Search results

Re: The domestic affairs of countries should be subjected to international scrutiny.. Gotta love that tone of yours.

Well, even though this is a nice idea in theory, it's totally impractical when applied to the 'real world'. Even if we'd like to think we could cease to be the aggressors, the very name implies its importance...defence force. Even if we could rely on our own nation never to attack another, this...

And it's definitely no grosser than straight sex if protection is used.

Ditto.

Exactly.

I would argue that it wasn't Rudd who put us into debt, it was the circumstances he had/has to deal with that put us into debt.

Yeah. Well, apparently there's huge pressure within the work-force on Japanese employees, and they also have the highest rate of teen suicide due to their schooling system.

Re: The domestic affairs of countries should be subjected to international scrutiny.. Hmm. Yes. Obviously your inability to interpret the topic is a definitive indication of my sexuality...

Also, I would like to point out that this is a very 'American' perspective. Their culture is very much based around earning what you're given. This can be extremely detrimental, because some people simply can't. I don't know if it's still the case under Obama, but certainly under Bush, if...

But homosexual 'desires' are not 'fleeting'. The urge to be close to someone emotionally, sexually and physically is pervasive for almost everyone once they've passed puberty, whether gay or straight.

Re: The domestic affairs of countries should be subjected to international scrutiny.. Yes. But the question posed was not '*Are* they?' it was '*Should* they be?'. One questions whether the state of affairs exists, the other questions the legitimacy of this state of affairs... Obviously, if...

No. Because nuclear bombs still exist, thus so does the potential for nations to bomb the shit out of each other with these bombs, and Hiroshima is the only place which has actually experienced this in wartime, aside from Nagasaki.

Any of this 'rights' stuff sounding horribly familiar, murphyad?

We had this as a debating topic...just wondering what people think? EDIT: Should this be allowable? Should we be able to scrutinise and then intervene?

Well, what if he'd said we *could* avoid it, and we therefore did nothing about it. At least there were measures in place, so we were prepared...fear is better than doing nothing.

Oh yeah. Well, y'know how I can't resist making my opinion known. :P

Yeah that's just weird...strange boy. He obviousy has issues.

With regard to the ethical question of whether dropping the bomb was the 'right' thing to do, we can look at other periods of history which indicate that there are other ways of doing things, instead of bombing the shit out of others. In fact, the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated that diplomacy...

This obviously prooves how awesome we are. :P

I agree 100%. Simply because something is a 'human construct' does not render it invalid.