MonteZuma

Forget the black vans. Osama spotted in Ann Arbor

Why not invite Osama in for a nice chat and a cup of tea too?

Inviting Hamas to the table would be like inviting Osama to the table.

You misread his statement. Without reproduced children, there is no one new to "learn" those acts of violence. It was said without any conclusion involving genetics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Either way, a lot of suicide bombers come from non-violent families. Suicide bombers won't die out.

LOL. What is real about that story?

They are fighting to embar!@#$%^&* your government and to force your military and every other foreign group to pull out of Iraq with their tail between its legs. It seems to be working so far.

LOL. You probably believe the news stories about Santa heading out from the North Pole to deliver your Christmas presents too.

If you believe that Palestininian violence is genetic then you are either racist or ignorant or both. It's learned behaviour. Part cultural and part inspired by events in recent history and living memory. That would be like negotiating with Al Qaeda. Hamas don't call the shots for the average Palestinian, although they might be responsible for much of the violence. Negotiating with Hamas is dumb. Hamas will lose respect and lose members when Israel wins the hearts and minds of ordinary Palestinians. That won't happen whilst Israel persists with her own violent campaign of control and repression. Negotiate with Hamas??? Pfffft

They aren't working.

What does it say?

Yep. Maybe. Who knows what will happen.

Are all of these hostage-takers terrorists in the conventional sense of the word, or are some just criminals? I suspect that, for many, the only agenda is obtaining ransom money. Whether that money is then used to support terrorism or not is another question. Apparently there is big money to be made. Torture is barbaric and has no place in a civilised culture.

My opinion is the exact opposite. My point is:

This is big news. If he dies - or becomes too ill to function - this will be a turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Only time will tell what direction it will take.

Ransom money?

Margaret H!@#$%^&*an has been in the news daily. Tony Blair and Kofi Annan stood side by side in London and condemned the kidnapping. This doesn't happen for every hostage. And by the way, Margaret H!@#$%^&*an is one of the Liberals that you hate so much. She was opposed to UN sanctions against Iraq and she opposed the invasion. In 2003 she said: It is a pity that you can't feel the same empathy for the ordinary Iraqi-born citizens who have been unfairly and brutally killed.

Are you seriously using this to support your argument? The US helped Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. The US should not have intervened. The US should have worked with the UN in the name of peace. Nothing more than an undergrad conspiracy theory. You know nothing about how other countries view terrorism or the war on terror. About 100 Australians died in a Al Qaeda linked terrorist attack in Bali and the Australian emb!@#$%^&*y was recently bombed in Jakarta. A convoy of Australian soldiers was recently attacked, using a car bomb, in Iraq. Margaret H!@#$%^&*an works for CARE Australia. Most people in the developed world have a much better understanding of terrorism and its implications - and Iraq - than you do. I don't like the idea of a militaristic dolt like GWB having a say in anything related to world security.

Wrong.Alan Greenspan agrees with me. According to Alan Greenspan: "Fiat" is Latin for "let it be done", and refers to an order, command, decision, or statute of an authoritative power. One of the most important laws is/was the Act of Congress Establishing the Treasury Department. I think you are just being argumentative. We all know that currencies fluctuate based on economic performance and other incidental factors. That is because they don't have a solid backing by anything

France isn't exactly an economic basket case. In fact at the moment it is one of the better performers in Europe. And it is the 5th largest economy in the world. To write off France as an insignificant world power is dumb.

A slight exaggeration? Some of the busiest international border crossings in the world are along the 5,000 mile border between the US and Canada. One quarter of all US exports and imports cross that border. The economy as a whole would benefit. Sharing your currency with Canada isn't turning your economy upside-down, and one quarter of all US exports and imports isn't just a few travellers and a few large businesses. [edit : The Pros and Cons of North American Monetary Integration - for your reading pleasure. http://lowe.claremontmckenna.edu/pdf/WP02-02.pdf]

I don't have time to address every point or refine my analogies, but: Why should power in the UN be linked to financial contribution? China and India have much less ability to pay, but surely the opinion of an Indian or a Chinese is just as relevant as your opinion? When you vote for your president, the person paying the most tax does not get more votes or more power or more control over the choice of president than a person paying less tax. Why should this be the case in the UN? Superpowers shouldn't have any more of a say in world affairs than a minor power - or someone living in Nauru or Fiji or Albania or whatever. The fact that more powerful nations, including those in the Security Council, do have more of a say is a flaw in the current system. It is not a desirable feature of the system. You have totally exaggerated the terrorism situation in Europe. The US does want to be the world's policeman. The GWB quote demonstrates that beyond doubt.

You throw around the sovereignty word much too often. Sharing your currency does not diminish your 'sovereignty' by 50%. In many ways, especially for smaller countries, it may in fact give a government more power over its affairs. The currency would be more stable. EU countries don't have the same 'level of economy' (Spain and Germany for example). Gold storage is not an issue (and in any case Switzerland isn't even in the EU). The Euro wasn't introduced just for the very few people who cross borders daily (as many people do across the USA/Canada border). The Euro was introduced to compete against the US dollar and to facilitate the free movement of services, capital and goods (and people - as you say) across borders. Whether or not nations are adjacent to each other is irrelevant (eg Eire has the Euro). Whether a case of beer is imported by road, rail, sea or air is irrelevant. It is still easier to do business in one currency than it is do do business in more than one currency. The US would benefit in much the same way it benefits from NAFTA. I'm not talking about a universal currency. I'm talking about a North American currency (USA and Canada). That currency might simply be the US dollar. There is no need to "tear the whole worldwide currency system apart and start anew". Australians and New Zealanders regularly trade and travel across the Tasman Sea. The lack of a land border is meaningless. There is often talk (usually in NZ) about New Zealand switching to Australian dollars or sharing a common currency. There would be resistance from some Canadians or New Zealanders (I'd probably be one of the opposition if I lived there - on purely subjective grounds), but looking at this objectively, I think their economies are already very closely intertwined. I don't think it would make any difference to anything. It would just make it easier for each nation to trade with the other. If you've ever travelled or done business internationally you will see that the system isn't perfect. The system will be un-broke when we don't need to convert currency and when financial transactions are paperless.

