Forums | MacLife

I like France.

"France, for instance, requires all companies listed on the Paris Stock Exchange to include information about their social and environmental performance within their financial statements; the Johannesburg Stock Exchange requires compliance with a CSR-based code of conduct; and the United Kingdom (the first nation with a minister for corporate social responsibility) requires pension-fund managers to disclose the degree to which social and environmental criteria are part of their investment decisions." http://www.greenbiz.com/news/reviews_th … wsID=23758

They're redefining progress. http://www.cyberus.ca/~sustain1/Question/GPI.html

Good for you.

They're also trying to keep the middle east unstable.

Yes. Because we all know that war, overthrowing a government, thousands of deaths and refugees, the flux in oil prices, and occupation for an indetermined amount of time wont make the middle east unstable.

The article is legit. I've seen it on many other news sites, including Fox News.

Germans(leaders) believe they were not defeated.
Iraq(leaders) believes they were not defeated.

That is a grossly misleading simplification there.

Well for the sake of argument, lets say Isreal didn't exist in the Middle East. Let's say we got sick of the problems with them being there and packed the whole lot of them and stuck them in South Dakota.

If they are gone, the Arab nations have nobody to point to as a scapegoat for their peoples problems. Well except the US, but that's nothing new.

And then how long do you think they would be after each other?

I'm not trying to condem Arabs, or Muslims. Far from it. However their is a cultural thing in most middle eastern nations that proscribe violence to solve most issues. Kids are given guns, blowing yourself up and others is encouraged and rewarded..

I'm not saying the US is perfect. That's obvious enough. But the Middle East has a history of extremism in not just religion but in a great many political and social events. In many of these countries there is still open warfare between rival Clans. And in many cases it's in part of the country where the central government has little if any control over it's own people. Hell, Even Saddam, who rules his country with the proverbial Iron fist dosn't have any controll over parts of his country.

France and Germany's footdragging is a political issue. Germany's channcelor got voted into office on a peace platform. But from what I understand it's been backfireing against him now in Germany. He lost alot of support, his green party has lost a great deal of seats in Office. And many of his Secretaries have apparently privately told the US they don't support him at all. In other word he seems to have commited political suicide.

France, may still come along but they want concessions and some ass kissing from us before they will do so. It happend the same way before the last Gulf War. They like to play hard to get and show they are not under the thumb of the US. Fine.

Let's forget the issue of the US liberating France and Germany from WW2 and the Cold War respectively. ingrates.

There may be still some issues where I disagree with the Way the US is going about this War in Iraq. While I think Oil is not the main issue, I think it has more to do with the agendas of alot of Bush's key Staff.

That said, I think we all can agree Saddam is a nightmare and for the good of his own people should dissapear. Along with his psychotic son and any key figures in his govenment. I also believe he is a danger to the US and at some point would get more WOMD and use them to threaten the region. And the US as well at some point.

But the key to this whole argument really is the UN. Essentially he commited a crime (invadeing Kuwait) got forcibly ejected and then when it came to being punnished essentially skipped bail and has been screwing around with the UN ever since.

If this body is to ever be taken seriously, it's resolutions must be adheared to and enforced. How many times can the UN say "pretty please..With sugar on it?" to get this guy to follow the agreement HE SIGNED to escape any war trials and further actions against him and his government in the first place? That was essentially the reason for stopping in this first war (big mistake obviously, way to go George the First!).

While I uncomfortable with the US taking proactive measures, the truth is the Gulf War never ended. He was essentially given a repreive to get his smurf in line. Now he didn't even try to do so and wether you personally believe the evidence justifying war, it's clear he is in violation of the agreement he signed not to have his ass shot to hell.

If you want a parrallel for this argument you can look back to WW1. Under Woodrow Wilson (a pacifist who been elected on neutrality and reelected on the slogan; "He kept us out of War!).

The man ignored all signs as to Germany's agression and turned his back on Europe as it slid into war. He even ignored Germany's sinking of our Merchant ships and even the commercial liner the Lusitania. All this did was make him send off a miffed note to Kaiser Whilhem saying don't do that again pretty please.

Eventually when the political tide turned against him he finnally called for action. However he let the Us Navy and Army become so antiquated and ill preparred it took over a year after a decleration of war for it to get even remotely ready.

Now it has been argued rahter persuasively that if Theodore Roosevelt had won the election instead of Wilson, their might not have been a WW1 at all. Or at the very least Germany would have thought twice about attacking. Indeed the Kaiser knew Roosevelt personally and knew that if he was in office he would have been attacked by the US in support of Europe (their was no formal alliances yet).

Roosevelt even predicted in the early 1900's that Japan was going to be a big problem someday and to curb Japans war mongering sent out the US Navy "the Great White Fleet"on a "Good Will" tour of the world, stopping in Japan naturally. This show of force effectively negated Japan's activities for some time until Wilson let things go to hell. (but to be fair Taft who preceded Wilson didn't do such a hot job either)

The point of all this is Roosevelt was right in his "Big Stick" philosophy. It's not so much that you need to fight but the show of force tends to keep hostile nations in line. In the case of Iraq we, the UN and others spent the last twelve years mostly wagging our finger at them and doing nothing.

Again, our lack of preparedness bit us in the ass during WW2 when the Japanese attacked the US. So we should wait for another 9-11 or Pearl Harbor?

Now maybe I got off track here ( I'm taking a Hell of alot of cold medication and am bored as hell) But essentially I'm saying sometimes you have to act. All the posturing in the world won't stop anybody if their convinced their is nothing backing up your retoric. And Saddam's been counting on this for the last twelve years, only now times up.

I'm going to go lay down now..

ROTFLMAO

I was wondering when that picture would show up.

Unlike the USA clock that chimes USA! USA! USA! every hour, or when it feels like it. Also tends to invade other clocks, and an increase in weight is making it fall off the wall.

Anybody ever get the image of that old Bugs Bunny cartoon where he is a cowboy going against Yosemite Sam. In this cartoon he keeps drawing a line in the sand and daring Sam to cross over it. Of course Sam does; "I'm astepping Varmint!"

Repeat this a few hundred times and you get the UN and a few of our "Allies".

Just so I don't leave you hanging, eventually Sam steps one too many times over a line in the sand, right over the edge of a- cliff. Insert standard bomb dropping sound as he goes...silence, followed by a low "pow" as he hits the desert floor.

Now i'm just being silly.

I think many of the people here forget their history lessons to easily. 

The French were instrumental in the revolutionary war that liberated this country from British rule.  If it hadn't been for the help and support of the French, there wouldn't be a United States, this country would still be a British colony.

Ah, what eloquence, what insight. What steryotype American stupidity and arrogance.

I think many of the people here forget their history lessons to easily. 

The French were instrumental in the revolutionary war that liberated this country from British rule.  If it hadn't been for the help and support of the French, there wouldn't be a United States, this country would still be a British colony.

And if the US hadn't gotten involved in WWI and WWII, French women would never have gotten to have sex with a victor that didn't call her "Fraulien".

So I ask.  What is the solution?

What about:

"The US of A should butt out of the internal politics of a Country it knows nor cares anything for".

In this, it is the US who is the aggressor. It is the US (captained by Dubya) who is the antagonist. Of the two regimes (And, God knows how I hate Saddam and his clique) I say unequivocally that the US is the greater danger to World Peace.

I don't think anyone will be blasting Israel "to bits."

More's the pity

Care to reconsider that comment?