http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 919-4.html
Here is the complete text. I've only read part, but I like this paragraph.
Pres. Bush Quote:
Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region. This argument rests on a false assumption, that the Middle East was stable to begin with. The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage. For decades, millions of men and women in the region have been trapped in oppression and hopelessness. And these conditions left a generation disillusioned, and made this region a breeding ground for extremism.
President Bush Speaks to UN
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
President Bush Speaks to UN
RIGHT ON! I love Bush. I'd like to shove this paragraph down Osama's throat.
Some of the changes in the Middle East are happening gradually, but they are real. Algeria has held its first competitive presidential election, and the military remained neutral. The United Arab Emirates recently announced that half of the seats in its Federal National Council will be chosen by elections. Kuwait held elections in which women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time. Citizens have voted in municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, in parliamentary elections in Jordan and Bahrain, and in multiparty presidential elections in Yemen and Egypt.
Some of the changes in the Middle East are happening gradually, but they are real. Algeria has held its first competitive presidential election, and the military remained neutral. The United Arab Emirates recently announced that half of the seats in its Federal National Council will be chosen by elections. Kuwait held elections in which women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time. Citizens have voted in municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, in parliamentary elections in Jordan and Bahrain, and in multiparty presidential elections in Yemen and Egypt.
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
President Bush Speaks to UN
double helix wrote: RIGHT ON! I love Bush. I'd like to shove this paragraph down Osama's throat.
Bush came into office with a bad situation stewing in the Middle East. He has done well to strike out at terroisim at its souce and to STAY THE COURSE. Withdraw now and it will only get much worse for us as well as the Middle East.
Bush came into office with a bad situation stewing in the Middle East. He has done well to strike out at terroisim at its souce and to STAY THE COURSE. Withdraw now and it will only get much worse for us as well as the Middle East.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Scrat wrote: Right on it is going to get worse. The Muslim people know what is going on and they know the future we have in mind for them. It sure as hell is not democracy, it's whatever tinpot murdering dictator we say they get. The rantings of a disordered personality and a diseased mind.
This character claims to be an American. One doubts that, but if true, one wonders all the more why he stays there, rather than choosing an Islamic rathole, out of the many available in the Middle East, to crawl into.
Now, that having been said 'up front', his rant is nonetheless right on the mark if a few key words are changed or exchanged, to wit:
The Muslim terrorists know what is going on and they know the future they have in store for the free world. It sure as hell is not democracy, it's whatever tinpot, murdering, ragheaded i-mam or moo-lah they say we get.
What the Muslims don't seem to realize, though, is that that is NEVER going to happen. Iran is sealing the doom of Islamic terrorism by its nuclear ambitions. The war against Japan was ended in two days. The war against Islamic terrorism will also end quickly, unfortunately with great loss of life. But a new and better world, a world without the scourge of Islam, will follow.
This character claims to be an American. One doubts that, but if true, one wonders all the more why he stays there, rather than choosing an Islamic rathole, out of the many available in the Middle East, to crawl into.
Now, that having been said 'up front', his rant is nonetheless right on the mark if a few key words are changed or exchanged, to wit:
The Muslim terrorists know what is going on and they know the future they have in store for the free world. It sure as hell is not democracy, it's whatever tinpot, murdering, ragheaded i-mam or moo-lah they say we get.
What the Muslims don't seem to realize, though, is that that is NEVER going to happen. Iran is sealing the doom of Islamic terrorism by its nuclear ambitions. The war against Japan was ended in two days. The war against Islamic terrorism will also end quickly, unfortunately with great loss of life. But a new and better world, a world without the scourge of Islam, will follow.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Accountable wrote: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 919-4.html
Here is the complete text. I've only read part, but I like this paragraph.
Pres. Bush Quote:
Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region. This argument rests on a false assumption, that the Middle East was stable to begin with. The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage. For decades, millions of men and women in the region have been trapped in oppression and hopelessness. And these conditions left a generation disillusioned, and made this region a breeding ground for extremism.I wonder whether President Bush was attempting here to answer the accusation presented earlier in the same General Assembly hall?
After September 11, a particular radical group was accused of terrorist activities -- although it was never explained how such huge intelligence gathering and security organizations failed to prevent such an extensive and well planned operation.
Why powers that, not so long ago, were supporting the activities of such groups in Afghanistan and thus portraying themselves as supporters of human rights and the Afghan people have over night turned into their most fierce critic?
Are we to believe that their benefactors, i.e. the very same hegemonic powers have lost control?
If the answer is yes, would it not be better for those powers to adopt an honest and transparent approach to the international community, provide precise information about the main elements and their arms and financial support system, and accept responsibility for their inhuman actions against nations and countries, and thereby assist peoples and nations to correctly, wisely and sincerely fight the roots of terrorism.
Here is the complete text. I've only read part, but I like this paragraph.
Pres. Bush Quote:
Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region. This argument rests on a false assumption, that the Middle East was stable to begin with. The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage. For decades, millions of men and women in the region have been trapped in oppression and hopelessness. And these conditions left a generation disillusioned, and made this region a breeding ground for extremism.I wonder whether President Bush was attempting here to answer the accusation presented earlier in the same General Assembly hall?
After September 11, a particular radical group was accused of terrorist activities -- although it was never explained how such huge intelligence gathering and security organizations failed to prevent such an extensive and well planned operation.
Why powers that, not so long ago, were supporting the activities of such groups in Afghanistan and thus portraying themselves as supporters of human rights and the Afghan people have over night turned into their most fierce critic?
Are we to believe that their benefactors, i.e. the very same hegemonic powers have lost control?
If the answer is yes, would it not be better for those powers to adopt an honest and transparent approach to the international community, provide precise information about the main elements and their arms and financial support system, and accept responsibility for their inhuman actions against nations and countries, and thereby assist peoples and nations to correctly, wisely and sincerely fight the roots of terrorism.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Bronwen, unfortunately the west has too many liberal 'peace not war' fanatics to allow a quick but sure conclusion to the terrorist problem.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: Bronwen, unfortunately the west has too many liberal 'peace not war' fanatics to allow a quick but sure conclusion to the terrorist problem.Surprise me, Raven, what "quick but sure conclusion to the terrorist problem" is this?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Bomb the mosque of Oman of course. Bomb a mosque for every person that these b'stards kill with with their suicide bombs.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: Bomb the mosque of Oman of course. Bomb a mosque for every person that these b'stards kill with with their suicide bombs.What a curious display of justice that would be - or are you hoping to deplete these places of prayer and worship without that vile euphemism "collateral damage" coming into play?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
The world has been a place of collateral damage since people built fences around farms. There has always been the spectre of warfare and invasion since man said 'this is mine'. Why now, in this time, do people seem to think war and conflict can be resolved without 'collateral damage'? It cant. People can talk till they are blue in the face. Just ask native americans about treaties, and if they can be kept. Iran wants the bomb. Why? Israel. And Iraq of course. If Iran goes ahead and developes the nuke, you cant see a problem here?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: The world has been a place of collateral damage since people built fences around farms. There has always been the spectre of warfare and invasion since man said 'this is mine'. Why now, in this time, do people seem to think war and conflict can be resolved without 'collateral damage'? It cant. People can talk till they are blue in the face. Just ask native americans about treaties, and if they can be kept. Iran wants the bomb. Why? Israel. And Iraq of course. If Iran goes ahead and developes the nuke, you cant see a problem here?
Perhaps you missed the bit in President Ahmadinejad's earlier speech where he says "The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited."?
He did discuss, yesterday, his position on nuclear weapons:Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren`t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.You say "Iran wants the bomb" without the excuse of evidence and despite all the advantage that such a suggestion has for swaying public opinion - don't you feel it's even possible that such convenient propaganda is untrue?
Perhaps you missed the bit in President Ahmadinejad's earlier speech where he says "The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited."?
