|
|
 |
fortyoz2freedom4 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 12:35 PM If you havent seen the video of John stewart on Crossfire a couple weeks ago, i suggest you search it on kazaa. Its amazing. Does anyone else think he would be a spectacular guest? —fortyoz2freedom4 |
|
|
|
|
Full Meat |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 1:44 PM Wow, yeah. I'd love to see him match wits against Adam. —Full Meat |
|
|
|
|
OldTrafford017 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 2:55 PM It's funny to see him make fun of Tucker Carlson and his bowtie wearing. Crossfire and CNN are totally unwatchable. —OldTrafford017 |
|
|
|
|
Masteel |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 6:27 PM I don't see why people like Jon Stewart. I guess I'm biased because I remember him stinking up the late show he used to have after Dave. He was extremely not funny then. I think the only reason why people may like him now is because he is using a format that is easy to be funny in. —Masteel |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 6:30 PM I think the only reason why people may like him now is because he is using a format that is easy to be funny in. Plus he follows a show that has puppets who make prank calls... —Colin |
|
|
|
|
Erlog |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 7:17 PM Yes, the format was so easy to be funny in that Craig Kilborn had no trouble being consistently funny, oh wait. Kilborn sucked it up when he did the Daily Show and the reason it's so popular now is because of John Stewart and the new writing staff that came in after Kilborn left. —Erlog |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 8:26 PM John Stewart used to do a late night talk show? —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Masteel |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 9:03 PM Wrong, Kilborn didn't suck it up, he used the format well, and he took it with him when he went to CBS. It's hard for people to actually fuck up the "news" comedy format, but yes it is true, it is not impossible to fuck it up. See Colin Quinn and Kevin Neland for examples of fucking it up. Stewart is nothing spectacular, just another cog in the comedy machine. —Masteel |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 11:24 PM When dissing someone, it is appropriate to spell their name correctly. It is Nealon.  —Colin |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 11:25 PM Just kidding...  —Colin |
|
|
|
|
fortyoz2freedom4 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 8:02 AM i do like jon stewart, but im not saying he would be a good guest based on his own comedy, i think he would be a good guest because politically, him and adam are more or less on the same track.. —fortyoz2freedom4 |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 12:15 PM I don't know about that, Adam seems to have more conservative leanings than Stewart. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Ganthet |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 12:44 PM Adam's not so much a conservative as he is a libertarian. Make that a die-hard libertarian. Jon Stewart's more of a traditional liberal. —Ganthet |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 1:43 PM In a semi-related reference! "Are you playing Halo?"
"No! I'm... exit polling... Covenant aliens." —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Puff |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 2:26 PM because politically, him and adam are more or less on the same track..
Are you high or just plain stupid?
Jon Stewart is a hardcore Moore-loving bang-me-in-the-ass kill-all-the-babies don't-go-to-war give-hardworking-people's-money-to-lazy-bastards U.N.-submitting gun-fearing religion-hating jackass liberal! Adam is... not.
Stewart is a giant ass. I'm so glad Bush won in spite of his and others' bull. —Puff |
|
|
|
|
rocketman |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 3:43 PM You're a fucking idiot.
Super-liberals aren't so great, but super-conservatives are ten times worse. UN-submitting?! Do you know how important the UN is? Do you understand how essential it is to the functioning of the world now? Get some real information before you spout off. And please, John Stewart is very funny, but he's a TV personality. You have no idea what his true views are. Although I don't doubt they're pretty liberal...thank god for that.
And what the hell does religion have to do with anything? —rocketman |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 4:44 PM What? Adam hates religion too, and doesn't understand why everyone has such a big obsession with guns. I like how you use UN as a bad word too. And since when has pro-choice become pro-abortion? —piesore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fortyoz2freedom4 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 8:45 PM when I say adam and jon stewart are politcally on the same track, I dont mean they vote the same way, I mean that they both seem to be interested in by-passing the nonsense of the political world. Adam's rants are lashing out at the same "pussy politicians" that jon stewart makes a career out of ridiculing....(blows a raspberry) —fortyoz2freedom4 |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 10:48 PM "Do you know how important the UN is? Do you understand how essential it is to the functioning of the world now?" Can you say Oil-For-Food scandal? The UN sold us out for kickbacks from Saddam. How can any clear thinking person trust them again? Remember, they voted Libya as "human Rights" watchdog! For the love of Christ! —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 10:51 PM For the record, The Daily Show was very funny before it got hijacked by liberal pussies like Stewart. Now its all Bush bashing and cut-and-paste out-of-context gotchas, Micheal Moore would be proud of them. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 11:01 PM The Oil for Food scam isn't a scam really. It's neo conservatives pissed at the UN and trying to undermine its credibility and give justification to the US unilateral invasion. The "scam" is gaining credibility simply because of the echo chamber that exists with our media, not because of actual facts.
