What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 06 July 2004 - 04:13 PM
It was his patriotic duty for his ancestors to help the propagation of war on Midleast. Still Syria and Iran are free country thought under US sanctions. Example how one is able to offer himself in name of Israel security and defense.
What is different between populist and democratic government. ?
Democratic government is elected by group of people which claim the majority status, and when an opposition is unable to proof that is otherwise.
After election day the democratic government doesn
Posted 06 July 2004 - 08:09 PM
I have only one question regarding yours inaccurate response;
Can you provide any name of American President during whole 250years of US existence who was a Slavic American
or Asian American or
Latino American or
Before you will find positive answer on my question don
Posted 06 July 2004 - 08:37 PM
Saddam Hussein's Jordan-based defense team said on Monday a convoy of buses is being arranged to transport hundreds of legal experts to Baghdad in a show of support for the ousted Iraqi leader.
Among the large contingent of lawyers ready to defend Saddam are 700 non Arabs, including 400 Americans and Europeans.
Two hundred legal consultants from across the world have also pledged to help in the case.
"More than half of the over 2,000 lawyers volunteering to defend President Saddam are expected to join the trip,"
A meeting in Amman on Wednesday will make the preparations for the overland trip to Baghdad, despite the risk.
Lawyers have voiced fears about their personal safety in Iraq citing remarks by officials who attacked Arabs who defend Saddam as a nationalist hero who fought the Americans.
They also expect to encounter objections by Iraqi lawyers who say existing laws bar foreigners from defending their countrymen in local courts.
The defense team again contacted U.S. officials last week to allow them access to their client. They say past requests have been ignored.
Many lawyers say the trial was a political vendetta by Saddam's political foes and say only an international court would guarantee an impartial and fair hearing.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's daughter, Aisha Gaddafi, told Saddam's lawyers she wanted to join them .
Gaddafi's daughter set up a Libyan team to defend Saddam and pledged to send international law jurists and legalists to advice the defense counsel, Amman-based defense lawyers said.
A team of three Jordanian lawyers have left for Tripoli to meet Aisha Gaddafi, who is said to have a doctorate in international law and runs Libya's largest humanitarian charity
Posted 07 July 2004 - 02:24 AM
@Letting all the political points of view debate on TV without killing each other, and you have a new society which allows the full weight of its citizens to participate in the everyday life...showing the world we have diversity in Iraq, but we are unified in our commitment to provide a peaceful democratic nation to help a culture of antiquity rise to a new era of Muslim enlightenment...@
It is rather about of kidding yourself about Iraq when is also Afghanistan.
......@A couple of years ago, when the Bush administration's unilateralists were still riding high, a senior official at the Pentagon told me the mocking slogan for the transatlantic alliance then circulating around his building went as follows: "NATO -- keep the myth alive!" No doubt he never imagined that in the run-up to the 2004 election, his boss would be trying to do just that -- only without the sarcasm.
"I don't know when in the history of the alliance we've seen so many successes," a newly enthusiastic Donald Rumsfeld told the press on the NATO summit in Istanbul. He and other administration officials extolled NATO's decision to help train Iraqi security forces and its commitment of more troops to Afghanistan. They echoed President Bush's claim that the feuding about Iraq that nearly destroyed the alliance last year was over. "We got everything we wanted,". It is even partly true -- at least in the sense that the Bush administration is now eager to work with the allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, NATO long ago adopted as a major ongoing mission. Last year the allies resolved to expand a modest peacekeeping force in Kabul to provincial centers around the country, an operation critical to bolstering the authority of the weak pro-Western government and making possible the national elections planned for this year.
Yet, after months and months of haggling, European governments were only barely able to commit at Istanbul to staffing three new provincial centers, each with a couple of hundred troops. With 26 nations and 5 million men in arms to draw on, Scheffer struggled to obtain just three helicopters for the Afghan operation.
A desperate appeal for more help by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to the Istanbul summit essentially went unanswered. A promise was made to supply a couple of thousand more troops at the time of the elections, but no one knows where they will come from. At best, NATO will have 8,400 troops under its command in Afghanistan. The United States has some 14,000 troops in the country, but none are under NATO's command.
