<font color="#3399cc">I loved this and agree 100%.

I think however that you will hear people say that we are attempting to use our economic might to somehow enslave the rest of the world to our will even if we do not invade and occupy.....but I do not see it that way. Good Post! [img]graemlins/2gunfire.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1daisy.gif[/img] </font>

i met an American here in Utrecht this afternoon. I asked him if he was by any chance part of an invasion force doing a little recon. But then he asked me the way to the nearest cathouse, so i think the war hasn't started yet. LOL

But every other country does not propose a law about "invading" The Netherlands because they disagree with the international court's ruling.

[/QB] [/QUOTE]
Which is just what I'm talking about. A country with as much power as USA is a risk to the rest of the world. That's a fact. Just look at this "war on terrorism" which basically gives USA the power to kill basically anyone because they thought they were terrorists. Now don' get me wrong, I think that the idea is good and I think it strives for a good cause, but it's still a proof that USA has too much power.
It would be better if an alliance of some sort had those powers. The UN for example.

And what if the the USA gov't thinks what the rest of the world proposes is stupid? Do they get the right not to suck it up and let it go? Or is that right only resereved for everybody else? I sure when you were young your parents said something to the effect of if the rest of the world jumped off a cliff would you do it? Just asking Skywalker, you have to apply it to both sides.</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, John?

Just because I did not say we should be able to bash back, does not mean I think we can't. Why would you think I felt that way. If they can dish it out then they can take it. Of course so should we (America that is).

Mark

Neb, thanks for illustating my point to even the greater degree. The Romans were fighting people armed basicly the same as themselves with swords and spears. There are only a handful of countries that have nukes, and the USA clearly has more and they are more accurate. The rest are armed with conventional weapons, HUGE gap in power, the greatest the world has ever seen. Yet The USA has not conquered anyone like the peoples I listed in my example.

Side note how many times have any of you said, or heard said the USA has the power to destroy the world X times over? Now keep that in mind and recify it to the Fact that we haven't done it! What does that tell you about the USA? Maybe we are not warmongers? Maybe since we realize how much power is at our disposal we are being very judicial in our appilcation of said power? (I said Judicial NOT Perfect!!)

Then I wonder why we need the power to destroy the world X times over.

Is it because: If some incredible Evil tries to take over the world, it would be better to destroy the planet, then let Evil have the world.

Mark

And what if the the USA gov't thinks what the rest of the world proposes is stupid? Do they get the right not to suck it up and let it go? Or is that right only resereved for everybody else? I sure when you were young your parents said something to the effect of if the rest of the world jumped off a cliff would you do it? Just asking Skywalker, you have to apply it to both sides.</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, John?

Just because I did not say we should be able to bash back, does not mean I think we can't. Why would you think I felt that way. If they can dish it out then they can take it. Of course so should we (America that is).

Mark</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I saw the Word whine and My blood lust was already up [img]graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

That's a discussion for a different time. There are fates worse then death.

[ 06-09-2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Bush may not pass the laws by himself, but he does take every opportunity to ram through all that he can in the name of the "War Against Terrorism".

Mark</font>[/QUOTE]Mark: very very well said!! I wanted to say the same thing, but was afraid for a lot of flames [img]smile.gif[/img]

In theory maybe, but in reality it would never work. Look at the bureuracracy and the problems it would cause. only a small part of our bureuracracy ever came in contact with any information about possible terrorist attacks, and look at what happened. Now imagine a worldwide burueracracy, instead of 1,000's or 10,000's of people you got 10,000,000's or 100,000,000's people all with "their dog in the fight" (southern expression for interests) can you see what kind of "Charlie Foxtrot" that would be? We got some countries where the leaders (parlament members, national assembly members etc;) get into fist fights over issues on the floor of their assemblies.

One world gov't will eventually come about, unless we destroy ourselves first, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that cause I never have any good luck :D Now how will the political power be set up? one country one vote? Why would a highly populated country go for that? Number of votes based on population of countries? Why would a lightly populated country go for that? The only way I see it working is to set it up like the US consitution 2 houses one based on population, one based on one country one vote. Both Houses must agree. Then approved by an Exectutive. But that only will work if all people have the freedom of the western countries. Now how are you going to get say China, or Iraq, or any of the other oppressive gov't leaders to give up their power? Are they just going to turn it over out of the "goodness of their hearts"? I submitt if they had any "goodness of their hearts" they wouldn't be oppressive gov't leaders!
So now we're left with:
1) Having to force them out, by sactions, war, assasination, open or covert rebelion, or diplomacy, impossing the will of one Sovergien Entity on another Sovergien Entity (the very thing that has everybody upset over in this thread). Just because a majority or a more powerful group wants to do something does that make it right? Now we are back to the very thing that everbody is scrapp'n about in this thread.
2) Sitting back and waiting, while 1,000,000,000's are oppressed, for the leadership to die off? What makes anyone think that the new leadership will be any less oppresive? Chances are that the new leadership will have "come up through the ranks of the old leadership".This course of action I would submitt means the alliance has No "goodness of their hearts" and doesn't deserve to be in power. After all it will not be doing the very thing that it's suposse to do. Or, in other words what the nations that have signed the treaty for the ICC say they are trying to do, what they believe to be right. So now we are back to doing #1.

3) My submittion is doing a little of both, Imposse will through, diplomacy, sanctions, war or what ever where you can. and wait where you have too! But then that can't work because that is what the USA is trying to do.

As for the war on terrorism, it does not give the USA the power to basicly kill any one it thinks is a terrorist. What gives the USA that power is the same thing that gives ALL COUNTRIES that power. Weapons and the will to use them! As Satlin once said about the Pope's complaining when the USSR invaded Hungary "How many divisions does the Pope have in the Field?" The war on terrorism is the reason/ justifaction for the attacks, but does not give the power.