it’d keep people from interfering with other nations governments, If the nation wants democracy, than it should be able to overthrow it’s ruling body and set up it’s own democracy.
Oh yes, and I want every one to see this Neo conservative website, It was designed by an organization headed by Dick Cheney, formed in the late 90’s. In 1997, they discussed plans for invading Iraq, and as you’ll see, it appears they plan Global domination, any way, here is the link.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Mr. Jack
Lefty Says: May 20th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Mr. Jack,
Neo-conservatives differ radically from conservatives in terms of their veiws on nation building. Conservatives escew nation building (remember that Bush campained in 2000 as a conservative, anti nationbuilder). Neo-cons, who, like Kristol, Wolfowitz, and my personal favorite, Elliot Abrams (CONVICTED of LYING TO CONGRESS! and now has a cabinet appointment from Bush), are recovering liberals (or Jedi gone bad, depending on your perspective, I guess) who see the world as a chess board, governments and businesses a power pieces, and workers as pawns. They specialize in growing poverty in other undeveloped countries in order to gain American stategic advantages. Their attitudes and actions in other countries are a large part of why other countries have grown to distrust and even hate us. Oddly, people in other countries know more about these people who are responsible for our policies than our own citizens do. They are the wizards behind the curtain. I wish that citizens who support conservative ideas would take a closer look at these guys and think about whether the neo-cons are really the ones who they want calling the shots. The front men like Bush and Cheney are a smoke screen for the real players. Sometimes I think that Bush is just a decoy. His job is to distract the nation and draw our attention away from the neo-conservatives so they can do their work without having to face the scrutiny of the media or citizens. A great book on the topic is John Perkin’s “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.” I think you are right about the need for a UN constitution. If the neo-con game is on, then everyone should know the rules we are supposed to play by.
Joy Says: May 20th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Mr. Jack,
Exactly how would this world government keep “dictators and facists” in check when they are the ones holding office?
Will they be giving up and totally revising the present world government wannabe?
It sounds good in theory, sort of, but I don’t see it happening in reality any time within our galaxy. Although, I do see a world government happening in our lifetime, I don’t see it as a good and positive thing. Where would the right of the individual come in? Why would we want to give up our liberty for the leisure of not having to think too hard or make decisions…that is how I see a world government.
Where would we find trustworthy leaders to run the whole world? Each country is doing good just to keep it’s own problems in check, and most aren’t even doing that. Should Cuba tell America how to treat people humanely? Should China tell India how to keep their population in check? Should Muslim countries tell Catholic countries how and where to pray? Or vice versa?
We shouldn’t fool ourselves that a one-world government will let everyone live by their own rules as they have been. It wouldn’t be America, it would be a government run by the same despots and facists and power-hungry people whose aim it would be to rid the world of all non-conformists.
Think of the pocket-lining problems each and every government has and then tell me where we’ll suddenly find humans capable of running the whole world. If there are those who are capable, they don’t want the job - they’re wise enough to see what a bad idea it really is.
Lefty Says: May 20th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Another thought on the UN. It’s fundamental purpose should be to make it very difficult for nations to wage war against one another. Anything else the UN contributes is a value added benefit.
Joy Says: May 20th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Mr. Jack,
Who will be the leaders in this one world government? Who will write the laws? Do you see any of the facists, dictators and despots presently calling the shots giving up their posts any time soon?
Maybe China could tell India how to “decrease the surplus population” (to quote Scrooge; thus Charles Dickens). Maybe Cuba could tell the US troops how to treat prisoners.
In theory a one-world government might sound semi-reasonable, but when dealing with real people it won’t work for the good of any citizen. We can’t all just get along as a world government when there are soooo many differing ideologies (sp?). Person to person, we can get along when we work at it very hard. Despot to facist to dictator, they can’t get along without extreme corruption. If the UN won’t protect citizens of the countries represented in it right now, why would we want to further this misrepresentation of John Q. Public? Think of the type of people who want to run a world government and consider if they are who you would want to run your life. With all it’s faults, the American government is still far superior to any world government.
buck Says: May 20th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Joy, you nailed it. Jack’s world government sounds good on paper, but it is still people that have to make it work.
What troubles me so much about the liberal mind-set is the lack of acknoledgment of the “real world” in which we live. Theoretically speaking, true communism sounds great. Everybody gets health care, education a job, a house….But as history shows…it just doesn’t work in practice, because of the infalability of man.
The United Nations is a noble idea, that has denegrated into nothingness. When Bush spoke to the UN before the Iraq war he cut right to the truth. The UN passed a resolution that said if Sadaam didn’t let inspectors in, he would risk invasion from outside military forces. That was the UN’s resolution. The UN just didn’t have the balls to back it up.
You wanted Bush to wait for the inspectors results, but Sadaam was refusing to allow inspectors in. The only reason we know anything about the WMD programs that did, in fact, exist and the only reason we now know that that are no massive stockpiles of WMD’s in Iraq is because Bush had the balls to follow through on the UN’s resolution.
