# Bush Helps Islamic Terrorism



## Bammx2 (Apr 13, 2005)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration helps the cause of Islamic terrorism by failing to engage in serious dialogue with the international community, author Salman Rushdie says.

Rushdie -- infamous for living for years under threat of death after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's 1989 pronouncement that his novel "The Satanic Verses" was blasphemous -- said he believes U.S. isolationism has turned not just its enemies against America, but its allies too.

"What I think plays into Islamic terrorism is ... the curious ability of the current administration to unite people against it," Rushdie told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday.

Rushdie said he found it striking how the "colossal sympathy" the world felt for the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks has been squandered so quickly.

"It seems really remarkable that the moment you leave America ... you find not just America's natural enemies, but America's natural allies talking in language more critical than I, in my life, have ever heard about the United States," he said.

The novelist, born in India and raised in Britain, attributed the shift in sentiment toward the United States to the Bush administration's "unilateralist policies" and its "unwillingness to engage with the rest of the world in a serious way."

"This go-it-alone attitude gets people's backs up," he said of President George W. Bush's foreign policy.

LACK OF LISTENING

As president of the PEN American Centre, a writers group, Rushdie helped organize an international literary festival this week in New York -- an event he hopes will help restore global dialogue.

"There seems to have been a breach in our ability to listen to each other," he said.

"It's really important at this particular moment in the history of the world that ordinary American people should get as broad a sense of how the world is thinking."

Such dialogue, he said, is "crucial, especially if at the political level there is a relative uninterest in maintaining that global dialogue."

The PEN World Voices festival, from April 16-22, is set to bring more than 100 international authors to New York to participate in more than 40 events, including readings and discussions on topics from politics and literature to erotica.

The event is the first international gathering organized by PEN since 1986, when Norman Mailer headed the group.

Rushdie, who wrote an op-ed in March syndicated by The New York Times calling for less religion in politics, took Bush to task on that issue too.

"It worries me more when religious discourse becomes the language of politics," he said. "I think it is happening a lot more here than it used to."

Rushdie said his latest novel, "Shalimar the Clown," will be published in September.

"I decided to murder an American ambassador," he said of its plot, in which a U.S. envoy to India is killed after he retires to America. "It seems to be a political murder, but actually it turns out to be completely personal."


I don't know if anyone else has read this,heard of this...or even know about it.
But it kinda struck a chord with me...
 What do you thnik?


----------



## ghostdog2 (Apr 13, 2005)

```
What do you thnik?
```
 posted by Bammx2

I think it's a shame Khomeini missed.

 Seriously, is this the answer? Anti-American rhetoric from a bunch of "international" writers on topics ranging from politics to erotica? Did he say "erotica"? That'll capture the attention of the Muslim world.
How, exactly, this meeting of America's critics (and you know it will be ) will give "ordinary Americans" a sense of how the "world" is thinking beats me. More likely, it will devolve into Bush-bashing, anti-U.S. posturing delivered from the halls of a luxury hotel in mid-town Manhattan and breathlessly reported by the New York Times.
Fittingly, the last guy to call such a meeting was that one hit wonder, Norman Mailer. And the one hit was on a broad.
Sorry, I'll take a pass.


----------



## raedyn (Apr 13, 2005)

Disagreeing with the policies of a particular regime/administration does not make one Anti-American. By that logic, everyone who complained about Saddam Hussein's policies was anti-Iraqi, and that's just not true.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 13, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Fittingly, the last guy to call such a meeting was that one hit wonder, Norman Mailer. And the one hit was on a broad.


 Could you expound on your final sentence, please?  Are you referring to hitting on a woman or did you mean "abroad" as in Europe?


