cgross

well, i would like to hear your explaination. If it is good, I will add the 3rd catagory. Chris

and what is that?

Bill, that doesn't make sence. If we infacted wanted IRAQ's oil, we would have lifted sanctions a while back. Also, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, Oil companies do not want iraq's oil either, nor do investors. Adding more oil will drive down prices and profits for companies. Oil companies would much rather have a stable market with reasonable prices. A war would not make for a stable market. Opec would controll the extra oil anyway. Even if we had access to more oil, it doesn't mean we will have the ability to export the amount we want from iraq.

I think my signature says where i stand.

No, this had nothing to do with size, it had to do with experience. 3rd world countries do not nessasarily have the $$ to build cleaner, or smarter. That Is why I would agree the UN could help provide support to those nations.

Well the issue wasn't one country vs another. It was what we do with our own land. The UN has no business telling us we can or cannot do something on our land. And then what... take us to court. I understand the principal in rouge states or 3rd world countries, but Western Europe, the US and Canada. I don't think so.

Well, I don't know if you heard, but there were several pro america demonstrations 2 weeks ago. In fact one in Houston had 8000+ people. But guess what, the liberal media didn't cover that. The only one I saw mention it was Foxnews...

Well, I am pretty confident that a global organization doesn't need to look out for my good. I am faily confident in my own government. It appears from the 2 comments above here that you and the other guy are not as confident in our own gov. Well, if that is the case, you can elect other people to do the job. If someone wanted to dump in my backyard, I would go to my local government to handle it. I certainly would gat a vote from a league of nations who don't live here. That is absurd. And what interest does "Syria, France, or England" have with my back yard. I think My local officials would care a bit more since it may affect them or their families directly. If you think the US gov is bad, why would you suspect a "World" gov is better and less corrupt with no agenda? Chris

Taken from: americanpolicy.org March 3, 2003 By Tom DeWeese There are a lot of people in this country who don't believe the United Nations is a threat to American sovereignty and independence. Many on Capitol Hill will tell you that there is not a single word in a single UN document that says the UN will control land in this country. Technically that's true. In fact, most UN documents take great pains to include language to specifically state that each nation will maintain its own sovereignty. Here's why the UN is in fact a threat and how it all works. Sovereignty is the answer to the question: "who`s in charge?" You have to answer that question before you can answer the parallel question: "who's responsible?" To have true sovereignty over our land we the people, through our elected representatives, must be in charge of decisions over it and we must have the responsibility to carry out those decisions. Keep in mind that you can voluntarily give up both control and responsibility. However, even if it is voluntary, it's still loss of control. The United States has been taking that path of voluntary surrender of control for several years through acceptance of a number of United Nations treaties and agreements. It is through this matrix, this spider's web of so-called "international law" that this nation cedes control to the United Nations. Consider just a few of the UN treaties and agreements that the United States has already agreed to abide. They include the World Heritage Sites Treaty, UNESCO, Agenda 21, the Convention on Climate Change, and The Man and the Biosphere program. Each of these is part of an agenda called "Sustainable Development" which calls for changing the very infrastructure of our nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of national zoning and a whole lot more. In 1796, George Washington warned his new nation "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people out to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." Washington said "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Sustainable Development combines social welfare programs with partnerships between business and government, using environmental issues to make it all appear to be urgent. This environmental agenda is driven by the United Nations through two specific UN organizations, the United Nations Environmental Program and the International Union of Conservation and Nature. Would it surprise you to learn that six agencies of the United States government are active members of the International Union of Conservation and Nature including the Departments of State, Interior, Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife service? These agencies send representatives to all meetings of the UN Environmental Program. This kind of intergovernmental cooperation with UN policy led to a showdown over the issue of control in 1995 when radical environmentalists and the Department of Interior wanted to stop the building of a gold mine on private land, several miles from Yellowstone National Park. This federal department simply called in the UN's World Heritage Committee to visit Yellowstone, whereupon the committee declared the park to be the world’s first endangered heritage site. That designation was enough to stop the building of private enterprise and clearly establish who was in control. By joining the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Culture and National Heritage, adopted in November 1972 at the 17th General Conference of UNESCO, the United States ceded control over Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades National Park, the Grand Canyon National Park, the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, Yosemite National Park, the Carlsbad Caverns National Park, and, you will find this astounding, Monticello, Jefferson?s home, and the Statue of Liberty! Webster's defines "sovereignty" as "undisputed political power." We no longer have this precious right, gained by the blood of patriots, over these and other so-called World Heritage sites. Through all of the treaties, agreements and meetings, there grows an interlocking web of policy that takes root through these federal agencies, even driving down into state and local community governments. The treaties are the roots of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. For Congress to back out of these laws or even to consider reducing some of the regulations that are destroying industry or private property rights would put the United States in violation of the UN treaties! It is not just about environmental policy that's involved. There are equally binding UN treaties and agreements covering education programs, child welfare, women's rights, as well as gun control. Most recently, the UN abandoned all pretense of respecting sovereign independence. The International Criminal Court was approved when only 60 nations ratified it, but according to UN policy, the court has jurisdiction over all nations, whether they ratified it or not. Never in the history of international relations has such a policy even been proposed, let alone adopted. Now, many of you rightly complain that you keep electing politicians who promise to corral the size and scope of government and reinstate the rule of the Constitution, but it never seems to happen. Why? Because we are bound by UN treaties that say we can't and by a Federal government that says we won't. Now ask yourselves the question again: Who's in charge? And who's responsible? Neither George Washington nor any of the Founding Fathers would ever have put their names to the United Nations Charter or agreed to any of these intrusive, interlocking treaties and agreements for the simple reason that they diminish American control, American responsibility and American sovereignty. The only way for the United States of America to reassert and reestablish its sovereignty is to get out of the United Nations.