He did discuss, yesterday, his position on nuclear weapons:Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren`t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.You say "Iran wants the bomb" without the excuse of evidence and despite all the advantage that such a suggestion has for swaying public opinion - don't you feel it's even possible that such convenient propaganda is untrue?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
I guess the world will just wait and see. What people say and what people do are usually entirely different things. The proof is in the pudding, to coin an old phrase.
While what he says is admirable and reasonable, we shall see what he actually does.
Personally I think the most horrible evil is a nuclear bomb. The world would be a much safer place for all concerned if we all just got rid of them. But we wont. Thats just the times we live in. And to quote a famous wizard, 'we just have to decide what to do with the time we're given.'
While what he says is admirable and reasonable, we shall see what he actually does.
Personally I think the most horrible evil is a nuclear bomb. The world would be a much safer place for all concerned if we all just got rid of them. But we wont. Thats just the times we live in. And to quote a famous wizard, 'we just have to decide what to do with the time we're given.'
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: I guess the world will just wait and see. What people say and what people do are usually entirely different things. The proof is in the pudding, to coin an old phrase.
While what he says is admirable and reasonable, we shall see what he actually does.
Personally I think the most horrible evil is a nuclear bomb. The world would be a much safer place for all concerned if we all just got rid of them. But we wont. Thats just the times we live in. And to quote a famous wizard, 'we just have to decide what to do with the time we're given.'
You'll be delighted to hear that President Ahmadinejad agrees with your position entirely, then - he addressed that very issue last September addressing the General Assembly:Thousands of nuclear warheads that are stockpiled in various locations coupled with programs to further develop these inhuman weapons have created a new atmosphere of repression and the rule of the machines of war, threatening the international community and even the citizens of the countries that possess them.
Ironically, those who have actually used nuclear weapons, continue to produce, stockpile and extensively test such weapons, have used depleted uranium bombs and bullets against tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Kuwaitis, and even their own soldiers and those of their allies, afflicting them with incurable diseases, blatantly violate their obligations under the NPT, have refrained from signing the CTBT and have armed the Zionist occupation regime with WMDs, are not only refusing to remedy their past deeds, but in clear breech of the NPT, are trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.
All these problems emanate from the fact that justice and spirituality are missing in the way powerful governments conduct their affairs with other nations.
While what he says is admirable and reasonable, we shall see what he actually does.
Personally I think the most horrible evil is a nuclear bomb. The world would be a much safer place for all concerned if we all just got rid of them. But we wont. Thats just the times we live in. And to quote a famous wizard, 'we just have to decide what to do with the time we're given.'
You'll be delighted to hear that President Ahmadinejad agrees with your position entirely, then - he addressed that very issue last September addressing the General Assembly:Thousands of nuclear warheads that are stockpiled in various locations coupled with programs to further develop these inhuman weapons have created a new atmosphere of repression and the rule of the machines of war, threatening the international community and even the citizens of the countries that possess them.
Ironically, those who have actually used nuclear weapons, continue to produce, stockpile and extensively test such weapons, have used depleted uranium bombs and bullets against tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Kuwaitis, and even their own soldiers and those of their allies, afflicting them with incurable diseases, blatantly violate their obligations under the NPT, have refrained from signing the CTBT and have armed the Zionist occupation regime with WMDs, are not only refusing to remedy their past deeds, but in clear breech of the NPT, are trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.
All these problems emanate from the fact that justice and spirituality are missing in the way powerful governments conduct their affairs with other nations.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
and have armed the Zionist occupation regime with WMDs, are not only refusing to remedy their past deeds, but in clear breech of the NPT, are trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.
Why is it noone actually HEARS what he is saying? That is the whole cause of the middle east problem, in a nut shell.
Zionist occupation regime??? I take it he is referring to Israel. And those who equipped them? He means us of course. And no....not peaceful nuclear energy. He has refused any compromise on enriching uranium. If peacefull nuclear energy is what they are truly after, then why refuse the offer of someone else to enrich it for you? hmmmmmmmm Maybe so they can blast the zionist occupation regime to God.
Why is it noone actually HEARS what he is saying? That is the whole cause of the middle east problem, in a nut shell.
Zionist occupation regime??? I take it he is referring to Israel. And those who equipped them? He means us of course. And no....not peaceful nuclear energy. He has refused any compromise on enriching uranium. If peacefull nuclear energy is what they are truly after, then why refuse the offer of someone else to enrich it for you? hmmmmmmmm Maybe so they can blast the zionist occupation regime to God.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: Why is it noone actually HEARS what he is saying? That is the whole cause of the middle east problem, in a nut shell.
Zionist occupation regime??? I take it he is referring to Israel. And those who equipped them? He means us of course. And no....not peaceful nuclear energy. He has refused any compromise on enriching uranium. If peacefull nuclear energy is what they are truly after, then why refuse the offer of someone else to enrich it for you? hmmmmmmmm Maybe so they can blast the zionist occupation regime to God.There are two grades of enrichment, one to reach a concentration which works in a reactor to generate power, and one which works in a bomb. Nobody, but nobody, has said that Iran has taken enrichment beyond that first level, and the IAEA has been watching very closely and reported exactly that.
Nobody is going to strike Israel with nuclear weapons either, because the Israelis have - as was pointed out in the passage you quoted - plenty of warheads to retaliate overwhelmingly if it happened. Nobody is even going to invade across their border. Nobody has invaded across their border in over thirty years, before most of today's Israelis were even born.
I've quoted several passages from his speech, why is it you don't "actually HEAR what he is saying"? He's very clear, he's very lucid, he's very reasonable.
Zionist occupation regime??? I take it he is referring to Israel. And those who equipped them? He means us of course. And no....not peaceful nuclear energy. He has refused any compromise on enriching uranium. If peacefull nuclear energy is what they are truly after, then why refuse the offer of someone else to enrich it for you? hmmmmmmmm Maybe so they can blast the zionist occupation regime to God.There are two grades of enrichment, one to reach a concentration which works in a reactor to generate power, and one which works in a bomb. Nobody, but nobody, has said that Iran has taken enrichment beyond that first level, and the IAEA has been watching very closely and reported exactly that.
Nobody is going to strike Israel with nuclear weapons either, because the Israelis have - as was pointed out in the passage you quoted - plenty of warheads to retaliate overwhelmingly if it happened. Nobody is even going to invade across their border. Nobody has invaded across their border in over thirty years, before most of today's Israelis were even born.
I've quoted several passages from his speech, why is it you don't "actually HEAR what he is saying"? He's very clear, he's very lucid, he's very reasonable.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
I am obviously hearing with different ears. Appeasment has never worked before. Hitler said he wasnt going to invade the rest of the eastern bloc either! History teaches many things. But the most poignant is that when world leaders stand up in front of an international audience and say they arent going to do something, you can bet your last pence they are!
I choose to be skeptical. With an outright proper *snort*!
I choose to be skeptical. With an outright proper *snort*!
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: I am obviously hearing with different ears. Appeasment has never worked before. Hitler said he wasnt going to invade the rest of the eastern bloc either! History teaches many things. But the most poignant is that when world leaders stand up in front of an international audience and say they arent going to do something, you can bet your last pence they are!
I choose to be skeptical. With an outright proper *snort*!You think Iran has ambitions to expand beyond its current borders? I can see no reason at all to believe that's true. Iran wants to be self-governing within its own borders which has been the traditional ambition of non-Imperial independent countries for centuries.
We are a proud land, we stand for freedom
We've got the franchise on how to lead them
We've got the history and books to prove it
Give us the mountain and we will move it
We rule the waves and seven seas
We bring the mighty to their knees
We offer hope and inspiration
A fine example to lesser nations
We are Britannia, the jewel in the crown.
I choose to be skeptical. With an outright proper *snort*!You think Iran has ambitions to expand beyond its current borders? I can see no reason at all to believe that's true. Iran wants to be self-governing within its own borders which has been the traditional ambition of non-Imperial independent countries for centuries.
