YOU: 'I just showed you that bush didn't want in.' That's an assertion. If you didn't want to assert that you need to change that sentence. It's a qualifying statement, and thus my saying you were 'wrong' was appropriate. Your question is secondary. Oh yeah, and Libya, Syria and Sudan....they're so much better at human rights!? You have to think the UN is full of morons....? An International Criminal Court by the UN is an absolutely horrid idea, just like a UN tax, and an official UN army. 3/4's of this world is incapable of governing themselves, muchless giving the option to dictate the world. Giving Aids drugs to everyone....well, since when have we become world-wide socialists? Would it be that hard for these PC assholes to say stop having unprotected anal sex (which causes the bulk of aids outside of america)? You got to ask yourself is there a reason why japan has a .1% infection rate, while Botswana had 38.8% infection rate....could it be culture? Is there a more effective way of stop aids, poverty, etc,...other than throwing drugs or cash on people.....? Obviously there is....as much as I don't like forms of socialism, I'd be ten times more supportive of education means to help people...help the help themselves. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3243844.stm Clinton reasoning on not signing landmine treaty.... Note:Obviously he should worked harder at the time to make the necessary things happen.... http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9709b/clintonmine.html He said the treaty failed to include two exemptions sought by the Pentagon. The first was a 19-year transition period during which landmines laid along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Korea would be permitted to remain in the ground while the U.S. military devised alternatives. He also wanted the treaty to exempt self-destructing anti-personnel mines that are laid to protect anti-tank landmines. These "mixed" systems, he said, "pose little risk to civilians." The U.S. offer to sign the treaty if it includes these exemptions, he added, "remains on the table." But, he went on, "as commander-in-chief, I will not send our soldiers to defend the freedom of our people and the freedom of others without doing everything we can to make them as secure as possible."
I did show you bush didn't want in and didn't try to get in. I didn't say they were never kicked out before that. You didn't prove anything wrong. We were both right. Regardless... after This Administration's track record of disregarding human rights as they please, we're not exactly a poster boy ourselves.
You say potato, I say tomato... human moral values are all subjective if there isn't some divine universal ethic.... Your moral values are no more objective than anyone else. It's funny, given your so anti-religion...that you seem not even realize the game that revolves in your own mind. While this admin in not respectable in my eyes, I'd never support your 'anti'/ 'I don't know' view to be the political power of the day. Moral righteousness without reputable direction is dangerous. It's a philosophical vaccum.... That's why many people view you as a liberal, because that's the trend for modern liberals. It's so easy to bring ideas down, but to actually come-up with reputable ideas... That's why when I have an affirmative belief, I always quote a direction for debate,...it's a good reason why we don't have a good two party system ie because most of the dems fail to offer reputable direction. Offer a direction that's not based off anti-views everyones and a while.... Don't player hate.....participate