The Anti-U.S. Summit

[sirs]

Anti-U.S. allies back Iran nukes
September 17, 2006

From combined dispatches
    HAVANA -- Developing countries yesterday wrapped up a multinational summit with North Korea charging that U.S. threats drove it to acquire deterrent atomic weapons and Iran winning solid support for its nuclear ambitions.
    Iran, Venezuela and Cuba joined North Korea in leading efforts to forge an anti-U.S. alliance. Summit leaders, in a statement on Iran, "reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all states to develop research, production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes."
    They warned that any attack or threat against any nuclear facility used for peaceful purposes was a violation of international law.
     North Korea took the opportunity to assail the United States for unilateral actions against individual countries and called for a revitalization of the 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
    "The United States is attempting to deprive other countries of even their legitimate right to peaceful nuclear activities," said North Korea's second-ranking leader, Kim Yong-nam.
    Mr. Kim blamed Washington for "threatening Korea using all sorts of maneuvers, accusing it of being part of an 'Axis of Evil.'"
    He added: "Korea has nuclear arms as a deterrent to firmly guarantee the peace and security of the Korean Peninsula and the region."
    The leaders' statement on Iran, released as the meeting ended, was an updated version of a document adopted in May at a NAM ministerial meeting in Malaysia.
    They stressed that the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency found that all nuclear material declared by Iran had been accounted for.
    Governments with friendly ties to Washington, among them India, Pakistan, Chile, Peru and Colombia, sought to steer the summit away from confrontation and finger-pointing at the United States.
    "I do not see this summit as anti-U.S.," Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told reporters. "NAM has been set up not to be anti-any country."
    The NAM leaders called for a negotiated settlement to the nuclear dispute with Iran. The United States is pushing for sanctions to force Tehran to stop producing enriched uranium, which can be used both for both nuclear power and atomic weapons.
    Leaders took turns on the podium to decry global poverty, unfair trade practices and "arbitrary" actions by the United States and other powerful nations that they complained controlled the United Nations.
    In a concrete result, nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan agreed to resume formal peace negotiations that were frozen after the July train bombings in Bombay that killed nearly 200 people.
    Cuban President Fidel Castro, a symbol of opposition to Washington, was scheduled to preside over the summit, but was too ill to attend.
    Mr. Castro received U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a dressing gown in his hospital room. The 80-year-old communist leader, who took power in a revolution in 1959, ceded power temporarily to his brother, Raul, on July 31 after undergoing surgery to stop intestinal bleeding.
    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, with his penchant for banter and controversy, dominated the summit opening Friday, pledging support for Iran if it is attacked by the United States.
    Other countries called for moderation. A Colombian delegate said friendlier nations had tried to soften the anti-U.S. content of the final statement.
    The summit brought together some states not only impatient with what they see as a U.S.-dominated United Nations, but eager to strengthen the NAM as an alternative and to foster cooperation within the Third World.
    "The United States is turning the Security Council into a platform for imposing its policies. ... We should reinforce NAM, and it should play its role more efficiently," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday at the summit.


http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060917-122916-5194r.htm

[The_Professor]

It is a case of the whinny little fish coveting what the BIG fish have. If the U.S. were the most non0interventionsit nation in world history, grred, avarice and jealousy would still be directed against it.

Let's see here:

Iran -- still inte dark ages in many aspects of their economy AND society
Venezuela -- without oil, they would be literal goat herders or pot farmers
Cuba -- see Iran
North Korea -- see Iran, also famine-ravaged

[sirs]

Let's see here:
Iran -- still inte dark ages in many aspects of their economy AND society
Venezuela -- without oil, they would be literal goat herders or pot farmers
Cuba -- see Iran
North Korea -- see Iran, also famine-ravaged

And of course, it's all our Fault.  Or more so, Bush's fault

[sirs]

Couric: U.S. Enemies in Cuba a 'Who's Who of Bush's Adversaries'

     In a brief item on the Friday's CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asserted: "At the top of tonight's news briefing, a who's who of President Bush's adversaries on the world stage all together in one place. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are among the leaders in Havana for the meeting of the non-aligned nations. Raul Castro is playing host. His older brother, Fidel, is still recovering from intestinal surgery."

