anomaly said:I agree for the most part. I have some questions though. You say this gov't "should come down hard on rogue nations" if you do this is it really a "world" gov't? Perhaps this world gov't could show these nations why it is beneficial for them not to act the way they are. A world gov't with its own army? Maybe peacekeepers but I would not my world gov't to have its own army. This system would require enormous checks and balances, to keep such a huge system fair. And this gov't should end poverty? Is it collecting taxes or something? No, no, this would never work with a capitalist economy. The only way your world government would work is with some sort of utopian socialist economy. and a utopian socialist economy is just that: an unattainable utopia. I hate to say this, fellow Dem, but your idea seems an idealist dream. It's not going to happen.
alienken said:1 more vote in the Won't work catagory. Too much power in fewer hands.The at the UN and the oil for food program.(Really covered only by fox news,why do you think that is?) It is hard to hold them accountable because their Pres. does not answer to anyone. " Absolute power curupts absolutly." I know I would look smart if I knew who said that, but I don't.
anomaly said:alienken, perhaps you truly aren't from earth. I mean, that is a TERRIBLE bumper sticker idea!!
Also, Fox News hasn't really been talking about the fact that the US was also involved in the scandal, granted to a lesser degree.
A naturalized U.S. citizen working as an Iraqi agent pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges that he lobbied for the repeal of United Nations sanctions on Saddam Hussein's government while making millions brokering the sale of Iraqi oil.Pacridge said:How was the US involved in this mess?
shuamort said:A naturalized U.S. citizen working as an Iraqi agent pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges that he lobbied for the repeal of United Nations sanctions on Saddam Hussein's government while making millions brokering the sale of Iraqi oil.
The charges against Samir Vincent are the first in the U.S. government's probe into how Hussein and others manipulated the oil-for-food program, created by the United Nations in 1996 as a humanitarian exemption to sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
From 1992 to 2003, Vincent took instructions from Iraqi officials in their bid to convince U.S. and UN officials to repeal the sanctions imposed on Iraq, prosecutors said. Vincent never registered with the U.S. government as an Iraqi agent, as required by law.
In an attempt to have the sanctions repealed, Vincent also lobbied former officials of the U.S. government "who maintained close contacts to high-ranking members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations," prosecution documents said. The U.S. officials weren't identified
In a word, No ! The UN needs a total overhaul from top to bottom. These world bodies become so bloated with bureaucracy that they become ineffective and obsolete within 20 years.Look at our current United Nations. Each country sends their representative to the UN. Resolutions (laws) are drafted and voted on. The UN draws from member countries militias to raise armies when needed. Ah, but the question is, does it work?
gypsy0032 said:It is only a matter of time before we see the world under one government. It is going to happen, but not for another 100 years or so.
I hope it never happens. If it happened who would be in charge? Who would be the President of the world? Remember absolute power corrupts absolutly. It won't bring peace.The only way to have world peace is to invent a device that will suck out all of the hatred and greed from everyone in the world.Until something like that happens there will never be peace!Naughty Nurse said:And it MUST happen. It's the only way we'll achieve any kind of real world peace and stop millions of people from starving to death.
Not really going to argue anything here, but just asking this alien a question: would you be in favor of a 'world gov't' if it was a US led world gov't? For example, what if the president of the world was Bush, would you be in favor then of a world gov't.alienken said:I hope it never happens. If it happened who would be in charge? Who would be the President of the world? Remember absolute power corrupts absolutly. It won't bring peace.The only way to have world peace is to invent a device that will suck out all of the hatred and greed from everyone in the world.Until something like that happens there will never be peace!
anomaly said:Not really going to argue anything here, but just asking this alien a question: would you be in favor of a 'world gov't' if it was a US led world gov't? For example, what if the president of the world was Bush, would you be in favor then of a world gov't.
GarzaUK said:Good Lord give me Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Kennedy anyday - now THEY were war leaders.
vauge said:Are there any other Presidents that you consider "great" that did not die in office? Is that mandatory to be exalted as a good leader?
President Bush has had some great speeches, it's just that the left doesn't want to give him any credit. History graded Reagan as a great President and the left hated him, so I am not sure popularity is any indicator of greatness. President Bush has and will accomplish great things during his term. The world loves a smooth talker like Clinton. He told everyone what they wanted to hear just to play nice in the sandbox, but he won't go down in history as a great President who accomplished something in the world.When 9/11 happened he was considered a great leader. But what did he do that no other President would have done? Compared to the great speeches in history, his speeches are uninspired and repetitive. What slogan will Bush be thought of in later years? "Bring em on."?
And Bush has accomplished something? Well, I wasn't aware he accomplished anything 'great'! He has, as the old saying goes, made the rich richer, and has started an illegal war. You know, he really deserved another 4 years, doesn't he? Roosevelt was a great President, the greatest we've ever had (arguable, Lincoln was great, too). He was great domestically and in foreign policy, two areas where Bush has failed.Squawker said:President Bush has had some great speeches, it's just that the left doesn't want to give him any credit. History graded Reagan as a great President and the left hated him, so I am not sure popularity is any indicator of greatness. President Bush has and will accomplish great things during his term. The world loves a smooth talker like Clinton. He told everyone what they wanted to hear just to play nice in the sandbox, but he won't go down in history as a great President who accomplished something in the world.
What is establishing a democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq? Chopped liver?And Bush has accomplished something? Well, I wasn't aware he accomplished anything 'great'!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?