Who's on First

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:41 pm

Nope, not about steroid use by baseball players. I'm posting in response to one of our respected legislatures (can't remember the name) who made the comment that America should not be the worlds leader. So my question is...who should be numero uno?

The Chi-Coms? Ask the survivors of Tinnamen Square or the Tibetans what they think.

The Rooskies? Led by a ex-KGB man who seems to be eliminating all political opposition to his rule, is Putin the guy you'd rather have telling the world how to behave?

The Hun, The Frog or the Limey? Well, they all had colonial empires at on time and look how they were run.

Maybe we should have someone like Robert Mugabe be world leader. After all, look how vibrant Zimbabwe is.

Have fun choosing...just be nice!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:44 pm

How about New Zealand? Frodo for president, and sheep for everyone!

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:47 pm

I know, FRANCE!

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:01 pm

Iceman wrote:I know, FRANCE!

I bet they wouldn't last 5 minutes in the drivers seat before they would surrender to someone else.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:32 pm

Why do we need one country to be the world leader?

If you balk at the idea of being lead by a forign country, why are you supprised that they do?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:52 pm

Gooberman wrote:Why do we need one country to be the world leader?

Well, we already tried the U.N. route

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:06 pm

IMO there should not be a "world leader" at all and to me it almost sounds like an oxymoron. There isnt a nation on this earth that can be considered perfect ether. Using Woodchip's initial comparison pattern, he should have included that the US was giving weapons to Osama and his thugs to fight the Russians while the Russians were trying to fight terrorism. Fast forward to today and see the hypocracy...

Instead we should look at the strengths of other nations and try to get some ideas at being a better nation rather than having nations surrender to only one "world leader". Sitting around and complaining like the French do about how one big nation is the cause for all of their own problems isnt going to solve anything ether. After all, competition is a healthy thing.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:20 pm

How many slurs for nationalities is woodchip going to put into one post?

Oh the irony!

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:11 pm

top wop got it right in theory.

but humans have a serious tendency to be complete opiturnistic scum... so it only looks good on paper.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:13 pm

Sorry to remind y'all, but the Soviets in Afghanistan were invaders, so I think you'll have a hard time making the case they were fighting terrorism.

Gooberman has a point - Americans need to look at the other side of the coin from time to time and not do the bull in the china shop thing. Arrogance will be the death of any American good intentions.

and btw - Vive la France! perhaps they won't lead, but at the picnic they can bring the wine, the croissants and the choucroute. Bon appetit!

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:59 am

Krom wrote:
Iceman wrote:I know, FRANCE!
I bet they wouldn't last 5 minutes in the drivers seat before they would surrender to someone else.

who? MARS?

Gooberman wrote:Why do we need one country to be the world leader?

X2

democracy would be a good idea. anarchism good too (remember we are talking solely about international relations).

my joke comment will be: i don't really care, just whoever you are keep your accent off my TV.