# Tensions in Iran & North Korea!



## andrewmoquin (Jun 18, 2009)

Hello,

What does everyone think the United States or other nations do with this situation? it seems like it keeps getting out of control and something needs to be done..any thoughts?

Thanks!








_"Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value." 
"Marriage is a three ring circus: engagement rings, wedding rings and sufferings." _


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad both need to chill out by listening to Canon in D by J. Pachelbel.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I think they all need to listen to some "Daphnis et Chloe" by Ravel. That should smooth things out.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It's ironic that the USA thinks that these countries should not have nuclear weapons, when they are the biggest nuclear power on this earth!...


----------



## PartisanRanger (Oct 19, 2008)

Andre said:


> It's ironic that the USA thinks that these countries should not have nuclear weapons, when they are the biggest nuclear power on this earth!...


How is that ironic?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PartisanRanger said:


> How is that ironic?


Figure it out, it's obvious...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

If folks in this forum bitch and moan at each other about serialism, perhaps political discussions are not a good idea...


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

Yeah politics and music are not a good mix - ask Shostakovich.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> If folks in this forum bitch and moan at each other about serialism, perhaps political discussions are not a good idea...


You say this like it's a bad thing. You've been in plenty of knock-down drag outs, Tapkaara. I do recall you having an ongoing argument with Herzeleide.

When Bach and I "argue" we're partly joking and partly being serious. There's nothing wrong with a friendly disagreement.


----------



## PartisanRanger (Oct 19, 2008)

Andre said:


> Figure it out, it's obvious...


No, it isn't.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> You say this like it's a bad thing. You've been in plenty of knock-down drag outs, Tapkaara. I do recall you having an ongoing argument with Herzeleide.
> 
> When Bach and I "argue" we're partly joking and partly being serious. There's nothing wrong with a friendly disagreement.


I agree there is nothing wrong with a friendly disagreement. But if the discussions in here sometime get to supreme heights of nastiness over schools of thought in music and the like (or where people buy their CDs, for that matter), then perhaps politics is not a good place to go in here. I think there is enough tension just discussing music...throwing in whether or not the US should have nukes seems like it will only raise tensions in a music forum without much purpose and things could get very unfriendly in here.

Just my thoughts. I'll kindly opt out of any political discussion as not to get involved in any pointless and mean-spirited back-and-forth situations. I'll keep my discussions here limited to music.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Andre said:


> It's ironic that the USA thinks that these countries should not have nuclear weapons, when they are the biggest nuclear power on this earth!...


But US is leader of free world, the ultimate good ones, and if they have nuclear weapons it is only to serve good purpose, like defending freedom and democracy for their vassals.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I agree there is nothing wrong with a friendly disagreement. But if the discussions in here sometime get to supreme heights of nastiness over schools of thought in music and the like (or where people buy their CDs, for that matter), then perhaps politics is not a good place to go in here. I think there is enough tension just discussing music...throwing in whether or not the US should have nukes seems like it will only raise tensions in a music forum without much purpose and things could get very unfriendly in here.
> 
> Just my thoughts. I'll kindly opt out of any political discussion as not to get involved in any pointless and mean-spirited back-and-forth situations. I'll keep my discussions here limited to music.


Then perhaps you should let the poster of this thread now this, not me, I already know this and I DON'T participate in political discussions on a music forum.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> Then perhaps you should let the poster of this thread now this, not me, I already know this and I DON'T participate in political discussions on a music forum.


Just responding to what you said to me, MI. And I have already let the thread know I will not participate in politcal discussions on this forum. *Sips my green tea.*


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Just responding to what you said to me, MI. And I have already let the thread know I will not participate in politcal discussions on this forum. *Sips my green tea.*


I will not either. "Sips my English Breakfast tea."


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Are political discussions allowed on this Forum? Sips my low calorie lemonade with a dash of lime.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Toccata said:


> Are political discussions allowed on this Forum? Sips my low calorie lemonade with a dash of lime.


I'm not sure if they're not allowed, but they're definitely in bad taste I think. We come here to discuss music.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

For the record ... 
This is the "Member Chat" forum area ... as the header reads: "Feel free to chat amongst yourselves."

Granted, the primary focus of this forum community is the discussion and sharing of Classical Music, however, and for the moment, a thread topic of this sort will be allowed (in this forum area only) as long as no posts resort to name calling, defamation of another member, insults to another member ... in other words, as long as the conversation remains civil amongst all participants.