Circe Says: May 20th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Joy,
People in many other countries would disagree with your statement about the US having the best government. Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland etc have wonderful governments and societies. The US ranks #9 overall.
Joy Says: May 20th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Lefty,
Do you have any leaders in mind that you would trust to decide whether or not your country wages war on another country? Again, look closely at who makes up the UN and tell why they should have any say in who another country wars with.
How about starting with your neighborhood, and be sure to include the child-molesters, child pornographers, serial killers, spouse beaters, and predators of every kind to make sure they have an equal say in deciding policies for your neighborhood. Oh, and the gang members should have equal say in whose territory is where. When that’s working for you, post it; with documented evidence of its success. That’s about when I’ll start considering the workability of a UN.
Circe Says: May 20th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Joy,
How do you propose that different nations settle disputes? Is brute force the only and best option? Or should we be a world of laws, just as the US claims to be proud that we are a “nation of laws.” Why would a system that works effectively on the scale of individual nations not work collectively for many nations who chose to work together and abide by laws? It would be the third phase in the expansion of civilization. The thing that bothered me about the way the US treated the UN was that we claim to value systems of checks and balances and democracy. But when checks and balances and democracy (i.e., the UN) slow us down and make us think things through rationally, Bush was ready to throw it all to the wind and was hell-bent to muscle anyone who stood between him and the war he was determined to wage. The UN should slow us, and everyone else, down when we are marching to war. War is the ultimate failure. Every option should be exhausted before we accept absolute failure. Bush was too willing to fail.
Circe Says: May 20th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
Holy smokes. Have you all read the piece by Paul Roberts, who worked for Reagan, on the War Memo? If not, check it out at chroniclesmagazine.org. First Reaganite I have heard calling for Bush’s impeachment based on the memo.
Lefty Says: May 20th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Joy,
Comment #7 suggests that you don’t think that democracy is exactly a smashing success in the US. All of the people that you cited above are folks who participate in democracy american-style. Or am I misunderstanding your point? There are certainly problems with our democracy. I, for example, am not crazy about our current leadership. Should I disregard the US government and the laws of the land because I disagree with some of them? I don’t trust our current leaders but I do believe in our system. I also agree with Circe and believe that it is possible for our system to operate effectively on a global scale.
Anonymous Says: May 20th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
The Leaders of this confederation would be representatives appointed by each nation, the fascist and the totalitarians would have little power in the Government as a whole, unless their representative was extremely good with words.
And each nation would be viewed as a providence of a greater nation, similar to the 13 colonies of America, during the time of transition.
In this case going to war without proper approval would be considered a crime against civilization, and the leaders properly punished. Evidence must be undisputable against a nation in order for a war to occur.
In the event war is justified, nations may choose to construct an independent military built on troops of any one in any nation willing to join, without a declaration of war from that nation.
And as to the China, India comment, this is a WORLD government, meaning its decisions are based on a global scale, and shall not interfere with the sovereignty of individual nations.
Mr. Jack Says: May 20th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Circe made a great comment on the development of civilization. I believe it is time for humanity to unite.
Hell, it was time for us to unite after WWII when the Atomic Bomb was used as a an interment of war, when the whole of Europe and Asia lie in ruins, when the massive piles of rubble in Berlin became artificial mountains, and contracting companies invented to dig up unexploded Bombs from over a half century earlier, on construction sites.
Look at how close we came to wiping our selves out on several occasions in the cold war, it’s bone chilling. The Cuban Missile Crisis is one of my favorite examples, I believe those ships came within a few miles of all out War between the U.S and Russia, and what prevented this war on several occasions was The U.N
As is stands, the greatest threat to the human species is itself, War is the end of our civilization.
Joy Says: May 20th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Circe,
My statement #4,regarding the US government should actually read “better than any one-world government”. My thoughts were just going faster than my fingers. That’s a good thing, right?
Concerning the other comments, to be continued… when I have more time to think and answer coherently.
Circe Says: May 21st, 2005 at 12:03 am
I have to say that the participants at this site strike me as very intelligent and rational. It is a pleasure to read what you all have to say. Joy, I obviously have a different perspective from yours on some issues but you are very bright and you have my attention and respect.
Joy Says: May 22nd, 2005 at 7:23 am
Lefty,
Democracy is great. There are several things that came to mind while reading your comment#10.
1. Those criminal types that I mentioned in #7 are not likely voting for sheriffs and judges, and politicians that are going to be tough on them…which means they are voting for whom? Do I want to be voting for people that they want in office? I think not.
Also, those are felony crimes, are they not? Hopefully then, those convicted are not voting (and if they are illegally voting, they are still voting for people not good for society - in my opinion).
2. The United Nations is not a democracy for us citizens. What say do I have in who our representative there is? What say do the citizens of the world have in what all those leaders decide?
