Question to those that dislike the UN.

BWX

Well, in my judgment as well as most of the world's - "good" and "bad" have many meanings. In the conext I was referring to however, as it pertains to governments in general, I think most most people would agree that governments that respect the human rights of its population and is elected by and for the people, and does not attack it's neighbors would be the "good" kind of government.

A government that rules with fear, murder, rape, torture, and disrespect for it's population and steals the nation's wealth for building extravagant palaces while it's people are starving is what I would consider a "bad" government. Do you disagree? If so, what are your definitions? All you say is this---- "I'm not so sure the US does not have an evil government at present"- whithout any explination at all.

Just because someone is in power doesn't mean they are the "good" guys, that is absurd. I think my definitions make more sense than just accepting the notion that whoever is in power is the good guy- did you read the post I wrote- It kind of explains why things don't work like that.

BWX

Or maybe dismissing the UN and forming another more agreeable and usefull organization. One that holds true to it's resolutions!

BWX

Let me tell you why this is wrong. We can vote out our government and change it without going into civil war. I think you left that part out. --

Remember when the democrats were running everything and Clinton just let terrorist attack us again and again? People didn't like it so the voted all the democtrats out. Now we have a republican government that doesn't take crap from terrorist without a fight and doesn't make the treasury print up a whole bunch of extra monet, then traise intrest rates to "slow down" the economy so huge piles of empty wealth is built up until the bubble bursts. People didn't like that crap, so now we have a whole new government. One where the leader is faihful to his wife and doesn't let any and every little girl suck his "cigar"-- Peole were fed up with the socialist direction we were headed so the voted the offenders out of office. Like it or not, that is what happend. It looks like I am in the magority too-- As I will be in 2004 when Bush gets re-elected

If your statement was true, the oldest living president would still be in charge. We have the constitution so what you said cannot possibly be true. Until the constitution is competely raped (as it being all the time) we still have a lot better chance to remain free than any other country in the world.

BWX

You mean their debts to France and Russia? They are gone- Saddam owes them money, not the Iraqi people, who are in control now and in the future, if France and Russia want to collect their money from Saddam, let them find him and collect it.

bluelight

Yeah but you ough more than anyone else for the war you supported and probably initiated that killed more than 3 milllion people and lasted ten years and for bringing Saddam into power in the fĂ*rst place.

The one reasonabale thing would be...you pay it all.

Bluelight

BWX

Saddam accepted a huge dictate didn't he? It's called come out with your hands up or face the consequence. Now he is running away- with no power or control. LOL I love it.

__________________

BWX

How about they get nothing and the Iraqi people keep it. And pay us back in oil for liberating them. France and Russia can take the loss for all I care- they were dealing in illegal arms for oil anyway.

bluelight

You put him in place.You pay.

Simple.

Truth and consequense.

Wont be like that though.

Too bad.


Bluelight

BWX

He put himself in power- You think we should pay what? We don't live in a socialist "give all the money away" society like so many around the world. Those people think they are entitled to everything, to those people I say- go get a job and pay for it yourself. I know it is difficult to imagine this idea for most people, but that is the way it is. France and Russia can go rot.

bluelight

No actually...he didnt.The Cia was involved.Just like they were involved i getting Khadaffy into power.After they got into power several thousand people were killed immidietly by the new government.

Left wing people. Yes :-)






:-)


Bluelight

bluelight

I say...................Well it seems we are getting to the real depths of argumentation very fast here....How could i expect anything else from you....


Bluelight

BWX

It does sound like something the democrats would do- I gues it takes some republicans to fix the mistake (not that it ever happend) and take him out for good. Well, that's what we did, so that is that, and we couldn't have done it listening to the UN.

bluelight

The democrats?Well...some times arguments are hard to find....

First..."Go get a job" then...."The Democrats"...

Bluelight

BWX

Well I could ague about this,

"You put him in place.You pay.

Simple.

Truth and consequense.

Wont be like that though.

Too bad."

