|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 30, 2003 12:27:23 GMT -5
In the interest of conserving page display space in this forum I will from now on restrict my posting of gleanings from alternative and non-pro-US government spin-doctored news sources to this thread.***** Arab World Is Seeing War Far DifferentlyTo summarize my postion: 1 - I consider the circumvention of the UN by the US a *bad* thing. 2 - I am skeptical of and/or outright opposed to US foreign policy objectives to impose a "new world order". Have been since US involvement in Vietnam. 3 - I stand by my original assertion on this forum that the war itself is small potatoes compared to what is to come in this part of the world as a result of US stupidity. we are already seeing signs of that developing (much earlier than I, for one, had thought it would). And before I forget, posts based on good research which merely synthesize elements from varoius sources, do not qualify as original thought any more than if one had posted excerpts from, or links to, the articles themselves; no matter which side of the fence they are made from. Of course I would not go so far as to call an attempt to balance information as noise. Present perspectives from both sides, and let people draw their own conclusions. Only those insecure in their positions would be truly offended by such a democratic process, and insist that only one side should be represented.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 30, 2003 13:15:33 GMT -5
1 - I consider the circumvention of the UN by the US a *bad* thing. I don't think anyone disagrees that the UN should've been involved. But because of the 'national' interests of nations such as France and Germany, there was little sense in continuing to negotiate with the Security Council. Remember, it is not 'the coalition' that was unwilling to negotiate. The UK put forward several suggestions which would've allowed the UN inspectors to continue their work, which set clear and simple standards for Iraqi compliance and which would likely have appeased everyone. So did Canada. But the flaw of both these plans was, according to the dissenting members of the security council, was that there was a 'deadline'. In other words, they objected to the UN saying to Iraq 'you have until XX (next thursday, mid-June, whatever) to show that you are clearly disarming, or we will disarm you'. The failure of the UN is not the fault of the US alone. In fact, it is not their fault at all. It is the fault of those nations that (a) refused to enforce previous UN resolutions and (b) put their own national interests in place of global interests and refused to budge during so-called negotiations 2 - I am skeptical of and/or outright opposed to US foreign policy objectives to impose a "new world order". Have been since US involvement in Vietnam. Paranoia is not a good thing MrB. There is no 'new world order'. The illuminati do not control the white house. AIDS came from SIDS, not from some freaky CIA experiment on inmates. There is a fine line between defender of the oppressed and schoolyard bully friend. And with enough propoganda it is easy to confuse the two. Sadly - the US has a moral obligation to defend the lesser nations of the world. Vietnam was an honest effort to prevent the Southern Vietnamese from having to become communists. It was also an effort to protect other countries like Japan and South Korea. The UN sanctioned force in Korea - were they then trying to put in place a NWO? Or was it just that the policy of containment (which led to Vietnam) was percieved by the western world at that time to be sound judgement. 3 - I stand by my original assertion on this forum that the war itself is small potatoes compared to what is to come in this part of the world as a result of US stupidity. we are already seeing signs of that developing (much earlier than I, for one, had thought it would). That region of the world is hardly stable at the best of times. I doubt that American involvement is actually going to generate any more resentment of the "zionist infidels". A lot of people over there are bred to hate Americans and Jews (and Sunni, and Shi'ite and...) and hate is what dominates their thoughts. And before I forget, posts based on good research which merely synthesize elements from varoius sources, do not qualify as original thought any more than if one had posted excerpts from, or links to, the articles themselves; no matter which side of the fence they are made from. Of course I would not go so far as to call an attempt to balance information as noise. Present perspectives from both sides, and let people draw their own conclusions. Only those insecure in their positions would be truly offended by such a democratic process, and insist that only one side should be represented. Then why do you quote only from alternet, which is as I have repeated quite often, no better than the handful of facist 'news sites' that are out there (in terms of the editorial slant of their articles)? I mean, in all honesty, I could likely go out and pull up quotes from a website somewhere that would call for the US to turn Iraq into a giant sheet of glass. But you'd dismiss that as nonsensical and 'noise'. And in truth, it is. One of the keys to debate is to reenforce your arguments with facts, with logic. But you and many of your ilk merely toss out a few artcles from an obscure, anti-american source and say 'here is your proof, here is your arguement'. It's not an argument, because the writer is not there to defend his statements. The proof, the arguments are to come from you. Or you can claim you are anti-war for no reason. That is simple enough, and I will not question anyone who just 'believes' something. Faith is the basis for some of the most wonderful things in life (love, for example). But the taking of the 'faith' route also strips you of your right to accuse any one else of being foolish for believing in something on that subject. Present your arguments, your logic. Not someone elses. Defend your viewpoint with your own words. Not some unknown writer. Later |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 30, 2003 14:14:41 GMT -5
I don't think anyone disagrees that the UN should've been involved. But because of the 'national' interests of nations such as France and Germany, there was little sense in continuing to negotiate with the Security Council. Remember, it is not 'the coalition' that was unwilling to negotiate. The UK put forward several suggestions which would've allowed the UN inspectors to continue their work, which set clear and simple standards for Iraqi compliance and which would likely have appeased everyone. So did Canada. But the flaw of both these plans was, according to the dissenting members of the security council, was that there was a 'deadline'. In other words, they objected to the UN saying to Iraq 'you have until XX (next thursday, mid-June, whatever) to show that you are clearly disarming, or we will disarm you'. The failure of the UN is not the fault of the US alone. In fact, it is not their fault at all. It is the fault of those nations that (a) refused to enforce previous UN resolutions and (b) put their own national interests in place of global interests and refused to budge during so-called negotiations. In the interest of all concerned the US should have taken a back seat and supported the UN rather than charging off to pursue their own course of action. But the "Illuminati" had been itching to do that since 1992. Paranoia is entirely justified when there is cause for it. The US has given me plenty of cause in the arena of international politics over the past 35+ years. There is very definitely a new world order, or at least the attempt to impose one is being made. HA has written several lengthy and well researched posts on the subject in this forum. The "Illuminati" (the Looney Tunes version at least) exists. The article linked to in this thread is from the Washington Post (you would have known that had you read it). I have also posted and linked to articles from the BBC, Reuters, Arabic News, among others. And yes, Alternet too. Far be it for me to decide what sources you choose to cite. Go for it. To paraphrase Mark E smith of The Fall: "I feel the wrath of your bombast."  But I am afraid that your advice is mispalced. I will follow my path during the series of events in Iraq. I will continue to provide links to sources of information outside the mainstream, and trust people to make what they will of them. A source, no matter how "incredible" can raise very important points for consideration. Sort of like panning for gold. It seems to me that you are at times confusing the provision of information sources with debate. When I debate I genarally engage without reference to outside sources. When I provide information I generally do not engage myself in the post, unless it's just briefly to be a smartass. I tend to focus on posting excerpts and/or links. To attack them as debate on my part is to tilt at windmills. If my approach is not to your taste, so be it. Personally I'm not keen about tactics some posters on this forum have been using, but hey that's life. Besides there's always the anticipated thrill of possibly seeing someone hoisted by their own petard. Ain't democracy grand (as long as it's not shoved down anyone's throat: Which would be a decidedly undemocratic thing to do)? |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 30, 2003 15:13:59 GMT -5
In the interest of all concerned the US should have taken a back seat and supported the UN rather than charging off to pursue their own course of action. How can you be serious? Nevermind Iraq's violation of UN resolutions, France, Russia, Syria, and Saddam are best friends and don't even respect UN santions ALREADY IN PLACE. Now I know you are pulling my leg. Paranoia, by definition, is an extreme, irrational distrust of others. Actually, it is you who chose to cite Socialist Worker and other half-truth sources to try and support your arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 30, 2003 17:13:43 GMT -5
How can you be serious? Nevermind Iraq's violation of UN resolutions, France, Russia, Syria, and Saddam are best friends and don't even respect UN santions ALREADY IN PLACE. Now I know you are pulling my leg. Paranoia, by definition, is an extreme, irrational distrust of others. Actually, it is you who chose to cite Socialist Worker and other half-truth sources to try and support your arguments. 1 - I am quite serious. The US is an international loose cannon, feared and hated by a daily growing number of the world's population. Leaders as well ordinary citizens. 2 - When the US commits extreme, irrational actions I am distrustful of them. That to me seems to be an eminent sign of good judgement. I only pull the legs of those who have one to stand on . 3 - My quoting from the Socialist Worker (once) was to list a brief history of Iraq (some the items were disputed by TNG - not half). I was making no argument at the time, though later in that thread I allowed myself to be drawn into one. As I said before, I am providing alternative perspectives. I have yet to claim that they have a monopoly on the truth. They are part of the bigger picture, as are all the other sources (BBC, Reuters, Washington Post. Arabic News, CNN, CBC, the Pentagon, Iraqi TV, etc) I've posted from and/or linked to. I am merely choosing to present lesser known sources, and those which do not reflect the American spin on events. I stated my position at the begining of the war (you can look it up) and have not wavered from it since (because I have not had any reason to do so). If and when there is just cause for me to radically reconsider my perspective, I will do just that. Until that time, should it arrive, I shall continue along the path I have thus far taken. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 30, 2003 18:25:54 GMT -5
Iraq War Echoes Past Conflict Sun March 30, 2003 08:15 AM ET By Robert Evans GENEVA (Reuters) - "These people are really delighted we are here," said the tall, blonde army colonel confidently, waving toward a silent crowd of dark-eyed men and partially veiled women watching from the roadside. "It's just that for the moment they are too frightened to show it," he told a foreign reporter. Iraq today? No, Kabul in early 1980, just weeks after Soviet troops had swept into Afghanistan to remove a brutal leader and put what they suggested would be a more liberal regime in place. *** Turks Stone U.S. Military Convoy Sun March 30, 2003 09:04 AM ET MARDIN, Turkey (Reuters) - Turks hurled stones at a convoy of trucks carrying U.S. military equipment on Sunday, in the second such attack on the U.S. military in two days, the Anatolian news agency said. The vast majority of Turks oppose the U.S.-led war in Iraq and parliament earlier this month refused permission for Washington to use Turkish territory to launch its attack. Witnesses saw around 40 trucks leave an industrial site rented by U.S. forces near the southeastern town of Mardin on Sunday, heading away from the Iraqi border toward ports and airbases on the Mediterranean coast. Anatolian said the convoy had been pelted with stones as it passed through the outskirts of the city of Sanliurfa. Villagers bombarded U.S. soldiers with eggs and stones near the same city on Saturday when they arrived to recover pieces of a Tomahawk cruise missile, fired from a U.S. warship in the Mediterranean at Iraq, which came down in the area on Friday. U.S. forces are entering northern Iraq by air instead of by land via Turkey. *** Spin-Heavy U.S. Briefings Frustrate News Media Sun March 30, 2003 04:06 AM ET By Jeff Franks and Paul Holmes DOHA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One U.S. television network has already voted with its feet and reduced its staff. Many journalists at the main U.S. headquarters for the Iraq war say they get plenty of spin but little news. A reporter for New York magazine, frustrated at the lack of light being shed on the war, asked this question last week to applause from colleagues: "Why should we stay? What's the value to us for what we learn at this million-dollar press center?" Journalists from Britain, Washington's chief ally in the war, feel so starved of information in Qatar that they have put up a sign quoting this remark at a briefing by British forces commander Air Marshall Brian Burridge: "We don't do detail."
