Politics USA: Politics, the Government, etc.

the UN ensures sovereignty, but that does not always mean that a country will give it up, and that is what is needed for the UN to work properly.
 
You're right xdancer, we got The Un, but The USA (well the government) want to control the world that's why they do what they want, they don't need the UN anymore, and they've never needed it !!
 
i think in some situations the us should step in and mediate, but i don't agree in them sending in the military for military action. we shouldn't choose sides and we should be mediators.
 
i totally agree that the UN should mediate international affairs. but it's power only extends to the countries that are IN the UN. therefore, if a country that's not in the UN creates conflict, i think that the US should be able to "take care" of it.
 
the_alliance said:
i totally agree that the UN should mediate international affairs. but it's power only extends to the countries that are IN the UN. therefore, if a country that's not in the UN creates conflict, i think that the US should be able to "take care" of it.
I agree. If two countries in the UN are at odds, then the rules of the UN will be (or should be anyways) followed, and in that case resolved by the means of the UN. But those who are not members, are not restrained by UN laws so saying "because the UN said so" doesn't effect them. I support peaceful mediation, when possible, but some countries' leaders are so into power, greed and ego to let go of their ways. I understand that it's hard to say "our way is right, their's is most defiantly wrong" but there are some fundamental things that are just wrong. One cannot defy the fact that the US is a 'superpower' in the world, there isn't any getting around that. I feel that this makes us responsible for policing the world against things that are "fundamentally wrong". Many think that we do this out of a need to "take over the world" which I think if the US was really after, they probably could have done more by now. Keeping the world stable is a responsiblity of ours, one that we should take seriously.

*end Soapbox speech* :smiley:
 
AliasHombre said:
The US has the right to interneve or not to interbene in foreign affairs as it chooses.
not unless it has the backing of major international organizations such as the United Nations.
 
Sophie You're right xdancer, we got The Un, but The USA (well the government) want to control the world that's why they do what they want, they don't need the UN anymore, and they've never needed it !!

I totally agree with you Soph!!!
Anyways I'm not gonna go any further cos I'm really annoyed by this "USA rules the world " spirit!
Since when one country should have the right to interfer in others countries bussiness just cos it chooses to????
 
AliasHombre said:
SecretAgentMan said:
AliasHombre said:
The US has the right to interneve or not to interbene in foreign affairs as it chooses.
not unless it has the backing of major international organizations such as the United Nations.
We dont need the backing of others to use our military
Yes you do, if you want to keep your allies and friends!
 
AliasHombre said:
SecretAgentMan said:
AliasHombre said:
The US has the right to interneve or not to interbene in foreign affairs as it chooses.
not unless it has the backing of major international organizations such as the United Nations.
We dont need the backing of others to use our military
so we can attack or occupy any country we want? This sounds like imperialism, which has failed in the past. If you look at history you'll see the U.S. has had disappointments when it comes to foreign policy. The occupation of Phillipines, Korean War, Bay of Pigs (Cuba), Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and now Iraq.
 
xdancer said:
so, bush has named alberto gonzales attorney general.  it makes me a bit nervous, considering he called the geneva convention "quaint."  anyone else have any opinions?

Bush names Gonzales attorney general - that site has an article which gives some background about him.
[post="1064427"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

well thats cheered me up no end... *sighs* why is the american government so blind to see what people are really like, and as for Bush I wouldn't be surprised if his plan is to take over the world, one tortured iraqi to another. :( :confused: :angry:
 
Colin Powell has resigned as predicted, with Condi Rice to replace him. Thoughts?

I have not been a fan of Ms Rice as a NSA (hawkish preemption doctrine, denials before the 9/11 commission and inability to prioritise terrorism on the agenda pre 9/11 despite Richard Clarke's opinions) , but Powell has also disappointed me. Perhaps Powell was stuck between a rock and a hard place, but I feel he lost a lot of credibility when he supported the Iraq war despite his reservations and sold it to the UN on bad intelligence. Loyalty and obedience may have been his defining trait as a soldier, but those qualities cost him some integrity as a Secretary of State. I wish he had shown more leadership and put forth a stronger vision as an alternative to the neo-cons.
 
Condi is a flat out HAWK, and I'm scared to death personally. Colin was used as a puppet, constantly being overruled by the White House, because he was more moderate, it was a damn shame.
 
Seems like a lot of people are resigning from the Bush administration, Powell ... was the only one that democrats actually had a shred of respect for is now leaving.

This does not look good for Bush and the gang, his team is slowly leaving him for "unknown" reasons. Too bad 60 million americans didn't realise what he's up to.
 
Back
Top