----------



## ghostdog2 (Apr 13, 2005)

```
Could you expound on your final sentence, please? Are you referring to hitting on a woman or did you mean "abroad" as in Europe?Today 09:29 AM
```
 

I was referring to Mailer's reputation (often self-promoted ) in the 50's and 60's as the ultimate male chauvinist pig. Booze, drugs and fist fights were his calling card and he presented himself as a tough guy, especially where women,i.e. "broads" were concerned. In 1960 he stabbed his then wife (he married six times) with a knife after a night of drinking and partying. So I was referencing his hitting women, as in physical assault, rather than hitting on them, as in propositioning or approaching them.
His politics were even more jumbled than his personal life and that's saying something.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 13, 2005)

That's pretty much what I thought you were referring to - his violence.

 If anyone is curious as to some more history on Mailer, here's one source which discusses mostly his literary contributions.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Apr 13, 2005)

Good reference. Thanks.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2005)

Mailer was far more than a one-hit wonder (in all senwses, unfortunately) with a record of good books from, "The Naked and the Dead," to, "An American Dream," "The Deer Park," and "Why Are We in Vietnam?" But, "was," is pretty much correct---I mean, who the hell ever read, "Ancient Evenings," and that was twenty years ago. 

Rushide continues to be a helluva writer (not to my taste, but still), who stood up for his beliefs and damn near got killed for them. They're never lifted the fatwa--see how you'd do, with all of the world's fundamentalist Muslims more or less ordered to kill you.

We don't have to like some of these guys. We do have to try and talk--because like it or lump it, this is one that force alone cannot possiby resolve.


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 13, 2005)

Folks should read the satanic verses. Gives creedence to the assumption that the early roman church wrote the koran as mohamad was illiterate.


----------



## Jaymeister (Apr 13, 2005)

Whatever you think of Rushdie, he brings up some valid points. America is more disliked now than ever before, and this is mainly because of the Bush administration. The war in Iraq, and the fact that religion now has such a huge influence on politics, has alienated America from its European allies.


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 13, 2005)

I'm inclined to agree with this. It's unfortunate, but true. In part, America's unpopularity around the world is due to it being the big fish, i.e. simply because it is the most powerful,rich, etc etc. However, the anti-American sentiment I witnessed, and experienced directly, when I was in the Gulf, was quite telling. The British forces in the main were NOT subjected to the same treatment, as we were seen to be far more even handed and less likely to shoot first, ask questions later. Different military doctrine, produces different results I guess. When I asked a few of the Americans I had served with about their views on this situation, they were adamant that they were doing the right thing in "liberating" Iraq. There were numerous "I'm gonna bag me a rag-head" comments. I think it's a shame that the youth of America is being mislead into thinking this, by a total, utter chimpanzee like Bush. I wonder who ties his shoelaces in the morning...The feeling is growing world wide, and it seems that the US isn't helping itself. While 9/11 was a travesty of humanity, or rather lack of, parking carrier battle groups all over the place, doesn't engender a feeling of brotherly feeling. I'm rather fond of America, most Americans I've ever met have been good people, but their patriotism is being used by Dubya, like nothing I've ever seen before...Never, EVER, trust a politician, they only thing they care about is your vote, stuff all else. Along with lawyers and the media, are responsible for the decline of western "civilisation". That's why I'm in the process of emigrating to New Zealand. Beautiful...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Apr 13, 2005)

If you're interested in a different viewpoint, you don't have to listen to Rushdie.  You can search foreign news organizations:  BBC, Sydney Morning Herald.  In fact, even CNN.com has an international version.

I think two of the most damaging acts the Bush Admin are contemplating right now are the following:

1.  Appointment of Bolton as UN ambassador.  Bolton is openly hostile to the UN.  His nomination sends a message to the world that we are imperialistic, we believe we should rule the world, and that no one else's viewpoint or priorities matter at all.  It shows utter contempt for the international community.  This appointment will come back and bite us in the *** bigtime, as we will no longer receive the intel or cooperation we will need to fight terrorism.

2.  Appointment of Negroponte as Intelligence Chief.  As Ambassador to Honduras, this man looked the other way as death squads operated in Honduras, and actually socialized with some of the perpetrators.  Now he pretends that he knew nothing about it.

Oh yeah, America's going to be real popular.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 14, 2005)

You mean the head of a group of international writers doesn't like Bush?

  How shocking.