It now looks possible that the Afghan elections will be postponed because of lack of security. If so, NATO will get much of the blame -- and the consequences for the alliance's cohesion may be dire. The mess points to the realities behind the happy talk from Istanbul. Though it now extols NATO rhetorically, the Pentagon's practical approach to it hasn't changed: No American troops have been pledged to the NATO Afghan mission, and proposals to bring the U.S. forces already there under NATO's umbrella have gone nowhere. European governments, for their part, doubt that Bush's conversion to multilateralism is real -- and consequently have little appetite for an operation that appears thankless as well as dangerous and expensive.
Posted 07 July 2004 - 09:01 AM
Few countries have foreign born or foreign cultered members get to the top job. A Fijian Indian won an election in Fiji about four years ago and there was a second coup to prevent him going into office. Can anyone imagine anyone but a Chinese making it
to the top in Singapore? A Muslim in India? A Turk in Germany?
However if I remember correctly Woj President Wilson was Jewish
and his real original name looked very similar to the spelling of Wilson. There has been a Greek Vice P.
Kerry could make it another ethnic American but I think your comment that he has selected a mate that will keep Bush in power sounds about right without knowing anything about Edwards.
Howdy DonQ: I think that title of King George has proved to be a good one that gets better as time goes on.
The NATO summit appears to be a political show/PR exercise.
Bush uses it for election appearances that things are going to
get better, NATO puts on a show that it has an interest in stability in the Arab Nation but will do little, and Turkey wants to put on a show to impress UE members so it can put its head in the lions mouth as the shortcut to paradise by joining them.
The 2000 lawyers with large dollars signs in their eyes looking to spend the next four years (however long the trial drags out) as the last working years before retiring are about as genuine in their interest of the respective subject.
It is to be expected that if Nato cannot take command to control its fate in the desert bog of Iraq warzone, it wont get too involved. The US cant submit to Nato control because it might compromise its intentions in the near future if there is still a lot of unfinished business which Nato probabaly expects making it doubly cautious.
On the other hand Nato can play a waiting game and respond to a new Iraqi govt request so they are less likely to be seen as
allies of the US and thus have more hope of coming to some
understanding with opposition forces. Also then they can blame any failures on the US/British mess. So the US will want to compromise every move Nato makes.
There never was and it remains the same any evidence that it hasnt been the intention other than for Iraq is be a running sore/gaping wound for some time.
Posted 07 July 2004 - 09:37 AM
There could have been a major PR execise with it all done before the world watching it all on tv. It could have taken place with the area sealed off for a mile around.
Perhaps is was theatrics to put pressure on NATO to get more involved to help the poor new govt.
Yevgeny Primakov ex Russian prime minister ex-head of secret service, a specialist in Arab affairs, has recently suggested Hussein had reached an understanding with the US before the
invasion. He visited Hussein just before the invasion so what did he smell?
He raised the issue of why there was no resistence by the better forces/weapons, bridges not blown etc.
He also suggested the hidyhole bit was fake, because he said the
date it was reported was the wrong time of the year for dates to be fruiting which was in the background of the photo.
Perhaps the early date of handover and the early shoving of hussein into the public eye for trial has to do with the fact that on 1 July the immunity for US forces for crimes against humanity expired and focus was put on Husseins crimes so no attention was put on the US crimes, especially before the election.
Posted 07 July 2004 - 01:09 PM
Information about Edwards;
....@Kerry backed a 2000 bill, which Edwards fought, to expand trade with 70 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America.
As soon as Kerry announced his vice presidential choice in Pittsburgh this morning, Senate Republicans portrayed Edwards, a former personal-injury attorney, as a tool of trial lawyers. The bill contains a provision to prevent trial lawyers from collecting fees in settlements that surpass the value of what is paid to consumers. The measure has the support of 10 Democrats and independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Most Republicans support the measure.
Edwards ``represented those Americans that didn't have a chance,''
On Medicare, Edwards voted against the bill. Kerry, who called the overhaul insufficient, was absent for the vote.
Republicans ``prohibited Americans from getting bulk purchases through Medicare and prohibited Americans from importing less expensive drugs that other people can use in other countries,'' Kerry said at a Houston town meeting in March. ``I thought these were the people who believed in a free-market system.''
Kerry and Edwards joined other Democrats and some Republicans to strip a provision out of a 2003 resolution that would have permitted oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
``Trade is going to be the most problematic issue given how it's playing in down-ballot races,''
Bush administration, which supports free trade, must heed the concerns of workers in the Carolinas , Kerry and Edwards were on opposite sides on a measure in 2000 to close military bases. Kerry voted for the amendment, which failed. Edwards, whose state includes the U.S. Army's Fort Bragg and the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base, opposed it.