Bottom line, if any member of this forum doesn't like a particular subject matter, then just *don't* participate in the discussion or thread. *Let those that do* *want to have a decent discussion do so without all the interference and negative comments about the subject matter being allowed or not. 
* 
As we have stated before, many other "main topic" forums have areas for general chit-chat. It's healthy for any forum and promotes membership in the long run.

Back to the subject of discussion


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Mirror Image said:


> I'm not sure if they're not allowed, but they're definitely in bad taste I think. We come here to discuss music.


And:

People, outside of those with a background in structured thought, critical thinking and debate, make a hash of political discussions, leading to frustration and insults.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

I'm also wary of political discussion, people here tend to have arguments on where do you buy CDs or if you like BOulez or not, God knows what would happen if they discuss gay marriage or Israeli-Palestinian relations...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> I'm also wary of political discussion, people here tend to have arguments on where do you buy CDs or if you like BOulez or not, God knows what would happen if they discuss gay marriage or Israeli-Palestinian relations...


Perhaps some of us don't want to discuss these things because everytime they turn on the news these issues are there already. Maybe some of us are sick and tired of hearing about these things and just want to come here and discuss music. Did you ever consider that?

_Sips cafe latte._


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Mirror Image said:


> Perhaps some of us don't want to discuss these things because everytime they turn on the news these issues are there already. Maybe some of us are sick and tired of hearing about these things and just want to come here and discuss music. Did you ever consider that?
> 
> _Sips cafe latte._


And, maybe some DO want to discuss these things.

And now, back to the thread topic of discussion ...


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

bdelykleon said:


> I'm also wary of political discussion, people here tend to have arguments on where do you buy CDs or if you like BOulez or not, God knows what would happen if they discuss gay marriage or Israeli-Palestinian relations...


I'm all for gay Israeli-Palestinian marriage.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

After all the lightness & frivolity, back on topic:

What I meant by my initial comment was that it's a bit rich coming from the USA, the most powerful nuclear country on earth, to be telling smaller countries not to develop nuclear weapons themselves. I'm totally against nuclear weapons, but I still think that the USA is a hypocrite, because they will not lead by example, & reduce or even suspend their own nuclear weapons program...


----------



## PartisanRanger (Oct 19, 2008)

Hypocritical? Yes. Is this ironic? No. It's completely to be expected that countries that have nukes would try to stop proliferation of nuclear technology to countries without nukes.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PartisanRanger said:


> Hypocritical? Yes. Is this ironic? No. It's completely to be expected that countries that have nukes would try to stop proliferation of nuclear technology to countries without nukes.


Well, I think you have a point, but why should we split hairs here? Whatever label you attach to it, what the USA is doing is not entirely sincere, in my opinion...


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Andre said:


> What I meant by my initial comment was that it's a bit rich coming from the USA, the most powerful nuclear country on earth, to be telling smaller countries not to develop nuclear weapons themselves.


Applying moral judgments to a political situation... not wise. Did you read your Machiavelli? 

Which would you rather have: unlimited nuclear expansion, or one big boss that keeps the threat from spreading?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Conservationist said:


> Applying moral judgments to a political situation... not wise. Did you read your Machiavelli?
> 
> Which would you rather have: unlimited nuclear expansion, or one big boss that keeps the threat from spreading?


We have a big boss, as you describe, it's the UN. But unfortunately, the USA thinks it's job is to usurp this role. Look at their accusation of Iraq of holding weapons of mass destruction, which the UN had proved was not the case. Nonetheless, the USA still invaded Iraq. So it's often the USA which causes these tensions in the first place, with their inept diplomacy and (under G.W.Bush) war-mongering...

& no, I haven't read Machiavelli or anything else of political scientists. I find them dry and boring...


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

Judging by how the USA completely failed at everything in Iraq I think they shouldn't do anything. Besides, the USA can't really do anything, the USA are powerless and wasted at the moment, Bush managed to spend all the money on Iraq (or more precicely, on failed rebuilding efforts made by unefficient and poorly administrated corporations).


----------



## PartisanRanger (Oct 19, 2008)

Andre said:


> We have a big boss, as you describe, it's the UN. But unfortunately, the USA thinks it's job is to usurp this role. Look at their accusation of Iraq of holding weapons of mass destruction, which the UN had proved was not the case. Nonetheless, the USA still invaded Iraq. So it's often the USA which causes these tensions in the first place, with their inept diplomacy and (under G.W.Bush) war-mongering...


How many UN resolutions go unheeded by the tyrants of the world? The UN has no real power. The US has been the world hegemon ever since the Cold War and to claim a toothless international body is the world's "big boss" is silly.