> 1. Appointment of Bolton as UN ambassador. Bolton is openly hostile to the UN. His nomination sends a message to the world that we are imperialistic, we believe we should rule the world, and that no one else's viewpoint or priorities matter at all. It shows utter contempt for the international community. This appointment will come back and bite us in the *** bigtime, as we will no longer receive the intel or cooperation we will need to fight terrorism.


 Either that or it shows that the UN is a corrupt institution and that changes need to be made.

 Take your pick I guess.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 14, 2005)

Yeah, it'd be a shame if the UN weren't reformed by the government that brought us Enron, Halliburton--and Tom de Lay. And oh, by the way, did you happen to notice that a Texas oil gazillionaire (fortunately, Hizzoner is IN NO WAY connected to Texas, the oil industry, or energy crooks....hey wait a minnit) got indicted today for his sending kickbacks to Saddam Hussien so he could get arounbd the UN Oil For Food Program?

Thi is precisely the kind of arrogant crap that makes other countries a little testy.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yeah, it'd be a shame if the UN weren't reformed by the government that brought us Enron, Halliburton--and Tom de Lay. And oh, by the way, did you happen to notice that a Texas oil gazillionaire (fortunately, Hizzoner is IN NO WAY connected to Texas, the oil industry, or energy crooks....hey wait a minnit) got indicted today for his sending kickbacks to Saddam Hussien so he could get arounbd the UN Oil For Food Program?
> 
> Thi is precisely the kind of arrogant crap that makes other countries a little testy.


 At least you agree that the UN should be reformed, thats a start at least. But some other country should lead the changes right?  Great plan. 

 Who should be in charge of the reforms? Nobody claimed that the current US administration was perfect, certainly not me at least, but somebody has to do something, and nobody else seems to want to.

  Where exactly would the UN be right now without the USA?  Probably right next to the League of Nations... in history books.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 14, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Where exactly would the UN be right now without the USA?


 
In Kyoto, Japan, diligently working to reduce CO2 emmisions worldwide.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 14, 2005)

1. Please show proofs that, "somebody has to do something," with particular attention to demonstrating that the UN is significantly more corrupt than our current government.

2. Please explain why this country, "has," to be in charge of any needed reform. Who died and left us Pope?


----------



## Ray (Apr 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yeah, it'd be a shame if the UN weren't reformed by the government that brought us Enron


You're right.  It's a darned shame that the profits of Enron for the period of 1997 to 2000 were restated to a 600 million dollar loss; the restatement took place in or around Oct 2001 {if I'm not mistaken} as a result of an investigation into the dealings of Enron.

So, during the Clinton admin, Enron did dirty dealing.  During the Bush admin, it was investigated and the dirty dealings were brought to light.  

Bad George!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 14, 2005)

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?

Do you have any proofs that a) the UN must be reformed, b) the United States must take charge of the reform?

Incidentally, I don't believe that Pres. Clinton put up an Ambassador to the UN who was on record--repeatedly--as saying that the UN was completely worthless. Did he?


----------



## ghostdog2 (Apr 14, 2005)

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.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Apr 14, 2005)

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 (Apr 14, 2005)

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 (Apr 14, 2005)

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 (Apr 14, 2005)

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


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 14, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> 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
> ...


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 (Apr 14, 2005)

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 (Apr 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 15, 2005)

> Bolton has no respect for the UN


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


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 15, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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?


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 15, 2005)

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


michael


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 15, 2005)

"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 (Apr 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 15, 2005)

> "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 (Apr 15, 2005)

Angelusmortis said:
			
		

> "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 (Apr 15, 2005)

*-MOD NOTE-*

 Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

 Technopunk
 MT Moderator


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2005)

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 (Apr 15, 2005)

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.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> 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.


 
Two Words ... 

NEIL BUSH


----------



## Ray (Apr 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Two Words ...NEIL BUSH


Are you implying that Neil Bush's behavior makes Annan's boy's behavior acceptable?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2005)

Not at all ... 

