Post #87,737
3/12/03 4:04:12 PM
|
Team Bush: Unable to fulfil commitments?
Or just unable to tell the [link|http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/03/11_rall.html|truth]?
Talk of rebuilding Afghanistan was never more than a sound bite.
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Is that all you guys ever think about? Do you see him hiding around every corner? Does he haunt your dreams? I dunno, if I was you I'd probably WANT to forget about the great William Jefferson Clinton. Unlike the current president, he managed peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, lower poverty and child poverty rates, 21 million new jobs, 50,000 new teachers, 100,000 new cops, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, greater worker protections, the highest home ownership rate in history, the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... Mind you, he did also have a penis, the evil bastard.
--[link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/|Democratic Underground]
|
Post #87,739
3/12/03 4:10:29 PM
|
well I will have to find the article
showing afghani's rebuilding a road using hand labor. The interviewee stated that jobs such as these were imperative to keep the fighting down.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>
"If you want to meet a group of people who have a profound distrust of, and hostility toward, our legal system, don't waste your time on political radicals; interview a random selection of crime victims, and you will probably find that they make the former group look like utopian idealists by comparison." Dave Robicheaux
|
Post #87,740
3/12/03 4:15:21 PM
|
Your ability to miss the point is exceptional.
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Is that all you guys ever think about? Do you see him hiding around every corner? Does he haunt your dreams? I dunno, if I was you I'd probably WANT to forget about the great William Jefferson Clinton. Unlike the current president, he managed peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, lower poverty and child poverty rates, 21 million new jobs, 50,000 new teachers, 100,000 new cops, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, greater worker protections, the highest home ownership rate in history, the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... Mind you, he did also have a penis, the evil bastard.
--[link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/|Democratic Underground]
|
Post #87,746
3/12/03 4:35:11 PM
3/12/03 4:38:30 PM
|
Box, I have a question
You know, I felt pretty sure that Afghanistan was going to get hung out to dry. I can easily remember when the war started that the Bush administration said they were going to stabilize the country and help protect the fledgling democracy. However, it appears that this is not the case at all. Mind you, that has been being reported as such in the Canadian print media for the better part of a year now.
I felt pretty sure that this was what was going to happen because it's what has happened far too much in the past... there's often been a vast gulf between the words and the deeds coming from the US. I refer you to Bush Sr.'s promise to aid Iraqi's trying to topple Hussein, or the promise to help the mujahadeen after kicking out the Soviets. Considering the commonalities of personnel between those administrations and this one (Reagan, Bush, W. Bush) why would you expect it to be any different?
It's like when Fleischer talked about the UN not helping Rwanda, and forgetting to mention that it was the US (under Clinton) that made it very clear they would veto any attempt to interfere with the ongoing genocide. We up here got to get a very detailed account of what happened, because the commander of the UN force in the capital, the one who was asking for more troops to prevent it, the one that told the aid people to get out before they got chopped up, was a Canadian general named Romeo Dallaire. He stayed for the whole thing, and got a front row seat to the genocide, as well as to the manouveurings in New York that prevented any help being sent to him. He spoke at the Queen's University a few weeks ago... it was his last active posting, as it left him a broken man suffering from PTSD. He personally witnessed the murders of several thousand people. He said he felt he had to stay to at least be a witness to what happened, to be sure that there was a person who could say "this is what happened. I was there, and I saw it."
When I heard Fleischer talking about the UN and Rwanda, the only thing I could think of was what low down lying opportunistic scum you people have running your country. To be the spokesman for the office that prevented intervention in the Rwandan genocide and call it a failure of the UN so as to bolster their tattered claims of legitimacy in this war in the face of global opposition is to take historical revisionism to new depths unimagined by Orwell.
The fact that it was a democratic president vs a republican one matters not one whit; there is plenty of blood on hands on both sides of the aisle from your foreign policy.
Damn, wrong button.
Box, here are the questions I have. It's clear to everyone that the words spoken about Afghanistan are a far cry from what is actually being done in Afghanistan. An article about people fixing a road by hand doesn't change this at all. Why do you think it does?
