Picture says million words - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Picture says million words

Posted by Sputnik on Mar-30-2003 07:39:

Picture says million words

Posted by Xavier on Mar-30-2003 08:05:

I've always wanted to see a picture like this, thanks for posting

Posted by JM on Mar-30-2003 08:05:

sooooooo ?

looks like buds turned enemies

>JM<

Posted by Cyrus King on Mar-30-2003 08:18:

quote:
Originally posted by JM
sooooooo ?

looks like buds turned enemies

>JM<

Looks like thats happened way too many times

Posted by sifntj0r on Mar-30-2003 08:39:

i could probably show you a picture of myself and my ex having a lovely time...

situation changed.

Posted by JM on Mar-30-2003 08:59:

quote:
Originally posted by sifntj0r
i could probably show you a picture of myself and my ex having a lovely time...

situation changed.

true that! and that was probably only within the past few years or so. now imagine 20 years. yeah, things change, people grow older wiser...richer....

.....become dictators..

.....

>JM<

Posted by fastmp3 on Mar-30-2003 09:46:

quote:
Originally posted by JM
true that! and that was probably only within the past few years or so. now imagine 20 years. yeah, things change, people grow older wiser...richer....

.....become dictators..

.....

>JM<

... spread hatred and become hungry to war

Posted by Yoepus on Mar-30-2003 17:16:

quote:
Originally posted by fastmp3
... spread hatred and become hungry to war

wow your catchingon

Ya, perhaps the US was just trying to catch up to the great lead France created, you know them selling them nuclear weapon making capabilities long before Rummi steped foot in the desert. So like everything else, blame this one the french.

Posted by torontotrance on Mar-30-2003 21:36:

nah...takes two to create war and issues are so damn complicated these days...forget blaming others. Friends become enemies very quickly in real life and same as everyday life. Think, you have a friend then one day that friend tries to blame you for something..then you dislike this person. It's real life

To be honest, I'm sick of the french getting mad at the Americans because let's think here, who let the Nazis take over with no war in the 40's and which countries showed up and liberated them. THen again, Chirac did that because he realized that it would give him more time in office and buy him more votes. Same with Jean Chretien...he decided to not send troops because people are so against it in Canada.

Posted by Yoepus on Mar-30-2003 22:45:

quote:
Originally posted by torontotrance
To be honest, I'm sick of the french getting mad at the Americans because let's think here, who let the Nazis take over with no war in the 40's and which countries showed up and liberated them. THen again, Chirac did that because he realized that it would give him more time in office and buy him more votes. Same with Jean Chretien...he decided to not send troops because people are so against it in Canada.

The french are dumb ya: When opted with removing the Iraqi dictator who is atrocious under UN support, they decided to sabatoge the effort
When opted with the option of violating all the core elements of the UN charter to keep the Ivory Coast government against all norms and conventions, they opt for and don't seem to make a fuss about it. Hypocrates... no never, they believe in something... something someone can't describe for sure.

Posted by fastmp3 on Mar-30-2003 23:58:

quote:
Originally posted by torontotrance
Chirac did that because he realized that it would give him more time in office and buy him more votes. Same with Jean Chretien...he decided to not send troops because people are so against it in Canada.

haha andy you are so wrong (just like Yoepus) !
1-Chirac was just re-elected not even 1 year ago
2-it was a re-election which means HE CAN'T NO LONGER run for presidency in france (you can't do it more than two time)

and what's wrong with Chretien saying no ? now he's following the people's opinion and suddenly you're against him ?

Posted by torontotrance on Mar-31-2003 00:06:

It's a complex situation here

1)we lose major business with the usa if we don't help
-remember much of our trade is done with the usa
2)many ppl who protest want us to not help the usa
-so chretien folds into pressure

what do we do....either way...ppl are gonna be pissed off. Same with the war...it's a tossup...neither thing to do will be popular somewhere in the world.

Posted by fastmp3 on Mar-31-2003 00:18:

andy at least we showed to the rest of the world that we are not the suck-ups everybody was calling us in the past (whenever usa does someting canada follows blindly)

much of usa's trade is done with canada also , THEY NEED US TOO , it's not in their favour if they wanna stop the economic exchange with us so ...

