MonteZuma

Why?

Euros are elite. I used to think that the UK was correct to hold on to its pounds, but now I disagree. The US and Canada and Australia and New Zealand would be better off with a common currency too.

I think they were trying to give the UK a "slimmer figure", its nice to get rid of the beerbelly... however, it still seems to have quite a large !@#$%^&*... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ..and a very big penis.

Cool. Then they don't have to do whatever Bush tells them to do. This US economic support thing needs to be put in context. The US helped rebuild Europe for 2 reasons: 1. Ongoing conflict in Europe would be bad for the US economy 2. The US wanted European allies in the fight against communism There were strings attached to Marshall Plan funds. The US got what they wanted. Communism was contained and the economies of both Europe and the US improved dramatically. It was a done deal. I think they care much less about world power and economic success than you and Dr Worthless think. Most people in the world don't think like Americans. Physical power suxors if it isn't used wisely. I'd rather have New Zealand or Canada have a seat on the Security Council than any of the countries already there. But as you allude to, common sense, righteousness and democracy doesn't mean anything. In the end it comes down to who carries the biggest stick. At the moment it is GWB. In any case, here is a list of the UN resolutions vetoed by the US since 1972: 1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids. 1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. 1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians. 1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. 1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians. 1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians. 1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security. 1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians. 1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories. 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quan-*BAD WORD*-y and quality of development !@#$%^&*istance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa. 1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa. 1979 Offers !@#$%^&*istance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. 1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race. 1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel. 1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations. 1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries. 1979 Offers !@#$%^&*istance to the Palestinian people. 1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. 1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states. 1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women. 1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women. 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations. 1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons. 1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people. 1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions. 1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians. 1980 Offers !@#$%^&*istance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. 1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women. 1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. 1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions. 1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes. 1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories. 1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons. 1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament. 1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions. 1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seyc-*BAD WORD*-es. 1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions. 1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983). 1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier. 1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967. 1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions. 1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology. 1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts. 1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions. 1982 Supports a new world information and communications order. 1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons. 1982 Development of international law. 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment . 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights. 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment. 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries. 1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions. 1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies. 1984 International action to eliminate apartheid. 1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon. 1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions. 1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon. 1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories. 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions. 1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities . 1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law. 1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa. 1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians. 1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places. 1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians. 1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians. 1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. 1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States. 1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions. 1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation. 1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions. 1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space. 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. 1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions. 1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace". 1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989). 1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama. 1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan amb!@#$%^&*ador in Panama. 1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua. 1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua. 1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force. 1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions. 1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories. 1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory. 1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions. 1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999). 2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 2001 To set up the International Criminal Court. 2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia. AND On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986). The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement. source ...and...since 1984, the US has vetoed 42 resolutions, 4 times as many as the next highest member (the UK). In that time France only vetoed 3 resolutions. Perhaps the UN would function better if the US was removed from the Security Council?

Some terrorist attacks are possibly inspired or encouraged by the policies, actions or words of a US president and some terrorist actions are inspired by other things. Does that clear things up? I disagree. I think that GWB is the most reactive president in recent history. I agree that the hatred was there before. The fight against terror need not generate more hatred, but the way that Bush is fighting it is counterproductive, imo. Sometimes military action is necessary (eg Afghanistan). But compassion and understanding are also key ingredients. For example, if the US took more notice of the hardships facing the Palestinians in and around Israel, and helped do something about it, then there would be less anti-americanism in the middle east. Exactly. Those people need to be exterminated. Innocent people don't need to be exterminated, and they don't need to be told that they are evil just because they disagree with America's policies. We both agree that terrorists need to be eliminated, but I think that this can be done, and in fact is best done, by being nice and being politically correct in places where it matters. It is a matter of choosing went to use diplomacy and when to use force. I think GWB and his staff are not good at making those decisions. I disagree that it is a slap in the face. Europe did support the US in Afghanistan. Much of Europe thought that the US was wrong to invade Iraq. I think the US should have respected their decision and sought help from those nations in other areas (like Afghanistan or other US areas of operation). Did the US and the allies free France from the Nazis or did they make them a slave of the USA? And did France turn their back on the US or did they just decide that an invasion of Iraq was wrong? Anyway. I thought your post was very interesting and, whilst I disagree with many points, you made me think a lot about the issue from some perspectives that I haven't thought about much before. Peace.