3. Because I don’t have any say in what goes on there, I don’t give a rip if leaders from China, Russia, Cuba, and many others think my country should go to war with another country.
I agree with Circe, the participants on this site also seem intelligent to me. Why would we want to give up our voice to be ‘united’ in some vague cosmic realm on nonentity via our reps in the UN?
In comment #8, Circe asks if brute force was the only and best option. That’s a very wise question that she thought up all by herself, I’m assuming. She didn’t need a committee or UN meeting to think it or ask it.
As Americans, we can help other countries without some giant committee telling us to. We just do.
As Americans we can get rid of a President that we don’t want without a coup. We vote them out if we don’t like how they handled foreign relations, wars, etc. We don’t need to vote in a puppet national head run by some UN group. (and let’s not fool ourselves that it won’t happen that way)
I’ll keep reiterating that a one world government will not ever work for the good of the citizens who want to be free. Ever.
Democracy works when it is an actual democracy. When we have no say, it isn’t a democracy for us. We cannot vote those people in or out. They do not have the best interest of our country in mind and they have no place in our business. None. Zilch. Not an inch.
Lefty Says: May 22nd, 2005 at 1:45 pm
I a previous comment, someone said that “everyone thought Saddam had WMDs.” According to an article in today’s Washington Post, “even before the war many senior intelligence officials in the government had doubts about the case being trumpeted in public by the president and his senior advisers.” So even our senior intelligence officials didn’t believe that Saddam had WMDs. I think the old, tired claim that “everyone thought they had them” should be put to rest now. The article is entitled “Prewar Findings Worried Analysts” and it is by Walter Pincus.
bonniem Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 2:00 am
Yeah but Lefty, that is 20/20 hindsight. Not a lot of the officials came out and said that they didn’t think he had them, before the war, enough to drown out the things that pointed to it. I don’t think we have had very good intelligence for a number of years, do you?
Sriram Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 3:23 am
The United Nations is wasting valuable office space in New York City. It’s guilty of other things. First it pretends that the leader of the free world and some nutcase dictator has moral equality. They both get one vote. Libya and Syria were included on the Human Rights Comission, with the US actually thrown out. Impotent against the Soviet Union, genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, it gets real brave condemning Israel’s intolerance towards its women and kids being blown up.Taiwan was kicked out of the UN against its own charter simply coz it was America’s ally. If all it wants is to hate America and spit on our faces, it can atleast do so without American aid. Let the French just try funding it after the United States kicks them out.
The useless UN has started to poke its nose into the internal affairs of the United States. The Kyoto Protocol and the Endangered Species Act gave provisions to the US Federal Government to confisticate private property in deference to the UN. It is also talking about a global tax slab. There u go, a global Stalinist conspiracy, with a socialist agenda. with loss of individuality.
The United States should not be part of this. And dont forget the office space.
Lefty Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Wow Sriram,
Now you know how democrats in congress feel.
Lefty Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 2:18 pm
Bonniem,
The point is that it isn’t hind sight. The analysts had the foresight to see that the intel that Bush was fixing was misleading but their warnings were ignored by administration officials. They couldn’t come out in public and tell the world that the president was fixing the intel. Congress did not debate the invasion or scrutinize the intel because the issue was politicized by bringing it to the floor 20 days before a mid-term election (what was the big hurry? you should be asking now) and it was made clear that it would be unpatriotic (and political suicide) to stand in the way of a war when the President of the United States was saying he had unquestionable evidence indicating that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the US and the middle east. What is the proper reaction now that we know that Bush did indeed fix the intel evidence (i.e., he lied to everyone)? Don’t you think a full investigation is warranted? If you believe he is innocent, then you should write your congressmen and demand a full investigation so that his name can be cleared. Wasn’t that what republicans said about the Whitewater and Travelgate issues (remember, Hilary was said to have been heavy-handed [like Bolton, perhaps] with folks in the travel office so a full investigation was warranted).
bonniem Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 3:44 pm
You see, Lefty, I don’t think he lied. Of course he didn’t have first hand knowledge. YOu ask why the big hurry, well, how long do you think Sadamm had? Even the previous administration thought he had WMD’s. He had certainly acted guilty (and now those “in the know” say it was because he wanted everyone to believe he had them) and kicked out the inspectors years before. I don’t think it was a rush to judgment. Bush was getting info from other countries also. He did not “fix” the intel. As for an investigation - I think there are too many investigations as it is. I think our congress should concentrate on getting work done and stop trying to police everything that happens. Even Whitewater. I also thought that the impeachment of Clinton was taking it a little too far. Yes, we all can learn from mistakes, but the political game is not to learn from mistakes, but use them to batter the opposite party until they are put on the defensive and then they start looking for stuff and it is just a vicious circle and most of us are sick and tired of their games. Both parties.
Joy Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Circe,
In #8 you asked if brute force was the only and best option.
