|
| Thread: Madeline Albright |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
posted October 18, 2004 11:28 PM |
|
|
Madeline Albright
I saw a program on TV where they interviewed Madeline Albright, that is currently advicing the Kerry administration.
For the first time, I saw a way back to a way for the USA and Europe to find eachother again, reuniting the west in understanding. After all the absurdities of the Bush administration, the voice of reason suddely sounded from of all places, the united states.
Please... vote Kerry
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 12:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
After all the absurdities of the Bush administration...
Did you just ignore all the "absurdities" of the European powers? France, China and Russia making billions of dollars illegally from the oil for food program, all the corruption in the UN. That's the most absurd thing.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 01:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
France, China and Russia making billions of dollars illegally from the oil for food program, all the corruption in the UN. That's the most absurd thing.
If you really have any idea what you're talking about and are able to logically explain that to me, I'll give you a candy. 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 19, 2004 03:56 AM |
|
|
I Agree With Wolfman
Check your facts Svarog. I so tire of these rediculous uninformed bush-haters.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 04:09 AM |
|
|
Does that mean I get candy?
Duelfer report, or something like that, don't know how to spell it off hand. It spells out, among other things, the vast corruption in the UN, the Iraqi Oil-for-Food program and the like.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 05:01 AM |
|
|
Dont repeat it the same thing twice. I'm asking you to explain if you could, what do you know about that?
Where according to you lies the corruption in the UN?
And what actually is the food-for-oil program and who leads it?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 05:06 AM |
|
|
I'm not going to do your homework for you, look it up yourself. Not my job to educate you, but don't mock me asking me to explain something you think I made up. Feel free to look it up, fairly recent news.
____________
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 05:10 AM |
|
|
Wolfman, that was Weak. You could have at least answered his questions.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 05:19 AM |
|
|
I'm doing homework for actual school right now, I don't have time right now to look up links for him. I have confidence that he could do it himself. Or he could wait until tomorrow at the earliest for something.
Fine, now I'll tell you what I do know.
Quote:
Where according to you lies the corruption in the UN?
Saddam had his little back door deal with some top leader in France (directly under Chirac, if I remember correctly) and this leader garaunteed Saddam France would use it's veto against any US "plot" to invade, or impose sanctions. If that doesn't scream corruption all by itself I don't know what does.
China and Russia were in on these deals too, making billions of dollars each year. There were some American and British companies using back door deals too, but they were only making 500 million dollars each year combined. That seems like a lot, but it's a rain drop compared to the ocean France, China and Russia were making.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 05:37 AM |
|
|
Thank you. I just wanted to see what you got before I start attacking this foolish attempt to win Bush some votes. Its 5:30 AM now here. Cant write right now. Will do tomorrow. Preferably in another thread.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 05:45 AM |
|
|
Foolish attempt my ***. Maybe, just maybe, if you open your mind to some news sources other than communist propaganda, you'd learn something about the world.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 19, 2004 06:14 AM |
|
|
Duelfer Report
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.un.vouchers.ap/index.html
The program was designed to allow limited oil sales to pay for humanitarian goods.
The report names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients. Other foreign governments that were named range from Yemen to Namibia.
The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq as well. More than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003
Hope that helps Svarog. Checking facts and verifying otherwise eroneus claims might be helpful when facing your 'adversary'.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
pitsu
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 05:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For the first time, I saw a way back to a way for the USA and Europe to find eachother again...
R.I.P.
The unition was a nice idea, but judging from this thread, born dead.
____________
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 11:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Did you just ignore all the "absurdities" of the European powers? France, China and Russia
Huh?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 20, 2004 12:00 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 19 Oct 2004
|
confusion
This is my third attempt to address this thread. Here's what I see, which may or may not be what is actually here:
Post 1
A) There is a rift between the US and Europe. This rift is bad.
B) The Bush administration of the US caused the rift via "absurdities."
C) Kerry can fix the rift. Vote Kerry.
Post 2
A) France, the UN, etc are corrupt.
The rest of the discussion follows Post 2 (mostly), primarily by either attacking or defending the stated premise -- i.e. that the UN etc are corrupt. This tactic puzzles me (mostly because I assume all powers are corrupt  ). What about the connections? What are the connections between the first post and the second?
1) Is the rift between the US and Europe good or bad? Who caused it?
2) Is Bush absurd, not absurd, sensible?
3) What does UN etc's corruption have to do with this?
