Politics - 3 June 2007

2007-06-03 05:44:08 · 25 answers · asked by howdoilvthee 5

Who cares about nukes when there's Al Gore's pet cause?

From his convalescent bed, Fidel Castro has summoned the energy to spit in George W. Bush's direction, decrying U.S. military expenditures and — is he not tuned in to bien-pensant fashion? — flagellating the president for resisting a German proposal on global warming. Meanwhile, in Caracas, Castro's acolyte, Hugo Chavez, is proving himself a faithful pupil of the old master by shutting down Venezuela's only opposition television station. But I digress.

Next week, the leaders of the Group of Eight will meet in Heiligendamm, Germany, to discuss the major challenges facing the world. The industrial giants will discuss poverty in the third world, hedge fund transparency, and energy issues. But the chief topic and agenda item will be global warming. Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, will propose to stop the rate of increase in world temperatures by reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Quite a tall order. But leaving that aside, it's astounding that the leaders of the world's largest democracies (with the exception of Russia, of course) have persuaded themselves that climate change is the chief threat to peace and security in the world while every day brings us closer to a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran. One of the world's two largest proliferators, Russia, is an esteemed member of the G8 club. The other menace to peace is China, which has paid no price for its reckless support of Kim Jong Il and the mullahs of Iran.

China is arguably the godfather of nuclear proliferation, having supplied Pakistan with warhead designs, nuclear test data and plutonium technology that permitted the Pakistanis to go nuclear in the 1990s. As Gordon Chang reports in Commentary magazine, what China shared with Pakistan the Pakistanis soon shared with North Korea (among others), thanks to the busy career of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan. (India, by contrast, has kept its nuclear know-how to itself.)

While the U.S. has been attempting through carrots and sticks to cajole and threaten North Korea into abandoning its nuclear program, the Chinese, whose influence over the North Koreans is superior to anyone's, have done little to discourage their client. If China were to open its border with North Korea, the latter would rapidly become depopulated — which might represent a solution both simple and humanitarian.

But while China has occasionally expressed irritation with North Korea, it has also coddled and protected it. Beijing has run diplomatic interference for Pyongyang by watering down Security Council resolutions sponsored by the United States. China has also dragged out the so-called "six-party talks," giving North Korea the time it needs to perfect a nuclear-weapons program.

As for the Iranian nuclear program, both China and Russia have taken a tolerant if not downright encouraging approach to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. China has reportedly shared beryllium, used to trigger nuclear weapons, with Iran, and Chinese nuclear technicians have been known to be in Iran. Both Russia and China have resisted U.S. and some European efforts to impose serious sanctions on Tehran. Chang writes: "When the United States did finally manage to put Iran on the [Security] Council's agenda, Russia and China . . . refused to consider sanctions, which meant that the July 2006 resolution contained no enforcement measures. Then, when it came time to respond to Tehran's continued intransigence, the pair, over two long months, diluted proposal after proposal until the sanctions that eventually emerged last December . . . were essentially meaningless."

Russia is building a reactor for Iran — all for peaceful nuclear power, all parties insist — though why a nation with one of the largest deposits of oil and gas would require nuclear energy goes unasked. "We think that the people of Iran should have access to modern technologies, including nuclear ones," Vladimir Putin explained.

The Iranian regime is now illegally holding five U.S. citizens, arming the worst terrorists on the globe and supplying the insurgents in Iraq with weaponry with which to kill Americans — all while its febrile president talks of the return of the 12th imam. North Korea starves and enslaves its people and trades drugs and counterfeit U.S. dollars. Both are on the verge of becoming armed with nuclear weapons. But neither is as important as global warming?

2007-06-03 05:43:42 · 3 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

Would that be your fault ?


Think about that the next time any of you try to blame the USA for supporting somebody who we 'thought' was going to do good , but ended up becoming a brutal dictator or a terrorist !!

Really, really think about that .

And think about this . . . .. Just how frustrating and painful would it be to see your kid kill others and then you'd be hounded for a lifetime for their 'TURN TOWARDS EVIL' ?

Would it be right or fair for all of us to blame you ?

And sorry , but I must say this . Answer the question first. . . . and if you have something else to add , then only add it AFTER you answer . If any of you need help understanding the question, just ask !!
Thank you .

2007-06-03 05:32:49 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-03 05:18:57 · 7 answers · asked by devruff 1

2007-06-03 05:09:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

They will make a move on Israel,should we preempt them and finally rid this world of this madness?

