<p>no, i meant what was your attack on rummy supposed to be in reference to?</p>
<p>Wow ive been sleeping for the last 12 hours and there are already 2 pages up :O</p>
<p>Way too many different points have come up (and ive lost track of half) so just some random thoughts..</p>
<p>Btw the email address is <a href="mailto:watercannon@gmail.com">watercannon@gmail.com</a> .. from whatever i read i was pretty sure that the videos were shot prior to 9/11 but if youve got proof that they weren't, id love to see it..</p>
<p>On the same point... assuming that im wrong (ill see the videos and be able to decide), but based on the assumption, those people celebrating would still have been a minority of the muslims... A majority of muslims are as peaceloving as the average american citizen. </p>
<p>In fact, to tie in with the point about christianity, islam and christianity were pretty much derived from the same thing (both the bible and the quran overlap in various parts, about references to their prophets etc).. and both advocate peace over war... it is only some fanatics who have twisted the meaning around, and are using islam as an excuse for terrorist attacks..</p>
<p>Not being either a christian or a muslim myself, im not going to make too many furthur comments on religion (too touchy a topic)... but the fact is that NO religion worldwide advocates war and killing to peace.</p>
<p>Dont blame the muslims and islam, blame the religious fundamentalists who use islam as an excuse for what they do.</p>
<p>"It is because people stay silent that catasrophes occur"</p>
<p>That is so true!!!!! Can anyone say .... Al Gore supporters, the 51% that VOTED for him</p>
<p>and yes, on a much more horrific scale, the holocaust</p>
<p>"no, i meant what was your attack on rummy supposed to be in reference to"</p>
<p>how rummy is a warmongering chickenhawk who rubberstamped torture, yet Dubya kept only him and Condi on the cabinet.</p>
<p>ugh, this whole situation DISGUSTS me. I am repulsed in every sense of the term whenever I see BUSH.</p>
<p>The country has much more pressing things to deal with</p>
<p>economy
debt
healthcare
medicare crisis
pork barrel spending
etc etc</p>
<p>and perhaps most importantly the rising political influence of china and how our political decisions towards them will be affected by the fact that they are our major creditor and we are exporting billions of our national wealth to them. They have the power to cause a worldwide recession if they said they were going to dump all of their dollars on the market.</p>
<p>and what is bush doing.....</p>
<p>taking a bike ride, trying to destroy senate rules to get Kazinsky level wackos on the federal judiciary. I want a president who will focus on the above issues instead of being the minion of the corrupt corporate campiagn donors and the evangelical right! Nowadays when a gavel strikes the podium in the congress, it is like an auctioneer's gavel, selling favors to the highest bidder.</p>
<p>I am DISGUSTED.</p>
<p>I agree with all that you say Sempitern. But it is inevitable that China and Europe are going to become superpowers. In 20 years, you are going to have a multipolar world, with US/Canada/England/Australia in one corner, Europe in another corner and China/Japan in another corner.</p>
<p>Hey you left out India!</p>
<p>Another superpower coming up..</p>
<p>I find it wise to have a friendly relation with all those countries with out alienating them.</p>
<p>In 20 years, you are going to have a multipolar world,</p>
<p>I feel a bit horrified by that idea (WW3 ?)</p>
<p>So your argument is that the only people who should make foreign policy that involves the military are those that have or are currently serving in the military?</p>
<p>People who make foreign using the military should be aware of the CONSEQUESNCES of it. They should be used as a last resort. They would need a good intelligence. Finally, using the military should be used to accomplished their MAIN GOAL. For instance, Bush didnt use the army as a last resort. He used the military in Iraq to fing WMDs. Once that failed, he shifted the attention to "liberating Iraq." Sounds stupid to me. I would rather have a leader who has brains as well as maintain relations with the rest of the world.</p>
<p>Civilian control of the military is much more a blessing for the left than the right</p>
<p>right............................. lol</p>
<p>And I still havent got those pics emailed to me from uc_benz!</p>
<p>you people are all fools</p>
<p>ofcourse its about oil</p>
<p>and it should be</p>
<p>saddam was a dictator, he was crazy, and he controlled too much oil.</p>
<p>sad to say, but money spins the world folks. </p>
<p>u have to be cruel to be kind</p>
<p>nice poem, HawkofWar</p>
<p>alexandre, being a canadian, I know that canada has no chance of becoming a world power, neither does india as that country has absolutely no freedom whatsoever, and australia, economy wise isn't exactly prospering. China, won't deny, and Great Britain I won't deny.</p>
<p>haha, i think it will take a LONg time for canada to be a superpower! And India is in the middle when it comes to GDP and GNP countrywise. I can say that they are rapidly prospering.</p>
<p>I don't think I made myself clear. As far as single nations go, only two are going to be superpowers...the USA and China. India may be some day, but not in the near future.</p>
<p>Canada, the UK and Australia will not become superpowers on their own, but they will hjoin the US camp and make it stronger. The rest of Europe will become more unified over time and form a superentity.</p>
<p>I agree with your assesment alexandre</p>
<p>thats why I'm going to take Spanish in College</p>
<p>then I'll know 5 languages</p>
<p>Armenian(native)
Russian
English
Spanish
and ..... Chinese</p>
<p>and yet, Bush is not facing these problems like he should.... what we need is a Bismarck</p>
<p>sempitern, are you chinese? I always thought chinese was like impossible to learn.</p>
<p>whoops, I meant to say I'll take chinese in college</p>
<p>I'm armenian and have studied spanish for the past 8 years</p>
<p>Pretty accurate alexandre..</p>
<p>Only part that i dont agree with is that india isnt going to be a superpower in the near future.. after china it is the most likely to become the new superpower..</p>
<p>In a report released by the pentagon, the four new emerging countries (which will be major players in the world by 2020 are, in decreasing order of power), </p>
<p>China
India
Japan
Brazil</p>
<p>Though india has many internal problems, it has come incredibly far after only about 50 years of independence.. furthur then any country i can think of, considering it was ruled for over 300 years..</p>
<p>Also, this given the fact that it has such an incredible cultural diversity, that unifying the country itself was an incredibly complec task (just as an example of the diversity, there are over TWO THOUSAND languages spoken in india).. each distinctly different... for it to have come so far only 50 years after independence is a sign of its rapid growth..</p>
<p>20 years down the line.. i predict another bipolar world - india and china, the Europe being a separate bloc. However much people might like to believe otherwise (me included), America is on a downswing.</p>
<p>Watch this space.</p>
<p>Funny...the only thing primitive proved by bringing back the Dartmouth thread was that he's a hypocrite (cries about the personal attacks everyone makes at him, while he's the one that constantly calls ppl stupid idiots) and that he can't read sentences correctly :)</p>
<p>haha. its even funnier that nahrafsa comes to conclusion so quickly without reading the 19 pages of debating in the Dartmouth thread. Its also funny that his criticism is useless to me because he is conservative, so obviously such a response</p>
<p>
[Quote]
America is on a downswing.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>really?remind me again why?</p>
<p>and also oblige me and tell me to which ****ry you are going to study in? and hope to get a job in?</p>
<p>what was that they taught us in school?hmmm/... dont bite the hand that feeds you.....</p>
<p>ameria is NOT on a downswing, this is absurd.</p>