Name me a major "peace keeping effort" in the last 20 years that hasn't been spearheaded by the united states. I guess that depends on what you call a major peacekeeping effort. But the US is the only superpower. It has the largest economy and the most powerful military. Most other governments are unable to "spearhead" a major peacekeeping effort. Most other governemnst rely on a multinational response. That is why, if you don't want to be the world's policeman, the US must work with the UN. There is no other organisation capable of fulfilling this role, except maybe NATO. Frankly, the majority of the UN security councle is against the US I disagree. Someone on these forums even went so far as to say that Russia was sucking up to the US. The only stiff opposition is likely to come from China. ..you said it yourself. These countries do not have the power, economically, militarily, or socially, to undermine the United States.. They don't have the power to economically, culturally or militarilly undermine the US, but I would argue that in terms of credibility, the US has been undermined by world popular opinion. The poll kinda demonstrates that. Of all those resolutions you posted that the US has veto'd.. ive seen a central issue in them being the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Am I suprised? Nope.. after all it took US intervention to prevent the Jews from being absolutly wiped from the face of this earth. European powers could have stopped this from happening when they saw the signs.. instead they tried appeasement. They tried appeasement and when it didnt work they turned to war. The US tried neutrality, which is just as bad, if not worse than appeasement, and did not even bother to take sides until Pearl Harbour. In any case, the allies did not go to war against Germany because of the jews. They went to war to protect the sovreignty of Belgium and Poland. As for the UN resolutions, They were passed to protect Palestinians. The US has no interest in doing this. Does this give you any clues as to why the US is hated by many muslims in the middle east? The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. The US has also had the largest economy since 1945. - 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries. Much of this US surplus food that is dumped. US and European subsidies are one of the main driving forces for famine in the third world. In 2004, the US has contributed 22% of the TOTAL UN BUDGET. The US accounts for 22% of the world GDP, so this amount, and the others that you mentioned, sound fair to me. Germany and Japan are the next biggest UN contributors and yet they don't even have a permanant seat on the security council. Where is the justice in that? France.. 6% France accounts for only 3% of world GDP, so they are making a bigger individual sacrifice than you and your countrymen. We're not trying to be the world's policeman.. George Bush said: America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge - thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace. Yes. Your president's policy is to use it's power to be the world's policeman. we're trying to eliminate terrorism. Your government wants to do much more than that. I can really understand why Europe isn't that interested.. they've grown so accustomed to terrorism that they see it as a "nuesance" Hardly. Most of modern day Europe encounters much less violence and terrorism than the US.

Money need not be backed by anything more than a promise. US currency is backed by nothing but a promise enshrined in law. Localised recessions (at least insofar as they affect the currency) won't happen because the currency is backed by promises from several countries rather than just 1. This is irrelevant. In fact there isn't enough gold in existance to back all of the currency in existance. The gold standard is outdated and irrelevant. Guess what. The EU has already solved all of these problems! The fact is, the Euro is working in Europe.

They are much more power hungry than the US They are not. and have a track record to prove it when one takes the time to look. Suffice to say, every Canadian is living proof of this. How so? Nations are by definition sovereign, so the UN technically has no legal right to make any resolution. No. The UN has every right to make a resolution. That is why it was established. Also, you make it sound like using a veto is wrong...its our right. Bingo! Sometimes it is wrong, but if the US has a 'right' to do it then so does France. But please, I'd love to see the UN function without the US. -*BAD WORD*-, I'd love it if there was a rebellion in Haiti or a warlord taking over Somalia, and some other nation would lead the peackeeping efforts. The US doesn't lead every peace keeping effort everywhere in the world. Please, give my government a break. Please give the French government a break. Heck, why should we be the global police all the time? I ask myself that all the time. Nobody made the US go to Iraq. Why can't we punch out and let 3rd shift take over, For that to happen, your government will need to co-operate with the UN. BINGO! Maybe if France (or anyone else) leads the peacekeeping efforts to solve some crisis in some third world country, Like France in the D.R of Congo or Australia in East Timor or the African Union in Sudan? The US contributes relatively few personnel to UN-backed peace-keeping operations. In fact the top 10 contributors of personell to UN peacekeeping efforts are Pakistan (8,936), Bangladesh (8,219), Nigeria (3.588), Ethiopia (3,445), Ghana (3,320), India (3,044), Nepal (2,614), South Africa (2,514). Uruguay (2,489) and Jordan (2,067). The US is ranked 29th with just 365 people. Lots of countries contribute to international peace-keeping efforts. You just don't care to know about it. my government can kick back and focus on domestic issues. Your government won't ever do it because it has too much self-interest in interfering with international affairs Seriously, any nation that is willing to step up to the plate and solve the next world crisis is welcom to it. Which world crisis has the US single-handedly solved since WW2? I don't think anyone wants the US to be the world's policeman, except GWB. He has said as much.