Imagine a worldwide government based on cooperation

[Least]

I’ve lost interest in discussing this with you. read up on the issues first.

HOLY BOVINE PEOPLE!!!

Both of you need a lesson on the “Iraq War.” Go read the U.N. archives. [Whether or not you would like to argue how/why Saddam rose to power in Iraq.] The U.S. was asked to go in and remove Saddam from Kuwait. Due to several key U.N. players, the U.S. was asked, then begged for the removal of Saddam to not include the destruction of Iraq, or Saddam, or even his removal from power. Saddam agreed to the terms of an ARMISTICE (again, read the U.N. archives) but did not keep to them. Skip over do-nothing about it Clinton, and the congenitally and chronic soggy-poo U.N. and finally Bush II FINALLY enforces the terms of the Armistice. Saddam did not comply and Bush satisfied the punitive terms of that agreement. SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP.

VENGENCE is the LORD’S!!! And I, for one, will leave HIM to it. War falls to us, read Ceasar, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Washington - IF YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE/MAINTAIN PEACE, you live in a constant state of War in one form or another. GET USED TO IT. LIVE THERE you will be less shocked when you get to see it’s face. AND you can’t threaten WAR without doing it as it is a terrible sign of weakness. AND WEAKNESS, to all other living things, is provacative. LOVE YOUR ENEMY BY NOT PROVOKING THEM, and make war where and when you can with every fiber of you so as to end the embattled conflict part as quickly as possible. IF YOU ARE WARRED-UPON IT IS ONLY BECAUSE YOU DID NOT HOLD-OUT SUBSTANTIALLY ENOUGH THAT YOU WERE READY AND ANXIOUS TO IMPART THE SAME ON THE OTHER PARTY.

I F Y O U W E R E W A R R E D U P O N F O R Y O U R F A I T H, A N D Y_OU G O B E F O R E G O D H A V I N G F A L L E N U N D E R T H E H A N D OF A S I N G L E F O E. B Y L O G I C, I T I S O N L Y B E C A U S E Y O U F A I L E D T O M E E T Y O U R M A K E R W H I L E S T A N D I N G U P O N A M O U N T A I N O F P E L T S O F T H O S E W H O M A Y H A V E C O M P E L L E D Y O U B Y F O R C E T O D E N Y Y O U R G O D.

 

[Least]

I might like to retract some of that, but will not. If I have offended anyone by my typing than hopefully we can just dis-agree to dis-agree.

 

[livingwordunity]

I might like to retract some of that, but will not. If I have offended anyone by my typing than hopefully we can just dis-agree to dis-agree.

The way you typed it is hard to read. My point wasn’t who is to blame for Iraq. My point is that the president is ultimately where the buck stops because he’s the one with the most power and the one that ultimately leads the country. I used Iraq as an example of everyone agreeing to go to war but when it didn’t go as people wanted the president gets the blame because he’s the leader of the country. This argument came about because of someone trying to say that there are some countries that have more than one leader. There might be supporting branches but there’s always only one true leader of any country at a time. In America, we call this leader the president. In other countries the leader could be called something else. But that’s why we also use the term “head of state”.