|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
once again, bush admin vs the un
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: redwench
the hypocrisy of the bush administration is front and center once again, this time with torture being the subject matter.
The United Nations has moved one step closer to adopting a treaty on torture which would set up a regime for global prison inspections - an initiative dismissed as ineffective by the United States.
The United States argues that the treaty does not provide for surprise prison inspections and it objects to having to pay for the new regime.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the US abhorred "the despicable practice of torture" but considered the new treaty ill-advised as it gave advance notice of inspections to suspected states.
so far, nothing too unusual right? just wait......
America has also argued that opening up prisons in its own states to international inspection would violate their rights under the US Constitution.
and there you have it. we want to be exempt, yet again, from international treaties. even those we "agree" with in principle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2419133.stm
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Why would the oppressors need to be bound by rules? We live under no ones rule.
Besides, the international scene seems to love coming up with great ideas and then have us pay for all of them. Freeloaders.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Boy, these political conditions sure do seem familiar. Like something we haven't seen in about 60 years. . . .
Hey Shalome!! Do these tall shiny black boots make me look fat??
Posted by: Freak
Yeah, really. Bush says the difference between Israel and Iraq is because of a SLIGHTLY different UN resolution that states one has to comply with instructions , or face threat of force, while the other one can take as long as possible to solve their crisis.
Double standards anyone?
I do commend Bush for actually doing something about the economy. He recently invoked a 30 year old law to prevent a port strike that would have closed 20 ports indefinitely on the west coast.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
 Quote:
Originally posted by De Freak
I do commend Bush for actually doing something about the economy. He recently invoked a 30 year old law to prevent a port strike that would have closed 20 ports indefinitely on the west coast.
|
You mean the one in Long Beach? That one wouldn't have gone on that long if the people involved in the first place did not go brain-dead on the negotiations with the striking workers...
Bush's participation in ending it by invoking the Taft-Hartley Act was not only long overdue, it was what he is obligated to do, unless he wants to risk 3-4 billion dollars in losses for each day the strike continues. Any president would have been forced to invoke it, given the same circumstances - maybe just sooner...
Posted by: NightMage
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
Besides, the international scene seems to love coming up with great ideas and then have us pay for all of them. Freeloaders.
|
Not sure whether that was a jest Ion, but here's a word from one of these "Freeloaders" America has only gotten where it has because of support by other countries, in wartime and in peacetime. In reality America is freeloading off the actions of other countries. For example WW2, the Japanese were so preoccupied with Australian Forces, America was able to get a few wins, it was also this that allowed the American's drop some H-bombs (keeping out of the fray) and claim that they had won singlehandedly.
there's my Rant
and if it was a joke Ion..... I apologise for loosing my guns.
Posted by: Lord_Buttplug
Quote:
Originally posted by NightMage
(keeping out of the fray)
|
Tell that to the tens of thousands that died "keeping out of the fray".
Also, the Chinese did far more to keep millions of Japanese soldiers occuiped than anyone else at the cost of several million dead.
Posted by: NightMage
Australia was fighting two wars at once.... Germany and Japan. Japan on our homefront, one town was wiped out, two of our harbours blocked by Japanese subs, we were in New Guinea on the Kokoda Track, yet we managed to prevent a single Japanese soldier stepping foot on Aussie soil. here's a quote for you from a site on the Pacific War
Curtin accurately reminded Americans of their own danger in these words:
"Australia is the last bastion between the west coast of America and the Japanese. If Australia goes, the Americas are wide open."
I recommend you go to www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/
Posted by: Lord_Buttplug
Since you are fond of quotes, here is one from the site you linked.
"The Japanese Kokoda Campaign ended in defeat on 22 January 1943 after six months of some of the bloodiest and most difficult land fighting of the Pacific War. Australia lost 2,165 troops killed and 3,533 wounded. The United States lost 671 troops killed and 2,172 wounded. "
I am assuming when you say "we" you mean the alliance that fought and not just Australia. Because if you don't, I suggest you go back and re-read that site.
There are two nations that allowed World War II to be won by the Aliies, they are Russia and China. They sucked millions of Axis troops into battle within their borders and suffered more dead troops than the rest of the Allies had under arms at the time. If Germany hadn't invaded Russia and Japan invaded China, this would be a very different world now.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Yeah, there is a reason why there are "three" flags in that site 
Having been abandoned by Britain to a likely Japanese invasion, Australia turned to the United States for help, and it was generously given. Thereafter, the Australians, the Americans, and the Dutch fought together as allies to stem, and ultimately repel the Japanese military onslaught in the South-West Pacific.