We are a proud land, we stand for freedom
We've got the franchise on how to lead them
We've got the history and books to prove it
Give us the mountain and we will move it
We rule the waves and seven seas
We bring the mighty to their knees
We offer hope and inspiration
A fine example to lesser nations
We are Britannia, the jewel in the crown.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Nope. I dont think they are wanting to re-establish the persian empire. I just think they are wanting what Israel has. The ability to destroy it's neighbors. Just like Pakistan and India.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: Nope. I dont think they are wanting to re-establish the persian empire. I just think they are wanting what Israel has. The ability to destroy it's neighbors. Just like Pakistan and India.In which case why would you mind if they had it? Who's ever had such a power and used it against another country possessing the same capacity? Who's ever acquired such a power and subsequently been invaded? Who can imagine any country using such a weapon on another nuclear-armed power and not receiving retaliation in kind? I thought these things were considered peacekeepers between the nuclear-armed nations. I'm not in the least agreeing with you that Iran has expressed any ambition to own such weapons, nor that they're trying to develop them, I ask only because of the direction you're taking the thread.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
LOL! We have wandered off topic a bit. I wouldnt call them peacekeepers so much as equalizers. And as long as anyone has them, the world is doomed. To a long nuclear winter which it may never recover from. And all it takes is one person to get an itchy finger. You would be okay with one more nation able to provoke? I think one nuke is one too many, but one more nation to be nuke capable is pretty much guaranteeing the inevitible.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: LOL! We have wandered off topic a bit. I wouldnt call them peacekeepers so much as equalizers. And as long as anyone has them, the world is doomed. To a long nuclear winter which it may never recover from. And all it takes is one person to get an itchy finger. You would be okay with one more nation able to provoke? I think one nuke is one too many, but one more nation to be nuke capable is pretty much guaranteeing the inevitible.Egypt's gonna get one, too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb!
Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!
Who's next, who's next, who's next?
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb!
Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!
Who's next, who's next, who's next?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen. From Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom. And the nations gathered in this chamber must make a choice, as well: Will we support the moderates and reformers who are working for change across the Middle East -- or will we yield the future to the terrorists and extremists? America has made its choice: We will stand with the moderates and reformers. Recently a courageous group of Arab and Muslim intellectuals wrote me a letter. In it, they said this: "The shore of reform is the only one on which any lights appear, even though the journey demands courage and patience and perseverance." The United Nations was created to make that journey possible. Together we must support the dreams of good and decent people who are working to transform a troubled region -- and by doing so, we will advance the high ideals on which this institution was founded.
I kind of like that myself.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: I kind of like that myself.Ok... so may I have my go at "President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly" now?
Recently a different group of extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon. At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace.Well, there's a two-edged sword if ever there were. You get a million and a half displaced people and use the word "terror" and pretend it's one-sided? There's a million cluster-bombs scattered through southern Lebanon now, and nobody's going to die from them in the years to come? This is the work of "moderate people"?
This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.I'm all for it. All we need do is resist American interference beyond its borders and everyone will be "be free to determine their own destiny". "Marginalize extremists" will go on my next placard. "This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together" will go on the one after that.Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings.
I'm practically boggle-eyed at this point. The administration which brought in traceless unauditable "voting" machines to determine all future US elections has the gall to claim "you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings" and brandish fair elections as an example?To the people of Afghanistan: Together, we overthrew the Taliban regime that brought misery into your lives and harbored terrorists who brought death to the citizens of many nations.Who, in the name of goodness, is "we"? "Together we overthrew"? He's claiming Afghan involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan, now? Those were Afghan B1s and Warthogs spewing destruction day after day?
It's a mirror world, it really is.
Recently a different group of extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon. At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace.Well, there's a two-edged sword if ever there were. You get a million and a half displaced people and use the word "terror" and pretend it's one-sided? There's a million cluster-bombs scattered through southern Lebanon now, and nobody's going to die from them in the years to come? This is the work of "moderate people"?
This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.I'm all for it. All we need do is resist American interference beyond its borders and everyone will be "be free to determine their own destiny". "Marginalize extremists" will go on my next placard. "This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together" will go on the one after that.Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings.
I'm practically boggle-eyed at this point. The administration which brought in traceless unauditable "voting" machines to determine all future US elections has the gall to claim "you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings" and brandish fair elections as an example?To the people of Afghanistan: Together, we overthrew the Taliban regime that brought misery into your lives and harbored terrorists who brought death to the citizens of many nations.Who, in the name of goodness, is "we"? "Together we overthrew"? He's claiming Afghan involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan, now? Those were Afghan B1s and Warthogs spewing destruction day after day?
It's a mirror world, it really is.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Basically you just said Israel didnt have the right to defend themselves. If Lebanon didnt want war, then it shouldnt have let hezbollah fire rockets into Israel from Lebanese soil. People cant have it both ways. If they are stupid enough to play at 'who got bigger bomb' then they will lose.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
spot wrote: Ok... so may I have my go at "President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly" now?
Recently a different group of extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon. At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace.Well, there's a two-edged sword if ever there were. You get a million and a half displaced people and use the word "terror" and pretend it's one-sided? There's a million cluster-bombs scattered through southern Lebanon now, and nobody's going to die from them in the years to come? This is the work of "moderate people"?
This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.I'm all for it. All we need do is resist American interference beyond its borders and everyone will be "be free to determine their own destiny". "Marginalize extremists" will go on my next placard. "This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together" will go on the one after that.Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings.
I'm practically boggle-eyed at this point. The administration which brought in traceless unauditable "voting" machines to determine all future US elections has the gall to claim "you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings" and brandish fair elections as an example?To the people of Afghanistan: Together, we overthrew the Taliban regime that brought misery into your lives and harbored terrorists who brought death to the citizens of many nations.Who, in the name of goodness, is "we"? "Together we overthrew"? He's claiming Afghan involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan, now? Those were Afghan B1s and Warthogs spewing destruction day after day?
It's a mirror world, it really is.
Wow it takes a long time to read through this thread Spot. Can you tone down on the polemics a bit please?:wah:
I think you need to review your facts. We'll start with Afganistan as I will probabably have a severe case of carpatonal by the time I get done responding to all your inaccurate information which is bascially just your opinion. Shall we begin:
1. Harken back to Nov 2001 not long after an attack on US soil planned by a group operating from where? Oh yes that would be Afghanistan wouldn't it?
2. Here is a resaonably accurate review of the real events in the country leading up to and through the "invasion" by the US if you care to refresh your memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_U.S._ ... ember_2001
The key point is that almost all the ground forces where Afghanis from parts of the country that couldn't live under the freedom loving Taliban. Of course US airpower and special forces gave them the desive edge they needed to win.
So I guess responding to an attack on the US from where it was planned and organized = US interference outside our borders. Dang, we used to call that self defense.
I assume the extremist in Lebanon you are refering to would be Hizbollah who attempted to make some political hay with Arabs by kidnapping two IDF soldiers while Isarael was distracted dealing with Hamas terrorists another group who likes kidnapping soldiers it seems. Such pillars of virtue are they these freedom fighters.
Your assertion about the voting machines is to funny to respond to seriously so I won't. By the way I didn't vote for Bush so I'm not defendingn them, that's just not how they stole the election.
I have major issues with the US invasion of Iraq and feel like it was a huge mistake. We broke it and didn't have a plan to fix it and now we are caught in the middle of a vicious sectarian civil war and some regular old massive criminal activities and corruption. I suppose it is not unfair to say we deserve it, but we can't just up and leave right now so your preaching about it being wrong is unhelpful.
