Bush Helps Islamic Terrorism

[ghostdog2]

Can't help continuing the rant:
If not the U.S., who would you suggest reform the U.N.?
Cuba? North Korea? Syria's a good candidate once it closes out its Human Rights duties.
And who should pay? Any of the above? All of the above? Mr. Beuller? Anyone? Anyone?
If not us, who? And how?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So would this be like claiming that anyone with whom you have political disagreements is a liberal, even if they most assuredly aren't? (Incidentally, has it ever occurred to you that repeating the politicial narrowmindedness of well-paid right-wing talk show hosts isn't the best way to understand the world?) Would this be like having no evidence at all to support your claim?

This should be very easy--as easy as mustering evidence that Bush's government has had its arms in some pretty corrupt-looking practices, or that this government trumped up evidence to justify our invading Iraq.

Why is this relevant, I hear you exclaim? Because you are assuming facts not in evidence--that the UN needs fixin'. And you are assuming that this country, speaking as it does from a position of moral superiority, has a mission of some sort to fix up them barbarians. So, show me why you're making these claims.

Is it that you have no evidence, or is it that you don't want to be troubled to look? Shouldn't be THAT hard, if things are as bad as you say. You're the ones who are making the claims: I'm asking for the merest smidgin of support for them.

 

[Tgace]

Hey Ghost..theres 2-4 persons on this board who dog pile on issues like these with the "same old..same old"...if you want to go around with them good luck, but you might as well chase your tail......

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, us wacky libe'rals--always asking for actual support for people's claims. It's the damndest, most annoying thing.

 

[michaeledward]

Why is it that liberals think that all they have to do is shout: "Enron, Halliburton" or "Halliburton, Enron" and they've made a point.
Do better, please.
Or, as others put it:
What proof do you have that the U.N. does not need reform, and
Who/whom is the source of your opinion and what facts do you/they have in support of that position.
Pretty silly, huh?
p.s. What proof do you have that Enron made contributions to the Presidential campaign; how much were they, when sent, by whom received?
And what proof do you have that there is a correlation between the mystery donation and any specific act or failure to act of this administration?
Please be specific. The usual liberal response is to shout louder: ENRON, HALLIBURTON.
Don't forget the part about " Bush lied ", Alllah knows we haven't heard that enough.

http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/kenneth_lay.html

The $550,025 that the Enron Corp. gave Bush over the years makes it his No. 1 career patron, according to the Center for Public Integrity. “Virtually every … aspect of Enron’s operations is overseen by the federal government,” a ’96 Dallas Morning News story noted. Not surprisingly, this global natural gas giant and its top executive are big political contributors who keep revolving doors whirling. Lay hired President Bush’s cabinet members James Baker and Robert Mosbacher as they left office. After President Bush’s ’93 Gulf War victory tour of Kuwait, Baker and other members of his entourage stayed on to hustle Enron contracts. The Clinton administration also threatened to cut Mozambique’s aid in ’95 if the world’s poorest country awarded a pipeline contract to a different company. Enron got Bush to contact Texas’ congressional delegation in ’97 to promote a corporate welfare program in which U.S. taxpayers finance political risk insurance for the foreign operations of corporations such as Enron. Enron plants around Houston—which surpassed LA for the title to the nation’s worst air—are “grandfathered” air polluters that exploit a loophole in state law to avoid installing modern pollution-control technologies. Earlier this year the Houston Astros inaugurated their new Enron Field, which was financed with $180 million in public tax dollars and $100 million from Enron. In return, Enron landed tax breaks and a $200 million contract to power the stadium. Topping Enron’s political wish list in Texas was deregulation of the state’s electrical markets. Bush signed this dream into law in ’99.​

​

 

[Phoenix44]

First of all, I've heard enough about Bill Clinton. It's been 5 years since he was president, and it sounds completely infantile when somebody attempts to "rebut" a comment about the Bush Administration with "Oh, yeah? Well Clinton did this!" The thread is about Bush.

No, the nomination of Bolton does NOT imply that the UN "needs reform." What Bolton said was, "There's no such thing as the United Nations," "nothing more should be paid to the UN," and ‘’if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.'’

Bolton has no respect for the UN, and if the UN does need reform, Bolton is clearly not the one to do it. Why he'd even want the post is beyond me. I mean, why work at an irrelevant entity?

