From DrudgeReport:
Amnesty supported Kerry and peace.
Ironic because
Matt Drudge probably put this up to hurt Kerry and Amnesty, but it's such a positive thing for both. Kerry would have been the peace president. Bush should be sent to Gitmo for 3 years and not be charged of anything... or maybe he should be
charged with treason and serve life in jail.
_______________________________
By "peace" I meant not misleading nations to war, not killing innocent people, lying to the UN, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Can't we start the impeachment already? Sheesh...
_______________________________
So pucker up to the UN, rladew, after all they were right about Iraq, and Bush was dead wrong. Thousands of dead wrong.
"MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... UN Ass.................."
On second thought, no thanks.
_______________________________
If you talk the talk, you better walk the walk.
I've always been under the impression that the U.N. merely serves to give rubber stamp approval of U.S. foreign policy whims. Someone please point out to me any U.S. action that was somehow limited by a U.N. resolution?
_______________________________
...must be this Pernod.
Let's get it started!!
This administration is flawed in so many ways, there's no need for overstretched metaphors in describing their misdeeds. Like The Post writer claims, it's just fodder for the spin machine.
_______________________________
Since when is it ass-kissing the UN to seek some kind of unity between major world players, in pursuit of a balanced & just global political approach? Were you one of those kids who used to taunt the playground peacekeepers (i.e. kids who HATED dodgeball and would comfort the younger kids who fell off the swings) with the likes of "Mama's boy!" "Teacher's pet!" "Priss!" "Goody two-shoes!"?
Eeeks, it's all coming back to me now...
I guess thats the disconnect, then Pam. I dont see them as playing nice and fair with the world. Have the UN been "Playground Peace Keepers" by accepting billions of dollars in bribe money by Saddam?
If I was on a swingset and a bully who forces his followers to beat up and kill jump ropers and put them in Mass graves slipped me some dough, would I start ignoring the jumpropers just because the bully wasnt going after me directly? Countries such as France have.
Asking nations such as these for their permission for United States action sounds crazy to me. We help them, but they wont lift a finger to help us? uggh.
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
I feel a bit like the underinformed bleeding-heart here (do I hear a shriek of glee from your corner?), but is that really true about cash from Iraq to the UN? And under what circumstances? I may be a complete Pollyanna, and I freely admit that this is a distinct possibility, but I believe that countries like France (America's oldest ally!) wanted more proof before taking military action than Georgie's word on WMD presence alone. Then again, I used to think that Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation out of a desire for greater human equality, and that the US got involved in WWII out of a sense of moral obligation... Yes, I am a chump. But I don't think that there is anything wrong in trying to work toward a better cooperation with countries which have hundreds of more years' experience in international relations than we do. America is a comparative teenager, with Europe as its wiser, somewhat slower-to-action, middle-aged aunts & uncles. Shouldn't we want to at least discuss our aims with them? To learn more about their perspectives? Or do we want to full-out run into things willy-nilly like a hormonal 14-year-old hellbent for leather?
Yes, I really think like this. Yes, my first boyfriend banned me from playing Axis & Allies because I kept trying to call peace conferences. No, I still hate hippies.
Some might disagree, but, without Nader et al., American automotive manufacturers would still consider safety belts and air bags "luxury items".
Hope you never have the need for 'em.
It's about Freedom on the March, baby.
---
Here's a poser:
A) How many Iraqis were murdered by the Baathist regime during the UN Oil for Food program?
B) How many Iraqis were murdered by the Baathist regime while Iraq was considered a "valued friend" by the US?
C) How many Iraqis have been murdered since the US liberated Iraq from the aforementioned Baathist regime? (Some of whose members are now gaining power in the new government...)
We could spend all day arguing which scenario: A, B or C represents the most vile and loathsome of human behavior.
They are all bad, why should we be apologists for any of it?
Meanwhile, <a href="http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/">not on my watch</a>.