In 2000, Kerry voted for a measure that wouldn't exempt gun makers from liability cases, a provision opposed by Edwards. That measure was defeated.
Edwards voted to override then-President Bill Clinton's 2000 veto of legislation that would create a repository for nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Kerry joined senators who succeeded in sustaining Clinton's veto.
Edwards is the fourth most liberal person in the 100-member Senate after Kerry and Senators Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Hillary Clinton intercepts from
Jeff Bliss in Washington email@example.com
@Liberal person@ has many meanings and I am wondering what it means in Edwards case.
Posted 07 July 2004 - 01:55 PM
"To me, the news that we're watching tells us that labor is not getting its fair share yet," .
All that increased productivity is boosting corporate profits, which hit a record in the first quarter.
The June employment report showed the smallest increase in average hourly earnings this year, only 0.1 percent.
Compared with a year earlier, the first quarter's unit labor costs were still down 0.8 percent.
Meanwhile, corporate profit data, released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, showed profits were at a record $1.2 trillion in the first quarter. After taxes, profits soared 37.7 percent from a year earlier, the biggest jump since 1984.
Economists worry that the poor worker might halt corporation bonanza.
No compassion for fellow citizens. Compassion is only when workers are needed to provide security for the corporations.
Posted 07 July 2004 - 02:10 PM
Do you suggest that substitution plays Hussain in trial?
Do you think that Primakov suggestsed that US broke promise to Hussain?
Pictures of American hate towards Hussain sons indicates that US might suggested the deal but it was rejected by Hussain. Hussain is too big man to commit treason towards his country.
I rather suspect Primakow accepted bribe from Americans to put dirt on Arabic hero leader.
Posted 07 July 2004 - 02:36 PM
Exactly. Like in "1984," nothing is what it seems. Who controls the present, controls the past, and who controls the past, controls the future, so it goes...
<There could have been a major PR execise with it all done before the world watching it all on tv. It could have taken place with the area sealed off for a mile around.
Perhaps is was theatrics to put pressure on NATO to get more involved to help the poor new govt.>
Nice puppet show. Some people are entertained by it, but I can't help it but notice the guy behind the curtain: the Puppeteer...:confused:
<Perhaps the early date of handover and the early shoving of hussein into the public eye for trial has to do with the fact that on 1 July the immunity for US forces for crimes against humanity expired and focus was put on Husseins crimes so no attention was put on the US crimes, especially before the election.>
I don't want to see that show either as I may fall sleep...
Posted 07 July 2004 - 04:48 PM
Response to poll in Hungarian schools 34 thousand of age 16-18;
Most disliked Adolf Hitler- 25%, G.w.Bush 23%, Osama bin Laden 16%
8 % like Bush and 6% like Pope.
Most disliked Hungarian;
present premier Peter Medgyessy, after leader opposition Fidesz and ex premier Victor Orban.
I would worry about the poll remembering that Huns destroyed the Rome.
Posted 08 July 2004 - 08:30 AM
archways formed by a hand with sword, however that in itself would have to be proved to be his and not his cover. A British firm
holds the original print that was enlarged and transposed onto the statue. Joe Vials did an article on this last year.
Primakov intimated as far as I could see that Hussein agreed to not fight to defend Iraq and to surrender perhaps. I think that the whereabouts of the best of their defence weapons would be more interesting.
It has been said that on the fall of the Bagdad airport an
entourage of govt vehicles drove onboard US freighters and flew off and there was some speculation that sonny-jim was in one of the cars which would seem compatible with an agreement with
the US. I doubt that that could have been kept a secret.
The other point Primakov said was that Hussein wasnt underground long enough to grow a beard the length it was.
One has to accept the possibility that some things are set up to
be seen to be done with the bottem dropped out (red herrings)
in order to add to the speculation and conspiracy parties, to blur the real stuff which sometimes looks like it was the work of the Three Stooges. (they were holywood comedians, short runts, screwloose and always an accident looking for a place to happen).
Like when the group which were trying to deposit some evidence of WMD in Iraq got fired on by their own side.
One could always speculate that if things were done in a refined way Bush would get confused and screw them up.
