Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#4141 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 October 2004 - 05:18 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Humans are unimportant in globalization only resources and profit.
Pigeons are not dependants, they are the main homeless nourishment. You want to know about homeless life, read Mrozek satires * New York*

Mark Twain's quip on the climate: ``Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.'' :)



Society feeds the pigeons--which then grow to be a pest like in Trafalgar Square--and the homeless do the scanvenging.

And now the system gives a rifle to the homeless to get them self-sufficient. Whoever said the poor are ignored in America?;)

HOMELESS SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM FAILS

NEW YORK: An experiment to make New York City's homeless people self-sufficient has failed, according to sources at City Hall.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in an attempt to remove homeless people from welfare roles, issued a dozen bb guns to a select group of the homeless, and told then to hunt pigeons.

"I thought it would help the homeless survive, and reduce the city's pigeon population," Giuliani said.

Initially, the homeless did shoot a few pigeons, and cook them. However, they quickly tired of having to try and shoot the pigeons from building ledges, and shifted to threatening to shoot people's pets as they were walking them in Central Park. In exchange for not shooting the pets, the homeless received money.

The idea caught on quickly, and homeless people starting buying their own bb guns, to participate in the pet hostage-taking.

"Now we have to disarm the homeless," Giuliani said.

Hillary Clinton, who is running against Giuliani for the New York Senate seat, pointed out that Giuliani's continued harassment of the homeless was an example of his cruel attitude towards the less fortunate. "Whatever happened to the idea of giving homeless people public jobs?" she asked.

"They don't vote," was Giuliani's response.

http://www.bandersnatch.com/pigeon.htm
  • 0

#4142 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 October 2004 - 05:40 PM

> > Which works beautifully for the West, right? Say corporations buy key
> > officials, and get "special treatment" and so on. Isn't that the way
> > it works?
> >
> There is no guessing here, that's exactly how it works, although
> not only for the West. Eastern corporations are just as adept at
> dealing with African officialdom, a little gift here, a favour there
> and you're in business, some local official(s) foreign bank account
> gets fatter. The country gets an inferior product or in some cases
> a product or service that's not required and pays top dollar for
> it.

Well, we don't seem to have much to disagree about, so we can hardly
call it a debate without conflict, right?
>
> >
> > Not only is good for some "entrepreneurs" but also good PR for artists
> > doing charity in Africa. I wonder if any of them favors FIXING THE
> > PROBLEM?
> >
> They just want to be seen to be concerned and caring, maybe good for
> an ailing image or career. As for fixing the problem I wonder if they
> really care enough. I'm not saying that this is so in every case, but I'm
> sure the artists managers are just trying to enhance their image.
> Also fixing the problem would be long term and involve a tremendous
> amount of planning and work, just not a quick jig for the press.

Agreed too.

> > >
> snip
>
> > Perhaps they don't care or perhaps they think it's too far. But it's
> > not, my friend. Poverty is a cause of instability, and what goes
> > around comes around.
>
> I believe that emphatically, alleviate poverty and poor governance
> and Africa would be heaven on earth. The only problem with this
> is, it seems to serve a purpose to keep the masses poor, unemployed,
> unskilled and they then seem more amenable to electioneering rhetoric,
> and empty promises.
> Rich

This life by the Law of the Jungle will come back to haunt us.
Both the environmental destruction and the violence present in much of
Africa is a foretaste of what's to come. And it will surely result in
MASSIVE IMMIGRATION.

But no problem, people here all love immigration, right? ;)
  • 0

#4143 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 14 October 2004 - 06:14 PM

Howdy Woj:

Germans dont rule the world. Those who were responsible for the world wars and are the current planners were the ones who
eliminated the Smith govt.

Your perspective and use of words are consistent with the propoganda used by the internationalists to justify what they are doing. Its irrelivant whether you heard it in Poland or not.
I suggest you read the thread on the media, so you would know why everyone talks about the weather and does nothing about it.

THe IMF will be dictating what is grown and any move towards GE.

I have no interest in corporate religion, corporate labels and tradition and steriotyping that you warm to. Regards "continuation" and future life
the Bible, particularly the New Testament and the prophecy of Jesus is far more comprehensive than the Koran and almost doesnt exist anywhere else. There are 66 book in the Bible, so
quick guess isnt going to get you anywhere close to anything.
  • 0

#4144 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 15 October 2004 - 06:20 AM

Howdy DonQ:

We agree.
However I dont think the problem is charity, same as when there are earthquakes and a lot of tragedy people in various nations get going and get supplies to where they are needed. They are being humanistic are they not, to use your word.
Discussing charity as though it was the the bigger problems than genocide and starvation etc in Africa is like the Presidential campaign in the US, making trivia the issues while really big ones go wanting.

