Threat to world peace???????

Threat to world peace??????? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

missturbation -> Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 3:04:24 AM)
In my attempts to keep up with the political debates on this thread i decided to do some reading up and started with George Bush. In 2006 a majority of respondents in 18 of 21 countries surveyed around the world were found to hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as "negative" for world security.[154][155] A poll conducted in Britain placed Bush at the second biggest "threat to world peace" right after Bin Laden, topping North Korean president Kim Jong-Il.[156] According to a poll taken in November of 2006, Finns, as well as Britons, believed that Bush was the second biggest "threat to the world peace" after Bin Laden. Kim Jong-Il came 3rd in poll and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah came joint fourth.[ Is this true? Is George Bush really that big a threat to world peace? Some people, such as Benjamin Ferencz, a chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, expressed the view that Bush should be tried, along with Saddam Hussein, for starting a war of aggression, the supreme international crime under the Nuremberg Principles.[159] Other experts also regarded the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq as illegitimate: "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war.[160 Should Bush be tried? Quotes above from:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#_note-145

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 3:09:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Should Bush be tried? Of course he should and Blair too but it won't happen. We keep show trials for dictators, not democratic leaders that lie and start illegal wars.

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 3:12:41 AM)
Just been reading up on Tony Blair and apparently there has been a call for him to be put on trial too.

lolipop -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 3:34:00 AM)
I absolutely believe that the Bush administration has committed some horrible crimes (not just the Iraq war). It's pretty disgusting when you think that they are getting away with these things only because the US is considered such a super power (hah), and oh their opinions and justifications (AKA that of Bush & co.) MUST be correct because they're the leaders of the 'greatest country in the world'. They're crimes. It doesn't matter if you're a politician, a celebrity, a janitor, whatever, you should be convicted of your crimes. But it's pretty sad considering their horrible actions and decisions have and will continue to affect the world for many years to come. I try not to think about what a different state the world would be in if Gore had won haha.

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:13:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lolipop I try not to think about what a different state the world would be in if Gore had won haha. Probably a much better world, not free of terrorism, Bush didn't start that but Bush is too happy to follow a personal agenda for him and his friends under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Real0ne -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:38:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Should Bush be tried? Of course he should and Blair too but it won't happen. We keep show trials for other dictators, not democratic dictators. <edited by r1> MC i couldnt resist a quick edit on what you said! LOL Emphatic Yes! and rice and cheney, and rumsfeldt, the fbi, cia, several military. quote: ORIGINAL: lolipop I try not to think about what a different state the world would be in if Gore had won haha. He is equally a threat to domestic peace! elections are bought as well as polititians The plan was to get everyone in the hood to fight each other so we had an excuse to build a permanent base there and pilliage resourses

ladysekhmetka -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:41:55 AM)
Bwa ha ha ha, a threat to World Peace? Sure, he's that and a threat to so many of our other rights ::glares at Patriot Act:: I mean, the last I knew, having taken American Gov. and what not in high school, is that a President has to ask permission from Congress to declare war. The whole checks and balance thing [sm=rolleyes.gif]

sleazy -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 6:51:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladysekhmetka Bwa ha ha ha, a threat to World Peace? Sure, he's that and a threat to so many of our other rights ::glares at Patriot Act:: At the risk of upsetting the applecart a little....... Most of the patriot act was actually drafted by the prior administration. That is how it was such a wonderfully complete and complex draft pulled together in such a short time. Anyway, about time you americans caught up, our version was enacted way back in 2000. :(

seeksfemslave -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 7:03:15 AM)
Lets wait and see if a Muslim fundamentalist group get their hands on a Nuclear weapon. Then we will see who really is a threat to World Peace. Or maybe the Indians/Pakinistanis become even more upset with on another. Then again something might go bang in the Soviet Union, what with all these breakaway Republics and Putin's increasing control of energy resources. This <pillage resources argument> is a bit of a joke really. Why were so many, probably anti Bushers, so angry when the West refused to buy Iraqui Oil. Also the Oil is only extracted due to the expertise of the West, the Middle Easterners receive a good pay off for doing nothing much. Then they can spend the money buying armaments and making construction deals with the West. Perrrrrfect arrangement ! My fellow citizens...you need that Oil and I am here to ensure that you get it !!! None of this namby pamby stuff, save that for Collar Me.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 7:09:43 AM)
No, Bush shouldn't be tried. "Public opinion" is not necessarily either a reliable measure of morality, nor legality nor of possiblity. It's often a reflection of who has the loudest microphone, and who can most effectively manipulate the emotions. Not to mention how the questions are asked. You won't get any kind of reasoned discussion about this issue here, for the simple fact that on one side, you have enough emotionally involved people who will scream at the top of their voices about every other emotional issue, and they attempt to shout down and shut out opposing viewpoints. But good luck. FirmKY