2007-06-03 05:09:15 · 6 answers · asked by Jack L. W. 3

2007-06-03 05:07:45 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Well , that's what Hugo Chavez did this week . He threatened to fire all government employees who did NOT participate in counter-protests in Venezuela . He bussed them in from all over the country , gave them $25 - free lunch - and a free red hat and red t-shirt !!

Why do I even have to ask this question ? Because incredibly there are still folks who support this guy in our own free democracy .

How can you live in a democratic country , enjoying the benifits of that country including free speech. . . . . .and then support someone who believes the opposite ? How is that even possible , let alone even sane ?

2007-06-03 04:51:51 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-03 04:47:46 · 12 answers · asked by ? 2

take away their voting rights forever as they are admitting they are too stupid to have the right to vote?

2007-06-03 04:46:07 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-03 04:46:00 · 11 answers · asked by Amit 1

Gas for your truck & your wife's SUV

$240/week

$960/month

$ 1920 for 2 month

a year = $11, 040

Maybe you drive around in a your company truck/SUV and deduct it from your tax return?

2007-06-03 04:45:09 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

this is for a school project I was wondering what your opinion is?

2007-06-03 04:27:59 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous

You can be pro-war if you want . Hey , it's a free country right ?!

But what I want to know is. . . . . . Have you considered that if we don't go after Radical Islamists wherever they are , they will continue to grow stronger ?

Hell , they're fighting in more than 30 countries right now and I'm sure you're logical enough to know that it will get worse if we stop going after them . And simply saying that we should be fighting them in Afghanistan or Iraq is getting real old . They're fighting in more than 30 countries !!

If they're fighting in more than 30 countries, why are we only attacking terrorists in 2 specific countries?

Wouldn't it make more sense to fight an unconventional war on terror, globally, instead of fighting 2 conventional wars in specific countries?

2007-06-03 04:26:53 · 19 answers · asked by Josh 4

The 2 recent terror plots that were broken up?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard some con say "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here".

But yet, plots to attack the US on our own soil continue to happen.

I've been told time and time again that the war in Iraq is making our country safe. But clearly it is not.

Please keep that rhetoric to yourselves cause nobody is buying that gigantic load of bullshit anymore.

2007-06-03 04:18:32 · 17 answers · asked by Josh 4

Our leaders eg, Kennedy, Kerry and others on the left expect us to follow them but if we disagree with them we are racest, bigots, what have you. Give them facts to show them they are wrong and your some kind of nut. Shame on you for confussing the issue with facts. Some on the right do give but can be as enflexable. Since JFK stated," ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," all people seem interrested in is themselves.What has happened to us. Where did we go wrong. Even with the imigration issue some want all sent back and some want all let in. Give them facts,eg what about us obeying our laws on the issue or letting them in with some payment for breaking our laws and your confusing the issue with facts. Have we become so secular that we have forgotten the Christen roots on which this country was built. The world is not a safe and wonderful place any more. We should at least take care of each other.

2007-06-03 04:18:21 · 2 answers · asked by PARVFAN 7

Or do they just see another cut of beef that needs to get harvested for the "greater good"?

2007-06-03 04:01:45 · 11 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

We should be just taking it from them for all of the continuous grief and expenses all those sandy coutries put us through. Vote for me and gas will be about fifty cents a gallon.

2007-06-03 03:55:00 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-03 03:52:12 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why can't i quote them without being reported for abuse?
Since when have their quotations started to be too politically incorrect?
And these are mostly in my answers, sorry if i didn't phrase my earlier question right.

2007-06-03 03:49:55 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

For not supporting his immigration bill.
Nice slap in the face from your HERO - isn't it?

2007-06-03 03:44:22 · 8 answers · asked by Your Teeth or Mine? 5

2007-06-03 03:41:31 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

if you have a right to own a firearm for protection in this country why don't you have a right to health care to protect you and your children?