Talking about human responses:
Here some suggestions on how the public think about socia-economic issues, taken from an editorial of the Social Crediter
Journal which was based on the book The Politics of Money-

"a. Through the mass media using electronic communications and
advertising methods based on psychological studies and market
research, the 'manufacture of consent' makes the philosophy of global corporationism seem 'normal'and opposition 'abnormal'.

b. After a decade and more in the formal education system, the vast bulk of people acquire a deep-seated belief that the political economy operates according to principles of fundamental decency. If lessons are properly learned, laws obeyed and orders followed, progress will continue and evil will justly be eliminated by the 'powers-that-be'.

c. Mistakes can be made - the çock-up theory' of history - and the resulting injustices can be campaigned against (or theorised about) and righted. However, it is dangerous to raise fundamental questions about the ordering of the political economy
because only cranks and conspiracy theorists raise such questions. People who ask such questions are labelled 'fools', to be exiled from the mainstream debate.

d. The fundamental reason why people will turn away from recognising that all is not well is that the acceptance brings responsibility. It is far more comfortable to deceive oneself that all is well, that minor '****-ups' are the only problem, and that no useful purpose is to be served by standing up to be counted in person.

Basically, people no longer know what to think. In the absence
of a common framework of reference, there is a tendency to act like 'Asses in Clover', to leave the thinking to the 'experts', whilst
enjoying the ill-gotten gains of catpitalism, tolerating the exploitation of others and the natural environment until such time as the blight falls on the clover in one's own personal field."
  • 0

#4145 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 October 2004 - 10:08 AM

and they got guns...;)

(guess who are the good guys)

http://www.teamamerica.com/
  • 0

#4146 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 15 October 2004 - 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Bader
However I dont think the problem is charity, same as when there are earthquakes and a lot of tragedy people in various nations get going and get supplies to where they are needed. They are being humanistic are they not, to use your word.
Discussing charity as though it was the the bigger problems than genocide and starvation etc in Africa is like the Presidential campaign in the US, making trivia the issues while really big ones go wanting.
Talking about human responses:



Charity is the last imperialist hope to do sell with UN help.
It has nothing to do with humanity but everything with business. When storages are full of grain with no prospect to sell abroad and not chance to sell below price without avoiding international charges for dumping, the charity is the only hope.

Procedure is the following ; Seller is going to Kofi Annan and offers to sell his product very much belong market price and even add some products free.
That way it is possible to beat competition and avoid to pay dumping charges.
UN pays for the grain not the highest price but still some....
But is one catch.
Some recipient rejects to accept the grain donation if it is in whole grains ; so country would become contaminated by the modified grain.
The best deal for the charity seller is when UN or recipient also pays the cost of delivery.
Charity today has nothing today with morality but everything with profit. :)
  • 0

#4147 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 15 October 2004 - 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Bader
Howdy Woj:

Germans dont rule the world.


You are right ; The Slavs are.
UK only represents embarrassing position in EU when chargie Russia for bad treatment of Chechnya.
For Russia is enough to bring on UK an outrage of Beslawa victims.
opinion on *Russia to face human rights court hearing over Chechnya. Philip Leach, director of the London-based European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, said several thousand cases had also been filed in Russia, but noted: "The Russian courts have not opened any effective proceedings." Russia accused the UK and the US of "double standards" for refusing to extradite as terrorists two Chechens linked to the separatist rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov. http://news.ft.com/c...000e2511c8.html :)
  • 0

#4148 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 15 October 2004 - 01:34 PM

Was it appropriate for John Kerry to mention Dick Cheney's daughter in Wednesday night's debate?
Yes
2004 votes (53%)

No
1797 votes (47%)

http://discussions.w...e=2&submit=Vote
:confused:
  • 0

#4149 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 October 2004 - 03:14 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Charity is the last imperialist hope to do sell with UN help.
It has nothing to do with humanity but everything with business. When storages are full of grain with no prospect to sell abroad and not chance to sell below price without avoiding international charges for dumping, the charity is the only hope.