Saturnus said:


> the USA can't really do anything, the USA are powerless and wasted at the moment


I'm not sure how one is supposed to respond to this.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Andre said:


> We have a big boss, as you describe, it's the UN.


IMHO the UN is dead in the water because no one trusts it. The UN is far from unbiased and has a political agenda, which is why every nation on earth both gives it lip service and acts outside of it.

The USA managed to save Europe from the Cold War threats it faced, and I think is doing an OK job on the whole. We may learn more of the actual reasons for the Iraq war in the future, but no Scuds have hit Israel lately, so I can't write it off as bad.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, I suppose that the USA has done more than we give it credit for in the past, as you suggest. But maybe I'm just not totally over what damage G.W. Bush did. & I agree with your assessment of the UN. It was really designed for a perfect world by idealists, not realists, in the aftermath of WWII. However, it would probably be able to do it's work better if there were less cynics like G.W. Bush around, throwing spanners into the works all the time...


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Andre said:


> However, it would probably be able to do it's work better if there were less cynics like G.W. Bush around, throwing spanners into the works all the time...


I don't agree. He was, if nothing else, less corrupt than the current guy, who is a liar and obviously a shill.

He was, if nothing else, more astute than Carter and more direct than Reagan.

He in fact cleaned up after the Clinton years, when our government was fond of burning its citizens alive.

So the record is mixed.

The new guy sucks.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Conservationist said:


> He in fact cleaned up after the Clinton years, when our government was fond of burning its citizens alive.


Are you referring to what happened in Waco? (David Koresh, the Branch Davidians, etc)


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Andre said:


> Are you referring to what happened in Waco? (David Koresh, the Branch Davidians, etc)


Yes, as well as some troubling drug war incidents that ended the same way.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

Conservationist said:


> We may learn more of the actual reasons for the Iraq war in the future, but no Scuds have hit Israel lately, so I can't write it off as bad.


What more is there to learn, we acted on bad and false intelligence. And when we knew that, we tried to draw ties with 9/11 when that didn't work, we declared "mission accomplished".


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

JoeGreen said:


> What more is there to learn, we acted on bad and false intelligence. And when we knew that, we tried to draw ties with 9/11 when that didn't work, we declared "mission accomplished".


Doesn't mean it didn't ultimately end up being a beneficial war.

First, and most controversial, growing societies need wars. It's nature. Not in our nature, but nature itself.

Second, you mentioned some disadvantages -- but didn't point out anything that contradicts that the war achieved its aims. Subterfuge and provocation is used to start all wars, including WWII. Do you want us to have not fought that one?

Finally, the point stands. No Scuds hitting Israel. Greater stability in the region. Our interests served. And, as a friend pointed out, all violent jihads flocked to Iraq instead of Chicago to act out their warrior dreams.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

_Doesn't mean it didn't ultimately end up being a beneficial war._

I'll agree it's nice that we have one less dictator, but he was the wrong one, Hussein sort of acted as a stabillizing force in the region, and he was unbelievably a secular ruler. and At least the inter ethnic/religious strife we see in Iraq now, was kept down.

_First, and most controversial, growing societies need wars. It's nature. Not in our nature, but nature itself._

But, Ithink societies would benfit alot more from education and good cultural relations rather than armed agression

_Second, you mentioned some disadvantages -- but didn't point out anything that contradicts that the war achieved its aims. Subterfuge and provocation is used to start all wars, including WWII. Do you want us to have not fought that one?_

Well because there really wasn't any aims, we took out Saddam, while some sort of democratic form of government has take shape, we know have Al Qaeda, which wasn't in there during the Saddam years, and we have clashing tensions between the different groups, and all at the cost of lying (wether intentionally or not) to the US population.

_Finally, the point stands. No Scuds hitting Israel. Greater stability in the region. Our interests served. And, as a friend pointed out, all violent jihads flocked to Iraq instead of Chicago to act out their warrior dreams._

Well no no SCUDS have hit Isreal since the end of the FIRST Persian Gulf War.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

JoeGreen said:


> I think societies would benfit alot more from education and good cultural relations rather than armed agression


That requires them to want that, and to have the capacity for it -- two big ifs.



JoeGreen said:


> Well no no SCUDS have hit Isreal since the end of the FIRST Persian Gulf War.


True, but the threat of Scuds or similar missiles being used was always present, as was the Iraqi nuclear program which whether or not it was in remission, had at one time been quite active and in fact bombed by Israeli jets.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Conservationist said:


> Doesn't mean it didn't ultimately end up being a beneficial war.


