SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: marcos who wrote (80788)3/9/2003 8:03:12 PM
From: quehubo  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
<<Do you believe then that Gore won the 2000 US election, because more people voted for him than for Bush II? ... leaving aside the questions of dodgey ballots and whose daddy's judges etc, do you find unfair or unreasonable the principle of the electoral college under which low-population areas get somewhat better representation? ... what is the alternative then, how would you propose the votes be weighted - with the most people, with the most land area, with the most money, with the most weapons, or what? >>

The people/nations with the most at stake should have the most say. No person/nation should forsake their rights to defend themselves as they see fit, fully aware of the consequences of unilateral action.

Who really doubts that the USA is the symbol to be targeted by Saddam and every other lunatic who wants to scare the hell out of the world? Excuse us if our perceptions are clouded with memories of our victims of terrorism and our desire to prevent future attacks. We dont have the luxury of feeling that we are not the primary targets or that the chances of being directly impacted are small.

<<Personally i wonder whether the concept of veto in the security council might be outdated ... the whole structure of UNSC, would you set it up that way now? ... probably not eh ... but it's pretty bloody stupid to be pouring fine wines down the drain in futile petulance at some dim perception of what is frenchness, and be at the same time avoiding thought on these vital questions [not meaning you personally here, don't know your body of work>>]

I agree ideally a world where a functioning multilateral body makes perfect sense. Unfortunately I see little hope of that working on a grand scale in our lifetimes. The USA, Canada and Mexico cannot even agree on whether we should liberate Iraq. I expect to see a future with more Coalitions of the Willing banding together when common interests and goals are aligned.

<<Kids we don't have yet, working on that now [fingers crossed at the moment, after three miscarriages] ... eighteen years after we succeed there will be strife in this world, guaranteed, there always is, and yes my kid[s] may very well be in the thick of it, as either mexicano or canadian forces .... i advocate removing the prohibicion in the constitucion against las fuerzas armadas passing the borders, for what it's worth, i also would like to see closer alliance between my two countries, also with Denmark and New Zealand and Ireland et al, as posted above ... a parliament of independent democracies, and yes with sharp fangs to smile with, the better to further the path of true working positive multilateralism >>

Good luck with kids, I have two close 18 & 13 year old boys. If nations want equal say they should be representative of their populace and bring a proportionate ability to support actions to the table.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext