feel like down voting simply because of his *lies . they pretend to play world police but they're really just taking over the planet, inch by inch.

Wow, Farhad2000, I tip my hat to you for not only a very detailed reply, but a very interesting read

Of course, they are STILL people who will insist WMDs were found...sad but true...

I think this is one of the best answers i have seen to this, and "intent" is like the US being the Orwellian World Police - that does not make it ok

I call bullshit on anyone who can't see that this a HORRIBLE parody by someone who obviously watched a)Team America: World Police and b)any of the myriad execution videos available on the web. It sucks which is why I'm not voting for it but it's certainly not racist, and why do you have sympathy for terrorists?

Trey Parker & Matt Stone convinced me of this point (even though I'm not really a South Park fan) when they talked about why all the terrorists in Team America talk like "durka durka jihad jihad." Their point was that these people should be mocked & ridiculed.

Since when is it up to the feds to bring "drug dealers" (seed distributors) from OTHER countries, INTO the U.S. to throw them in jail? Your tax dollars at work. How does that song go? the one from Team America: World Police? I believe it's something like: "AMERICUUH! FUCK YEAH, COMIN' TO SAVE THE MOTHAFUCKIN DAYYEAH." Ahh, here it is http://www.videosift.com/video/Team-America-Fk-Yeah-NSFW

i am still really 50/50 about globalisation.

all i can tell you is that freedom of travel in the EU is great, and that i think it would be much harder for any "dark forces" to control us if we mingle more.

my current guess is that the higher ups like globalisation because it makes trade easier and less of their profit goes on bureaucracy and crap.

also consider this example: i am in lithuania. i have a young musician friend in poland from the internet, he wanted to come to lithuania to play in one of my parties, but he couldn't because of problems with his passport and an alcoholic father. Now thanks to shengen he can come without a passport. i think that's good.

living in europe (not uk or usa) i have got much more confident about man's ability to retain his own culture while mixing with others. also i think the cultural gene pool NEEDS mixing.

i am more worried about google world domination than anything else.

just interested what you think on that.

:

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yes, it's a scary time, because the Executive Branch is acting outside the powers given to them by the Constitution. The President cannot make treaties with other countries without the Senate's approval. Currently, these deals between the US, Canada and Mexico are being passed off as trade agreements, not treaties. But a dissolution of our borders is not a trade agreement.

Welcome to the sift, by the way.

In reply to this comment by Jordass:
Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

syncron, yes, and yes.

I dont think anyone thinks sept 11th was anything other than a terrible day, but im amazed by the reactions of "why us" to it ;-/ hell, i remember as a child wondering how america could act as world police and stamp on other cultures, without someone lashing back.

Yes, it's a scary time, because the Executive Branch is acting outside the powers given to them by the Constitution. The President cannot make treaties with other countries without the Senate's approval. Currently, these deals between the US, Canada and Mexico are being passed off as trade agreements, not treaties. But a dissolution of our borders is not a trade agreement.

Welcome to the sift, by the way.

In reply to this comment by Jordass:
Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Legacy, if you think this is disturbing, you obviously haven't seen Team America, World Police! 

"..except that they DID find biological weapons in Iraq."

Hilarious how you misconstrue a report which confirms exactly the opposite of a credible threat. Also, very clever of you to not refer to them as WMDs, because that's exactly correct, they're not! If such a gimped arsenal represents so huge a threat then why aren't we out there invading far more militarily endowed + willfully naughty countries (world police we are)? What we found are old stockpiles of leftover components from the 80s and early 90s, which were found after the fact that we invaded with little to no evidence, popular consensus or not; surely a big enough "threat" to invade/disrupt a whole country & region (including our own) for, right? Stop blindly towing the official party line.

Let's impeach Bush for the war and killing soldiers. Hell lets go back in time into our impeachment time traveling devices and impeach Lyndon B Johnson, and John Kennedy for Vietnam. Or lets impeach Clinton for what happen in Mogadishu. Even though that all the presidents I mentioned before were acting on the ideal to make it a better place for that country. Vietnam was tearing itself apart. Iraq had a dictator killing millions. And in Mogadishu we had people starving. You know those presidents that even though it wasn't our war we were trying to make a difference because we were the only ones who could. We should stand back and let a country tear itself apart. We should never help those in need. Let's listen to all the actors especially the genius of Sean Penn to tell us what to believe and follow. Because and I quote from Team America World Police, Sean Penn said "Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles."

Yeah that is all. Here is how you make an angry American, by showing bullshit. This happened in the 30s,40s,50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, and guess what, it's probably going to keep happening as long as war exist. America is full of idealist and was founded by idealist. But whatever I guess we all forgot about American History. I mean QM did mention hippies. The hippies did say and act the same way against Johnson because of the Vietnam war. Just saying is all.

both Red and Blue saw Saddam as a threat. Don't Monday morning quarterback with history here. It's a losing argument.

I didnt specify "only republicans" that was my whole point, The ENTIRE US, except people like Michael Moore, was scared shitless of nothing. I was talking about UN weapons inspectors who were actually in Iraq at the time, I was talking about the French, who were RIGHT. Most countries OUTSIDE the USA did not consider Saddam a threat to much of anything, And most thought a war would cause more trouble than it would solve. Just before the invasion, Hans Blix (chief UN weapons inspector) said they didnt think there were any WMD's down there.. The Egyptian president said the war would create "A Hundred new bin Ladens", there were countless more examples. Just look at the "Coalition of the willing" what was that, like 4 countries?, guess the rest was just a bunch of cowards.

If you americans had actually looked up from your bellybuttons before playing world police, you wouldnt be stuck in this quagmire in the first place.

Problem with these "Simple" solutions are that they don't really work. There is alot more than KIM thats wrong in that country, take him out, and some other nutjob will deal with the "revenge of the great martyr". Nukes in Seoul next. If the Iraq war has taught you anything this should be obvious.

I understand your frustrations with regimes like N.Korea as much as anyone, but unfortunately its just not that simple. In addition to not working there is also a whole range of possible consequences of such an assassination attempt,

1. It could fail, and probably will. They tried it with Castro, was it 600 times?
2. Everyone has friends. North Korea happens to be friends with the next rising superpower, China. Iran with large parts of the Islamic world. A support in both cases that will be tenfold after an assassination attempt.


any regime in the future, who shows the smallest signs of heading in the same direction.
What signs?, like illegally wiretapping its own citizens? Patriot acts?

Even if I wasnt taking cheap shots at the US/Bush regime here.. what about China?, Russia? both these show various signs of being "unhealthy" regimes. Should the World Police* bomb their leaders too?

*And who exactly are these morally and ethically superior, fail-proof, godlike rulers to decide which regime should die? the ones with the most nukes?

Ah yes - I saw that (and got puzzled by the wave part - but thought it cute!), but my brain didn't register that as the same idea because it neatly compartmentalized "flag"s and "channels" for technical reason. The philosophy is similar, the implementation is just a bit different - kudos to you for being the first one to broach it on this thread. We just refined it in our geeky way.

@farhad; yes, I agree that the time to deal with the issue is 'now' rather than later; my rant had more to due with my study break last summer, that is all.

BTW@choggie: was that a "World Police" reference? I assume so, and laughed accordingly!

Speaking of cute (going back to the wanton compliment directed at ladybug), bunnies *are* cute. Especially when used as letter openers.