I've never heard about Moore before, but I sure know Ralph Nader!
I'd love to see that. You have everybody's MSN contact on this thread:http://www.soccergaming.tv/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43305
Great thoughts there, monkee.
-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
"Postponing an attack to Iraq would be more dangerous than attacking now"
- Thread starter hristostoichkov
- Start date
I've never heard about Moore before, but I sure know Ralph Nader!
I'd love to see that. You have everybody's MSN contact on this thread:http://www.soccergaming.tv/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43305
Great thoughts there, monkee.
Ralph Nader rally NYC 2000 part one
Nader: He is the poster child for Ralph Lauren. He is the son my mother wanted to have. He is the man who is responsible for the most successful documentary in film. I give you Michael Moore!!!!!!!!!
huge crowd response
Moore: Thank you, wow New York! Last week in what they called a debate, I think the moderator Jim Lehrer summed it up for me in the very first line that he uttered, and it was the greeting to the two candidates and I wanna read to you what he said from the transcript, “Welcome Governor Bush and welcome Vice President Bush, urrr I mean Gore!”.
That pretty much summed it up right there for me folks there the same person there the same guy, ones called bush ones called gore (laughs) they agreed with each other a total of 32 times they said “I agree with you or I support you”.
32 times, where’s the debate?! I mean they loved each other so much. “I support the death penalty, I support the death penalty, I support WTO, I support WTO”. I thought there were like scanners in the room and their heads were gonna explode from all the love in the room (laughs).
All that was missing from the dabate other than Ralph Nader, at the end for Gore to give on of those big Tipper Gore tongue kissing on George Bush that what I would like to see “I love you man, I love you too man”
I know Ralph Nader wanted to be there but I wanted to be on that panel Ive got a few questions I would like to ask and the crowd would like to ask…
In this weeks edition of Rolling Stone magazine, Al Franklin points out that George Bush is proud of the fact that he can name all 55 members of his fraternity from his Yale class of ’68. The question that should be asked of Bush at the debate is “Could you name for me the last 55 people you executed in Texas? Do you know their names, who are they? These human beings”
Nader: He is the poster child for Ralph Lauren. He is the son my mother wanted to have. He is the man who is responsible for the most successful documentary in film. I give you Michael Moore!!!!!!!!!
huge crowd response
Moore: Thank you, wow New York! Last week in what they called a debate, I think the moderator Jim Lehrer summed it up for me in the very first line that he uttered, and it was the greeting to the two candidates and I wanna read to you what he said from the transcript, “Welcome Governor Bush and welcome Vice President Bush, urrr I mean Gore!”.
That pretty much summed it up right there for me folks there the same person there the same guy, ones called bush ones called gore (laughs) they agreed with each other a total of 32 times they said “I agree with you or I support you”.
32 times, where’s the debate?! I mean they loved each other so much. “I support the death penalty, I support the death penalty, I support WTO, I support WTO”. I thought there were like scanners in the room and their heads were gonna explode from all the love in the room (laughs).
All that was missing from the dabate other than Ralph Nader, at the end for Gore to give on of those big Tipper Gore tongue kissing on George Bush that what I would like to see “I love you man, I love you too man”
I know Ralph Nader wanted to be there but I wanted to be on that panel Ive got a few questions I would like to ask and the crowd would like to ask…
In this weeks edition of Rolling Stone magazine, Al Franklin points out that George Bush is proud of the fact that he can name all 55 members of his fraternity from his Yale class of ’68. The question that should be asked of Bush at the debate is “Could you name for me the last 55 people you executed in Texas? Do you know their names, who are they? These human beings”
Can't stop the rush...
Hip Hop is Dead
It's ok man, I was just letting you know.
No worrys.
Ralph Nader Rally NYC 2000 part two
We have on Mount Rushmore cast in stone four presidents that we claim to admire so much: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt and isn’t it strange that these four former presidents which are held in such reverence by the American public that each of them rejected the two party system, each of them. Think about this: Lincoln won as a third party candidate, Jefferson won in a three way race, Washington didn’t even belong to a party he hated partys, and Theodore he was so disgusted he hated he hated the two party system and created his own party and came in second over William Howard Taft, why aren’t we taught that in our history books?
We revere these men, they hated the two party system because they knew it was corrupt and they knew that was evil.
You came here tonight to support Ralph and you agree for what he stands for, but your afraid that George W Bush is going to be elected president, you’d be surprised how many people have said that to me, we know that there are a lot of our friends out there who feel that GWB and I think we can agree on that would be a horrific event if he became president of the united states (spooky)
But heres the thing I wanna say especially to young first time voters “If you don’t voted your conscience now, when will you start? At the age of 18, 19, 20 years old. If your at the very first election of your life and if you decide to settle for less how has that moved us forward, where are at this point because we have settled for less for so long, if we keep settling for less its only gonna get worse, the lesser of two evils you still get evil, you still end up with evil!!!”. We are being ask to choose the second worse candidate this is what this is all about isn’t it, ‘who is the second worse?’
You know this country would have never got to where it was without, if people had behaved that way. The founding mothers and fathers of this country what if they said “Im afraid of King George um uh if we have a revolution we might get a worse king, um ur so I guess we shouldn’t have a revolution because we can win!” Ralph cant win, Ralph cant win, Ralph cant win! How many times have we heard this what if Rosa Parks (spelling?) what if she had said to her self “Im the only person on this bus I cant win! Im afraid” but that’s not what she did she took her seat on the bus she acted some courage and she had the courage of her convictions, the only reason we have moved is because of people with courage, you don’t make a decision based on fear, make a decision based on your hopes, dreams aspirations and your conscience not from fear
Because let me tell you and let me close on this if you start your at 18, 20, etc. your adult life already giving in already compromising already holding your nose and turning your head the other way what kind of life are you going to have a life filled with compromises and you’ll end up in jobs that you don’t like and you’ll turn your head the other way when you see something going wrong in your life and you live your life in fear ‘ive gotta stay, ive gotta do this, because of gotta pay off the college loan, ive gotta pay for my heath care and the system grips you by the neck and puts a boot to your head and you will participate in that if you settle for less and not following your conscience, have some courage and some hope, follow your conscience and do the right thing on November 2nd 2000 thank you!!
If my spelling or grammar is a little off I apologize
Zulaid
We have on Mount Rushmore cast in stone four presidents that we claim to admire so much: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt and isn’t it strange that these four former presidents which are held in such reverence by the American public that each of them rejected the two party system, each of them. Think about this: Lincoln won as a third party candidate, Jefferson won in a three way race, Washington didn’t even belong to a party he hated partys, and Theodore he was so disgusted he hated he hated the two party system and created his own party and came in second over William Howard Taft, why aren’t we taught that in our history books?
We revere these men, they hated the two party system because they knew it was corrupt and they knew that was evil.
You came here tonight to support Ralph and you agree for what he stands for, but your afraid that George W Bush is going to be elected president, you’d be surprised how many people have said that to me, we know that there are a lot of our friends out there who feel that GWB and I think we can agree on that would be a horrific event if he became president of the united states (spooky)
But heres the thing I wanna say especially to young first time voters “If you don’t voted your conscience now, when will you start? At the age of 18, 19, 20 years old. If your at the very first election of your life and if you decide to settle for less how has that moved us forward, where are at this point because we have settled for less for so long, if we keep settling for less its only gonna get worse, the lesser of two evils you still get evil, you still end up with evil!!!”. We are being ask to choose the second worse candidate this is what this is all about isn’t it, ‘who is the second worse?’
You know this country would have never got to where it was without, if people had behaved that way. The founding mothers and fathers of this country what if they said “Im afraid of King George um uh if we have a revolution we might get a worse king, um ur so I guess we shouldn’t have a revolution because we can win!” Ralph cant win, Ralph cant win, Ralph cant win! How many times have we heard this what if Rosa Parks (spelling?) what if she had said to her self “Im the only person on this bus I cant win! Im afraid” but that’s not what she did she took her seat on the bus she acted some courage and she had the courage of her convictions, the only reason we have moved is because of people with courage, you don’t make a decision based on fear, make a decision based on your hopes, dreams aspirations and your conscience not from fear
Because let me tell you and let me close on this if you start your at 18, 20, etc. your adult life already giving in already compromising already holding your nose and turning your head the other way what kind of life are you going to have a life filled with compromises and you’ll end up in jobs that you don’t like and you’ll turn your head the other way when you see something going wrong in your life and you live your life in fear ‘ive gotta stay, ive gotta do this, because of gotta pay off the college loan, ive gotta pay for my heath care and the system grips you by the neck and puts a boot to your head and you will participate in that if you settle for less and not following your conscience, have some courage and some hope, follow your conscience and do the right thing on November 2nd 2000 thank you!!
