Here's an example as to why the UN is a joke

[Taem]

That quote in my signature was chosen following a somewhat heated debate at another forum over the distinction between substance and style. I took the position that I would rather support right than nice, if those are my choices. Apparently there are some who differ. :unsure:

GW has yet to put me on his dinner invitation list. I am trying not to feel slighted. ;)

Speaking of which, have you heard on the news all bush bashing being dealt out by Venezuela and Cuba? Words such as, "tyrant," "dictator," and "devil" just to name a few things. Hugo has asked for the UN to make a full investigation. If I didn't know any better, I'd think the two were working overtime at generating further animosity worldwide towards the bush administration, but for what end? Just venting a little steam, or a political move? It's hard to say at this point IMO. If it's venting, what do they hope to accomplish or gain by this outburst? If political, how will they benefit from the possible fallout of these accusations?

EDIT: Thought I'd add a few links to for validity's sake;

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5438997

http://news.bostonherald.com/international...rticleid=159100

http://english.people.com.cn/200609/25/eng...925_306117.html

[SwissMercenary]

Since I don't know better, I suspect that it is to enact a smokescreen for their own ends. At least, that's what this kind of rethoric, regardless of who's spewing it seems to be.

[Jester]

Both Castro and Chavez are enormously popular around the world, not only as champions (supposed or otherwise) of the "little guy," but as the leading celebrities in the opposition to American power.

They gain at home, they gain abroad, they gain everywhere from making Bush look as bad as possible, and making themselves out as his opponents.

Anyone wondering why they would be making these offensive statements need only look to the fact that Dubya is the most loathed American president abroad of all time.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Both Castro and Chavez are enormously popular around the world, not only as champions (supposed or otherwise) of the "little guy," but as the leading celebrities in the opposition to American power.

They gain at home, they gain abroad, they gain everywhere from making Bush look as bad as possible, and making themselves out as his opponents.

Anyone wondering why they would be making these offensive statements need only look to the fact that Dubya is the most loathed American president abroad of all time.

-Jester

WIthout the US and its position as a foil, both of these clowns shrink in stature considerably. Consider what that says about their actual, substantive talents and leadership capacity. Given Chavez' pulling an FDR like stunt and succeeding (FDR tried to increase the number of Justices on our Supreme, and have his favorites appointed. He failed in the attempt) you can argue that he has created by fiat a one party government. I look south of my border, at what a single party did for Mexican politics, and shake my head.

Don't these people ever learn? Or, maybe they do learn, and simply don't care.

Occhi

[Ashock]

Both Castro and Chavez are enormously popular around the world, not only as champions (supposed or otherwise) of the "little guy," but as the leading celebrities in the opposition to American power.

They gain at home, they gain abroad, they gain everywhere from making Bush look as bad as possible, and making themselves out as his opponents.

Anyone wondering why they would be making these offensive statements need only look to the fact that Dubya is the most loathed American president abroad of all time.

-Jester

I don't wonder why they make these statements. This is what communist leaders or other types of tyrants are all about. Loud speeches and boasts, especially when they know that they will not be hit upside the head. Typical schoolbully mentality, btw. What I wonder about is that there's too many people in the world that really should have tasted the other side, the Castro side for example. If they did, they would be quiet. The grass is always greener, that is until you lie in it and see it up close. There were so many naive western reporters that were given tours of the USSR in the late 20s/30s, who came back wideeyed with wonder about how this new society is such a great alternative to what they have at home. There were so many Americans who joined the communist party at that time. So many people duped. Now that we've found out about all that, you'd think that people learned about the "other" side. Guess not. The ones who found out and learned were never in doubt anyway. The other ones - they don't want to learn. Makes their life easier that way.

Edit: The reason I often bring up the old USSR in these types of discussions is that all the modern tyrannical regimes are basically based on the russian communist model. From Cuba to China (with some changes these days), it's all the same garbage. Brainwashing the young and the not so young, in communist countries or radical Islamic countries - all the same crap. All very effective. And as far as the naivete in the so called "free" countries, well... the number of idiots always significantly outweighs all the rest of humanity.


