Argggh! It's NUKE-LEE-ER. NUKE-LEE-ER!

[CamB]

What decision is the "right" one? You can't say "I don't know" if you're the leader.

I'm 28 years old. I have no view because I know very little about the circumstances. I don't have time to educate myself either.

But what if half the world is wrong?

Errr, you guys are 280 odd million out of something like 9 billion people. That isn't "half". Even on GDP you aren't half (yet?). Maybe on military spending....

To what extent does a nation surrender its sovereignty?

Being asked to wait a bit before making a pre-emptive strike against another nation is hardly surrendering sovereignty.

[brawlins]

brawlins: What decision is the "right" one? You can't say "I don't know" if you're the leader.

CamB: I'm 28 years old. I have no view because I know very little about the circumstances. I don't have time to educate myself either.

You have no time to educate yourself? How much time do you spend on this forum each week? You have 3245 posts!

brawlins: But what if half the world is wrong?

CamB: Errr, you guys are 280 odd million out of something like 9 billion people. That isn't "half". Even on GDP you aren't half (yet?). Maybe on military spending....

You missed the question - It was philosophical, not mathematical:
As a nation, do you go along with the majority decision of the UN if you believe it is wrong?...if you feel that your own security could be threatened by a wrong decision, do you oppose the majority?

brawlins: To what extent does a nation surrender its sovereignty?

CamB: Being asked to wait a bit before making a pre-emptive strike against another nation is hardly surrendering sovereignty.

How long is "a bit"?

- Bill

[CamB]

You have 3245 posts!

Ah hell, it's only 2 and a bit posts a day. I can't answer the question without knowing how many Japanese civilians would have died following the conventional bombing which would have occurred if the atom bomb hadn't been dropped, at very least. I also can't really decide without being in a WWII mindset and with WWII knowledge. I guess I would have probably agreed to drop the bomb, but maybe only one of them (I think they dropped two for, er, redundancy from memory). It would have haunted me for every single day of my life that followed too.

As a nation, do you go along with the majority decision of the UN if you believe it is wrong?...if you feel that your own security could be threatened by a wrong decision, do you oppose the majority?

This is exactly the sort of logic that drives countries (such as Israel, Pakistan, NK, Iran etc) to develop nuclear weapons.

The UN is effectively a sort of world democracy (IMHO), and each country is, in a sense, a voting citizen. I fail to see why the US should be able to circumvent this democracy (as flawed as it might be). I actually don't even care whether invading Iraq was right or wrong for the purposes of this argument. What I care about is whether it is right or wrong for ANY country to go against the UN. If you think it is, why do you think that the street should only go one way (in the US' favour)? Is NK developing nukes ok because it is about sovereignty?

How long is "a bit"?

Dunno, and no one does, because Bush invaded Iraq before we found out. I suspect "a bit" is actually a pretty long time, as the threat to the US from Saddam was apparently quite low.

[brawlins]

CamB - I enjoyed our little interchange.
I will not be around too much over the next week.
I'm assisting my mother with a move from the Charleston, South Carolina area to the Atlanta area.
- Bill

[944S Boyeee]

Just thought I'd throw in a view from someone who couldn't give a rat's ass about Clinton/Bush ........whatever.

I'm from the land of the snow and don't support one party or another.

The basic point (in my opinion) about Bush's inability to pronounce certain words is simply the fact it looks bad and when something looks bad, you fix it for Christ sakes! Especially if you are the leader of the USA.

If one of the contestants on that Donald Trump show (The Apprentice) kept mispronoucing words, he would be kicked off the show because Trump is looking for someone as close to perfect as possible....and this is just for a lame Reality TV show job. Were talking about the LEADER OF AMERICA here folks. He SHOULD be held accountable for his image.

As a Canadian looking in, it absolutely dumbfounds me that....

1. Bush stands in front of intelligent people, talking the way he does, and expects them to except him.

2. Those around Bush allow it to happen.

The words he mispronounces are not the problem.....the fact that the American public is "ok" with it - that is what disturbs me.

Newsflash!!! - outside of stout Bush supports - just about everyone in the world views this guy as a very, very bad example of how a World Leader should be. Someone needs to step in and fix this.

Honestly - it's like America is the front lawn of the Griswald residence and Bush is the Uncle Eddie that sits on the lawn and farts and picks his nose. Even the daft Clark Griswald knows Eddie has to go....why can't America think the same? Why do so many people try and protect this embarrassing boil of uselessness???

Jeff (944S Boyeee)

[944S Boyeee]

.....................

[944S Boyeee]

Double post - I'm an idiot.

Maybe I should run for President....??????

Jeff (944S Boyeee)

[dd74]

You're splitting hairs, 944 Boyeee. When's the last time you heard perfect grammar spoken publicly? Seems to me Canada has an ongoing problem as to whether or not it should speak French or English. That pales in comparison to our president mispronouncing words or using improper syntax. At least we all agree on one language here.

