On second thought, here is some bedtime reading.
Pay close attention to the segment detailing how Nelson Mandela approved the use of a bomb during rush hour to maximize the body count of the women and children.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19085
Actually, I have a hard time believing that the world would have been any more accomodating of the U.S., unless the U.S. basically kowtowed to what the ‘world’ wanted.
Once the initial outpouring of sympathy over 9/11 was over, we were back in the world of Realpolitik. Anyone who thinks a smoother, better politician could have finessed the cooperation of France and Russia just don’t understand the forces that led them to oppose the U.S. Bush was NEVER going to get their cooperation. I happen to think that the Bush administration actually did a very good job of gaining as much support as it did, especially on the earlier, unanimous U.N. resolution that opened the door to an invasion.
And let’s not also forget that Bush’s efforts were torpedoed in large part by the French, who misled the Bush administration into thinking that they would give a fair hearing for a second resolution, and then announced that they would veto it no matter what evidence was produced.
Did it cross your mind that a site that frequently asserts that the EU and UN are in cahoots with each other to take over the world or that there’s a gay consipracy to take over the US is not the most accurate site?
Nelson Mandela was in a maximum security prison at the time that the bombing was carried out (infact it was only a few months before the bombing that he was actually allowed to leave his cell and about a year after until he was even allowed to see his wife)and was never in anyway implicated in it, infact the only person seeming to make that claim is the author of the cited article.
It’s not basic history Republican when you make stuff up.
Nobody’s asked you to do their homework, The Republican; merely your own.
Heck, I’m a liberal and I thought this same thing.
This is very bad form.
If you make an assertion, especially a controversial assertion (as this one clearly is), it is up to YOU to provide a cite when called on it.
Would you call it bad form if I claimed that the invasion of Poland in 1939 started WW2 yet did not have a citation for it?
Magiver… my sentence meant to say that even if a pro-Arab president had been in office, Bin Laden would have most probably attacked the WTC anyway. So I want to discuss only post 9/11… not pre 9/11 possibilities. (In a way I am exempting pre 9/11 Bush govt. from the WTC attacks politically-wise… if they muddled the police work its another story.)
Hitler was a statesmen indeed… he conducted very well his diplomacy and foreign relations. Being a statesmen doesnt necessarily mean SUCESS or being “GOOD”. YMMV thou.
The Saudis certainly are playing with fire… they certainly understand the nature of the beast they in part created by financing fundamentalist mosques all over the place. Funny enough Bush is treating them quite well. I always thought that the Saudis are getting off too easily on some things. (Bush himself having sold his soul to business interests.)
You have a citation for all these accusations? Try and argue the facts, not the source of the facts.
Maybe the fact that Bush wanted to go to WAR despite the UN and WMD inspections was what made the French get into that position ? What most neo cons like to forget was the heavy handed approach the US had with the UN. War War War !! Did Bush even try to give peace a chance ? France and Russia had much more to lose opposing the US than working with it...
Do you know that Russia, China and Europe all have problems with Muslim Terrorists ? That African countries too ? Basically everyone that mattered had similar problems or was more than willing to help after 9/11. The US would have kowtowed very little and gained very much from colaboration. Diplomacy works either by mutual needs or by buying them out... cheaper than Wars too. IF and ONLY IF you want to take on Al Qaeda primarily.
Edwino put it well... had diplomacy been resorted to FIRST... the results might have been amazing. All major powers striving to help tone down the Middle East and cut terrorism by the root. Instead Bush is giving them all the more reasons to keep terrorism going.... and pissing off every possible ally on the way.By the way, could anyone I was arguing with tell my why Mandela was sent to prison in the first place?
HAHAHA !! Man you do need some history lessons…
Mister, when you’re getting lessons in supporting arguments from the likes of Monty and Brutus … well, perhaps you don’t know what that means yet.
You made statements about Nelson Mandela which, to be charitable to a newbie, are not common knowledge. You have repeatedly been asked to support them. Others have tried to do your work for you, along the lines you suggested, and have not found such “well known” information. You instead have repeatedly simply and snidely reasserted them as fact, while further revealing your ignorance of Mandela to the degree that you don’t even fucking know what he was jailed for.
You need to drop the attitude and either support or withdraw your statements. BTW, there is no reason any of us to believe you’d do any better with e-mailing cites instead of linking to them right here. If you have them, provide them or let it be thought that you don’t in fact have any. Remember, you’re the new guy. You have to establish credibility yourself. This approach works against you.
No, your pitting by rjung was not at all premature.
UN to ruleover America:
http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/unrulingamerica.htm
WND exposes UN’s New World re-Order:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32438
WND article on what the new world order looks like:
http://www.countdown.org/end/one_world_03.htm#one_charter_for_global_democracy
Anyway, conspiracy theories esp. one surrounding globalization are WND’s stock and trade, also so is homophobia:
Gay rights secret agenda (I don’t know I’ve broken any rules by posting this, but it’s not the actual article itself merely a report in pravada on the article):
Mandela was sent to prison for sabotage with intent to cause a revolution.
I certainly hope not everyone here is as blissfully ignorant as you. Im not asking why Mandela was jailed as if I do not know, Im asking if in fact any of you people know. I would also like to ask you if you have even heard of the ANC prior to this date, along with what political affiliation it was involved in. If you know the answers to these two then it should give you a little insight on your hero Mandela.
I presented a citation which was only addressed by one person, and in typical fashion the author was addressed rather than the subject content.
By the way, who in the fuck is “rjung?”
And to MC, do you happen to have any citations proving that those articles are not true?
Republican, I did adress the article I pointed out that he was in a maximumj security prison and that he has never been implicated in the bombing in anyway.
What exactly do you have against Nelson Mandela anyway?
IOW, friend, you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about. I’ve known what the ANC is since apartheid existed (you can look that up if you’ve never heard of that). Now, perhaps you can explain why you think there’s a connection with the reason for Mandela’s imprisonment (which you don’t show any signs of knowing) with your allegations of rape and murder. You need to support your arguments, and you still have the chance to start doing so.
As for rjung, click on “The BBQ Pit” under “Forum Jump”, below. Or, simply click this. You’ve made a name for yourself already here, and it ain’t a good one.
And perhaps you should just go to hell, Elivs.
I’ve asked that my posting above be removed because I made a pitesque remark in it. That pitesque remark was in response to Elvis’s snide comment & also because I thought this was a Pit thread as I had a couple of threads open in separate windows.
Let me rephrase politely.
Elvis: Perhaps you could just save the silly comment about “likes of Monty and Brutus” in the future?
So the ANC was a bit violent… so were the American Settlers vs the British. Not that I am in favor of armed revolt… but Apartheid was pretty tough.
As for as movements go the ANC was pretty light… and Mandela being in jail kind of exempts him from most of what was done. He did give the ANC a boost so he could take a bit of blame… but from what he did after his release surely makes him one of the great symbols of the 20th Century.
As for being a Marxist… I suppose many americans call Marxist anyone not in the right wing of politics.