60 Minutes

In article , Jenn
wrote:

In article , Go Fig
wrote:

In article , Jenn
wrote:

In article , Go Fig
wrote:


If on the end of your block, there was a house that was dealing drugs
and you went on record condemning this... would your moral authority be
undermined because you don't want drug dealers on your block ?

Is this block and neighborhood in jeopardy because of the drug dealer ?

If you sat back and did nothing or even just condemned it, would the
problem just go away on its own ?

If you stood out there with a video camera recording everyone that went
into that drug house, would your moral authority be undermined ?

jay
Sun Jan 11, 2004


so America has a right to invade any country it feels like invading?
And this will lead to a better world for us and for everyone else? or
heck, even for us?

As for those with Nukes, or the relentless desire to acquire them,
yes... they must be stopped. But that opinion does not differ from the
world opinion as expressed at the UN. But as the UN ponders, the
psychopath in N. Korea stockpiles. The UN answers this with begs,
pleads and bribes and gets laughed at or ignored... that is till he saw
a dirty old man crawl out of a spider box in Iraq. Today, U.S.
inspectors are visiting previously un-inspected sites in N. Korea and
bomber in Libya says he will open his doors.

I wish the UN would do its charge, the U.S. can't always be the
janitors of the world.


Saddam Hussein posed no particular threat outside his borders

I disagree with this. He has thrown missiles at 6 countries. He has
only been stopped because he didn't have nukes. The fact that you
included "particular" in your wording indicates reservation on your
part too. From when he was the power, but not in title yet, he wanted
nukes. We have 1 single still of Rummy with the Butcher in '83, we
have video footage of Chirac in '77 hugging the butcher on closing the
deal for the atomic reactor... this from a country with the 2nd largest
oil reserves in the world... a nuclear reactor... good grief.

It was a huge controversy when Israel took it out PREEMPTIVELY in '81,
but most agree now that was the right thing to do.


-- our job
now to tell everyone in the world how to run their countries? Look how
well our previous attempts have worked out in Chile, in Iran, in Vietnam
etc etc

It was America that lead the way in S. Africa, was that wrong? Is it
wrong that the U.S. wants freedom for Cubans. How many Cubans do you
see posting to this group, how many Cubans have you met in your
travels? Because the U.S. made some mistakes previously, some very
serious, doesn't preclude this generation from having a true moral
compass.

The recent UN survey showed that those most oppressed in this world,
looked to America for their help first.

jay
Sun Jan 11, 2004

devil wrote:
OTOH, it has been well-known that the story is true. They are on record
from even before the election that they wanted to go after Saddam.

On the other hand, they are also on record for not wanting to be involved in
foreign things and having a non interventionist policy.

Seems to me that Powell was allowed to speak during the election campaign to
outsile his foreign policies while Rumsfeld and company were drawing up plans
for the real foreign policy.


However, when Bush "coined" the "axil of evil" (whcih had been actually coined
by Rumsfeld's newamericancentury days years before, the official public pulicy
was that a invasion of Iraq had not been decided. The news is that americans
may finally learn that the Bush regime had already decided to invade Iraq and
that it was working to find/invent a reason, even though its public speaches
still gave peace a chance.

Remember that the french foreign minister was told in january that the
invasion had been decided, but on the same day, and weeks later, the Bush
Regime still made public speeches pretending that the invasion had not yet
been decided.

The long "delay" is really the result of the USA not getting any support from
neighbouring countries except Kuwait, and thus having to redraw its plans. I
suspect that Rumsfeld and company had always expected to be able to use Saudi
Arabia as a big base of operation from the south, as well as Turkey from the North.

None wrote:
I did, it's not HIS book, it's someone elses. Either way, the interview
should be quite interesting and provide a lot of needed and necessary food
for thought for all the right wing republicans who can't seem to get a clue!

It will take a lot more than this. The american public will simply reject that
interview, just like it rejected all analysis that showed the Bush regime was lying.

