nerdycub (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

spends his whole day smoking pot talking about aliens and demons from hell.He's just as useful as the UN.

nerdycub (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The UN can be tyrannical, one doesn't have to be elected to power to be a total douche bag. Come to my OPE class, we have some neo-nazi emo asshole and he tries his damnedest to make sure no-one gets anything done.I can comfortably come to the conclusion that we agree on one same fact. The UN is a total waste of time and energy. Hell you are agreeing with most of the US on that fact. The only one person I know that thinks the UN is not useless is a guy who lives in a VW van out in the woods an

musaparels (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Dact shoma dard nakonad.

germanicus24 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The UN cant be a tyranny simply because it is not the government of a nation, but rather a fictional entity.And I wouldnt really have any problem in saying "bad" things about the UN, given that while they knew Saddam had disposed all WMD, they still approved sanctions which according to themselves killed 500,000 innocent Iraqi children, and over 1 million human beings. It may sound terrorist to bash the "democratic" UN, but given the facts Im sure, if there is God, we will be in agreement.

nerdycub (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Not President Bush's.It was Alan Greenspan with the blessing of former president Clinton that created both derivatives and sub-prime mortgages. The very two tools that have brought about this economic crisis.

nerdycub (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Oh you're quite right. However today the Neo-Cons are the ones beating the war drums. When Clinton was in power Saddam invaded Kuwait, an American ally and also received the approval of the UN. By calling Clinton tyrannical you also call the UN (back in the mid 90's) the same thing. Unlike Bush former president Clinton aided Kuwait with the blessings of the United Nations. Oh and one thing. It is former Presidents Clintons economic policies that have come back to bite us in the ass.

germanicus24 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thank you for your understanding. The reason why I go on to say the US is a tyranny is because all of that is not respective to just these neocons, those Republicans or whatsoever. It is outrageous, how in a supposed era of awareness, people still think Bush has some sort of monopoly of evilness, when Clinton killed more Iraqi innocent children than Bush, under the exact same excuses. The only difference: Clinton didnt ruin the economy while at it, and that is as far as it goes.

nerdycub (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Oh I have to agree with you. We didn't go into Iraq waving the vial of freedom juice. They were supposed to have WMDs and they didn't. I agree with the fact that Colin Powell lied during that presentation to the UN and that the neo-cons have been running around for the last 8 years saying that not agreeing with them and Bush 100% is un-patriotic.

germanicus24 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You are somehow trying to equate a tyranny with a dictatorship. Nobody said the American people didnt "choose" to go to war - if that is how you can call it via a system of such indirect civic participation -, but the whole point is about the information the people handled to make their decision. It was based on fear, it was based on FALSE patriotism, as part of a governmental campaign, and that is precisely how a tyranny works no matter if you have "representatives" voting for you.

nerdycub (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Part of the system of our cheques and balences is that after the Senate declared war the only people who can oppose it are the President or Congress. In order to overturn an act of war Congress must have a 2/3rd majority, however this congress has been split down the middle in terms of pro-war and anti-war congressmen and women, the 2/3rds majority has been impossible to overturn.See Congress has the power of the purse (money) and the way they stop wars is simply by denying funding for the war