Bomb Makers have to eat too.

[nemafakei]

Various fair trade organisations are trying to help the economic side a little.

Groups like Amnesty International are trying to improve issues of human rights.

The party for whom international cooperation is most important here would be the Lib Dems. They opposed the motion supporting the Iraq war. But they are the third party, and unless they can get traditional Labour voters to vote Lib Dem rather than New Labour, they will not be able to get into power.

Other European countries' governments tend to be more internationallyt minded, with a few exceptions. Fish seems to be one.

But European countries are generally small enough and diverse enough for campaigns to function at a local level. Even in Britain it's evident, in the US it's clear, companies who make the bombs wield their own power.

[Dante]

I don't necessarily agree with our Government on how or where they spend our tax dollars. I do know for certain that we do indeed need a military budget. Saying things like "we shouldn't have to stockpile weapons" doesn't make the need go away.

I know, I know

[GUNWOUNDS]

in reference to the last statement dante made....

I think it is a bit too much to ask for "instant gratification"  after the removal of a regime.  This is the problem... people want the iraqis dancing in the streets with Hershey's chocolate bars while throwing flower petals in the air right after the war.  Our society is use to instant gratification and therefore does not understand the reconstruction timeframe i suppose.

[Dante]

Of course things aren't going to get better immediately. The question is whether they needed to get 'better' at all.

[nemafakei]

You've got to admit, it would have helped if there was a reconstruction plan when the destruction started.

[Dude_Doc]

I AGREE , "we shouldn't have to". But we do have very real enemies with very real dangers. Until such time as I move to Neverland, I don't ever see us not needing a military.

Do you ever wonder why the United States ALWAYS have some kind of conflict going on with/in another country?

The fact is if we don't come up with it first, our enemies will. Do you really want the terrorists of the world to be the only ones building and developing weopons?

The problem has to be stopped before it can become a danger. That is why we have the United Nations - to discuss problems before they become hostile countries and terrorists. As long as countries around the world do things their way there will never be agreements or peace. 

I would like to live in a world without terrorism and war as much as anyone. We all have fantasies, but that's all they are is fantasy. If anyone truly beleives that militarys should just stop preparing for war...they are living in their fantasy world and need see a Doctor to get back to reality.

It was a fantasy that black men and women would ever be able to say and do whatever white men and women did. It was a fantasy that we could get to the moon. Most dreams about space and extraterrestrials were quite funny fantasies, I mean, come on, building a base on the moon? What idiot would think about doing that for real?

As time went, that idiot became a president - Bush.

[Megashrap]

  If one agree's that terrorists are not innocent, that they have no problems with making terrorists suffer, that they are a real threat to the world, and evil in general, in terms of thier actions that they carry out....9/11 is enough proof for that.

Then please do enlighten us exactlly how negotiating with them would even remotely bring about anything usefull or positive in terms of a solution. It would only result in dealing with the terrorists we have to deal with now plus creating a newer and improved reason for them to multiply and thrive.

Edited, for Nema, and due to lack of sleep.

[nemafakei]

Regarding your quite odd analogy:

The question is whether any of us has the power to threaten the rest of humanity with being put on the sun. It's not a moral stance against nuclear reactions, it's not a moral stance against things lethal, it's a moral stance against allowing one human to inflict pain and death on others.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Regarding your quite odd analogy:

The question is whether any of us has the power to threaten the rest of humanity with being put on the sun. It's not a moral stance against nuclear reactions, it's not a moral stance against things lethal, it's a moral stance against allowing one human to inflict pain and death on others.

however its usually morally acceptable to defend

[nemafakei]

I was really just making a point about the analogy. Hence the rather specific first sentence.

Are you arguing 'it's right because it's natural'?

[GUNWOUNDS]

I was really just making a point about the analogy. Hence the rather specific first sentence.

Are you arguing 'it's right because it's natural'?

no i am stating a fact that man has basic needs like food, water, shelter, and security.

[Megashrap]

Regarding your quite odd analogy:

  I have no problem seeing that, and I edited to make the point easier to make out,thanks .

[Dude_Doc]

Then please do enlighten us exactlly how negotiating with them would even remotely bring about anything usefull or positive in terms of a solution. It would only result in dealing with the terrorists we have to deal with now plus creating a newer and improved reason for them to multiply and thrive.

Yes, now that the damage is done we can't do much more but to watch the consequences. But you have to ask yourself, what does bin Laden want? He wants the US to attack another country, because if they do so, more people will hate the US and have sympathy for al-Quaeda. Thus more terrorists.

Attacking Iran, for example, won't help anyone but the terrorists. The US economy will be dragged deeper into the sh_t it is in now, the world will hate the US even more among other things.

Therefore you have to listen to the people, and not only the people of your own country, but other countries as well. That is why we have a United Nations.

however its usually morally acceptable to defend  yourself/your interests  using lethal force if necessary.  Its imbedded in our very instinct to survive.