Clinton was almost impeached for getting a blowjob. Yet, the evidence
presented by Powell to the world via the United Nations was PROVEN to having
been fabricated. Yet, nobody in the USA cryed foul.

It isn't one more interview that will change american's minds on the issue.
What is needed are for the networks who do have influence on americans (Fox
and CNN) to start showing the Bush regime for what they really are.

Go Fig wrote:
world opinion as expressed at the UN. But as the UN ponders, the
psychopath in N. Korea stockpiles. The UN answers this with begs,
pleads and bribes and gets laughed at or ignored..


The UN takes collective actions when warranted. It had no problems organising
worldwide support to out the Taliban.

The UN has mechanisms to prevent a single rogue state from dictating to the UN
what to do. If an international consensus cannot be built, then the country
that couldn't get consensus shouldn't be allowed to act alone. That is where
the UN failed. It shoudl have found a way to stop the USA from illegally
invading Iraq, or at the very least, institude sanctions against the USA the
day it bagan its invasion.

The UN had accomplished a lot during the 1990s in Iraq. And yes, there was a
tamper tantrum in 1998 when the USA got tired and forced the UN to widthdraw
the inspectors. But why didn't the USA then convince the UN that serious
attemps should be made to restart inspections ?

Don't blame the UN, blame those countries that prevent the UN from taking the
necessary actions, or those countries that fail to put on the UN agenda those
items they feel shoudl be dealt with.

Koffi Anan is not a leader, he is an administrator. It is the member states
that lead the UN. That is the way the UN was designed.

In article , nobody
wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
world opinion as expressed at the UN. But as the UN ponders, the
psychopath in N. Korea stockpiles. The UN answers this with begs,
pleads and bribes and gets laughed at or ignored..


The UN takes collective actions when warranted. It had no problems organising
worldwide support to out the Taliban.

Support and (now) $2.25 will get you a coffee. But it was NATO that
took care of the problem. The UN has given vital support in the
aftermath though... but pledges are so coming from member states.

A better example of UN strength is the failures of Cyprus and Korea and
the blind eye it took to Rwanda. Even the tribunals for Rwanda and
Bosnia have failed those countries by not having them in the country of
the crime... they say they have learned from this....

Words can be helpful, a big stick can be persuasive, but sometimes it
action is required... the UN is always late to that dance and million
are dead because of it. In 50 years, they can point to E. Timor, and
they were late there as well.


The UN has mechanisms to prevent a single rogue state from dictating to the UN
what to do. If an international consensus cannot be built, then the country
that couldn't get consensus shouldn't be allowed to act alone.

Sorry, but some won't wait around to be sucker punched while Syria
convenes Human Rights Committees for the UN, I'm with them.


That is where
the UN failed. It shoudl have found a way to stop the USA from illegally
invading Iraq, or at the very least, institude sanctions against the USA the
day it bagan its invasion.

The UN had accomplished a lot during the 1990s in Iraq. And yes, there was a
tamper tantrum in 1998 when the USA got tired and forced the UN to widthdraw
the inspectors. But why didn't the USA then convince the UN that serious
attemps should be made to restart inspections ?

Don't blame the UN, blame those countries that prevent the UN from taking the
necessary actions, or those countries that fail to put on the UN agenda those
items they feel shoudl be dealt with.

Koffi Anan is not a leader, he is an administrator. It is the member states
that lead the UN. That is the way the UN was designed.


It was designed as an inept body, serious changes must be made. It
finally looks like they may have the votes to force a new agenda each
year, which will hopefully eliminate the endless political sermons that
carry over year after year... that will only get rid of some of the
talk though, nothing for action when needed.

jay
Sun Jan 11, 2004

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:16:48 -0600, Jenn wrote:

Excellent point, well put.

Agreed!!


Mentioning China in this context is truly frightening. Especially if one
has sympathy for Taiwan as it is now, i.e. independent.



Have you noticed how GW lately has reversing concerning US suport for
Taiwan? Better not rock the boat when dealing with one of your most
important creditors from whom you will need quite a few more loans in the
very near future!!