     ABC and NBC, however, realized those leaders and others gathered, for the summit in Havana of the "Non-Aligned Movement," are enemies of the United States, not just the current occupant of the Oval Office. Fill-in ABC anchor Kate Snow referred to how the organization "regularly takes anti-American stances and today was no exception" and reporter Jim Avila, in Cuba, relayed how "America's short list of antagonists" were "all bashing the United States for opposing Iran's nuclear program, all of them together in Cuba, capital of anti-Americanism." NBC's Brian Williams, anchoring from Havana, described the summit of non-aligned nations as "all of the enemies of the United States, really, gathered in one room."

     The full transcript of Couric's full item is above. A bit more of how the September 15 ABC and NBC newscasts described the conclave:

     # ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
     Anchor Kate Snow: "Now to Cuba, where Fidel Castro's government took over the leadership of the so-called nonaligned nations today, the organization regularly takes anti-American stances and today was no exception. But conspicuously absent from the limelight and the ranting was Fidel Castro. ABC's Jim Avila is in Havana."

     Avila began, from Cuba: "America's short list of antagonists -- Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, and Bolivia's Evo Morales -- all bashing the United States for opposing Iran's nuclear program, all of them together in Cuba, capital of anti-Americanism..."

     # NBC Nightly News:
     Brian Williams opened: "Good evening from Havana, Cuba, the host city for what is called the summit of non-aligned nations. In short, all of the enemies of the United States, really, gathered in one room. Their host happens to be the longest serving ruler of any nation on earth. Fidel Castro has outlasted nine U.S. Presidents. And while he is currently hospitalized, sitting out this conference after transferring power her to his brother Raul, this is still very much every bit Castro's Cuba..."


http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060918.asp#1

[The_Professor]

Which is yet another reason why I detest Katie Couric. I vividly still remember the smear job she did on James Dobson.

[Michael Tee]

<<If the U.S. were the most non-interventionist nation in world history, greed, avarice and jealousy would still be directed against it.>>

LOL.  And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.  The U.S. is NOT "the most non-interventionist nation in world history" now, is it?

The rest of the thread was hilarious, poor Katie Couric getting raked over the coals for deviating slightly from the party line - - failing to label the various pariah countries correctly as enemies of America, rather than merely enemies of Bush.  Of course to the true conservative, if you are an enemy of Bush, you ARE an enemy of America.

Let me see, are these countries REALLY "enemies of America?"  How could ANY country be an enemy of such a wise, benevolent and sweet-tempered country as America?  Cuba, for example, nursing memories of a 1961 invasion and living under an on-going economic blockade, could they REALLY be so childish and petulant as to become enemies of America over such trifles?  Or Iran, would anyone there really hold a grudge over all these years just because America overthrew their democratically elected government in the "50s and then encouraged Iraq to attack them with chemical weapons?  Would that really turn them into enemies of America?   Sheesh!   And Hugo Chavez - - just because the Bush administration sponsored a failed coup against him last year (or maybe the year before?) there's a CLASSIC case of a guy who, whatever reason he has to be peeved at the Bush administration, has no reason whatever to hate AMERICA.  It's not as if Bush represents the whole country, perish the thought.

No, I agree with you, Professor - - they're just a bunch of childish, petulant, greedy and shallow little piss-ants, who have no reason in the world to hate the great and good Unites States of America, except for their overweening jealousy and envy.  And the proof of it is:  everybody else LOVES the USA.  Just loves them.

[sirs]

Of course to the true conservative, if you are an enemy of Bush, you ARE an enemy of America.

What constitutes as substantive debate from the hard left, these days       

[Michael Tee]

Of course to the true conservative, if you are an enemy of Bush, you ARE an enemy of America.  [MT]

<<What constitutes as substantive debate from the hard left, these days >.  [sirs]
===========================================================

Actually, to the sane and normal, that constituted a snide little joke.  Pretty funny, too, IMHO.

Substantive debate COULD have been found in the point being made that the countries being castigated as "enemies of America" were actually VICTIMS of America in one way or another, and that whatever enmity they had for America was actually well-founded.  Unlike the enmity that America has for them.   

However, I don't think conservatives like sirs are really interested in substantive debate because they lose those almost every one they enter.  It's virtually a foregone conclusion.  Best to avoid the serious points being raised, which show up the total asininity of their crypto-fascist maunderings, and concentrate instead on the jokes.  The safer way.     

[sirs]

Actually, to the sane and normal, that constituted a snide little joke.  Pretty funny, too, IMHO.

Not really

However, I don't think conservatives like sirs are really interested in substantive debate because they lose those almost every one they enter.

Finally.....a little humor