Finally, your new hero, the President of Iran is talking out the side of his mouth (or maybe from somewhere else). Iran has been actively funding, training and arming terrorists for decades; they are a true terrorist state. Sharia is exploitive and restrictive at best in spite of your defense. If I was a woman I would be looking for the exit of any state that implements it. Iran wants a nuclear weapon so it can threaten it's neigbors and become and even bigger bully on the ME block and dominate the oil market. Hopefully they would never be stupid enough to actually use one; but, I fear they might provide one to one of those freedom fighting groups previously mentioned..
You are a wonderful writer Spot but do actually ever read history or check out any facts?:-6
Recently a different group of extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon. At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace.Well, there's a two-edged sword if ever there were. You get a million and a half displaced people and use the word "terror" and pretend it's one-sided? There's a million cluster-bombs scattered through southern Lebanon now, and nobody's going to die from them in the years to come? This is the work of "moderate people"?
This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.I'm all for it. All we need do is resist American interference beyond its borders and everyone will be "be free to determine their own destiny". "Marginalize extremists" will go on my next placard. "This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together" will go on the one after that.Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings.
I'm practically boggle-eyed at this point. The administration which brought in traceless unauditable "voting" machines to determine all future US elections has the gall to claim "you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings" and brandish fair elections as an example?To the people of Afghanistan: Together, we overthrew the Taliban regime that brought misery into your lives and harbored terrorists who brought death to the citizens of many nations.Who, in the name of goodness, is "we"? "Together we overthrew"? He's claiming Afghan involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan, now? Those were Afghan B1s and Warthogs spewing destruction day after day?
It's a mirror world, it really is.
Wow it takes a long time to read through this thread Spot. Can you tone down on the polemics a bit please?:wah:
I think you need to review your facts. We'll start with Afganistan as I will probabably have a severe case of carpatonal by the time I get done responding to all your inaccurate information which is bascially just your opinion. Shall we begin:
1. Harken back to Nov 2001 not long after an attack on US soil planned by a group operating from where? Oh yes that would be Afghanistan wouldn't it?
2. Here is a resaonably accurate review of the real events in the country leading up to and through the "invasion" by the US if you care to refresh your memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_U.S._ ... ember_2001
The key point is that almost all the ground forces where Afghanis from parts of the country that couldn't live under the freedom loving Taliban. Of course US airpower and special forces gave them the desive edge they needed to win.
So I guess responding to an attack on the US from where it was planned and organized = US interference outside our borders. Dang, we used to call that self defense.
I assume the extremist in Lebanon you are refering to would be Hizbollah who attempted to make some political hay with Arabs by kidnapping two IDF soldiers while Isarael was distracted dealing with Hamas terrorists another group who likes kidnapping soldiers it seems. Such pillars of virtue are they these freedom fighters.
Your assertion about the voting machines is to funny to respond to seriously so I won't. By the way I didn't vote for Bush so I'm not defendingn them, that's just not how they stole the election.
I have major issues with the US invasion of Iraq and feel like it was a huge mistake. We broke it and didn't have a plan to fix it and now we are caught in the middle of a vicious sectarian civil war and some regular old massive criminal activities and corruption. I suppose it is not unfair to say we deserve it, but we can't just up and leave right now so your preaching about it being wrong is unhelpful.
Finally, your new hero, the President of Iran is talking out the side of his mouth (or maybe from somewhere else). Iran has been actively funding, training and arming terrorists for decades; they are a true terrorist state. Sharia is exploitive and restrictive at best in spite of your defense. If I was a woman I would be looking for the exit of any state that implements it. Iran wants a nuclear weapon so it can threaten it's neigbors and become and even bigger bully on the ME block and dominate the oil market. Hopefully they would never be stupid enough to actually use one; but, I fear they might provide one to one of those freedom fighting groups previously mentioned..
You are a wonderful writer Spot but do actually ever read history or check out any facts?:-6
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
President Bush Speaks to UN
zinkyusa wrote: You are a wonderful writer Spot but do actually ever read history or check out any facts?Far more often than most people on this site. How you can say that in a post with no quotes baffles me, I see much opinion there but no substantiation. What benefit does anyone derive from a wiki timeline like that, for example, if you don't highlight what you're referencing it for? You want me to spend an hour reading rather than writing? I've already read it. Yes the US bought a pack of warlords from the Northern Alliance, I watched John Simpson liberate Kabul at the head of them. Speaking to the Afghan people as "we" invaded Afghanistan together is still a fanciful notion. The fighting at the moment obviously can't involve any native Afghans then.
How does a country threaten a neighbour with a nuclear weapon? I didn't think it had the least effect. When did it happen? What was the result? To "provide one to one of those freedom fighting groups previously mentioned" is the stuff of bad novels. "We can't just up and leave right now" is fine, I have no desire whatever to see your force numbers reduced in Iraq any time in the next twenty years, but then, I'm not an Iraqi. I note your opinion on the moral legitimacy of killing civilians in Lebanon, without agreeing with it. Or were you doubting my numbers? It was not I referring to extremists in Lebanon, that was your War Leader, George "bring'em on" Bush, the guy in the combat gear under the Mission Accomplished banner.
zinkyusa wrote: Your assertion about the voting machines is to funny to respond to seriously so I won't.You seriously don't think there's a crisis of confidence in US electoral practice? If it were in a totalitarian state you'd be laughing at the lack of accountability, with no paper trail, no demonstrable proof that tampering with the programs were impossible, no way back after the event to show the impartiality of the process. I think the statistical analyses on http://www.blackboxvoting.org show how future fraud will eventually be exposed. After that it's a matter of who controls the media as to whether it gets taken up by the electorate - as with so many of these issues.
zinkyusa wrote: Harken back to Nov 2001 not long after an attack on US soil planned by a group operating from where? Oh yes that would be Afghanistan wouldn't it?It surprises me that so little evidence has been produced to back that assertion up. Would you like to find some? Tell a lie often enough and it gets generally accepted. No, I don't think 9/11 had anything to do with either Afghanistan or even the Taliban, but I do recognise that it's often assumed.
How does a country threaten a neighbour with a nuclear weapon? I didn't think it had the least effect. When did it happen? What was the result? To "provide one to one of those freedom fighting groups previously mentioned" is the stuff of bad novels. "We can't just up and leave right now" is fine, I have no desire whatever to see your force numbers reduced in Iraq any time in the next twenty years, but then, I'm not an Iraqi. I note your opinion on the moral legitimacy of killing civilians in Lebanon, without agreeing with it. Or were you doubting my numbers? It was not I referring to extremists in Lebanon, that was your War Leader, George "bring'em on" Bush, the guy in the combat gear under the Mission Accomplished banner.
zinkyusa wrote: Your assertion about the voting machines is to funny to respond to seriously so I won't.You seriously don't think there's a crisis of confidence in US electoral practice? If it were in a totalitarian state you'd be laughing at the lack of accountability, with no paper trail, no demonstrable proof that tampering with the programs were impossible, no way back after the event to show the impartiality of the process. I think the statistical analyses on http://www.blackboxvoting.org show how future fraud will eventually be exposed. After that it's a matter of who controls the media as to whether it gets taken up by the electorate - as with so many of these issues.
zinkyusa wrote: Harken back to Nov 2001 not long after an attack on US soil planned by a group operating from where? Oh yes that would be Afghanistan wouldn't it?It surprises me that so little evidence has been produced to back that assertion up. Would you like to find some? Tell a lie often enough and it gets generally accepted. No, I don't think 9/11 had anything to do with either Afghanistan or even the Taliban, but I do recognise that it's often assumed.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
spot wrote: Far more often than most people on this site. How you can say that in a post with no quotes baffles me, I see much opinion there but no substantiation. What benefit does anyone derive from a wiki timeline like that, for example, if you don't highlight what you're referencing it for? You want me to spend an hour reading rather than writing? I've already read it. Yes the US bought a pack of warlords from the Northern Alliance, I watched John Simpson liberate Kabul at the head of them. Speaking to the Afghan people as "we" invaded Afghanistan together is still a fanciful notion. The fighting at the moment obviously can't involve any native Afghans then.