I think the victims and their families would argue otherwise.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

Conservationist said:


> That requires them to want that, and to have the capacity for it -- two big ifs.
> 
> 
> > well i fail to see any society who wouldn't rather haveto violence and isolation as opposed to peace and trade. Maybe the governments, but I doubt the population at large.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

jhar26 said:


> I think the victims and their families would argue otherwise.


Yes, but those who suffer in war ALWAYS argue otherwise, even if the war was just.



JoeGreen said:


> i fail to see any society who wouldn't rather haveto violence and isolation as opposed to peace and trade. Maybe the governments, but I doubt the population at large.


Probably depends on the opportunity costs of the peace and trade.

Maybe you're working a false dichotomy there?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Conservationist said:


> Yes, but those who suffer in war ALWAYS argue otherwise, even if the war was just.


Yes - how silly of them. If they were any smarter you'd think they'd be happy to get the living daylights bombed out of them. After all, it was for their own good.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

jhar26 said:


> Yes - how silly of them. If they were any smarter you'd think they'd be happy to get the living daylights bombed out of them. After all, it was for their own good.


The point is that for any action, someone is upset, so if we judge actions by people being upset, we can never do anything.

I don't care if a repeat rapist or pedophile thinks he should be free, you know what I mean? I also don't give a damn if a hostile self-identified enemy of the place where my people live gets bombed into oblivion.

Maybe we should all just light a joint and ignore reality, but I've found it more intense to live in reality.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

> Maybe we should all just light a joint and ignore reality but I've found it more intense to live in reality.


The reality as you see it, that is.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

jhar26 said:


> The reality as you see it, that is.


In contrast to reality as you see it?

So... more passivity. No one can convince another that reality exists; no one can change anything because some one will be offended or die.

Summary: "Give up now! the human experience is futility!"

Yeah, that's not a world I want to live in. Are you attempting to deny my reality?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Conservationist said:


> In contrast to reality as you see it?
> 
> So... more passivity. No one can convince another that reality exists; no one can change anything because some one will be offended or die.
> 
> ...


Why ask? You seem to have all the answers - including those that you think are mine. 

Enough of this nonsense, this was my last post on this issue and I'm happy to give the floor to you if you want it.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Conservationist said:


> People, outside of those with a background in structured thought, critical thinking and debate, make a hash of political discussions, leading to frustration and insults.


Don't say you weren't warned.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Conservationist said:


> People, outside of those with a background in structured thought, critical thinking and debate, make a hash of political discussions, leading to frustration and insults.


Well, don't worry about it. You'll get better at it if you keep on trying.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

jhar26 said:


> Well, don't worry about it. You'll get better at it if you keep on trying.


And back to the ad homs! Awesome. There's a pattern here.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Conservationist said:


> And back to the ad homs! Awesome. There's a pattern here.


Where was the ad hom here?


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> Where was the ad hom here?





jhar26 said:


> You'll get better at it if you keep on trying.


Implies a deficiency in ability.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Basically, I think that the world would benefit big time if the USA would stop meddling in other countries' internal politics. I mean this has been proven time & time again to be a disaster - not only the recent & ongoing Iraq war but look what they did in Nicaragua in the 1980's. The damage done there took a long time to heal. & look at their ongoing trade embargo on Cuba. They have acted as if they still own parts of Central & South America for decades. Like the USSR before them, the USA has developed an unhealthy imperialist attitude which does not benefit anyone.

By all means, if the USA want to take part in UN action towards rogue states such as Iran & North Korea, fair enough. But they should do it in a more sensitive way than in the past. This, I think, would give them more credibility and lead to better outcomes for both them and the world...


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Andre said:


> They have acted as if they still own parts of Central & South America for decades.


No one wants a hostile state on their border.

I don't see any evidence that the world is worse off for USA "meddling."


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

With the whole Iran afair, the US should shut up and leave it be, this is the Iranian's struggle for liberty, no the US's. 
President Obama has done enough nothing more nothing less. We're not the world's mother.
As Reza Aslan said, Iran will either go the way of N. Korea or China.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

Conservationist said:


> No one wants a hostile state on their border.


By installing dictators?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

No one has also mentioned that the USA contradicts itself by tolerating the nuclear ambitions of it's ally in 'the war on terror' Pakistan, while reacting totally differently to Iran & North Korea, because they are classed as 'rogue states.'



JoeGreen said:


> With the whole Iran afair, the US should shut up and leave it be, this is the Iranian's struggle for liberty, no the US's.
> 
> ...By installing dictators?


These are good points. People forget that it was the USA which installed repressive leaders like the Shah in Iran back in the '50's, and look what that lead to? The more the USA meddle in other countries' politics, the more negative knock-on effects they tend to create. Ironically, this ultimately leads to countries really hating their guts, which is the opposite affect the USA intended...


