Sep 2nd bits & bobs

[Guest DeputyHawk]

1----God bless Colin Powell, who has FINALLY made calls for this oh-so secret, yet irrefutable evidence against Saddam Hussein & Iraq to be made public to the rest of the world. Speaking to the BBC, Powell publicly stated that he opposes the view held by Bush & Rumsfeld that America could go it alone in a Middle East War: "A debate is needed within the international community so that everybody can make a judgement about this." This is manna from heaven for Tony Blair, who has been facing an increasing uphill struggle to convince his voters, his party, and the rest of the EU that we should remain "shoulder to shoulder" with the US while at the same time being kept in the dark about exactly why we should be standing there in the first place. You see how much more productive and responsible Powell is with a single inclusive statement than Bush's heart-warming "I don't give a shit what the Europeans think." International Diplomacy 101 indeed, thank you ZorinIndustries. Wrong man in the oval office, people, but thankyou thankyou thankyou Powell for speaking up when you did. Monumentally important offering made at exactly the right time. Now show us the irrefutable evidence and we've got your back with no more bitching behind it. That is all.

 

2-----En route to the UN Summit in Johannesburg, Tony Blair gave Bush a justifiable public dressing down over his refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty and his delegates' farcical stalling over negotiations in South Africa. Sustainable development "is not rocket science" he told business leaders in Mozambique, while the refusal to even go along with the environmental starting point that is Kyoto is causing a massive roadblock to pollution development elsewhere. The 'Toxic Texan' and his representatives have emerged as the clear villains of the Summit, preventing anything whatsoever from being accomplished. On another tack, resident Zimbabwe psycho Robert Mugabe is pepping himself up for a verbal (hopefully) attack on Blair and Britain tomorrow, so that should be fun.

 

3----Amram Mitzna, moderate mayor of Haifa, is set to lead Israel's Labour Party against prime minister Aerial Sharon's hardline Likud at next year's general election. I sincerely hope he succeeds. Current Labour leader Binyamin Ben-Eliezer is little more than Sharon's lapdog, and Mitzna has had tremendous success in Haifa keeping Jewish-Arab relations civil and maintaining order. Bring him on. Hell, bring the election date forward - fresh off making two official apologies for murdering innocent Palestinians in recent days, yesterday the Israeli army executed four unarmed factory workers for sitting outside THEIR OWN WORKPLACE in a suspicious manner. The official army statement of "we were bored, we saw arabs, we shot them, what?" cannot at this time be confirmed. Palestinian retaliation is no doubt already happening as I type this. And round and round we go again.

 

4----French pulishers Gallimard have withdrawn copies of "Rose Bonbon", the second novel of Nicolas Jones-Gorlin, the tale of a paedophoile in love with a young girl and pursued by the law. Protestations from child protection groups, mainly L'Enfant Blue, have led to its banning. Gallimard justified themselves with claims that the book was clearly intelligent literature, not sensationalism, yet wussed out and proceeded to comply with the heinous censorship anyway. What bullshit. Decry the novel all you want, but I think the public has the right to decide on its heineosity by themselves. This sort of thing truly pisses me off, banning it will only give it cult appeal which will in turn give it more status than it probably deserves upon its inevitable eventual release. Idiots.

[Zorin Industries 0]

1----God bless Colin Powell, who has FINALLY made calls for this oh-so secret, yet irrefutable evidence against Saddam Hussein & Iraq to be made public to the rest of the world. Speaking to the BBC, Powell publicly stated that he opposes the view held by Bush & Rumsfeld that America could go it alone in a Middle East War: "A debate is needed within the international community so that everybody can make a judgement about this." This is manna from heaven for Tony Blair, who has been facing an increasing uphill struggle to convince his voters, his party, and the rest of the EU that we should remain "shoulder to shoulder" with the US while at the same time being kept in the dark about exactly why we should be standing there in the first place. You see how much more productive and responsible Powell is with a single inclusive statement than Bush's heart-warming "I don't give a shit what the Europeans think." International Diplomacy 101 indeed, thank you ZorinIndustries. Wrong man in the oval office, people, but thankyou thankyou thankyou Powell for speaking up when you did. Monumentally important offering made at exactly the right time. Now show us the irrefutable evidence and we've got your back with no more bitching behind it. That is all.

I saw this on the news the other night and was overjoyed to hear Powells remarks. I give Bush and his administation a hard time, but Powell is the one man I respect as he seems both honorable and intelligent. Truly the wrong man is in the White House, and I hope Powell can escape from the Bush Administartion with his reputation unscathed so he can run for office one day.