 

[PeachMonkey]

Yeah, us wacky libe'rals--always asking for actual support for people's claims. It's the damndest, most annoying thing.

Yep. As ol' Ronnie Ray'gun showed (right before he slipped into a drooling, addled dementia), it's far easier to just roll your eyes and say "There they go again!" than to actually debate people on facts.

 

[Ray]

What were Enron and the energy industry's contributions to Bush's election campaign? Did he and members of his administration have close ties to these guys?

Are you accusing Bush of preferential treatment to Enron becuase of campaign contributions? Or are you pointing out that, in spite of getting campaign contributions from {possibly} Enron, the Bush admin was stilling willing to prosecute them? Are we saying Bush is disloyal or that he can't be bought?

 

[ginshun]

Bolton has no respect for the UN

Well, at least him and I have something in common.

 

[michaeledward]

Are you accusing Bush of preferential treatment to Enron becuase of campaign contributions? Or are you pointing out that, in spite of getting campaign contributions from {possibly} Enron, the Bush admin was stilling willing to prosecute them? Are we saying Bush is disloyal or that he can't be bought?

Did you really say " {possibly} "? You're kidding, right?

Do you care to make a claim to refute the post made three spaces above?

There is nothing " {possibly} " about it. Adding this word to your argument speaks volumes about intent.

Of course, if we can't agree on a 'fact' (Such as Kenneth Lay being a Bush 'Pioneer' - meaning he personally brought over $100,000.00 dollars worth of campaign hard money contributions to the candidate), all other arguments are moot.

Good Grief.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, at least him and I have something in common.

[/font]

Yes Yes ... Death To UNICEF! Who needs to help the children of the world.... Damn Sally Struthers to Hell.

 

[Ray]

Did you really say " {possibly} "? You're kidding, right?....There is nothing " {possibly} " about it. Adding this word to your argument speaks volumes about intent.

Here is the what adding the word "{possibly}" intends to convey: I have no reason to disbelieve that the contributions were made as stated in previous posts, but I haven't checked any sources myself. So I'm not going to categorical state that "I know" that the contributions have been made and end up having someone correct me with irrefutable proof. I'm a big enough *** as it is, so I don't need to be made into a bigger one.

Do you care to make a claim to refute the post made three spaces above?

Heck, I can't count. Three above yours is mine and I'm in agreement with me. Which are you referring to?

Of course, if we can't agree on a 'fact' (Such as Kenneth Lay being a Bush 'Pioneer' - meaning he personally brought over $100,000.00 dollars worth of campaign hard money contributions to the candidate), all other arguments are moot.

As I said, I haven't personally checked. But I'm not disputing it.

Good Grief.

I ask for your indulgence. I think you misunderstood the "possibly" and, with the above explanation, that you might re-evaluate your frustration with me.

Thanks.

 

[michaeledward]

Ray, I'm glad to see that you are putting in a very minimum of effort into your position. It speaks volumes.


michael

 

[Angelusmortis]

"If" the UN is obsolete, then perhaps that in part is down to the US trend of continually ignoring its mandates. There is little point having a governing world body, that the worlds most powerful country can ignore when it's interests clash.

Bush comes from an "illuminati" background, he's rich, privelaged and you can bet your life on the fact that it isn't REALLY him making the top decisions in DC. He simply does not have the intellectual capacity. He got in in 2000 in a veeeery dodgy circumstance, and the fact that you guys voted for him again, was a total travesty. It was written in the press over here last year, that someguy in London had some American friends ring him up in tears, claiming that Bush "was in again". They were so angry, because their wives had voted for him, because "they didn't like Kerry's wife's dress sense"...Bush is a puppet, he's a puppet for white, upper middle class, God fearing, American WASP's, and that comes across to the world in America's foreign policy. Announcing an "axis of evil", and reeling off a load of countries with totally different political idealogies to yours is a guarenteed way to nark the world. Parking carrier battle groups off the coasts of countries you don't like is antagonistic, creating laws in the Senate that allows US agents, and spec forces to act with impunity in other countries, in flagrant disregard for those countries, is antagonistic. Ignoring UN mandates because you have a score to settle with another country, is antagonistic, especially when Bin Laden and Hussein went on record to say that they hated each other.