This whole situation is really paralleling the WMD thing, there never was solid evidence, it was all assertions, and shady sources, but it got repeated so much people bought into it. The former head of the program talks about the situation here:
http://67.15.90.110/article.pl?sid=04/11/17/1524256 —piesore |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 11:18 PM The Oil For Food scandal is probably the biggest story that nobody really hears about too much. It is the reason why the US had to act unilaterally. We just cannot afford to put our security in a corrupt org like the UN. The investigations being conducted by the US has been stonewalled by the UN. Guess where the bank the billions are being held today and refuses to open it's books to investigators? France! Our "friend". Probably second to the Saudis as worst friends you can ever have category. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
GDG |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 11:59 PM Correction: You hear a bunch about the UN Oil-for-Food "scandal" if you watch Fox News, or listen to right-wing radio. However, I also heard a blurb about the Senate investigation today on CNN. (yawn) It's just the latest retrofit for reason why we hastily invaded Iraq and did a nice job fucking it up so we'll spend much more in soldier's lives and our tax dollars than we really need to. Meanwhile, there hasn't been a true investigation of Halliburtion's no-bid contracts, and war profiteering. The Vice-Prez,while he was CEO of Halliburton, did business with countries that the US gov't prohibited them to. (Iraq, Libya) You've got to wonder if the D's and R's were reversed that the right wing echo-chamber would never ever shut up about such a malfeasance. Afterall, we heard an assfull about the previous prez's cattle futures and a failed land deal in Arkansas. —GDG |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 12:28 AM As you can see in the recent posts, people steeped in ideology (Dems or Reps) can't or won't listen to stuff that goes against whatever ideology they hold. Any info that comes out about the UN's corruption is processed by the left partisan as cover-up for Iraq. Any dissenting voice about the war is viewed by the right as unpatriotic. I consider myself conservative (that's based solely on my putting our safety and security above all other issues) but I'm in no way a Bush groupie. I'm very suspicious of his close ties with the Saudis, I dislike his weak stance on securing the borders (especially the south) and I dislike his stance on stem cell research. But to deny the complicity of the UN with regards to Iraq, try to think it up first and not categorize everything as a right-wing conspiracy. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 12:33 AM BTW, try not to excuse a wrong by pointing to other wrong-doings. If Cheney is a douche with Halliburton involvements, let's deal with that too. That's such an annoying tactic used by both sides wich ends up distracting us from the issue discussed first. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 12:37 AM
Edited Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 12:39 AM >>"Do you know how important the UN is? Do you understand how essential it is to the functioning of the world now?" >>Can you say Oil-For-Food scandal? The UN sold us out for kickbacks from Saddam. How can any clear thinking person trust them again? Wow, want to see something interesting!!! Replace 'Oil-For-Food' with 'Iran-Contra', 'UN' with 'Reagan regime' and 'Saddam' with 'Iran'. Oh wait - I forgot - Nobody cares about South America... There isn't any oil there... Nevermind. —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
Hobo84 |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 12:38 AM Well put! The extreme political orthodoxy of each Party is destroying our democracy, and is creating way too many obstacles in the search for the truth. Mainly, I feel that most people need these extremes to process information. It has to be neatly packaged and easily digested. So, the spinsters prey on these groups, usually using fear to hammer home their messages filled with nothing but empty calories. —Hobo84 |
|
|
|
|
Hobo84 |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 12:40 AM "Well put!" (I am referring to savethebabies) —Hobo84 |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 1:55 AM
Edited Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 1:57 AM "As you can see in the recent posts, people steeped in ideology (Dems or Reps) can't or won't listen to stuff that goes against whatever ideology they hold. Any info that comes out about the UN's corruption is processed by the left partisan as cover-up for Iraq. Any dissenting voice about the war is viewed by the right as unpatriotic." Holy shit...read my post. I try to be fair when I make my arguments but this is getting fucking frustrating.