You see, this is what we need to change. Interest. What about THEIR interests?

Primitive man did not allow other men to harm him or his crops.... else he be killed or starve.

But they didn't live completely alone, but in societies. And of course the society was defended if an agressor attacked.

Modern man will not allow other men to harm him or his economic interests (such as oil wells) or his feeling of safety (security is listed as one of man's basic needs)  ... else he be killed, starve economically, or lose his mental health.

Ever thought about that this man's interests might damage other people and the environment just because of his own survival? We are not that desperate. There are alternate fuel, but do you think the rich will listen? They have made so much money of their oil, so why not continue?

This is a part of what is called capitalism.

I am not saying it is "right" to eat, drink , obtain shelter, and have security.... i am saying you must have these things or die.  There is no right or wrong about it..... unless you are asking me if it is "right" to want to live..... or to put your life before others by using lethal force to do so.

We can live in a society where everyone can eat, drink, have a place to live in and security, if we work together.

[Megashrap]

Therefore you have to listen to the people, and not only the people of your own country, but other countries as well. That is why we have a United Nations.

  Well we have listened to the people, most not all approved of the war in Iraq as did Congress. Other countries approved as well, again not all but that is to be expected.  Which btw the oppositon in the UN that we faced  now realize and agree as well also.

[Dude_Doc]

Well we have listened to the people, most not all approved of the war in Iraq as did Congress. Other countries approved as well, again not all but that is to be expected.  Which btw the oppositon in the UN that we faced  now realize and agree as well also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Country_positions_Iraq_war.png

As you can see, almost all countries opposed the war.

[Megashrap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Country_positions_Iraq_war.png

As you can see, almost all countries opposed the war.

Maybe you should read the *Note* at the bottom of that chart.

"Note that these refer to government positions, and not necessarily those of the populace.

Well, unless your not considering the "people's" opinion.

Therefore you have to listen to the people, and not only the people of your own country, but other countries as well. That is why we have a United Nations.

"On May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council voted 14-0 to give the United States and Britain the power to govern Iraq and use its oil resources to rebuild the country."

*Note* this is an ongoing event and Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

==List of nations==

The following nations have troops serving in Iraq in some capacity:

[nemafakei]

"Note that these refer to government positions, and not necessarily those of the populace.

Well, unless your not considering the "people's" opinion"

Precisely. Here, as with many other places, the war was vehemently opposed - by the people, but not by the government.

[Dude_Doc]

I was talking about the opinion of the people before the war. It was a minority in the UN that supported the war, yet they did it their way.

[Anathema]

Why isn't the Netherlands in that list? We've got troops in Iraq. Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as fully trustworthy information because the articles are all submitted by readers, and the site doesn't garantue accuracy of it.

[Dante]

If one agree's that terrorists are not innocent, that they have no problems with making terrorists suffer, that they are a real threat to the world, and evil in general, in terms of thier actions that they carry out....9/11 is enough proof for that.

Then please do enlighten us exactlly how negotiating with them would even remotely bring about anything usefull or positive in terms of a solution. It would only result in dealing with the terrorists we have to deal with now plus creating a newer and improved reason for them to multiply and thrive.

And if one doesn

[Megashrap]

I fail to see how negotiating with terrorists will give them

[Dante]

I said negotiate, not 'give up and grant all demands.'

Not that we really know exactly what most of these demands are...

[Megashrap]

I said negotiate, not 'give up and grant all demands.'

Not that we really know exactly what most of these demands are...

  Diplomacy can and in my opinion SHOULD only take place between those who are willing to settle thier differences through persuasion and who recognize each other's right to live.  And Terrorists have consistently used brute force and mass murder as their primary means of pursuing their "diplomatic" goals.  So play the,(lets negotiate with terrorist) violin all you want, but it's not going to happen. Nor should it.

[Dante]

Terrorist: There's no negotiating with them! They're American, they'll never listen!

Dubya: There's no negoti- er... you know, that thing with the talking, with them! They're terrorists, they'll never listenify!

Now here's the problem. Neither side is "willing to settle their differences through persuasion." So the key is to try and get them to, and then negotiate. You have to start somewhere.

[Acriku]

Terrorist: There's no negotiating with them! They're American, they'll never listen!

Dubya: There's no negoti- er... you know, that thing with the talking, with them! They're terrorists, they'll never listenify!

Now here's the problem. Neither side is "willing to settle their differences through persuasion." So the key is to try and get them to, and then negotiate. You have to start somewhere.

The problem then arises with the public outcry of having the President of the United States compromising with the terrorists. What do the terrorists want so badly that they'd destroy others and themselves to achieve? Whatever that is, I don't know if just diplomacy can convince them to change their actions without giving them what they want (which is often irrational and unreasonable to do). But you're right, just because it doesn't seem possible does not mean we should not attempt it. Military action should be the last resort.