It should be used as a last resort…even with brutes, though the timeframe should be shortened to fit the circumstance. Example: If I catch a child rapist in the act (a male in this scenario), pull out my .357 and warn him that his ‘weapon’will be rendered useless if he so much as moves, and I call 911, is that a good scenario to use brute force? He’s been informed of his choices, and now it’s totally up to him which one he takes.
Now 911 is not going to make me wait while they go to the city council for a vote on whether or not I should’ve acted or what to do next. (This has no basis in real life and any similarities between this scenario and any person is purely coincidental and wishful thinking)
I propose that each country take care of it’s own business and that there be no UN. Let the countries leaders choose who they want to talk with other countries and lets vote our leader out if we don’t like how he/she is doing it. It’s our judgement and our voice and our call, not the leaders of the world. If we need to do more to make our voice be heard, then let’s do it and not pass it off to the extremely corrupt UN. If we as citizens see a humanitarian problem in China then we, as concerned citizens get off our backsides and do what we can about it. We don’t expect our country to be the fat sow that feeds the world or the nosy neighbor that figures everyone’s business is theirs, nor do we say “We’ve got ours now you go get yours” or think we’re an island to ourselves. In all of this, we act as intelligent and active citizens of our country, not intelligent and impotent citizens of the world.
We need to not focus on theory, but on facts and reality. The UN is corrupt. The UN is basically anti-US. If it is the third phase of expansion of civilization, it is a dangerous civilization that we do not want to be part of, since many of the countries don’t even know how to be civilized in their own country to their own people.
Joy Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Lefty,
Why the reference to feelings? (comment #19) This isn’t about feelings, this is about facts.
The opinion voiced in #18 is backed with facts.
Another fact to remember: many, if not most, of those democrats to whom you refer want to be part of the UN; which means obeying it’s bidding when that anti-US organization rubs the lamp. So, they should ‘feel’ quite good about experiencing a tiny taste of the real thing.
Hopefully, though, they’re looking to what they can realistically do for the good of their country. That’s what both sides should be there for.
Joy Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 6:15 pm
I’ve read the Downing Street memo over several times and I’m still not getting if the word ‘fixed’ is as in - made to orbit around or as in falsefied.
Sriram Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 9:08 pm
The pro-democracy movement in Lebanon, Libya coming clear with its weapons program and the sudden sensitivity for Freedom in the Middle East did not happen by magic. It has everything to do with the Iraq War. Democracy in the Middle East is the only long term security measure for the United States. The Iraq War is the first few steps towards it.Next is Iran, Syria and all of the damn terrorist nations.
Circe Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Joy,
I don’t accept the premise of your example using the rapist caught in the act. A more accurate example in the present case would be the vigilante (Bush) using a weapon on someone (Iraq) accused of committing a crime (having WMDs) when in fact they didn’t. Bush, in your example, would shoot a lot of innocent people under the pretense of stopping a rape.
As for the UN issue that you have been discussing with others - it is important to note that the UN was right in the case of Iraq and Bush was wrong. That is beyond dispute.
Anna Says: May 24th, 2005 at 1:01 am
Sriram,
If you think that the Leganese didn’t already have a strong pro-democracy movement building, you don’t know Lebanon. If the former president of Lebanon had not been murdered things may have moved slower. Iraq had zilch to do with Lebanon’s democracy movement. That being said, the way they did it in Lebanon PROVES once again that the path to democracy does not require a violent overthrough - just an organized internal movement of the people. Libya used weapons to get off the hook for murdering the Pan Am bomb victims. The Iraq war will do more to interfere with democracy in the middle east than anything else we could have done. It just brought more death and chaos to the region.
Joy Says: May 24th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Circe,
I can see how you would think that I was referring to President Bush and Iraq, but I actually wasn’t. I was simply giving an example of when I think brute force, or the threat of it, is appropriate. I agree the example is not a good representation of the war in Iraq. My reference to the city council was, of course, a reference to the UN in the context of us having to wait for approval of other countries before going to war…in a general sense.
The theory of a UN may be great, but in reality-even if some decisions are right-the UN itself is a corrupt organization that has too much say, and too little accountability, We can do more about President Bush than we can about the UN’s decisions. Is that logically disputable?
Anna Says: May 24th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Sriram,
Perhaps before we invade Iran and Syria we should spend some time reflecting on how we lost Iraq.
Sriram Says: May 24th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Well Anna. The Iraq War is being won. And it certainly will act has acted as a catalyst in encouraging pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East. A peaceful internal uprising is not possible in all countries coz the people are terrorized or oppressed too much. Lebanon is a mild instance of Islamic theocracy but u have Iran, Syria and Sudan. And u had Afghanistan.
