Global Politics
 

Has anybody received this email? Subject is "Global Politics". If so what do you think about it. I have it copied below





1) Which is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on over
twenty different countries since 1945?
2) Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons?
3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in
Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the
most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history?
4) Which country's illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the UN
Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism?
5) Which country rejected the order of the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986,
and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to
observe international law?
6) Which country was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of providing
"direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan
Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s?
7) Which country unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM)Treaty in December 2001?
8) Which country renounced the efforts to negotiate a verification process
for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an international
conference on the matter to a halt in July 2001?
9) Which country prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at
a small arms conference in July 2001?
10) Aside from Somalia, which is the only other country in the world to have
refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
11) Which is the only Western country which allows the death penalty to be
applied to children?
12) Which is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban
Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines?
13) Which is the only G7 country to have voted against the creation of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998?
14) Which was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987
General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism?
15) Which country refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet
reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions?

Answer to all 15 questions: The United States of America.

... and Howard wonders why people protest against possible war with Iraq -
it is not about supporting Saddam (no one does, well except for the USA when
they backed him into power), but opposing through peaceful protest things
like the above acts carried out by the most self-interested country in the
world.

Is any of this true? I'm not one of those people that automatically believe emails like this, but I'm just curious if anyone can clear it up for me. And I always know that there's 2 sides to the story!

Plus I figure most of the members here are from the US, and should be aware of this type of stuff
Thanks

Many of the facts are rather distorted and skewed.

Some of them are true though.

EDIT: After I looked over some of those 'facts' again, hardly any of that stuff is true.

It's a load of crap. Basically, clever wording to make the US look like an evil empire used to attract ignorant people who will actually believe it. They become emotional, and they have followers.

Feel free to research the incidents.

Re: Global Politics
 

LOL.. Which country pays for 51% of the UN's expenses?

Answer to the above question, The United States of America.

Re: Global Politics
 

How many countries actually have the ability to drop bombs on 20 countries? And they leave out why we were dropping bombs. America fights for peace and freedom, but they try to leave you thinking it's an evil empire.

Which country is doing the most to prevent the development and use of nuclear weapons? Funny, same answer. Notice they chose to leave out biological and chemical weapons? Is it because the US doesn't use them and wouldn't look evil?

Oh please. There was a car bomb in Beruit, they blamed Israel and their "allies." It went off near a fundamentalist, which is where you get assasination attempt. As for most lethal bombing, that's a load of crap. I guess they forgot the car bombing in October 1983 which killed 241 US troops. Oh ya, don't include that, because America is evil, and is always attacking poor innocent countries :rolleyes:

I don't know what ever happened from this, but supposedly Libya wanted 9 Americans arrested for a bombing there, supposedly ordered by former President Regan. But they did leave out the supposed bombing by the Americans was in response to Libya bombing a German disco.

Which country? Did they mention there are only 2 involved with it? US and Russia signed it back in 1972. US got out because it prevented us from defending our country from ballistic missle attacks.

Get where I'm going with this?

EDIT: Had the response to the quote, but no quote

Yeh I thought it was one of those types of emails with "clever wording". I could tell by the way it was written.

I would like to research this type of stuff though as history ain't my strongest subject.

Looks like something Michael Moorer would write. He's excellent at skewing facts to support his own biases as well.

Who's Michael Moorer?

:unsure:

He's a "muck raker" documentary film maker who has made Bowling to Columbine and Roger and Me.

Basically he pretends to be a journalist while abusing facts and only presenting information that will better support his extreme liberal positions. Snd when I say extreme, I mean other liberals call him a "Pinko Commie":D

Michael Moore is an extremist? Liberals call him a pinko commie?

Strangler, you obviously haven't spent enough time around Swarthmore. If his films are anything to go by, Michael Moore would by pointing at Swarthmore students and calling us pinko commies. At least Moore is a member of the NRA.

Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine were great movies...he makes an interesting film, yep.

Interesting? Yes.

Accurate and even handed? Hardly.

I like the little cartoon about America's History that he made... quite the funny.