Here are my theories as to possible interpretations:
I) The rift is bad. It was caused by absurdities on both sides. UN etc's absurdity/corruption needs to be acknowledged. (i.e. Throw no stones in glass houses.)
II) The rift is bad. It was caused by UN etc's corruption. Bush's behavior is irrelevant. (i.e. It's their fault.)
III) The rift is bad. It was caused by UN etc's corruption. Bush is not absurd; UN etc demonstrate real absurdity. (i.e. What's "absurd" really mean?)
IV) The rift is good. It was caused by UN etc's absurdity/corruption. Bush's behavior is irrelevant or sensible. (i.e. Just as well.)
V) The rift is good. It was caused by Bush due to UN etc's corruption. Bush is sensible. (i.e. US is better off without them.)
And so on. What was the intended implication? The difference between option I and V is vast. If all of those are off-target, the intention of the second post might be something entirely different. From where I stand, the factual accuracy of Post 2 needn't be questioned. But, people have done so and taken sides on grounds I can't figure out. Personally, I'd like to know what it is that people are reacting to.
Needless to say, this isn't a criticism of discussion participants; just a request for you guys to spell things out more clearly for those of us in the peanut gallery. 
Edit: Spelling mistake fixed. Wording adjusted. Nit-pickers observed.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Daddy
Responsible
Supreme Hero
and why not.
|
|
posted October 20, 2004 12:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Did you just ignore all the "absurdities" of the European powers? France, China and Russia
Huh?
Thats what I thought, too
And Russia lies in Asia with a big poart, too 
Well, OK, the really inhabitated part lies allmost completely in Europe afaik, so this isnt that relevant - but China is definitely asian
______________________________
I would say that the rift is bad and caused due to dumb/arrogant/absurd/corrups/whatever/pick one behaviour of both sides, UN and US. As it is quite late now (00:26) and I need to go to bed -.- I will stop here and let this to discussion Maybe tomorrow I explain this post a bit further - but I think, all I can do is giving examples (freedom frie lol ) - Well, cu, Gnight
reg
Daddy
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 20, 2004 12:57 AM |
|
|
I guess Mrs. Albright wouldnt mind if we stray her topic "a bit".
I didnt read Consis report yet, but i doubt its something new that i hadnt taken into account in my post.
Wolfman and others (who think they so got the Euros this time),
First of all I have to say, it’s completely out of my mind to defend the morality of Europe and Russia’s actions concerning Iraq. They too stand perfectly shoulder to shoulder next to their American colleagues when it comes to self-interests and not choosing the means to fight for them.
However, what strikes me with this latest “scandal” is the timing and the intention Bush administration has, in order to win them votes playing on the national pride and USA-against-the-world card. Unfortunately for the average narrow-minded American voter, he has no idea what’s the real background behind the oil-for-food program and the psychological impact of the latest scandal is strong, and also in my opinion potentially dangerous on the long run. We already hear anti-UN voices, calling for American withdrawal from UN (!!!), which would be disastrous.
The oil-for-food program was started some time in 1995, if I’m not mistaken, and has been conducted ever since by the UN, primarily Western companies. Before this imperialist program was implemented, complete sanctions were in place for Iraq, imposed by the UN and US, as the most vocal proponent, barring Iraqi citizens from necessary food and medicine. Each year hundreds of thousands Iraqis (of which many children) died as a direct result of the sanctions. Hussein’s regime wasn’t topped however, so the UN/US created the program, again with the sole intention of extracting the oil from Iraq for ridiculously low prices. Namely, quotas of oil were exported from Iraq in exchange for food and medicine. Talking about corruption, the prices for food and medicine was often overrated, and also a lot of the money given for the oil was corrupted through Iraqi channels, ending for the construction of Hussein’s palaces, instead for much needed supplies for the starving population. Everyone benefited from this arrangement, including the American companies, except the Iraqi people. (It would be extremely naïve to believe that US hadn’t been involved in the unfair deals, and even more that they didn’t know that at the time for France and Russia.)
What Bush brings up now is something that was known from before, but lacked concrete evidence. Thankfully to the American access to Iraqi archives they selectively managed to expose the dirty underwear of the Europeans, but not the American companies involved.
Why then, the opposition, if everyone was in the same soup? It’s not a secret that American strategical interest was to control Iraqi oil fields, ever since the Gulf War. They didn’t want to share the oil pool with their “allies” anymore. America decided to have Iraq all for herself. Now that the lion caught a prey of his own, the scavengers aren’t welcome, even though only months ago they all gnawed on the same bones.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 20, 2004 01:05 AM |
|
|
Another point I forgot to make.