I am pointing out that:

Neil Bush's behavior is to the Bush Administration as Kojo Annan's behavior is to United Nations.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Two Words ...
> 
> NEIL BUSH


  so let me see if I can follow your logic here...

 Since our presidents younger brother was involved in the savings and load scandle in the 80's, that means that Kofi Annan's son's involvement in the oil for food scandle should be ignored...

 By the gods, why didn't you say so sooner?!?! Thank you Michael for your brilliant analysis of the situation.  You have totally cahnged my mind, now I love the UN.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2005)

Actually, I was discussing 'Relevance'.

I believe Neil Bush's behavior in the 80's, 90's and current decade is irrelevant to the current administration (although its nice knowing the Presidents' Brother accepts the payola of prostitution, when in Rome - and that wasn't the 80's).

And whether Kojo was on the payroll of a company involved in the Oil for Food program after he said he wasn't is just about as relevent to the statement "The United Nations is Corrupt".


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2005)

Again, if you know nothing about the Project for the New American Century and Neoconservatism you will not be able to see past all of the lies being reported about the UN by the _new media_.

Please see the below...



> *Boldface Emphasis Mine*
> 
> June 3, 1997
> 
> ...



This was taken from...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Get it?  You are looking that real power players in the current administration.  They formed this group in 1997 and formulated EVERYTHING about our current foriegn policy at that time...including our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the sabre rattling towards Iran.  The War on Terror be damned!  It's nothing but smoke and mirrors and lies to promote this agenda.  

You don't believe me...fine.  Go and read "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" Paul Wolfowitz.  Then go and read "World War Four, Why We've Got to Win" by Normal Podhoretz.  They lay out the entire strategy for the War on Terror pre-911.  It's all there, right in front of you.  This is no conspiracy.

The bottom line is that the administration is lying.  They gave us a bunch of BS reasons for the things that they want to do, but the real reasons are stated above clearly.  Nobody had a chance to vote on this plan.  Hardly anybody knows anything about it...except people in other countries who actually pay attention to this stuff...and people in the UN.  

I hope that now you can see why the administration and the neocons are so anti-UN.  The principles of PNAC are in direct conflict with everything the UN stands for.  The "reforms" that people like John Bolton call for would turn the UN into a puppet that the Neocons would control.

upnorthkyosa

PS - the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank comes as no surprise once you see the world the lense of PNAC.  The plan specifically calls for the advancement of our national interests by force if necessary.  We've got that down with the War on Terror.  Now our _interests _ need money.  Specifically in Afghanistan, where former Unocal Spokesperson Hamid Karzai signed a deal to build a pipeline through his country in order to access Uzbekistani gas.  Our military has begun the process of stabilizing the region, which is why Unocal pulled out of the deal in 1998.  (We now have 10 military bases in Afghanistan that just happen to fall along the planned route of the Unocal pipeline)  The bank that they are going to for loans is the IBN which is a subset of the World Bank.  The same thing is going to happen in Iraq and the same thing is going to happen where ever else PNAC touches.  The US is attempting to turn the World Bank into a puppet.  A puppet that will serve our interests...which means the few billionaires that back this wretched administration.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And whether Kojo was on the payroll of a company involved in the Oil for Food program after he said he wasn't is just about as relevent to the statement "The United Nations is Corrupt".


 
 I personally think some degree of corruption is pretty much inevitable when an organization gets as big, and is as diverse and widesperead as the UN is.  Like I said before that isn't really my issue with it.  Moreso that it is just ineffective as an organization.  What are the actual goals of the UN?  Lets see:

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and* *






 to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and*

*





 to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and*

*





 to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,*





*AND FOR THESE ENDS*

*





 to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and*

*





 to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and*

*





 to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and*

*





 to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
*

Who here thinks that they are doing a good job right now?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I personally think some degree of corruption is pretty much inevitable when an organization gets as big, and is as diverse and widesperead as the UN is.  Like I said before that isn't really my issue with it.  Moreso that it is just ineffective as an organization.  What are the actual goals of the UN?  Lets see:
> 
> * to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and* *
> 
> ...



