OIL… OIL …OIL…
GREEDY… GREEDY…
So Nali what do we do about countries that have nukes?
But see, there is a rumor that Bush will suspend the elections of 2004, because the constituion really allows it too. It has never been suspended before but might be now. Sure, they are just rumors, but so far, with ‘office of homeland security’ and 'Office of total awarness, this gets me nervous…
Lol, if you think he’ll suspend the elections you’re crazy and listen to too many rumors. That’d be political suicide, and a week later, D.C. would be full of protestors (me being one of them).
Law - As I said earlier, there is nothing you can do to de-nuke a country after they have them. You go to war, they nuke you, you ask them nicely, they refuse.
indojepang - Yes, we’re at war because of oil when about 2% of our oil comes from iraq, and OPEC fills any oil shortages we have.
technicaly, since the “state of war” has never been reprieved since the end of WWII and multiple “state of war” mandates have been created since that point, we are all under martial law. The government hasn’t declared such, but they could at any time and still be within the rights of the constitution. Under matial laws all rights granted by the consitution are suspended.
Eventually you just stop worrying about these things. Worry will just get you ulcers. If they try that ****, revolt with the rest of us. No need to worry about it.
North Korea has somewhere around 100,000 peices of heavy artillery in the DMZ
All good points you said, but this one is slightly (insignificantly almost) wrong. they are just outside of the DMZ. De-militarised Zone is simply that. A zone that has NO military hardware or personnel within it. Entering the DMZ is an act contravening the Armistice that is still holding on the Korean peninsula. Yes… we are still technically at war with Nth Korea. In fact… the UN Is still at war with north korea as it was a UN war not a US war. Hence why Nth Korea is justified saying that a UN sanction on their nation is tantamount to a declaration of war. Of course it is, its imposing their will on a nation that they are still at war with. Ie. An agressive act.
Iran and North Korea should not have nukes and that war is justiphied in removing these regimes phrom power;
I will be the devils advocate here and while I agree with this statement to a degree. I dont know that I have the moral right to say it. And I Definately dont agree that going to war with these countries will help.
America is part of the 6 declared Nuclear countries. And many of these have a different fundamental belief of what their part in the universe is. Saying that a country should not have Nukes simply because you dont believe they will be responsible with them (in your opinion) is not right. However if you said that NO Country should have a nuke arsenal and therefore we should work at ensuring that nukes are not proliferated any further than they already rediculously are… I will agree with that point.
Going to war to stop someone having a nuke is simiply stupid if it can be avoided. Its like saying: Bombing for peace is like shagging for virginity!
Iran and North Korea should not have nukes and that war is justiphied in removing these regimes phrom power;
The biggest problem with that is, well what stops people going to war beacuse of suspicion? These pre-emptive stirkes, with 9 out 12 9.11 terrorist fro Syria (not including the terrorists found in the UK), what stops us from saying “we’re going in to Syria to stop terroism” Then the U.S. might look at other countries in the same way.
U.S. has alot of nukes… why isnt there a movment to disarm them? Because we got a president who is running around declaring war on his own… he dosnet make the world safe either!
Back in the day, after the cold war Russia did make a proposal to America to both destroy their own neuclear weapons.
But America declined.
*Originally posted by kirupa *
**Not sure where you are coming with that - last time I checked I believe Bush was elected by the people. When Bush feels like destroying the lives of everyone who opposes him, constantly rapes women, kills children, hordes all the money for himself while the people are starving, denying people the basic rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness…yeah, then he’ll be a regime.
Until then, nope - not a regime at all =)
EDIT: If you are referring to the 2000 Election, don’t hesitate to read up on all the various recounts (both liberal and conservative) that went on after Bush was elected into office - Bush, in the end, still won. Even leftists in the US will agree that Bush won in the end - not sure where you are getting those ideas from. **
first: sorry for the late reply.
second:
kirupa, if bush did, or did not won the election in the end doesn´t matter.
what matters is that he was declared winner, and thus got elected, before the end of the vote count.
can´t you see the absurd in this??
a country so concerned with rights and democracy, electing a president without counting the votes !?!?
he could have lost, and if he did losted the vote count, what US would do?
i will never understand, and accept this…
Granted, if Bush had lost, it would have been bad. The reason the Supreme Court intervened was simply because the Flordia Supreme Court made a irreversible mistake. Instead of interpreting the election results, the Florida Supreme court decided to change the counting standards, and they also set a new deadline for Katherine Harris (a high ranking Florida elected official - her actual job title escapes me at this moment). So, instead of allowing the manual recounts to continue and allowing Harris/state/legislature to set a deadline herself, the court simply changed the rules to -supposedly- suit its own needs.
