mr mahs

You said Bush is pissing on affirmative action... I agree with BUSH's stance, that affirmative action is no longer needed and a form of racism to non minorities...

LOL Yeah bush should send Bin Laden a bouqet of flowers you didn't answer my question.. How do we deal with terrorsim in OUR country? If you are against the Patriot act, the tightening of our borders as well as other actions that don't affect the average american, how else would you combat terrorism?

Oh and affirmative action is racism..

Let me ask you something... Without the patriot act how would U combat terrorism on our soil? Do you even have a clue or are you just protesting to protest? Honestly no insults, all I want is an answer on how to fight terrorism on our soil,forget about over seas??

Victor Davis hanson is the man, just read that articl this morning, good read!

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093949/#ContinueArticle Blind, Deaf, and Lame No one listened to Paul O'Neill. Here's why. By Michael Kinsley Posted Thursday, Jan. 15, 2004, at 1:17 PM PT "Paul, I'll be blunt," said Alan Greenspan to Paul O'Neill in January 2001, according to Paul O'Neill. "Your zipper's undone, and you have something hanging from your nose." No, actually, says O'Neill, the Fed chairman told him, "Paul, I'll be blunt. We really need you down here." That's blunt? Yes, because O'Neill, you see, did not want to be secretary of the treasury. According to The Price of Loyalty (written by journalist Ron Suskind, but entirely from O'Neill's point of view), he preferred life at his "tasteful, sprawling colonial" in Pittsburgh, and he felt that Washington had become infested with politics and corruption since he first worked there in the prelapsarian innocence of the Nixon administration. "As one of the country's most Washington-savvy CEO's he was bored by the process of influence-peddling that keeps the lights on in this town." That's why he needed to be romanced. "Paul," Greenspan pressed on—batting his eyelashes seductively (or so one imagines the scene) and perhaps bringing out his saxophone for a few bars of "Stardust"—"Paul, your presence will be an enormous asset in the creation of sensible policy." O'Neill, according to O'Neill, is a man on whom praise and compliments fall thick as a winter snowstorm. "Paul, you have the balls of a daylight burglar," he quotes a subordinate as telling him years ago. He also quotes himself telling the story to another subordinate. Elsewhere he recounts, with prim disapproval, watching George W. Bush call on White House Chief of Staff Andy Card to rustle up some cheeseburgers. O'Neill believes, he says, that a CEO should be judged by how he treats "whoever is at the very bottom," a remark Card may find somewhat more insulting than the cheeseburgers that inspired it. Later, with characteristic subtlety, O'Neill quotes himself offering to get his secretary a cup of coffee. Very nice. But she might be thinking that getting her own coffee—or even getting his—would be a small price to pay if it meant not having to hear and praise the boss' self-congratulatory anecdotes again and again. Asked to be treasury secretary, O'Neill is filled with foreboding. He alerts the president-elect about his legendary reputation for straight talk. "In 1986, I gave a speech that was reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. …" he begins. Thus forewarned, in more ways than one, Bush offers him the job anyway, and O'Neill decides his country needs him. "I think I'm going to have to do this," he tells his wife. Among other reasons, O'Neill feels called upon to play ambassador between the new president and his father, the former president. "He was uniquely qualified to finesse this delicate and defining relationship." His unique qualifications included having never even met George W. except for once, briefly, at President Clinton's education summit in 1996. Describing his time as treasury secretary, O'Neill sounds, of course, like Capt. Renault. But the character in Casablanca was a cynic who knew perfectly well that there was gambling going on in Rick's cafe. O'Neill seems genuinely surprised to discover that Bush actually does intend to cut taxes (as he promised repeatedly in his campaign); that the administration wants "regime change" in Iraq (as did the previous administration and almost everyone else in the world—the question was what to do about it); that the president would, on balance, prefer to be re-elected; and so on. Not a single weapon of mass destruction was wheeled into his office during his entire two-year tenure. It's true that George W. Bush has turned out to be a more radical president than everyone predicted. But O'Neill has no insights about why it turned out this way or why we should have seen it coming. His theme, in fact, is that he was blindsided more than anyone. O'Neill deserves the credit for the Bush presidency's most pleasant surprise—serious financial and diplomatic engagement in the battle against AIDS in Africa—and he takes it. No doubt O'Neill would be responsible for Bush's new initiative to promote marriage on Mars, or whatever, if he were still there (in the administration, not on Mars). Speaking of blindsided, howzabout that killer quote describing Bush in Cabinet meetings as being "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people"? O'Neill says this is "the only way I can describe it," and I fear that may be the case. It's vivid, and it certainly sounds insulting enough. But what on Earth does it mean? According to the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, it means Bush is "disengaged." The Washington Post story began, "President Bush showed little interest in policy discussions in his first two years in the White House, leading Cabinet meetings 'like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people.' …" I'm sorry, but how is being uninterested in policy like being a blind man in a roomful of deaf people? Are blind people uninterested in policy? Or, more accurately, do blind people become less interested in policy when they find themselves in a room with deaf people? Does a blind man surrounded by deaf people talking policy issues think: "Oh, hell. These folks are going to go on and on and on about the problems of deaf people. Who needs that? I've got problems of my own." Is that O'Neill's point? And even if there is something about a room full of deaf people that makes a blind man disengage from policy issues, what does this have to do with President Bush and his Cabinet? As described by Paul O'Neill, life inside the Bush administration is like life itself (according to Macbeth): "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The only solid punch he lands on President Bush is unintentional: What kind of idiot would hire this idiot as secretary of the treasury?