Hmm, funny... but that's about all.

Re: Re: Global Politics
 

Excuse me for not noin much bout the US.. but doesnt the US have something like 3000 nukes? yet they're afraid that like iraq might have a few but its ok for them to have 3000? I dont get that... they're goin after a bunch of countries with nukes and are like.. ok.. get rid of your nukes or risk war.. :p

Lo
sorry if im way off tho :p

Re: Re: Re: Global Politics
 

It's time to sound the misinformed alarm!!!

Iraq signed a little treaty... might want to read up on that. And a couple of U.N. resolutions also.

The problem isn't with any country that owns nukes. If that were true we would be going after France, Pakistan, India, China, etc. The problem is with countries that have shown to be hawkish and unwillingness to work with the world community.

This is the reason why we have to deal with Iraq NOW. It is said that an armed conflict with North Korea would cause between 3 and 5 MILLION casualties on all sides, including unprovoked nuclear strikes on South Korea and Japan. We HAVE to deal with North Korea diplomatically because the price has become too high to deal with them otherwise.

The goal with Iraq is the prevent them from becoming another North Korea.

Re: Re: Re: Global Politics
 

They have 10,600 according the last count. Remember the Cold War? These are leftovers. Russia has a ton too. If you're wondering, yes, the US has the ability to destroy every man, woman, and child in the world 5 times.

The US is also destroying them. We had something like 65,000 during the Cold War. The world doesn't have to fear the US, unless they attack us, and with more than sticks and stones.

See, what you Canadian folks fail to realize is that the US is not a dictatorship. Bush can't just say "Nuke Iraq" and they launch the missle. That's not how it works.

The world doesn't have to fear the US, they are not likely to use a nuclear bomb. Would the US if North Korea launched a nuclear weapon at the US? Probably. Would the US if Iraq used a WMD on the US? They would surely consider it. Would the US if the world was about to end and it was the last resort? You can bet on it, or they could use something more powerful. Still, the point is the US isn't going to threaten to nuke another country, they aren't going on the offensive launching nuclear weapons all over the place. Will Iraq? Yes. Go watch the Sum of All Fears. Remember the scene of Baltimore when the bomb explodes? Pretend it's Toronto. Now ask yourself this, is it better for an entire city to be demolished and millions of people dead, or to stop Iraq now, before that becomes a reality?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Politics
 

Canada can. :p Well, kinda... and I doubt we have nukes.. lol

Canada doesn't have any of its own, but it did house US nukes until 1984.

Of course, Canada also has the US to protect is. The ocean barrier won't help if someone invades from Canada.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Politics
 

Again im very misinformed about anything but why would you go out and say something like.. would the US do this? hell no... but woudl Iraq .. oh yeah they would for sure..



and kill just as many in the process....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Politics
 

Hardly.

Just be happy you live in Canada, you won't have to worry about a dirty bomb exploding in your backyard.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Politics
 

Yea, we also dont' have to listen to a brain dead leader everyday on every major station, or have the largest rumour starting news
program in the entire world, CNN as our Flag-Ship news program.

Ah well, you are right about the bomb thing :)

" It's not that i want to kill bush. It's i'd just rather him ...not...be Alive..."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Politics
 

sure about that? Cuz I mean the President CAN bomb another country for 100days w/o the consent of Congress...

B4 everyone gets upset, yes, this is a democracy. And I'd rather have the U.S. have nukes than any other country. But the means for someone of higher authority to screw it up are there if you look for it hard enough. I mean, watch Dr. Strangelove for chrissake. ;)

It's 90 days, and there are different proceedures for nuclear weapons.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Politics
 

LOL. Family Guy? :D





And.... I think the war might start on Friday night. Yep. So watch the news on Friday!

You mean, with the United States :D

Your country's lifestyle with it's pure capitalism and being the most powerful nation nowadays, is destroying this planet. Soon there won't be anymore oil, drinkable water is also running short, what about trees, animals etc...? I don't say that the other countries are better, but as the #1 nation you should be more careful and give the example, instead of fighting for whatever is left.

