Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Feb 8, 2006.
Great stuff! Tell it like it is, Hugo!
All of the countries who participated in Iraq have lost some of their moral authority. However, that doesn't mean that anything that any leader of any of those countries says is instantly wrong. Each statement has to be judged on its own merits.
I don't buy Chavez's multi-polar act for a minute - he's a demagogue who just wants to manufacture enemies and then rally his people against them to increase his own popular support while he runs the country into the ground. And yes, I know that my president is doing the exact same thing.
And Blair's statements show the true extent of his cynicism and dishonesty. How dare he lecture anyone on being "part of the international community" while cozying up to GWPretzel?
He doesn't have to manufacture enemies. Have you forgotten the attempted coup d'etat? Have you forgotten Allende? The danger is real, clear and present.
You can't evaluate the truth of a statement based upon the spearker's background. If Michael Jackson says "don't molest kids", is he wrong?
Yes, I have forgotten Allende, and so has everyone else. The US hasn't given a damn about Central and South America since the USSR collapsed. That's actually one of my chief criticisms about US foreign policy, that we're not out there in Latin America trying to help them develop. It's our own backyard, and we treat them like they don't matter. When your neighbors live in poverty for decades, eventually you have to shoulder some of the blame.
Of course you can.
And not without reason. If you were treating them like they didn't matter, your government wouldn't be trying to overthrow theirs.
Why you unpatriotic son of a.... oh wait, you're a Brit. Do they even HAVE patriotism way over there?
I'm guessing Limbaugh / Coulter / Savage et al. are positively drooling at this 'friend of the American left's' statement.
It's too bad we can't get anyone sane to stand up to Bush/Blair.
If Blair goes along with whatever Bush wants in the interests of keeping the peace, isn't that appeasement?
God i love listening to Chavez.
What about when it's about the same type of thing? It kinda hypocritical for Blair to worry so much about the splinter in Chavez's eye when he has a log in his own. Not saying I like Chavez, have heard good and bad things, but apply that same statement to him. Just because he may have done (or is doing) some bad things, does that mean he can't criticize Blair and Bush? He doesn't speak for me any more than Michael Moore does, but he certainly has a point with this. Blair has no right to say what he said about Chavez when he is guilty of the same. Well, worse actually.