 

This is the man who should be teaching Bush his diplomatic skill, but I fear he listens to the"2 horsemen of the apocalypse" too much.

[Zorin Industries 0]

By the way, you should keep this up, its a great idea and gets a good debate going.

 

3 cheers for DeputyHawk

[Guest DeputyHawk]

By the way, you should keep this up, its a great idea and gets a good debate going.

 

3 cheers for DeputyHawk

Thank you. I take your three cheers and pass two of them along to Powell and the third to the French kiddie porn indistry. Oh okay, all three cheers to Powell.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"Sustainable development" isn't rocket science, no; it's a tired joke, and it has been a tired joke in professional economic circles for decades, if not centuries. You'd think after people like Malthus and Ehrlich had embarrassed themselves so thoroughly, and conclusively been proven wrong time and time again, that even the bleeding-heart liberals would get a clue. But no. They still want to take money away from the rich and give it to the poor, like that could possibly make any sort of difference. We're still getting the same hysterical doomsday predictions. Yawn. We heard this in the 1950s too, and astonishingly, the earth is still around today. Fossil fuel dependence has dropped by over 5%. Production has gone WAY up. The United States is greener and cleaner than it was 20 years ago. The northeastern states have more forests than they did in George Washington's time. We can feed everyone on earth and not one single person would starve to death if the petty dictators in Africa ever acted in their people's interests rather than their own.

 

Yeah, sounds like the apocalypse to me.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Marney, do you believe that Powell is weak for making this gesture, or do you think it something President Bush himself should have done long before now? You have stated before that America does not need allies. If she had none to begin with, I could see the validity of this 'tough-guy' lone wolf stance, but being that she does- why do you advocate pushing those forces away who would be prepared to stand by your side?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

do you believe that Powell is weak for making this gesture, or do you think it something President Bush himself should have done long before now?

I believe that Secretary of State General Colin Powell serves, as he has said clearly and often, at the pleasure of the President.

 

why do you advocate pushing those forces away who would be prepared to stand by your side?

Wars aren't won by committee. The Europeans may hold our coats, but they may not tie our hands.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

do you believe that Powell is weak for making this gesture, or do you think it something President Bush himself should have done long before now?

I believe that Secretary of State General Colin Powell serves, as he has said clearly and often, at the pleasure of the President.

 

Fair enough, but I'm interested in what your own personal opinion on the matter is. Not to attack you, merely because as little as I know you or agree with much of what you say, I already have a tremendous respect for your opinion.

 

Wars aren't won by committee. You may hold our coats, but you may not tie our hands.

 

How would showing your closest allies irrefutable proof that their common enemy has amassed weapons of mass destruction tie your hands?

[Zorin Industries 0]

Alright Marny, serious question, why do you believe so whole heartedly in Bush?

 

You just don't seem to think that he can do any wrong. I just don't understand?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm interested in what your own personal opinion on the matter is.  Not to attack you, merely because as little as I know you or agree with much of what you say, I already have a tremendous respect for your opinion.

I understand that you're not attacking me, and I appreciate and value your respect, but I try not to express personal opinions about my Commander in Chief or his cabinet secretaries. Especially in the context of this particular thread: you are essentially asking me to second-guess their judgement and assess their political vulnerability. I will not commit such outrageous betrayals in any medium.

 

How would showing your closest allies irrefutable proof that their common enemy has amassed weapons of mass destruction tie your hands?

It wouldn't. The implication, that they have the right to tell us what to do in light of that evidence, would.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Alright Marny, serious question, why do you believe so whole heartedly in Bush?

You just don't seem to think that he can do any wrong. I just don't understand?

I believe that President Bush is a dignified, effective, inspirational, intelligent, and moral leader, and he has been of tremendous service to the country both since the 9/11 attacks and before.

I don't believe anyone is infallible. All human beings are capable of wrong. However, it is not my place to criticise the President. I will advise, through the proper channels, and serve, to the absolute best of my ability, but I will not participate in mud-slinging on an Internet message board - or anywhere else. It's that simple. If you still don't understand, I can't help you.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

I understand that you're not attacking me, and I appreciate and value your respect, but I try not to express personal opinions about my Commander in Chief or his cabinet secretaries. Especially in the context of this particular thread.

 

I can understand that completely, given what I understand to be your position within the US government. At the same time, it is somewhat harsh to attack certain posters as viciously as you do for going out on a limb and stating their own opinions when you are unwilling to reciprocate in a likewise manner.