"Pamela, the world is going to hell in a handbasket."
I know, you're both right. *sigh*
.
After being in Europe for a week, I'll take the blinders off. It's probably true, and REALLY fucking scary. My brother-in-law the German has a lot to say about this. In his opinion, the EU is being already bullied by multi-national corporate interest... They've been able to push back, but it's ending up to be like our filibuster situation.
.
Pamsterdam, I'm with you-- I don't see any reason why countries CAN'T use a mix of 'best for the planet' and 'best for me,' rather than only 'best for me, I'm holding the most marbles, so fuck you.'
________________
<i>The Boot Knife of Mild Reason </i>
________________
<i>The Boot Knife of Mild Reason </i>
.
(Apologies to the innocent civilians and troops that have lost their lives for this war.)
________________
<i>The Boot Knife of Mild Reason </i>
I'm for liberating people from oppressive regimes. I happen to think that the method the US has tried to employ in Iraq is failing miserably. While the Hussein regime was murderous, containment was working! I'll go out on a limb and say that under UN sanctions and UN money laundering (er, Oil for Food) less violence was visited upon the Iraqi people than what they have to endure today, under US protection. Yes, their future may be bright now, but, there are scores of other examples of people moving towards free and democratic governments without the aid of the US's pointy stick. I'm afraid the US is going to leave behind a repressive and un-democratic regime like the British did in Oman, in Kenya, in Malaysia, in Burma, and in every-other-location-in-the-British-empire.
If the administration had to use the "Freedom on the March" argument they seem to be using now, without relying on the pig-with-lipstick that was the WMD argument (my apologies to honest pigs everywhere), I'd imagine we would not be in Iraq right now. Look at how support for the war as eroded. The US is an isolationist country at heart. We do not view Iraqis as "us". It's the hypocrisy of the besmirched freedom marchers that gets me... do not the people of Darfur deserve to be freed from a repressive regime? How about Saudi Arabia? How about Uzbekistan?
So, the answer is no, it is not about freedom. Who is benfiting from war in Iraq? As I am sure Focher (sp?) would agree, the same profiteers that benefit from all wars.
It's only 6 months into the second term... I can't imagine the news getting any brighter for Bush in the next 3 and a half years.
I buy this.
Absolutely, Pam. All countries are a part of the earth. I dont feel other countries can ultimately veto what another country can do. Everyone's feedback and opinions (at least to me) are extremely important. I would hope that our leaders take other points of view into consideration before making decisions.
Having said that, I have enough problems of the US making decisions on my behalf, much less (and Im not saying that any country has done this, Im just saying that I would be against) other countries making decisions on behalf of the US. The US should have the ultimate say so over the US.
_______________________________
_______________________________
They acted treasonously to get us in there, once acheiving there goals throgh nefarious means they completely screwed up the implementation (violating human rights in the process).
Don't send a Jacksonian to do a Wilsonian's job.
Ive heard commentators quote figures that 99.9% of ANWR would remain untouched if we went for that resource.
That would certainly help to reduce the US's dependence on the Middle East for energy.
_______________________________
I can't think of how a UN resolution is considered binding. Maybe it's all explained <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html">here</a>.
The US is the most powerfull country in the world, it's been clearly demonstrated the what the US wants, the US gets. All this hysteria from the Right about loss of sovreignty is just that: hysteria.
Excuse me, but the black helicopters are starting to circle, overhead...
You could look it up...
OK:
<a href="http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm">The horse</a> says 10.4 billion bbl total.
<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html">We consume</a> 20 million bbl/day.
That's 520 days or LESS THAN TWO YEARS of oil. Probably less than that because US oil consumption is increasing.
A mere band-aid. Meanwhile, that 0.1% of land is in a contiguous strip through the middle of the reserve.
It's just like seatbelts: the automotive industry is technically capable of improving fleet fuel economy, howver, they lack the will to do so.
