??

__________________
I have something to hide.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Really...we arnt supposed to lift a finger without the blessing of the UN, right?

Except for gays. Nepal isn't free at the moment, crushing the Maoists is not only really hard but probably not for the best.

Currently i think it would be best for Nepal if the communists won. There not the good kind of communists but the current Monarchy has practically destroyed Nepal, the Maoists can't make Nepal worse. Ultimately i would like to see this war end quickly with minimum casualties but that's not going to happen, it going to be a long drawn out, bloody conflict and the U.N. won't step in because if no-one knows no-one cares. And no-one does know.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

will have a busy year.

But wait, Sadistic, won't some parties on this board consider this good news? After all, communism is a more humane system that offers people a better life than capitalism.

Right?

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Ok, let's look at that test:

The global test is "where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

If we cared about freeing oppressed people, we could easily meet the global test in Nepal. Of course we could have met the test in Liberia and Sudan also, but for some reason God wants us to free the people of Iraq, but God is, at best, indifferent about the people of Liberia, Sudan, and Nepal. I guess God is funny that way.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

Those UN haters want the UN do to what ...

- declare war on Nepal?

- mediate the conflict when asked or just impose themselves and demand resolution

- get one of the neigboring countries like India or China to slapp the commies around (china may not be keen to attack communists and the Nepalese monarchy may love the idea of foreign troops who they have had drama with before roaming around the country)

It's real easy to Monday Morning quarterback the games, the war, or world diplomacy. It's harder to make a constructive contribtuion to the political discourse.

Tell me, why must we free everyone? What happened to the UN, whose job this is supposed to be?

Are we all now acknowledging, openly, that the UN has no intention of doing their job, and thus, any freeing that must occur must be done by us and our allies?

That would be refreshing.

And, if that's the case, I'll state definitively that we should do them...next.

How, precisely, should we go about "freeing" Sudan and LIberia? From whom do they need to be liberated? Because it strikes me that you're not precisely accurate on your description of what is needed there.

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Well, I thought God and Bush had a partnership to free the oppressed people. Why do Iraqis deserve to be free and not Nepalese? We would have a better image in the world if we were consistent.

The UN is useless. It has been for a VERY long time (if not always). Most reasonable people know that.

We need to stop the people who are killing unarmed helpless people.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I was unaware of this partnership. Is it your claim that the only reason we went into Iraq was to free the Iraqis?

Well, I certainly knew it, but it's nice to hear you say it. Given this, if the UN had abdicated it's responsibility with Iraq, shouldn't someone have stepped up and taken responsibility for enforcing the treaty?

How should we go about doing this?

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.