Nelson Mandela bitchlaps George Bush

[bigpoppanils]

Mandela: U.S. Threat to World Peace

By RAVI NESSMAN

Associated Press Writer

462 words

Sep 12, 2002

AP Online

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP) - Former South African President Nelson Mandela has called the United States "a threat to world peace" and said its belligerent policy toward Iraq was an obvious effort to appease the oil and arms industry, Newsweek magazine reported.

Any move against Iraq must be made by the United Nations, not by a single government, Mandela said in an interview with the weekly. The interview was posted on Newsweek's Web site this week.

Mandela's comments earlier this week came as Bush prepared his Thursday speech at the United Nations, where the president said the world body risks becoming irrelevant if it takes no action against Iraq.

Bush wants to overthrow Saddam Hussein for his refusal to fulfill Iraq's post-Gulf War promises to destroy weapons of mass destruction.

Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, took issue with U.S. claims.

"Neither Bush nor (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that," he said.

"Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white?" he said.

Mandela and the South African government have good relations with the Iraqi regime. Before meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on the sidelines of the World Summit in Johannesburg last week, Mandela told reporters he was "appalled" by U.S. threats against Iraq.

In the Newsweek interview, Mandela criticized more than two decades of U.S. foreign policy, including its support for the shah of Iran, mistakes it made during the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and its willingness to ignore the United Nations.

"If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what (America) is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries," he said. "That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms.

U.S. policy toward Iraq "is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America," he said.

Mandela also criticized Bush's advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, calling them "dinosaurs" who are misleading the president.

"Quite clearly we are dealing with an arch-conservative in Dick Cheney," he said.

Only Secretary of State Colin Powell was giving Bush good advice, he said.

"(Powell) knows the disastrous effect of international tension and war, when innocent people are going to die, young men are going to die."

ASP0225522601

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2002 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive, LLC. Trading as Factiva.

[sassa]

now that is a man that knows what he's talking about..

bush is leading this country on to a path of no return...why is no one thinking of the consequences of what might if we invade iraq? what will happen after saddam is supposedly toppled?

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by sassa

what will happen after saddam is supposedly toppled?

cheney promised george a lollypop and to extend his curfew past 10pm

[crosspatrick]

What amazed me about dick Cheney was after 9/11, gwb was everywhere and no sign of Mr. Cheney.

Put Bush in the firing line but keep the guy who is only supposed to be the vp well out of harms way.

I suppose the real people running this country were thinking if one of them is going down it may as well be George.

[sassa]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

cheney promised george a lollypop and to extend his curfew past 10pm

what kind of lollypop? cheney's or a tootsie roll pop?

[t0nythelover]

well it was probably cuz cheney was getting all the cheez whiz sucked out of his fat clogged heart.

yeah, i respect nelson mandelas oppinion much more than bushs, hes a retard, he cant even read properly during his speeches. ive actually heard bush say "nucular war" or "oobekistan", hes an idiot, but at least now hes making his case for war with the u.n.,took long enough. he should have had the case for war waaaaaay b4 he even talked about war in iraq. yeah, let saddam know its coming, real slick.

[loch]

Originally posted by crosspatrick

What amazed me about dick Cheney was after 9/11, gwb was everywhere and no sign of Mr. Cheney.

Put Bush in the firing line but keep the guy who is only supposed to be the vp well out of harms way.

I suppose the real people running this country were thinking if one of them is going down it may as well be George.

uh, i don't think that was the rationale. it makes perfect political sense, a statement if you will, that the figurehead...the commander-in-chief...should lead the charge and stand tall and direct the country in a visible manner. and as a contingency, you stash away your back-up. plain and simple.

(this does not reflect an opinion on the policies of the administration; just the rationale behind making the Pres. visible while hiding the VP post 9-11)

[loch]

i didn't realize clubkids are also professional political analysts. aren't we all so lucky to sit on our fat asses behind a computer screen, and, in between posting about fashion and which dj/venue is better than others, post about his/her professional opinion on political policies and strategies.

i don't claim to know more than any of you, or which is the better course of action/lesser of two evils (i'm ambivalent, quite frankly), but i'm sure there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than we care to know or can fathom.

with that said...

Originally posted by t0nythelover

yeah, let saddam know its coming, real slick.

alright, genius...this concept is called 'deterrence'. you purposely let the other side know you plan on attacking them so that they heed this threat and comply with the demands, because in actuality, you really DON'T want to go to war. it's also called political strategy 101, rule #1. and it's also called you-show-your-age-when-you-open-your-mouth-without-thinking.

[t0nythelover]

Originally posted by loch

i didn't realize clubkids are also professional political analysts. aren't we all so lucky to sit on our fat asses behind a computer screen, and, in between posting about fashion and which dj/venue is better than others, post about his/her professional opinion on political policies and strategies.

i don't claim to know more than any of you, or which is the better course of action/lesser of two evils (i'm ambivalent, quite frankly), but i'm sure there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than we care to know or can fathom.

with that said...

alright, genius...this concept is called 'deterrence'. you purposely let the other side know you plan on attacking them so that they heed this threat and comply with the demands, because in actuality, you really DON'T want to go to war. it's also called political strategy 101, rule #1. and it's also called you-show-your-age-when-you-open-your-mouth-without-thinking.

ok, so i guess you have some sort of degree in military tactics? yeah, telling people you plan to attack is political strategy, ok. if iraq really had nukes wed be stupid to let them know were coming. tell me, why do we spend so much money on stealth abilities and small groups of special forces troops then? and contrary to what you think, i dont "open my mouth without thinking", if you check on the current events board ive written quite a bit explaining my beliefs and even went so far as to post links to articles that back up my oppinnions. because, hey cnn "opens their mouth" with out thinking right?

[phatman]

...you're misconstruing what he's saying...but if we're lucky, he'll further perpetuate this conversation...

[charrails]

There is plenty of proof that Saddam is a lunatic repressive leader who's life mission is to dominate his region and potentially more, and that he's put a LOt of effort into his weapons programs, chemical/bio/nuclear. He has lied about it before, many times, and we've caught him in the lies. To believe that he decided to miraculously tell the truth now is a load of horseshit. He's continually ignored UN demands, so for everyone to say "it should be the UN, not the USA" I think Bush has a great point - the UN set the rules, Saddam ignored them, so either the UN has to step up and handle shit, or it is essentially useless. The US having to go it alone is actually the rest of the world letting us and themselves down, not the US ignoring the rest of the world.

Yeah, no shit its not ideal to go to war, or to start a domino effect in the middle eastern world, but I think the rest of the world is either naive or plain stupid to think that Saddam is better left alone to his devices.

It would be nice if his neighbors recognized the fact that they wouldn't be sovereign states if we hadn't come in to stop Saddam in 1991. We gave him mercy last time around, based on his promises and agreements, which he turned around and disregarded and broke.

Bush listens to the world, and his country, who've said that he shouldn't go-it-alone. Therefore he's using the UN, saying "we already set the resolutions which were ignored. Let's set another one, this time let's actually back it the fuck up, otherwise the UN just a symbolic organization with only the power to talk. The UN is in place to keep the peace, but sometimes you have to fight to keep peace. Look at Germany in between WWI and WWII, the world sat back cuz they didn't have the stomach for another war like WWI, and soon enough it became apparant that this guy wasn't gonna stop without a fight, and by then he was so powerful and had killed so many people that WWII became the horrendous war that it was. Should we sit back and wait until Saddam reaches his goals of strength and power and Arab-world backing? or should we stop this menace before we have WWIII on our hands?

yeah there's a chance WWIII might happen if we enter IRaq again. Its not going to be easy, but it would be a lot easier if the rest of the world held saddam accountable for his actions.

Nobody should be in power in a country for 30 + years. that spells corruption. That man should not be in power at all, let alone with his record.

[dgmodel]

Originally posted by sassa

what will happen after saddam is supposedly toppled?

i for one have no idea, but what do YOU think, will happen???

[jimk29]

Originally posted by t0nythelover

because, hey cnn "opens their mouth" with out thinking right?

Do you believe everything you read??

[t0nythelover]

no i dont beleive everything i read but facts are facts.

fact is, i think getting rid of saddam would be good only if it doesnt create a power vacuum in iraq that leads to something worse. who knows, maybe bin laden will become the next ruler of iraq and then the shit would hit the fan. all im sayin is that if we do this we really shouldnt go it alone. saddam is a threat to the entire world, not just the us right?

[£ddie]

Originally posted by t0nythelover

yeah, telling people you plan to attack is political strategy, ok. if iraq really had nukes wed be stupid to let them know were coming.

As usual, you're wrong. Let's see, did Milosevic know we were coming during the Bosnian War? YES. Did Saddam know we were coming during the Gulf War? YES. Did the Viet Cong know we were coming? YES. It happens ALL the time. The threat of force is often sufficient to achieve our political ends.

Originally posted by t0nythelover

tell me, why do we spend so much money on stealth abilities and small groups of special forces troops then?

Because special forces are intended for SMALL SCALE operations, they don't exist to topple regimes or taking on entire armies, but rather, for rescue missions, capture missions etc. They are heavily armed infantry with the occasional Blackhawks used for air cover and transport. As far as stealth bombers, they're stealth capabilities are limited insofar conducting a full scale war. We NEVER have used stealth bombers exclusively in conducting any war.

Originally posted by t0nythelover

if you check on the current events board ive written quite a bit explaining my beliefs and even went so far as to post links to articles that back up my oppinnions.

Writing about your opinions (especially when you resort to hackneyed ad hominem attacks on the President and the articles you post don't support your opinions as I've shown) on a daily basis to predominantly teeny bopper, flaming liberal clubbers does not give you more credibility than you deserve. Sorry.

[t0nythelover]

Originally posted by £ddie

As usual, you're wrong. Let's see, did Milosevic know we were coming during the Bosnian War? YES. Did Saddam know we were coming during the Gulf War? YES. Did the Viet Cong know we were coming? YES. It happens ALL the time. The threat of force is often sufficient to achieve our political ends.

Because special forces are intended for SMALL SCALE operations, they don't exist to topple regimes or taking on entire armies, but rather, for rescue missions, capture missions etc. They are heavily armed infantry with the occasional Blackhawks used for air cover and transport. As far as stealth bombers, they're stealth capabilities are limited insofar conducting a full scale war. We NEVER have used stealth bombers exclusively in conducting any war.

Writing about your opinions (especially when you resort to hackneyed ad hominem attacks on the President and the articles you post don't support your opinions as I've shown) on a daily basis to predominantly teeny bopper, flaming liberal clubbers does not give you more credibility than you deserve. Sorry.

ok as far as i know milosevic still killed mad albanians,and the vietcong killed a hell of alot of americans. just because it happens alot doesnt mean its a smart thing to do.

you havent shown that my links didnt back up my articles, did you read my reply? stop jocking my post, if you dont like what i write dont read it. as far as the people on clubplanet i dont think they are "predominantly teeny boppers" you should have alot more respect for the people on the boards.

im not looking for credibility, just wanna express my viewpoints. its called freedom of speech, welcom to america.

[ghhhhhost]

i dont wana get too involved in this thread..because i got my own lil debate goin on with marty...but...

bush is tryin to add legitimacy to his presidency. he hasnt done anything right. if he can knock saddam off of power it'd actually mean something..after all his father couldnt do it back in the days.

[£ddie]

Originally posted by t0nythelover

its called freedom of speech, welcom to america.

Exactly, you have your right to spew your liberal agenda, and I have the right to break down your arguments to show they stand with the strength of a house of cards.

[£ddie]

And on one final note, the tree hugging Mandela was also opposed to the war in Kosovo on the same grounds as he's opposed to this war. I guess we should have listened to him there too, huh?

[t0nythelover]

Originally posted by £ddie

And on one final note, the tree hugging Mandela was also opposed to the war in Kosovo on the same grounds as he's opposed to this war. I guess we should have listened to him there too, huh?

because you have more authority on the topic then nelson mandela?

oops, i guess im spewing more of my agenda. mwahaha, im going to go sell porn to kids and push over old people, mwahaha, must brainwash children with liberal views and attack the president.

[girly]

Glad to know other people view this kids opinions as a crock of crap.

[ghhhhhost]

Originally posted by £ddie

And on one final note, the tree hugging Mandela was also opposed to the war in Kosovo on the same grounds as he's opposed to this war. I guess we should have listened to him there too, huh?

if u listened to him then..u would still have those towers which comprised the world trade center standing. in kosovo we(serbs) were fighting the same threat that the US is fighting in Afghanistan.... muslim extremists. our methods might not have been the most humane...but guess what....sometimes u gota get down n dirty to finish the job

[nycmuzik]

Finally Bush went to the UN today and pointed out our case to why we need to attack Iraq....The support of the UN would be nice but I wouldnt lose any sleep over the fact that we went in there by ourselve....The UN has been a bitch to the Iraq's for the past 5 or so years and I dont see that changing soon....Iraq kicks out the weapon inspectors and violates many of the agreements that were set in place after the Gulf War and all the UN does is condemn it...That imo is complete bullshit...Its like trying to raise a kid and setting some rules but never enforcing them....Iraq like that kid will grow out of control....

As far as the US strategy towards Iraq is concerned.....Its a good thing that Bush is letting them know that we'll attack if he doesnt obide by the rules of the agreement he signed....If he has nothing to hide then it shouldnt be a problem letting those inspectors back in...But on countless occasions he has scoffed at that idea.....Looks to me like he has something to hide.....Also, the Iraqi military is considerably weaker than it was decade ago but the fight will probably last longer this time and be alot more costly...The main reason is taking Baghdad....Its going to involve alot of close quaters combat....Probably the most dangerous combat scenario a soldier can be involved in....Just look back to Mogadishu in 1993.....But the troops involved back then did not have the resources that they needed because the Clinton administration turned down the request for armored vehicles and ac130 gunships.......

[Taub]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

"Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white?" he said.

Iraq is black? what is he trying to say here? as in black/white or in race?

[mungo]

Originally posted by £ddie

As usual, you're wrong. Let's see, did Milosevic know we were coming during the Bosnian War? YES. Did Saddam know we were coming during the Gulf War? YES. Did the Viet Cong know we were coming? YES. It happens ALL the time. The threat of force is often sufficient to achieve our political ends.

Because special forces are intended for SMALL SCALE operations, they don't exist to topple regimes or taking on entire armies, but rather, for rescue missions, capture missions etc. They are heavily armed infantry with the occasional Blackhawks used for air cover and transport. As far as stealth bombers, they're stealth capabilities are limited insofar conducting a full scale war. We NEVER have used stealth bombers exclusively in conducting any war.

Writing about your opinions (especially when you resort to hackneyed ad hominem attacks on the President and the articles you post don't support your opinions as I've shown) on a daily basis to predominantly teeny bopper, flaming liberal clubbers does not give you more credibility than you deserve. Sorry.

As sharp as always. Long time no see, give me a buzz.