I would be more than happy to listen to evidence concerning this "scam". But that's the problem, there isn't any.
This is exactly like the WMD thing before the build up to the invasion. All the sources that British and US intelligence used were heavily discredited before the war, but these accusations just gained credibility because they were repeated so many times. And now it can't be more obvious that it was simply the echo chamber in effect and not real evidence. It's the same case here. The US was fully aware of these kick backs, and "bribes" while they happened, the contracts were organized by the US themselves, that's the whole point of the article. So, your a conservative because you feel safety is our number one concern? Does it bother you terrorism is higher than it's been in 30 years? That Al Queda has the most members in its history, has spread to 60 countries, and is considered to be more dangerous and harder to pin down than it used to be? That North Korea now has nuclear weapons directly due to our actions in Iraq and has threatened to preemptively strike the US? And that the only reason why Iraq has ties to Al Queda is BECAUSE the US invaded, not vice versa as it was claimed? But obviously, Kerry would have been worse, because he's a flip flopper and speaks french. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 8:17 PM
Edited Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 8:18 PM Saddam Hussein touched my pee pee. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Proc |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 9:12 PM That explains a lot, actually. —Proc |
|
|
|
|
Proc |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 9:20 PM I'm a solid left-wing Bush-hater who thinks we never should have invaded Iraq, but a lot of what Bush said about the UN is true. They are just a bunch of pussy whiners with no balls to get anything done. Take Somolia, Rwanda, and now Sudan for example. Hell, it only took 2 million people to die of starvation in the desert and just today they're starting to talk about a truce. —Proc |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 9:32 PM They are just a bunch of pussy whiners with no balls to get anything done. - Proc I agree w/ your point, Proc. But having no "huevos" to intervene is a lot better than being bribed w/ blood money to support Saddam, which seems to be the case w/ the oil-for-food deal. It's all over the news media now and peaople are starting to deem it the biggest scam in history ($21 billion).
I would be more than happy to listen to evidence concerning this "scam". But that's the problem, there isn't any. - Piesore
There is evidence, otherwise there would have been no investigation. And the UN is doing all it can to block the investigating body appointed by the US Congress. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 9:39 PM BTW, whether you are a Dem or Rep, in very sticky situations like this oil-for-food deal and the Iraq war, why can't we give the US the BENEFIT of the DOUBT? The US has many faults and fumbles, but ultimately, it is looking out for us. If evidence comes out that the US gov't did something bad, then we confront it and demand answers. Otherwise, can't we support our gov't while it's trying to sort out the mess? —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 11:02 PM >>They are just a bunch of pussy whiners with no balls to get anything done. Take Somolia... True, they didn't get much done, but then again - Without the Pakistani compliment of UN force in Somalia, we would have lost many more Rangers and Delta personel. I could care less about money they syphoned from 'Oil-For-Food'... —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
johnnytezca |
+ |
Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 11:12 PM Hey, let's be even-handed about this. If it's fucked up for the UN to take bribes from Saddam Hussein, how fucked up is it for Halliburton to do millions worth of business with Iraq and Iran? How fucked up is it for us to support Saddam for decades, lie to him that we won't do anything if he invades Kuwait, and then kill over a thousand American soldiers and turn Iraq into an Al Qaeda recruiting station? If the UN is fucked up, at least it's fucked up for being corrupt or too slow, rather than for putting psychopaths into power, ignoring what they do to their people, and then overthrowing them and killing thousands of innocent people in the process. —johnnytezca |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 12:28 AM "If it's fucked up for the UN to take bribes from Saddam Hussein, how fucked up is it for Halliburton to do millions worth of business with Iraq and Iran? How fucked up is it for us to support Saddam for decades, lie to him that we won't do anything if he invades Kuwait, and then kill over a thousand American soldiers and turn Iraq into an Al Qaeda recruiting station? —johnnytezca"
Again, another case of excusing a wrong by pointing out to another wrong. If this is how we deal w/ problems, NOTHING will get done! Not one person/entity/group/org can be held accountable because they would just point to other failures, to excuse their own.
—savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 12:35 AM I could care less about money they syphoned from 'Oil-For-Food'... —HazeTrooper It's not about the MONEY. It's about the UN being bought off by Saddam, and why it has blocked the US at every turn when we try to deal with this asshole. In a way explains a lot why Bush acted the way he did in dealing w/ the UN. It's way beyond the money...it's about the UN selling it's soul to the Devil. Can't you see that? Or does your hate of Bush blind you to this? —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
inthehizzynotoutoftheHOUSE |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 12:39 AM
Edited Friday, November 19, 2004 at 12:49 AM haha save some babies some one needs to save you.........If bush is out to save the world why is he not going after every big bad dictator...........uh duh because ol saddam was the only one sitting on billions of dollars in TEXAS TEA! 4 real yo —inthehizzynotoutoftheHOUSE |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 12:53 AM If bush is out to save the world why is he not going after ever big bad dictator...........uh duh because ol sad am was the only one sitting on billions of dollars in TEXAS TEA! —inthehizzynotoutoftheHOUSE
If you wanna take a walk, you start w/ the first step... maybe Iraq was just the first step in the Admin's plan to keep the US safe. I don't think Bush is about saving the world but keeping the US safe.
I believe Iraq was more about security than economy driven(oil), though I'm sure the oil there is a BIG factor, don't get me wrong. If it was mainly about the oil, I'll be waiting for the gas prices to go down...
—savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 10:52 AM It's not about the MONEY. It's about the UN being bought off by Saddam, and why it has blocked the US at every turn when we try to deal with this asshole. Oh yeah, of course it's about Money. Saddam had unbelievable amounts of it compared to us. He had so much he made the US look like a smelly bum by comparison! Oh wait. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
goodtimes3 |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 4:44 PM
Edited Friday, November 19, 2004 at 4:44 PM jon stewart kicks ass. kilborn SUCKED on the daily show, hard. i dont care if its liberal or conservative, its funny. lets get back on topic guys, break it down, take a knee, HEY. that helmet, not a chair. lets go gentlemen, heh heh and i use that term loosely. break it down lets get going. Dumbass caller from riverside whats your question?... —goodtimes3 |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 5:38 PM [As "Dumbass caller from Riverside"] Hiiiiii...Like, I have this probleeeeemmmmm? Like, every month or so, like, my vergina, like, bleeeeeeeeeeeeds? Is this, like, norrrrmmmalllll? Also, like, my beoobs are, like, sorrrre? —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 6:05 PM yay! Boobs! —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 6:08 PM Apparently, in California, ZiTi, it is pronounced "beeoobs." Or don't you actually listen to the show? hehe —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
Puff |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 7:42 PM C'mon dude, it's spelled 'beubs'.
And... **** the U.N.
I don't want a one-world government. —Puff |
|
|
|
|
goodtimes3 |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 8:48 PM the next time you see your health teacher i want you to kick him as hard as you can in the nuts. can you do that? eh, shes fine Drew —goodtimes3 |
|
|
|
|
rocketman |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 11:37 PM
Edited Friday, November 19, 2004 at 11:38 PM The UN is not making a one-government world. it isn't a government at all. it is founded on principles of state sovereignity. security council troops won't be invading anyone unless their actions threaten another country. this is law in the UN.
its there to run programs and provide a place for nations to work out problems without having to go to war over everything. if there was no UN the cost of maintaining all the essential programs it runs would be astronomical, even if they were divided between countries. plus there would no longer be a forum for debate between nations, and there would be real problems without a security council.
the UN has lasted as long as it has because it works and has now become essential, which isn't a bad thing.
so, in conclusion to this very boring post...the UN is not a "pussy" organization. —rocketman |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Saturday, November 20, 2004 at 11:55 AM i dont care if its liberal or conservative, its funny. That is a very good point. I agree.
