COMMENTS:
yeah but the north koreans aren't muslims.
They don't listen to the UN either.
who does? oil for food, anyone?
A) it's not americas job to reign in rogue states, unless you believe we should be the worlds police (I asked this before and you never answered).
B) they developed nukes under clintons watch. Remember his brilliant policy of giving them, free of charge, two nuclear reactors in exchange for vague promises not to be evil? Well surprisingly enough this brutal communist dictatorship didn't negotiate in good faith and built the weapons anyway, under clinton.
C) the world knows well now that when bush says he'll go to war he means it, unlike the UN which will never do anything under any circumstance.
Why won't you admit when the UN failed? It's sad really, I know the fanatical left loves the UN and would like to see them as a world government, but it's pretty obvious even to these deluded souls that they failed in this instance. They set out to prevent iran from developing nukes, and iran is currently developing nukes. Not a complicated situation.
herz: You didn't address the basic ballot question involving the US's inconsistent stance on "rogue nations."
PS: I agree that it isn't the US's job. Wish you and W could have had a talk, about 4 years ago. maybe you could have talked some sense into him.
herzy:
you say "it's not americas job to reign in rogue states"
Ok, so tell the Chimp to get off Iran and North Korea's back, since they comprise 2/3rds of his "Axis of Evil" and he's threatened both with war for wanting to have the same weapons the US has in abundance.
"unless you believe we should be the worlds police (I asked this before and you never answered)."
No, I don't think the US should be the world's police force, but George W. Simpson obviously does. And there are a few questions I've asked you, that you haven't answered.
Also, the World Policeman argument is a black and white straw man that gets dragged out in circumstances where nuance works better. I do want the US to be involved in the world. I don't, however, except under extreme circumstances, expect that the US will fight wars to force its demands on other nations, especially when the war is basically to prove the manhood of the president.
"B) they developed nukes under clintons watch."
If Clinton had invaded North Korea, conservatives would have been screaming for his head. And North Korea has re-established its nuke program and put together its first live nukes under the Chimp's watch--in spite of his macho talk.
"Remember his brilliant policy of giving them, free of charge, two nuclear reactors in exchange for vague promises not to be evil? Well surprisingly enough this brutal communist dictatorship didn't negotiate in good faith and built the weapons anyway, under clinton."
And Pakistan, with American nuclear power facilities did exactly the same thing. Except that in that case, the US (under the Chimp) has sold them F-14s that they can use to deliver them far and wide.
"C) the world knows well now that when bush says he'll go to war he means it,"
Only if it's Iraq, and Bush planned to go to war from Day One of his administration, even though he said he wasn't, which makes him a damn liar.
"unlike the UN which will never do anything under any circumstance."
The UN is an organization, unique in human history, that is still in its infancy. I predict it will eventually have ample military authority, and watch the American conservatives howl then.
"Why won't you admit when the UN failed?"
I never said the UN didn't fail. I was saying that it is hypocritical for gasbag conservatives to harp on the UN, where their beloved Bushius Caesar hasn't done any bettter via the US.
"It's sad really, I know the fanatical left loves the UN and would like to see them as a world government,"
I've never met anyone who wants to see the UN as world government. Apparently, you hang around with more lefties than I do.
"but it's pretty obvious even to these deluded souls that they failed in this instance."
Fine, but your real point is that you have a reflexive hatred of the UN.
"They set out to prevent iran from developing nukes, and iran is currently developing nukes. Not a complicated situation."
And the Bush Administration has also set out to do the same, with Iran AND North Korea, and has failed just as miserably.
Maybe after Bush is impeached (wishful thinking) he can go work at the UN. Sounds like it would be a perfect fit.
Has the largest most powerful country in the world got something to be afraid of? As the only country in the world to have actually used Nuclear weapons as an act of war, I am continually amused that they spend so much time and effort trying to stop other people from getting them.
What's wrong? Never learn how to play nice with the other kids?
|