Iraq is a starting point for the spread of Democracy in the Terrorist Middle East. Its not about WMD in Iraq. Its much more simple. All Islamic nations, if allowed to develop any weapon, will give it to Islamic terrorists. Thats what all of them are doing at this moment. Pakistan gives nuke secrets to Iran not coz of strategic interests but coz both of them worship the Senior Terrorist- mohammed. All Islamic countries support or fund terrorism in one way or the another. Islam is an evil cult and only an American intervention can prevent a unification of all evils or spread of advanced weapons to terrorists. Only a pro-American government in these nations will insure long term security for America.
President Bush has not presented the facts as they are but he has done the right thing. May be I’d have preferred invading Iran before Iraq but well the order really doesnt matter at this time.
Trodsky Says: May 24th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Anna, Do explain how we LOST Iraq???? I would love to hear your watered down, blind leading the blind version. I mean seriously, did you even watch the news (or come out of your house for that matter before) the war? No, probably not. You just realized something big was happening and you think your a expert on things right??? I have a couple friends who served in the Iraq War who just got back and they have told me what they have seen first hand there (not from some left-wing news announcer, give it up Dan). There are schools being built, women walking around freely with more options in life, like voting for instance. They are on there way (Rome wasnt built in a day, or even 3 or 4 years) to democracy there as a free nation. But yep your right we did wrong huh? Ever hear of the Kurds??? Saddams favorite little targets??? But who cares a baby or 2 probably died in the bombings during the war so we are wrong… get a grip on reality and try looking through the eyes of somebody in Iraq, and see the postive changes that we have made in their lives. We are by far not perfect but it what have been a crime for us not to do what we did. Yes there arent boat loads of WMD’s sitting around but so what??? Genocide??? ever hear of that??? We stopped that, but I guess that dosent matter cause that wasnt on our mission statement when we headed into the war huh?
You people annoy me… If you have ever talked to a sane individual who saw action in Iraq you would understand the true story of what went on over there. It is quite diffrent from the one that they give you on CBS, CNN, and FOX.
Anna Says: May 24th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Trodsky,
You are completely off base with respect to Iraq. You should read juancole.com for an informed perspective.
Anna Says: May 24th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Sriram,
Remember, it was a desire to have a pro-america Iraq that was responsible for Saddam being in power in the first place. When we try to manipulate the governments of other countries it ALWAYS backfires.
Anna Says: May 24th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Trodsky,
You are aware that what Saddam did to the Kurds, he did with the Reagan administration’s support. You know that Rumsfeld visited Saddam just after Saddam used chemical weapons against them. All Rumsfeld did was offer his support to Saddam, on behalf of the Reagan administration. How do you explain that, Slim?
Sriram Says: May 25th, 2005 at 12:40 am
The United States gave tactical assistance to Iraq after the deposing of the Shah. Saddam gassed the Kurds. This is quite different from saying ‘Saddam gassed the Kurds with Reagan’s support’. President Reagan did not influence or support mass murder. U almost sounded like Dan Rather!
In a post 9/11 world, the term ‘pro-american government’ has been entirely redefined. It doesnt mean some nutcase dictator giving oil concessions but we need a govt out there that will actively go after terrorists and stop funding terrorism. An American attack or the threat of one will be the driving force for Middle East governments to control terrorism. Bomb a coupla more rogue countries and we’ll have given them a message- If u dont stop funding woman killers, we’ll kick ur ass, no matter who u are’. Islamic nations understand only force, not peace. And they should be threatened into peace.
Anna Says: May 25th, 2005 at 1:39 am
Trodsky and Sriram,
You want some real information on what’s going on in Iraq? visit http://www.truthout.org. I DARE YOU to really face the truth.
Anna Says: May 25th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Sriram,
The intelligence community tells a different story. They argue that the invasion of Iraq has only grown the terrorist movement. Can’t you see that the strategy you favor brings just exactly the opposite result from the one you desire. Invading muslim countries is the best recruiting tool you could give the jihadists. Why give them that gift? You said “Islamic nations understand only force, not peace.” How could you possibly be such a biggot idiot? I want to be on the opposite end of whatever spectrum you are on. I may sound like Dan Rather to you but you sound like Satan to me.
bonniem Says: May 25th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Anna, do you pay any attention at all to who is setting up those websites? You might as well go to Moveon.org for your info. Or maybe Kerry for President or Saturday nite live.
Sriram Says: May 25th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Uh Anna, did u mean bigot? Don’t put in the phrase ‘Intelligence agencies’ before what u have been taught to believe. “Remember, it was a desire to have a pro-america Iraq that was responsible for Saddam being in power in the first place”. You are as ignorant as CNN. Check the facts and u’ll know ur premise was wrong.
Anna Says: May 25th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Bonniem,
Those web sites may not be the ones you like. But I prefer them because they are committed to presenting the real facts and the truth. If you want to dispute facts presented by juancole.com or truthout.org I will be delighted to discuss those facts with you.
Joy Says: May 25th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Excellent point, bonniem.
Anna -
You’re obviously well-read. You might want to try some old older writings. History has a way of shedding light on the present…or at least giving us a broader base to judge from.