2007-06-03 03:40:59 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-03 03:39:18 · 11 answers · asked by rejectbush2008 1

The USA was the very first nation founded on this planet with a government by the people and for the people. In other words, this is the first country in which each individual shares the power that was once concentrated to an elite group, a king or other such form of rule.
To insure that each individual maintained the power that was once held by a king, capitalism was adopted as the economic system. Capitalism is individual ownership and control of wealth. Every other system, including socialism, the ownership and control of wealth is ceded to the state.
Socialism is just an extension of feudalism. Instead of a king controlling the wealth of the nation, a committee controls the wealth of the nation.
In both socialism and feudalism, the common man is allowed to advance in life only as far as the state permits. In both of these systems common people are not allowed to acquire personal wealth beyond which the state deems possible.
Once you cede power to the state to provide your individual personal needs, like healthcare, you have lost your freedom.
Listen to Hillary Clinton speak. She is touting socialism in this country. In each of her speeches, she states she want to tax the rich, create a huge government program, and provide socialized medicine. Think this thru. She wants to cap the wealth individuals can acquire. She was to be able to coerce or control your life by giving you free services. How do you think these free services will work out?
Look at the Social Security system. Every benefit SS people get is dictated by a committee. People on Social Security receive only the return that a committee sees fit. Limits are placed on the incomes of SS receivers. They are forced to live on a fix income or lose the benefits. And, if you decide to keep working because you can't live on SS, you must keep paying into the system even if you don't get any benefits.
Americans don't get free healthcare because Americans love freedom and liberty.
Think about this also. Why create a huge department of the government that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to administer a national healthcare system? Why not just require every American to get coverage on their own? Creating a healthcare department is like you hiring someone to come to your house every morning to brush your teeth for you. Why pay for the adnimistrative expense of something you can take care of on your own?

2007-06-03 03:33:49 · 15 answers · asked by Perplexed Bob 5

please give me a website that has the answer to this... is it because her husband was an argentine president or something else? this is for a project. muchos gracias

2007-06-03 03:31:20 · 8 answers · asked by Answer Goddess 2

yuo'd think he would try to arrest her

the secret guest chenney is having at hos home
is revealed

2007-06-03 03:30:10 · 11 answers · asked by impeachbushnoww 1

Hahaha. Where does James Carville come up with this stuff? Can any of you prove him wrong?

2007-06-03 03:22:57 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

I don't understand. The left is for the little guy, right? Yet any attempt to allow parents vouchers or other means to get their children out of failing government schools always meets with opposition. Why?

2007-06-03 03:02:05 · 24 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

alternative energy sources
n. New locations to drill for gas and oil.

bankruptcy
n. A punishable crime when committed by poor people but not corporations

Cheney, Dick
n. The greater of two evils.

class warfare
n. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage.

climate change
n. The day when the blue states are swallowed by the oceans.

compassionate conservatism
n. Poignant concern for the very wealthy.

DeLay, Tom
n. 1. Past tense of De Lie 2. Patronage saint.

democracy
n. So extensively exported that the domestic supply is depleted.

Fox News
fict. Faux news.

free markets
n. Halliburton no-bid contracts at taxpayer expense.

God
n. Senior presidential adviser.

growth
n. 1. The justification for tax cuts for the rich. 2. What happens to the national debt when Republicans cut taxes on the rich.

gun control

n. The index finger, usually on the right hand. No other definitions or usage.

habeas corpus
n. Archaic. (Lat.) Legal term no longer in use (See Patriot Act).

healthy forest
n. No tree left behind.

honesty
n. Lies told in simple declarative sentences--e.g., "Freedom is on the march."

House of Representatives
n. Exclusive club; entry fee $1 million to $5 million.

laziness
n. When the poor are not working.

leisure time
n. When the wealthy are not working.

liberal(s)
n. Followers of the Anti-christ.

neoconservatives
n. Nerds with Napoleonic complexes.

9/11
n. Tragedy used to justify any administrative policy. (see Terra, Terra, Terra)

No Child Left Behind
riff. 1. v. There are always jobs in the military.

ownership society
n. A civilization where 1 percent of the population controls 90 percent of the wealth.

Patriot Act
n. The pre-emptive strike on American freedoms to prevent the terrorists from destroying them first.

pro-life
adj. Valuing human life until birth.

Senate
n. Exclusive club; entry fee $10 million to $30 million.

simplifiy
v. To cut the taxes of Republican donors.

staying the course
interj. Slang. Saying and doing the same stupid thing over and over, regardless of the result.
voter fraud
n. A significant minority turnout.

Wal-Mart
n. The nation-state, future tense.

water
n. Arsenic storage device.

2007-06-03 02:56:00 · 12 answers · asked by citizenjanecitizenjane2 4