More on Bush in Africa:
The White House page, including the speech on September 19th when Bush referred to the Sudan crisis as a genocide:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/africa/
“On Africa, Bush is very much the activist”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-03-bush-africa_x.htm
And Bush continues to lavish money on Africa.
Bush is a lot of things - ignoring Africa? Do your homework.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
More on Bush in Africa:
The White House page, including the speech on September 19th when Bush referred to the Sudan crisis as a genocide:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/africa/
“On Africa, Bush is very much the activist”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-03-bush-africa_x.htm
And Bush continues to lavish money on Africa.
Bush is a lot of things - ignoring Africa? Do your homework.
[/quote]
So, why don’t we pull out of Iraq immediately and “lavish” money at them?
By your logic, that should be good enough.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, why don’t we pull out of Iraq immediately and “lavish” money at them?
By your logic, that should be good enough.[/quote]
Ridiculous. And please, steer away from the word ‘logic’.
To answer your question - we have initiated military action there. And pursuant to our Marshall Plan attitude to war post-WWII, we’re sticking around to put something in the place of what we took out. And that has included lavishing plenty of money.
Situation in Africa is different - this you should know. There is no ‘logic’ in treating Iraq and Africa the same for a list of reasons that should be obvious: context of role in GWOT, history of Gulf War and subsequent UN resolutions, end of diplomacy, proximity to other rogue states, etc.
What is logical about treating very different situations the exact same? Africa, by the way, is not one monolithic entity - each nation in Africa has its own set of unique problems. These varying complexities have to be accounted for - and just as we would treat Iran different from North Korea different from Venezuela different from China - there is nothing ‘logical’ about shoehorning the exact same approach to ‘Africa’ as in Iraq, or vice versa. Dumb, and certainly not logical.
So, let’s have an accounting: you were wrong on saying Bush was completely uninterested in Africa as a policy matter, you were wrong that Bush had not included Africa in his agenda for promoting democracy, and you are wrong for saying it is logical to treat Iraq and Africa the same way as a matter of policy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
To answer your question - we have initiated military action there. [/quote]
Didn’t we initiate military action in Africa?
[quote
What is logical about treating very different situations the exact same? [/quote]
That isn’t the point. The issue is how “spread of democracy” is being used politically as if our efforts are to save the poor people of the region and not as a political military strategy in the region. The issue is why Republicans were so against action in Africa and “staying the course” as far as MILITARY ACTION and for “democracy spreading” in Iraq with MILITARY ACTION. Was President Clinton right when he said if we pulled out of Africa that more people would die?
[quote]Ren wrote:
Read history a little more and you’ll know why Africa is the way it is. Western countries have ALOT to do with it.[/quote]
Why didn’t those cultures develop, adopt capitalism and rational selfishness (instead of trying to eat and/or enslave each other), and go exploit Europe?
Western culture is simply superior to all other cultures. That’s why it rose to dominate the world and why many countries are now adopting our ways, which the Islamo-fascists hate. They love squalor and suffering, so the mullahs and other such beasts can keep the populace ignorant and enslaved.
Who has harnessed nature more, some dude squatting in a hut somewhere or an American farmer driving a tractor? Darfur, or capitalism. Pick one.
Case closed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Didn’t we initiate military action in Africa?[/quote]
When are you talking about? Somalia?
This is silly, because you present a false choice: it doesn’t have to be either/or, it can be both.
When were Republicans so against action in Africa? You aren’t giving specifics. In the past? Recently, with the Sudan?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Western culture is simply superior to all other cultures.
[/quote]
…if the ability to kill, enslave, dominate, destroy, lie and cheat are the qualities you go by, than i have to agree. Personally i think the indian nations of North-America were the epitome of culture and society in sync with nature, but all the endeering qualities the white european has put an end to that. Go caucasian or die!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
Democrats long to see American mothers weeping for their sons lost in a foreign war, but only if the mission serves absolutely no national security objectives of the United States. If we are building a democracy in a country while also making America safer ? such as in Iraq ? Democrats oppose it with every fiber of their being.
…
— Ann Coulter
Go get 'em, Annie!! Rip 'em a new one!
[/quote]
That’s a lie, right there. A dirty lie. She’s a lying bitch for telling such lies. And you’re a stupid fuck for believing her.
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of the US. No wmd remmember? No link to Al-Quada, remember. And now we have this incoventient report that the war has indeed made the US (and the entire world) less safe ! ! !
And let’s not forget, the Republicans fought Clinton every step when he took out Milosevicz. Not 1 single US soldier died. Remember?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
Read history a little more and you’ll know why Africa is the way it is. Western countries have ALOT to do with it.
Why didn’t those cultures develop, adopt capitalism and rational selfishness (instead of trying to eat and/or enslave each other), and go exploit Europe?
Western culture is simply superior to all other cultures. [/quote]
You’re living proof that it is not.
Perhaps they were agressive. And a threat to world peace.
[quote] and why many countries are now adopting our ways, which the Islamo-fascists hate. They love squalor and suffering, [/quote). Well, it’s not THEIR president who loves torture.
so the mullahs and other such beasts can keep the populace ignorant and enslaved. [/quote]
And who’s keeping you ignorant?
Why do huricanes cost more lives in the US then in Cuba? Why do the Cubans hide in shelters when the US president claims “we can only pray”?
I agree.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…if the ability to kill, enslave, dominate, destroy, lie and cheat are the qualities you go by, than i have to agree.[/quote]
You just described the entirety of tribal Africa, and 98% of the American Indians. The West was just far more successful.
What a load of ignorant crap. You sound like one of those dumbasses that thinks that if you save the wolf - he will be your friend. Little do you know that the wolf would just as soon have you for dinner as anything else.
The life of the American Indian was one of violence, and constant struggle - not the peace and serenity you romanticize about.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
Read history a little more and you’ll know why Africa is the way it is. Western countries have ALOT to do with it.
Why didn’t those cultures develop, adopt capitalism and rational selfishness (instead of trying to eat and/or enslave each other), and go exploit Europe?
Western culture is simply superior to all other cultures. That’s why it rose to dominate the world and why many countries are now adopting our ways, which the Islamo-fascists hate. They love squalor and suffering, so the mullahs and other such beasts can keep the populace ignorant and enslaved.
Who has harnessed nature more, some dude squatting in a hut somewhere or an American farmer driving a tractor? Darfur, or capitalism. Pick one.
Case closed.
[/quote]
Africa lags economically and politically behind the rest of the world as a consequence of centuries of colonialism, exploitation, foreign intervention, and slavery. They were well on their way to becoming “civilized” if you want to take the western ideal of that before the Europeans showed up.
Oh yeah, harnessing nature? I seem to remember that this country’s economy relied on the labor of African slaves picking cotton. Harnessing nature…
[quote]Ren wrote:
Africa lags economically and politically behind the rest of the world as a consequence of centuries of colonialism, exploitation, foreign intervention, and slavery. They were well on their way to becoming “civilized” if you want to take the western ideal of that before the Europeans showed up.
Oh yeah, harnessing nature? I seem to remember that this country’s economy relied on the labor of African slaves picking cotton. Harnessing nature…[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Non-western cultures were around for THOUSANDS of years before anyone ever heard of capitalism. Why didn’t those societies become the dominant influence in the world today? Why were western nations able to come in and conquer them at very little cost? Why are former colonies now horror-pits (like Zimbabwe, for ex)?
Western culture is simply superior (despite the presence of Wreckless). It has given us things like the Rights of Man, objective laws, most of the scientific advances of today, on and on. Certainly our ancestors brutalized these people, mostly because native peoples DON’T WANT TO CHANGE! They live in ignorance and squalor. ‘To change’ means the death of their old ways. They never developed as full human beings can. (Ever as a native american what time it is? You’ll see what I mean.) Primitive people don’t develop the ability to think in abstractions, such as projecting the future.
The unique thing about western Man is the ability to think in terms of concepts, rather than in terms of percepts. The West is therefore superior (excluding Wreckless; he’s too jealous of Monica to be rational.)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…if the ability to kill, enslave, dominate, destroy, lie and cheat are the qualities you go by, than i have to agree.
You just described the entirety of tribal Africa, and 98% of the American Indians. The West was just far more successful.[/quote]
…98%? You do know that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot, don’t you? Yess, ofcourse you know that, you just did that here ((-:
[quote]What a load of ignorant crap. You sound like one of those dumbasses that thinks that if you save the wolf - he will be your friend. Little do you know that the wolf would just as soon have you for dinner as anything else.