Okay, Ginshun, great post.  

Please take a moment to read this post and then compare it with the Statement of Principles for PNAC.  It is entirely obvious that these ideals conflict and the real reason behind the administration's stance regarding the UN will become apparent.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2005)

Shall I recite the Bill of Rights and ask the same question? I mean, we have more people in jail than any other country, most of them are minorities, we have several hundred people held incommunicado in foreign countries where they have been put specifically to circumvent our Constitution, we have several million abused kids and several million more abused women, real wages have been dropping for ten years, we're up to our necks in Iraq because of a pack of lies and remarkable intelligence mistakes, and THEN we can discuss corporate corruption and Washington politics...

I believe the point was that if we're going to announce we're the moral leaders of the world, it might be nice if we actually acted like it.

Oh, and incidentally--I don't suppose you'd care to provide a smidgen of proof for the ridiculous claims about UNICEF? Or explain why it's offensive for them to provide family planning services in Muslim countries, but it's NOT offensive in aany way for our government to send right-wing fundamentalist missionaries over there?


----------



## Ray (Apr 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Get it? You are looking that real power players in the current administration. They formed this group in 1997 and formulated EVERYTHING about our current foriegn policy at that time...including our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the sabre rattling towards Iran. The War on Terror be damned! It's nothing but smoke and mirrors and lies to promote this agenda.


You're reading an awful lot into the statement you referenced.  Are you sure that in 1997 they planned to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, etc?  It doesn't quite come across that way in the citation when I read it.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Apr 15, 2005)

```
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
```
 .

Really? Please allow me to borrow from an old column on Enron, Bush and the Clinton legacy:
"Its a little late for liberals to pretend they care about ethics. These are the people who angrily defended a president who perjured himself, hid evidence, suborned perjury, was held in contempt by a federal court, was disbarred by the Supreme Court, and lied to his party, his staff, his wife, and the nation. The ethics of that president included having staff perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office as he chatted on the phone with a congressman about sending American troops into battle. The secular saints of liberalism indignantly defended all this on the grounds that its fine to lie and commit crimes if its just about sex.



Well, evidently some corporate chieftains took that lesson to heart and concluded that its also fine to commit crimes if its just about money. Just as Ronald Reagan gave American culture a renewed patriotism and self-confidence that outlasted his presidency, Clinton has bequeathed America a culture of criminality and rationalization by the powerful. But still, somehow, Republicans are said to be more vulnerable whenever a businessman becomes a crook on the basis of their general support of capitalism. Bit if criminality and not capitalism is to blame, then Democrats are to blame for the general support of crooks. As part of the Lefts long-standing fanatical defense of their favorite criminal, Bill Clinton, it will be screeched that conservatives want to blame everything on Clinton, including the wacky idea that a direct assault on honor and honesty led some people to behave dishonorably and dishonestly.



Not everything. But some of us called this ball and this pocket years ago:



If Congress doesnt have the will to throw him out, Clinton will have set a new standard for the entire country. The new standard will be a total absence of standards....If you get caught and dont have a good enough legal team to escape, you might have to pay a fine or go to prison. But theres no shame in it. The country doesnt really condemn this. We adore a lovable rogue....It is fine to lie and cheat and manipulate because honor is just a word, just hot air and the country doesnt believe in it (_High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, 1998_).



It took a bear market to inexorably repeal the Clintonian national motto of Just Do It! "

I couldn't have said it better, thanks Ann.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I believe the point was that if we're going to announce we're the moral leaders of the world, it might be nice if we actually acted like it.


 Agreed. Problem is that "moral clarity" as some would like to refer to is, is pretty much entirely dependent on your point of view.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh, and incidentally--I don't suppose you'd care to provide a smidgen of proof for the ridiculous claims about UNICEF? Or explain why it's offensive for them to provide family planning services in Muslim countries, but it's NOT offensive in aany way for our government to send right-wing fundamentalist missionaries over there?