The UN is not making a one-government world. it isn't a government at all. it is founded on principles of state sovereignity. security council troops won't be invading anyone unless their actions threaten another country. this is law in the UN.
its there to run programs and provide a place for nations to work out problems without having to go to war over everything. if there was no UN the cost of maintaining all the essential programs it runs would be astronomical, even if they were divided between countries. plus there would no longer be a forum for debate between nations, and there would be real problems without a security council.
the UN has lasted as long as it has because it works and has now become essential, which isn't a bad thing.
so, in conclusion to this very boring post...the UN is not a "pussy" organization.
Ah ha! Finally, someone with more than half a brain! —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Saturday, November 20, 2004 at 6:23 PM C'mon dude, it's spelled 'beubs'.
-Puff 'Scuse the hell outta ME!!!! HEHEHE (thanx again, darkie) —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 6:14 PM
Edited Monday, November 22, 2004 at 6:17 PM No, savethebabies, there is no scandal, not in the way it's being painted by the media. They are trying to pin the 21 billion dollars on the UN when the vast majority of the money was due to oil smuggling, which is the US Navy's responsibility to keep track of. This is why it's an attempt to discredit the UN, because the US was responsible for most of it, and also was aware of the corruption while it happened, yet did nothing, and you don't hear a peep about US involvement in this process. That's the reality of the situation, and that's not how it's getting portrayed. If you want scandals, what about the Haliburton scandal? The FBI is committing an investigation because of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work they got paid to do and didn't, conservatives aren't flipping shit about that.
Yes, there has been corruption on an individual.. No one is denying that, and that's what the investigation is looking into, as it should, not whether or not if the UN is a legit organization. And again, this corruption has been known about for a really long time, but it's getting played off as it's been recently uncovered. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4025057.stm This article lays it out, it admits there is definitely corruption and needs to be looked into, but contrary to popular opinion "These abuses were found to have been widely known about at the time." Also, "These abuses were found to have been widely known about at the time." And finally..."And it is often forgotten that most of Saddam Hussein's illicit income came from oil smuggling, not kickbacks on UN contracts. Dealing with smuggling was mainly the job of the American navy, not the UN." —piesore |
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 6:23 PM yes, Piesore, EVERYTHING is the USA's fault. Go live in France, you goober. —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 6:55 PM
gouranga3221 yes, Piesore, EVERYTHING is the USA's fault. Go live in France, you goober. I'd love to hear how dissent or criticism demands that someone move out of their own country. Can you explain that coherently, or will you spew some nonsense?
—Colin |
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:02 PM
Edited Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:06 PM Colin, It was mostly an offhanded remark. What I meant was this.. If a single corrupt UN official made a decision to do something malfeasant, That is not the US navy's problem. It seems like the US is expected to monitor everything, like we are some sort of 'alpha and omega' to the whole damn universe. That official made his own decisions, whatever they may be. Obviously, dissent, and questioning of actions are cornerstones of democracy. Have a beer and chill out. Jesus That helmet? NOT a chair! —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:16 PM It seems like the US is expected to monitor everything Isn't that what the government is acting like? —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:19 PM Indeed. Excellent point. Good, bad or indifferent, we seem to be sticking our noses everywhere. The government reflects the people it governs, and we're all too concerned with what others do, as opposed to keeping our own shit together. —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:19 PM
Edited Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:21 PM I never said it was the US's fault. My point is, it's getting portrayed that 21 billion is the result of the oil for food program, when the truth is the vast majority of the money was obtained by other means, which the US had a hand in. The point is, the US has a role in this as well, it's not just members of the UN. And it's getting pushed that the whole UN is corrupt, not just individuals, which is really the case. And that it's not really a scandal, because this was widely known when it was happening, this isn't new damning testimony that's getting uncovered now.
People are trying to use this to shit on the UN when the US and UK were intimately involved in this process.
—piesore |
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:33 PM Piesore- widely known is a pretty relative term, If you're only a casual observer of news, like myself, it's portrayed as though this oil-for-food thing just got uncovered. That's the real problem. Selective, even downright "spun" reporting keeps the facts under the sheets, while having maximum effect on the opinions of easily swayed sheep. Surely all parties are to blame, relatively evenly, not a single entity. It takes two (or three) to tango, ESPECIALLY with 20 billion dollars. —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:35 PM  >> gouranga3221
FINALLY, someone who stands up to what they say without spewing trash. You are my new hero.