Procedure is the following ; Seller is going to Kofi Annan and offers to sell his product very much belong market price and even add some products free.
That way it is possible to beat competition and avoid to pay dumping charges.
UN pays for the grain not the highest price but still some....
But is one catch.
Some recipient rejects to accept the grain donation if it is in whole grains ; so country would become contaminated by the modified grain.
The best deal for the charity seller is when UN or recipient also pays the cost of delivery.
Charity today has nothing today with morality but everything with profit. :)



Woj, I was about to make a similar point that CHARITY IS BIG PROBLEM. This is what I see is wrong with it...

1- CHARITY IS BIG BUSINESS: As you say, they can get rid of substandard products and dumping it would look bad. But most importantly, they can keep prices high by keeping these products off the market (lower supply, higher price).

2- IT MAKES THE LION LOOK GOOD: Imagine, all of a sudden the hungry lion becomes the donor lion. Who could not love him for that?:confused: The perfect camouflage...;)

3- IT KEEPS PEOPLE DEPENDENT: Perhaps the worst effect of charity. These SOCIALIST POLICIES are meant to paralize the very people in need and secure their loyalty.

4. IT ALLOWS FOR MANY PEOPLE TO GET THEIR HANDS INTO THE STUFF: And we already know how good that is for bank accounts is Switzerland...;)

5- IT ALLOWS FOR MANIPULATION OF LOCAL ELITES: The withdrawal of aid can cost them their job. In other words, they'll learn their proper puppet job...;)

All in all, CHARITY IS A WEAPON IN THE ARSENAL OF THE LION.;)
  • 0

#4150 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 15 October 2004 - 11:20 PM

On average, 57 percent said they had a worse opinion of the United States than two to three years ago, compared to 20 percent who said they had a higher opinion now. In eight of the nations, more people said their view of America had worsened than improved. Seventy-four percent of Japanese, 70 percent of French, 67 percent of South Koreans, 64 percent of Canadians and 60 percent of Spaniards said they had a lower opinion of America now than a few years ago.
Only in Israel
  • 0

#4151 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 16 October 2004 - 08:50 AM

Soyuz Spacecraft Docks With Space StationThe Soyuz TMA-5, also carrying Russian Yuri Shargin and American Leroy Chiao, docked with the station at 8:16 a.m. Moscow time, or 12:16 a.m. EDT, just over two days after lifting off from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on Thursday.
It was the fourth time a Soyuz had filled in for U.S. space shuttle flights, suspended since the Columbia burned up on re-entry in February 2003.
http://story.news.ya...a_space_station

NASA)'s Genesis space capsule crashed in the Utah desert last month because a critical piece of equipment that was supposed to trigger the release of two parachutes was apparently installed backward, The finding, if verified, would be a blow to NASA and its major contractor on the $264-million Genesis mission: Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp., which was also involved in the 1999 loss of NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter because of a mix-up between English and metric units. http://story.news.ya...lationerror&e=5
:(
  • 0

#4152 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 October 2004 - 02:05 PM

Howdy guys, we already got cooler weather in this beautiful morning, and things are looking up too with the grass-root campaign. I even found a good preacher who loved these ideas. The new Banana Revolution flyer is a killer, and we can catch young people with it with little difficulty. They just ask, "when is the party"?

(notice I squezeed "how to handle the lion" in this other flyer);)

http://webspawner.co...rs/donquijote40

Now, listen to this newspeak: "Nobody wants a draft, but what if we need one?":confused:

Out of Orwell's "1984"... Nobody wants a draft, but we may need it. The question being, WHAT THE HELL WE NEED THIS WAR FOR? Of course, this issue is never addressed by this "expert." He would have any credibility though if he had a son in Iraq.

It sounds to me like this situation faced by most hardened criminals: "Nobody wants to kill and rob people, but since we need the money"...;)

Nobody wants a draft, but what if we need one?

By Michael O'Hanlon
Posted October 15 2004

In recent weeks, the ongoing military strain of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan combined with Internet-based gossip has led to growing concern that the government may reinstate the military draft for the first time since the Vietnam War. It didn't help that Rock the Vote, a generally liberal organization dedicated to increasing the vote among young people, sent out fake draft notices last month to 640,000 e-mail addresses.

But is it a real possibility? On the face of it, the resuscitation of the draft doesn't seem out of the question. Virtually all of the Army's active-duty combat brigades and most of its Marine units were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan in 2003 or 2004. There is no letup in sight. Nearly half of the country's deployable ground forces are likely to remain in hostile environments for at least the next couple of years, meaning that most units will experience at least one more rotation abroad in that time. About one-fourth of all ground-force reservists have been mobilized at any given time since 9-11, and about 50,000 are now in Iraq. Certainly it seems reasonable to ask whether the all-volunteer military can sustain that level of commitment.

On the other hand, President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry repeatedly have opposed returning to the days of military conscription. And almost all policy arguments work against the draft too.

Today we have a truly professional military that performs far better than do conscription forces. The typical soldier, Marine, sailor, airman or airwoman today has five or more years of experience, high aptitude, a high school degree and possibly some college education.

Some Americans make the argument that it is unfair to depend on a volunteer military to fight for the country while the rest of us remain safely at home. Perhaps. But, though we owe an incredible debt of gratitude to our men and women in uniform, they join of their own free will. They also join a military that offers considerable career opportunities and, believe it or not, better overall compensation than most groups of similar age, experience and education earn in the private sector. And although it is tragically unfair that some are indeed killed or seriously wounded in action abroad, there is a randomness and an unfairness to war regardless of who serves.

So what's the truth? Unless we wind up in yet another war, the draft will remain clearly unnecessary in the near future, but a draft is not totally out of the question in the years ahead.

The reason is simple. Under some circumstances, we might have no choice. In particular, if ongoing overseas operations remain so onerous, people could start leaving the military in droves and the number of those joining could become insufficient to replace them. Alternatively, if another big war breaks out, and particularly if it requires a long stabilization mission after major combat ends, today's military could prove far too small for the job.

To minimize the chances of a draft, it makes sense to increase the size of today's armed forces now, before a personnel crisis occurs. We're already deploying today's soldiers and Marines at a pace that risks the staying power of that force. Take, for example, the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which was critical in overthrowing Saddam Hussein last year -- and is now getting ready to redeploy to Iraq this winter. The Marines' 1st Division, also part of that invasion force, is back in Iraq. About 50,000 reservists involuntarily have been activated not once but twice since 9-11.

So far, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has resisted any significant expansion in the U.S. ground forces, even though he could have accomplished that expansion using normal recruiting and retention tools (like financial and educational incentives). The problem is, if he changes his mind because of growing personnel shortages, it could be too late to fix the situation; word will have gotten around that the military has become a job to avoid. That's why it makes sense to add people now. Otherwise, the Bush administration's policies risk creating the need for a draft.

Kerry's proposal for adding 40,000 soldiers now and his desire to gain as much additional allied help as possible in Iraq make sense. Perhaps there is still time before Nov. 2 for Bush to change his mind and join Kerry in a proposal for a larger military. If he really wants to reassure voters that a second Bush term would not create the need for a draft, that is the best way to do it.

O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times, 202 W. First St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
  • 0

#4153 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 October 2004 - 03:13 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
The finding, if verified, would be a blow to NASA and its major contractor on the $264-million Genesis mission: Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp., which was also involved in the 1999 loss of NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter because of a mix-up between English and metric units. http://story.news.ya...lationerror&e=5
:(



Isn't it stupid? I don't think even Americans understand their stupid English system.:confused:

I think it goes to show how much at odds this country is with the rest of the world...;)
  • 0

#4154 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 October 2004 - 03:15 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Donq; I very often agree with you, as for example that the representatives should live with their constituents areas. I don-t every time loudly scream about it, because it is not very dramatic situation. :)



I'm glad you did, because I never got any feedback from you guys.;)
  • 0

#4155 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 16 October 2004 - 07:29 PM

A draft is usually caused by someone leaving a door or window
(of opportunity) open. I havent noticed Bush or Kerry having shut any door or window, thus both are likely to use anything left ajar, in the new term, including the military draft.
It would only take a sudden turn of adversity to make it the mother by necessity which is what O'Hanlon actually infers.
Getting people to think about the pros and cons means the battle for minds has already been half won. The Brookings Institute is just another establishment think-tank come opinion maker.

Charity:

Charity follows want not the reverse. US farmers for example are paid to produceless and less. That tax money is the 'dumping' cost.
When individuals decide what charity/cause to donate to they are voting.
Which one of you guys want to dictate how or where people can vote?
The greater problem is why there is need for charity in the midst of plenty. We were focused on the causes now we are drifting into synptoms.
Lets stop feeding the lion.

