rec.autos.simulators

Ahem, many Americans' views of 'socialist' European parties is rather
crooked.

Most leftish-wing 'Liberals' tend to think of them - including Labour! -
as being far too middle-of-the-road in the political spectrum. They
usually are, too, since once in power they have to keep corporate
enterprise happy as well as the unions.

You have GOT to be kidding. Blair is actually referred to as 'Bush's lap
dog' here in the old world (not to mention some video clips) and that's
being anti-American already?

Sheesh...

Regards, Ruud

   If you say so.

John

  >Well, except for being #1 in food production and technology, and the most

Grin. How about those millions of dollars Ted Turner paid to the US
because they wouldn't even fulfil their financial obligations (!) as a
leading and founding member (!) of the UN?

I wonder how many billions does the US actually give out on
international spending to 'poor' and 'insignificant' countries when
compared to arms spending, both internally and for Defense? And "arms"
means "things that kill other human beings", yes.

(From what I gather on a quick Google search it's about $ 155 (USAID) to
330 million total on the former, and $ 320 billion on the latter.)

Regards, Ruud

  Yeah, the Arab-Israeli conflict is just peachy now, lol.  Even under Rabin
it was still a mess, since Arafat couldn't, wouldn't, whatever, control all
the splinter groups.

  And you're completely missing the point; in your examples, the underlying
problems were answered, one way or the other, mainly by the collapse of the
system in place with nothing to do to the issues you imply, especially re
South Africa, Soviet Union, and the British Empire.

  Anytime some star gazer thinks conflicts like those are settled "because
it's the nice thing to do", they aren't.

John

  One born every minute with ol' Teddy.  A penny sent to the UN is a wasted
penny; thank God we don't pay them a damn thing more than we already do.
  Maybe your country would care to pay 1/3 of it's operating expenses(which
is seperate to the costs you mention above), and host it ?
  Wouldn't hurt my feelings any to get that dead weight out of this country.

John

Not only in Canada, that's for sure...

True, although had Marx lived long enough he would probably have
something to say to Stalin-the-Butcher as well about the interpretation
of his original ideas...

Regards, Ruud

If you say so.

Regards, Ruud

Sure. Whatever you say. Let's all go our separate ways then, not having
any supranational bodies except multinationals,

...and watch the next world war break out at the next big conflict by
lack of communication, sooner or later. The UN wasn't started just for
fun, you know.

There's a chance that disbanding the UN might hurt a lot more than your
feelings in the long term, I'd say.

Just give let's say China the chance of becoming the next superpower and
let's see former superpower America be on the other end of the stick -
and then let's see if some negotiating body does not have its uses when
it's not you that's in a position of power and regularly act like the
school bully.

Regards, Ruud

  Lol, yep, the League of Appeasers did a great job preventing WW2, eh ?
The UN's done a great job solving Korea, MidEast, Balkans, and even Iraq, eh
? (ironic, after the Gulf War, crys were made *elsewhere* criticizing why
Hussein wasn't toppled then(which was a UN mandate, that it couldn't be
done)........now, the same people are criticizing the thought of that
happening now, which fwiw, I'm not to comfortable with either)

  Different superpower ?  It'll happen sooner or later anyway.  Big deal.
Britain, France, Russia, etc. are still around, i.e.  History shows that
time and again, over centuries.
  And if you think a body like the UN could stop/solve anything like you
mention..............whoosh.  Their precursor didn't stop Japan or Germany,
and they won't do it in any future conflict either.  All they're good at is
making things worse.

John

    No way! Slingshot and 500lb bombs. :-)

    Pete

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:37:53 -0700, "John Pancoast"

No.  I'll have to check that out, thanks John.

Jason

  Who would have a book called "To Serve Mankind" ??
  a)  A Politician
  b)  A Philanthropist
  c)  A Cook

:)
dave henrie

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:22:23 -0500, "Marc Collins"

No =p

Actually, the party I belong to I never vote for, if you can believe
that.  When I first registered for them I assumed that the US version
of the party adhered to the ideals set out by the European version of
the party and people like Chomsky rather than simply privatizing the
free world and legalizing LSD (altho I'd certainly go for the latter).

Normally as a voter, I vote about 50% Dem and 50% GOP with the odd
independent thrown in.  Regardless of what I believe policy-wise, I'd
rather see a government where there isn't anyone with full control
over the direction the country is taking.  My preference is actually a
Democratic President and Republican Congress, but vice versa works for
me too.  A Democrat or neutral Supreme Court is good with me too.  I'd
rather see Dems making social decisions and the GOP making economic
decisions, at least in theory.  In practice I guess that would mean
that every member of a minority would be given a million dollars and
IBM, GM, and Ford would never have to pay taxes.

Jason

It's kinda sad that Mandela was on our "most wanted terrorist" list
for most of his life.

Of course, with recent statements like "The United States is a threat
to world peace" he might find himself back on it. =)

Jason

Good for you and it would be nice if there would be more around  :)

I still dispute that observing the discussion will give you much
reliable clues to get to a valuable conclusion. You hear opinions and
slightly twisted facts. Which way you go, given you have no other
information, just depends on who you *believe* most. And that, in
turn, depends on preoccupation and the debating-skills of both
parties. Maybe subconsciously even on how they physically look...

JoH