If I may, I recommend staying away from history books and go straight to original sources. The actual writings of the European founders of the present America are excellent sources, as they give a better idea of what these people were about than someone’s idea of what they were about. Same with the ‘indian’ peoples who were displaced. I highly and strongly recommend steering clear of most 1970 and later ‘history’ books regarding them. Or at least balance them with factual books written before then also.
You also might want to try The Basic Works of Cicero. As you know, he has no agenda to push because he’s been gone from this earth awhile.
And, of course, there’s Dickens, Twain, Shakespeare, and many others whose writings bring up several ways to consider things through their characters and plots.
True liberality is good. True conservatism is good. One is from the heart and one is from the head and we’d be dead without either organ. Liberalism must include character - as that is a matter of the heart. Conservatism must include open-mindedness - as that is a matter of the head.
Anna Says: May 25th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
Let’s compare Gulf War 1 and Afghanastan, which were done right, to Gulf War 2, which was done entirely wrong. Gulf War 1 and Afghanastan both were done with the full support and cooperation of the UN and international community. Gulf War had the support of neither. I think wise people will learn from those comparisons that the support of the UN and International Community are necessary for successful campaigns.
Mr. Jack Says: May 26th, 2005 at 12:52 am
Actually, According to many sources Anna is correct. There is no true evidence to support the statement that sudam Hussein was harboring terrorists, yet now that we invaded Iraq, the place has become a breeding ground for insurgents.
Furthermore, look at the 9/11 hijackers, most of them were Saudi Arabian, so, why aren’t we invading them? I’ll tell you why, because we’re friends of the Saudi Royal family.
And Siriram, Mohamed was a prophet not a terrorist, and hardly anything in war was about religion anymore, it’s all strategy, you need to turn off fox news and find an Independent moderate news source.
rick in sunny buffalo Says: May 26th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
Sometimes I put Rush on the radio, just to remind myself of how hypocritical the right is. But before long, that 5-time junkie loser of a DJ who is the prime example of the Peter principle goes and says something incredibly, and typically, wrong. I love turning the radio off when it cuts him off in mid-sentence. It’s the only time anyone interferes with his paranoid blather. If it was a real, fair debate, that fat oaf couldn’t hold his own with a smart sixth-grader. But what’s even dumber than Rush himself is that all you right wing-nuts eat up everything he says, unquestioned, like pigs at a trough. Pigs keep sucking down their feed, even when there’s ground pork in it. You guys are like that.
Anna Says: May 27th, 2005 at 3:22 am
Joy,
I would be surprised if you ever got through Homer, Democritus, Thales, or Hericlitus.
Anna Says: May 27th, 2005 at 3:27 am
Sriram,
Think it’s just what I believe? You should read what the intelligence community thinks.
Read
“Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground”
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01
bonniem Says: May 27th, 2005 at 4:54 am
Come on Rick in sunny buffalo — tell us what you really think!!!
Circe Says: May 27th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
I think that Joy’s comment about conservatism and liberalism as both being “good” is interesting. Certainly, when taken as political theoretical frameworks both are useful tools. The danger lies in allowing either to turn one into an ideologue. Whenever I hear someone begin a sentence by explaining what they think their political opponents believe I expect the next part of their statement to be meaningless drivel. I don’t think that conservatives have the foggiest idea what most liberals actually believe, and vice versa. Perhaps that is the fundamental cultural problem that we face in this country. My question is this, does that problem have a solution? Can we form a coalition for a civil society?
Sriram Says: May 27th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Jack, save ur political correctness for the liberals. mohammed is the same guy who married a 6 year old girl and talked about spreading islam thruout the world, by murder. The very basis of Islam is flawed and evil. Period.
Reg. the “international community and the UN”, the United States is the single most important country and is the only nation that is morally correct. Remember, the money at the UN that’s required to spit on America comes from America. That’s why the United States should stop funding the corrupt organization.
Just look at the “international community”. Communist China, socialist Europe, terrorist Middle East (xcept Israel) and Evil Russia. America is a class apart from all of these scoundrels. In Gulf War I, the “internatioal community” may have done the laundry of American and British soldiers. But the money and the dirty work all came from the United States and Great Britain. The damn Europeans could not do anything in Bosnia till we entered the war. And to think that we saved them from Communism for 50 years. Russia was shitting in Afghanistan for a decade while we blew the crap out of them in few weeks. America is the only country that matters in the world. It is the most powerful and righteous philosophy, ever. America defined Liberty, Freedom and Justice, while ur “international community” harbors dictators and terrorists.
Now we are at double war against Islam and Liberals. The former can be won, but the latter..
Joy Says: May 27th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Mr. Jack,
What are the many sources that show Anna as correct? I’d like to check them out for myself.
Joy Says: May 27th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Rick,
If you need to listen to one man to fuel a fire of contempt for a whole group of people, maybe your anger is pointed in the wrong direction.
