Warlords: Three Kingdoms

Lu Ren wrote:Spending 20$ of US government money to make 1$ of personal profit. That sound like a deal to me.

Beside I'm not sure Saddam was so bad. He was elected by his peapel and did won a the peace nobel.
http://theshredder.com/current/saddam.htm

At least if he's not good Bush isn't better to my eyes.

Ok, just had to comment on this one:

1) I'd vote for Saddam too if I knew I'd be killed if I didn't vote for him. He was elected by getting 98% of the vote, with a +/- 2% margin of error. Go figure.

2) Saddam didn't win a Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated for it. I wonder how much of the $40 billion in private accounts he coughed up for that nomination. If someone threw a few million dollars in your pocket, wouldn't you decide that he was worthy of such a nominatin if integrity meant little or nothing to you?

Energetic Lemur wrote:Hey,you have the right to bear giant guns. By all means built a 50 foot magnum, I'd love to see it.

But seriously just because the legal doccument that you have the right to bear arms in America is sacred there, it doesn't mean it's a valid excuse in the rest of the world. A centuries old set of laws is hardly valid now in the ever changing spectrum of international politics.

That legal document is the "Supreme Law of the Land" for the US and its territories. As such, that "centuries old set of laws" is most definitely valid, despite the ever-changing spectrum of international politics.

The argument could very well be used to say that the Articles of the Geneva Convention are no longer important just because the War on Terror doesn't specifically name a given enemy. Just fruit for thought.

Can I just make a brief example of something. In the UK we have religiously sticked to the morales and rules shown in the Magna Carta, if you don't know what the Magna Carta is, then heres a definition of it:

The charter of English political and civil liberties granted by King John at Runnymede in June 1215.

As it says above, it outlines basic human rights and liberties. However my argument is, that we should update this Magna Carta. As the years have progressed the political climate and threats have changed.

I say we need to bring up a new charter in accordance with the times we live. The London Bomb attack yesterday is only another highlight of how our times have change, as such some of the old human rights and liberties do not seem logical to use anymore.

As far as America having Nuclear weaponary goes, it is a little hypocritical to say that another county can't have them when you yourself have them. Eg, Iran. What would you say comes first, the US costituation or international law?

Now the European economy. Britain has had a booming economy for a long time now. We are well within our chancellor's fiscal rules and we have a booming market. Of corse were are struggling with some areas of the manufactoring industry to asia but i suspect it is the same with america. The EU was set up purley a trading body, though it has developed since. I have to say i do not agree with the money given to farmers, especialy in france. That is a market that is needed by Africa, I hope the G8 will be able to come up with a free trade agreement of them. It is the best way to truley make poverty history.

One person said he would go round to his neighbours house and give him a beating. But he would expect to face the consequences when the police arrive.

I would finaly like to say that the worst thing we can do in Britain is to enforce draconian rules. That is what the terrorists want to achieve. Watching the news this morning suggested that it was business as usual this morning. That is the way to go. Show were not scared. We went through the battle of Britain with hight moral. In the week of VE celebration day we should repet that stiff upper lip that were in Britain are reputed to have and show that we will stay strong. Even though I was against the Iraq war this has almost brought me closer to the cause. Rally around Blair and show we're not so easily scared.

Everytime I see people talking about foreign and internal/civl affairs, I see a strength on one side and weakness on the other.

War in Iraq - We liberated the Iraqis, but we took a hit in our treasury. There goes the surplus that we had.

France giving money to farmers - France is giving subsidies to farmers. (I think it's what it's called), but people are saying the money should go into africa.

I want people to put input in this. What do you believe that we should put strength in as a country? Foreign or Internal/Civil affairs?

The issue behind the French farming subsidies is the amount of money French farmers get from the EU to support them. Britain gets far less yet contributes far more (called Britain's rebate) to the EU than France.

The issue with Africa is Geldoff saying that if all loans to the African countries are cut and more money given then it can be all better. This isn't the case unfortunately. Africa needs a stable political climate where Rebels won't steal the donated money and use it for arms money but also unrestricted trade to the rest of the world. As it stands the EU protects its own produce which means Africa is can't compete so they want to get that protection lifted and allow a free market. Inevitably that means EU farmers can't compete with African ones but they don't see it like that.

The War in Iraq is more a morale issue on when it is appropriate to go to war and if the government lied. Britains finances have so far been fine. Not even the war has cost that much to cause any concerns.

I agree that Africa needs to be stablized before any good will come to that area of the world. But how to stabilze the continent? It's controled by warlords and various militant factions who have become masters of PR and image mangaing. The European style of talking threats down and Chamberlian-esque appeasement, while heart warming to the bleeding heart liberal doesn't quiet cut it in Africa. This is where the American way of kicking ass and tacking names could come in handy. These people understand violence and maybe, just maybe if we force democracy, good government, and capitalism down their throats with bayonets it'll stick.

Our U.S. Constitution was written to be fluid and current for future generations but that interpritation was meant to be carried out by American citizens and their representatives in government and by judical review in the courts. Whatever Zambia or Thailand has to say about our Constitution should have no baring on how we carry out our own laws. America is America people and people should start realizing that.

That is assuming Democratic Capitalism is the best way to rule.

It may but it's far from flawless. ( as all other regim )

Basil- "General Bochefski, Russian Intelligence."
Austin- "Russian Intelligence! Are you mad?
Basil- "Alot of things happened when you were frozen, the cold war is over"
Austin- "Finally those capitalistic pigs will pay for their crimes. Hey comrades?"
Basil- "Austin... We won."
Austin- "Oh groovy, smashing, yay, capitalism!" *hand gesture*
-The International Man of Mysteries

No government that anybody ever came up with would be flawless. It's an impossiblity to have a flawless government. What all the people in the U.S. who are against Democracy have to realize is they probably have more pull and more a chance to change things in this government then any other government. Of course its not flawless but no government ever will be.

On a side note...It's stupid to think that we would get rid of Nuclear weapons. Why would the most hated country in the world get rid of something that a lot of its enemies have. Maybe if everybody in the world got rid of their nukes we could...but even then I wouldn't becuase nobody is gonna know who's lying and who's telling the truth.

None the less it would be suicide for us to get rid of them.