What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 23 May 2004 - 01:45 AM
If candidates designated to be part of meat dishes after WWIII, will be democratically elected, and if the small animals will cooperate and will not feed the lion, I expect you might be tolerant and accept the cannibalism as a basically excellent nutrition system .
Democracy is very flexible system for people in power:)
Posted 23 May 2004 - 02:52 AM
The doctrine of pre-emptive strike now informally licensed by the precedent set by Israel in 1981 Bush since means
she could do so on the basis of what you have posted.
It has been claimed that Iran and Syria havent been invaded
due to Russian warning to the US.
In the case of jugoslavia and iraq the stage was first set to justify
the actions taken against them through UN security council etc
and much propoganda to condition the publics of the nations. One could say even Afghanistan through earlier intregues in East Africa.
The bleeding of nations wealth locked into the core (US and UE respectively) will create the mass that will overcome the mass
of Russia or China. It seems evident that the US could be in turn
subjected to the same canabalism. If the dollar collapses the Euro will syphon its blood.
Oil has to be secured first and a vital rift between Russia and the
Arab Nation and Iran at least, otherwise the enemy of my enemy
will become ones friend (ally). If the Persian Gulf and all the oil pipelines were to be shut off as a resilt of a war against Russian.
United Europe will be united poverty in weeks. Not to mention
the millions of Muslims across Europe, a fraction of whom could create problems.
I would expect a power struggle in Chechnia as a struggle for national autonomy is very different from an international chess game. To date we have only seen defensive military Islam
reaction. Things are deteriorating so fast a new strain of
political genetic engineering could create a new so called islamic entity that could subvert the sane but corrupt present leaders
with something worse. Brzinzenski and Israel have demonstrated new creations for external goals are quite possible in the Islamic world. So much for being a threat to world peace.
The Taleban was a hedge that got cut. It is since growing back steadily. But it too could be new entity in an old garment.
Posted 23 May 2004 - 11:55 AM
*Gorbachev Resigns Party Post MOSCOW - Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev resigned Saturday as leader of his Social Democratic Party in a dispute over the direction it was going, according to Russian news reports.
Gorbachev stepped down at a closed door party session in Moscow.
Gorbachev is blamed for the Soviet collapse .
Gorbachev is still widely respected in the West for his perestroika reforms of the late 1980s and his moves to improve East-West relations.
used intercepts from http://story.news.ya...ussia_gorbachev
Posted 23 May 2004 - 04:50 PM
This is why you should not allow anyone to call you BOSS...
In the beginning of humanity, when God created the human body, the vital organs started an argument over who should be the BOSS. THE BRAIN said: "I should be the BOSS, since I order the function of all of you." THE EYES argued: "We should be BOSS, because we guide the whole body." THE HEART said: "I should be the BOSS, since I carry the blood for all to function." "In that case," said the THE STOMACH, "I will be the BOSS, since I feed everybody." THE LEGS declared to be BOSS since according to them they carried the whole body. And everybody got indignant when THE S*** asked to be BOSS. THE S*** only said: "I will be the BOSS... And if not, I declare myself in strike." Then the S*** refused to come out for five days. THE HEART was feeling bad... THE EYES got cloudy... THE HEART threatened to stop... THE HEART was exploding... THE LEGS were shaking... Then everybody cried: "Let the S*** be the BOSS!" And since then... Any S*** can be BOSS!!!
Posted 23 May 2004 - 10:23 PM
Thanks for the interesting posts re NATO. It's an avenue I haven't been exploring yet to connect the dots.
Chinese evolution of medicine was entirely different but I think it clings a little too tenuously to tradition.
I guess human nature is natuarlly timid towards change and novelty. Although loss of power and status is more of a western problem and change, even if beneficial and progressive, is resisted from it's structure rather than a timid caution.
Loss of "compassion and humanity", in western medicine at least,
can be blamed for the most part on the fact it is relegated to the field of cold, hard science and is based on the bottom line concerns of capitalism.
So long as there's no lions in Heaven, it'll be OK...
You have an optimistic view of your destination...
Posted 24 May 2004 - 06:43 AM
providing they stopped reading the standard "news".
Confirms what I have been saying, the heads should be in prison with Bush and Blair instead of milosovic.
They (like Bush) dont have anyone to answer to. If any national represenatative at the UN raised it, everyone would probably flick the dial on their headsets to a radio station till he/she sat down.
However I believe there is pressure building to reform the UN in tandum with the increasing impatience with the USrael
holocaust of Iraq which will meet the requirements to adjust the UN for world govt.
Gorbachev and Clinton seem to have the disposition that they are looking forward to some throne to sit on. How about President and Vice President of the UNWO?
The support in UE for the UN to step up in its role is not surprising.
I would expect that the reason France and Germany refused to
support the invasion of a devostated nation by clown-heros means they have a big chips in the next stage of the game.
Meanwhile Bush will continue mumble in mid-sentence when the situation gets tough, trying to remember his lines.
Posted 24 May 2004 - 11:36 AM
* Washington next week will ask the United Nations to condemn Sudan for supporting militias that have provoked a refugee crisis and is prepared to seek sanctions to increase pressure.,
"Literally hundreds of thousands of people could die in the course of this summer," the official said. "We have told (the Sudanese government) we are going to increase the pressure exponentially."
The official said that with lukewarm support for sanctions from China and European and African nations, the United States for now will seek a U.N. Security Council statement condemning oil-rich Sudan, Africa's largest nation.
But he said Washington is prepared to press for U.N. sanctions if necessary.
UN is obvious US criminal tool.
Posted 24 May 2004 - 01:04 PM
Americans will vote Bush over Kerry because Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein are in the process of buying the , Farerenheit 9/11 movie with their own money and lining up a distributor.
Thanks to Moore's knack for self-promotion, "everybody in America is going to know about this movie, if they don't know about it already," said Michael Silberman, president of distribution at IDP Distribution.documentary about the perils of fast food. http://www.reuters.c...storyID=5229163
Posted 24 May 2004 - 01:24 PM
"No matter how exalted the aims of the U.S. in that war, in the final analysis it was a colonial war very similar to the wars conducted by the ex-colonial powers when they went out to conquer the rest of the world ...,"
"What we have heard from American sources they were there to remove the weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein was supposed to have acquired."
"What we read and hear from our commentators in America and sometimes congressional sources, if you remember going back a year ago, there was the issue of the oil reserves in Iraq and that in a year or two they would be producing so much oil in Iraq that, as it were, the war would pay for itself," the prince said.
" indicated that there were those in America who were thinking in those terms of acquiring the natural resources of Iraq for America."
Posted 24 May 2004 - 01:59 PM
In light of some of the characters going there, I thought I was a pessimist... *
; "The whole council is agreed that it's full sovereignty," Cunningham said Friday. "There's no limitation on the sovereignty."
Another issue is whether Iraqi forces can decline a U.S.-ordered military operation.:confused:
Cunningham said Friday the new resolution will put the presence of the multinational force "under review and that the Iraqis will have a decisive voice." However, he said there would be no time limit.
The resolution will also clear the way for foreign forces to remain in the country after the formal end of the occupation on that date
It is uncertain if Washington and London would be able to win legal immunity for troops in Iraq, a question which has become crucial since the damaging revelations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by the US military.
U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, now in Baghdad, is due to name a president, a prime minister, two vice presidents and 26 ministers before the end of May.
But the most controversial issue is defining the duration and duties of a U.S.-led multinational force and its relationship to an Iraqi government and military.
France, Germany and others want a "sunset" clause that would end the mandate of the force unless a new government requests it stay.
However, British and U.S. diplomats said they preferred a review after a year, which is tantamount to an open-ended mandate. But the text will probably make clear that Iraqis can ask the force to leave, U.S. diplomats said.
Another issue is whether Iraqi forces can decline a U.S.-ordered military operation.