How does a country threaten a neighbour with a nuclear weapon? I didn't think it had the least effect. When did it happen? What was the result? To "provide one to one of those freedom fighting groups previously mentioned" is the stuff of bad novels. "We can't just up and leave right now" is fine, I have no desire whatever to see your force numbers reduced in Iraq any time in the next twenty years, but then, I'm not an Iraqi. I note your opinion on the moral legitimacy of killing civilians in Lebanon, without agreeing with it. Or were you doubting my numbers? It was not I referring to extremists in Lebanon, that was your War Leader, George "bring'em on" Bush, the guy in the combat gear under the Mission Accomplished banner.
You seriously don't think there's a crisis of confidence in US electoral practice? If it were in a totalitarian state you'd be laughing at the lack of accountability, with no paper trail, no demonstrable proof that tampering with the programs were impossible, no way back after the event to show the impartiality of the process. I think the statistical analyses on http://www.blackboxvoting.org show how future fraud will eventually be exposed. After that it's a matter of who controls the media as to whether it gets taken up by the electorate - as with so many of these issues.
It surprises me that so little evidence has been produced to back that assertion up. Would you like to find some? Tell a lie often enough and it gets generally accepted. No, I don't think 9/11 had anything to do with either Afghanistan or even the Taliban, but I do recognise that it's often assumed.
Well I guess if you read one must question what you read. Fantasy no doubt.
How many links and press reports would you like since you have a problem with wiki timeline?
Here is another summation from answers.com:
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of ... since-1992
There were also Pashtun groups fighting in the south against the Taliban. Later there groups. Pretty much everything was run by warlords or the Taliban at the time so I don't see the relavence of your point.
As for the threat of nuclear weapons it works quite well as long as only side has them. After World War Two the US relied almost exclusively on them to deter (threaten) the USSR from invading the rest of Europe (until they developed their own). NK likes to think they can deter an attack on their country by threatening their neighbors with nuclear destruction. Same thing with Pakistan and India. Iran would love to have the nuke for the same reason, I repeat my main fear is that they will provide one to an extremist group.
Well then I guess we agree on Lebanon in that the reference to to extremists applies to Hizbollah.
I don't require your blackbox link, but thank you for the link. As an unhappy democrat I did my own exhaustive due diligence on the issue hoping to find evidence of election tampering. Yes there is always some amount in every election by schills of both parties but that goes with the territory unfortunatley.
The machines were messed up but they were rushed into use and they should have had paper backup audit trails, no argument. It was a tiny part of the election in a huge nation that was badly divided giving it a disproportional impact.
If you don't believe Afghanistan was used by the Alqueda leadershp to plan the 911 attacks please provide some sources of your own. I read the offical US Gov't 911 Report which clearly indicates that it was.
How does a country threaten a neighbour with a nuclear weapon? I didn't think it had the least effect. When did it happen? What was the result? To "provide one to one of those freedom fighting groups previously mentioned" is the stuff of bad novels. "We can't just up and leave right now" is fine, I have no desire whatever to see your force numbers reduced in Iraq any time in the next twenty years, but then, I'm not an Iraqi. I note your opinion on the moral legitimacy of killing civilians in Lebanon, without agreeing with it. Or were you doubting my numbers? It was not I referring to extremists in Lebanon, that was your War Leader, George "bring'em on" Bush, the guy in the combat gear under the Mission Accomplished banner.
You seriously don't think there's a crisis of confidence in US electoral practice? If it were in a totalitarian state you'd be laughing at the lack of accountability, with no paper trail, no demonstrable proof that tampering with the programs were impossible, no way back after the event to show the impartiality of the process. I think the statistical analyses on http://www.blackboxvoting.org show how future fraud will eventually be exposed. After that it's a matter of who controls the media as to whether it gets taken up by the electorate - as with so many of these issues.
It surprises me that so little evidence has been produced to back that assertion up. Would you like to find some? Tell a lie often enough and it gets generally accepted. No, I don't think 9/11 had anything to do with either Afghanistan or even the Taliban, but I do recognise that it's often assumed.
Well I guess if you read one must question what you read. Fantasy no doubt.
How many links and press reports would you like since you have a problem with wiki timeline?
Here is another summation from answers.com:
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of ... since-1992
There were also Pashtun groups fighting in the south against the Taliban. Later there groups. Pretty much everything was run by warlords or the Taliban at the time so I don't see the relavence of your point.
As for the threat of nuclear weapons it works quite well as long as only side has them. After World War Two the US relied almost exclusively on them to deter (threaten) the USSR from invading the rest of Europe (until they developed their own). NK likes to think they can deter an attack on their country by threatening their neighbors with nuclear destruction. Same thing with Pakistan and India. Iran would love to have the nuke for the same reason, I repeat my main fear is that they will provide one to an extremist group.
Well then I guess we agree on Lebanon in that the reference to to extremists applies to Hizbollah.
I don't require your blackbox link, but thank you for the link. As an unhappy democrat I did my own exhaustive due diligence on the issue hoping to find evidence of election tampering. Yes there is always some amount in every election by schills of both parties but that goes with the territory unfortunatley.
The machines were messed up but they were rushed into use and they should have had paper backup audit trails, no argument. It was a tiny part of the election in a huge nation that was badly divided giving it a disproportional impact.
If you don't believe Afghanistan was used by the Alqueda leadershp to plan the 911 attacks please provide some sources of your own. I read the offical US Gov't 911 Report which clearly indicates that it was.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
President Bush Speaks to UN
zinkyusa wrote: Well I guess if you read one must question what you read. Fantasy no doubt.
How many links and press reports would you like since you have a problem with wiki timeline?Step back, zinky. "Fantasy no doubt" isn't needed. I have no problem whatever with the wiki timeline, just with your notion that you can set me an hour's homework and leave me puzzled as to which few lines were relevant to your point. The way to do this is to cite your souce as a URL and to quote a line or two demonstrating why it matters to your argument.
Have you calmed down slightly yet? I don't do fights, I do discussions.
How many links and press reports would you like since you have a problem with wiki timeline?Step back, zinky. "Fantasy no doubt" isn't needed. I have no problem whatever with the wiki timeline, just with your notion that you can set me an hour's homework and leave me puzzled as to which few lines were relevant to your point. The way to do this is to cite your souce as a URL and to quote a line or two demonstrating why it matters to your argument.
Have you calmed down slightly yet? I don't do fights, I do discussions.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
zinkyusa wrote: The machines were messed up but they were rushed into use and they should have had paper backup audit trails, no argument.My be-all and end-all point on this is that they don't, they won't, there's no reason for it and it does leave the entire reliance on the integrity of the designers, programmers, covert tricks departments (of which there are many) and operators. People have demonstrated already that the records can be patched fraudulently, regardless of whether program changes can be introduced covertly. It's nonsensical that they should be designed this way, it leaves open the possibility of national jimmying not just the traditional local electoral fraud.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
President Bush Speaks to UN
spot wrote: You say "Iran wants the bomb" without the excuse of evidence and despite all the advantage that such a suggestion has for swaying public opinion - don't you feel it's even possible that such convenient propaganda is untrue?
No, I don't. I can understand being "anti-war" but it never ceases to amaze me how liberals will discount everything Bush or Blair says as lies but quote Ahmadinejad as a respectable statesmen. This is the man who said the holocaust was a myth. This is the man who said Israel should be wiped from the map (he plans on doing that with nuclear energy?). This is the man who said that the wave of Islamic revolution would reach the entire world. This is the man that said, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." He is an interesting choice to hold up as a paragon of integrity and peace.
As for collateral damage, the U.S., British, and allied forces have gone to extemes to prevent collateral damage (this war could have been over long ago). The "insurgents"/"freedom fighters" (as liberals love to refer them) have not. They want for the moment that American soldiers interact with Iraqi children to explode their bombs. They desecrate their own "holy" mosques. They kill peaceful Iraqis by the hundreds with no remorse.
