[quote=Baraka_Guru;2757324]Assuming Palin is all hawkish on Iran, and assuming she meant what she said when Israeli settlers should be allowed to expand their settlements on Palestinian territory, how is this in any way conducive to world stability and Bush's plan regarding peace in the Middle East?
Given current conditions, I don't think it would be. Not only Palin, but I don't think most people understood the "Bush doctrine" or his strategic plan for the ME. Many people simply just dismissed the issues with slogans, like "Bush lied, people died", etc. I have no idea what Obama's plan is, which is much more important than what Palin thinks or even what Bush did at this point.
Quote:
|
And then we have North Korea. What message would they receive if the world isn't unified with Iran (which would likely be the case)?
|
They will continue their acts of defience, develop nuclear weapons threatening their neighbors. Their neighbors will grow increasingly uncomfortable and an arms race will begin, one incident could then spark war.
Quote:
|
If anything, using the war option (i.e. an essentially American/Israeli-led option) against Iran would embolden North Korea to carry on with their own nuclear pursuits.
|
Canada has participated in war, and I think Canada would be involved in any future ME conflict. I think they would also be involved in any world conflict with N. Korea. Canada is not a pacifist nation I do not understand how peace can be maintained without the acknowledgment that the use of force is an option. It is nice that some have the option of pretending war is not an option, but others do have to carry that burden and make those decisions when or if the time comes.
Quote:
|
I don't see the value in Palin's positions. I only see the harm.
|
Palin is a private citizen with an opinion. Obama is our elected President, he needs to clearly communicate his position to the world, I don't think he has done that, giving people like Palin opportunities to attack his lack of clarity.
---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by girldetective
Please read the above again and again, and once more. I think it may be true.
Please do not forget who this woman is when she is all schmoozy and perky.
She is very, very fucked up.
Please read the above again and again, and once more. I think is true.
|
Some of the world's greatest people came to greatness from humble roots. What is your point?
---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
The facts I'm talking about are that there are no weapons.
|
Isn't that your opinion?
Quote:
|
There is no law justifying us telling another country what they can or can't do.
|
Perhaps, we are in a semantics trap, but I think I disagree with you.
Quote:
International law is the term commonly used for referring to the system of implicit and explicit agreements that bind together sovereign states in adherence to recognized values and standards. It differs from other legal systems in that it primarily concerns states rather than private citizens[1]. However, the term "international law" can refer to three distinct legal disciplines:
* Public international law, which governs the relationship between states and international entities, either as an individual or as a group. It includes the following specific legal field such as the treaty law, law of sea, international criminal law and the international humanitarian law.
* Private international law, or conflict of laws, which addresses the questions of (1) in which legal jurisdiction may a case be heard; and (2) the law concerning which jurisdiction(s) apply to the issues in the case.
* Supranational law or the law of supranational organizations, which concerns at present regional agreements where the special distinguishing quality is that laws of nation states are held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal system.
|
International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia