"Solution to the Mideast crisis should involve Iran and Syria"

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='301463' date='Jul 26 2006, 02:48 PM']forgive me for thinking that simply saying "Stop!!!" more forcefully, will work this time around...

and the lord knows my heart is in the right place... no need to bring up my soul... i may be wrong, but its not b/c i want death and destruction... i simply think that the status quo was not working, and would never work...

jamie... yes, that is the ultimate goal, but hezbollah and hamas has made it clear what their objections are... it isn't a two state plan (three really)... they want no israel... if the ultimate goal is for two people to live, both sides also want that goal for it to succeed... what do we do if both don't want that goal?[/quote]

Please don't take what I say the wrong way. Your heart IS in the right place, but your solutions are not. Further, you could be brilliant, you have what it takes. But, you're like a nutritionist who eats a diet of Big Macs and Fritos. You provide the support for these really nasty policies--deploring the "unintended consequences" won't get you off the hook. And I suspect this: once you realize this, perhaps many years down the road, you'll find it hard to forgive yourself.

All I'm saying it to treat yourself to some more substantial food.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='301852' date='Jul 26 2006, 08:30 PM']the UN could have stepped up and stopped iraq from happening... if anyone was afraid of the UN, they would be afraid to break the rules like not getting approval's before war, or countries that ignore them... but since they are pretty much just a bunch of talking heads, that get almost nothing done, they are almost obsolete... and it seems to me, that changing one simple rule like taking out the veto system, then we would be getting somewhere...

[i]
So, if the UN were restructured along the lines that you describe, poor nations would have a little more voice in the world system, and I doubt that you would be happy with that.[/i]

not if we add in some requirements to be a member in the UN, like democratically elected members of governement, free press, low poverty levels (the leadership/government is always responsible for what happens... that is true w/ anything no matter what), things like that... i would also cut out the permanent member part, b/c i think that you should only be a member if you follow the rules... i also think that we should have requirements of budgeting for things like education, health care, and combatting poverty in there... if they can't put x amount of their budget towards these things, you can't be a member... don't make it ridiculously high, but to entice countries like china and such to want to really make a difference... there would have to be ways to make sure that they aren't just fudging the books, but that goes back to my main point... the UN needs to be taken seriously, and it just isn't... so the only way for it to really work, is having a way to put real restrictions on countries for wronging the rest of the world...[/quote]

The US might get thrown out of the UN if you required all that. My attitude toward the UN is entirely what you might call "cynical" - I call it realistic. The UN is just another part of the screw-job.

And, just because a lot of people in the halls of power rightly pointed out that the US was dead wrong in its aggression against Iraq, doesn't mean that they didn't want the US to do it. There aren't many good guys here. Do you think that the French and Germans really tried to stop the US? I don't; they just positioned themselves to be able to cluck their tongues and say, "I told you so"..........OH! and also to have their corporations line up at the subcontractor trough while paying off the Americans and Brits for doing the dirty work by their corporations having exclusive dibs on the primary contractor business. I haven't been keeping up with that lately. I wonder how it's going.