[944S Boyeee]

You're splitting hairs, 944 Boyeee. When's the last time you heard perfect grammar spoken publicly? Seems to me Canada has an ongoing problem as to whether or not it should speak French or English. That pales in comparison to our president mispronouncing words or using improper syntax. At least we all agree on one language here.

Talk about spliting hairs!!!!!

Up here in Canada, we speak English, yet have a large French population. There is no disagreement. We have decided to speak whatever language the person sitting across from you speaks.

But that is not the point - this isn't about how Canada looks in the eyes of those who view it - it's about Bush. Canada doesn't run a country. Canada doesn't give speeches. This isn't about how we view "America", but rather how we view it's leader. Christ - our last Prime Minister could barely speak English - but at least he spoke it well.

As for the last time I heard perfect grammer spoken publically?

Well, just about everytime I turn on the TV....every TV show producer makes sure he doesn't make his show look "amature" by making sure people are saying the right things.

I have seen about thousands of talk show hosts and/or public figures speak thousands of times and they all "did their job" to the point where I didn't notice any problems in the delivery. As a matter of fact, I will go as far as to say I haven't seen ONE public speaker in the last little while who had the problems Bush does.

Stop protecting him. He isn't Corky from Life Goes On...he is the damn President of The USA!!!

Jeff (944S Boyeee)

[Aurel]

Cow-Boys are made to keep cows. This guy should never have left his ranch. Not only does he display a total disdain for grammar and international law, but he is also proud of all that. Who would be stupid enough to brag about being a low C at Yale ? He also showed disrespect to senior staff at the White house like Paul O`Neil that he was calling `Pablo` all the time. Who would be stupid enough to talk about going to Mars with a $477 Bn deficit ? Bottom line is: his intellectual capabilities are way unsufficient for the job. This shows, and this is why he is not being respected around the world.

Aurel

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by Aurel
his intellectual capabilities are way unsufficient for the job

Aurel, I know English is your second language, but this was too damn funny to not point it out.

[dd74]

"Insufficient" not "unsufficient," since we're on the subject.

Aurel: grammar has been a dying art in the U.S. for decades now. I would say it has been bastardized since the Army G.I. bill came along, where the blue-blood suddenly had to contend with new forms of syntax from various regions of the U.S. within higher-income institutions like universities. Language is bound to change when Princeton is mixed with down-home Alabama.

Is it wrong? If you're a purist, yes, it's very wrong. When I was in graduate school, I was appalled at some of the linguistic skillsets my professors used. But then thinking back on that, I may as well be turned off by Faulkner's dialectics, ee cummins lack of capital letters and Celine's use of ellipses.

What the president displays in pure communication is that language is continually evolving. I've learned to not fault someone for improper use of sentence structure, etc., because if I criticized them, whether constructive or otherwise, I nevertheless will be thought of as an *******.

Andy Rooney on "Larry King Live" once made note of the horrible use of grammar in (American) English, bringing up, of course, Bush. For all the man complained about, he simply came off as a bitter old fart who wanted to speak only with WASPs like himself. English is the most difficult language in the world to learn because of its Germanic roots, and inclusion of French, Spanish and Latin, plus the media's idea of what the hip phraseology of the day is, and how they continually purvey such. It's a no-win situation if one does not want to sound stodgey.

I'm no great Bush fan, but I do think he's much better than before with his public speaking. After all, the man does have ADS. But, hey, cut him some slack; sources say he is now able to tell his "left" from his "right," and at that, with aplomb.

[Aurel]

Granted. I type fast, do not spell check, and sometimes guess on words that I never used before (at least, not in english).

BUT:

1- I am not persident of the United States
2- I am not pryd of it
3- I am still intelligenter than Dubya



Aurel

[Aurel]

English is the most difficult language in the world to learn because of its Germanic roots

Having learnt English and German, I have to disagree here: English has to be the simplest, easiest language to learn on earth, and this is probably why it is so widespread. There are no genders to worry about according adjectives with, and unlike german and latin, no declination (sp?) on the verbs.
There is only you, not `vous` and `tu`, etc, etc...
On the other hand, my fiancee is trying to learn french, and she still has a long way to go

Aurel

[dd74]

French is fairly easy to learn. It has the same Latin roots as Spanish. Know one and you know more or less the other.

And English, spoken properly, is not easy to learn. Pick up some books on Literary Criticism and grammar to see for yourself.

The only thing easy about English is it's easy to misuse it.

And the reason English is so widely spoken comes traditionally from colonial efforts by Britain , English-speaking missionaries, and the economic power of English-speaking countries. To put things in perspective, if France had the economic might of the U.S., the whole world would speak French.

[Aurel]

Do you speak french ?

[dd74]

Originally posted by Aurel
Do you speak french ?

Only the most basic. I'm certain I've forgotten most of it now.

[DonDavis]

Damn, David!!! Yer makin' me proud, brother!! Excellent points about the English language.

[Decolliber]

Jimmy Carter used to say "nucular" too, and he was (if I remember correctly) a nuclear engineer. I have been told that this mispronunciation is a "Southern thing."
See story in recent Onion about an "ask" murderer in NYC.

[speeder]

mmmmmmmm......., Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/