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 30, 2003 18:54:36 GMT -5
Back Off, Syria and Iran!By MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON —We're shocked that the enemy forces don't observe the rules of war. We're shocked that it's hard to tell civilians from combatants, and friends from foes. Adversaries use guerrilla tactics; they are irregulars; they take advantage of the hostile local weather and terrain; they refuse to stay in uniform. Golly, as our secretary of war likes to say, it's unfair. Some of their soldiers are mere children. We know we have overwhelming, superior power, yet we can't use it all. We're stunned to discover that the local population treats our well-armed high-tech troops like invaders. Why is all this a surprise again? I know our hawks avoided serving in Vietnam, but didn't they, like, read about it? *** Iraq Vows to Use 'Any Method' Against Foe"Any method that stops or kills the enemy will be used," the vice president told a news conference. "What are they doing in our land? Let them pack and go." The bomb attack on Saturday signaled that, despite the heavy Iraqi casualty toll this past week, the men under Mr. Hussein's command are still ready to risk their lives — whether out of loyalty, coercion or fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 31, 2003 10:15:33 GMT -5
Iraqi General Says 4,000 Volunteered for Suicide Attacks
The information minister gave an account of the killings at Najaf, and their aftermath, that illustrated the distance between American and Iraqi versions of what is happening in the war. Iraqi actions that are represented by officials like Mr. Sahhaf as normal are viewed as potentially deadly by the Americans. *** Syria Wants U.S. to Lose War, Its Foreign Minister DeclaresDAMASCUS, Syria, March 30 — Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa of Syria blasted the United States in remarks today about the conflict in Iraq, saying that his country wanted America to lose the war. "Syria has a national interest in the expulsion of the invaders from Iraq because the truth is that the U.S. administration has led its people to a catastrophic stage and put them in confrontation with the entire international community," Mr. Sharaa said while speaking to Parliament, praising the Iraqis' "courageous resistance." He said that the war against Iraq was yet another example of the United States' acting to serve Israel's interest in the region. He also said that officials in Washington relied on Israel for much of their information about the Arab world, information that often proved untrue. *** War That Is Out of Sight but Not Out of Mind, Especially for the IsraelisBut the immediate task of the operation — to prevent any missile attack on Israel — is not merely a matter of protecting lives in America's most important ally in the region. Unlike the situation in 1991, Israel has threatened to retaliate if struck by Iraq, and American officials worry that retaliation could seriously increase the conflict by further angering Arabs and their leaders, already strongly opposed to the war. --- "We still think they (WMD) must be there," said one Pentagon official involved in war planning. "If we find them, we'll get them. If Saddam is afraid we'll find them and he keeps them under wraps and doesn't fire them, we'll call that a victory, too." *** Commentators See Dangers in Distorted News CoverageAnger over the American attack on Iraq still runs strong and deep in the Arab world, where many people are convinced the United States is fighting only to occupy Iraq and exploit its oil wealth. There have been daily protests in the region, with tens of thousands demonstrating against the war in Yemen, Egypt and Lebanon again today. As the war has progressed, then, much of the Arab public has been pleasantly surprised and even thrilled to see American forces meeting strong resistance. In the last week, pictures and descriptions of American and British losses — a crashed American helicopter, the capture and killing of American soldiers, burned and smashed military vehicles — received lavish coverage in some news media outlets. "The resistance of Iraqi cities demolishes the image of an invincible Rambo," proclaimed a Moroccan daily newspaper, Al Ittihad al Ishtiraki today.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 31, 2003 10:24:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 31, 2003 10:59:50 GMT -5
To reiterate: In the interest of conserving page display space in this forum I will from now on restrict my posting of gleanings from alternative and non-pro-US government spin-doctored news sources to this thread.
I would encourage a pro-American colleague to do the same as far as starting a thread for external opinion from that side of the fence.