Talking about "UN being corrupt" sounds as if you're blaming the entire international system, upon which the global community is based. Instead we should talk about corrupted officials and companies.
The UN, as a loose frame of directions and rules for all member countries is necessary in the current world order. If it's undermined in any way, it could be counterproductive for everybody.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2004 01:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Here are my theories as to possible interpretations:
I) The rift is bad. It was caused by absurdities on both sides. UN etc's absurdity/corruption needs to be acknowledged. (i.e. Throw no stones in glass houses.)
II) The rift is bad. It was caused by UN etc's corruption. Bush's behavior is irrelevant. (i.e. It's their fault.)
III) The rift is bad. It was caused by UN etc's corruption. Bush is not absurd; UN etc demonstrate real absurdity. (i.e. What's "absurd" really mean?)
IV) The rift is good. It was caused by UN etc's absurdity/corruption. Bush's behavior is irrelevant or sensible. (i.e. Just as well.)
V) The rift is good. It was caused by Bush due to UN etc's corruption. Bush is sensible. (i.e. US is better off without them.)
VI) The rift is bad. It was caused by absurdities on both sides. Bush isn't helping. The corruption in the UN isn't helping. Vote Kerry.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2004 03:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Foolish attempt my ***. Maybe, just maybe, if you open your mind to some news sources other than communist propaganda, you'd learn something about the world.
Well if you consider former secretary of Treasury (In Bush(43)`s administration) Paul O`Neill communist propaganda, then you have been watching to much Fox news.
Funny enough I have just been reading Ron Suskind book "The price of Loyalty" which draws heavily on O`Neill as source. Theres a rather interesting passage concerning a meeting a week after Bush(43) inaguration, where Bush is asking what can be done about Iraq. Remember this is allmost 9 month prior to 9/11, where different actions is discussed, among others that the sanctions are not working, and that the Oil-for-food program is playing it right into Saddams hand.
So this problem about the oil-for-food program has been known for quite some time. Funny it first pops up 2 weeks before the election at a time where Bush is seriously pressed after the 3 debates.
Another interesting point is the fact that Bush started planning for an invasion of Iraq as one of his first steps as president, despite the fact that he in his 2000 election campaign clearly stated that he as President wouldnt make preemptive strikes (This should be seen in the context that Clinton unilateral called for the bombings of Serbia during the Kosovo crisis, a move that has been hailed by the whole world as the right thing to do).
Talk about flip-flopping.......
Another flip-flop insident I didnt know anything about, is the fact that Bush(43) again in his 2000 election campaign called for a reduction in the outlet of greenhouse gasses. His first move on the international stage was to walk away from the Kyoto-agreement, and saying we once again have to view IF CO2 is damaging to the environment, this despite the fact that the scientific community reached a consensus during the mid 90s that CO2 was damaging, and it was finally possible to adress these serious global problems.
All this I got from the republican former secretary of treasury Paul O`Neill, who besides serving in Bush(43) administration also served in both Nixons and Fords administrations aswell as being a consultant for Bush(41) administration. The reason he was just a consultant for Bush(41) was the fact that he was CEO for Alcoa during the time. A period that saw Alcoa become the leading aluminium producer.
The reason he was fired by Bush(43) was the fact that O`Neill refused to condone tax-cuts that in his view was fiscally irresponsible.
This taking together with the fact that O`Neill actively tried to introduce triggers in Bush`s 2001 tax-cuts that directly linked the tax-cuts together with the expected surplus in the US-trade balance, meant that he wasnt in on the ideological line Bush has been a proponent for.
(Again funny that Bush in his campaign said that he would seek the middle of the political scene, and work towards bipartisan policies, again a clear-cut case of flip-flopping).
This would have meant that tax-reduction wouldnt have been implemented today seeing as the US have a huge deficit on their fiscal balance. A deficit Bush(41) did everything to bring down, even to the point that he lost the election to Clinton, eventhough Clinton actually just extended Bush(41) policies on fiscal responsibility. This meant that Bush(43) took over the biggest surplus in US history, which he amazingly have been able during 4 years to bring to the biggest deficit.
And still its a very real possibility that he is re-elected. Mindbogling wouldnt you think.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
| |
|
|