-A

[Taem]

I don't wonder why they make these statements. This is what communist leaders or other types of tyrants are all about. Loud speeches and boasts, especially when they know that they will not be hit upside the head. Typical schoolbully mentality, btw.

I suppose your right. I guess I was a little taken aback by the ferocity of the attack of the likes I don't recall having heard before by a national leader towards a USA president. I've heard threats and cynical responses towards American presidents before, but this type of shock-value insulting was hate-filled and heart-felt, and quite frankly I found it a little frightening how he calls on the world to pretty much revolt against the USA. He's instigating an already difficult situation - regarding the USA's relation’s abroad - and supplying real terrorists with the drive to continue what they're doing. He may not have anything to do with a direct attack on the USA, but verbal confirmation from a powerful world leader might be just what these radicals need to reinvigorate them - terrorists tend take everything in an "extreme" nature. I think this is really what bothers me the most about his speech - thinking about how others (i.e. terrorists) might interpret his words. I hope he is seen as nothing more than a tyrant by the wise.

[SwissMercenary]

I don't think that those Terrorists need much motivation from some South American guy. Now, seriously.

"Oh, I can't be bothered to plot to blow up trains... But, wait! There's this Chavez guy, talking about Bush as the new devil. Who is he? I don't know. But, gee, that totally changed my mind just now."

[kandrathe]

I suppose your right. I guess I was a little taken aback by the ferocity of the attack of the likes I don't recall having heard before by a national leader towards a USA president. I've heard threats and cynical responses towards American presidents before, but this type of shock-value insulting was hate-filled and heart-felt, and quite frankly I found it a little frightening how he calls on the world to pretty much revolt against the USA. He's instigating an already difficult situation - regarding the USA's relation’s abroad - and supplying real terrorists with the drive to continue what they're doing. He may not have anything to do with a direct attack on the USA, but verbal confirmation from a powerful world leader might be just what these radicals need to reinvigorate them - terrorists tend take everything in an "extreme" nature. I think this is really what bothers me the most about his speech - thinking about how others (i.e. terrorists) might interpret his words. I hope he is seen as nothing more than a tyrant by the wise.

I'm not worried about terrorists. They can usually kill only dozens or hundreds.

TEHRAN, Sept. 13--Commander of the Islamic Revolution’s Guards Corps said on Wednesday the strategy of IRGC’s ground forces is defensive, but will become offensive in case of any foreign threat and target the strategic depth of enemies.Talking to reporters while touring IRGC’s combat units in Khuzestan province, Major General Yahya Rahim-Safavi added that regional and global conditions are unstable, Fars News Agency reported. “The Americans, Brits and the Zionist regime have been defeated in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and if they contemplate attacking another country, they will experience a bigger defeat,“ he said. The IRGC chief maintained that the combat readiness of IRGC and Basij (volunteer forces) helps prevent extraterritorial threats, stressing that the Islamic system should use the services of Basij more effectively to ensure its future. Noting that Khuzestan is the most important part of the country after Tehran, Rahim-Safavi said, “Since Khuzestan is situated in a sensitive border area, the American and British invaders are present in its vicinity and foreign intelligence services are constantly making plots in this province, the IRGC and Basij are fully prepared to encounter all their plots.“The Iran Daily

Read and learn.

Tehran, Iran, Nov. 04 – An Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commander proclaimed on Friday that Iran’s Islamic ideology would soon reach the “four corners of the earth”.Iran Focus

It's the army's that worry me more.

[eppie]

I'm not worried about terrorists. They can usually kill only dozens or hundreds.Read and learn.It's the army's that worry me more.

And that is why we attack only the moderate islamic countries so that we can have the extremist takle over?
Wait.
No but seriously though, I am getting a bit sick of all this political BS. Or we attack Saudi Arabia, or we stop crying about muslim extremism.

[Taem]

I'm not worried about terrorists. They can usually kill only dozens or hundreds. It's the army's that worry me more.