But I already have and you still think everything in the world is the US's fault. LOL

__________________

eyeguy616

Hmm... BWX232 is on a roll.
Anyway, you (BWX232) were right, I did forget the fact that we can vote them out of office..... but I put 'slowly' in there for a reason. I don't see mass protests over the DMCA, UCITA, or the Patriot Act.... but I sincerely hope electing new officials will change/kill those. Who knows.... it may not even change anything. The biggest reason 'slowly' is there is the fact that the public opinion is very easily shaped and molded to fit what the gov needs. There may have been lots of protesters that were against the war, but the majority of the population was in favor of it thanks to how it was presented. Anything can be given a spin for better or worse, so all the gov has to do in "war-time" is filter things the way that's needed, similar to how countries that hate the US filter out any US victories and focus on its shortcomings and casualties (not that that's bad, but there is a lot more to the war).
You were also right on another thing: the current oldest president would still be in charge if he were making good decisions on certain key issues. FDR got four terms becuase he presented himself like a father figure with his "fireside chats" every so often on the radio. He was well liked, and we also needed a strong president to get us through WWII, which he died before it was over. It's that kind of intellegence in a president we seem to be lacking now (especially with Dubbya). ....I don't think we'll ever get someone who can be as great as FDR, Lincoln, or Washington again. Oh, and after FDR got four terms, they put a cap .... I guess those other politicians didn't like the fact that someone could get elected and keep getting elected if he did things right.

Sorry for getting mildly off topic. I'll try to make a more meaningful post next time..... if it hasn't already been hammered out with the master debaters here.
~eyeguy616
-keepin' it coo,' stayin' in schoo'

Falstaff

public opinion is very easily shaped and molded to fit what the gov needs. There may have been lots of protesters that were against the war, but the majority of the population was in favor of it thanks to how it was presented. Anything can be given a spin for better or worse, so all the gov has to do in "war-time" is filter things the way that's needed, similar to how countries that hate the US filter out any US victories and focus on its shortcomings and casualties (not that that's bad, but there is a lot more to the war).


Are you saying the government (ours) manipulates the media to polarize public thinking and opinion?


FDR got four terms becuase he presented himself like a father figure with his "fireside chats" every so often on the radio. He was well liked, and we also needed a strong president to get us through WWII, which he died before it was over. It's that kind of intellegence in a president we seem to be lacking now (especially with Dubbya). ....I don't think we'll ever get someone who can be as great as FDR, Lincoln, or Washington again. Oh, and after FDR got four terms, they put a cap .... I guess those other politicians didn't like the fact that someone could get elected and keep getting elected if he did things right.


FDR got four terms because he could, he was ambitious for sure, but he had put into place a powerful political organization, he was afraid that communism would rear it's ugly head, so he created a very strong economy from the vestiges of the depression and got americans involved in thier country by putting them back to work and squarely involved in lots of projects..He had been called a "socialist jew" by his enemies (and there were many).
I admired FDR for many reasons, but he made lots of mistakes, could he have been as effective in this day and age? perhaps, he was savvy, and as you said he did use the media to his advantage too. Most of all, he was a strong president and even earned the respect of Stalin, who knew that FDR couldn't walk.

I don't feel your remarks were off topic, to the point, the whole quagmire of different aspirations and motives for creating the United Nations finally gelled after interest by Roosevelt. That may a gross generalization. But the U.N. got off to a good start. The Famous writer, speaker, Alastair Cooke who discussed the history of the U.N. in his "letters from America" in the BBC4 special years ago, put it into perspective for generations of americans..
http://db.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features...ir-cooke.shtml

BWX232- It does sound like something the democrats would do- I gues it takes some republicans to fix the mistake (not that it ever happend) and take him out for good. Well, that's what we did, so that is that, and we couldn't have done it listening to the UN.

Democrats-Republicans-Government agencies-the list goes on......all mend fences, coverup mistakes or perform damage control.......it's a political reality...it implies flexibility in my opinion...

You mean their debts to France and Russia? They are gone- Saddam owes them money, not the Iraqi people, who are in control now and in the future, if France and Russia want to collect their money from Saddam, let them find him and collect it.