If my spelling or grammar is a little off I apologize
Zulaid
Can't stop the rush...
Hip Hop is Dead
Originally posted by Grassy56
i was gonna say anything, but seeming u keep posting ****e from that book (which i cant be assed reading any of that) which is getting annoying
is it necessary that u post huge frickin' amounts of that???
its just getting really annoying, thats all.
It's much better then people posting 500 billion different threads about one thing.
Heheheehe...... only kiddin'
My take on the matter, is Saddam really a threat, no, now is not the time, unnecssary unless telling evidence THEY ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISM (war on terror) or Creating weapons of mass destruction. THROW THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK IN. If they're harmed (unlikely) then attack. At the moment I think it is uncalled for.
An attack would only be a stunt to gain support for Bush and to kick-start the economy, also take minds off the unsteady economy (eg. corporate collapse).
Originally posted by Juventus_theres_next_year
Heheheehe...... only kiddin'
My take on the matter, is Saddam really a threat, no, now is not the time, unnecssary unless telling evidence THEY ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISM (war on terror) or Creating weapons of mass destruction. THROW THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK IN. If they're harmed (unlikely) then attack. At the moment I think it is uncalled for.
An attack would only be a stunt to gain support for Bush and to kick-start the economy, also take minds off the unsteady economy (eg. corporate collapse).
saddam will just screw them around, and lead them up the garden path . .
He may just let the weapons inspectors back in and mess them around and if he does then he's proved what the USA thought in the first place. Alternatively he may be willing to cooperate (I know it's more unlikely than not) and he's not getting the chance and neither are the Iraqi people.
You've got to remember in the Gulf war the Allies promised to help them afterwards but when it came down to it they just packed their bags and left, so their not going to be so pleased to see them this time. The USA was willing to do the same thing in Afghanistan but some nations left troops there to help the nations people get on its feet (as opposed to blowing up convoys of innocent people or wedding receptions full of innocent people). Then the US govt accuses these nations of not doing enough, at least we aren't shooting our own soldiers and are actually constructively helping this fledgling govt do what could benefit it's people.
Now the USA claim that Al Qaeda are operating biological weapons development factories in Iraq. Maybe, maybe not. It's just that it's starting to seem that if the USA need public support for anything they branding around Al Qaeda and Sept 11th as if it were a weapon or a tool to gain opinion. It's good to see a govt showing respect to the victims of the Sept 11 tragedy.
If GWB found oil under the ruins of the WTC I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to dig.
It's upsetting to see this lack of respect being shown by the leader to the people of his country. I'm also worried that Sept 11th is the catalyst behind another shame... The re-election of GWB. It's been a good tool for him to sweep his failings as a leader (which seem like many) under the carpet, that seems to be how he views that tragedy anyway.
You've got to remember in the Gulf war the Allies promised to help them afterwards but when it came down to it they just packed their bags and left, so their not going to be so pleased to see them this time. The USA was willing to do the same thing in Afghanistan but some nations left troops there to help the nations people get on its feet (as opposed to blowing up convoys of innocent people or wedding receptions full of innocent people). Then the US govt accuses these nations of not doing enough, at least we aren't shooting our own soldiers and are actually constructively helping this fledgling govt do what could benefit it's people.
Now the USA claim that Al Qaeda are operating biological weapons development factories in Iraq. Maybe, maybe not. It's just that it's starting to seem that if the USA need public support for anything they branding around Al Qaeda and Sept 11th as if it were a weapon or a tool to gain opinion. It's good to see a govt showing respect to the victims of the Sept 11 tragedy.
If GWB found oil under the ruins of the WTC I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to dig.
It's upsetting to see this lack of respect being shown by the leader to the people of his country. I'm also worried that Sept 11th is the catalyst behind another shame... The re-election of GWB. It's been a good tool for him to sweep his failings as a leader (which seem like many) under the carpet, that seems to be how he views that tragedy anyway.
sorry Grassy56 (paul) i understand your but if ya cant be pissed reading it then dont i know it annoys you but other people are interested.
I was tring to do people a favour who requested the file and not download a 40mb sound file.