What do you call an entity whose words are a far cry from their deeds?
Why would you expect anyone to trust said entity when they say they're going to do something when they have manifestly failed to do so in the very recent past?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by jake123
March 12, 2003, 04:38:30 PM EST
|
Post #87,774
3/12/03 5:26:58 PM
|
I like to point out inconsistencies
he New York Times reports that not a single house has been rebuilt, even in Kabul, and that not a single inch of roadway has been paved throughout the country now either that is a fact or an inconsistency and I posted that. If that is an error then what else is.Overall I would agree with the piece, what is happening is not what was promised and never was intended to. Now if you post a link here it will get well picked by nits of all political stripes. For some people here especially a few on the left have a sever mote beam error ratio. thay should get over it. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>
"If you want to meet a group of people who have a profound distrust of, and hostility toward, our legal system, don't waste your time on political radicals; interview a random selection of crime victims, and you will probably find that they make the former group look like utopian idealists by comparison." Dave Robicheaux
|
Post #87,779
3/12/03 5:37:15 PM
|
Fair enough
You know, there probably has been a house or two built. Of course, that still leaves the question of whether said houses were built with aid money. Also, let's not forget that roads != paved roads... and you can't build a paved road by hand.
While all that may be true, what is your actual opinion of what's going on? It's one thing to point out potential inconsistencies in some of the minutiae, but I think the broad trend is pretty clear. Do you think it will be different in Iraq? If so, why?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #87,824
3/12/03 8:41:39 PM
|
Iraq will be different because Iraq supplies the cash
not the US.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>
"If you want to meet a group of people who have a profound distrust of, and hostility toward, our legal system, don't waste your time on political radicals; interview a random selection of crime victims, and you will probably find that they make the former group look like utopian idealists by comparison." Dave Robicheaux
|
Post #87,845
3/12/03 9:09:54 PM
3/12/03 9:10:26 PM
|
Which, btw, explains why we're not going for Korea.
Give whole new meaning to the business term - HOSTILE TAKEOVER. :-)
|
Post #88,031
3/13/03 11:22:52 AM
|
National supplies of kim chee are vital to US interests.
|
Post #87,765
3/12/03 5:04:06 PM
|
Excellent views - my 2 favs were ...
This guy has a clear uncluttered & realist perception of what is going on - it is such a shame that some among us lack this same clarity ...
Doug
********************************************
1>>
BUZZFLASH: Most Americans, polls show, believe the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, yet none of them were? How did the Bush cartel propaganda trump the facts, especially since 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis?
RALL: That's incredible. And the other 4 were Egyptian. It all goes to show that the more often you repeat a lie, the more people will believe it. Many Americans still believe that there's a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda even though it's been 100% proven to be bullshit. Why does the Administration have to make stuff up about Saddam? I mean, it's not like he's a lovable character. But the Bushies always opt for overkill -- and it always seems to work.
<<
*******************************************************************
2>>
BUZZFLASH: Do you think the American people would support a war for oil and American domination of the Middle East if the Bush Cartel honestly revealed their goals?
RALL: Without a doubt, some people would. But many other Americans are moral, good people, who would prefer to pay a couple bucks per gallon than subsidize cheap gas with the blood and tears of innocents overseas, not to mention the Americans killed by resentful terrorists trying to put a stop to our government's depredations.
BUZZFLASH: You don't go into the religious component of Bush's justification for war. But clearly he views this as a Crusade. Isn't that another factor driving his desire to conquer the non-believers?
RALL: You know, George W. Bush clearly does not believe in God. He's an atheist. He throws God's name around a lot, as do most hypocrites and charlatans, to appeal to people of faith. If George W. Bush truly believed that he was going to be judged for all eternity after his death for his deeds, he wouldn't act the way he does. But there are obviously those in his administration, like Ashcroft, who really do believe that they're engaged in an epic clash of civilizations and cultures. Religion is a part of that, but faith isn't. You can't really believe in God and pursue the kind of actions this administration is.
<<
|