I wish that were true...but it is not..The U.N. was involved in arranging the debt's that Kuwait demanded from IRAQ...that is not going away...France and Germany and Russia are not the only countries that invested heavily in IRAQ...There were lots of political investments too. IRAQ will pay..to rebuild credibility, perhaps it's debts will be forgiven from one standpoint, but even now as we speak...they might as well be sitting in a taxi that isn't going anywhere, the counter is still clicking off the time or the mileage...IRAQ will have get some serious support to repay the debts that will still owe after this all over...it isn't Yugoslavia anymore...Its a darn good thing they have oil....

BWX

LOL, well I can say this- It IS getting worse and not better. I mean think about it, My grandFather had more freedoms in the US than I ever will. My Father had less freedoms than My Grandfather. Now I can almost be certain by the time I have kids that are old enought to come argue on a forum like this, It is possible it will be illegal to flip someone off. It is worse now, and that is the way life is, the fact that I have to wear my seatbelt or I get a ticket is BS!- I mean, I would and do wear it anyway, but I don't want some moron in Washington TELLING me I have to wear it-I also think it it completely stupid to talk on a Cell-phone when driving a car if you are incompetant and can't stay in your lane when doing so, but I happen to be of above average driving skill and If I had a cellphone I could do it just fine and don't want the blasted government telling me I can't. But if enough people said they didn't want those rules, they would be gone after a while- BUT- it is allot easier to MAKE a law than to get rid of a law, and since we are a country of laws, they tend to pile up on us. That's why I think you are partially right.

But I still wouldn't want to have been born and raised anywhere else!!!

BWX

Well if any of the debts are on the "up-n'-up" if you know what i mean, they should be paid for by Iraq, but I truly believe that the mojority of debts owed to Russia and France are for illegal arms for oil of some other perversion of the food for oil program. I mean, you just can't hold the poor repressed Iraqi people accountable for the past debts of there insane past leader. They have an entire country to rebuild from the ground up. They should be responsible for SOME of the money it cost to rid them of Saddam, and any legitimate debts to other countries that the Iraqi people themselves benefited by (but I bet you would have a hard time finding any).....

bluelight

He truly believes that Russia and France has been selling "illegal" arms to Iraq although Iraq has been under sanctions by the UN.Sanctions that has been withheld and controlled by among others USA and Britain....


Bluelight

bluelight

The highest level of freedom is to be drunk when driving.

Anyone that knows he can handle it should of course be allowed to be completly out of their heads and drive.

If you know...you can handle it that is...

That is freedom .



Freedom.


Bluelight

BWX

Yeah, I said I think you should be able to drive drunk-- NOT--

You are hearing things again there sparky, I didn't say you should be able to drink and drive- that would allow people to do something that endangers others while they themselves are in a state of non-control. Not something that I think anyone would condone.....

Quite different is the argument that the government should tell me I have to wear a seatbelt- Or whether or not I should be able to talk on the phone while driving- which is something certain people can do without affecting their driving ability and certain people can't..

There is a huge difference in what I said and what you said-- I guess maybe you have to think a little more about what I post before you just go off the deep end w/ your responses.

------------Furthermore the only reason I said any of that was an example of the way a government starts limiting your freedom- something you obviously have no response to so you just try to argu w/ the examples??? Seems like you just try to defend big government taking over the freedom of every single person on the face of the earth at all costs.

Damn, I am sure glad you aren't in charge- No one would have any freedom-

I'm glad to you live over there where you do and just pray to the government to put more restrictions on what you can and cannot do-- I for one enjoy my freedom and don't want to live like that and can't imagine what kind of brainwashing it would take to make me think like you --

"bluelight- the one with all the answers to why the US and all free people should let the government take over every aspect of their lives"... man, I feel sorry for you.

eyeguy616

Oh well...

Having too much freedom leads to anarchy. Although anarchy isn't such a bad thing, there will be mass depopulations of people mostly due to killings and people running for their lives. That's kind of why we have the laws we have, but we, the people, are not the ones getting the last say in some of these right now. Seatbelts weren't always manditory (My friend's dad has a big ass '67 Lincoln Continental and it has no seatbelts, but it does have five cigar lighters and four 200 pound steel/iron doors. It's a freakin' tank! ), but the gov was concerned about the lives of its citizens since cars were getting really fast and fatalities were going up. Another one is leaded to unleaded gasoline. Old cars that burned leaded gasoline could last a long time becuase leaded gas burned much better then unleaded, but it released a hell of a lot more carbon emissions. Government is a necessary evil in this day and age, but at least we have some say in things unlike how some of the gov are in the countries we fought with or are planning to fight.

