>Well so long as there are no reliable statistics backing up your argument, you can say you 'feel safer' but really does not have any value. However In my case, I know there was a reliable poll indicating that people in holland are worried about terroristic attacks and muslim fundamentalism (this worry did not exist a few years ago). So in fact my indications above are backed up with fact. Can you backup your claim that the average american feels safer with a reliable poll or hard statistics?
>

"Reliable poll", it's kinda like jumbo shrimp, isn't it. Then there's the issue of who's doing the poll and what built in biases they have employed, etc. I'm confident of what I said based on personal observation.

>Well there are some fact to tell about mr bush. First of all he was not intelligent enough on highschool to earn a place on the universaty he went to. His prestations were simply to poor (Yes, that is a fact). It was only because his father was a powerfull man. He was addicted to alcohol and drugs (again a fact). Third, it is very unlikely he became the president of america if he was not the son of Bush sr.
>
Yep, I thought so, you are a follower of Michael Moore and his spinmeisters. His entire diatribe has been totally discredited. It's Fraudulent 911!


>>The UN is a very corrupt organization.
>
>Can you backup this statment with some proof?
>
Well, yes I think there is more than adequate proof, here's a few examples from the american daily at http://www.americandaily.com/article/2330:

1. The most well-known moral failure of the UN in recent memory took place in Rwanda, in 1994. UN peacekeeping troops did nothing to prevent Rwandans from being slaughtered in a spasm of "racial cleansing." The UN did worse than nothing -- Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was ordered to withdraw UN troops as the killing began. Soldiers and civilians of the Hutu majority killed more than 500,000 minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus in 100 days; an estimated 800,000 were murdered altogether.

2.The government of Sudan is obstructing the flow of aid to the people of Darfur. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he "cannot call the killing a genocide even though there have been massive violations of international humanitarian law." Apparently the phrase that became the UN's motto after Rwanda, "Never Again," meant "Until Next Time."

3.As far as morals are concerned, the UN certainly has no right to claim the high ground. Sexual predators thinly disguised as UNHCR aid workers took advantage of their positions of power in West African nations to demand sex from children as the price of aid for their families. The BBC reported in 2002 that workers in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea had been exploiting those people who came to them for help. Now the sexual abuse in return for protection and food has moved to the Congo, where the 4,000 UN peacekeepers stationed in Bunia have fathered an unknown number of illegitimate children on unmarried girls.

4.The UN is also the seat of world-class fraud and corruption. The massive oil-for-food/oil voucher scandal (often nicknamed "UNSCAM" or "oil-for-fraud") is only just beginning to make a dent in the "mainstream" news. Powerful and influential figures in UN member states, especially France and Russia, received millions of dollars in discounted oil vouchers, which could be sold on the open market. The list of 270 recipients (which covers just the year 1999) includes politicians, religious figures, and heads of corporations, many of whom figured prominently in the opposition to the liberation of Iraq. One name that stands out on the list is that of UN Undersecretary General Benon Sevan, head of the oil-for-food program that was set up in 1996 to guarantee that humanitarian aid reached the Iraqi people through the UN's sanctions. The UN itself oversaw each transaction, and took a 2.2% administrative fee, amounting to $1.2 billion over the years. Under UN mismanagement, deliberate or not, Saddam Hussein managed to siphon off over $10 billion with which to buy palaces, illegal weapons, and the United Nations.

So, you think the UN is a good thing? Hmmm.


>You seem not to understand the difference between defend and atack. The US did attack iraq for very doubtfull reasons. There was no evidence of WMD, there was no evidence of support of terrorism in iraq. That is a fact. And even bush can not deny it. Iraq was not a thread to the US. There are a lot of other countries who are [Iran, North korea, Saudi arabia]. Might it be that bush was finishing the job of his father ???
>

No, I understand you can defend yourself by attacking someone before they attack you!