starshineowned -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:05:55 AM)
Because it is alot fresher in my mind now after watching a documentary on it: The whole right or wrong, moral, legal or illegal issue's just don't matter to any country with any ability to do something. It is simply left down to a simple decision of "who's going to do it first". The bay of pigs fiasco fits right up in there with anyone saying this is wrong, illegal, immoral. Take that a alittle further down the road to the Cuban missle crisis, and well folks, had Kennedy at that time Not invoked those same wrong, illegal, immoral powers and did those recon flights to get that photography? Well at the very least, I'd most assuredly not be here today because it so happened that I was born in Fla. less than 4 short years after this was resolved, and the nukes were removed. So I thank the stars that somebody took the balls and played the "who's going to do it first" game, and won. I honestly don't care the push that got us into Irag. The resolutions post the first invasion in order to cease fire were in place. We were never "out of war" with Iraq..only on hiatus as long as Saddam abided by the agreements. He did not. It's just that simple to me but since sooo much time has passed since then..people can't make the connection. So legally in my eyes we definetely were justified no matter what the new word on the street happen to be in order to try and gain public support and help them stomach it better. Morally should we of not? Probably since he really did not seem a true immediate threat, and we definetely had more time to deal with him than Kennedy did. Would of waiting made a difference? I doubt it. Saddam hadn't bothered to abide by the resolutions from the get go..what on earth would make anyone think that 13yrs later he suddenly would? And the number 1 big reason to go ahead and call him on the carpet? It isn't oil though making sure that the countrys dealing under the table with Saddam didn't get a monopoly on it was certainly a motivation but not the main. Iran is the #1 reason I see. To get a landing, and standing force in that theater as a hopeful deterrent or atleast slow down nuculear armanment of Iran so that we are not dealing with another North Korea to where we just have about zip, nada, bargaining ability beyond just pushing the damn button. Are we alittle more sane than extremists? I think so. I don't think we as a nation are hell bent on seeing the complete annihilation of a country of peoples. Any who..any president of any country with any ability to make some sort of world impact would most likely be able to be put in the same light: a threat to world peace during their time in the big house's. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

mnottertail -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:08:42 AM)
Then why not waltz directly into the country of Iran? Ron

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:10:54 AM)
FirmhandKY appears to believe that starting an illegal war is not a threat to world peace.

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:12:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned The bay of pigs fiasco fits right up in there with anyone saying this is wrong, illegal, immoral. Take that a alittle further down the road to the Cuban missle crisis, and well folks, had Kennedy at that time Not invoked those same wrong, illegal, immoral powers and did those recon flights to get that photography? Well at the very least, I'd most assuredly not be here today because it so happened that I was born in Fla. less than 4 short years after this was resolved, and the nukes were removed. So I thank the stars that somebody took the balls and played the "who's going to do it first" game, and won. Why do many Americans conveniently forget that the USSR's attempt to place missiles in Cuba was a reaction to the USA placing nuclear missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:29:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver FirmhandKY appears to believe that starting an illegal war is not a threat to world peace. There is no such thing as a "legal" war, nor an "illegal" war, historically, and in reality. You can place moral judgements on wars. You can say that "such and such" a war had "such and such" an effect, but "legal" and "illegal" are individual terms of reference that presupposes that nation-states are people, and that there is some "higher law" that is ready and prepared to enforce words on a piece of paper somewhere. Doesn't exists, and likely never will, the way most of you wish to think of it. And ... "world peace"? Now there's a funny concept. A grave can be said to be "peaceful" as well. Doesn't mean I have to wish for it. FirmKY