DISGRACE! What more do people want? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/82316|top|01-16-2004::00:07|reuters.html By Randall Mikkelsen ATLANTA (Reuters) - In a sign of the difficulty President Bush faces as he tries to win black support for his reelection, several hundred protesters loudly booed him on Thursday as he laid a wreath at the grave of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. "Bush go home" and "peace not war" the predominantly black crowd of protesters shouted from behind a barrier of buses, as Bush paid tribute to King on the 75th anniversary of his birth. Bush wants to improve his standing among black voters this reelection year, after winning less than 10 percent of the African-American vote in 2000. The president was accompanied by King's widow Coretta Scott King, and sister, Christine King Farris. He placed the wreath, bowed his head for a few moments, and departed without speaking or facing the protesters as the boos from the crowd increased. The protesters carried signs with slogans like "Money for jobs and housing, not war" and "It's not a photo-op George." A White House spokesman defended Bush's visit to the grave of the assassinated civil rights icon. "This is about paying tribute to someone who had a tremendously positive influence in shaping the world that we live in today ... it's a solemn moment, a nice way to honor Dr. King," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. Bush was in Atlanta as part of a two-state swing during which he also raised $2.3 million in campaign funds, trumpeted a reelection endorsement from Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, and promoted government aid for religious charities. King's birthday is commemorated by a national holiday on Monday, recognizing his non-violent leadership of the black civil rights struggle in the 1950s and 1960s. "Today, all Americans benefit from Dr. King's work and his legacy of courage, dignity, and moral clarity," Bush said in a written statement proclaiming the annual holiday. Bush faces a stiff challenge in wooing black voters. "Bush's policies contradict everything Dr. King stood for," said Ann Mauney, a member of the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition. U.S. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a Maryland Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, criticized the grave visit as "yet another symbolic gesture that lacks any real substance." "Every policy decision of the Bush Administration including the war in Iraq, healthcare, jobs, the economy, judicial nominations, housing, the environment, as well as secondary and higher education, has done nothing to strengthen Dr. King's dream," Cummings said. Earlier on Thursday, Bush hailed King's legacy during a visit to the predominantly black Union Bethel African Methodist Episcopal church in New Orleans. "I'm really not worthy to stand here, when I think about the fact that ... this is the very place where Martin Luther King stood, as well, some 42 years ago." He also promoted his program of government aid for religious charities, which is popular among some black clergy. He announced new rules that help "faith-based" charities compete for $3.7 billion in Justice Department funding. Bush raised $1 million at a New Orleans campaign fundraiser, and $1.3 million in Atlanta.

Thanx, CARRY ON...

Please answer with a rebuttal or refer me to a link or I will have to side with G420...

He has a point...

It's nt going to be perfect overnight... Jesus you always lokk at things half empty huh? So the raping and torture stop , a constitution was drawn,the democracy is in it's infant stage and you want to highlight that as grounds for calling the liberation a failure? Nothing is perfect out of the gate in time they will adjust but your pessimism is laughable....

Last time I checked the tally is over 50 million people liberated with Afghanistan and Iraq alone... Why do peacniks ignore that fact?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT, PLEASE EXPLAIN...

The Mayflower Gasbag Disaster of 2004 Ted Kennedy flips out on President Bush — again. Senator Edward Kennedy narrowly escaped a lightning bolt Wednesday when he gave a speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Okay, I don't know that he dodged a lightning bolt. Maybe God couldn't get a good one through the ceiling of the Mayflower without hurting innocent people. Or maybe Kennedy makes the interns stand on the roof with lightning rods so he can speak freely. All I know is that if I'd been in the room when Ted Kennedy had the untrammeled chutzpah to give that speech Wednesday, I would have leapt for cover for fear that the Almighty had finally decided to 86 that guy. Kennedy, a man so convinced of his entitlement to the Oval Office he couldn't be bothered to explain why he was running for the job, declared that the Bush White House is "breathtakingly arrogant." A guy who recently took to the well of the Senate to deny scholarships to poor black kids because the teacher's unions own him and his party had the effrontery to declare this White House "vindictive and mean-spirited." I don't mean to get too worked up. I know people think Ted Kennedy is the "conscience of his party" (that's the Democratic party; any other party where Ted's involved you're gonna want to bring your snorkel). So let's deal with what the "conscience" had to say. Apparently, Teddy thinks the war was too "political." Or in Kennedy's words yesterday, it was a "political product." Or in his words last Fall, "This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." Or in his words most other times, "Ah, er. Ah, mmm I asked for extra olives in this." There are so many criticisms of the war in Iraq which can — though often don't — have intellectual credibility. But the idea that this war was fought because of the obvious political windfall which would redound to George W. Bush is among the dumbest. The riskiness of the Iraq venture was so colossal, so fraught with unknowns and downsides, it pushes the idea George W. Bush was willing to do it simply for the political benefits beyond the critical mass of asininity. I frankly don't care if you agree with me or not; if you think this war was a no-brainer political coup for the president, you're a moron. If you think this White House saw it as such from the beginning, you're a moron with ADD. Nonetheless, I would point out that this notion that President Bush toppled Saddam simply to get reelected contradicts numerous other theories held by Brother Ted and/or his fans. For example, if this was a crass reelection ploy, could the perfidious bagel-snarfing Rasputins we call "neocons" still be the string-pullers behind the scenes? After all, if their real interest is in helping Israel, or "perpetual war," presumably Bush's reelection is an afterthought. More importantly, if the war was nothing more than a reelection strategy, why did the president "lie" about weapons of mass destruction? You see, Kennedy & Co. believe (at least) two fundamentally contradictory things: The president lied about WMDs and the war was a "political product." Does Teddy really think it's a brilliant reelection strategy for Bush to hinge his case so overwhelmingly on Saddam's WMDs when it was inevitable that the American people would find out there were no WMDs? That's a pretty shaky political product to hitch your reelection hopes on. If Kennedy was right last October when he said, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie," then it seems pretty unlikely to me that Bush planned the war to be the centerpiece of his 2004 run since there would be a full year for the American people to discover that there were no WMDs. That would be like knowingly selling a car with an engine that could last a week but counting on the fact that the customer would return next month. In fact, Kennedy invokes Paul O'Neill's 60 Minutes interview this past Sunday to insist that the administration wanted to invade Iraq on "Day 1." Excuse me: Do serious people honestly believe that such a bold and risky reelection "product" was rolled off the assembly line even before Karl Rove sharpened his pencils? I'm not even sure Kennedy believes that since he's already on record saying that this war was "made up in Texas," which presumably means it was hatched before "Day 1." Regardless, let's refer back to Wednesday's gas leak...I mean, speech: "Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has now revealed what many of us have long suspected. Despite protestations to the contrary, the president and his senior aides began the march to war in Iraq in the earliest days of the administration, long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11." Well, okay, in a sense that's true. If by "march to war" Ted means "did some bureaucratic planning" and if by "revealed" he means "denied" then — Yes! — O'Neill blew the story wide open. Indeed, here's how Paul O'Neill responded to Ted Kennedy's view on The Today Show a full day before what will one day no doubt be known as the Mayflower Gasbag Disaster of 2004: COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda... Mr. O'NEILL: Absolutely nothing. You know, and one of the candidates... COURIC: ...10 days after the inauguration? Mr. O'NEILL: ...one of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government on a continuing basis across the political administration doesn't do contingency planning and looking at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been there forever. And so I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority, but I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and continuing looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration. O'NEILL'S SHOCK AND AWE Now, please let me take a brief moment to weigh in on O'Neill's long day's journey into self-parody. I'm on record as believing that Paul O'Neill is a feckless crapweasel, and I stand by that. But in his defense, he's astoundingly stupid about how Washington works (no really, stupidity is a defense). He seems legitimately surprised that people think this book he dictated to anti-Bush author Ron Suskind is negative. Suskind, you'll recall, was the guy who managed to "find" unnamed White House senior officials to criticize the White House when no other journalist actually working that beat had in two years. Suskind got John DiIulio to say some unflattering things about the White House, but DiIulio denied remembering saying some of them (and — to be fair — he then apologized like John Belushi to Carrie Fisher in The Blues Brothers for the things he did remember). That Suskind takes journalistic liberties is not a new charge. After his profile of Karen Hughes, for Esquire then-Press Secretary Ari Fleischer suggested that Suskind get himself a tape recorder. In response to that swipe, Suskind told Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, "I'm a good note-taker....My notes are admissible in court." That's cool, although, when Bob Novak talked to several of the people Suskind interviewed, they said he hadn't taken any notes at all. Whatever. I don't know if Suskind pads his prose or not. But when Howard Kurtz describes someone as a "fast-talking, self-promoting" guy "who gives speeches, does 90-minute shows in theaters, appears on television, is writing his second book and has his own Web site" and that his DiIulio story "gives him something new to promote," most Washingtonians understand Kurtz is talking about an operator. One would certainly think such a description would ping the radar of a former treasury secretary and Washington hand. But no, O'Neill is supposedly shocked and awed by the "red meat" (his words) in the book he dictated. Worse, he apparently told Suskind that he was taken aback by the political nature of this White House. A political White House! This ranks somewhere between voicing surprise that rocks are hard to chew and being scandalized that bears continue to use America's sacred parklands as toilets. Kennedy, on the other hand, is not new to anything — including, I believe, all seven of the deadly sins and the naughty side of at least nine out of ten of the Ten Commandments. When President Clinton was in the Oval Office — a year before Kennedy voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act which authorized the "secret plan" O'Neill now denies he found — Ted Kennedy told Tim Russert that America could no longer tolerate Saddam's intransigence. "I don't think we should rule anything out, even military force. Those sites have to be accessible. They have to be available. They have to be inspected...I support the president's movement of military forces into the region and I think it has to be very, very clear to Saddam Hussein that those sites are going to have to be accessible and available, otherwise there's — nothing will be ruled out." That is, nothing will be ruled out — unless a Republican president is in office

The Mayflower Gasbag Disaster of 2004 Ted Kennedy flips out on President Bush — again. Senator Edward Kennedy narrowly escaped a lightning bolt Wednesday when he gave a speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Okay, I don't know that he dodged a lightning bolt. Maybe God couldn't get a good one through the ceiling of the Mayflower without hurting innocent people. Or maybe Kennedy makes the interns stand on the roof with lightning rods so he can speak freely. All I know is that if I'd been in the room when Ted Kennedy had the untrammeled chutzpah to give that speech Wednesday, I would have leapt for cover for fear that the Almighty had finally decided to 86 that guy. Kennedy, a man so convinced of his entitlement to the Oval Office he couldn't be bothered to explain why he was running for the job, declared that the Bush White House is "breathtakingly arrogant." A guy who recently took to the well of the Senate to deny scholarships to poor black kids because the teacher's unions own him and his party had the effrontery to declare this White House "vindictive and mean-spirited." I don't mean to get too worked up. I know people think Ted Kennedy is the "conscience of his party" (that's the Democratic party; any other party where Ted's involved you're gonna want to bring your snorkel). So let's deal with what the "conscience" had to say. Apparently, Teddy thinks the war was too "political." Or in Kennedy's words yesterday, it was a "political product." Or in his words last Fall, "This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." Or in his words most other times, "Ah, er. Ah, mmm I asked for extra olives in this." There are so many criticisms of the war in Iraq which can — though often don't — have intellectual credibility. But the idea that this war was fought because of the obvious political windfall which would redound to George W. Bush is among the dumbest. The riskiness of the Iraq venture was so colossal, so fraught with unknowns and downsides, it pushes the idea George W. Bush was willing to do it simply for the political benefits beyond the critical mass of asininity. I frankly don't care if you agree with me or not; if you think this war was a no-brainer political coup for the president, you're a moron. If you think this White House saw it as such from the beginning, you're a moron with ADD. Nonetheless, I would point out that this notion that President Bush toppled Saddam simply to get reelected contradicts numerous other theories held by Brother Ted and/or his fans. For example, if this was a crass reelection ploy, could the perfidious bagel-snarfing Rasputins we call "neocons" still be the string-pullers behind the scenes? After all, if their real interest is in helping Israel, or "perpetual war," presumably Bush's reelection is an afterthought. More importantly, if the war was nothing more than a reelection strategy, why did the president "lie" about weapons of mass destruction? You see, Kennedy & Co. believe (at least) two fundamentally contradictory things: The president lied about WMDs and the war was a "political product." Does Teddy really think it's a brilliant reelection strategy for Bush to hinge his case so overwhelmingly on Saddam's WMDs when it was inevitable that the American people would find out there were no WMDs? That's a pretty shaky political product to hitch your reelection hopes on. If Kennedy was right last October when he said, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie," then it seems pretty unlikely to me that Bush planned the war to be the centerpiece of his 2004 run since there would be a full year for the American people to discover that there were no WMDs. That would be like knowingly selling a car with an engine that could last a week but counting on the fact that the customer would return next month. In fact, Kennedy invokes Paul O'Neill's 60 Minutes interview this past Sunday to insist that the administration wanted to invade Iraq on "Day 1." Excuse me: Do serious people honestly believe that such a bold and risky reelection "product" was rolled off the assembly line even before Karl Rove sharpened his pencils? I'm not even sure Kennedy believes that since he's already on record saying that this war was "made up in Texas," which presumably means it was hatched before "Day 1." Regardless, let's refer back to Wednesday's gas leak...I mean, speech: "Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has now revealed what many of us have long suspected. Despite protestations to the contrary, the president and his senior aides began the march to war in Iraq in the earliest days of the administration, long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11." Well, okay, in a sense that's true. If by "march to war" Ted means "did some bureaucratic planning" and if by "revealed" he means "denied" then — Yes! — O'Neill blew the story wide open. Indeed, here's how Paul O'Neill responded to Ted Kennedy's view on The Today Show a full day before what will one day no doubt be known as the Mayflower Gasbag Disaster of 2004: COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda... Mr. O'NEILL: Absolutely nothing. You know, and one of the candidates... COURIC: ...10 days after the inauguration? Mr. O'NEILL: ...one of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government on a continuing basis across the political administration doesn't do contingency planning and looking at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been there forever. And so I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority, but I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and continuing looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration. O'NEILL'S SHOCK AND AWE Now, please let me take a brief moment to weigh in on O'Neill's long day's journey into self-parody. I'm on record as believing that Paul O'Neill is a feckless crapweasel, and I stand by that. But in his defense, he's astoundingly stupid about how Washington works (no really, stupidity is a defense). He seems legitimately surprised that people think this book he dictated to anti-Bush author Ron Suskind is negative. Suskind, you'll recall, was the guy who managed to "find" unnamed White House senior officials to criticize the White House when no other journalist actually working that beat had in two years. Suskind got John DiIulio to say some unflattering things about the White House, but DiIulio denied remembering saying some of them (and — to be fair — he then apologized like John Belushi to Carrie Fisher in The Blues Brothers for the things he did remember). That Suskind takes journalistic liberties is not a new charge. After his profile of Karen Hughes, for Esquire then-Press Secretary Ari Fleischer suggested that Suskind get himself a tape recorder. In response to that swipe, Suskind told Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, "I'm a good note-taker....My notes are admissible in court." That's cool, although, when Bob Novak talked to several of the people Suskind interviewed, they said he hadn't taken any notes at all. Whatever. I don't know if Suskind pads his prose or not. But when Howard Kurtz describes someone as a "fast-talking, self-promoting" guy "who gives speeches, does 90-minute shows in theaters, appears on television, is writing his second book and has his own Web site" and that his DiIulio story "gives him something new to promote," most Washingtonians understand Kurtz is talking about an operator. One would certainly think such a description would ping the radar of a former treasury secretary and Washington hand. But no, O'Neill is supposedly shocked and awed by the "red meat" (his words) in the book he dictated. Worse, he apparently told Suskind that he was taken aback by the political nature of this White House. A political White House! This ranks somewhere between voicing surprise that rocks are hard to chew and being scandalized that bears continue to use America's sacred parklands as toilets. Kennedy, on the other hand, is not new to anything — including, I believe, all seven of the deadly sins and the naughty side of at least nine out of ten of the Ten Commandments. When President Clinton was in the Oval Office — a year before Kennedy voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act which authorized the "secret plan" O'Neill now denies he found — Ted Kennedy told Tim Russert that America could no longer tolerate Saddam's intransigence. "I don't think we should rule anything out, even military force. Those sites have to be accessible. They have to be available. They have to be inspected...I support the president's movement of military forces into the region and I think it has to be very, very clear to Saddam Hussein that those sites are going to have to be accessible and available, otherwise there's — nothing will be ruled out." That is, nothing will be ruled out — unless a Republican president is in office

Looks like you answered the question...

Answer the question..

YEAH AND IF MY AUNT HAD NUTS, SHE WOULD BE MY UNCLE... What in God's name are you talking about? Bush acts on a congressional act and he is hell bent on war? especially after 911 when the pre-emptive stance was inacted? You guys will never grasp the whole picture, stick to your conspiracy theories...

- Noone is going to listen to these freaks when all they do is preach destruction.. The average american enjoys living in america. It's these wanna be hippies who's parents smoked angel dust when they were pregnant with them that complain and claim that the Bush administration is comparable to Hitler? Are these people on Crack? Do they know how dumb they sound when they compare the goverment to Hitler and the third reich that killed MILLIONS???

its not a hypothetical dumb ass its the truth

So what are you saying? The Bush administration actually acted on the law declaring the removal of Saddam a goal of US policy: the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Here is a little excerpt from David From on this issue... The plot was so secret that Congress broadcast it on C-Span and published it in the Congressional Record. In fact, just about every candidate for the presidency in 2000 agreed that Saddam would someday have to be removed by force, with John McCain and Al Gore making the point even more emphatically than George W. Bush. What'S the problem here?

Little something I grabbed off of Yahoo... Holy Alliance ring a bell? http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=32115 The doctrine grew out of two diplomatic problems. The first was the minor clash with Russia concerning the northwest coast of North America. In this quarrel, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams expressed the principle that the American continents were no longer to be considered as a field for colonization by European powers. That principle was incorporated verbatim in the presidential message. The other and more important part of the doctrine grew out of the fear that the group of reactionary European governments commonly called the Holy Alliance would seek to reduce again to colonial status the Latin American states that had recently gained independence from Spain

Goose, U.N. Gander Post # This article exposes the hypocrisy of the UN and that snake in the grass Kofi Annan. Good read that shows the impotence of the UN and reinforces my beliefs that we should shut that UN brothel on the east side and force those bastards to pay back the millions they owe us in parking tickets...If not military action will occur...lol J/K --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.nationalreview.com/comme...00401130835.asp Iraqi Goose, U.N. Gander Time for Kofi Annan to go. By Andrew Apostolou When the U.S. 4th Infantry Division pulled Saddam Hussein from his hole in the ground on December 13, 2003, the Iraqi dictator was meek, bizarrely offering to negotiate with the U.S. By contrast, Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary general who strained every sinew to stop the war of liberation and now aims to thwart U.S. postwar plans, remains thoroughly defiant. Yet if there is one person on the international stage who deserves to be called to account for his conduct over Iraq, it is Kofi Annan. Missing from the debate on how and where Saddam should be tried has been any discussion about those whose actions sustained the Iraqi dictator in power. It is not just that Annan famously called Saddam Hussein in February 1998 somebody "I can do business with." It is that the U.N. secretary general has persistently put the interests of Saddam's victims last, while making the concerns of the Baathist regime, the Arab states, and Iraq's meddlesome neighbors his top priority. Not only has the secretary general shown little interest in Iraqi human rights, he has made a habit of lobbying against the U.S., both before and after the war. Annan has substituted bad faith for this previous record of being complicit in perpetuating Saddam's dictatorship. While Iraqi exiles lobbied the U.N. for years to set up a war-crimes tribunal for Iraq, the U.N. waited until U.S. tanks entered Baghdad in April 2003 to discover the issue of human rights in Iraq. As if by magic, the torpor of U.N. disinterest that had led to years of inconclusive U.N. human-rights reports was lifted. With brazen opportunism the U.N. sent Mona Rishmawi, the special adviser to the U.N. commissioner for human rights, to Baghdad to talk about human rights, even though her previous work on Iraq has been vanishingly thin but her efforts for the Palestinian cause rather substantial. Like so many human-rights activists, Ms. Rishmawi has demonstrated a selective indignation that has ignored the suffering of Iraqis. Even the post-liberation U.N. concept of what counts as human-rights leaves something to be desired. U.N. officials are openly fretting that de-Baathification might involve a violation of due process, forgetting that the rule of Saddam Hussein meant for the estimated 300,000 missing Iraqis no process but murder. Kofi Annan, speaking to the U.N. Security Council on December 16, 2003, called for Saddam Hussein to be tried "through a procedure that meets the highest international standards of due process." In the immediate aftermath of the liberation of Iraq, Kofi Annan had little to say about the horror of the newly discovered mass graves. Instead, taking his cue from the Arab states, he was forthright in expressing his concern that Kurds might evict the Arab colonists who had stolen their land. The U.N., which has much to say about Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, has always been reticent about the largest settlement program in the Middle East, the 40-year-long campaign to colonize Iraqi Kurdistan with Arabs. More insidious was the way in which U.N. agencies spent years undermining the U.N.-imposed sanctions on Iraq rather than enforce basic human-rights norms to protect Iraqis. The U.N. human-rights rapporteur for Iraq, Andreas Mavromatis, decided that the impact of the U.N.-imposed sanctions was part of his human-rights remit, which involved four years of futile letter-writing and one brief, regime approved, trip to Iraq. The U.N. agencies took their campaign against U.N. sanctions to great lengths. UNICEF did wonders for Iraqi propaganda by circulating the bogus claim that a half million Iraqi children had died because of sanctions. The half-million figure was a statistical extrapolation, not a death toll. UNICEF, using Iraqi-government figures, projected the declining infant mortality of the 1980s forward into the 1990s. The U.N. agency then compared this declining trend with supposedly rapidly rising infant mortality following the imposition of sanctions, information based on a survey which it undertook in Saddam's police state. The gap between these two trend lines was the equivalent of a half million lost potential births, which is not the same as a half million deaths. UNICEF made little effort to correct this most misleading impression. Meanwhile, the infant mortality rate was tumbling in Iraqi Kurdistan, despite that region suffering from both U.N. and Iraqi-government sanctions, disproving the notion that the sanctions had caused infant deaths. Unsurprisingly, when the foreign minister of liberated Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, an Iraqi Kurd, spoke to the U.N. Security Council on December 16, 2003, three days after the arrest of Saddam Hussein, he failed to engage in diplomatic niceties. Zebari told the Security Council that: "The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure. The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again." Kofi Annan, who after meeting Saddam in February 1998 had avowed himself to be "impressed by his decisiveness," was not taken with Zebari's honesty. Rather than take the opportunity to express remorse for the U.N.'s actions, Annan instead criticized Zebari, telling him that: "Now is not the time to pin blame and point fingers." The UN secretary general, quick to criticise the U.S. for enforcing U.N. resolutions in Iraq and ever ready to censure Israel, is an expert on finger pointing. So while Saddam Hussein, deloused and shaven courtesy of the U.S. army, awaits judgment, the U.N. secretary general inexplicably still holds court in Turtle Bay. Putting the U.N. secretary general on trial by Iraqis is not a realistic option, but depriving him, like his former Baathist friend, of the power to do more harm surely is. What is good for the Iraqi goose should be good for the U.N. gander.

What we've become? Yeah looks like we really enjoy occupying Germany,Japan,England & Kuwait... If we were an imperial, land hungry nation all the countries above would be states.....Is that the case? Stop talking bud, your team loses a point every time you open your mouth.... lol

e-mail me a copy so i can wipe my arse with it....