Why the hell can I write no more than a few lines ? Otherwise server won't allow me to post.

About the missing posts and stuff problem, maybe democratic people are more in mood to give their conception about:
http://www.bluegoop.net/boards/showthread.php?t=22654

I guess the US hasn't had as much practice in "new-colonialism" as France has had at intervening in African affairs? That's why Iraq is such a good topic of discussion but Cote d'Ivorie is not?

Regardless, you began with defense rather than anger or even quiet.
Yea, the UN took a stand against the US in the same way it took a stand against Iraq. "US, you are very, very bad! You are so bad we say "niche" in your face! We fart in your general direction!" At least the UN didn't throw one their horrible sanctions at us. Heaven forbid.

Acceptable behavior may be defined by the UN, but it is enforced, when it is enforced, by the US.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Well, the usual trick since WWII is to put some dictator or otherwise US friendly government in place, sometimes with an invasion, sometimes by covert action or sponsorship of a select few. While actually putting a US governor (first citizen or whatever) and "police" force in place might be too much for US allies, this gets by for some part as long as it is not too obvious.

More directly: How about when we define colonization as "forcing another country to serve your countries needs"? Sounds reasonable? OK, then there are Iraq, Grenada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Chili, Argentina. Oh, there are some notable failed attempts like Vietnam and Cuba.

__________________

Uhhm, I know this is a pointless question (see maxim below), but can you tell me how any of these countries are serving the needs of the US?

Or, better yet, we really only have to get one maxim down to solve all arguments:

US is bad, Europe is good.

There, all discussion simplified.
:rolleyes:

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Nah, US foreign policy is bad, Europe foreign policy does not exist.

__________________

:rolleyes:
Do not dissect a word so it fits your explanation. Unilateralism has diffrent meaning. And sience will never fit that description.

@Bond
Sure science fits the description, but the point is that wanting to pay for a science project alone (or in this case with 3 of the 6 commitee memebers) is different from starting a war alone.

__________________

What a riot. I give you the literal definition of a word, and you accuse me of making it fit my explanation. Look, rather than look like such a complete ass, why don't you just say what you mean: words have different definitions when you're talking about the US than when you're talking about Europe. Self-defence by European troops is wanton slaughter of innocents by Americans. Peace action in Europe means war for resources in America. Unilateral can only be used when speaking about the actions of the US; Europe can never act unilaterally.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

That was precisely marlin's point. Europe never acts unilaterally because Europe never acts at all.