No, I don't. I can understand being "anti-war" but it never ceases to amaze me how liberals will discount everything Bush or Blair says as lies but quote Ahmadinejad as a respectable statesmen. This is the man who said the holocaust was a myth. This is the man who said Israel should be wiped from the map (he plans on doing that with nuclear energy?). This is the man who said that the wave of Islamic revolution would reach the entire world. This is the man that said, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." He is an interesting choice to hold up as a paragon of integrity and peace.
As for collateral damage, the U.S., British, and allied forces have gone to extemes to prevent collateral damage (this war could have been over long ago). The "insurgents"/"freedom fighters" (as liberals love to refer them) have not. They want for the moment that American soldiers interact with Iraqi children to explode their bombs. They desecrate their own "holy" mosques. They kill peaceful Iraqis by the hundreds with no remorse.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
President Bush Speaks to UN
spot wrote: You seriously don't think there's a crisis of confidence in US electoral practice?
You think electoral fraud started with electronic voting machines and George Bush? Ever heard of John F. Kennedy? Familiar with the Daley Democratic machine in Chicago or Huey Long in Louisiana?
You think electoral fraud started with electronic voting machines and George Bush? Ever heard of John F. Kennedy? Familiar with the Daley Democratic machine in Chicago or Huey Long in Louisiana?
President Bush Speaks to UN
spot wrote: Step back, zinky. "Fantasy no doubt" isn't needed. I have no problem whatever with the wiki timeline, just with your notion that you can set me an hour's homework and leave me puzzled as to which few lines were relevant to your point. The way to do this is to cite your souce as a URL and to quote a line or two demonstrating why it matters to your argument.
Have you calmed down slightly yet? I don't do fights, I do discussions.
Actually I was hoping you would read the entire article, since you seem to have acquired a substanially different version of history than the ROW. Where do you get your info on this subject btw.
I'm calm I assure you and not trying to start a fight. Many of your remarks are so preposterous it is difficult to address them without some degree of sarcasm. You are obviously an intelligent well informed fellow (when you choose to be) so I can only conclude you have a hidden agenda, an axe to grind vis a vis my country. Thus you say ridiculous outlandish things to sway others who may not so well informed.
Have you calmed down slightly yet? I don't do fights, I do discussions.
Actually I was hoping you would read the entire article, since you seem to have acquired a substanially different version of history than the ROW. Where do you get your info on this subject btw.
I'm calm I assure you and not trying to start a fight. Many of your remarks are so preposterous it is difficult to address them without some degree of sarcasm. You are obviously an intelligent well informed fellow (when you choose to be) so I can only conclude you have a hidden agenda, an axe to grind vis a vis my country. Thus you say ridiculous outlandish things to sway others who may not so well informed.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
President Bush Speaks to UN
spot wrote: There are two grades of enrichment, one to reach a concentration which works in a reactor to generate power, and one which works in a bomb. Nobody, but nobody, has said that Iran has taken enrichment beyond that first level, and the IAEA has been watching very closely and reported exactly that.
Indeed, they have gone far further than that.
Last Friday the IAEA sent a letter of protest to the US Government calling the congressional statements "outrageous and dishonest" saying they containd serious distortions of the IAEA findings
Herewith the Reuters report of the occurrance :-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060914/ts_ ... ran_usa_dc
Indeed, they have gone far further than that.
Last Friday the IAEA sent a letter of protest to the US Government calling the congressional statements "outrageous and dishonest" saying they containd serious distortions of the IAEA findings
Herewith the Reuters report of the occurrance :-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060914/ts_ ... ran_usa_dc
President Bush Speaks to UN
Bryn Mawr wrote: Indeed, they have gone far further than that.
Last Friday the IAEA sent a letter of protest to the US Government calling the congressional statements "outrageous and dishonest" saying they containd serious distortions of the IAEA findings
Herewith the Reuters report of the occurrance :-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060914/ts_ ... ran_usa_dc
From your link:
"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations.
And people speak about learning from history. Pah.
Last Friday the IAEA sent a letter of protest to the US Government calling the congressional statements "outrageous and dishonest" saying they containd serious distortions of the IAEA findings
Herewith the Reuters report of the occurrance :-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060914/ts_ ... ran_usa_dc
From your link:
"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations.
And people speak about learning from history. Pah.
President Bush Speaks to UN
And people speak about learning from history. Pah.
I think what I said was that we never do.
I think what I said was that we never do.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
President Bush Speaks to UN
Bryn Mawr wrote: Indeed, they have gone far further than that.
Gosh your wording leaves a lot to be desired on occasion... "They" in this case, if I may interpolate some clarity for the sake of generations as yet unborn, is the IEAE have gone far further than that in their criticism of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence, not the Iranians have gone far further than that in their reactor-grade Uranium enrichment concentrations. Save us from gratuitous addenda, O Lord, and try not the patience of Thy servant beyond his just desserts, for Thou knowest well his meagre limitations.
Adam, there's a great difference between localized electoral fraud and systematic nationwide rigging with no audit trail, surely you can recognize that.
Gosh your wording leaves a lot to be desired on occasion... "They" in this case, if I may interpolate some clarity for the sake of generations as yet unborn, is the IEAE have gone far further than that in their criticism of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence, not the Iranians have gone far further than that in their reactor-grade Uranium enrichment concentrations. Save us from gratuitous addenda, O Lord, and try not the patience of Thy servant beyond his just desserts, for Thou knowest well his meagre limitations.
Adam, there's a great difference between localized electoral fraud and systematic nationwide rigging with no audit trail, surely you can recognize that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Raven wrote: I think what I said was that we never do.
On this we agree.
In further looks at Bush's claim to spreading democracy and why the middle east might be unstable we raise a few questions. Like: how can the US claim to support democracy? and what is their past involvement with Iran?
In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.
Amy Goodman
On this we agree.
In further looks at Bush's claim to spreading democracy and why the middle east might be unstable we raise a few questions. Like: how can the US claim to support democracy? and what is their past involvement with Iran?
In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.
Amy Goodman
President Bush Speaks to UN
koan wrote: On this we agree.
In further looks at Bush's claim to spreading democracy and why the middle east might be unstable we raise a few questions. Like: how can the US claim to support democracy? and what is their past involvement with Iran?
In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.Amy Goodman
No doubt about it. The things that governments get up to behind closed doors is sinister.
All we usually see of it are things like what is going on today.
In further looks at Bush's claim to spreading democracy and why the middle east might be unstable we raise a few questions. Like: how can the US claim to support democracy? and what is their past involvement with Iran?
In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.Amy Goodman
No doubt about it. The things that governments get up to behind closed doors is sinister.
All we usually see of it are things like what is going on today.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
President Bush Speaks to UN
spot, there is no systematic national election rigging. Remember we are under the electoral college. Individual states have a lot to say about how their delegates are selected. JFK was elected due to voter fraud. It's nothing recently instituted by the neocons. In fact, voting seems to be a much cleaner and honest enterprise than it was 50 some odd years ago.
President Bush Speaks to UN
spot wrote: Gosh your wording leaves a lot to be desired on occasion... "They" in this case, if I may interpolate some clarity for the sake of generations as yet unborn, is the IEAE have gone far further than that in their criticism of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence, not the Iranians have gone far further than that in their reactor-grade Uranium enrichment concentrations. Save us from gratuitous addenda, O Lord, and try not the patience of Thy servant beyond his just desserts, for Thou knowest well his meagre limitations.
Context, m'boy, context. The next paragraph qualifies the who and the what.
The thing that gets me is that the American media go along with it. The do not appear to have picked up on this story at all - if it was the UK government the media would be all over them in a feeding frenzy of epic proportions.
After all, the government deliberately lying to the electorate to further their policy objectives is hardly something to ignore even if it is becoming a frequent occurrance.
Context, m'boy, context. The next paragraph qualifies the who and the what.