The resolution also lifts the arms embargo against Iraq .
It sets out the legal status of coalition soldiers in Iraq after June 30. They are currently governed by their own military and domestic laws and are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts under Order 17 of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority. :confused:
The draft resolution continues that immunity, a situation the Foreign Office said was ``certainly not new,'' pointing out that similar arrangements exist for British forces in the Balkans.
Pictures of U.S. troops torturing Iraqi prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail have raised the question of whether those inmates may sue their captors after the handover of power.
Posted 24 May 2004 - 02:41 PM
I would be hesitant to go Heaven with these characters...
What have we done?
The horrific images from Abu Ghraib have come to define the ill-starred occupation of Iraq, but what do they really tell us about America? Are they simply the work of a few rogue soldiers, or the result of the new foreign and domestic policies of the Bush administration, which find ready approval in an increasingly brutalised society? Susan Sontag on the ugly face of the war on terror
Monday May 24, 2004
For a long time - at least six decades - photographs have laid down the tracks of how important conflicts are judged and remembered. The memory museum is now mostly a visual one. Photographs have an insuperable power to determine what people recall of events, and it now seems likely that the defining association of people everywhere with the rotten war that the Americans launched preemptively in Iraq last year will be photographs of the torture of Iraqi prisoners in the most infamous of Saddam Hussein's prisons, Abu Ghraib.
The slogans and phrases fielded by the Bush administration and its defenders have been chiefly aimed at limiting a public relations disaster - the dissemination of the photographs - rather than dealing with the complex crimes of leadership, policies and authority revealed by the pictures. There was, first of all, the displacement of the reality on to the photographs themselves. The administration's initial response was to say that the president was shocked and disgusted by the photographs - as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict. There was also the avoidance of the word torture. The prisoners had possibly been the objects of "abuse", eventually of "humiliation" - that was the most to be admitted. "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture," secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld said at a press conference. "And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word." Words alter, words add, words subtract. It was the strenuous avoidance of the word "genocide" while the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda was being carried out 10 years ago that meant the American government had no intention of doing anything. To call what took place in Abu Ghraib - and, almost certainly, in other prisons in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and in Guantanamo - by its true name, torture, would likely entail a public investigation, trials, court martials, dishonourable discharges, resignation of senior military figures and responsible cabinet officials, and substantial reparations to the victims. Such a response to our misrule in Iraq would contradict everything this administration has invited the American public to believe about the virtue of American intentions and America's right to unilateral action on the world stage in defence of its interests and its security.
So, then, the real issue is not the photographs but what the photographs reveal to have happened to "suspects" in American custody? No: the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken - with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives. German soldiers in the second world war took photographs of the atrocities they were committing in Poland and Russia, but snapshots in which the executioners placed themselves among their victims are exceedingly rare. (See a book just published, Photographing the Holocaust by Janina Struk.) If there is something comparable to what these pictures show it would be some of the photographs - collected in a book entitled Without Sanctuary - of black victims of lynching taken between the 1880s and 1930s, which show smalltown Americans, no doubt most of them church-going, respectable citizens, grinning, beneath the naked mutilated body of a black man or woman hanging behind them from a tree. The lynching photographs were souvenirs of a collective action whose participants felt perfectly justified in what they had done. So are the pictures from Abu Ghraib.
(more, awesome article)
Posted 24 May 2004 - 06:45 PM
As Roosevelt said - If it happened (release of photos) it was because it was planned that way.
Time after time the real issues are covered and defused by red herrings- usually a much lesser issue. Kerry is running this line. The media in general are an indispensible part of the crimes against humanity.
THe Guardian is one fo the exceptions in the west.
Posted 25 May 2004 - 02:24 AM
"The book also may rank as one of the most sensational exposes of U.N. business -- including numerous, and supposedly true, stories of wild sex and drug parties involving U.N. officials."
You are gonna see it become a movie soon--a XXX movie, that is...
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users