Rule -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:30:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Lets wait and see if a Muslim fundamentalist group get their hands on a Nuclear weapon. Then we will see who really is a threat to World Peace. Quite. Them fundies will have the backup of the black ops guys of various European countries of course. Must have a reason to declare European war on Marocco after all. Hm, I suspect world harbour city Rotterdam will be the target, as recently the public transport personnel of that city was educated in recognizing signs of terrorist attacks. (The fire brigades of New York were similarly prepared in advance of 911.)

seeksfemslave -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:31:44 AM)
They dont forget,(USA's missiles in Turkey) most probably didn't know. A big point is tho' that the existence of nuclear weapons seems to have maintained the peace , at least between the USA and USSR. Along the same lines of "not knowing" I bet that most Americans dont know that Heny Cooper knocked out Cassius Clay as he then was. Only some very dirty tricks saved Clay's bacon. Relevence, well it all depends what the mass media emphasise in their reporting.

starshineowned -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:32:34 AM)
Probably because we had the other option. A clear resolution standing that allowed us to get into Iraq, which at this time is the lesser of the two perceived evils to take. Sorry but I am looking down the road at things I guess. Perhaps if we can now get a free Iraq up and running, see that we are not infadels, then hopefully they will not be as quick to jump on the despised Iran bandwagon when they are jumping up and down to nuke us. It's all a matter really of trying to take the lesser of evils or threats at any given time and hope it was the right decision or truely the lesser evil or threat. Same with Iran/Iraq war..at the time Iraq was the lesser of evils. Iran piped down, and Iraq stood up with this new power and support and because he was a evil to begin with (though at the time lesser) he got out of hand and started eating up the little children around him. Did we create a monster? No..only fed him and watched him slowly grow till he got to big for his cage, and we had to step back in and recage him. Is Iran just propaganda right now? Who know's. Probably. Is the world order able to do anything about Iran? Apparently not since no talks or pressures or even now sanctions seem to be deterring them. Is the whole world wrong because at this point and time they sure seem united in Iran Not developing nuclear power. So whats going to happen if they do? Is everyone going to just sit back now and say "ops we tried, we told them no no but they did it anyway"..oh well lets go have a beer. I don't think so. Why? Because in the very same breath that they say it's for peaceful energy only..they are calling for the annihilation of Israel. So what. Israel is not here. So that would be a good time for the US to just keep it's nose out of it, and well any other country to I guess that isn't Israel. We should all just really wait our turn until they call our countrys name, and as were rising out of the nuclear ashes..we'll decide then to jump on board. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:33:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned The bay of pigs fiasco fits right up in there with anyone saying this is wrong, illegal, immoral. Take that a alittle further down the road to the Cuban missle crisis, and well folks, had Kennedy at that time Not invoked those same wrong, illegal, immoral powers and did those recon flights to get that photography? Well at the very least, I'd most assuredly not be here today because it so happened that I was born in Fla. less than 4 short years after this was resolved, and the nukes were removed. So I thank the stars that somebody took the balls and played the "who's going to do it first" game, and won. Why do many Americans conveniently forget that the USSR's attempt to place missiles in Cuba was a reaction to the USA placing nuclear missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR? And the US's actions were in reaction to the USSR "forgetting to return" half of Europe after WWII (oh, yeah, they "forgot" to leave Iran, too) and declaring their goal of world domination. Ooops. Little fish get eaten by big fish, which get eaten by bigger fish. Trace it back further, if you wish. Eventually, the US wasn't even around. Then who ya gonna blame for all the world's ills? Oh, that's right. The British. No ... the church! No ... the Romans! [:D] FirmKY

mnottertail -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:50:40 AM)
well, that is a long way around the barn. You are named well because we are talking starlives here. Western thought is not going to be accepted into the middle east ever.... no more than your master accepts submission....it is a vastly different philosopy. The Iran Iraq war --- I feel like doing a Billy Joel, but I won't.... in any case, remember that Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Syria and a couple other square miles of area were once Persia....but that is pages and pages. Many countries have nuclear energy and use it for peaceful means. We have it, it is rather left handed to have it for peace and destruction and say no other country can have it, because we are the only ones that are capable of making right decisions....the destruction of Israel has been going on since what, 4000 years before the common era? The slippery slope argument doesnt hold water. Ah, well---enough for now. We disagree in many areas, but you are politely and well spoken. Ron

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625