The Ralph Nader Rally up top was before the book pre-bush and when you read it if you do you will see spooky and motivating stuff, you believe Saddam is the axis of evil while others including myself believe bush is, we all have valid opinions (which make democracies great) which you would agree, but if your against it u should read it to prove that im and others are wrong cuz if you dont you will have a narrow view of the world which can be dangerous which is stated towards the end of the speech (i like others read all comments so we can debate it)
to explain the Rally is a transcript of audio i got off Kazaa, which is pre 'stupid white man' book, the thing i posted before is like an addon chapter about the stupidity of american politics going for money instead of airline safty.
I have yet nor probably will i post anything that is a direct quote from the book.
Zulaid
I was tring to do people a favour who requested the file and not download a 40mb sound file.
The Ralph Nader Rally up top was before the book pre-bush and when you read it if you do you will see spooky and motivating stuff, you believe Saddam is the axis of evil while others including myself believe bush is, we all have valid opinions (which make democracies great) which you would agree, but if your against it u should read it to prove that im and others are wrong cuz if you dont you will have a narrow view of the world which can be dangerous which is stated towards the end of the speech (i like others read all comments so we can debate it)
to explain the Rally is a transcript of audio i got off Kazaa, which is pre 'stupid white man' book, the thing i posted before is like an addon chapter about the stupidity of american politics going for money instead of airline safty.
I have yet nor probably will i post anything that is a direct quote from the book.
Zulaid
AberdeenFC
Min
thats just the way it is!! 
things will never be the same! thats just the way it is...ooh yeah
things will never be the same! thats just the way it is...ooh yeahOriginally posted by Grassy56
i was gonna say anything, but seeming u keep posting ****e from that book (which i cant be assed reading any of that) which is getting annoying
is it necessary that u post huge frickin' amounts of that???
its just getting really annoying, thats all.
I ASKED zul-aider to post it!! Thanks a lot, zul-aider! It was a fun reading!
Sorry to be a tad late, Hugo, but I felt I ought to reply..just because
.Your first question, the answer is twofold. Firstly, Colin Powell thought that a push to Baghdad with the US Army absolutely slaughtering Iraqi forces would look like a massacre to the media. Getting Kuwaiti oil was their primary goal, with that done, Saddam was less important. Secondly, if Baghdad fell, Kurds in the north of Iraq and Syria would have wanted a separate state - as well as Turkish Kurds, and Turkey is a NATO country - all sorts of complications would pop up there. Also, Israel has shown us just how good a job the international community does when partitioning land..
And you alluded to the answer to your second rhetorical question in your post - it's all about economics and America seeing itself as the global policeman. Also, GWB can't wait too long to attack - re-elections in 2004 mean that he has to be in and out before then.
Well it looks like they're after Saddam afterall. i just hope they don't damage all those posh palaces of his too much, they could make for nice museums and hotel chains later on 
But seriously how the hell do they expect to get Saddam, he'll be hiding his a$$ 10 miles underground (just like dubbya Bush on September 11th ) They can't fly over, blast a few missles from a distance like they always do and then expect him to surrender. It seems inevitable that this operation will involve ground troops, and if Iraqi civilians get involved in the ground war then it could get really ugly. One thing i know is that the majority of Iraqis resent both Saddam and the Americans, the way they see it both are on the same side, they caused them nothing but pain and hardship.
Now the Iraqis will have the not-so-envious task of deciding what to do next, allying with the American troops to help oust Saddam and then settling for a pro-American Iraqi government, or resisting the American 'invasion' and then if they succeed ending up with the original problem of how to get rid of Saddam. My feeling is that the majority will go with the former as it is relatively easier to dispose of any future government considering it being semi-democratic. In effect, if the iraqis don't wish to settle for a pro-western government then they pretty much have to liberate their country twice.
It seems the situation is different this time, either the Americans have finally found their shining knight on a white horse or they've just decided to settle for what's available.
In a recent conference for Iraqi opposition groups (held by the US & Britain) the Jordanian heir to the throne, Prince Hassan (who happens to be brother of the former King Hussein & uncle of the current King Abdullah), was invited to attend the meeting, this initiated speculations that the Americans were looking to have the Jordanian royalty as the new king/president of Iraq. Imagine having a leader of state not from your own country.
The thing is, Saddam, American airstrikes and the UN sanctions have virtually turned the country into a heap of rubble.
Bridges, power plants, water facilities and a good deal of civilian infrastructure lay destroyed since they served as targets during American airstrikes. Many of those buildings could not be re-built since the Iraqis needed to import a lot of material essential to the construction but the sale of that material was banned by the UN for possible dual use. With Saddam gone these projects could freely go ahead, not to mention the complete upgrade of a lot of hardware like computers, cars, heavy machinery, etc, etc.