_______________________________
"OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH YEAHHHHHH!" (sorry no cute animated image of me breaking through a brick wall...)
My point was that if we are going to use OIL, the more we can make by ourselves w/out Middle East assistance, the better.
_______________________________
Or this that just the second item on the global Liberal agenda after getting everyone to use sail-cars? ;)
It's within the US interests to spend money to develop these alternate technologies. Be they solar, wind, *gasp* nuclear, hydrogen, etc.
BTW: Hydrogen cars are at least 50 yrs out. Clean coal is an oxymoron. This administration's energy policies are completely backwards.
As oil prices continue to rise (Go, you prices!) new technologies will become big business interests. The current issue of The Atlantic Monthly (sans-fiction, boo!) features nice glossy adverts for BP and ExxonMobil touting their alternative energy programs.
---
Q: What did the drunken chemist say when he heard that Prohibition was coming?
A: Hydrogen!
_______________________________
.
A little bit too much Franconian wine, and all I can say is that you're COMPLETELY wrong about Alaska. Find me any source that says reliably that that's the case. There's almost no oil there. And it would ruin the last of Earthly available wilderness area to take what little is there, out.
.
We ABSOLUTELY need to reduce the US' dependency on oil, but frankly, depending on a non-renewable resource, just finding new places where you can find it is just stupid. Let's think about maybe reducing, reusing, and finding alternative energy sources?
________________
<i>The Boot Knife of Mild Reason </i>
_______________________________
I truly love your statement: "I would hope that our leaders take other points of view into consideration before making decisions." Surely this has not happened in this case? Aren't you disappointed? Angry? Our leaders have acted based upon their own opinions and aims, regardless of other points of view. They paid lip service to the UN inspection process and then dove right in! Or do you mean "take into consideration" in the same way that my husband "takes into consideration" my view that tofu & brown rice is a satisfactory dinner, and then refuses to eat it and whines until I make him steak & potatoes?
Or do you mean that smoke's coming out of your computer? Hee hee.... oooh, I love discussions with Rich. OK, gotta get to "real" work. Bad Pam!
x
I would hope that I as an individual would do my best to honestly consider others points of view when I am making important decisions. Has the United States done this in Iraq? Absolutely not. No exit plan, underestimation of insurgencies, etc. I know where the other side of the argument is coming from, and maybe Im Kool-Aid drinking dupe, but I also feel like Sadaam was a mass murdering dictator who encouraged his troops to not only kill but rape Iraqi women in front of their family members. Of course the US cant just go after every dictator in the world, but Saddam had been flying in the face of everyone for far too long and I am glad that he is out of power.
_______________________________
You are not a dupe, Rich, not at all. I do understand your moral outrage (I use that phrase in all sincerity) about the former Iraqi regime's tactics, and I share it. However, I find that a lot of things make me feel morally outraged. Was Hussein really worse than Mugabe is? Is it morally right that the US took action against a regime whose country has a commodity which we want (Iraq:oil) and have not taken action against a regime whose country does not (Zimbabwe)? Is it morally just that we took action against Milosevic (Serbia's strategic position) but did not do more to protect Rwandans from genocide? I feel ill just thinking about this, Rich, and so I do understand your feelings of wanting to protect Iraqis from a cruel dictator. But it is not fair or just or morally right to take action in foreign lands only when our wallet or strategic positioning come under threat. The US did not invade Iraq out of a desire to protect Iraqis. That was not the deciding factor, and it never is when we go to war. The goals are always money and power, not justice and freedom. I understand that we have to pick our battles, but surely our criteria should be "what is just" rather than "what is profitable"? And I do think that genocide should be just as much of a crime against humanity regardless of who the victims are, where their homeland is, what their country's exports are worth, what religion they are, or what color their skin is. The US, as a powerful & rich country, should be working together with the United Nations to rid the world of ALL cruel dicators - but in a fair manner, in an equal manner - and if at all possible through diplomacy rather than military might.