Bill Clinton as Secretary General U.N.? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-25-2003, 06:10 PM   #31
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Think of that:
you don't have enough excelent politicans to run the US, how can you afford to give one away to the UN?

Ok, just kidding I think he'd do a great job
Did you see him at the UN? "Excuse me, I'm not convinced" .. ah i also like his style

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 06:47 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:21 PM
I can see it now - "It all depends on what your definition of 'inspection' is".....
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 07:47 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Think of that:
you don't have enough excelent politicans to run the US, how can you afford to give one away to the UN?

Ok, just kidding I think he'd do a great job
Did you see him at the UN? "Excuse me, I'm not convinced" .. ah i also like his style

Klaus
Im not convinced of Fischer. I think he compromises too often. Plus, in my opinion a SecGen UN has to know the organization very well. Annan has been working for the UN for 30 years. Someone like Fischer or Clinton would just mess it up.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 09:14 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 03:21 PM

Clinton bombed Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 09:18 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:21 PM
i think clinton would be too unorganized..
leaving his skivvies here and there, late to meetings and so-on
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 09:59 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
i think clinton would be too unorganized..
leaving his skivvies here and there, late to meetings and so-on
And Bush can just kill everyone in a cloud of powder cocaine.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:27 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:21 PM
oh brother.
melon-
they both did tons of coke.
Clinton could not release his Med Records becuz of it.
Bush at least was more forth-coming w his sorrid past.

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:29 PM   #38
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,448
Local Time: 04:21 PM
This idea alone makes me sick to my stomach

-After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

-After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia , which killed five US military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

-After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia , which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

-After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa , which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

-After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

All of these attacks were carried out by Usama Bin-Laden and his Al Qaeda network.

Fact: The Clinton Administration spent more money on fighting Microsoft, the most successful American corporation ever, then they did fighting Al Qaeda... because obviously Bill Gates was more dangerous than Bin-Laden. Super idea... the attackss killed tech stocks in America, sending the NASDAQ into the shitter, and I think we all know what not going after Bin-Laden and Al Qaeda led to.

This is taken from an article that was in the LA Times in 2001, written by Mansoor Ijaz, a former top Clinton Aide... the link to the entire article follows the exceprt.

"President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster."


LA Times Article

Yeah... great idea. We've already let Iraq get away with violating UN sanctions for 12 damn years now (yeah... inspectors really haven't had any time... 12 years... that's no time at all)... and now people want Clinton to run the place? Just absolutely fucking brilliant.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:32 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
oh brother.
melon-
they both did tons of coke.
Clinton could not release his Med Records becuz of it.
Bush at least was more forth-coming w his sorrid past.

DB9
Oh my, diamond. You have as much evidence for that assertion as Bush has for tying Saddam with bin Laden--zilch.



Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:34 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:21 PM
i know a great many ppl
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:42 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
This idea alone makes me sick to my stomach

-After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

-After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia , which killed five US military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

-After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia , which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

-After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa , which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

-After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

All of these attacks were carried out by Usama Bin-Laden and his Al Qaeda network.

Fact: The Clinton Administration spent more money on fighting Microsoft, the most successful American corporation ever, then they did fighting Al Qaeda... because obviously Bill Gates was more dangerous than Bin-Laden. Super idea... the attackss killed tech stocks in America, sending the NASDAQ into the shitter, and I think we all know what not going after Bin-Laden and Al Qaeda led to.

This is taken from an article that was in the LA Times in 2001, written by Mansoor Ijaz, a former top Clinton Aide... the link to the entire article follows the exceprt.

"President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster."


LA Times Article

Yeah... great idea. We've already let Iraq get away with violating UN sanctions for 12 damn years now (yeah... inspectors really haven't had any time... 12 years... that's no time at all)... and now people want Clinton to run the place? Just absolutely fucking brilliant.

The funny part nowadays is Clinton's continued mantra ..."CHUMLEY WE WERE JUST THAT CLOSE..."

The man:never stops spinning.. ..

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:44 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Fact: In May 2001, Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban to encourage them to continue their "War on Drugs." The Taliban, since being in power from 1996, had destroyed the poppy fields in Afghanistan, which was once a crucial nation in the heroin trade.

I see that Bush was really watching his intelligence reports, not only giving money to one of the worst human rights violators in the world, but to a known terrorist harbor.

And we want to blame Clinton for everything? Bush was no more on top of the ball than Clinton, and, in fact, it has been mentioned that Clinton was *discouraged* from pursuing Al-Qaeda, for fear it would destroy that euphoric economy we had.

What do you think those impeachment trials and investigations were for? Not to actually solve anything, but for diversion legislation from a Republican Congress that didn't want to do a damn thing in terms of legislating. Bush is crying that Democrats won't approve Estrada, but do you know how many vacancies the GOP Congress left open in the Clinton Administration, because they didn't want to approve any Democratic judges?

Please. Let's face it. We didn't have a federal government for the last half of the 1990s, because the arm of government in charge of writing and passing the bills--the GOP-controlled Congress--didn't want to do a damn thing. Now we see really what that cost us.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:50 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:21 PM
"Chumley we were just THAT close"...
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:53 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Oh and if people think I'm just making that last post up, here's an editorial on it. Note the date: May 2001 before 9/11.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/052201.htm

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."

Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.

As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.



Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:55 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
"Chumley we were just THAT close"...
-Bill Clinton
speaking nowadays at any local tavern..
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com