>Absolutely not. To be clear. My opinion was drawn far before Micheal Moore released his books and movie. Mine is 90% based in what I see on the news here in holland. And we have a tradition here in holland (unlike in the US) that the news on the TV are unbiased. The newspapers might have a political background but the news on the TV does not. However, there are not much differences to find in the perception of american politics in our parties.
>

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" report. As humans we all have our biases, the more professional reporters and news outlets work hard to limit theirs though. I assume since you're beating the "fact" drum that you have scientific data to prove that your country's reporting is unbiased and ours is not.

>I take you're a republican and always have voted republican. I'm neither one of them. I've got no personal gain depending on which president is choosen. The news shows the events of elections
>every day on the news here, so we know a lot of your country. I've been there quite a few times. I have american friends and colleages with whom I also talk about politics. I'm able to compare the US elections (one big hollywood show) with those that are common in Europe or Canada. Are you?
>

Well, you have fallen into the trap of assumption. I am an independent, but very conservative on most issues, liberal on others. I thought I was a libertarian at one time, but they are a little off the mark in my estimation. Then I thought I might want to be a member of the anarchist party, but they kept burning the meeting notices!<g> I have voted both sides of the issue. Two years ago, I did all the computer work for a local campaign for Sheriff for the Democratic nominee. He was a black man, who also happened to be a lifelong friend. I also worked for a white female democratic state rep years ago. These people believed in a lot of the same conservative values. So, I guess you be more correct labeling me a conservative than republican.

>>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:
>
>Well lets see. You remember what happened in somalia? The US stepped in (I don't remember whether or not under the flag of the UN) to stop the genocide in Somalia. All it resulted in was that the war lords united against the US. The US eventually decided it was not worth the lives of american soldiers: There was no economical interest there.
>
Your memory fails you then, try researching it. Two words - Bill Clinton.

>See somalia. The problem is that you cannot control war all over the world. It is a myth you can. From a humaninity aspect it is absolutely terrible happening there (though recent indications it is a bit better now), but the alternative is somalia, or on a larger scale iraq or vietnam. Worth the cost?
>

Problem is, you're doing no research into these issues. They were UN issues, not necessarily US issues. Personally, I believe we should intervene when a country is killing it's own by the hundreds of thousands. Remember that Hitler guy?

>>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.
>
>Hmmm reminds me of a high number of american priests.

That's it deflect to a separate issue.

>The UN has good sides and bad sides. Now ask your politicians what to say about the UN and listen to their answer and draw your conclusion. Give me a reason why the US does not break with the UN ?
>
I don't know why we don't break with the UN, other than the politicians on the left somehow think one world government is a good thing. I don't! How would you like it if all of a sudden the UN stepped in and told your country that you were going to follow the laws that were written in the US and so is the rest of the world? There would be people in the streets, wouldn't there? And there should be. Each country should have the ability to rule themselves and when the UN doesn't agree, that should be the UN's problem.
The UN should be a group that mediates, not dictates.

>Sure you can attack to defend, but then you have to have the hard evidence the other side is a thread to you. In this case it was not the case. It was not proven. There are other countries beeing a bigger potiential thread.


Ok, so what is "HARD" evidence? You mean like all the world intelligence community saying something is true. How about satellite phots of weapons stockpiles to go along with it?

John