Posted by: NightMage
it also says that the Dutch pulled out when things became too intense at home. Anyways my point was that when Ion claims the rest of the world as freeloaders and the States as continuously being looked to to foot the bill, he isn't quite as right as he wants to be.
Posted by: Spider
be proud
Posted by: redwench
and i think that says it all
Posted by: Null Actor
ahahhahaha
Too bad I can't find a better version of this:
http://democracy-street.tao.ca/images/Chretien.jpeg
Posted by: redwench
ok, is he kissing him/her or choking him/her?
Posted by: Null Actor
Choking him 
The video is better, but can't find that either. He attacked a reporter that got in his face, punched him, started choking him. It was great! A real 'hands-on' premier.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by NightMage
it also says that the Dutch pulled out when things became too intense at home.
|
Well, I cant fault that. . . . .it's what I do.
But seriously, why isn't there more focus on the double standard that is going on right now?? By that I mean the fact that Iraq might have nuclear weapons and the leader of the American regime is using that as an excuse to invade while North Korea (a country we were actively engaged in military action with less than a century ago) is waving its big radioactive phalluses right under our collective red white and blue noses and nothing is done.
Posted by: Null Actor
Because North Korea doesn't have Saddam, daddy's favorite failure.
Oh, and the lack of oil probably helps.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by NightMage
Anyways my point was that when Ion claims the rest of the world as freeloaders and the States as continuously being looked to to foot the bill, he isn't quite as right as he wants to be.
|
I think Ion's point was that some countries are grossly ungrateful for whatever help they got from Uncle Sam
And yeah Angst, this whole Iraq scenario is beginning to stink more and more as time passes by. With the recent Bin Laden "audio tape", it is becoming clearer and clearer that Bush's priorities are all mixed up. Is the US really out to stop terrorism or is it just finding a reason to go to war with anyone they don't like? After Iraq, who's next?
The economy's taking a plunge and all Bush wants to do is make war. And it's not even the most justified war at that...
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Stink, yes. But I don't know about Bush hating Iraq. I think he likes Iraq very much, in fact. He likes it enough to make sure he can have a nice little villa there to run off to. A cozy little hideaway with a picket fence out front and a big ole oil pump in the back, being kept company by his choice of Oil-Executive-on-a-Leash. Nova is spot-on: this ain't about the safety of the Free World, this is business.
But yeah, the whole "War on Terrorism" facade is failing fast. The Bush regime is kinda like a sixteen-year-old boy about to get some action: they're so on-rock that any semblance of self-control or composure is crumbling away rapidly.
By the way, if anyone out there knows where to find the photo of Bush and his dangling bozack in his press conference with Kofi Annan, post it. I can't find it and everyone should see that. It's unquestionably one for the family album, folks.
Posted by: tkron
Makes you wonder if all his saber rattling and the war on terrorism isn't being done to deflect the publics attention from how badly the economy is doing.
Posted by: redwench
except that the saber rattling is making the economy worse in most sectors. if only theyd put all the money and effort into the economy that they spend on the "terror" crap, wed be out of the recession.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by tkron
Makes you wonder if all his saber rattling and the war on terrorism isn't being done to deflect the publics attention from how badly the economy is doing.
|
Kinda like wag the dog all over again, huh? hehee...
Hey, some Bush supporters are probably saying "yeah, he's a war freak, but at least he didn't cheat on his wife..."
-_-
Posted by: Gunslinger
It's comforting to know that the newly-dominant party in American politics is swinging at pitches in the dirt and ignoring the watermelons down the middle........not.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by tkron
Makes you wonder if all his saber rattling and the war on terrorism isn't being done to deflect the publics attention from how badly the economy is doing.
|
It's being done because the economy is doing badly. The Bush regime is living in the 1950's, believing that a war will boost the economy. Unfortunately, the Vietnam war and the Gulf war showed us (those of us who were paying attention) that modern conventional warfare doesn't boost the economy like the second World War did. This is primarily because the citizens at home aren't willing to make the cutbacks, invest the extra effort and get behind the war effort like they were back in the first half of the 20th century. And that is a result of the American people becoming hip to the fact that sometimes war is about defending freedom (Bosnia-Herzegovina) but sometimes war is about making rich people richer.
Posted by: NightMage
Angst is right, war has just gotten bigger and better for rich people, this may offend people but... war has always been about the higher class sending middle and lower class people to war so that they can make money. I agree some wars like Bosnia, East Timor and so forth are about protecting freedom and rights, but primarily other wars are about money.
|
|
|
|
|
