What will be done with Saddam ?

[Talentless]

Thanks.

👍 indeed!

I think a 3rd attempt at a world governing council is better than letting 1 country run the whole show. The US showing it is more powerful and influential than the entire UN is devastating. The world government is a dictatorship right now and it needs to be changed for the sake of democracy.

I think if the face of the world is democratic then the individual governments would weaken with no real threat against them. When the choice comes down to crazy cowboy bush and crazy emperor saddam it is much harder for the people in those countries to see democracy for what it should be. As we saw with the Iraqis, when the first taste of democracy is the American ass kicking machine knocking down doors and blowing **** up, the reaction is mixed to say the least.

Canada is very similar to the US but we have absolutely jack **** for military power. I feel a hell of a lot safer here than i would in the US. I think having your military and even worse using it just makes you enemies. We fought the Axis in WW2 as well, the difference is we didn't try to keep using our army to play around with the world and try to change everything we don't agree with.

You do serve an essential role right now but we should be moving in the 'utopian' direction rather than the 'kill 'em all' direction.

As far as I know, there is no world government, only an organisation (the UN) to which some are signatories, and it is their armies, or likely their allies' armies, who would be doing the punishing for violating UN demands. If I am correct in stating that the powerful stay together, it would seem to go against the idea that one of them will provide forces to check or defeat the other. Suppose Britain decided the US must be stopped for some reason, it's hard not to think there would be some reticency from Britannia. With out loyal and independent forces of its own, the UN is always subject to some degree to the back door dealings of other nations. And many of the countries would be crushed even if they merged their armies together.

There's no 'kill em all mentality' in the US that is largely representative of it.

An international government might favor the ideology of its most ardent supporters, unless they can't pay its dues, then concessions to the rich and "imperialistic" nations (whatever the case may be) are a given. There's a potentially devestating effect if sovereignty is given over, or too much of it if not it all. Many Americans are pro gun. Many Americans are for capital punishment. While those issues may not have the moral equivalency of the most or at least some of issues that bother anti globalists who protest the G8 Summits, those of the World Bank, et al, there would be seen by Americans hypocritical interference in internal affairs. What if the world decided 17 should be the legal drinking age? Should we make ours that if the UN calls for it? Do we have to fill out a an exception form and get a two-thirds majority to ratify it. The ethical superiority of such a government is a highly idealistic presumption with consequences that may exceed that of the abuses of any super power. Working within norms and signed treaties is one thing, but under the command and whim of collective opinion is another. And the latter, if ever enforceable, concerns me enough to hope it never happens.

 

[wellyrn]

"kill 'em all" isn't very accurate... but i think most people realise the US don't have the most benevolent attitude in foreign affairs. Maybe "submit to our will or die" is more accurate.

I would like to see the "war on terror" ended by an international organization like the UN. Muslim genocide or US surrender aren't good options.

 

[Kent]

US don't have the most benevolent attitude in foreign affairs. Maybe "submit to our will or die" is more accurate.

And you doesn't have the best grammar.

No for real though, if submit to our will or die is the new order, why aren't we in france, spain or germany?

I would love to see some of the hardest anti-bush people try to stop us with non-violent protest... I'm sure US soldiers would be cleaning their boots for months to come.

But oh yeah!
We don't go after those who dis-agree.
No, not the people who dis-agree.
Just the mass-murdering dictatorships of the world.

 

[rjensen11]

👍 indeed!

I think a 3rd attempt at a world governing council is better than letting 1 country run the whole show. The US showing it is more powerful and influential than the entire UN is devastating. The world government is a dictatorship right now and it needs to be changed for the sake of democracy.

I think if the face of the world is democratic then the individual governments would weaken with no real threat against them. When the choice comes down to crazy cowboy bush and crazy emperor saddam it is much harder for the people in those countries to see democracy for what it should be. As we saw with the Iraqis, when the first taste of democracy is the American ass kicking machine knocking down doors and blowing **** up, the reaction is mixed to say the least.

Canada is very similar to the US but we have absolutely jack **** for military power. I feel a hell of a lot safer here than i would in the US. I think having your military and even worse using it just makes you enemies. We fought the Axis in WW2 as well, the difference is we didn't try to keep using our army to play around with the world and try to change everything we don't agree with.

You do serve an essential role right now but we should be moving in the 'utopian' direction rather than the 'kill 'em all' direction.

Somebody just needs to tell the US that the Cold War is over. It was only after World War 2 that the US really had any standing army during "peacetime", and the "founding fathers" never wanted the US to have a standing army really, when we didn't have to. I think it just represents British imperialism back in the 1700's, and here we are, doing things very similar as to the "Intolerable Acts (Townshend Acts.)"

 

[87chevy]

Nice post Talentless!! this is the first thread i think i've ever seen you in and i like you already (so far ) very good post and i fully agree with you on the World Gov. thing! 👍

 

[High-Test]

Ok, this is getting a little out of hand. Since when was the U.S trying to rule the world? Since when do we still think the cold war is still going on? The U.S. isn't perfect, but how do you expect it to be? If you're so against the war in Iraq, then why don't we just let saddam kill another 700,000 or so Iraqis? Bear with me here, but pulling out of Iraq now could be comparable to spending the 6 years and 400,000 american lives to stop hitler, and then pull out so he can kill a few million more jews. Saddam was a threat to his own people, and a threat in general. when the allies were bombing germany and the germans were getting pushed back into germany, the Italians shot and hanged Mussolini. if we did the same today, wouldn't that send a message to the Kim jong Ils and osama bin ladens of the world that they will be prosecuted for their crimes? frankly, I think we should have a trial and expose everything. show what good deeds he has done as Iraq's leader. And DON'T go off on how its the U.S.'s fault that saddam had chem weapons to gas his own people, at the time, Iran was a bigger threat and a bigger problem. Never forget, Iran contra was the product of a few crooked generals. not ronald reagan. (not entirely) Don't let a couple of mishaps overshadow what good a President's term has done. Clinton's administration gave us a surplus, and that is overshadowed by a couple of hoes named Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. I say we should stay in Iraq until it's over, (if the new government wants us to) and get the job done. I also want to say thank you to 87chevy to making a sacrifice for america by going over to Iraq for however many months it was. let's forget about some people saying we're there for oil, there to take over, I saw a post by muscles a few months ago, and it pretty much sums it up.https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1095932#post1095932 I think I'm losing steam, so I'll stop while I'm ahead, but did anyone read the back page article on the july 12 issue of TIME? Do you agree with it?