callippo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Clinton would have been re-elected had he stood a third time. His approval rating was 60% when he left office, which people forget. Only Reagan had a better approval rating of departing two-term presidents. not that it mattered to him of course. Because as an American, even as the most powerful American in the land, he knew that whatever he may have wanted himself, he couldn't have possibly got away with the notion of having a referendum to change the constitution to enable him to possibly serve as President-for-life like Chavez in Venezuela did. see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 In all fairness to America, the only people with blood on their hands are the Chinese and Russians. They are the ones who vetoed UN sanctions. At least they did the right thing and opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq,maybe the US and the rest could learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 You mean that's what you'd think if you lived here? I have a German niece living, funnily enough, in Germany. I don't view the comparitively good educational and employment opportunities available to her as evidence of a continuation of attempts 70 years ago to create a dominant Aryan race. You really would have to be living in another era and utterly out of touch with reality to think like that. The old folks who remember the war or the last years of it sitting on a beach in Majorca. "Just look at that fat German and his wife. Did you see them drive up to the hotel in that big Mercedes and now they're telling the rest of us what to do in Brussels" "Yes. Makes you wonder who won the war" I've heard it :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 At least they did the right thing and opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq,maybe the US and the rest could learn something. We've learned one thing about the Chinese and Russians. They dont give a damn about the Syrians. They must feel really proud of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Well if it's not that the USA is owned by the Jews - what is the reason that the USA always vetoes any resolution criticizing the Israelis for their assorted crimes? Why do Russia and China always veto any UN Resolution that the West supports yet both of them sell arms to unstable middle-eastern regimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Why do Russia and China always veto any UN Resolution that the West supports yet both of them sell arms to unstable middle-eastern regimes? Two different questions. The answer to the first is tha Russia and China both have very strong vested interests in the principle that the UN cannot, and should not, intervene in sovereign states; and are very much against the principle that groups of people should be able to decide their own fate. I don't have any better answer for the second than that there's money in it. More importantly, though, I don't understand why you consider that asking a quesstion is, in any way whatsoever, a satisfactory way to answer a different question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Why do Russia and China always veto any UN Resolution that the West supports yet both of them sell arms to unstable middle-eastern regimes? Because both countries are prinicpal arms suppliers to Syria and have been for decades. A change of regime might mean lost arms sales if the new Syrian leaders decided to buy European or American instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Why do Russia and China always veto any UN Resolution that the West supports yet both of them sell arms to unstable middle-eastern regimes? Russian and China don't always veto UN resolutions supported by the West. Last March they supported http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12783819. Russia has strong links with Syria and this year was supporting its own self-interest. The Chinese are miffed that last year's resolution on Libya was used by the West to push for regime change. They're making a point about that now and cosying up to the Russians now in the hope of a quid pro quo later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Cannot say I really have time for America, they do think they are the world police so maybe they should police it They are the world's police but like SYPD they don't like putting bobbies on the beat. They expect the world to do what they say under threat of violence and a general disregard for international law. When they do put bobbies on the beat they tend to shoot first and answer no questions afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffindodger Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Because they are currently the most powerful nation in the world, only a guess, but I reckon that I'm in with a shout of being correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.