I don't even think monkeys would be stupid enough to hand over such power to their alpha male? Lions don't do it. Why are we?
You're right! Let's have anarchy. That's better. And better yet, let's have the West get rid of it's nukes and be under the thumb of every other nuke wielding nation. Sorry. Doesn't fly. Rosie dreams should be confined to sleeping minds. I think that the world should have nukes and that we as human beings cannot possible foresee every future eventuality. To willingly allow ourselves to be defenseless from "whatever" is just as dangerous. The real dangers that we live with and will have to live with won't be nuclear, they'll be viral, environmental (both natural and unnatural) and overpopulation. Nukes aren't the problem but OH what idiots we'll be when the necessity arises and they've been destroyed. ~String
I didn't say anarchy - we could have things like Declaration of War put to the popular vote. Maybe more and more things should be put to the popular vote.
I know enough to know it didn't originate there. And I know that the religion wouldn't have survived the death of the prophet if its early adherents hadn't decided to start conquering their neighbors. But of course, you've already commented on these conquests. I believe you called them defensive, or some other such nonsense. Good point. Without MAD, the Cold War would have turned very hot and killed millions with a conventional clash between the East and West. Yeah, mob rule! That's the trick. You do realize, of course, that disasters like World War I and II would have both been approved by voters...
I haven't seen much better come from leaders. Korean war, Vietnam War, Iraq war, etc.. Mob rule is the same argument the aristocracy tried to use to poo-hoo modern democracy. Don't trust the people, they need someone to tell them what to do and look at us, we're breed and blue blooded and educated and so we'll do a great job ruling them. Then add God ordained us by birth and *poof* the last 2000+ years monarchy. The truth is we do a good job in democracies WHEN the people are well informed. I can guarantee IF the American public had been properly informed we would NOT have went to war with Iraq. So? Information seems to be a part of the problem. Faux News and it's disinformation should be illegal to call News, maybe Newsertainment. Perhaps if people thought they had a say and had to vote then maybe they'd be happy to find out the truth. ADD to this mandatory military service if we do go to war and people might even think more than twice. Anyway, it's not going to go to mob rule.
I doubt the South Koreans share your opinion of that war. And as I already pointed out, the Iraq war, if put to a "public" vote of some kind, would have been approved. There was, generally speaking, large support for that war when it began. So again, your argument fails. An argument against mob rule is not an argument in favor of an aristocracy. The majority of the folks who work for the US government — or any other government — aren't aristocrats or anything like them. And these people have influence and help generate policy. And when does that happen? Most people, no matter where in the world you look, are ignorant and ill-informed about issues. Now you're just ranting like a stereotypical liberal who has nothing interesting or imaginative to say. Fox News? Yes, it's all their fault. People don't have local papers and dozens of other news sources, do they? And MSNBC and CNN are so much more newsy than Fox — they never do infotainment. Never. Yeah, right. Get your head out of your ass.
I think the Republic system is not democratic enough. We have a system that has been "voting" in Bushes and Clintons for what ?28 years if you consider GW Bush time as VP? That suggests that there is a problem. Systems need to change with the times - now that we have the Internet I think it's getting to a time when it could do with some modification to bring more popular will to bare on the OUR government. As for Faux News - have you have seen the propaganda they produce? PLEASE. Their "news" reporters are a f*cking joke. Most of the time they are screwing around like guys in the pub after a few beer. Wooo Hoooo did you-all see her lip stick.. wooo heee that sure was funny. (It's fucking pathetic) I was not suggesting that our public servants are aristocratic. I was pointing out that in the past Aristocrats used the same argument, that people are too stupid to rule themselves to make an effective government. yes it is true a well educated and brilliant dictator can do wonders for society (see Augustus or Lee Kuan Yew) but in the long run such systems suck balls. I want to see more populous will in the government. (note: 95% of Senators are multi millionaires? Does THAT seem representative to you????) I also think that if the general populous were more involved they'd probably invest more in education so that they could be better informed and make better decisions. Iraq was NOT covered honestly. The News media completely dropped the ball. COMPLETELY. I had American buddies of mine literally saying Saddam when they meant to say BinLaden THAT'S how far the media had screwed their head on backwards. I have to say - that is scary. Don't you agree? To be so f*cking brainwashed that you continuesly confuse Saddam, who did absolutely nothing against us, with BinLaden who financed 9/11. I happen to think if we had a 2 year mandatory service (does THAT sound "liberal to you???) and a draft then we would probably find that the average American would have a good incentive to be well informed. AND when they found out that Faxu News helped tow the line and mislead them into war - maybe then they'd do something about it. Like not waste their time watching Faux news. Can you guys really look me in the monitor and say the system is not broken?