—Colin |
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:37 PM I was out of line with the France thing, I should explain myself rather than making shitty jokes. The world is our oyster, I mean, because that's all the world is. —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:41 PM
Edited Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:53 PM Piesore- widely known is a pretty relative term, If you're only a casual observer of news, like myself, it's portrayed as though this oil-for-food thing just got uncovered. That's the real problem. Selective, even downright "spun" reporting keeps the facts under the sheets, while having maximum effect on the opinions of easily swayed sheep. Surely all parties are to blame, relatively evenly, not a single entity. It takes two (or three) to tango, ESPECIALLY with 20 billion dollars. I understand what you're saying, but by widely known, I mean by government officials who track this sort of information. I myself have only known about it for the past few months.
If it was really about corruption, this would have been stopped years ago, because many, perhaps all of these kick backs were supported by the US and UK.
This is an issue getting spun out of nothing, just like the partial birth abortion ban thing. Partial birth abortions are a medical anomoly which only happen a few hundred times a year, and more importantly, when the mother's health is at risk, yet it was spun as proof of how evil and wrong abortion is.
So, my point is not to simply say "well, the US did it too, you can't judge", but that if this really is about fact finding, you have to first ackonwledge the US and UK had very prominent roles in this corruption, AND that this is about individuals in the UN, not the UN as a whole. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 7:49 PM Yes, Yes, Yes, The abortion thing, exactly what I mean. Take something that occurs in one out of a billion cases, and make it seem like the lady next door is participating in the downfall of society. How did you find out the deep details of this oil-for-food shit? High effort fact finding, or constant news monitoring, cause we could all use some info on dismantling this selective reporting shit that's going on. We park our cars in the same garage. —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
GDG |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 12:06 AM
Edited Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 12:18 AM There's been some great posts in this thread. Let me say this: As someone who's been involved in int'l business this kind of corruption isn't all that suprising. It happens all too often where business, NGO, or gov't executives or officials will try to profit by creating dummy or shell companies which their lackey son runs and using their position and influence to shuffle money through it. This is one among many tried and true methods of profiting off their position. Remember the bribery and corruption that the extremely culturally conservative Salt Lake City Winter Olympics Organizing Committee did to secure the 2002 games? Kidstuff. It happens often, it just that journalists don't usually cover it because you usually don't have "smoking guns" in financial transactions. Plus editors and management don't expect much from journalists who specialize in covering the business world. Many US companies and execs that do international business are somewhat of the same thing, but from my experience, a much lesser extent because of our lower tax rates and our tax code. (higher tax rates mean the motivation to make money to evade taxes has a higher reward) However, I think it's only going to get worse as following the rules within many coporations is hardly enough and results are what count first and foremost. Plus international trade is becoming more and more common to small and mid-range corporations in what used to only be the domain of mostly large corporations. Like the SLCOOC and old-time morality that Mormons espouse like to talk about morality but don't care much about the morality of how such transactions take place, just as long as they get done, or just appear that they get done. —GDG |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 1:41 AM Post after post, everybody is hung up on the money or corruption angle. I know corruption is everywhere, not just the UN. But in this case, the UN being in bed w/ Saddam because of this made a great impact on how events progressed that led to the war in Iraq. That's what I'm trying to focus on. The Olympic Comittee taking bribes from states wanting the Olympics did not have an effect on global politics. The UN being bribed by Saddam did.
I really believed that if the UN backed the US during this crisis, the Iraq war would not have happened. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 9:57 AM I really believed that if the UN backed the US during this crisis, the Iraq war would not have happened. Care to elaborate on that statement? I can't see it your way. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 1:32 PM whether or not it would've prevented war is one thing, but savethebabies has a great point in that there was a big time conflict of interest between two of the big components of the situation (saddam/UN) That is a lot different than buying the olympic spot you wanted. How can the USA make the right decision when two out of the three big players in a problem are in bed together? —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 5:55 PM "I really believed that if the UN backed the US during this crisis, the Iraq war would not have happened." Care to elaborate on that statement? I can't see it your way. — Dark Laith Of course it's all academic now, but I felt that France, Russia and China's anti-American stance within the UN during this crisis emboldened Saddam to keep frustrating the US from getting full disclosure about WMD's to inspectors. If these countries had supported the US fully, I think Saddam would have backed down and the war avoided. As it played out, Saddam tried the worst bluff in history.
—savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 6:13 PM The bluff of not having WMDs? Again, you're making statements contrary to the facts. There was an attempt to discredit the UN saying inspections were ineffective, when they were completely effective, something which cannot be more clear now, and this is a continuing on that path the discredit them. If you asked the inspectors themselves, they agreed inspections were working. Hans Blix, despite being ridiculed, was completely right saying that the Iraqis were by and large cooperating, and listed specific instances of when they weren't and what was being done to resolve it. One such example is the government couldn't vouch for the safety of American and British aircraft flying over certain areas because these planes would conduct bombing runs. If these runs stopped, so would the anti-aircraft fire.
But even with the official government documentation, like the 9/11 commission and duelfer's report, people still repeat the same falshoods. According to Duelfer sanctions were working. Saddam had intentions to obtain WMDs, but not the means. Post 9/11 the sanctiosn only strengthened. Sanctions are the UNs doing. So apparently, peaceful and diplomatic means did work.
The inspectors getting kicked out in 1998 is another falsehood. They were pulled out by the US due to an impending military strike. You missed my whole point of my earlier posts being that this is not about the UN being in bed with Saddam. The vast majority of the 21 billion was due to oil smuggling, which is independent of the oil for food program, the US and UK approved these contracts, they are not secrets which the government recently uncovered, and it's individuals who are being investigated, not the UN, because the UN did not and does not support these actions. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 9:20 PM Turkey, Jordan, and Syria. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 9:24 PM
Edited Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 9:24 PM Curse them. We must turn them all into glass. We would be no worse off. We are all the same. Can NOT judge!! —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
Ganthet |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 9:49 PM piesore:
The bluff of not having WMDs? Again, you're making statements contrary to the facts. There was an attempt to discredit the UN saying inspections were ineffective, when they were completely effective, something which cannot be more clear now, and this is a continuing on that path the discredit them.
The thing is, Saddam was bluffing about not having WMDs. Blix did say that by and large Saddam's regime was cooperating with the inspectors but the biggest point of non-cooperation was the documentation the regime provided for what happened to all the chemical munitions that the regime reluctantly admitted they had. Chemical weapons aren't just disposed of haphazardly - it has to be planned, organized, and overseen. All these things don't happen without a paper trial, particularly in a bureaucracy (even a corrupt dictatorship). The bottomline is that Saddam didn't provide full transparency and continued to play footsie with inspectors and the UN for no rational reason other than perhaps national pride or the idea that the US wouldn't do anything about it. (Perhaps this is what happens when all of your advisors and intelligence officers stop giving a leader inconvenient facts and simply tailor messages into what they want to hear)
That having been said, however, both Bush and our soon-to-be Sec. of State Rice both went on primetime TV and warned of mushroom clouds appearing over American cities if Saddam was not deposed even though they knew he almost certainly had no such capabilities and that the documents showing Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa were forged. The administration also had CIA reports that Saddam posed little threat and that even if he did have WMD, would not likely strike a bargain with Al Queda nor would he likely use them against allied forces unless attacked. The one thing that can be said of both the neo-cons and the Islamic militants is that both their worldviews don't exactly allow any room for sublety. Evil is evil, good is good, and if you have to do a little evil (ranging from the extreme of hijacking airplanes to the lesser fudging the truth) to accomplish some good, then so be it.
—Ganthet |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 10:28 PM Containing Saddam (what the US have been doing for years and years) stopped being a safe option when Sept 11 happened. Our government probably thought that we could afford to make the mistake of invading Iraq, but CAN NOT afford to be wrong about Saddam having WMD's and handing them to terrorists.