 I don't know that I can _prove _any of the things I mentioned, I just did a yahoo search for "UNICEF scandal" or "UNICEF corruption" and took some exerpts from the articles that came up. Its not like I was a first hand witness to any of them. Believe them or not, I don't really care either way.

 And I guess I wasn't aware that the US government was sponsering Christain missionaries in Muslim countries. If that is the case, then... well actaully I could care less, Christianity and Islam (and Judiasm too)are virtually the same religion as far as I am conserned. At the very most, the differences are very superficial. And the point of the statement wasn't that UNICEF is corrupting Muslims, as you seem to have twisted it into. If I recall, I mentioned Christians in the very same sentance.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> You're reading an awful lot into the statement you referenced.  Are you sure that in 1997 they planned to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, etc?  It doesn't quite come across that way in the citation when I read it.



In 1997, Unocal began to have some serious problems in Afghanistan regarding their proposed pipeline deal.  Enron and Halliburton (I kid you not!) were involved in joint discussions and eventually all parties pulled out interest because of instability.  By 1998, a plan surfaced that would _stabilize _ the country.  These people pressured President Clinton to send in troops.  He fired the missiles at Al-Qaeda instead.  Now, the neocons use this decision as a bludgeon against the Clinton Administration.  "If he only would have listened to us, 911 would have never happened," William Kristol says.  What they are not telling you is that the neocons were not even thinking about Al-Qaeda when they were talking invasion...It was (and still is) all about the oil and gas.

There is more too it then just the statement of principles.  I gave two more sources that one can look into for more information that will flesh out the picture.  "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is espeically important to read if one really wants to understand what is going on.  There you can read about screwy stuff like orbiting military bases and Storm Troopers that would be space based among other things..._including global tracking systems for sub-epidermal chips_.  

WTF!

The Statement of Principles provides the real lense that our administration is viewing things.  If you look at our current foriegn policy, it is clear that these are the real principles that are guiding it.  And these principles are pretty much diametrically opposed to the things that the UN stands for.  No wonder it needs "reform".  No wonder they chose Bolton.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2005)

Here we go....


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Here we go....



If one would bother to read anything suggested, one would see beyond the tin-hatter defense that gets thrown out whenever anyone brings this up.  This insinuation is common and it characterizes laziness...and a repugnant willful ignorance born of a fat attitude of indulgence.  Somehow this became the American way when we weren't McLooking.  It's one's perogative, no matter how selfish and misguided, to look the other way while our national treasure is used to Mckill, McTorture, and McSteal to maintain the bottom lines for a few billionaires!

By the time it directly effects us all, it will be to late.  Sub-epidermal chips anyone?

BTW - this rant isn't entirely directed at you, Tom, and it may be entirely possible that I'm taking an attempt at humor in a direction that you did not intend.  I am very passionate about this, though.  I've taken the time and done the research and this is really bad stuff.  Not the kind of stuff to be taken lightly.


----------



## Ray (Apr 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> ...while our national treasure is used to Mckill, McTorture, and McSteal to maintain the bottom lines for a few billionaires!


Does that mean you don't like Big Macs?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Does that mean you don't like Big Macs?


 Ha, ha, ha!  There you go again!


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2005)

McKill, McTorture and McSteal...we deserve a break today....


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 15, 2005)

> ...we deserve a break today....


 One break comin' up ...


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 15, 2005)

Ok, I'm intrigued to know the American reasoning/understanding of why 9/11 happened, and if Bush helps Islamic fundamentalism. I'm assuming the average belief is because all Muslims are evil? That the US govt is totally innocent in the world? That it does what it wants with impunity to protect its business interests, and uses its fantastically equipped armed forces to back it up? I thought the days of Empire were over. 

Oh, and who-ever asked me "did I put them right?" no. I didn't. As for wars, I would have had no problem going to the Falklands, or defeating the spread of Nazism in the Second World War, but the Gulf? An absolute total, and utter nonsense. I am ashamed of our PM for not having the moral courage and turning round to that chimp Bush, and telling him NO. The Americans on the board are getting offended that people are questioning the US's position in the world. Far from it. The current US administration however has earned my complete contempt for its existance. The only good thing to come from it, is that there will be no more Bush again. 