Guess what? If GW is still in the White house the next term and he is
followed (God forbid) by a person of the same "capabilities" the US will be
forced to allow China to take over Taiwan by power if they so which. They
will not be able to afford otherwise!


Nik.

Jenn wrote:

I love the number of nimrods who think that attacking another country
pre-emptively is just business as usual. Why if this is our 'right'
isn't it the right of any other country e.g. China vis a vis Taiwan

Actually, it is the belief of many that Taiwan is a part of China.
Do you remember, that is why Taiwan is no longer in the UN.

nobody wrote in :

None wrote:
I did, it's not HIS book, it's someone elses. Either way, the
interview should be quite interesting and provide a lot of needed and
necessary food for thought for all the right wing republicans who
can't seem to get a clue!

It will take a lot more than this. The american public will simply
reject that interview, just like it rejected all analysis that showed
the Bush regime was lying.

Clinton was almost impeached for getting a blowjob. Yet, the evidence
presented by Powell to the world via the United Nations was PROVEN to
having been fabricated. Yet, nobody in the USA cryed foul.


It's funny how people rationalize things. At some points in people's lives,
they pick a "team". Then they spend the rest of their lives rationalizing
their choices. Clinton did not get impeached (he WAS impeached BTW, just
not convicted) for getting a blowjob (and I hope he actually got more than
one), he was impeached for lying under oath. You change the charge (from
"lying" to "blowjob") to suit your political philosophy. You also claim
that Bush lied to the U.N. but that's not okay. So, it's not okay for Bush
to lie but it's okay for Clinton to lie? I know, I know, lying about
blowjobs is not as serious as lying about Iraq, right? But lying is lying
none the less.

You also say that there is "analysis that showed the Bush regime was
lying." There is only speculation and opinion. There is no proof. There
is proof that Clinton lied. Bush could have been wrong or received bad
advice but it has yet to be PROVEN that he made all this stuff up to
facilitate some grand conspiracy. But he could have lied.

It's not Bush that's going to destroy America. It's partasinship. If Bush
lied under oath (as opposed to the typical lying that all politicians do),
then he should be fired. If Bush broke the law then he should be fired.
But until he's impeached and they can prove he broke the law (as they did
with Clinton) he's no better or worse then any other politician.

Nik wrote:
Guess what? If GW is still in the White house the next term and he is
followed (God forbid) by a person of the same "capabilities" the US will be
forced to allow China to take over Taiwan by power if they so which. They
will not be able to afford otherwise!

If the US dollar continues its downward trend, the USA will have to start
begging OPEC not to start pricing oil in Euros. Right now, the drop of USD
hasn't affected oil prices in the USA because to americans, oil price remains
the same, but it has reduced revenus to oil producers because they are now
being paid in a devalued currency. Producers will start to want to be paid
with a different currency if the USD can't be trusted.

They will eventually want to set the price with a stable currency. If they
choose the Euro or so other currency, then any USD currency fluctuation will
greatly affect the cost of oil in the USA.

That may be a good thing to motivate the americans to start ditching the SUVs
and other oil gobbling devices and start being serious about the environment.

"MTV" wrote in message
...
None wrote:
USA: CBS 60 Minutes tonight. Whitehouse Whistleblower former treas.
secretary will give the rundown on the truth about the war in Iraq, who
really attacked the twin towers, when the war was planned and who is
really
in charge

Don't miss it!

Former Treasury Secretary who got canned, supposedly for not supporting the
tax cut or being a bush team player. "Tell all" book just out. Use a few
"grains of salt." g

MTV

Not only take it with a grain of salt, but, after watching the has been it's
easy to realize he has no leadership abilities himself and would often
mistake good leadership for something else. Hope he makes a lot on the book
because he's going to have a hard time finding a good job in the future. But,
naturally this bedwetting crybaby is grist for the CBS bias mill. Few people
may know what the "C" stands for, but most everyone knows what BS means. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/