And as for the OP. If there is to be Nuclear war what would initiate it? Feminine and need of water and food? Religion? Oil? Are these things worth screwing up our biosphere?
That's about as picayune as it gets. Even my seven year old niece can tell you that. It's the part about the solution that demands something more radical than what you offer. ~String
picayune nice. Unless there was a revolution the system isn't going to dramatically change. And I don't think it's THAT broken. BUT, it can progress forward. What better way than to use the Internet to allow more people to participate in the choices being made? How better to carry out the will of the people than via their input? What about a third house in Congress made up of all Citizens? Maybe it could be virtual to begin with, with virtual voting and eventually take on more and more real power. What's there to lose? Michael note: it's a sad day when American Citizens would be afraid to empower our selves!
Why are we discussing America in this? The thread was about the probability of nuclear war between India and China, and their policies that may lead to such a event. China controls 9 of the 10 fresh water sources in Asia, and is starting to divert those water sources for it's own purpose, and benefits, China controls the Tibetan plateau, which is the source of 9 of the 10 rivers in Asia, what are water boards in India going to do about Chinas actions in their own territory? China is short of water already, the Yellow river is on the verge of going dry because of the industrial use of the water from that source. Not only India, but every other country in South East Asia are vulnerable to China diverting water for their own use and purpose. So in the future this is a very hot point that will cause problems and as proven time and again in history, War, and with China, India, Pakistan, all having nuclear capability, and India and China having a billion people to use is the war, watch the mushrooms grow.
Because it always comes back to people hating on Bush and America, Buffalo. You should know that by now. Michael is having another one of this viva la reveloution eruptions. The best we can do is ignore him.
Surely there must be some sort of agreements in place? I know Singapore and Malaysia have an agreement whereby Singapore pays for water for something like 50 years into the future. They are also making desalination plants. Singapore made it clear early on that they would go to war with Malaysia if Malaysia cut off their water supply. Hence they were able to sign the long term lease of water from Malaysia.
Do some research, China controls the 9 of 10 major sources of fresh water in Asia, and has already started 4 major water diversion projects, and as its population continues to grow there will be more. China can make any treaty it needs for short term advantage, just the same way Hitler did before WWII, and then when necessary, do what ever it need to do in the future for its own best interest. China will serve its own best interest first last and always. Four Major Projects Will Re-draw China's Economic Division Map ... The four major projects-south-to-north water diversion, west-to-east gas transfer, west-to-east power transmission and the construction of Qinghai-Tibet ... http://www.chinaembassycanada.org/eng/xwdt/t37186.htm Tibet is China's Water Tower: Diverting the Brahmaputra - start of ... November 2005: Strategy manual Save China Through Water From Tibet adopted .... These form part of the South to North water Diversion Project that is also ... http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=164&a=6394 China Launches Gigantic Water Diversion Project PDO -- Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji announced on Friday the start of a gigantic project to divert water from the Yangtze River to the country's thirsty ... http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200212/27/eng20021227_109168.shtml
having nuclear power is important for stability of a nation and a diplomatical approach to solving issues. Everyone knows what nukes can do, and when threatened, we choose to not use nukes but solve problems diplomatically. For example...if Russia did not have nukes, NATO would have had some operations done within Russia already.