My bad, I was using the terrorist term loosely as defined by GW Bush as the "axis of evil." I suppose there are better-defined terms to coin a culture that fits the bill for "dangerous" than the oft used "terrorist," but I couldn't think of any at that moment. Iran and their nukes certainly fit my original criteria of GW's definition however.

[Taem]

I don't think that those Terrorists need much motivation from some South American guy. Now, seriously.

"Oh, I can't be bothered to plot to blow up trains... But, wait! There's this Chavez guy, talking about Bush as the new devil. Who is he? I don't know. But, gee, that totally changed my mind just now."

Your probably right about their attitudes towards any non-Islamic extremist, however I can still picture them embracing his rhetoric as gold simply from historical examples of how a single speech from one of the radicals insane leaders can have repercussions the world over. I guess in my mind their attitude towards his speech depends on how deeply they hate "Americans" and if South America qualifies in their mind as an evil community. I suppose to them, “we” are all evil Zionists, in which case his words are most likely falling on def ears.

[kandrathe]

And that is why we attack only the moderate islamic countries so that we can have the extremist takle over?
Wait.
No but seriously though, I am getting a bit sick of all this political BS. Or we attack Saudi Arabia, or we stop crying about muslim extremism.

Me too! How about we just stop attacking? Seriously. War is a failed politic. It's an indictment of those who inspire it, practice it, and fail to prevent it. In this then, we are all guilty.

Here are some poignant war quotes I've been pondering;

• Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn<>
  
• War is the continuation of politics by other means.~Karl Von Clausewitz<>
  
• Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.~Voltaire<>
  
• All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.~Alexis de Tocqueville<>
  [st]
  Can we expect extremists to be reasonable or fundamentalists to be tolerant? BTW, which moderate Islamic countries did we attack? I hope you are not thinking I'm suggesting any action against Iran, because you misinterpret me then. I believe that "would be" the last straw to signal the pan-islamic Jihad.
  

[eppie]

I hope you are not thinking I'm suggesting any action against Iran, because you misinterpret me then. I believe that "would be" the last straw to signal the pan-islamic Jihad.

No I was not saying you suggestes this, I just was pointing at the fact that Iran and Iraq used to be more moderate muslim states, nowadays both go more towards extremism. (Iran already for a long time of course).
The most extremist (in interpretation of Islam) people live in Saudi Arabia, but they happen to be our best friends.
The west can simply not expect the rest of the middle east will let iteself treat like this. There are enough people willing to force their extremistic views on the many poor and illeterate people over there, and as long as the only thing we do there is take their oil, and once in a while make some war, they wil never start loving us.

It looks more like we don't mind so much that they are extremists but more that they are poor extremists....extremists with money are OK.

[Occhidiangela]

No I was not saying you suggestes this, I just was pointing at the fact that Iran and Iraq used to be more moderate muslim states, nowadays both go more towards extremism. (Iran already for a long time of course).
The most extremist (in interpretation of Islam) people live in Saudi Arabia, but they happen to be our best friends.
The west can simply not expect the rest of the middle east will let iteself treat like this. There are enough people willing to force their extremistic views on the many poor and illeterate people over there, and as long as the only thing we do there is take their oil, and once in a while make some war, they wil never start loving us.

It looks more like we don't mind so much that they are extremists but more that they are poor extremists....extremists with money are OK.

Saudis are whose best friend? The US-Saudi relationship has cooled considerably in the past 6 years.

Occhi

[Ashock]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/weekin...4hoge.html

From the NY Times


WHEN President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela used his General Assembly appearance to call President Bush a devil who had left a telltale scent of sulfur on the speaker’s podium, he was acting in an old, if not grand, tradition.The General Assembly hall with its green marble rostrum and giant golden screen bearing the United Nations seal was meant to sound with high-minded calls for international understanding. But on more than a few occasions, the cathedral-like space has rung instead with barbs and insults. And American presidents — from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton to George H.W. Bush — have been the favored targets.

In 1950, Wu Xiuquan, a Chinese representative, denounced the Truman administration effort to promote Taiwan, saying, “This is a preposterous farce, unworthy of refutation, in which Truman makes a mockery of Truman himself.”