Where is the logic, where is the planning, the fore thought that there will be serious consequences for your actions??? I've spoken to enough people around the world now, in many countries, some Middle Eastern, some European, and even as far a field as NZ, that genuinely believe,...that America bought 9/11...on itself.

Watch "Team America", by the guys that did South Park, and you'll get a glimpse of how much of the rest of the world views you. I don't, so I don't wanna hear me being Anti US, I love your sports, cars, you have some very fine points/politicians and a beautiful country, but there needs to be more tham that. Where America leads, the world will (for now) follow, continue to act like this, and there will be future problems. This "The War On Terrorism" or TWAT (sums it all up really)...Sheesh...Has only just begun.

 

[Ray]

Ray, I'm glad to see that you are putting in a very minimum of effort into your position. It speaks volumes.

And I thought I was an ***. I feel much better about me now.

 

[ginshun]

"If" the UN is obsolete, then perhaps that in part is down to the US trend of continually ignoring its mandates.

I will go along with that, as long as it is acknowledged that pretty much everyone else ignores their mandates too.

Unless of course the US is there to enforce them.


Honestly that is really what it comes down to. Decisions made by the UN, really mean pretty much nothing unless the US agrees with those descisions.

 

[Ray]

"I've spoken to enough people around the world now, in many countries, some Middle Eastern, some European, and even as far a field as NZ, that genuinely believe,...that America bought 9/11...on itself.

And you corrected them, right?

 

[Cryozombie]

-MOD NOTE-

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Technopunk
MT Moderator

 

[rmcrobertson]

So--and I speak here as a representative of the British Well Basically Society--well, basically, nobody can provide even a teeny smigden of support for their basic contention that a) the UN is hopelessly corrupt, b) the United States alone has the moral authority to fix the UN.

This is nonsense. As much as anything, this is really all about Hizzoner pandering (yet again!) to some true loonboxes in the Republican Party and among his supporters--you know, the "Left Behind," folks, the guys who rail about "One-Worldism," and put the movies on Trinity Broadcasting about the UN taking over America and forcing everybody to have abortions....

It's the same BS I've been hearing since 1961, when I first became aware of the heroism (ha!) of Dr. Tom Dooley, and the Menace posed by UNICEF's evil, Satan-inspired habit of collecting pennies from schoolkids and--add this to your catalogue of Communist Horrors!--actually providing milk for...for...COMMUNIST SCHOOLKIDS!!

This is still the same old same old John Birch Society claptrap. Yes, there are corrupt people in the UN. Yes, there's something pretty disgusting about countries like, say Syria taking the moral high ground. Yes, at times waves of anti-semitism sweep through their debates and decisions. Yes, Kofi Annan's kid got caught with both hands in the cookie jar. (I'd have thought that at least the Birchers among us coulda found THAT out!)

But it is also true that a prominent Texas oilman just got indicted in the UN "oil-for-food," scandal. It's true that there've been some more-than-shady things going on with dome of the loudest-barking anti-UN dogs. So...

 

[ginshun]

Personally I think that Annan's son getting busted in Oil for food looks pretty bad for the leader of the UN, but whatever. I suppose that Oil for food doesn't in any way show that there is corruption in the UN.

Anyway, my assesment is really more that the UN is just inneffective, as opposed to totally corrupt. There is plenty of corrupption, starting right at the top, but how much can be proved? Who knows.

UNICEF isn't really much different, while it is a good idea in theory, a simple search with yahoo or google will bring up a bunch of stuff on how the program is just badly run in general. Recommending abortions to women in highly religous Muslum and Chrisian societies and thus alienating them, adding B-hCG to tetanus vaccinations in order to staralize/cause miscarriges in women, using over half of its annual budget on "Administrative costs" ect.

In theory the UN is a great idea, but in practice it is one big ineffective debacle. It doesn't take a whole lot of research to convince me of this anyway.

I really don't think that many countries around the world take the UN very seriously, at least it sure doesn't seem like it. All the resolutions that are made againt countries, be it Iraq or whoever, are pretty much just suggestions.

"Hey you, random country, stop doing research into nuclear weapons"
"Hey UN, no, we will do what we want"

Next step in the process is either "OK then" or "enter USA military"

Like I said before, without the US, the UN would be completely innefective. Even moreso than it is now.

Obviously all this stuff is just my opinion, but all in all, I think that a lot of other people shate it.