Notable Jews speaking against the Bush war:
Here's another one, and what a beauty-
Madaline Albright, the one who stated that 500,000 Iraqi children destroyed was worth it, has joined in a public protest against the same war, although this part is Bush's not Clinton's,
by Mothers With A MIssion, and they say it is a war of " choice not necessity". True but pretty wet.
Is there one American that can mouth the words WAR CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY.

The next puppett show on Broadway could be called "Revolt by Reluctant Compliance"

Representatives should live with their constituents:
You didnt state any details upon which this is based, DonQ. It is the norm in my understanding. However given that party dictatorship doesnt listen or take heed of their bosses, the constituent, whom pays their salaries and perks and not the party, it doesnt make any difference where they live.
Making them live there like making charities illegal doesnt address the real problems.

NASA:

Smackes of political war games/ sabotage. There are allegations
of astonauts being murdered because they cant be controlled
over the truth of whats really happening.
Nothing else about the US is what it seems so why should this
sector be any different?
Maybe they just want the American public to start thinking hey we cant afford these toys, lets do everything together, we dont have to win everything and maybe everyone else will stop hating us.
Doesnt matter which side they are turning their head onto prior to putting it into the Lions mouth its still going into the Lions mouth. And that brings it back to the presidential campaign.
It doesnt matter who gets in the 'govt' behind govt still gets in.
  • 0

#4156 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 October 2004 - 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Bader
Representatives should live with their constituents:
You didnt state any details upon which this is based, DonQ. It is the norm in my understanding. However given that party dictatorship doesnt listen or take heed of their bosses, the constituent, whom pays their salaries and perks and not the party, it doesnt make any difference where they live.
Making them live there like making charities illegal doesnt address the real problems.



Howdy Bader
Let me just pick on this issue for the time being.

If politicians represent a ghetto, they must live in the ghetto. I doubt very much they will take "life in the jungle" for a long time. It doesn't any further elaboration because that's the whole plan. EITHER THEY FIX IT OR QUIT THE JOB. Either one is acceptable...:cool:

Doing some extrapolation, what's wrong with Iraq is partly due to the ruling elite and top Army officers living in a Green Zone (where everything is green), while the plain and ordinary Iraqis--and American troops--live in hell.

And what the future has in store for us is more hell spilling out of the neglected areas and into the beautiful areas of the lions, and into the world at large. The shit can not be contained as crime and terrorism prove.

Perhaps the proles would get listened to if they had the lion experience what they go through. Perhaps it may not be the solution, but a major step in the right direction...;)


Iraq bombers breach 'America in Baghdad'
By Jack Fairweather in Baghdad
(Filed: 15/10/2004)

The rest of Iraq might be going to hell, but there was one place US officials considered themselves safe. Until yesterday, when suicide bombers struck at the heart of American operations - Baghdad's Green Zone.

Now the little slice of America fostered behind 10ft concrete walls has become a victim of terrorism, much like the rest of Iraq during the past 18 months.

It is has been a slow descent into chaos for the place that once mixed high-minded notions of freedom and democracy with multi-million-pound government contracts, counter-insurgency planning and alcohol-fuelled late-night parties.

The three-square-mile Green Zone set up to house American and Iraqi government offices after the war has always been a world apart from the rest of Iraq.

The breezy, park-like district of wide boulevards, winding canals and mini-palaces for Saddam Hussein and his lackeys was easily converted after the war into headquarters for the US occupation. From palace windows US bureaucrats could gaze at the two triumphal arches of crossed scimitars held by fists modelled on Saddam's own hands.

Government officials and contractors quickly built thousands of makeshift cabins. The shining white temporary buildings have a sink and a television. Many westerners delighted in whizzing up and down the boulevards in white, 4x4 Jeeps, the vehicle of choice in the Green Zone.

Access to the Green Zone for most Iraqis was limited to the "convention centre", where they could go for conferences, to lodge complaints against Americans or to apply for jobs.

Entrances to the compound were attacked by suicide bombers on several occasions, killing scores of Iraqis. In response, the coalition forces expanded the Green Zone, closing off streets and bridges, causing traffic jams and irritating Iraqis.

Concertina wire was replaced with concrete crash barriers, towering guard posts were placed at the entrances to the compound and red spray-painted signs placed by the entrances stating, in English and Arabic: "Enter here and you will be shot."

Officials say trouble inside the Green Zone started when thousands of Iraqis were allowed to move into empty blocks of flats that once housed Saddam's servants. Body and vehicle searches of the thousands of Iraqis queuing to enter and leave the compound routinely uncovered bomb-making equipment, officials said, but they suspect much got through.