I don't think all terrorist attacks against the United states are the direct result of the President of the day (or the day before!). 9/11 was obviously first planned when Clinton was in office. Some attacks against the US are probably not even related to government policy. The first WTC attack (1993) occured just one month into Clinton's term, so planning for that obviously started when Bush snr was in office. The Oklahoma attack (1995) was inspired by the Waco (1993) and had nothing to do with foreign policy and probably nothing to do with Bill Clinton. But I'm not talking about 9/11 or any prior attack. I'm talking about the probability and possibility of future attacks. I believe that almost everything GWB says and does fuels the anti-US terrorist cause and will lead to a bigger threat of terrorism in the future. Some of that is manifesting itself in Iraq, but othersmight not manifest themselves until a new president is in office. Saying "i'm gonna hunt you down and kill you" is unnecessary and unhelpful bravado. The fight against terror needs to go on without inflaming hatred and violence and inspiring more terror attacks. I think Bush's tactic is to run an election campaign based on fear and jingoistic bravado. But I think the best way to fight the war is with a mix of compassion, understanding and steely resoluteness. I think the best people to lead that kind of fight is a liberal US government. Huh? The problem with Hitler was that he did not respect other's sovereignty and did not walk his own path without telling others how to walk and without stepping on the innocent little guy. I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-war.in.Iraq. Hitler's !@#$%^&* needed to be kicked. Its a shame the US didn't acknowledge that until Pearl Harbour. Nobody was saying that immediately after 9/11. Everyone seems to be saying it after the invasion of Iraq. Why?

Heh. Probably. But I suspect that GWB and his rhetoric motivates more terrorists than any previous president. Well my comments in this thread were only based on the poll, but I have plenty of other criticisms. The way Bush handles China and North Korea for example. The way he handles the United Nations. The idiotic and dangerous language that he uses. I think that this is probably reflected in the poll too, even though there were no questions directly pointed at these issues. Oh, and btw...I hate GWB's moronic childish grin Indeed. I think the world would be a happier and safer place if the US respected other's sovereignty and walked its own path without telling others how to walk and without stepping on the innocent little guy.

My opinion on the polls: The polls totally debunk the idea that global public reaction to the war in Iraq is based on anti-Americanism. 9 out of 10 countries have an unfavourable opinion of GWB 9 out of 10 countries have worsened their opinion of the US in the last few years 9 out of 10 countries think the invasion of Iraq was wrong BUT 9 out of 10 countries have a favourable opinion of Americans The plain and simple fact is almost everyone in the world, with the exception of Israel, thinks that GWB and his foreign policies suck. Why? Because they do. Americans will be doing themselves a huge favour and will make huge inroads in the war on terror by voting this militaristic !@#$%^&*clown out of office.

No. I didn't. When in Rome... Obviously. If this happens, then rules need to be improved or better enforced, fraudsters need to be punished. But anyone who !@#$%^&*umes that most people who get welfare are ripping off the system needs a reality check. Living on welfare sucks. Very few people would make an informed choice to live that way. Those that do probably need some serious counselling. Heh. Some conservatives aren't called red necks for nothing. There are squeaky wheels on every side of politics. At the moment the conservatives are getting a lot more grease.

Well in that case we have reached a point of agreement. Some qualifications though: I think it will be impossible to establish exactly when consciousness develops. From what I have read, outward signs of consciousness don't show until 30 or 35 weeks. AFAIK the 24 week figure is to provide some leeway between the actual development of consciousness and measurable proof of its existance. Obviously it is best for all concerned that if abortions happen, they should happen as early as possible. What I am dead-set against is any !@#$%^&*ertion that women who have abortions are murderers. They aren't.

You're not denying a person their existence in the future, they aren't existing yet, unlike the case in question, aborting a fetus.. Sperm does not = a human. The combination of an egg and a sperm does. Reproduction 101 for you, sir. So you think a zygote is a person? I disagree. A zygote is a what you get after a sperm and an egg cell bump into each other. Purely mechanical - as is the development of the foetus from a zygote to something more complex. At what stage does a m!@#$%^&* of cells become a person? I'd say you don't have a person until you have consciousness. This doesn't occur until several months after conception. The lowest figure I've read is 4 months, but the generally accepted time is 24 weeks after conception. I don't think we should be aborting a foetus after consciousness develops, except in extreme cases. 99.9% of abortions in the UK are carried out before 24 weeks. 90% are carried out before 12 weeks!

Cute. Most people who get welfare really do need it. Most welfare recipients aren't dirtbags. Most welfare recipients are ordinary people who haven't had the same breaks that most people have had. You don't end social inequality or welfare dependance through insults and neglect. You end it through education, understanding and the provision of support services. But it isn't cool to actually understand a problem and search for win-win solutions. The cool thing to do is to throw around a few piss-weak insults and pretend to be bad-!@#$%^&*. Petulance works for GWB, why shouldn't it work for you?

OMG WTF?! [/wub]

Well if it is a moral question then lets leave legal definitions like 'murder' out of the debate. I stand by my argument that if 40% of women have had abortions, then clearly a significant portion of the population do not think that it is immoral. I speculate that the minority of people who do think that it is immoral have hijacked the debate in the US, and probably in other countries where religion and politics overlap. That is debatable. So does the pill. So does a condom. So does masturbation. Every time you spill your seed you've caused a person non-existence in the future. Its actually about 43%. The stats are reliable. This is not hypothetical.

