I wonder..
when was the last time republicans threatened to blow the dems of the map?
when did the dems the last time try to secretlly develop nukes to use them against the republicans?

flint.. if the US foreign policie achieves that the relations and conflict handling between all these nation works like it works between dems and reps.. the world would allready be a way better place.

If you cannot make people in the same nation agree then how can you make others agree?

Case in point:

Europe refused Obama on sending new ground troops to Afghanistan.

If he cannot get Europe to agree to a 'good and worthy goal' how can he get the Taliban to stop attacking in Afghanistan, Iran to stop making nukes, Syria to stop trying to make WMD's and ending support to all those terrorists those nations support.

> If you cannot make people in the same nation agree
> then how can you make others agree?

We are talking different levels of agreement, as i've already stated.

One (same nation) is getting people to take and hold your own values and
thoughts as theirs. The assimilate them (their political party) into yours and
to annihilate their freedom.

The other (other nation) is getting people to compromise in a way that is advantageous
to all involved.

> Europe refused Obama on sending new ground troops to Afghanistan.

Irrelevant. You are now changing, and broadening the subject.

This thread HAS BEEN ANSWERED. Any further posts are absurd. This thread
should thus be closed -- ASAP.

I know I don't merit it, but can I have a thousand dollars?

> Not different levels. It is the same.

No, it is NOT the same.

They are two different levels of acceptance. One throws away freedom, the other accepts
a mutually-beneficial compromise.

Do you not listen?

Not to be pessimistic, but once again this is another fail thread =p

Just because republicans and democrats don't agree doesn't mean that American democrats and the rest of the world can't agree. What flint is asking makes little sense and isn't all that relevant to what's going on.

Democratic America is more similar to the politics of other countries than a Republican America for starters. Next.. actually I won't even continue. Skoe covered the basics so I won't even touch this any furthur. Somebody around here needs to get his head out of his ass =p

No one said that you dumbass lol

sKoE:
>>In the first example (creating peace) it can be seen that peace is advantageous to
(pretty much) all parties involved: it promotes more stable and stronger economies,
it ensures freedoms.<<

Yes, creating peace with Chavez will ensure freedom to his people! Keep calling names kid, that's all you can do.

hahahaha yes, clearly "they" is a reference to Chavez and I need to graduate high school. The kid calls me kid. It'd be cute if it wasn't retarded.

Don't you have anything better to do than talk shit every time you say something stupid?

when you kill people you make it black and white

I yield to the 11 million dead Krauts from WW2 to explain it to you

....

see?

Obama has already been very insulting to our enemies, for instance the OAS summit where Dan Ortega the Commie ranted for an hour about US oppressions against "them" since 1850, and then Obama told them to give up the "stale debate" and move on.  Or in other words, "whatever".  The business of pretending real opposition is just a foggy gray "yes but" is more foolish than recognizing a real divide.

M = me, Y = you

M >>>> In the first example (creating peace) it can be seen that peace is advantageous to
M >>>> (pretty much) all parties involved: it promotes more stable and stronger economies,
M >>>> it ensures freedoms

Y >>> Yes, creating peace with Chavez will ensure freedom to his people!

M >> They being Chavez.

Y >  clearly "they" is a reference to Chavez and I need to graduate high school

They is an implicit term i have used to reference the parties involved ("they"). They are the
leaders of their own countries, Chavez was only an example in relation to your idiotic
comment. In fact, like i have stated, the people are irrelevant because they* don't need to be
bargained with: The leaders do.

So yes, you need to graduate high school. The leaders of whichever nation will be creating a
deal will speak for their people, but wont ever have to do whats in the peoples best interests. I'm
not sure you understand this so i'll rephrase:

: Any leader of any country can, with support of his government, create a mutually beneficial
: agreement with any other leader of another country (and his respective government). Neither
: leaders are required to do whats in the best interests of their respective people.
:
: This is opposed to the reduction, without benefit, of freedom in flints original second example.

* in this instance, the context is the people -- thus 'they' is an explicit term used to identify
'the people', or more specifically, the people governed by the leaders.