 

How would showing your closest allies irrefutable proof that their common enemy has amassed weapons of mass destruction tie your hands?

It wouldn't. The implication, that they have the right to tell us what to do in light of that evidence, would.

 

I don't think that's what is being inferred by the issue. It's simply a matter of respect. If a leader, a country, an army, and a people are willing to stand beside you and the security of both is under threat, I think it is a bit much to disregard their concerns that they themselves are 100% doing the right thing. It wouldn't have tied America's hands to share their evidence with us, so why was this not done in the first place, and why has President Bush treated us with such contempt for now requesting it?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

it is somewhat harsh to attack certain posters as viciously as you do for going out on a limb and stating their own opinions when you are unwilling to reciprocate in a likewise manner.

Actually, if you check, I only attack people when I am willing to state a counter-position or counter-argument. When people attack the President, I either ask them to stop, if they want a response from me, or I simply don't respond in the first place.

 

why was this not done in the first place, and why has President Bush treated us with such contempt for now requesting it?

Again, I don't speak for the President. But speaking for myself, the reason I'm so indifferent to our allies is largely because their support simply isn't needed. It hinders rather than helps us. Stick to police work; European militaries are still capable of doing that. For now.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Im the first to admit that I attack the President for some of his actions (usually to do with foreign policy, which is what concerns me).

 

Does the fact that I attack him make my points invalid? May i myself, not see a reason to attack his actions.

 

Marny, if you are going to attack Europe then why do you react with such fury when someone turns it back on Bush?

 

P.S I don't really want to turn this into another thread attacking Bush, since we were discussing it in another post, but this is a question that I feel I needed to ask?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Im the first to admit that I attack the President for some of his actions (usually to do with foreign policy, which is what concerns me).

Does the fact that I attack him make my points invalid? May i myself, not see a reason to attack his actions.

It makes your points invalid when you call him a "moron," "full of shit," and a wannabe "overlord," when you say that he doesn't have "a shred of intelligence [or] integrity," and that he's "in the pocket of the oil men and his own Vice President." It's at that point that reasonable people stop listening. You weren't attacking his actions. You were denigrating him, insulting him, and slandering his character. What the hell do you want, a formal philosophical treatise on why the President of the United States isn't a "Daddies [sic] boy?" You want dignity and maturity in a response, try acquiring a little yourself. Like FK Teale said, I can't put a bowtie on a dog's ass.

 

Marny, if you are going to attack Europe then why do you react with such fury when someone turns it back on Bush?

In this forum, attacks on the President are invariably personal and scurrilous. My attacks on Europe's self-professed relevance have been supported by solid facts about defence budgets, military research and development, and force projection capabilities. There is a difference. Rhetoric has its place, but you have to back it up with evidence.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Im the first to admit that I attack the President for some of his actions (usually to do with foreign policy, which is what concerns me).

Does the fact that I attack him make my points invalid? May i myself, not see a reason to attack his actions.

It makes your points invalid when you call him a "moron," "full of shit," and a wannabe "overlord," when you say that he doesn't have "a shred of intelligence [or] integrity," and that he's "in the pocket of the oil men and his own Vice President." It's at that point that reasonable people stop listening. You weren't attacking his actions. You were denigrating him, insulting him, and slandering his character. What the hell do you want, a formal philosophical treatise on why the President of the United States isn't a "Daddies [sic] boy?" You want dignity and maturity in a response, try acquiring a little yourself. Like FK Teale said, I can't put a bowtie on a dog's ass.

 

Fair enough, I went a bit overboard on some of that. However, I still stand by my opinion of him being in the pockets of the oil men, but then again its not like every other politican isn't doing it.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Marny, if you are going to attack Europe then why do you react with such fury when someone turns it back on Bush?

In this forum, attacks on the President are invariably personal and scurrilous. My attacks on Europe's self-professed relevance have been supported by solid facts about defence budgets, military research and development, and force projection capabilities. There is a difference. Rhetoric has its place, but you have to back it up with evidence.

While some of the attacks got personal, my main point was that their is no reason for him to not to give evidence for an attack on Iraq. All the trouble at the moment could have been avoided.

 

If Europe had been saying at the start that they wouldn't help, fair enough, there were worries at the start, but they only got worse when Bush was not forthcoming on the evidence.

 

I know you don't think much of Europes aid, but was there really a need to distance yoursel from your allies like this?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I won't argue from ignorance. Until an explanation is given, I will assume that actions which might be reasonable are reasonable. You're free to assume the opposite, and I won't criticise you for it. I will criticise you if you continue to use your assumptions as a basis for slander.

[Zorin Industries 0]

O.K, I must admit I just don't LIKE the man, I never have, him and his entire administration (apart from a couple of notables) just seem to be far too arrogant. The whole Iraq business has just confirmed my feelings.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

him and his entire administration (apart from a couple of notables) just seem to be far too arrogant

You'd really love me in office, then. I want to bomb France.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

You'd really love me in office, then. I want to bomb France

 

It would certainly please ME, I just spent most of the last year living in Paris. Regardless of the rest of your crazy-ass policies, I'd vote you into office on that alone. In a heartbeat.

 

"Sustainable development" isn't rocket science, no; it's a tired joke, and it has been a tired joke in professional economic circles for decades, if not centuries. You'd think after people like Malthus and Ehrlich had embarrassed themselves so thoroughly, and conclusively been proven wrong time and time again, that even the bleeding-heart liberals would get a clue. But no. They still want to take money away from the rich and give it to the poor, like that could possibly make any sort of difference. We're still getting the same hysterical doomsday predictions. Yawn. We heard this in the 1950s too, and astonishingly, the earth is still around today. Fossil fuel dependence has dropped by over 5%. Production has gone WAY up. The United States is greener and cleaner than it was 20 years ago. The northeastern states have more forests than they did in George Washington's time. We can feed everyone on earth and not one single person would starve to death if the petty dictators in Africa ever acted in their people's interests rather than their own.

 

Yeah, sounds like the apocalypse to me.

 

Woah, Lavender! You oversimplify drastically. No one, to my knowledge, is parading around the conference halls in Jo'burg with a big sign strapped to their back saying 'The Sky Is Falling'. That is, like, so last century. And breaking the entire concept down to bleeding-heart liberals taking from the rich to give to the poor is pretty short-sighted. Check face for those three inch glasses smeared with offal, stat! The focus of sustainable development has completely shifted in recent years towards the overall goal of ensuring a better quality life for ourselves and our future generations, integrating economic growth, social equity & environmental management. The term itself as a politicised entity hasn't been characterised by apocalyptic doomsaying for, well, ever, and its global importance far outstrips your chattering economic circles who seem to treat the idea as a joke to be scoffed at. The pioneering, if overly dramatic, likes of Thomas Malthus and his disciples may have been the starting point for much of the hair tearing and navel gazing that lead to today's Agenda 21s, Kyoto treaties and WSSDs, but in the here & now it's simply an aspirational concept to be steadily worked towards, putting the emphasis on solutions as opposed to problems. I realise progress has been made, but it is not nearly enough; the sky's not falling, but we can't keep billowing gathering clouds under a rug while blindly hoping things will work out fine. I fail to see how something as fundamentally sound and necessary as the future of our planet and the standard of living for our offspring can be dismissed as an irrelevancy. But I guess if you're planning on starting from scratch after some kind of moslem genocide related Year Zero, then providing for a sound future within the current framework would seem like a waste of time to you?

 

EDIT: Your comment about African dictators is fair play, but surely the rest of us can't afford to just sit back and point fingers?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

What the people in South Africa overlook is that humanity is the ultimate resource. There will be no mass starvations. There will be no global ecological catastrophes. The state of the world is better, not worse, than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago. Hell, there are more bison on the plains now than there were a hundred years ago - about 20,000 more, actually. Technology and resources advance on a geometric scale, far exceeding population growth. We've seen conclusive proof of this time and time again. That doesn't please the doomsayers, of course, so they use the harms caused by incompetent and corrupt management to predict Armageddon on the horizon. The President, sensibly, chose to ignore them and refused to dignify the conference with his presence. I wouldn't even have sent the Secretary of State. Maybe an assistant deputy or something.

 

Your comment about African dictators is fair play, but surely the rest of us can't afford to just sit back and point fingers?

We can, actually. What we should do, of course, is invade, crush all opposition, and impose sensible economic and ecological policies until they grow up and are capable of governing themselves.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Who in your mind is predicting Armageddon, as opposed to simply working towards making the world a better place for our kids to live in?

 

surely the rest of us can't afford to just sit back and point fingers?

We can, actually. What we should do, of course, is invade, crush all opposition, and impose sensible economic and ecological policies until they grow up and are capable of governing themselves.

 

That is of course exactly what we should do. Nothing else would seem fair!

 

Marney = Best Poster Ever.

 

<------------------------------ alarmed foreign element.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

awww... I luvs you too. (By the way, I think that's the first time I've seen the emoticon used well.)