President Reagan came in for a Hollywood-specific scolding in 1987 from Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua. Denouncing Mr. Reagan’s decision to continue financing contras fighting his Sandinista regime, Mr. Ortega said, “Rambo only exists in the movies.”

Cuban foreign minister Roberto Robaina in 1996 took after President Clinton, saying, “We are facing a King Kong escaped from its cage, destroying and smashing without orientation or control.”

Why has the United States come in for such tongue lashings?

Edward C. Luck, a professor of international affairs at Columbia who has followed the United Nations for more than three decades, said the General Assembly was a particularly alluring place for demagogues.

“If you want your 15 minutes of fame, what better place to get it than the rostrum of the General Assembly?” he said. “I think very often they are playing for the domestic audience and trying to build up their persona as a tough guy not afraid to take on the Yankee superpower.”

But what might work at home doesn’t necessarily play well on the world stage. “I think in the end they all come off as rejectionists,” he said. “They’re good at saying what they don’t like, but they don’t have any positive thoughts.”

In that sense, the Chávez rant with its claim that “the U.S. is the greatest threat looking over the planet” harks back to speeches by Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev during the chilliest days of the cold war. That’s when the true art of America-bashing reached its pinnacle, even as it tended to follow a boilerplate script of “isms” — colonialism, imperialism, racism.

Che Guevara told the General Assembly in 1964 that “the United States is not the champion of freedom, but rather the perpetuator of exploitation and oppression against the peoples of the world and against a large part of its own population.”

Castro, in 1960 managed to insult two future American presidents at the same time. He described John F. Kennedy as “a millionaire, illiterate and ignorant” and warned delegates against construing the comment as favoring Richard M. Nixon. “As far as we’re concerned,” he said, “the two of them lack, should I say, political brains.”

While these rhetorical taunts don’t necessarily influence the real course of world affairs, the threat of mobilized public opinion on a global scale against American policy can’t be ignored and has at time spurred pointed responses.

In 1975, after a particularly harsh run-in with African countries, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then the American UN ambassador, said: “For too long, we have been given private assurances that public obscenities were not meant. That currency is no longer acceptable.”

President Ronald Reagan took the strongest stance against the Washington-baiting when he appointed Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, an outspoken conservative, as ambassador to the United Nations. She said that countries attacking the United States covered up their own misdeeds by using the “Big Lie” — accusing the United States of committing crimes that they in fact had perpetrated.

Finally, in 1987, when Daniel Ortega, the Marxist leader of Nicaragua, compared Reagan to Rambo, Vernon Walters, the American envoy, called the speech “typical revolutionary babble.” And he and the rest of the American delegation walked out.

But perhaps the most effective retort was the less demonstrative one delivered by the British. In 1960 Nikita S. Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, had interrupted a General Assembly address by the prime minister, Harold Macmillan, by waving his arms in the air and shouting in Russian. In response, Mr. Macmillan stopped speaking and imperturbably sipped a glass of water. He murmured over his shoulder to Frederick H. Boland of Ireland, the assembly president, that if Mr. Khrushchev wished to continue, he would insist on a translation.

The Soviet leader went silent.

Next Article in Week in Review (6 of 11) »



Let's see... whom should we oppress next.....


-A

[Occhidiangela]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/weekin...4hoge.html
Next Article in Week in Review (6 of 11) »
Let's see... whom should we oppress next.....
-A

All of them, unless they pay their parking fines, and until they all pay in cash for the peacekeeping that they create a need for.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . .until they all pay in cash for the peacekeeping that they create a need for.

They'll be selling lift tickets in hell before that happens.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
They'll be selling lift tickets in hell before that happens.

--Pete

True enough. Don't get too wedded to that never happening, seeing as how the Astros got to the World Series last year (and lost, much to the chargin of all of the damned snow skiers) It is safe to estimate that at least a cold front ran through the first three circles. :D

(Ref: the old joke about it snowing in hell when Astros win the series)

Occhi