The thing that gets me is that the American media go along with it. The do not appear to have picked up on this story at all - if it was the UK government the media would be all over them in a feeding frenzy of epic proportions.
After all, the government deliberately lying to the electorate to further their policy objectives is hardly something to ignore even if it is becoming a frequent occurrance.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Adam Zapple wrote: spot, there is no systematic national election rigging. Remember we are under the electoral college. Individual states have a lot to say about how their delegates are selected. JFK was elected due to voter fraud. It's nothing recently instituted by the neocons. In fact, voting seems to be a much cleaner and honest enterprise than it was 50 some odd years ago.
This article was well composed:
Project Censored
In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.
1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.
2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.4 million vote surplus nationally.
3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 24 out of 67 Florida counties, more than 200% of registered Republicans in 10 counties, over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, more than 400% of Registered Republicans in 4 counties, and over 700% in one county. This could only be explained by a massive crossover vote in these specific counties by registered Democrats and/or Independents. Bush's share of crossover votes by registerd Democrats in Florida, however, did not actually increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points. Floridians were just so enthused about Bush and Cheney that they somehow managed to overrule basic math.
4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as less than 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.
5)Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Harry Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two weeks before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of
support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.
6) Harris' and Zogby’s last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris and Zogby were exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final polls).
7) The “challenger rule†- an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;
8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.
9) The fact that Bush “won†Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.
10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.†(Boldface in original).
11) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.
12) There was no fraud in Warren County, Ohio where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count, citing an unidentified FBI agent's warning of a terrorist incident as the rationale, a report that the FBI denies ever making.
13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.
14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.
15) The National Election Pool’s exit polls13 were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.
16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.
This article was well composed:
Project Censored
In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.
1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.
2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.4 million vote surplus nationally.
3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 24 out of 67 Florida counties, more than 200% of registered Republicans in 10 counties, over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, more than 400% of Registered Republicans in 4 counties, and over 700% in one county. This could only be explained by a massive crossover vote in these specific counties by registered Democrats and/or Independents. Bush's share of crossover votes by registerd Democrats in Florida, however, did not actually increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points. Floridians were just so enthused about Bush and Cheney that they somehow managed to overrule basic math.
4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as less than 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.
5)Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Harry Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two weeks before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of
support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.
6) Harris' and Zogby’s last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris and Zogby were exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final polls).
7) The “challenger rule†- an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;
8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.
9) The fact that Bush “won†Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.
10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.†(Boldface in original).
11) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.
12) There was no fraud in Warren County, Ohio where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count, citing an unidentified FBI agent's warning of a terrorist incident as the rationale, a report that the FBI denies ever making.
13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.
14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.
15) The National Election Pool’s exit polls13 were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.
16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Another democratic oops:
Consequently, flush with the “success†of its coup in Iran the year before, in 1954 the CIA secretly organized and engineered a military coup in Guatemala that ousted the democratically elected Arbenz from power. Schlesinger and Kinzer write:
The United States organized, financed, and equipped the invasion forces. U.S. personnel flew the rebel aircraft and filled the airways with bogus transmissions suggesting a much larger force had invaded. Unrelenting U.S. diplomatic and political pressure encouraged treason and demoralized supporters. CIA assets in the officer corps and the administration worked actively to undermine President Arbenz's authority and block efforts to move against the rebels.
Unaware that the CIA was orchestrating the military coup against him, throughout the crisis Arbenz turned to the U.S. government for help, innocently placing his faith in a government that was purportedly committed to advancing democracy. On Sunday, June 27, 1954, democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz was ousted from office and fled Guatemala. The CIA replaced him with an unelected Guatemalan military dictator, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, whom the CIA designated the “Liberator†of the Guatemalan people.
Consequently, flush with the “success†of its coup in Iran the year before, in 1954 the CIA secretly organized and engineered a military coup in Guatemala that ousted the democratically elected Arbenz from power. Schlesinger and Kinzer write:
The United States organized, financed, and equipped the invasion forces. U.S. personnel flew the rebel aircraft and filled the airways with bogus transmissions suggesting a much larger force had invaded. Unrelenting U.S. diplomatic and political pressure encouraged treason and demoralized supporters. CIA assets in the officer corps and the administration worked actively to undermine President Arbenz's authority and block efforts to move against the rebels.
Unaware that the CIA was orchestrating the military coup against him, throughout the crisis Arbenz turned to the U.S. government for help, innocently placing his faith in a government that was purportedly committed to advancing democracy. On Sunday, June 27, 1954, democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz was ousted from office and fled Guatemala. The CIA replaced him with an unelected Guatemalan military dictator, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, whom the CIA designated the “Liberator†of the Guatemalan people.
President Bush Speaks to UN
koan wrote: Another democratic oops:
Consequently, flush with the “success†of its coup in Iran the year before, in 1954 the CIA secretly organized and engineered a military coup in Guatemala that ousted the democratically elected Arbenz from power. Schlesinger and Kinzer write:
The United States organized, financed, and equipped the invasion forces. U.S. personnel flew the rebel aircraft and filled the airways with bogus transmissions suggesting a much larger force had invaded. Unrelenting U.S. diplomatic and political pressure encouraged treason and demoralized supporters. CIA assets in the officer corps and the administration worked actively to undermine President Arbenz's authority and block efforts to move against the rebels.
Unaware that the CIA was orchestrating the military coup against him, throughout the crisis Arbenz turned to the U.S. government for help, innocently placing his faith in a government that was purportedly committed to advancing democracy. On Sunday, June 27, 1954, democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz was ousted from office and fled Guatemala. The CIA replaced him with an unelected Guatemalan military dictator, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, whom the CIA designated the “Liberator†of the Guatemalan people.
I, personally, thought our Home Secretary was quite wrong yesterday when he said that he was being consistant, having opposed the US when they were bringing down democratic governments and installing dictators, to be not supporting them in bringing down a dictator to install a democratic government.
A consistant approach would be to oppose them whenever they bring down the goverment of another country.
Consequently, flush with the “success†of its coup in Iran the year before, in 1954 the CIA secretly organized and engineered a military coup in Guatemala that ousted the democratically elected Arbenz from power. Schlesinger and Kinzer write:
The United States organized, financed, and equipped the invasion forces. U.S. personnel flew the rebel aircraft and filled the airways with bogus transmissions suggesting a much larger force had invaded. Unrelenting U.S. diplomatic and political pressure encouraged treason and demoralized supporters. CIA assets in the officer corps and the administration worked actively to undermine President Arbenz's authority and block efforts to move against the rebels.
Unaware that the CIA was orchestrating the military coup against him, throughout the crisis Arbenz turned to the U.S. government for help, innocently placing his faith in a government that was purportedly committed to advancing democracy. On Sunday, June 27, 1954, democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz was ousted from office and fled Guatemala. The CIA replaced him with an unelected Guatemalan military dictator, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, whom the CIA designated the “Liberator†of the Guatemalan people.
I, personally, thought our Home Secretary was quite wrong yesterday when he said that he was being consistant, having opposed the US when they were bringing down democratic governments and installing dictators, to be not supporting them in bringing down a dictator to install a democratic government.
A consistant approach would be to oppose them whenever they bring down the goverment of another country.
President Bush Speaks to UN
Another democratic yikes:
washingtonpost.com
Opening the Secret Files on Lumumba's Murder
By Stephen R. Weissman
Sunday, July 21, 2002; Page B03
Forty-one years ago, Lumumba, the only leader ever democratically elected in Congo, was delivered to his enemies, tortured and summarily executed. Since then, his country has been looted by the U.S.-supported regime of Mobutu Sese Seko and wracked by regional and civil war.
The conventional explanation of Lumumba's death has been that he was murdered by Congolese rivals after earlier U.S. attempts to kill him, including a plot to inject toxins into his food or toothpaste, failed. In 1975, the U.S. Senate's "Church Committee" probed CIA assassination plots and concluded there was "no evidence of CIA involvement in bringing about the death of Lumumba."
