It is nowhere near as bad with the US as some think

POSTED BY: Daikath
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 03:23
VIEWED: 2676
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:42 PM

Okay, so I was obviously wrong about the conspiracy thing.

Quote:
UK, US 'caused Zimbabwe droughts'

A state-run newspaper in Zimbabwe has suggested the UK and US are to blame for droughts in southern Africa.
The Herald said climate change has been artificially induced "in a bid to arm-twist the region to capitulate to the whims of the world's superpowers".

It said weather was being manipulated for political gain using unspecified "unconventional" chemical weapons.

It is widely seen as a mouthpiece for President Robert Mugabe's government, correspondents say.

It said recent droughts, which defied predictions by the Zimbabwean government and the Southern African Development Community's Drought Monitoring Centre, pointed to the possibility of the weather being manipulated for political purposes.

"The overt and covert machinations by Zimbabwe's former colonial ruler Britain, which has declared its intentions to effect illegal regime change in Harare, have given credence to the conspiracy theory," the paper said.

It said that the US Famine Early Warning System had predicted famine in Zimbabwe six months before it occurred.

"The prediction, which was the exact opposite of other forecasts, seems to confirm that the conspiracy to remove the Zimbabwean government has gone chemical."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4630443.stm

Who would doubt the Herald?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:09 PM

Geezer, are you trying to put that whole news article in Rue's mouth? (Along with Zimbabwe and North Korea?) Whatever happened to your reasoned and articulate discussions?

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:15 PM

Okay, that was pretty funny. Even a conspiracy dude such as myself has got to have a hard time with that one LOL.
Thanks.

Ain't that dopey Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatever happened to your reasoned and articulate discussions?

I think he was aiming to be funny.
At least, that's how I took it.

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:06 PM

Ah, I missed the emoticon!

SEVEREN

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, to summarize:

of course corporations determine US policy to some degree (considering they are artificial people and the US is 'of by and for the People' and all that, it makes sense)

Are you trying to say say the people in the U.S. are artificial? It's alway's the liberals who resort to personal insults!

Quote:

to do anything you have to have a strong economy (Out of curiosity, remembering back to the days of the Clinton surplus, do you think the economy is stronger or weaker since Bush took office?)

Once again, you miss the point. Regardless of which administration had/has the stronger economy the truth remains that any successful president does. For the sake of discussion, I'll accept that the the economy was better under Clinton, but what does that have to do with conspiracies in the press or in government? I merely said U.S policy is driven, in large part, by economics.

Quote:

Bush is doing what he thinks is right (even if he has to lie about it)

Hussein was a nasty man! AND and an imminent threat! Well maybe not imminent, but evil-minded for sure. (though made toothless by UN sanctions, of course)

Hussein was not toothless and was actively rebuilding his military after the UN made sure he received billions of dollars from the "oil for food" program/scandal.

Quote:

so what if the administration is trying to control the press! everybody else does it (who needs free speech anyway!)

Attemtping to influence what the press prints is not taking away free speech. I was saying that the news media is a group of corporations, about six major ones, and are manipulated by government no matter who the sitting president is.

Quote:

the US is the strongest richest, freest nation in the world (not counting the bums, and, oh, that the US press is ranked 24th in freedom)

Since when does freedom of the press equate to individual freedom, necessarily? Yes, it is necessary, but that is not the only mearsure. Are you saying the U.S. does not offer more freedom than any nation on Earth? I didn't think so!

Quote:

though to be sure the US is remiss in its role (as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner)

Hussein was judged by the UN with resolution 1441. But, since the UN has no teeth without America, the U.S. must enforce the law.

Quote:

and, back door dealings do not a conspiracy make! (though it leaves it open for debate as to what it would take to qualify)

A conspiracy, by definition, implies cooperation of the entities involved to meet a common goal. Back door dealings are just a politcian's way to get what he wants for himself or his constituents, or his political party. It's bartering with political capital and is usually manifested in dollars somehow. Congress and the president rarely cooperate, Republicans and Democrats rarely see eye-to-eye, and the press and goverment are usually adversarial at best. Where is the conspiracy?

http://www.constitutionparty.com

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2