The life of the American Indian was one of violence, and constant struggle - not the peace and serenity you romanticize about.
[/quote]
…never said any of that, you’re fantasizing again (-:
Ann Coulter & Jeff Cohen
As an MSNBC in-house pundit in 2002, I had a time slot each afternoon for one-on-one debates with a roster of right-wingers, including GOP members of Congress, Rev. Jerry Falwell, National Review editor Rich Lowry, and buckraker Armstrong Williams - who went on to pocket nearly a quarter-million dollars from the Bush administration to promote its “No Child Left Behind Act.” When I repeatedly debated Williams at MSNBC, I had no inkling about Team Bush’s No Pundit Left Behind program.
In June I was set to debate Ann Coulter, who was on tour promoting a book called Slander. Coulter was firmly established as the top shock jock of cable news. I knew from hanging out with too many conservative pundits in too many greenrooms that her TV stardom was the source of envy; they groused that she used her legs, miniskirts and sleek blond hair to gain unfair advantage over other right-wing yakkers. I heard this complaint mostly from men over 50.
I'm willing to believe Coulter when she publicly proclaims that she's not anorexic or bulimic. But I did wonder if her unfair advantage was some sort of diet/pep pill. Not that drugs would excuse her of personal responsibility for muddle-brained comments - like referring to Tipper Gore as "gaudy white trash." Or talking about "the benefits of local fascism." Or calling for public flogging of juveniles, because it wouldn't be cool "in the 'hood" to be flogged.
I wondered if she was sober in 1997 when, as an MSNBC contributor, she debated Vietnam veteran Bobby Muller about landmines. Discussing Vietnam, Muller said: "In 90 percent of cases that US soldiers got blown up - Ann, are you listening? They were our own mines." At which point Coulter interrupted to say, "No wonder you guys lost." She said that to a man who took a bullet in Vietnam, leaving him paralyzed from the chest down.
I suspect that the happy-pill hypothesis persists because, as cable news viewers know all too well, Coulter is so often laughing inappropriately while spouting her odious commentary.
To me, Coulter is something of a cross between Joan Rivers and Eva Braun. Now I have a general rule against Eva Braun comparisons, ever since my pal Randy Credico, a comedian, got banned from the Tonight Show 20 years ago - after he quipped that whenever he saw America's UN ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick on TV, he had to wonder "if Eva Braun really died in that bunker in 1945." I've made an exception in Coulter's case. (In Slander, she called Katie Couric "the affable Eva Braun of morning television.")
I looked forward to my Coulter debate, which had been scheduled a week in advance. I read chunks of Slander (for which I deserved combat pay) and prepared questions. But I wasn't sure whether the book was serious or self-parody. Its thesis is that liberals engage in name-calling because they can't engage in logical, factual debate. This from an author who doesn't limit her insults to Democrats like Hillary "Pond Scum" Clinton; she called the Republican EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman a "bird brain" and former GOP senator Jim Jeffords a "half-wit." When the right-wing editors of National Review rejected a Coulter column urging enhanced airport vigilance against "suspicious-looking swarthy males," she called the editors "girly-boys."
On page 2 of her book, I learned that liberals have "a hatred of Christians" - and, a few pages later, that "liberals hate America" and "hate all religions except Islam." On page 5, I read, "New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that [Attorney General] Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." This claim was sheer invention and offered almost a textbook example of slander, the apparently un-ironic title of her book.
With my questions ready, I got into makeup, put in my earpiece, and headed to the set as I did around that time each day. But just before airtime, my producer informed me, "She won't debate you."
I was incredulous: "This was set a long time ago. I'm ready to go."
"She's not," replied the producer. "She claims she knew nothing about a debate."
I was a network staffer ready to debate the contents of a book. The author was a guest, unwilling to debate. Which of us do you think went on the air? Ann Coulter, of course - appearing with an anchor ill-prepared to ask tough questions.
If MSNBC were following the codes of journalism, an author unwilling to debate her controversial book would not be given a free ride. But MSNBC follows the codes of conformity and show biz: Coulter is a draw, so she dictates the terms of debate ... or nondebate.