The problem with people who have never been poor is that they think welfare payments are only spent on beer and drugs. The fact is most of it is spent on shelter, utilities, food and clothes. More money is spent by wealthy people on alcohol and drugs than by poor people. I've seen some stats that indicate that a bigger proportion of wealthy household income is spent on alcohol too. The idea that people on welfare waste all their money is a myth propogated by middle class people who begrudge their taxes being used to help people less fortunate than themselves.

Using this logic, we should send in troops to invade Israel too. Israel has defied or violated 28 United Nations resolutions. None of the UN resolutions implied that an invasion of Iraq was a necessary or automatic consequence of Iraqi non-compliance. In any case, the weapon's inspectors were satisfied with the level of access they had in Iraq at the time they were ordered out.

Using this definition, abortion is not murder. Given that >40% of women have had abortions, much of society (almost certaintly >50%) have decided that it is not morally wrong. Personally I think people who want to tell women what to do with their bodies, and want to decide for me what is right and wrong are the self-centred and greedy ones.

What makes you think that you have a right to tell a woman what do do with a fetus inside her body? What makes you think that you have the right to call 40% of all women in the US murderers? You and I aren't moral adjudicators. Neither are the christian conservatives who love to push this barrow and put down people who they say have fallen by the wayside. If society placed more emphasis on the needs of living people than on the rights of sperm, ovum, zygotes and fetuses then we would have less unplanned pregnancies and less abortions.

Forty percent of women have had abortions. Another equally large portion of the female population have had unplanned pregnancies that they have kept. I'd say that most women and men have had unprotected sex and crossed their fingers hoping she didn't become pregnant at one point in time. By your logic, most of the female population of most if not all western countries are stupid. And I agree with MD. Adoption isn't the answer. Unwanted pregnancies are sad and regretable. I don't see how allowing an unwanted fetus to grow and develop into an unwanted child is advantageous to the mother or society as a whole.

I doubt that the true figure is anywhere near 85%. The ridiculous thing about the supposed anti-abortion at-*BAD WORD*-ude in the US is that over 40% of US women have had an abortion. Somehow a vocal and often religious group of people in the US have hijacked the issue there. I think people in *most* other western countries are more liberal than in the US. In some countries abortion is more readily available and yet it is never an election issue. One problem that I see with the 'extreme cir!@#$%^&*stance' escape clause is how to define an extreme cir!@#$%^&*stance? In the early stages of the pregnancy, I think the expectant mother is the best person to judge that. An abortion is an extreme measure - physically and psychologically. Ducky and Bacchus - yeah - I think many of the people who use this forum have had very few adult female friends and even fewer who would open up to them enough to talk about abortion. I think most have no idea how many women have abortions. I don't think that they have any idea that most of these women are normal, well-adjusted people. And I don't think they have any idea of how much thought goes into the decision. Yours Truly, Cpt. Obvious

Hundreds of thousands of women have abortions every year. The pro-choice view is not a view that happens to be 'held by one'. Anyone here who has ever had more than a few adult female friends probably knows someone who has had an abortion. You will probably never know about it because of the shame that some of them feel. Most women don't take the decision to abort lightly. An abortion will change their life forever. They understand the consequences of their actions on the fetus and on their own bodies. It isn't up to me and you to tell them whether their decision is moral, immoral or amoral. We should butt out and tackle the social causes of unwanted pregnancies.

Anybody who thinks that GWB and his staff did not oversee and approve of any aspect of that stage-managed "victory" speech is incredibly gullible. But I don't think that the poster is of much significance in the grand scheme of things. The content of his speech is more important. What did he say when he stood at the podium in front of the banner?

Some people (mainly US wheat pruducers) claim that Australia got kickbacks from Saddam (for wheat sales). The Australian government fully supported the US government. The kickback argument is a crock.

If your daddy was one of the dead you might think differently. It doesn't take into account technology or context either. By your logic, you were doing awesome when the planes flew into the WTC. Only 3,000 deaths out of a population of 300,000,000! 0.001% of the population! Insignificant! Awesome! The fact is, avoidable deaths are bad. Those 1,000 soldiers would still be alive if this pointless war was avoided. So would the 15,000 civilian casualties. They don't tell the full story either.

That is debatable, but I think they probably did. The death toll and the number of soldiers involved is not the only thing that makes an event significant. The war in Iraq indirectly affects more than 300 million people and will continue to do so for decades, if not longer. The war in Iraq changed the government in Spain. The war in Iraq may change the government in the US, UK, Australia (or at least affect confidence in government). The war in Iraq changed the climate of international relations between almost every country on Earth. Look at the reaction to the war in other countries like France, Germany, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Poland, Italy, etc, etc, etc. The war in Iraq and the split between the coalition and 'the rest' has created a global crisis. The war in Iraq has been the biggest threat to the viability of the UN. The world has changed because of Iraq. Nobody is hiding behind anybody. What you see is a fraction of the total picture. If you care about what is happening in and to the world as a whole then you need to look outside of your sphere of personal experience and try to !@#$%^&*imilate information from other sources. Have you ever heard the story about the five blind brothers and the elephant? -->cool website<-- PS I wub you Ducky