|
| Thread: Madeline Albright |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted October 20, 2004 07:00 PM |
|
|
Svarog:
Quote:
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.
Bush isn’t behind the report, so acting like it’s some big conspiracy of the Bush administration is ridiculous.
Quote:
We already hear anti-UN voices, calling for American withdrawal from UN (!!!), which would be disastrous.
I don’t think we should withdrawal from the UN, but it really doesn’t have any authority in the world anymore. It hasn’t for some time now; it’s basically a joke. The only disastrous thing about the US pulling out of the UN would be that the UN would collapse. For the past decade or so, at least as long as Kofi Annan has been Secretary-General, it has been weak. The UN hasn’t even been able to stand up for it’s own decisions. The Iraq, resolution 1441 for example, and the 12 years worth prior to 1441.
Their stance with Israel-Palestine; Israel kills a Hamas leader (that’s a terrorist by the way) and the UN has a big meeting to agree, “That’s bad”. What a wonderful assessment, I wish every government body could have that resolve.
Quote:
Everyone benefited from this arrangement, including the American companies
These companies made nothing compared to France, for example. It’s not even comparable.
Quote:
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.
The American companies are mentioned in the report, however they weren’t even close to the level of involvement that France & Co. had. Not even comparable, so get off that.
Quote:
What Bush brings up now is something that was known from before, but lacked concrete evidence.
Again, Bush didn’t bring this up, Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence Charles Duelfer did.
Defreni:
Quote:
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.
First of all, Bush isn’t behind the Duelfer Report. Second, Bush isn’t really pressed after the debates considering Gallop had Bush ahead in the polls by 8% earlier this week.
Quote:
despite the fact that he in his 2000 election campaign clearly stated that he as President wouldn’t make preemptive strikes
A little thing called 9/11 happened since then which changed the way the US looks at security and defense. Looking at things in context, it’s not as bad as you imply.
Quote:
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
You are aware that the Kyoto agreement was extremely flawed and unfair to many countries. China, one of the world’s biggest polluters would have been left alone by the Kyoto agreement, but the US would have to pay a lot, that doesn’t make any sense to me.
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2004 09:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First of all, Bush isn’t behind the Duelfer Report. Second, Bush isn’t really pressed after the debates considering Gallop had Bush ahead in the polls by 8% earlier this week.
Well considering the polls prior to the debates Bush is clearly loosing terrain, and alot of polls show that Kerry and Bush is practical head to head. You should know that one poll doesnt say much, and alot of the polls conducted in the US is used as part of the campaigns. The general consensus in US medias as far as I can read on the Internets  is that it is an extremely closed race, and that the debates opened up for that.
Quote:
A little thing called 9/11 happened since then which changed the way the US looks at security and defense. Looking at things in context, it’s not as bad as you imply.
Well, know you take part of what I said out of context. My point was that Bush started planning for a ground invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11. Which is clearly against what he said in his campaign. That things changed with 9/11 there is no doubt. And you dont hear any attacks on Bush for striking at the Taleban rule in Afganistan. But what Iraq and Saddam Hussein had to do with 9/11 is dubious to say the least. And that is probably why so many people have a hard time seeing that Bush didnt go for Iraq because of the oil. Especially considering that he allready in February 2001 made plans for the division of Iraqi oil fields to US companies. (This information is again from Frank O`Neills transcripts from SEO meetings)
So if you look at things in context it is probably alot worse than I imply.
Quote:
You are aware that the Kyoto agreement was extremely flawed and unfair to many countries. China, one of the world’s biggest polluters would have been left alone by the Kyoto agreement, but the US would have to pay a lot, that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Yes, I am aware that the Kyoto-agreement is flawed, but not because of what you say. The implication in your statement is that China pollutes as much as the US. What if I told you that Chinas emmission of Green-house gasses due to fossil fuel is 43 times lower than the US. This is the context that rules that the US is going to pay alot more than China.
On the note of a flawed Kyoto-agreement, it is generally aknowledged that eventhough it is flawed it is the best thing we have at the moment. And if the US hadnt unilaterally walked away from the negotiations, it might have come out alot less flawed.
Christine Todd Whitman who Bush appointed EPA administrator when he took over the presidency, actually thought that she was going to renegotiate a better Kyoto-agreementin the Trieste summit. She came home from that summit thinking things where going well, untill she was completely blind-sided by Cheneys energy plan, which called for absolutely no tax on green-house gasses. This was supported by Bush 2 days later when he said that he wasnt going to ratify the Kyoto-agreement.
About unfairness, well sometimes the one who pollutes the most, have to pay the most. If thats unfair, you may call me unfair.