I am right-wing and Rush doesn’t represent me in everything he says. You could be my nieghbor and really respect me. If you don’t like what Rush is saying, fine - but don’t place us all with him behind that ‘mike’…and I won’t place you with Kerry…or Al Sharpton.
Anna Says: May 27th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Joy,
Suum Cuique.
Lefty Says: May 28th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
To believe that America is the most just and righteous country is to turn a blind eye to much damage we have done by overthrowing democratically elected leaders and growing poverty in “less developed” countries. Sriram, I don’t think you know much about America.
bonniem Says: May 28th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Good for you, Joy. See that is the problem with name calling. We get lumped into one category altho’ I believe there are really not that many that agree with every single . I am a Christian, but I wonder where “Right wing Christian” got such a bad name from. And are all Christians who voted Republican “Right wing Christian”? I know some Christians who vote Democratic. Are they Left wing Christians? I don’t listen to Rush either. I have, but don’t find him that worthy of my time. So, I really hate all these categories.
bonniem Says: May 29th, 2005 at 2:14 am
Oh, but Mr. Jack, the muslims are making it about religion — their religion — to kill all the infidels! They tell us they do this in the name of Allah, I suppose so they can have all those virgins!
Lefty Says: May 29th, 2005 at 4:12 am
Sriram,
on comment 49, actually the Gulf states paid for almost all of Gulf war 1 (at least financially). As for the international community harboring dictators, we have done much more than our share of that. Historically we have always favored dictatorships when they were in our “national interest.”
pizz Says: May 30th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Why is this article so short, there are allot more lies that can be stated here. How ’bout the one about war for oil (that’s always a good one), can’t you see how cheap gas is these days??
pizz Says: May 30th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Jealousy is a serious problem these days. So many people around the world love American products, technology, music, money, etc. but hate Americans. We are in the position of economic and military superpower because of the values this country was founded on. Capitalism works! Now everyone wants a piece of us so they can change those same values (does anyone see the irony here?). We already have our hands full with liberal dems spending our money and telling us what’s right and wrong, I don’t think we need dictators, socialists and communists chiming in.
pizz Says: May 30th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
The gulf states supplied most of the financial backing for gulf war 1? Where are you getting your information from?? Don’t you remember the US spending 10s of billions. Don’t you remember the liberals complaining about American taxpayers money being spent on this. Don’t you remember some allied nations not making good on there word, financially, and the US picking up the tab. Even the liberal press was reporting this. In my opinion we shouldn’t have paid a dime to save an oil rich country from a lunatic bent on committing mass genocide in the middle east.
I suppose the muslim nation donated the most $ for tsunami relief in se asia also, I think it was somthing like 10 mil as opposed to the US’s contrabution of over 1BILLION. The funny thing is, se asia is predominately muslin.
Mr. Jack Says: May 30th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Siriram, read the Quran , Islam is not founded on the base of evil, it promotes PEACE, and you know that 5-letter word that you conservatives hate so much. READ it, and tell me that it promotes more violence and hatred than the bible, which it’s self promotes sexism. The only reason many Muslims attack us is 1, they Interpret the Quran to radically, just as many Christians interpret the bible to radically, and disregard teachings of peace for what they view to be gods divine will (and yes, both Christians and Muslims, and Jews worship the same God.)
2, because they want us out of the Middle East, after all, who are WE to tell THEM how to live? We?ve been around what, little over 200 years, while their civilization, their way of life is around 3,000 years old.
And Pizz, Hate to tell you this, but it isn’t the Democrats who are spending the money, it’s the republicans. Look at it this way, when Clinton was in office, we had record surpluses, our Economy was thriving, By the start of Bush’s second term, we were, and still are, at record deficits, of over 2 trillion dollars, with a annual deficit of $450 billion.
What?s worse, our president thinks it’s ok to cut taxes in a time of war, any one who paid attention in their high school economics class knows that’s a very very bad Idea.
pizz Says: May 31st, 2005 at 10:28 am
Mr. Jack,
I’m not sure if you noticed the situation the country has been in for the last few years. A falling economy left by the clinton admin (actually the bubble bust before his second term ended), terrorist attacks that cost the fed billions in aid, war in afghanistan, war in iraq, funding for our troops, funding for reconstruction projects in afghan and iraq just to name a few.
Besides, contrary to your world the unemployment rate in lower than when clinton held office (5.4%) and the GDP is higher than even the optimists expected.
Screaming liberals pushed the same retoric when Regan was in office and he was one of the best presidents this country has ever had. There are even some liberals that agree with that (wow).
In a sense you are correct though, usually when a republican spends it’s because it’s something that actually benefits the taxpayers, and they prioritize.
You know, come to think of it, I could have rebutted with one word…. sen. Byrd
Joy Says: May 31st, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Anna,
“I will attend my proper cares in rain or sun or frost.”