It saves virtual real estate when posting sources, and frees more of the viewable forum page for threads related to personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 31, 2003 12:55:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 31, 2003 21:52:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 1, 2003 8:24:30 GMT -5
ARAB LEAGUE CHIEF WARNS OF IRAQ WAR SPILLING OVER Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa expressed concern here Monday that the Iraq war could spill over and destabilise the entire Middle East. "The day Baghdad falls, is the beginning of the real war... with a lot of violence and confrontation," Mussa said in an interview on Greek state television estimating that extremist groups will find fertile ground throughout the region. "They (the United States and Britain) have miscalculated... they are going to let the genie out of the jar," he said, adding that the war against Iraq will be long. --- JERUSALEM, April 1 (AFP) - Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz on Tuesday threw down a warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about the might of the Jewish state as tensions between the two neighbours rose. "President Bashar al-Assad knowns the might and the force of Israel in all areas, including the military," said Mofaz. Mofaz was reacting to remarks made by the Syrian leader to the Lebanese daily al-Safir last week that "as long as Israel exists, the threat (against) Israel will exist". "These remarks are all the more serious as they come at a time when it transpires that the Syrians are helping Iraq, as US leaders have revealed," said Mofaz. --- Syria responded to Powell's warning by reaffirming its support for the Iraqi people against the US-British invasion. "Syria has chosen to align itself with the brotherly Iraqi people who are facing an illegal and unjustified invasion and against whom are being committed all sorts of crimes against humanity," a foreign ministry spokesman said. An Iranian government spokesman said Powell's accusations were a result of the US failures in the war. "The US forces' failures in Iraq have made them aim their propaganda accusations against Iran time and again," government spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh said, according to the IRNA state news agency. Powell couched his warnings Sunday as "part of our overall strategy in combatting terrorism and dealing with states that do not follow acceptable patterns of behavior." In his speech, he also evoked Washington's visions for a larger role in the Middle East beyond the war in Iraq. *** Akihiro Nonaka:Journalists must report realities of battleCoverage of the current Iraq war provides the opportunity for plenty of political commentaries and strategic analyses, but I cannot help noticing that journalists today have become less adept at dispatching multidimensional reports from the front. This is dangerous. I say this because most news media rely almost entirely on the White House and the U.S. military for information. This is effectively tantamount to becoming party to the manipulation of information by the U.S. government-the very starting point of this current war. *** Iraq War: Media steeped in coverage, passionate commentaryBEIJING (AP) - The reports are gripping, visceral, passionate - products of a fast-moving war and the fast-moving media racing to process it. Around the world, news columns and airwaves crackle with conflict, amassing a first rough draft of dismay, condemnation and occasional support.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 1, 2003 13:53:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 1, 2003 13:55:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 1, 2003 14:08:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 1, 2003 14:13:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 2, 2003 23:47:33 GMT -5
www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3208--315242-,00.html www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article_ref/0,5987,3462--315203,00.html This one is especially worrisome.....: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2910511.stmAnd finally from theonion.com : www.theonion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.htmlAnd: Government No Longer Even Bothering To Hide Halliburton Favors WASHINGTON, DC—With last week's announcement that it will award Halliburton a lucrative contract to put out Iraqi oil-well fires after the war, the U.S. government has officially stopped trying to hide its favoritism toward the Houston-based company. "When we first started cutting Halliburton sweetheart deals, we'd worry about how it would look, with dick Cheney being their former CEO and all," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "Somewhere along the line, though, we just kind of said, 'Ah, f**k it.'" Fleischer added that Halliburton has something "real juicy" coming its way when the U.S. invades Iran in July 2004.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 3, 2003 6:30:51 GMT -5