In recent months officials found a water and sewage tanker lorry carrying 2,000 lb of explosives. A boy on a bicycle was caught trying to smuggle blasting caps into the compound.

"Whatever we would catch them with they would come up with something new," said one official. "We all knew the stuff was in here. It was just a question of when and where they would use it."

The Green Zone's most prominent landmark is Saddam's old Republican Guard building, now the American embassy. However, for many Iraqis the symbolism became clear and the impression grew that the Americans were going to be as unapproachable as the former regime.

Yet inside the Green Zone, the threat of attack created an idiosyncratic atmosphere. Texan cowboys mixed with White House apparatchiks and black soldiers from the Bronx.

The Rashid Hotel, opposite the convention centre, had a weekly nightclub where officials drank beer and revelled in the dangerous atmosphere.

After one such party, one group of security guards began firing over the heads of another. Everyone dived for cover. "Things like this do happen," said one British official. "It's an American Disneyland. It's pure-make believe," said an American contractor. Several thousand Iraqis remained in private residences near the palace, however they largely kept to themselves.

At the Green Zone Cafe, the scene of one of the blasts, soldiers and US officials could eat hamburgers and drink beer while watching American football. "You could go there and find two hundred people stacking beer cans up to the ceiling. It was the place to go to party. There's nothing else to do here," said one senior US contractor.

The blasts are certain to provoke a further exodus of the western technicians desperately needed to oversee projects to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

http://www.telegraph.../ixnewstop.html
  • 0

#4157 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 October 2004 - 08:38 PM

Should Politicians live in ther areas they represent?;)

http://engforum.prav...threadid=101463
  • 0

#4158 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 17 October 2004 - 04:15 AM

Howdy DonQ:

THere is still the issue of who or where is it that representatives live where they like, that it would be a factor major or minor of change if they had to move to their own constituency?
The other matter is that you are supposing that no candidates ever stand for the areas that they live in so the locals can vote for a local. If they do vote in the majority for someone who
doesnt want to live in their area then are you going to take that choice away from them?
How many slums are there that are so big the take up the whole constituency?

The Green Zone wasnt safe until 'yesterday' at all, its been subject to attacks with in the area for some weeks. Its merely getting more evidently impossible to secure, in otherwords deteriorating at the same rate as the whole nation.

Joe Vialls has already considered the situation that the US have no way out witout huge loses even if they wanted to go.

The war is being fought on Saddams terms. They know where to find him when they decide to surrender. The best weapons Saddam had havent surfaced yet. Apparently his Lawyers are
trying to get him in as a candidate in the elections early next year.
He would probably win.
  • 0

#4159 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 17 October 2004 - 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Bader
Howdy DonQ:

THere is still the issue of who or where is it that representatives live where they like, that it would be a factor major or minor of change if they had to move to their own constituency?
The other matter is that you are supposing that no candidates ever stand for the areas that they live in so the locals can vote for a local. If they do vote in the majority for someone who
doesnt want to live in their area then are you going to take that choice away from them?
How many slums are there that are so big the take up the whole constituency?



I doubt many people would vote for someone outside their area when they can have a local. The local, naturally, would have a personal interest in fixing the problem. Their kids must be safe to go to the park, and their view of the jungle must be free of ugliness. For example, if I had some power in my area, I'd have got rid of the homeless problem myself. But since our politicians live some place else--where's nice and safe--I was the one that got in trouble for trying to solve our problem. I bet you the politicians would never allow a homeless to set up camp in front of their house...;)

But we can have it voted on in referendum and make it a law if the people decide that's what they want.
  • 0

#4160 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 17 October 2004 - 08:18 AM

Representatives are bound by party policy.
If you vote for a party candidate you submit yourself to the dictates of a handful of people in a party that only numbers in thousands. THis is not democracy. It was designed to subvert democracy and upurp the power of the people.
Govt was formed by the people, the people are the creators not the servants.
IF your representative lived in your constituency he/she may be bound by the the party policy. In regards to parks that would be local govt which again is dictated by policy and unless there is enough public pressure they will make their own decisions as to
what they think is best for the locals. Much of local govt policy derives from State policy and that from Fed. policy.
Currently the development of all policy deriving from the UN and global treaties/agreements dictate directly at the local level,
on local govt, private enterprise, NGOs, Private-Public partnership etc. More and more will be outside our choice.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru