| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| By all indications, the Republican party is sinking faster (and hence is more desperate...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| because he isn't tied to any of the scandals you mentioned. |
Bolton is tied to oil for food or the sexual abuses carried about by soldiers in blue helmets? Please, do tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we should honestly wait for Bolton to screw up before we pounce on him. As for the President's decision, it's kind of a political no-brainer. Since the Democrats dragged this on into the recess while there is only one (down from five) diplomat left at the UN building.
Now, I have little sympathy for Bush, either, since he picked the most grossly unqualified and mismatched candidate for the job. But, like I said, let's wait for Bolton to screw up before we roast him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| because he isn't tied to any of the scandals you mentioned. |
Bolton is tied to oil for food or the sexual abuses carried about by soldiers in blue helmets? Please, do tell. |
I wasn't refering to Bolton. You asked about Annan and I gave an answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| because he isn't tied to any of the scandals you mentioned. |
Bolton is tied to oil for food or the sexual abuses carried about by soldiers in blue helmets? Please, do tell. |
I wasn't refering to Bolton. You asked about Annan and I gave an answer. |
Fair enough, but Annan is the head of the UN and should take responsibility for the chaos that has ensued under his stewardship. Under his reign the UN has been blighted with the most damaging scandals in its entire history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So you think then that Rumsfeld should step aside for Abu Ghraib? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| So you think then that Rumsfeld should step aside for Abu Ghraib? |
The sooner, the better! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| So you think then that Rumsfeld should step aside for Abu Ghraib? |
That is exactly the type of discussion I was attempting to engineer. At the time of the Abu Graib incident many members of the liberal contingent were calling for Rummy to step down, but I haven't heard calls equally as loud calling for Annan to go despite the combination of oil for food, and a catalogue of sexual abuse by soldiers wearing blue helmets in various jurisdictions cropping up on the general secretary's watch. Should Rummy go? If Annan went then yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
the problem is that both sides are acting too self righteous.
You gotta love how politics and democracy truly are the pillars of freedom but seem to, in a rather surprising twist of fate, have little effect on accountability |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| and a catalogue of sexual abuse by soldiers wearing blue helmets in various jurisdictions cropping up on the general secretary's watch |
Isn't the difference that one seems to have been the policy of a government and the other an abuse of the policy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| So you think then that Rumsfeld should step aside for Abu Ghraib? |
That is exactly the type of discussion I was attempting to engineer. At the time of the Abu Graib incident many members of the liberal contingent were calling for Rummy to step down, but I haven't heard calls equally as loud calling for Annan to go despite the combination of oil for food, and a catalogue of sexual abuse by soldiers wearing blue helmets in various jurisdictions cropping up on the general secretary's watch. Should Rummy go? If Annan went then yes. |
except I think equating Annan with Rumsfeld is wrong. Annan oversees the entire UN, not just the peace keepers in the Congo and the oil-for-food program.
But yes, anyone who thinks Bush should resign due to the various decables in Iraq should also think Annan should step aside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| and a catalogue of sexual abuse by soldiers wearing blue helmets in various jurisdictions cropping up on the general secretary's watch |
Isn't the difference that one seems to have been the policy of a government and the other an abuse of the policy? |
I think so. Here's the evidence of it being American administration policy:
At USA TODAY...
...and at the Wash Post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
