|
A new target for Weapons Inspections (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | If you and 20 million people lived in a city and didnt give two s about pollution because it doesn't affect you but it affects the 10 million farmers that live outside the city how is that fair? |
And with US electorial system, those from the city would get 40 electorial votes, and those farmers would get 20. So it's still the same thing.
But look at this example now:
One state has 20 million people in towns and 15 million farmers.
Another one has 1 million people in towns, and 10 million farmers.
There are total of 25Mfarmers, and 21Mcitizens.
Without the electorial systems, farmers would win over the citizens 25:21.
But now, with the electorial system, first state would get 70 electorial votes, all for citizens. The second one would get 22 votes, all for farmers. The citizens win with 70 electors, compared to 22 farming electors, or 35:11, although in reality farmers would win 25:21. |
|
|
| Durafei |
| Saddam and all his supporters should be killed! It's as simple as that. Everybody is trying to be so politically correct on these forums.. Damn it! When Saddam builds an nuke, it's gonna be the end of the world. And unless Saddam is stopped now, he will build it. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
And with US electorial system, those from the city would get 40 electorial votes, and those farmers would get 20. So it's still the same thing.
But look at this example now:
One state has 20 million people in towns and 15 million farmers.
Another one has 1 million people in towns, and 10 million farmers.
There are total of 25Mfarmers, and 21Mcitizens.
Without the electorial systems, farmers would win over the citizens 25:21.
But now, with the electorial system, first state would get 70 electorial votes, all for citizens. The second one would get 22 votes, all for farmers. The citizens win with 70 electors, compared to 22 farming electors, or 35:11, although in reality farmers would win 25:21. |
Gosh you don't seem to get it huh?
Ok this is how the US system is build: It has two houses, one where repersentation if based on POPULATION (the house of repersentatives), the other called the Sentate, based on Statehood to the UNION (two senators per each state, regardless of quantity). Now the electorial college (the votes for president) are give to each state on a number equal to their repersentatives in congress (house and senate, or 2+ however much they get to repersant their population). Now the STATES chose how they want these electorial collegates to vote. Winning a state like Texas, New York, Florida, or California is very important as these states carry a lof of weight with them.
In all, if it is a very ingenious system designed to overlook the phenomena of the 'dumb mob'. And yes, the USA is not a democracy, even though it does champion many democratic notions, but is as I mentioned before a Republic - a Union made of many states. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
That war is over now. Using that logic, Russia also has a right to invade Germany because Germany attacked them in WW2.
Besides, ... Besides, US and British airplanes are bombing Iraqi positions all the time for the last 10 years which also gives them a good reason. |
NO! You don't get it, this is not the same. Using your example above, Russia, would have the right to attack Germany, say if they were to build aircraft carriers today. Why? Under the treaty of their surrender, Germany forfieted its right to an army, and severe restrictions have beeen placed on its 'national defense' forces by the victors of WWII. One of these claues, mentions that Germany (nor Japan) can builld or own aircraft carriers. Building such things would be a violation of the treaty, and would give either the US, UK, or Russia a just cause of war against the German nation.
| quote: | | If a nuclear missle is going to be launched in 10 minutes, a military intervention will hardly have enough time to disable it, |
I didn't say where the missle is, I can say for instance it is in North Korea, or Iraq. Response times are about 8 mins there, and could disable it in time.
| quote: |
100% sure that it will be launched, so it's better to wait those 10 minutes, because otherwise the nation with the missle can say it fired it in self defense and you can't prove them wrong, since you attacked. Only thing you can do in that situation is to evacuate people. And attacking a country because it might have missles which it might fire on another country is a pretty long shot. And again, your attack may only provoke usage of those missiles, which might not be used if you hadn't attacked. |
Man, no wonder, with a pacifist hippie view point like this no wonder you misconcieve how the world really works. By the time you contemplate what to do the missle is on its way, and by the time you decide not to do anything, boom your dead. Not much you can do now huh?