Unlike Afghanistan Iraq has the money to pay for these developments, just think how many lucrative contracts the European companies stand to make in the process and on such a large scale too.
But if the Americans had their say and replaced Saddam with a new 'democratic' (& pro-American) government then it's most likely that a substantial share of those deals would be secured by American & British companies leaving the Europeans to come and pick up the scraps, and the Europeans, Russians and Chinese aren't too happy about it.
As you can see it's all about the moula, the people, as always, are the last thing to come into the equation.
Oh, i forgot to say, that's just my opinion
But seriously how the hell do they expect to get Saddam, he'll be hiding his a$$ 10 miles underground (just like dubbya Bush on September 11th
) They can't fly over, blast a few missles from a distance like they always do and then expect him to surrender. It seems inevitable that this operation will involve ground troops, and if Iraqi civilians get involved in the ground war then it could get really ugly. One thing i know is that the majority of Iraqis resent both Saddam and the Americans, the way they see it both are on the same side, they caused them nothing but pain and hardship.Now the Iraqis will have the not-so-envious task of deciding what to do next, allying with the American troops to help oust Saddam and then settling for a pro-American Iraqi government, or resisting the American 'invasion' and then if they succeed ending up with the original problem of how to get rid of Saddam. My feeling is that the majority will go with the former as it is relatively easier to dispose of any future government considering it being semi-democratic. In effect, if the iraqis don't wish to settle for a pro-western government then they pretty much have to liberate their country twice.
coz it wasn't in his interest to do so, tho hermolt's answer was good too.
Because the time wasn't right to change the leadership back then, Iraq has alot of influence on the social & political environment in the middle-east, the Americans needed to make sure that their interests in the region aren't jeopardised by this change, yet they didn't have many options for possible replacements, and the few Iraqi opposition groups who were influencial they didn't trust. To add to the problem, most average Iraqis viewed any Iraqi opposition group that's been backed by a foreign source with suspicion.
It seems the situation is different this time, either the Americans have finally found their shining knight on a white horse or they've just decided to settle for what's available.
In a recent conference for Iraqi opposition groups (held by the US & Britain) the Jordanian heir to the throne, Prince Hassan (who happens to be brother of the former King Hussein & uncle of the current King Abdullah), was invited to attend the meeting, this initiated speculations that the Americans were looking to have the Jordanian royalty as the new king/president of Iraq. Imagine having a leader of state not from your own country.
It's pretty funny actually, when the US announced it was planning to bomb Afghanistan the Europeans were like 'yeah yeah, who gives a $hit' but when a similar action is proposed for Iraq it's suddenly a different matter altogether.
The thing is, Saddam, American airstrikes and the UN sanctions have virtually turned the country into a heap of rubble.
Bridges, power plants, water facilities and a good deal of civilian infrastructure lay destroyed since they served as targets during American airstrikes. Many of those buildings could not be re-built since the Iraqis needed to import a lot of material essential to the construction but the sale of that material was banned by the UN for possible dual use. With Saddam gone these projects could freely go ahead, not to mention the complete upgrade of a lot of hardware like computers, cars, heavy machinery, etc, etc.
Unlike Afghanistan Iraq has the money to pay for these developments, just think how many lucrative contracts the European companies stand to make in the process and on such a large scale too.
But if the Americans had their say and replaced Saddam with a new 'democratic' (& pro-American) government then it's most likely that a substantial share of those deals would be secured by American & British companies leaving the Europeans to come and pick up the scraps, and the Europeans, Russians and Chinese aren't too happy about it.
As you can see it's all about the moula, the people, as always, are the last thing to come into the equation.
Oh, i forgot to say, that's just my opinion
Good answers hermolt and Krypton X. Indeed, the questions were rhetorical, but it was nice to read answers from people that like using their brains.
About this quote, I believe that the reasons that I alluded before are more decisive, more macroeconomic, so to speak. No matter what, only a few carefully chosen companies would benefit from your (very likely to happen) scenario.
Right now, the present economical crisis affects every single company in Europe and America. A predictable oil boycott in the case of Europe aiding the US, would be the last nail in its coffin. What's the point of having the chance to eat a bit of Iraq's cake, if that will leave you penniless to afford your next meals?