Posted by occrider on Mar-31-2003 04:20:

Here's another picture that speaks a million words ...

Posted by malek on Mar-31-2003 04:46:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
The french are dumb ya: When opted with removing the Iraqi dictator who is atrocious under UN support, they decided to sabatoge the effort
When opted with the option of violating all the core elements of the UN charter to keep the Ivory Coast government against all norms and conventions, they opt for and don't seem to make a fuss about it. Hypocrates... no never, they believe in something... something someone can't describe for sure.

you are wrong, its against the UN charter to remove the govt of a state. ANY STATE, ANY GOVT, ANY TIME.

Its a question of principles.

What the US did, creates a precedent!

1-If I, as a country, want to do something and the UN is with me, then fine! If not, then I'll do it anyways. We're back to the medieval times with its chaos.

2-If I, as a country, don't like a govt, any govt. I will take it out. Once again, we're back to the times when a kingdom was attacking another kindgom to kill its king and such primitive crap.

There's some super powers that might be tempted to do any of those two actions on the small countries that view things differently (could be China, Russia, France, etc.)

Do you see the big picture? its not only about Iraq vs. USA. Its the whole world structure that is collapsing, and this brings no good.

Posted by occrider on Mar-31-2003 05:06:

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
you are wrong, its against the UN charter to remove the govt of a state. ANY STATE, ANY GOVT, ANY TIME.

Its a question of principles.

Where does it say this in the charter? It's nice to see that if they were around in 1945 that they would have diapproved of what happened in Japan or Germany.

Also I keep asking that if what the US is doing is so wrong, where is the UN intervention to declare it illegal??? Either which way you look at the matter, the UN is worthless. It's ineffective and incapable of doing anything.

Posted by malek on Mar-31-2003 05:18:

great questions. it might clarify things.

In a time of war, its legal to target the ennemy's govt. Take him down. Especially when the head of state is the supreme general of the army like Mr. Bush or Mr. Hussein. But in Japan, they spared the emperor (that's another debate all together). Actually it might make a greate excuse to kill Hussein, the Americans are in a war against Iraq so its legal to take down its govt, but if that war is legal or not...

Many many countries have said that what the US is doing now is illegal, Kofi Annan is very cautious about his wording, he said illigitmate but never said illegal. He obviously doesn't want to stirr more shit and after all his candidacy was pushed forward by the US. What did the last UN chief said about it (Boutros Boutros Ghali), its an illegal and dangerous move.

Posted by occrider on Mar-31-2003 05:54:

Which just adds to my argument that the UN is worthless now. Either it's incapable of enforcing its own resolutions (the disarmament of Iraq) or it's incapable of establishing world order (US aggression against Iraq). In either scenario it's an ineffective institution that can't be trusted with anything.l

Posted by occrider on Mar-31-2003 05:57:

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
great questions. it might clarify things.

In a time of war, its legal to target the ennemy's govt. Take him down. Especially when the head of state is the supreme general of the army like Mr. Bush or Mr. Hussein. But in Japan, they spared the emperor (that's another debate all together).

But that's a legal loop hole there. So if Hitler or the Japanese emperor weren't associated with the military at all we would have no justification for replacing them despite the fact that they set the policies for their countries?

Posted by malek on Mar-31-2003 07:07:

quote:
So if Hitler or the Japanese emperor weren't associated with the military at all we would have no justification for replacing them despite the fact that they set the policies for their countries?

exact.

quote:
. Either it's incapable of enforcing its own resolutions (the disarmament of Iraq) or it's incapable of establishing world order (US aggression against Iraq). In either scenario it's an ineffective institution that can't be trusted with anything.

You have to understand something, the UN is made of its members. So if it has bad members, then it will look bad. Worse! if those bad members have vetoes then nothing works!!

All the equipment, expertise, resources are supplied by its members. So the UN doesn't have an army of its own and needs the support of its members. The UN doesn't have taxing powers so it can't collect its own resources and build its own armies (well i wouldn't like that either...). So you're right as to it being somewhat ineffective.