Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Azure
I wasn't talking about Iraq. But of course, if you want to believe that WW2 is the reason that France and Germany aren't helping in Iraq, thats your opinion.
Why Kyoto will fail? Maybe because it is impossible to meet the demands without completley taking your economy, stripping it, and then when everything has been banned, including beef because we all know cows help the greenhouse effect, you're left with a country that has a crippled economy, but does meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocal.
Tibet? And do what, start WW3?
You're right though. The US should invade every country in the world, including China just to make sure the whole world is liberated from oppresion. You obviously have no idea what strategic and diplomatic importance Iraq will have, should the US get things under control. Its going to be the domino effect, going backwards.
Many of the children are dying AIDS and other diseases. Just exactly how would the US solve that problem by invading Africa and setting up a democratic government?
Bush Sr. tried? He had a perfect chance to invade Iraq and take out Saddam after the allied effort drove Iraq out of Kuwait. He didn't take it.
But of course if you want to believe that Bush Jr invaded Iraq because Bush Sr told him too, go right ahead. I'll just stop responding to your ridiculous claims.
|
The reason why France and Germany are not in Iraq is the same reason why the rest of the world isn't in Iraq - it's a bull sh*t war. But I'm sure the Vanuatu army is contributing a great deal to the coalition of the willing.
You clearly do not know anything about the Kyoto Accord. There should be no reason why Kyoto will fail, look at Russia. They have accomplished their Kyoto targets and now are making money due to the carbon trading under Kyoto. If Russia can do it, which has a significant amount of oil as well, there should be absolutely no reason why Canada can not - either than oil companies in Canada have a greater say in policy formation than those in post-soviet Russia. Although a great argument against Kyoto would be the "no beef, no oil" argument, this is simply not true. Do you honestly believe that the Canadian government would ban beef and oil so that they could reach 6% under 1990 levels? Be realistic. Kyoto is not an all or nothing deal, it is a step towards cutting DOWN, not OUT, greenhouse gas emissions through things such as renewable energies, clean technology, ethanol etc... By no means would Canada stop oil drilling or cow production completely - the oil companies and ranchers would never, ever, let this happen.
While AIDS claims the lives of millions of people in Africa, it is far from the only thing killing Africans. Simple things like starvation, access to clean water, diahrrea... are killing an outrageous number of people. Why? Because this humanitarian aid, that you are suggesting is the answer to it all, isn't getting to those who need it. It's going to the corrupt governments. Therefor, because the government is corrupt, no state wants to give them money - it's a vicious circle. But why liberate a country just to save lives, right? As you said yourself, the strategic and (to a lesser extent) diplomatic importance of Iraq will be powerful - thus it is obvious the U.S. is there for other reasons rather than the "goodness of their hearts" from the bible belt as you suggested.
If Bush Jr had a perfect chance to take out Iraq, why is Bush Sr having such a difficult time trying to do the same?