 

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, UN: "Let there be no disguising the perilous state of earth, or pretending that conservation is too expensive when we know that the cost of failure to act is far greater. Let us not be deceived when looking at a clear blue sky into thinking that all is well. All is not well."

 

President Thabo Mbeki, South Africa: "There is a global apartheid between rich and poor."

 

President Sam Nujoma, Namibia: "We here in southern Africa have one big problem, created by the British."

 

Prime Minister Tony Blair, UK: "Kyoto is right and it should be ratified by all of us. But Kyoto only slows the present rate of damage. To reverse it we need to reduce dramatically the level of pollution. Let us at least start to set that direction... If Africa is a scar on the conscience of our world, the world has a duty to heal it."

 

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Germany: "Climate change is no longer a sceptical prognosis, but a bitter reality."

 

President Jacques Chirac, France: "There must be solidarity levy on the wealth created by globalisation. Our house is burning down and we are blind to it. Today in Johannesburg, humanity has a date with destiny."

 

President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela: "10 percent of world defence spending must go to the poor. We must confront the privileged elites who have destroyed a large part of the world. If we are tackling fires, let us not respect arsonists."

[Guest DeputyHawk]

But still, no one's running around in circles clutching their temples screaming "we're all doomed, Captain Mainwaring!" And I think you listed some pretty respectable names that should perhaps be heeded when choosing to simply sit back on your laurels with a Bud light and congratulate yourself on the 20,000 new bison leaping joyfully across the undulating plains. You don't acknowledge the fact that giving global environmental reforms a helping shove can only be a good thing? Everyone's going to have to make some sort of small sacrifice in the present to build a better future because of our actions in the past. Haiti's conceding five chickens, three goats & a longpig, America's leadership could surely give up a weekend to at least acknowledge proceedings? You do what you can.....

 

President Sam Nujoma, Namibia: "We here in southern Africa have one big problem, created by the British."

 

True story.

(thumbs up, cheap pop)

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Pretty respectable names?! Like who, the guy who refused to let medicine be distributed in his country because he was sure there was no link between HIV and AIDS? Or maybe the guy who's increased starvation-level poverty in his country by 400%? Or the one who wanted to assign a virulent anti-Semite to a commission to look into the nonexistent Jenin "massacre?"

 

The only guy on that list who doesn't need a swift kick in the ass is Mr Blair. Even so, he should've known better than to mention the Kyoto farce.

 

And the only beer I drink is Guinness.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Good God, you're right! The people on that list aren't respectable names at all! It's 5am and Deputy needs to go to bed. G'night everybody!

[Guest EricMM]

Good God, you're right! The people on that list aren't respectable names at all! It's 5am and Deputy needs to go to bed. G'night everybody!

What a relevation. They're all politicians. And some of them are third world politicians. Sigh. Adgendas always cloud our judgement...

 

Who in your mind is predicting Armageddon, as opposed to simply working towards making the world a better place for our kids to live in?

 

I freely admit to having never read the Kyoto Protocol. I was upset when Bush retracted from it, as I am very environmentally concerned. I saw him as being isolationist, and as being greedy in regards to chosing profits over ecology. While I can say that he choses profits over ecology more than I would like, the truth is that I did not read the treaty, and do not know what we were signing into. But while i think that everyone can go to far, if there's strides to be made in saving our environment, we should take them. The environment isn't as bad as it once was, but it could be so much better. The less pollution we can make and maintain a decent standard of living (including PS2's, the Internet, and cars) the better. That's what I think of when I think of sustainable development. We're not gonna switch over to solar cells today, not at all, but if we work at it, I'm sure we could switch over to a renewable energy source by 2012, 2017 tops. That would be great

[Zorin Industries 0]

Just thought I would say that im off on a short holiday, should be back in a couple of days.

 

Its always a pleasure to read these forums, even if I don't agree with everything, so keep it up.

 

Oh, and by the way, I like the French

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

you are essentially asking me to second-guess their judgement and assess their political vulnerability. I will not commit such outrageous betrayals in any medium.

First of all, I have to comment on that. We're American citizens, we have a right to do just that. In my opinion, it's not only a right, but a duty to question our leaders. We've elected them, after all.

 

Second, what's the Kyoto deal that's been mentioned? I'd like to know so I can argue about it effectively.

 

"Rose Bonbon" Loosely translated in high-school level Francais, most of which has been long since forgotten, means "Pink Candy." Considering that, and the subject of the book. All I've got to say is, eew. They've got no right banning it though. Few things sicken me as much as censorship.