On that note. Denmark among other EU countries have decided to proceed with the Kyoto-agreement eventhough this put us at a distinct disadvantage in direct competition with US companies. You dont hear us whine about unfairness. (At least not at that point )
All in all, my main point was that all said and done, there is one reason why Bush shouldnt be re-elected, a point you nicely skip in your summary.
Bush is a fiscal disaster for the US, and if he is elected for 4 more years there is a very real possibility for another depression. It is not good for the US economy and it is not good for the world economy, that the worlds largest economy is perpetually in the red.
Strangely enough the US needs a democratic president to become fiscal responsible once again.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 21, 2004 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You should know that one poll doesnt say much, and alot of the polls conducted in the US is used as part of the campaigns.
This is a Gallop poll, the most trusted poll source in the US. It’s not part of either campaign.
Quote:
Bush is a fiscal disaster for the US, and if he is elected for 4 more years there is a very real possibility for another depression.
There won’t be a new depression, not under Bush at least.
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2004 09:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This is a Gallop poll, the most trusted poll source in the US. It’s not part of either campaign.
Quote:
Bush is a fiscal disaster for the US, and if he is elected for 4 more years there is a very real possibility for another depression.
There won’t be a new depression, not under Bush at least.
Well that was a nice short reply. I might ad with absolutely no substance. What is the reason you dont believe there will be another depression under Bush.
My point was that the fiscal irresponsibility he is showing is a danger to US economy. I didnt say the depression would come under a Bush regime, but that his actions in running up a huge deficit is bordering to insanity.
Reagan also ran up a major deficit, not as large as Bush(43), but luckily his Vice-president Bush(41) when he took over broke his own campaign promise, (The famous "Read my lips" part) and took the right action, and showed fiscal responsibility. This cost him the election in 1992, but imho showed both great responsibility together with a right way to things.
The interesting part of a debate, is not so much what you or I believe, but the facts that lead us to believe what we do.
Concerning the Gallop poll, its rather easy to take just one poll that shows merrit for a candidate. But if you take all the polls in conjunction, a much murkier picture emerges. A picture that shows that the candidates are allmost head-to-head.
Incidently I also believe Bush will win the election, but that is mostly based on the fact that he is somewhat succesfull in steering the debate away from facts, towards gut-feelings and perceptions.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 22, 2004 03:09 AM |
|
|
Dafreni, you’re wasting your fingers typing and explaining to an American how tax cuts can be bad. In USA, the words “tax cuts” and “harmful” are unconnectable. How can having more money in my pocket be bad? Talking about capitalist short-sightedness.
Quote:
Bush isn’t behind the report, so acting like it’s some big conspiracy of the Bush administration is ridiculous.
What’s ridiculous is you not connecting the report and the elections and the administration, and naively believing in almost everything they serve you.
Quote:
These companies made nothing compared to France, for example. It’s not even comparable.
Lol. Are you aware that the report is based on a selected set of Iraqi papers? Selected by… who, ask yourself?
There were tons of other deals for American companies, within the OFF program and possibly outside it. These deals were corrupted in the way I described. The recently revealed contracts were corrupted in an even more wicked way.
Quote:
Their stance with Israel-Palestine; Israel kills a Hamas leader (that’s a terrorist by the way) and the UN has a big meeting to agree, “That’s bad”. What a wonderful assessment, I wish every government body could have that resolve.
If international issues were so easy to resolve, there wouldn’t have been a need for the UN. However, many different interests exist, and they all have to be respected. If you’re talking about UN inefficiency, I do agree, but just as American interests have to be respected, so too other nations interests.
The particular example you picked, is one good example of this point. US, as always, supporting Israel, the others inclining towards the Palestinians, why the hell do you blame the Un for inefficiency? What were they supposed to do? Ignore one party and go completely with the other; impose sanctions on Israel?
Not doing anything (for the time being) is better than doing the wrong thing.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 22, 2004 05:02 AM |
|
|
I'm just saying, if they weren't going to do anything, why have the meeting to show their inefficiency.
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2004 09:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm just saying, if they weren't going to do anything, why have the meeting to show their inefficiency.
This is exactly my point about debates needing to have a factual basis.
The UN have such a thing as Veto, the US amongst others have that right. Dont you think the US would Veto a resolution calling for sanctions against Israel?
What would happen if the UN seased to exist, how would a number of global problems be handled, such as the threat to the environment, disease threats etc.
These are problems that affects us all. Dont you think it would be wiser to at least try to solve them together?
Well back on topic. Concerning Madeleine Allbright, which was an very solid asset to US foreign policy. I had my hopes up when Bush(43) appointed Colin Powell as her successor. Unfortunately Powell has on numerous occasions been blind-sided by his Commander-in-Chief, which have taken its toll upon his credibility.
But offcourse Powell was only appointed to bring legitimacy to Bushs claim that he would be a consensus seeking president. A claim that quickly proved to be just that. A claim.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
| |
|
|