We do hate him yes, but if you think that is a motivation for war you are crazy. Also, some people in here have claimed I am braiinwashed by the administration. To that I say this whole, "We are only after the oil" cause sounds like liberal brainwashing to me. We are not there for the oil. I will say however in the short time after the war, we will use oil as a repayment for the war. BUT if we really want a new goverment in Iraq, you will see us turn the oil ovewr to them. It is their main source of income, and without it the country would not survive financially. Our administration knows this, and that is their plan. Chris

If you do not like the government, then vote differently next time around. Apparently you are in the minority, because the majority of the people in this country voted for what situation we are currently in.

Common bill you know better than that. If I had the evidence, you would too, and we wouldn't be discussing that. What I am saying is, they know a lot more than ME and YOU on this subject. What they release to the press isn't obviously the whole picture. But, for a moment, let's say you are right. As of now there is no evidence of a connection. That doesn't mean there is not a connection. It just means we haven't found it yet. Likewise, the inspectors say there is no Anthrax in Iraq. They know they had some so where did it go???? GUess what, it is still there, they just haven't found it yet!!!!

I don't know about the "a lot more drunks on the road" thing. There is a study being conducted in NY about that right now. They are finding more and more that a lot of accidents may have been caused by smoking and driving too. Either way, drinking or smoking and jumping should not happen. If I saw it at my DZ, I would rat them out. Even if I lost friend doing it. No one is going to put my life in jeopardy for their fun.

in picture 1008, how low were you? I obviously can't tell, but it looked low... PS Congrats!!!!!! Vitual beer to you

But we did give due process. The UN said, declare everything by 12/8/02 or "serious Consequences" will follow. He clearly did not declare everything, and I am guessing that "serious Consequences" didn't mean a trial in a US court.

bill read my explanation why.... A little kid won nessesarily go find a dealer, but if mommy has some, they may be tempted to take it.

See, that is just far off subject. You are comparing NK to the US government... That is sad. Because the USA says Pot is illegal, the are now as bad as N korea. I really want to break the "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS POLICY" because that was the FUCKING stupidest most RETARDED statment I have ever heard. But I will not insult you personally.

I agree, but I would hate too to see families in america suffer anymore than they have to if another plane flys through a building

The rediculous statement was mearly this, though I would not want to see my kids be either, I would rather have an alcoholic than a Pothead for a child. I should have been more clear. Chances are greater that the alcoholic will go further in life than the pot head. His/her family life will still be screw up don't get me wrong.

I disagree, and here is why. There are a lot of people that do NOT smoke because it is illegal. Also, because now as adults, they don't even know the chaneels to go through to get it. If it were made legal, it would be more likely to be "around the hous" just like cigaretts etc... You know why I smoke cigaretts? Because my parents did, and even though they told me not to, I wanted to be like them, so I stole from them. And here I am 15 years latter still smoking. When little bobby start stealing daddys pot and bringing to school what then. I am not stupid enough to think parents don't smoke around their kids now, but if it were leagal, alot more parents would be a great deal more open about it.

Who said Clinton was a pothead? So he smoked, that doesn't make him a Pothead. I was making an analogy to people who drink everyday (alcoholics) and people who smoke everyday (potheads). I can not see clinton toking everyday and being considered a pothead.

But we are not dealing with americans here!!!! So, in war we shouldn't shoot the "bad" guys... We should take them all back to the US and put them on trial. Is that hat you are saying. Yes a man like SH in the UN's mind is guily until proven innocent. That is what 1441 said. We know you've got bad stuff, prove you don't, or we will prove it. And if you remember, every nation in the UN agreed. Now these "PUSSY" nations are backing out. Talk about a reversal of views. Chris

Hey, i am not debating wheter it should be legal or not, the fact is though that it is illegal. As far as my view... it should not be. Why? Well, I was first introduced to it when I was 13. At the time i didn't think that was young, but if it were my kid at 13 smoking pot, I'd be pissed. If it became legal, it would be easier for even younger kids to get. So would you be cool with your 10 year old smoking pot? I know alcoholics, and I know potheads, and I have to say as a whole the Pothead are a lot more STUPID than the alcoholics.... my .02

Well I have a degree in Atmospheric physics, and have been studying both for years. Bernuli(sp) is closer to being right than Newton. Newton was good, but the physics of fluids was not his bag!!!! Chris

Bill, I notice you have the same theme in every thread. SH has nothing to do with UBL... Do you know something we don't. I think what you are doing is speculating. You mean to say you do not think SH helps UBL. When you can prove it, you can state it as fact. You may think the Government is speculating too, but I would bet money they know more about it than you.