To each his own…within the law.
Joy Says: May 31st, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Circe,
Exactly so. (#48) I was referring to true liberalism and conservatism.
It’s amazing how many hard-core “liberals” become “conservatives” when they have children.
It’s amazing how many “conservatives” have compassion on the needy.
We have a coalition for a civil society…it’s called the United States of America.
If the UN, or an equivalent, is being referred to again here - there will never be a workable ‘coalition for a civil society’ of the world because of all the differing ideologies and the corruption involved whenever dealing with people who want to be in that position.
Why are people upset about the Downing Street Memo? Isn’t it because it seems to show an agenda different from the one presented publicly? What on earth (literally) do we think is happening on a global scale?
China, Cuba, N. Korea, Libya and so on…do they play show and tell at the UN? No, they play bully the ones they’re in charge of and shine the halo for authority-when it suits them-or ____ off when it doesn’t. Are they good candidates for a coaltion for a civil society?
I’ll admit, I’ve never been a modern-day liberal, but I did marry into a family full of them. I’m assuming that the way they speak about issues represents how they view them, so I think I have a fair understanding of at least several liberal mindsets. I was raised as a moderate Democrat, back when we thought Democrats were for the working man (that was the way it was put). Then about 20 years ago I read the Democratic platform and realized that it didn’t represent me. I read the Republican platform and realized that it did. Do all Republicans represent how I view things? Of course not. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, though registered as a Republican. I am not rich or poor. I do not approve of things done by the politicians of any party who forget that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I think my tax dollars are paying for too many programs that my place of worship or organization should be paying for with my money.
I think we have too many local levies passed while the kids are still flunking that suck money that I could be using to help my kids through college…while they maintain their grade average according to the contract. I think good teachers get paid too little and poor ‘teachers’ get paid too much. I think judges need to stick to interpreting the law and leave legislation to the legislators.
I guess this puts me on the right side of the continuum from liberal to conservative. Where does my love of and respect for nature (lower case) place me? Where does the self-initiated street cleanup (where we pick up garbage on our walks to and through our town) put me? Where does my disgust at the double standard regarding Saudi Arabia put me?
In our government we need to meet on common ground whenever possible. Where the 2 ideologies clash, let the majority rule. Isn’t that what democracy is?
pizz Says: June 1st, 2005 at 2:08 am
Well put Joy. Bravo!
Anna Says: June 1st, 2005 at 2:51 am
Joy,
Suum cuique pulchrum est.
Lefty Says: June 1st, 2005 at 3:00 am
Pizz,
Regarding comment #59: You could look it up on the DOD web site yourself but the US Department of Defense estimated the incremental cost of Gulf War 1 at $61 billion. This additional cost included deployment, construction and operations in the Gulf. However, $54 billion was offset by contributions of other members in the Coalition. Two-thirds of the $54 billion was provided by the Gulf States ($36 billion) with the remaining one-third mostly provided by Japan and Germany ($16 billion).
Now, the current Iraq/US war has cost the US about $300 billion with no other countries picking up any of that tab. It may cost over $1000 billion (that’s a trillion) before we are out of there. Right now the US is constructing 14 permanent new military bases in Iraq. I would guess that the Pentagon plans to use them.
Lefty Says: June 1st, 2005 at 3:05 am
Pizz,
In case you do wish to read it for yourself, the information in my previous comment about the cost of Gulf War I was taken from a report entitled Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, The Final Report to the US Congress by the US Department of Defense; April 1992; Appendix P.
Mr. Jack Says: June 1st, 2005 at 7:02 am
Pizz, where in gods name are you getting your information? Fox news? When Clinton left office, we had a record surplus of over 7 trillion dollars, then bush comes in and gives tax breaks, that mostly benefit the top 2% of Americans who earn over $200,000 a year, I believe I read somewhere that it benefited them with $9,000 in returns, I don’t know about you, but I got a miserable $300. Tell me you wouldn’t feel cheated, They’re rich, they don’t need that money, I do, I have a living to make, an extra $9,000 a year would be great for me. Then of course 9/11 happens and we go to war, if bush would have paid attention while he was in Harvard, he would have realized that during a time of war, tax breaks must be sacrificed to pay for the war effort. But no, he decided to charge all the money to a credit card, putting our record surplus into a record deficit of over $2 TRILLION.
And seriously, get over your supposedly better unemployment rate, those new jobs we’re creating are Mc. Donald’s grade quality at best, our manufacturing muscle that got us through both world wars is gone, lost to china, who is now taking our place in the global market, while we become a nation of Wal-marts and Mc. Donald’s’ how pathetic.
Joy Says: June 1st, 2005 at 7:11 pm
Anna,
That depends on the context. To each his own when done for the good of others, yes. When done in selfishness or perversion, no. We are each unique and all we do affects others, so let it be for the overall good rather than passing fancy.
Joy Says: June 1st, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Anna,
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Just kidding.