«

[Scorpius]

A human makes fun of another human, just like the monkeys do. What a fun...

[punch999]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Dec 30 2005, 03:53 AM
You didn't miss much, it wasn't even remotely funny for me.

Ditto

[Eva02Soul]

Originally posted by Sean@Dec 29 2005, 11:04 PM

He really is an amusing character although I'd rather see him as a comedian than ruler of the world.

I don't really like how people use the expression 'leader of the free world'...

[Borodin]

[quote]Originally posted by Eva02Soul@Dec 30 2005, 09:05 AM

I don't really like how people use the expression 'leader of the free world'...

Like most things, it is a title that only becomes generally known after it has ceased representing reality. "Leader of the free world" applied during WWII, after the US entered the war. It applied directly afterwards, when the US led the effort to refinance a wartorn world with the generous Marshall Plan. Arguably it has come to mean less and less through the years, until you have George Bush and his morally bankrupt, intellectually miniscule regime whose focus has always been on cronyism.

[SirPeter]

\me jumps on the bush-bashing bandwagon.

[plix]

Originally posted by Borodin@Dec 30 2005, 08:56 AM
Like most things, it is a title that only becomes generally known after it has ceased representing reality.

"Leader" has become a nice way of saying dictator in this instance. Much as I dislike Bush and as much as he has devalued the respectability of the office in at least my eyes, the American presidency still represents the most powerful position in the world. No one else could have executed the unilateral action in the middle east in direct contradiction to the wishes of the UN and gotten away with it.

China is an up-and-coming world power, but it's the US that still has the most advanced and powerful military, the US that still has the biggest economy, the US which still primarily controls the world's consumer-grade oil (as it's primarily US companies which hold influence in the middle east and represent the largest global oil companies; the remaining major players are all based in close European allies who depend greatly upon the US market), the US which arguably holds the most clout in the UN, etc etc. Being the most senior official of the US retains a status untouched by anyone else in the world.

Remember that the other future superpower is heavily dependent upon the technology, market, and investments of the US. The EU is a great organization and I have respect for a lot of their initiatives (not all, however), but the major members simply do not wield the same power they once enjoyed. The UK is no longer an empire; France isn't either. The Dutch no longer regulate the proportional volume of world trade they once did. Blame it on WWI & II, blame it on the drain of the cold war and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, blame it on whatever you want; the fact remains that the US is simply the only superpower around right now.

[Titan]

hmmm.. let's sum this up... i have 3 ppl who is pretty close to earning that free 20% addition to theire meter....

keep it clean..

[rlbell]

Originally posted by plix+Dec 30 2005, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix @ Dec 30 2005, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Borodin@Dec 30 2005, 08:56 AM
Like most things, it is a title that only becomes generally known after it has ceased representing reality.

"Leader" has become a nice way of saying dictator in this instance. Much as I dislike Bush and as much as he has devalued the respectability of the office in at least my eyes, the American presidency still represents the most powerful position in the world. No one else could have executed the unilateral action in the middle east in direct contradiction to the wishes of the UN and gotten away with it.

[/b][/quote]
But Bush has not gotten away with invading Iraq. While the US has the military power to do what it pleases, it does not have the power to do so with impunity. Thanks to high tech wizardry, the US armed forces are much more capable than the small number of its men would suggest, but it is now involved in precisely the kind of conflict where it performs worst-- a low intensity conflict against a diffuse enemy. The kind of conflict where warm bodies matter more than hot technology. Insurgencies are fought by having a presence everywhere that matters, and the US occupation force does not have anywhere near enough people to do that.

Bush will not have gotten way with his unilateral actions; until, US troops are home and a representative democracy friendly to the west is stably ensconced in Iraq.

[plix]

Originally posted by rlbell@Dec 30 2005, 08:41 PM
But Bush has not gotten away with invading Iraq.

Without getting into the rest of your points (which have much more to do with the sucess of a modern police action), how has Bush not gotten away with it? He faces no reprisals and the UN is powerless to do anything to punish him. The rest of the world bitched and moaned about it, but they certainly weren't able to stop him. Win or lose has nothing to do with it -- this is about the power of the US president to do pretty much whatever the hell he pleases and do so with the full weight of the only world superpower (at the moment) behind him.

[Titan]

what a nice little POLITICAL DEBATE in a HUMOR TOPIC..

Closed