So much for "The Liberal Media."
Page 1 of Coulter's book referred to "the left's hegemonic control of the news media." The more she and her brethren bluster about bias, the more they dominate a corporate media system only too happy to oblige them.
go get them Ann, and get torn a new one
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
Africa lags economically and politically behind the rest of the world as a consequence of centuries of colonialism, exploitation, foreign intervention, and slavery. They were well on their way to becoming “civilized” if you want to take the western ideal of that before the Europeans showed up.
Oh yeah, harnessing nature? I seem to remember that this country’s economy relied on the labor of African slaves picking cotton. Harnessing nature…
You’re missing the point. Non-western cultures were around for THOUSANDS of years before anyone ever heard of capitalism. Why didn’t those societies become the dominant influence in the world today? Why were western nations able to come in and conquer them at very little cost? Why are former colonies now horror-pits (like Zimbabwe, for ex)?
Western culture is simply superior (despite the presence of Wreckless). It has given us things like the Rights of Man, objective laws, most of the scientific advances of today, on and on. Certainly our ancestors brutalized these people, mostly because native peoples DON’T WANT TO CHANGE! They live in ignorance and squalor. ‘To change’ means the death of their old ways. They never developed as full human beings can. (Ever as a native american what time it is? You’ll see what I mean.) Primitive people don’t develop the ability to think in abstractions, such as projecting the future.
The unique thing about western Man is the ability to think in terms of concepts, rather than in terms of percepts. The West is therefore superior (excluding Wreckless; he’s too jealous of Monica to be rational.)
[/quote]
And I suppose Chinese,Indians and Japanese cultures,all being Eastern,cannot think in concepts or abstractions and have contributed nothing to the world in terms of culture and thinking…
NWO puppets.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Ann Coulter & Jeff Cohen
As an MSNBC in-house pundit in 2002, I had a time slot each afternoon for one-on-one debates with a roster of right-wingers, including GOP members of Congress, Rev. Jerry Falwell, National Review editor Rich Lowry, and buckraker Armstrong Williams - who went on to pocket nearly a quarter-million dollars from the Bush administration to promote its “No Child Left Behind Act.” When I repeatedly debated Williams at MSNBC, I had no inkling about Team Bush’s No Pundit Left Behind program.
In June I was set to debate Ann Coulter, who was on tour promoting a book called Slander. Coulter was firmly established as the top shock jock of cable news. I knew from hanging out with too many conservative pundits in too many greenrooms that her TV stardom was the source of envy; they groused that she used her legs, miniskirts and sleek blond hair to gain unfair advantage over other right-wing yakkers. I heard this complaint mostly from men over 50.
I'm willing to believe Coulter when she publicly proclaims that she's not anorexic or bulimic. But I did wonder if her unfair advantage was some sort of diet/pep pill. Not that drugs would excuse her of personal responsibility for muddle-brained comments - like referring to Tipper Gore as "gaudy white trash." Or talking about "the benefits of local fascism." Or calling for public flogging of juveniles, because it wouldn't be cool "in the 'hood" to be flogged.
I wondered if she was sober in 1997 when, as an MSNBC contributor, she debated Vietnam veteran Bobby Muller about landmines. Discussing Vietnam, Muller said: "In 90 percent of cases that US soldiers got blown up - Ann, are you listening? They were our own mines." At which point Coulter interrupted to say, "No wonder you guys lost." She said that to a man who took a bullet in Vietnam, leaving him paralyzed from the chest down.
I suspect that the happy-pill hypothesis persists because, as cable news viewers know all too well, Coulter is so often laughing inappropriately while spouting her odious commentary.
To me, Coulter is something of a cross between Joan Rivers and Eva Braun. Now I have a general rule against Eva Braun comparisons, ever since my pal Randy Credico, a comedian, got banned from the Tonight Show 20 years ago - after he quipped that whenever he saw America's UN ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick on TV, he had to wonder "if Eva Braun really died in that bunker in 1945." I've made an exception in Coulter's case. (In Slander, she called Katie Couric "the affable Eva Braun of morning television.")