I'm sure that Bammx2 won't mind me repeating him, he made a valid point about that he was raised to not trust any politician. A good point, well made.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2005)

In (weak) defense of Prime Minister Blair, September 11, 2001 preceeded his 'chimpification' (if I can use that word). 

The argument that I heard, here, is that the Prime Minister, after September 11, 2001, decided to commit 100% support the United States in all her retalitory actions against the terrorist activities. He has stood firm in that position. Unfortunately, he has ended up looking like a fool for keeping steadfast to this decision. Certainly, it is going to hurt him in the upcoming elections, don't you think? (Although I was surprised that the Austrailian Minister was re-elected). 

It will be interesting, in 10 or 20 years, to read the memoir of the Prime Minister.


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 15, 2005)

I think (unfortunately) that he'll get in again. He's a very, very good liar. That and the fact that the Conservatives are useless, as are the Lib Dems. I want no part of the UK anymore, standards have dropped to such low levels of mediocrity that it's noticeable. The apathy is almost tangible. I have a theory that the Illuminati are in many ways responsible for the current state of much of the world. They need to be stopped.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2005)

Angelusmortis said:
			
		

> I have a theory that the *Illuminati * are in many ways responsible for the current state of much of the world. They need to be stopped.



Be careful with this type of stuff.  Most of it is dead ends, sprinkled with just enough truth to keep it interesting.  Pulp fiction.  

The "Illuminati" are a literary creation in The Illuminatus Trilogy.  Lots of people thing Stevens was on to something.  If you read the book, you'll see that he was on a lot of LSD.  Still a fun read, but, in the end, fiction.  

Stuff like this is probably a Red Herring.  If you want to find out what people in power are doing, look.  The information is right out in the open and I find it amazing that so many have the *willpower * to ignore it.


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 16, 2005)

From what I have read on more than one site, and in a couple of books, it's not necassarily nonsense. A group of rich, privaleged families able to influence politics, religious groups and large corporations? Doesn't sound so far fetched to me. Order of the Skull and Crossbones, Masons, "Old boy networks", that's all they are, but one's that wield a lot of power. There's at least one other who agrees with me on this site...No coincidence for me. The world is run by men in suits with clip boards and pens, and they act in their own interests, not for "Queen and country", or some other altruistic reason, but greed. That's one of the biggest problems facing the planet at the moment. Sheer greed. The information that is "right out in the open", isn't always, plus whatever is there, is what's allowed to be presented. I trust no-one in a suit, or in power, both? That's even worse.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 18, 2005)

Be careful with the Illuminati.  If there spys learn that your looking for info on them, they will shoot you with their mind eraser beam that they have orbiting Mars.

 But I have probably already said too much...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> But I have probably already said too much...



What happened to ginshun???  He's gone!


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What happened to ginshun???  He's gone!


Ginshun?  I know not this name of which you speak...

*Goes back to his "treadmill" job"...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In 1997, Unocal began to have some serious problems in Afghanistan regarding their proposed pipeline deal.  Enron and Halliburton (I kid you not!) were involved in joint discussions and eventually all parties pulled out interest because of instability.  By 1998, a plan surfaced that would _stabilize _ the country.  These people pressured President Clinton to send in troops.  He fired the missiles at Al-Qaeda instead.  Now, the neocons use this decision as a bludgeon against the Clinton Administration.  "If he only would have listened to us, 911 would have never happened," William Kristol says.  What they are not telling you is that the neocons were not even thinking about Al-Qaeda when they were talking invasion...It was (and still is) all about the oil and gas.
> 
> There is more too it then just the statement of principles.  I gave two more sources that one can look into for more information that will flesh out the picture.  "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is espeically important to read if one really wants to understand what is going on.  There you can read about screwy stuff like orbiting military bases and Storm Troopers that would be space based among other things..._including global tracking systems for sub-epidermal chips_.
> 
> ...



The War on Terror is actually the War for Oil.  Here is why.


----------