Not so. I have obtained classified U.S. government documents, including a chronology of covert actions approved by a National Security Council (NSC) subgroup, that reveal U.S. involvement in -- and significant responsibility for -- the death of Lumumba, who was mistakenly seen by the Eisenhower administration as an African Fidel Castro. The documents show that the key Congolese leaders who brought about Lumumba's downfall were players in "Project Wizard," a CIA covert action program. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and military equipment were channeled to these officials, who informed their CIA paymasters three days in advance of their plan to send Lumumba into the clutches of his worst enemies. Other new details: The U.S. authorized payments to then-President Joseph Kasavubu four days before he ousted Lumumba, furnished Army strongman Mobutu with money and arms to fight pro-Lumumba forces, helped select and finance an anti-Lumumba government, and barely three weeks after his death authorized new funds for the people who arranged Lumumba's murder.
washingtonpost.com
Opening the Secret Files on Lumumba's Murder
By Stephen R. Weissman
Sunday, July 21, 2002; Page B03
Forty-one years ago, Lumumba, the only leader ever democratically elected in Congo, was delivered to his enemies, tortured and summarily executed. Since then, his country has been looted by the U.S.-supported regime of Mobutu Sese Seko and wracked by regional and civil war.
The conventional explanation of Lumumba's death has been that he was murdered by Congolese rivals after earlier U.S. attempts to kill him, including a plot to inject toxins into his food or toothpaste, failed. In 1975, the U.S. Senate's "Church Committee" probed CIA assassination plots and concluded there was "no evidence of CIA involvement in bringing about the death of Lumumba."
Not so. I have obtained classified U.S. government documents, including a chronology of covert actions approved by a National Security Council (NSC) subgroup, that reveal U.S. involvement in -- and significant responsibility for -- the death of Lumumba, who was mistakenly seen by the Eisenhower administration as an African Fidel Castro. The documents show that the key Congolese leaders who brought about Lumumba's downfall were players in "Project Wizard," a CIA covert action program. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and military equipment were channeled to these officials, who informed their CIA paymasters three days in advance of their plan to send Lumumba into the clutches of his worst enemies. Other new details: The U.S. authorized payments to then-President Joseph Kasavubu four days before he ousted Lumumba, furnished Army strongman Mobutu with money and arms to fight pro-Lumumba forces, helped select and finance an anti-Lumumba government, and barely three weeks after his death authorized new funds for the people who arranged Lumumba's murder.
President Bush Speaks to UN
A democratic good grief!
Democracy Now:
Twenty-five years ago today the democratically elected government of Chilean President Salvador Allende was overthrown in a U.S. backed coup. Afterward, Chileans endured a dictatorship that resulted in thousands dead and imprisoned. During the current domestic scandal, views have emerged suggesting Clinton and previous presidents should have been impeached, but for different reasons. They include aiding the overthrow of a democratically elected government.
Democracy Now:
Twenty-five years ago today the democratically elected government of Chilean President Salvador Allende was overthrown in a U.S. backed coup. Afterward, Chileans endured a dictatorship that resulted in thousands dead and imprisoned. During the current domestic scandal, views have emerged suggesting Clinton and previous presidents should have been impeached, but for different reasons. They include aiding the overthrow of a democratically elected government.
President Bush Speaks to UN
koan wrote: Another democratic yikes:
washingtonpost.com
Opening the Secret Files on Lumumba's Murder
By Stephen R. Weissman
Sunday, July 21, 2002; Page B03
Forty-one years ago, Lumumba, the only leader ever democratically elected in Congo, was delivered to his enemies, tortured and summarily executed. Since then, his country has been looted by the U.S.-supported regime of Mobutu Sese Seko and wracked by regional and civil war.
The conventional explanation of Lumumba's death has been that he was murdered by Congolese rivals after earlier U.S. attempts to kill him, including a plot to inject toxins into his food or toothpaste, failed. In 1975, the U.S. Senate's "Church Committee" probed CIA assassination plots and concluded there was "no evidence of CIA involvement in bringing about the death of Lumumba."
Not so. I have obtained classified U.S. government documents, including a chronology of covert actions approved by a National Security Council (NSC) subgroup, that reveal U.S. involvement in -- and significant responsibility for -- the death of Lumumba, who was mistakenly seen by the Eisenhower administration as an African Fidel Castro. The documents show that the key Congolese leaders who brought about Lumumba's downfall were players in "Project Wizard," a CIA covert action program. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and military equipment were channeled to these officials, who informed their CIA paymasters three days in advance of their plan to send Lumumba into the clutches of his worst enemies. Other new details: The U.S. authorized payments to then-President Joseph Kasavubu four days before he ousted Lumumba, furnished Army strongman Mobutu with money and arms to fight pro-Lumumba forces, helped select and finance an anti-Lumumba government, and barely three weeks after his death authorized new funds for the people who arranged Lumumba's murder.
One of our prouder moments:(
washingtonpost.com
Opening the Secret Files on Lumumba's Murder
By Stephen R. Weissman
Sunday, July 21, 2002; Page B03
Forty-one years ago, Lumumba, the only leader ever democratically elected in Congo, was delivered to his enemies, tortured and summarily executed. Since then, his country has been looted by the U.S.-supported regime of Mobutu Sese Seko and wracked by regional and civil war.
The conventional explanation of Lumumba's death has been that he was murdered by Congolese rivals after earlier U.S. attempts to kill him, including a plot to inject toxins into his food or toothpaste, failed. In 1975, the U.S. Senate's "Church Committee" probed CIA assassination plots and concluded there was "no evidence of CIA involvement in bringing about the death of Lumumba."
Not so. I have obtained classified U.S. government documents, including a chronology of covert actions approved by a National Security Council (NSC) subgroup, that reveal U.S. involvement in -- and significant responsibility for -- the death of Lumumba, who was mistakenly seen by the Eisenhower administration as an African Fidel Castro. The documents show that the key Congolese leaders who brought about Lumumba's downfall were players in "Project Wizard," a CIA covert action program. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and military equipment were channeled to these officials, who informed their CIA paymasters three days in advance of their plan to send Lumumba into the clutches of his worst enemies. Other new details: The U.S. authorized payments to then-President Joseph Kasavubu four days before he ousted Lumumba, furnished Army strongman Mobutu with money and arms to fight pro-Lumumba forces, helped select and finance an anti-Lumumba government, and barely three weeks after his death authorized new funds for the people who arranged Lumumba's murder.
One of our prouder moments:(
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
President Bush Speaks to UN
double helix wrote: Bush came into office with a bad situation stewing in the Middle East. He has done well to strike out at terroisim at its souce and to STAY THE COURSE. Withdraw now and it will only get much worse for us as well as the Middle East.
double helix wrote: Bush he came into office with a bad situation stewing in the Middle East..WTF, there has always been a "bad situation in the Mideast...LMAO @ that comment, he made a bad situation worse. This is a no win situation for us, we are there for Corporations sake nothing else, when he speaks of Dictators, he seems to forget the many we have propped up and supported through the ages..As to terrorism, why is he not after Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11? Everyone on the freaking planet knows he is in Pakistan, enjoying the fruits of our "relationship with Musharraf", if you think Pakistan is a friend to the US, think again.. Belief will always stick with Belief.
double helix wrote: Bush he came into office with a bad situation stewing in the Middle East..WTF, there has always been a "bad situation in the Mideast...LMAO @ that comment, he made a bad situation worse. This is a no win situation for us, we are there for Corporations sake nothing else, when he speaks of Dictators, he seems to forget the many we have propped up and supported through the ages..As to terrorism, why is he not after Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11? Everyone on the freaking planet knows he is in Pakistan, enjoying the fruits of our "relationship with Musharraf", if you think Pakistan is a friend to the US, think again.. Belief will always stick with Belief.