That is maybe why so many people hate your country. Do you really think that getting Saddam out of Iraq will solve anything? As long as money will carry out your country (and the world), things won't change.

Well, if it's not Mr. Amish the preacher-boy! Why aren't you helping out?

Want to conserve oil? Stop driving and heating your home. Drinking water is running low, so stop drinking. Trees are a problem, stop using paper and wood. Animals? Stop eating meat.

I'm sure somewhere in your anti-American mind you can dig something up besides enviormental issues. You're disapointing me Ranzid.

Oh trust me, America does suck! :D

Like it's going to change something :rolleyes:
It would be stupid to stop living like the majority just because I think the way we live is wrong, because it won't change nothing and why oh why should I give myself some more trouble (life is already hard enough as it is - we don't all live with our parents like you) while the rest of the population is sucking this planet dry anyway?

Oh and drinking water doesn't make it disappear you know, polluting it with your billions making industries does.

So it's 90 days. Doesn't change the fact that it could trigger a serious conflict, no?

Perhaps. But if other nations are no better, wouldn't that mean that we ARE setting some kind of an example? THink about it, other countries are restrained from doing worse because of the example we set. It's a simple logical inference.

Doing bad or good for the environment is a fairly nebulous distinction. The distinction made would have to be based on the effects the US leaves on the environment. And measuring that can be difficult.

Pure Capitalism? Last I checked, laissez-faire went out of style in this country way back in the 19th century.

This anti-Americanism amuses me. It amuses me in that people are thinking that they would behave much better had they been in America's shoes. Well, I happen to believe that human nature relates to circumstances. So it wouldn't surprise me to find French, German or Russian people acting like Americans had they been in America's shoes.

If we waited for congress to do anything, we would face serious consequences. It's there for a reason, but this isn't a god damn dictatorship, what Mr. President wants, isn't always what Mr. President gets. The 90 days law is because it takes congress forever to get things done. If we need action, and need it fast, the President can send troops and they can stay there up to 90 days if Congress doesn't allow for more.

I'm growing a little tired of the US being the political whipping boy of the world. The fact is right now we are leading the world in the direction that actually UPHOLDS INTERNATIONAL LAW, while France, Russia and Germany who have all ignored the UN sanctions against Iraq and currently are owed BILLIONS of dollars by Iraq are considered angels, and not CORRUPT.

These countries passed the regulations that they are refusing to uphold because they never thought they never thought they would be put in a position to uphold them. They are a sham of international politics.

Here is my compromise that will hopeflly put this whole issue to rest:

Give Iraq 6 months (so winter somes up again), but keep the Military there, on alert, with inspectors in Iraq. If Iraq does not account for every item listed from the 1998 finding, including the 1,000 tons of chemical weapons BY THE OUNCE, Saddams regime must step down or be taken from power by force. The resolution should be worded exactly that way.

EVERY ITEM ACCOUNTED FOR, OR DIE.

The funny part is, even in the unlikely event this is passed, we'll still be going to war in 6 months and I think even those against the war know this. Iraq ever complying with UN resolutions is not likely. He hasn't done it yet.

But if America attacks Iraq without UN authorization... Wouldn't they be going against the UN, just like Iraq?

Not really, as by 1441 the US can argue that they already have authorization. I think one of the reasons that the curent administration is responding with such force is because they are very unhappy with the vague and loop hole filled wording of the UN resolutions.

1441 states that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if they do not comply. What the hell does that mean? The UN knew their wording could be reinterpreted to allow for abuse when they made the resolutions. I mean, the prior resolution allowed Iraq to have WMD and missiles and bombs that could carry them, BUT THEY COULDN'T BE PUT TOGETHER.

So you have a tank of VX Nerve Gas on one side, and empty Al Samoud 2 missiles on the other, and according to UN law that was legal.

The previosu administration completely dropped the ball on this issue, and part of Bush's reaction is trying to makeup for past mistakes, IMO.

Besides, what my proposal is, is for a UN resolution stating it, and worded in a way that they cannot back out of.