
Originally Posted by
TK421
Unfortunately, there are too many stupid people in the world to get rid of AIDS/HIV.
So let's just do jack shit! That'll help a lot!
Humans are a destructive, violent, warring species who wants as much as they can for themselves, and it would take quite a bit of "motivation" (read: money) to get most countries on the same side.
We're also the only species capable of advanced logic and, gasp, morality. Civilization exists to overcome the more destructive influences of instinct. Money? You understand nothing. Money is just as much a commodity as anything else, the total amount of wealth in the world never changes, and global alliance would render attempts at overpowering others with higher funding irrelevant. Besides, why would you give negative connotations to the delivery of economic aid to rogue states, the only ones requiring encouragement of such a nature, in order to build peace and trust? Global alliance means peace and cooperation, it means debate and careful consideration. It does not mean empire, dominance, and bribery, which you're completely right, are unsustainable on such a scale.
Also, there will be one nation that would refuse to abide to the agreement to get rid of its nuclear weapons, meaning it would have them to use against the U.S. at any time. This means the U.S. would have to have nukes of their own to retaliate with, or they don't stand a chance. Unless EVERY country in the entire world HONESTLY gets rid of their nukes (unlikely), it's not going to happen.
You're, astoundingly, partially correct here. However, while every nuclear armed country will not be willing to forfeit their weapons, all countries can help to disassemble their stock piles, perhaps using their new found weapons grade radioactive products to make power. Bringing down the weight of stockpiles to sub-apocalyptic levels is not only noble, but perfectly feasible.
I fail to see any discrimination in America except some discrimination against whites. If you were to start an all-black club, it's accepted. If you start an all-white club, it's racist. Due to people trying NOT to be seen as racist, they turn out to be discriminatory towards straight white males. There isn't much Obama CAN do to take steps against discrimination, since it's largely under control. If he takes the steps to get rid of discrimination against straight white males, then he would have truly gotten rid of it.
You seem to be out of the loop here, because you're just completely and invariably wrong here.
Ah, yes, stopping the Taliban, a group we put together which has stabbed us in the back. This means more military action in Iraq, and, if enlistment keeps declining at its current rate, a draft by 2012. Hopefully I'll be in Canada by then.
The Taliban didn't "stab us in the back," they governed with the will of the people of their country, Afghanistan, which is the duty of a government, not to mention, they almost completely stopped narcotics production and shipment. Guess what's started up again?
Bringing back the economy means putting a cap on gas prices. The puppets of the gas corporations in the congress are going to keep any measure for a gas cap from reaching Mr. President. They have done so in the past, but lowering gas means the truckers will have to pay less to get their goods here, meaning they'll charge the stores less, bringing down prices in those stores, putting more money in everyone's pocket and strengthening the economy. It also means the gas corporations lose their HUGE profits, and they'll keep fighting until the end.
The economy is not completely dependent on gasoline, you're correct shipping and production of food depend on it, and it does impact most arms of the economy, however the federal government still has more power than the corporations, granted the people of the country are not truly governed by their ill-founded cynicism.
Obama seems like the best choice, better than Hilary, and certainly better than McCain, though his promises are... Unlikely.
Bookmarks