"The administration also had CIA reports that Saddam posed little threat and that even if he did have WMD, would not likely strike a bargain with Al Queda nor would he likely use them against allied forces unless attacked." — Ganthet
Would you have bet you and your families lives on Saddam's alleged goodwill, restraint and sanity? I don't know if ultimately, invading Iraq will turn out good or bad, history will decide this, but I understand why the US thought it had no choice. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
johnnytezca |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 10:39 PM If I were an Iraqi now, and had to compare living under Saddam to living under the present situation, I think my choice would be pretty clear. I might even decide that the only way to get the occupiers out of my country would be to take up arms against them. But I'm obviously crazy; no sane person would ever think that way, right? —johnnytezca |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 10:50 PM However the media will spin it, the US over-ridng policy in all things it does is it's own SECURITY. It would be nice if the Iraqis will find freedom and all, it would make a nice story and everybody will feel warm and fuzzy, but the bottom line is, we are there to protect our own. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
Ganthet |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 11:16 PM Would you have bet you and your families lives on Saddam's alleged goodwill, restraint and sanity? I don't know if ultimately, invading Iraq will turn out good or bad, history will decide this, but I understand why the US thought it had no choice. It's not Saddam's goodwill, it's human nature (aka self-preservation). The same as the US trusts Kim Jong Il not to freak out one day and nuke Okinawa or Japan or South Korea. The same as the US trusts the corrupt party dictatorship of China not to nuke the West Coast. If there was serious doubt about the sanity and self-preservation instincts of Saddam, then the US wouldn't have spent MORE THAN A YEAR in trying to go through the UN in order to ultimately try to justify an invasion. If the Bush administration truly believed that Saddam was an imminent threat, then by the very definition of imminent, there wouldn't be time to do anything but act. Deterrence works (against nations) and has proven itself time and again with much more unpredictable leaders than Saddam. Bush and any other commentators were right in saying that every nation has an inherent right to self-defence (whether OK'd by the UN or not). But just as in criminal law here, self-defence isn't measured enitrely by the subjective point of view of the person who acts in response to a perceived threat. That's where the notion of reasonability comes in. Whether a reasonable person, under the circumstances, could believe that their life was in imminent danger. The question is whether 1) Saddam posed enough of a danger to warrant self-defence and 2) whether that danger was imminent. I don't think anyone is arguing that Iraq under Saddam could have one day, perhaps in 10-20 years, posed such an imminent danger - but to launch a war simply because Iraq could have posed that danger in the not-so-imminent future ultimately threatens to create a far more dangerous world than it prevents. —Ganthet |
|
|
|
|
johnnytezca |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 11:27 PM We are there to protect our own..... what, exactly? Oil? Of course not. That's ridiculous, and you'd be a fool and a communist to say so. We're there to protect our soldiers, who are dying to protect our freedom which is in jeopardy, so we have to send in soldiers, who we then have to protect, because they're dying to protect our freedom, so . . . Look, man-- I want to protect my country. I'm sure you do too. So why exactly did we attack a country that was/is no threat to us? Maybe a potential threat, okay. But are we safer now? Are more soldiers dead, wounded, or endangered now? Are there more or fewer terrorists now? If there is a theory that blowing up a country run by an asshole makes the rest of us safer,that makes Bin Laden right. And I don't think he was right, but you have to admit that we (the US) are more of a potential threat than any country out there. Just ask Iraq. —johnnytezca |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 at 2:08 AM Protecting oil intersts IS protecting US interest. What people tend to forget is that ECONOMICS is one of the biggest factor in our nat'l security. Our economy is so global that problems that affect other countries will hurt us too economically. Since oil runs most of the world right now, we have to protect it to keep everything going. I'm sure with all our technological savvy, we already have an alternative to oil that we can probably use right away. But doing that would so mess up the global economic balance and bring about great chaos to weaker countries that wars and conflict will happen. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 at 2:09 AM BTW, thanks all for not letting this thread go the way of personal insults and attacks. I am enjoying our discussion. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 at 2:17 AM "So why exactly did we attack a country that was/is no threat to us? Maybe a potential threat, okay." —johnnytezca I'm not saying what the Bush admin did was right or wrong. The hand is still playing out as we speak so, really, only time will tell. All I'm saying that I understood why they did it, and that I would have done the same thing if I was in Bush's shoes during that time. Because nowadays, a nuclear device can be small enough to fit in a suitcase and distance nor the oceans are really an obstacle for some nut to come here and hurt us bad, we cannot be REACTIVE anymore (waiting for an attack before acting) but PRO-ACTIVE, meaning pre-emptive strikes, destroy a threat before it materializes. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 at 8:00 AM Imagine for a moment, if we didn't attack Iraq.
Then maybe there was an attack on us. But even if there wasn't | |