I looked forward to my Coulter debate, which had been scheduled a week in advance. I read chunks of Slander (for which I deserved combat pay) and prepared questions. But I wasn't sure whether the book was serious or self-parody. Its thesis is that liberals engage in name-calling because they can't engage in logical, factual debate. This from an author who doesn't limit her insults to Democrats like Hillary "Pond Scum" Clinton; she called the Republican EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman a "bird brain" and former GOP senator Jim Jeffords a "half-wit." When the right-wing editors of National Review rejected a Coulter column urging enhanced airport vigilance against "suspicious-looking swarthy males," she called the editors "girly-boys."
On page 2 of her book, I learned that liberals have "a hatred of Christians" - and, a few pages later, that "liberals hate America" and "hate all religions except Islam." On page 5, I read, "New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that [Attorney General] Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." This claim was sheer invention and offered almost a textbook example of slander, the apparently un-ironic title of her book.
With my questions ready, I got into makeup, put in my earpiece, and headed to the set as I did around that time each day. But just before airtime, my producer informed me, "She won't debate you."
I was incredulous: "This was set a long time ago. I'm ready to go."
"She's not," replied the producer. "She claims she knew nothing about a debate."
I was a network staffer ready to debate the contents of a book. The author was a guest, unwilling to debate. Which of us do you think went on the air? Ann Coulter, of course - appearing with an anchor ill-prepared to ask tough questions.
If MSNBC were following the codes of journalism, an author unwilling to debate her controversial book would not be given a free ride. But MSNBC follows the codes of conformity and show biz: Coulter is a draw, so she dictates the terms of debate ... or nondebate.
So much for "The Liberal Media."
Page 1 of Coulter's book referred to "the left's hegemonic control of the news media." The more she and her brethren bluster about bias, the more they dominate a corporate media system only too happy to oblige them.
go get them Ann, and get torn a new one
[/quote]
My reference to Ann entailed her work. Yours is about one of your fellow cumwads being resentful because Ann doesn’t fall easily into traps and ‘quasi’ interviews. Your post is simply laughable.
Dammit, I read one of your inanities again! Arrggghhhh!
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
And I suppose Chinese,Indians and Japanese cultures,all being Eastern,cannot think in concepts or abstractions and have contributed nothing to the world in terms of culture and thinking…
[/quote]
You mean like burning widows on the hubby’s funeral pyre; or inventing a cage filled with starving rats that fits over a person’s head as torture (China); or how to kill 300,000 Chinese in Nanking?
How about when the Japanese samurai saw an American warship in 1854 (I think) and waved their swords at it? That’ll stop those evil westerners from landing! Or when the British found a kingdom in SE ASIA where the king drank a potion made of human hearts?
I mean, you do realize that those societies were barbaric and brutal kingdoms, where thought was quickly extinguished? Of course, one could take solace in the Baghavad Gita…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
And I suppose Chinese,Indians and Japanese cultures,all being Eastern,cannot think in concepts or abstractions and have contributed nothing to the world in terms of culture and thinking…
You mean like burning widows on the hubby’s funeral pyre; or inventing a cage filled with starving rats that fits over a person’s head as torture (China); or how to kill 300,000 Chinese in Nanking?
How about when the Japanese samurai saw an American warship in 1854 (I think) and waved their swords at it? That’ll stop those evil westerners from landing! Or when the British found a kingdom in SE ASIA where the king drank a potion made of human hearts?
I mean, you do realize that those societies were barbaric and brutal kingdoms, where thought was quickly extinguished? Of course, one could take solace in the Baghavad Gita…
[/quote]
…the US is barbaric in it’s own right, so don’t confuse the issue here. You think Europe didn’t have barbaric rituals in it’s day? Think again. Societies come and societies go, just be succesful at being human HH. As far as i can tell from your postings though, you severely lack noble human attributes like compassion, empathy, understanding and love for you fellow human beings. Subjective i’m sure, but because i equate succes with those attributes, you failed miserably at being human, so what are you boasting about?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Western culture is simply superior to all other cultures.
…if the ability to kill, enslave, dominate, destroy, lie and cheat are the qualities you go by, than i have to agree. Personally i think the indian nations of North-America were the epitome of culture and society in sync with nature, but all the endeering qualities the white european has put an end to that. Go caucasian or die!![/quote]
You have an overly romantic view of pre-Columbus American society.
I suggest you read the book 1491 for a better perspective on how they tampered with their environment.