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Andre said:


> No one has also mentioned that the USA contradicts itself by tolerating the nuclear ambitions of it's ally in 'the war on terror' Pakistan, while reacting totally differently to Iran & North Korea, because they are classed as 'rogue states.'


If you want to maintain order, you delegate to responsible people and keep power out of the hands of nutjobs. Do you think North Korea is stable?



Andre said:


> These are good points. People forget that it was the USA which installed repressive leaders


I'm sure they had other traits other than "repressive," and that the options may have been similarly problematic.

Life isn't like movies where there's a good poor democratic kid versus a rich fascist. That's fantasy for children.



Andre said:


> like the Shah in Iran back in the '50's, and look what that lead to?


Citation needed for causality.



Andre said:


> The more the USA meddle in other countries' politics, the more negative knock-on effects they tend to create. Ironically, this ultimately leads to countries really hating their guts, which is the opposite affect the USA intended...


Someone will always hate your guts. If you stop someone from doing something stupid, they hate you just as hard as if you stopped them from doing something necessary.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Conservationist said:


> If you want to maintain order, you delegate to responsible people and keep power out of the hands of nutjobs. Do you think North Korea is stable?


Do you think Pakistan is stable? Or democratic for that matter? Their internal politics is a shambles, & added to that, you have the tensions between them & India.



> I'm sure they had other traits other than "repressive," and that the options may have been similarly problematic.


Yeah, like not agreeing with the prevailing ideology in the USA, whether it be cold war rhetoric or the recent 'war on terror.'



> Life isn't like movies where there's a good poor democratic kid versus a rich fascist. That's fantasy for children.


What about how they supported the mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the time it's Russian occupation? Then the mujahadeen turned around & bit the USA in the ***, & lead to the emergence of our dear old friend Osama Bin Laden.



> Citation needed for causality.


It's common knowledge how the USA virtually deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh, and imposed their crony, the Shah, who the population hated. He was a dictator. This lead to internal political tensions and the Islamic Revolution of 1979. No wonder the Iranian revolutionaries targeted the USA embassy in Tehran. It was dear old Uncle Same who got them in that situation in the first place.



> Someone will always hate your guts. If you stop someone from doing something stupid, they hate you just as hard as if you stopped them from doing something necessary.


Yeah, according to your logic, doing something stupid according to the USA has meant wanting some measure of autonomy. That's a bad thing, isn't it, because then people are rebelling against all important USA interests...


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Andre said:


> Do you think Pakistan is stable? Or democratic for that matter? Their internal politics is a shambles, & added to that, you have the tensions between them & India.
> 
> Yeah, like not agreeing with the prevailing ideology in the USA, whether it be cold war rhetoric or the recent 'war on terror.'
> 
> ...


I think Pakistan is more stable than many of the regimes in the area. Keep in mind that it's not Kansas over there.

Next, I think any superpower is going to have a prevailing ideology, and its going to pick friends and allies based on that.

Further, regarding the mujahideen and Iran, you're making a fundamental error in that you're assuming things would be wildly different without involvement. Iran was always heading toward being a theocracy, and it was inevitable that conflict would arise between any superpower and the Afghanistanis. Does that mean there was a causal relationship? No, it doesn't.

You also don't understand multiple factors. A nation that wants autonomy AND has bad intentions seems to cause problems; a nation wanting autonomy but with good intentions causes no problems.

Finally, in your zeal to hate on the good ol' USA, you've forgotten to show us where the world would be without a stabilizing, Pax Romana-style force. Wonder what nuclear proliferation would look like, for example, or how many more communist states like North Korea would exist.

Keep in mind I'm no fan of modern society -- at all. But I think it's important to separate emotions and political symbols from a look at political reality. Politics is itself a discipline that has certain requirements, and to ignore these is to end up dead (as a nation).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

You're right, Conservationist, I am pretty ani-American politically, but I'm also anti all the big superpowers, including the former USSR. I think that, in terms of abuses of human rights abroad, these two entities have had their lions share of downright disgraceful behaviour. & it never helped if you had people like Tony Blair supporting G W Bush, etc. Here in Australia, too, people became sceptical of former Prime Minister John Howard's buddying up with Bush, no wonder he got some presidential award from him. This type of thing to me, & many Australians, just stinks. We should be either trying to forge meaningful ties with countries or leave them alone to sort out there own problems. Not patronising them or going to war with them...

Anyway, this thread has become a bit stale & boring, no-one else but us contributing, so let's call it a day & agree to disagree on this matter...


----------