Grow up in your thinking man. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | You don't get it, this is not the same. Using your example above, Russia, would have the right to attack Germany, say if they were to build aircraft carriers today. Why? Under the treaty of their surrender, Germany forfieted its right to an army, and severe restrictions have beeen placed on its 'national defense' forces by the victors of WWII. One of these claues, mentions that Germany (nor Japan) can builld or own aircraft carriers. Building such things would be a violation of the treaty, and would give either the US, UK, or Russia a just cause of war against the German nation. |
Ok, that's true, but still, I don't see evidence that Iraq is violating its treaty.
| quote: | | Man, no wonder, with a pacifist hippie view point like this no wonder you misconcieve how the world really works. By the time you contemplate what to do the missle is on its way, and by the time you decide not to do anything, boom your dead. Not much you can do now huh? |
I had a feeling you hate hippies.:)
Anyway, I said it like that mostly because I thought you don't have enough time to intercept the missile.
But aside from that, the situation with Iraq is not nearly similar to the missile situation you described. It's not like saddam is just about to unleash womd on Israel, afaik. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Ok, that's true, but still, I don't see evidence that Iraq is violating its treaty.
I had a feeling you hate hippies.:) |
Ya, the funny part is they hate me too.... and they're hippies! :)
| quote: |
But aside from that, the situation with Iraq is not nearly similar to the missile situation you described. It's not like saddam is just about to unleash womd on Israel, afaik. |
Well, Iraq expelled UN inspectors. This is the just cause for war. This would be the equivolant of germany building an aircraft carrier.
But right, instead of 10min, its more like a year or a year and a half. And he might not unleash it, he just might threaten too. But that is extremly powerful in itself as well.
Imagine, it were to ask the USA 10 billion dollars a year, or it would nuke say Riyhad and Tel Aviv. Not a good situation, so now armed with a just cause for war, the USA hopes to prevent such a scenario from ever taking place. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| I clearly do not agree to war with Iraq at all...this is the thrid time the US will invade this nation... crippling its economy and sending millions into poverty becuase of this...THE THIRD time!!!! If your nation was so powerful.. and was doing it for the good of the people of the future... why are they persistently attacking this nation...couldnt they finish off "task" the first time? And dont give me that bull "more lives will be saved in the future" becuase the future always holds death for the Iraqi people by your genocidal government. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
I clearly do not agree to war with Iraq at all...this is the thrid time the US will invade this nation... crippling its economy and sending millions into poverty becuase of this...THE THIRD time!!!! |
ok, ill be the idiot that asks.. The third time? |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
ok, ill be the idiot that asks.. The third time? |
1991, 1998, and unfortunately 2003 |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
1991, 1998, and unfortunately 2003 |
Good, for a second I thought I was the idiot.
The USA did not invade Iraq as you claim in 1998, it was simply a loosey ariel attack.
One might even claim, that the USA did not invade Iraq in 1991. As they occupied no cities, and withdrew any troops in Iraqi territory after the war. All troops that entered Iraqi territory did so to destroy Iraqi troops who possed involvement or risk to Kuwait. They did not go into Iraq in an attempt to conquer. But regardless, of this argument its not THREE. |
|
|
| occrider |
| I don't understand ... Sadam invaded Kuwait for the sole purpose of economic gain and people are praising him. He threatened Saudi Arabia such that they requested US intervention and people are DEFENDING him. Now people are saying so what if he develops nukes ... IF HE DOES what if he invades kuwait and threatens any country that interferes with nuclear weapons???? There's a clear history of people sitting on their panties until it's too late as demonstrated by 1939. Say what you will but a policy of nuclear non plofiration is not exactly an evil agenda. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | Sadam invaded Kuwait for the sole purpose of economic gain and people are praising him. He threatened Saudi Arabia such that they requested US intervention and people are DEFENDING him. |
But economic gain was such that without the assault Iraq would go bankrupt. And Kuwait didn't want a peaceful solution there. If they'd raised the oil prices, Saddam wouldn't invade. |
|
|
|
|