What would you do Woj if you had been employed by Saddam as
his substitute, because you looked like him, after the fall of Iraq?
Hide in a hole.
It could drag out for months arguing over where and how he should be tried. All the while recomfirming what a great
achievement it has been to remove the threat to the world.
Madalene Albright would say the thousands of collateral damage
and the infastructual damage greater now than since the invasion started was worth it.
Did the US break promise? Which one/ how many?
What could Saddam have in reserve to ensure he would not be double crossed and then there is the issue of charges of crimes against humanity that would have to be addressed in near future
Did he have any friends? He had enemies. If he became a popular leader I rather suspect he would have been enemy number one to everyone around.
School polls merely inform the media of how "good" a job they have done and nothing else.
Corporate profits: benefits havent reached the workers yet.
The trickle down if it were to happen, as used in free market
propoganda, wouldnt be enough to sustain the economy. The fact that it is all about the upward flow as opposed to trickle down
means that the economy will go into a bigger recession because the 20% who benefit cannot hold it up unless they trebble their consumption to make up for those who live five days out of seven
and go without until the next pay day.
That has always amused me about the free market rheteric. Unless people have the money to consume there is no market
and they dont want anyone but themselves to have plenty.
Trickle down equals trickle consumption equals trickle profits for too many.
Saw Kerry and Edwards on the news tonight. They look like a couple of lightweights. Edwards said this is American, where anything can happen. He got that half right. It can and it does.
He should have said This is American where the unbelievable is happening and we want to turn it around and go back to what we do believe in.
They have no impact, no conviction, if US presidential shows go on like this the puppeteers will introduce cardboard cut out on stage in the near future.
I think you are right Woj. A couple of freshman pranksters could beat them.
Posted 08 July 2004 - 02:04 PM
In contrary; in my favorite French movie; @See you in New Year @, the bank robber, freed by police to show them money path got all promised gang money and support in his life. Even his girlfriend was beautiful and faithful when all audience expected treason and betrayal .
This movie truly rebuilt my faith in human spirit.
On other hand Hussain is from the family which removed English from Iraq. It is enough to be respected .
Standing against US is also the source of gaining some popularity.
So I don
Posted 08 July 2004 - 03:03 PM
The intelligence was faulty, but the assurances given by the lion are OK. It seems to me that the laws are made for the lion, aren't they?:confused:
US Senate report on Iraq intelligence will not focus on White House
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Senate's report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq (news - web sites) will focus only on misjudgments by the CIA (news - web sites) and other US agencies and sidestep the issue of how the White House used the intelligence.
The 410-page report is expected to be released on Friday, but it will not include a second phase of the year-long investigation that will focus on how the White House used the assessments from its intelligence agencies on Iraq, Congressional officials told The New York Times on Thursday.
The second phase of the investigation involving the White House will likely not be completed until after the November 2 US presidential election, the officials said.
Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee reached a deal in February to divide the inquiry in two parts as a compromise between the views of the top Republican on the committee, Senator Pat Robertson, and the top Democrat Senator John D. Rockefeller.
Robertson argued that investigating how the White House used the pre-war intelligence on Iraq was beyond the scope of the committee, while Rockefeller insisted that the inquiry delve into whether the US government's statements on Iraq were substantiated by intelligence information.
President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and his top aides insisted for months before the Iraq War that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and strong links to the Al-Qaeda that made it a threat to the United States and the world. Since the end of the war, no WMD have been found in Iraq and US investigators have found no credible link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
<Saw Kerry and Edwards on the news tonight. They look like a couple of lightweights. Edwards said this is American, where anything can happen. He got that half right. It can and it does.
He should have said This is American where the unbelievable is happening and we want to turn it around and go back to what we do believe in.
They have no impact, no conviction, if US presidential shows go on like this the puppeteers will introduce cardboard cut out on stage in the near future.
I think you are right Woj. A couple of freshman pranksters could beat them. >
If either the Democrat or the Republic puppet wins, the puppeteer remains...
Posted 08 July 2004 - 04:09 PM
Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill:
Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy
"The shifts in such policies were not the result of overt attempts at change, but rather part of an overall effort to realign the political economy to be more profitable for business."
Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives, law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the practitioners working with those patients. Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness
Almost ten years after Ronald Reagan left office as president, the legacy of his administration continues to be studied. What is almost indisputable is that the changes in public policy that were implemented during the 1980s were sweeping and marked a turning point in American domestic policy. Faced with increasing competition from overseas, American business found it necessary to alter the social contract. This would require a realignment of the political economy so as to weaken labor unions and the social safety net. In Reagan, the Right found a spokesman capable of aligning conservatives, centrists, and working class whites. With this coalition, Reagan was able to bring about a number of reactionary changes in public policy.
This paper provides an illustration of this co-optation by examining the policies regarding involuntary commitment of the mentally ill. The shifts in such policies were not the result of overt attempts at change, but rather part of an overall effort to realign the political economy to be more profitable for business. The overall result was that political discourse shifted from a focus on social policy to a focus on fiscal policy. As such, social programs that necessitated financial outlays on the part of the federal government were overlooked in favour of policies that seemed less costly.
The new emphasis was on "supply side" economics, which essentially "blamed the nation's ills on 'big government' and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives." Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no lo nger had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the average income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased.)
Mental health professionals were also concerned that patients were not receiving adequate care. Estimates of the homeless population ranged from 250 to 500 thousand people. Of these, appro ximately a third were mentally ill. In many cases, such mentally ill patients were arrested for vagrancy and other minor infractions and were processed by the criminal justice system. Concerned that this population was receiving no treatment at all, mental health workers advocated involuntary commitment as a means of getting the mentally ill homeless into treatment.
Cuts in funding for mental health services continued throughout the 1980s, with the emphasis being on the provision of services via the private sector. Overall, the number of beds available to the mentally ill in public and private hospitals dropped ov er forty percent between 1970 and 1984. Most of this decline was due to cuts in public hospitals. During the 1980s, the number of beds provided by general hospitals in psychiatric wards and in private hospitals for the mentally ill increase d. In 1970, there were 150 private psychiatric centers; in 1980, there were 184; by 1988, there were 450 in the United States. General hospitals offering psychiatric services increased from 1,259 in 1984 to over two thousand in 1988. With such growth in the private sector, there were substantial profits to be made in mental illness, assuming that the patient had adequate health insurance. Those without medical insurance frequently did not receive adequate care.
Posted 08 July 2004 - 05:38 PM
RALPH NADER: I made public on our website, voteNader.org, the agenda of the Nader-Peter Camejo ticket compared to the other two parties. The other parties are pro-war, pro-PATRIOT act, pro-death penalty, pro-corporate globalization, and we are on the other side of that. We are the only anti-war candidate. When I talked to John Kerry, I talked basically about the dirty tricks that the democratic parties at the state level are using to try to keep us off the ballot on technicalities, drain our resources. In Arizona, the democrats hired three corporate law firms. They filed suit against us.
Of course, the democrats' dirty tricks are just beginning to unfold. I'm sure that the press will report more of what's going on there. But we have an obligation to challenge the two-party cabal. The one corporate party with two heads wearing different makeup. The kind of parties that have brought us corporate-occupied territory in Washington. The kind of parties that have let giant business say no to health insurance for everybody, no to living wage, no to a fair tax system, no to waging peace, no to doing something about the bloated wasteful Pentagon budget that now comprises one-half of the federal government's operating expenditures, at the expense of schools, clinics, public transit systems and all the necessities back home that don't find any funds to improve facilities for the American people.
Microsoft is a monopoly that's been deemed as such by the courts. When the Justice Department went after it, and it's a monopoly in the operating system and it proceeds to use that monopoly to attach applications that become monopolies down the line. That has retarded innovation and raised prices unnecessarily to consumers. It doesn't seem to be anything except for perhaps the European common market prosecutors who can do anything. The case has been completed, and Microsoft is still a monopoly and is generating over $1 billion in pure cash every month. It has the biggest cash hoard in world history, $62 billion. It illustrates the weakness of the antitrust laws.
Yet it still gets tax credits?
RALPH NADER: Yes, it gets tax credit. Imagine, in effect, the treasury department is writing a check every year to Microsoft. I mean it's crazy what's going on. Microsoft and General Electric own MSNBC, and when they started MSNBC, they said there was going to be 300 workers, and will it be in New York city or New Jersey. They dangled it in front of the mayor and the Governor Whitman. Governor Whitman won the deal, among others providing a collage of freebies to the two richest corporations in the world. One of them was -- check this -- that the workers in MSNBC who have to pay state income taxes, those taxes are then refunded back to Microsoft and General Electric as part of the deal of locating the MSNBC in New Jersey. Corporate welfare is draining hundreds of billions of dollars, local, state and national, away from the treasuries, and making the taxpayer pay for stadiums and ballparks and so on, instead reef pairing schools and clinics it's not even a political issue in this campaign. The Nader-Comejo candidacy will make it a political issue.