"President Bush said if Iraq gets rid of Saddam, he'll help the Iraqi people with food, medicine, supplies, housing, education. Isn't that amazing? He finally comes up with a domestic agenda. And for Iraq! Maybe we could bring that here." --- "Bush got a coded message from Saddam that read: '370HSSV-0773H'," the official said. "Bush was stumped and sent for the CIA. The CIA also had no answer, so it was sent to Bill Clinton. He suggested turning it upside down." --- "American and British troops handed out food to hundreds of Iraqis. Not surprisingly, Iraqis handed the British food back." --- "Bush is going to have to finish this war himself -- he doesn't have a son who can do it for him later." --- "Saddam claims to have shot down a British warplane, but Bush says: 'It's a lie. We shot it down!"' --- "U.S. forces swooped down on an Iraqi primary school and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate he was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, and a calculator. Bush argued this was clear evidence Iraq has weapons of 'maths instruction."' --- "The text on leaflets dropped over Iraq reads: 'McDonald's, opening soon in Baghdad' 'Hands up!' and 'Collect four of these and you'll get a free Coke once we're finished bombing'." - story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=638&ncid=762&e=5&u=/nm/20030402/en_nm/iraq_war_comedy_dc |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 4, 2003 11:34:07 GMT -5
The hardest thing about foreign relations is that you don't get to pick the governments of the other countries you have to deal with. And when you do try to pick their governments for them, the results are almost always disastrous -- even when the government you installed was better than the government they chose for themselves. - www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2002-06-03-1.html |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 5, 2003 10:54:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 13, 2003 14:51:54 GMT -5
Things aren't looking up. www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-645445,00.html www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/37362/1/.htmlWhen you want to find something badly enough, you always find it. Maybe in Syria. www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/dailybriefing/story/0,12965,936075,00.html politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,935357,00.html news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2933923.stmwww.startribune.com/stories/1762/3822268.html"If you go year by year, decade by decade, you will find that people who don't have an ambitious agenda for what America can accomplish in the world are the people who provide sustenance to tyrants, dictators and despots," she said. That lost quote really worries me. Do neo-cons really think like that ? Don't they realise that a huge proportion of those dictators were put in place by the US who wanted "stability" ? |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 15, 2003 1:26:54 GMT -5
I don't have the time to get into the details of this debate. No one is going to argue that Hussein is a nice guy and very few people will attend his funeral. You can also find numerous other dictators around the world who are equally dastardly and 'should be' removed. Robert Mugabe for one. It is easy to make a case to proceed with one violent act after another...all for very good causes, and all with treacherous consequences. I also don't paint the US with a rotten apple label, but....
Some general beliefs I harbour:
1) The US has never interceded anyplace where there wasn't an American interest at stake. Unfortunately they define where and when their interests are threatened. BC is threateniing their southern US lumber industry, so we get hit with 30%+ tarriffs. Their lumber just can't stack up to ours, case closed....but not in their minds. Their solution? Pressure us to sell them our lumber. Kind of like their situation with oil...huh? I believe William Manchester has written a very good book on this subject, called the Glory and the Dream. A friend told me it's immensely interesting, so I'll have to get ahold of it.
2) Beware of strong people who don't understand the responsibilities that accrue with strength...they can too easily become bullies
3) Never follow a stupid person...it only guarantees failure.
4) There is a definite history of violence in the US. Their expansion westward spilled much more blood than the same Canadian expansion. They simply won't allow any kind of gun control, using some ridiculous argument supposedly entrenched in their constitution. That way, per capita, they kill more than 100 times as many people as Canadians do, with firearms.
5) Violence doesn't solve anything long term. Education does. But violence has instant gratification and education takes way too long.
Anyway, I have more beliefs than those...but that's enough that pertain to this subject. And I only cited one source. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 15, 2003 7:05:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 15, 2003 20:20:31 GMT -5
An aircraft is about to crash. There are five passengers on board but, unfortunately, only 4 parachutes. The first passenger says, 'I'm Shaquille O'Neil, he best NBA player. The Lakers need me, it would be unfair to them if I died'. So he takes the first parachute and jumps.
The second passenger, Hillary Clinton, says, 'I am the wife of the former President of the US. I am also the most dedicated woman in the world, a Senator representing New York state and America?s potential future President". She takes one of the parachutes and jumps.
The third passenger, George W. Bush says, 'I am the President of the US. I have a huge responsibility in world politics and, apart from that, I am the most intelligent President in the history of the country and I have a responsibility to my people not to die'. So he takes a parachute and jumps.
The fourth passenger, the Pope, says to the fifth passenger, a ten year old schoolboy, 'I am old. I have already lived my life as a good person and a priest. I will give you the last parachute'. The boy replies, 'No problem, there is also a parachute for you. America's most intelligent President has taken my backpack'.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 15, 2003 23:10:07 GMT -5
|
|