~eyeguy616

Falstaff

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence....

__________________

BWX

*off topic*

Is this a real quote at that time?? Man if it is that is just too funny, and amazing he would word it like that!


"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
-Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

__________________

bluelight

No there is no difference in what i say and what you say.

Im just using a more extreme example.

The ultimate freedom is really to be drunk driving a car while pointing a loaded shotgun out of the window.

That is real freedom.

And....if i can.....handle it...then it is nobodys business if i do so.

This is the politics of the libretarians and the ultra conservative right.

The one single group of people that believes in true freedom.

Bluelight








Bluelight

BWX

The most profound statement I have seen in a while-- Freedom is not free- That is SO true. Many people have died and undergone MUCH pain and agony, and have also gone without and worked their entire lives- JUST so we could be free to sit here and argue on a website like this, drive cars without our damn seatbelts, vote morons out of office, And protest against France if we want too-

Freedom also costs the billions of hours of hard work it took Americans to pay for the 100billion dollars that it costs to take out people who threaten our freedom like Saddam and his regime and Bin Laden and his followers in Afganistan.
You are right - freedom is far from free- it is the most valuable thing we possess. Rant over.

BWX

Well fine. I'll go with that-

60 years ago if my grandfather WANTED to he could drive down the road drunk with a loaded gun pointed out the window- and guess what? If he got where he was going and didn't hurt antbody so what? If he shot someone he would go to jail, if he drove into someone and killed them he would go to jail.

But now in 2003 if you get caught doing those things, even if it doesn't hurt a soul, guess what? You go right to jail because you "could have" hurt someone. I'm not saying it is right to drive drunk, but for the government to take all your money and call you a fellon becuase you do, even if you don't ever hurt a fly, is ridiculous. People still need to be held accountable, if they are drunk or not, nowadays, if you get caught being drunk and driving they treat you like you mugged someone. I don't even drink- but it's ideas like yours that slowly take away peoples hard earn freedoms, one by one, for our own "safety"--


There was a time in this country when we were truly free, those days are gone, but we still have more freedom than any other country, that's why people are flooding our boarders by the millions every year- I don't see people breaking down the walls of Iraq to get in. But they probably will after we liberate the people and let them run the government like they want- Then everyone over there will go to Iraq to make more money, do what they want to do, and get away from their own county that is trying to controll every aspect of their lives.

If you are going to argue the specifics of my point bluelight, don't bother, that wasn't the main point- the main point was that our governments are taking over our freedoms, and I am sure yours isn't getting any better either. I can't believe you just agree with everything your government does, take astep back and look around you, there isn't anything you want to change?

bluelight

The only thing i wanna se happen is for the right wing extremeists to loose terrain.Its not gonna happen for a while though.

Probably not during my lifetime.

Politics works in a pendulum movement.Right now rightwing politics and un regulated "free" capitalism has taken the lead...and will continue with that until peole takes back..whats theirs...unless the brainwashing...succeeds totally of course...which is also possible.

You want to knowe about the future...read 1984 by George Orwell...and ...yes it is already here.




"We are free when we buy"


Bluelight

BWX

Uh, you mean the KKK? I agree-- Nazi's should also be stomped out, could not agree more.



that capitalism you are talking about built the world you live in today, built that computer you are typing on, allowed you to see it with the lightbulb that is on, and built a country able to take on the communists, the Nazis, and Saddam AND win... but if you want to have the world so noone has the power to stand up to Nazis, Commies, Saddams and the terrorists of the world-- that is your decision. I guess--


glad not everyone wants the world like that, we would all be in a heap of trouble then.

bluelight

No i mean politics similar to what your conservatives (and especially them)....my conservatives..Britains conservatives ...stand for today.

They arte extremists ...yes...:-)

Actually they are a threat to peace.





That is what i mean



Bluelight