Thomas Friedman, Pulitzer prize winner, author of books on the middle east. Quote, Mr. Sharon has Yasser Arafat under house arrest in are a Ramallah, and he has had George Bush under arrest in the oval office. There is a vice president, dick Cheney, who is ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel on the election year, all conspiring to make sure that the president does nothing.
. The truth here is that -- there's no balanced determination. The U.S. government never connects with the deep and broad Israeli peace movement . You would think that the U.S. government was not a puppet. It would support the deep Israeli peace movement, which has been in touch with the Palestinian peace advocates and has worked out more than one accord where there could be a two-state solution living in peace with a viable and independent Palestinian state. So, there should be a debate. The two candidates Kerry, and Bush, are both pro-Israeli military government. They do not connect with the Israeli peace movement.
Both Kerry and Bush are pro-war. Our candidacy with Peter Comejo is the only anti-war candidacy. We have a proposal to engage in a responsible six-month withdrawal from Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, the "Boston Globe" is reporting senator John Kerry has released a new policy paper on Israel, in which he fully supports Israel's construction of the 425-mile wall through the West Bank. Last year, senator Kerry said that the wall was a barrier to peace. But in the new policy paper, Kerry writes, "The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense. The tight of the paper is, "strengthening Israel security and bolstering the special u.s.-Israel relationship." in one part of the paper, Kerry concludes that Israel's cause must be America's cause. Your response.
RALPH NADER: That's an example of a puppet. A puppet politician who does not think in the best interests of the American people and the Israeli and Palestinian people. The majority of the people in Israel and the majority of Americans of Jewish faith in this country support an independent Palestinian state, as a solution -- peaceful solution to that long-drawn-out conflict. It's really interesting. John Kerry on the wall is now not even up to the Israeli supreme court, which has issued a decision quite critical of the way that the wall is being built to take existing Palestinian land, separate peasants from their farms or children from their schools. So, he ought to read the latest decision by the Israeli supreme court.
AMY GOODMAN: The Hague will be ruling on this on Friday
intercepts from http://www.democracy...4/07/07/1354230
Posted 08 July 2004 - 07:40 PM
One has to quess that the majority cheer at the news of their passing or deposing. What follows can be worse though for some time.
The majority are good as far as faith in the goodness of humanity
but they support the two parties that are run by the puppeteer.
Its the lack of collective concern, lack of responsibility required
to protect democracy is where it fails. Its not untill enough- a majority are hurting they seem to take notice and then for a season.
Look at what they got away with under Reagan. Little wonder
they got bolder by the time Bush snr came along and more so
again as today. The corporates will keep increasing their appertite until the people say enough. IT not going to happen this election.
WHat was explained about what happened through Reagan
was typical whereever the free market policies were instituted.
It is a revolution and its not just about bigger profits its also ideology and the ending of the standard of living and the expectations of the past.
The playing around with the intelligence and defence systems is
purely and extention of the power and arrogance as the appertite increases. IT squeezes the good and honest people out of the way which leaves only those who are capable of being ruthless like dictators. Natural selection wins by default of the
majority. A major player in inducing default is the media and the
prostitute polies. Most people dont want to know until they have to, then its too late, so they dont have to do anything either way.
Posted 09 July 2004 - 10:17 AM
Robertson guards the Vatican interest while Rockefeller guards the Rothschilds interests.
Sharon, Arafat and Bush are all puppets in a three ring circus.
All extremists using terrorism to create chaos from which a new order will come. Which is why the peace movements in Israel and among the Palestinians are ignored. They want power not peace.
Peace necessitates a system of checks and balances against the
abuse of power.
Notice that the UN isnt working to develop any check or balance
against the abuse of power. It wants to be that itself, like a central bank over all banks but where will there be any system to check/prevent its abuse of power?
Posted 09 July 2004 - 10:52 AM
Check out -
which claims he may have gone to Belarus
which does a dental check on the one (muppet) in custody and compares with the supposed real Saddam and they have very different
Joe calls the sham Saddam Shaddam.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users