Such ambiguities that would allow any state supreme court to change the rules of an election when its favored party is supposedly losing is something that reverberate to other states in other elections. That is the reason the US Supreme Court intervened.
So, that’s why Bush won - prematurely and after the recounts. Rights and democracy do matter, and in any type of government which allows as large a voting population to vote as the US, problems will arise. I strongly doubt that without US Supreme Court intervention, this issue would have been resolved.
Cheers!
Kirupa :asian:
i´m sure that all end up as it should be, bush being elected and all, but it still doesn´t make sense to me… the most important thing in an election is the ppl votes.
…and in this elections they got ignored.
anyways, thanks for clarifying a lil bit this incident for me =)
This is a major flaw in Democracy…
People don’t really vote, the electoral college votes.
Pluto, would like at this and say his point has been aknowledged.
The electoral college is in itself a form of control over the people, the fact that no matter how split the state is , all electoral votes go to one candidate. This is a layer of control.
Russianbear, yeah - this goes back to the early days of our Constitution where there were problems of representation between large, populous states with smaller, underpopulated states.
Basically, in an effort to ensure that the Presidential election will not be dominated by only 2 or 3 large states, the electoral college was devised to represent the will of the people across a wider geographic area.
Guig0, I know this seems really odd to have such a strange method of choosing electors. Overall, the electoral system is very beneficial. In a country as large and vast as the United States, if there were no electoral votes, all the Presidential candidates would simply go to the top 20 largest metropolitan cities, which coincidintally, are all located on the East and West coasts (with Chicago being the sole exception).
It’s a combination of sound reasoning and fear of oppression from larger states by the smaller states in Presidential elections that this arcane system is in place 
Cheers!
Kirupa :ub:
But kirupa, its not always benificial…
It keeps the Candidates sometimes aloof of the public,
And instead of going to major cities, they just go to the states with the most electoral votes…
that expains a lot!
Thanks K-man =)
we have a pretty big country too, but our presidential elections are simple: whoever gets 51+% of the votes is our new president.
but to make sure that the ruling of the country will be made by the larger states, we have our senate, that is formed by equal nuber of senators from each state, no matter how big or how populated, each state has the same number of senators.
Pluto said:
*The problem with democracy, is that its ruled by the majority, for the majority. *
And it can’t be truer right now. That means 49% of the votes are thrown aside as nothing.
Guig0, yeah, my bad - I should have explained that in one of my earlier posts, there are only 2 senators from each of the 50 states. There is another layer of government called the House of Representatives - there, the number of members elected varies directly with population. Basically, they have a 2 year term while Senators have a 6 year term.
There are 3 layers to the government - Executive (President, etc.), Congress (Senate and House of Representatives), and Judicial (Supreme Court, etc.).
It’s quite strange 
Cheers!
Kirupa :beam:
And you see the problem we face now, is that most of the layers is mostly Republican. Dont get me wrong I have nothing against Republican, Bush is just a dummy! I am not a democrat, but there should be enough democrats so that they can have a system of checks and balances…
Oops - misread layers as lawyers - just edited this post 
The problem is that Republicans have, of late, found a more effective way of reaching out to the people. I, for one, believed that the Democrats would have won by a landslide, but that has not happened because, believe it or not, majority of the country likes Bush.
I strongly believe that if the Democrats had done something more than say “the economy is Bush’s fault” and provide an alternate solution, they would have won. With both the House of Representatives and the Senate under Republican control, it may be a sign that the older methods the Democrats used to gain votes - the class pandering (which Republicans are great at btw) - may not be working all that well.
Cheers!
Kirupa :ub:
Not lawyers… sorry I spell like a drunk koala… :sigh:
I mean, layers of goverment… supreme court etc…
