George and Esso

http://www.stopesso.com/funstuff/nose.html

WHat to say ??

There really are no words.
Actually, it is probably the most unremarkable thing I have ever seen.
[ February 27, 2003: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
There really are no words.
Actually, it is probably the most unremarkable thing I have ever seen.

True, all true; but it doesn't harm reflecting this to some type of american rednecks once 'n a while.
kind regards

On the main page: "If Bush was acting on global warming, he wouldn�t need to invade Iraq for cheap oil."
I guess the owners of this web site don't consider the murder of 2,000,000 people to be a big deal. The US wants to throw out a man who fights wars against all his neighbors and murders his own people and it must be about oil. Why? I guess because they wouldn't risk their lives for an Arab so they figure no one else would, either.

Thomas -
If it's not about the oil, then why aren't we saving innocent people from other ruthless dictators in less 'oil rich' places on the planet?

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
Thomas -
If it's not about the oil, then why aren't we saving innocent people from other ruthless dictators in less 'oil rich' places on the planet?

Okay, I'm not Thomas, but I've been accused of being him before (or was he accused of being me?), so I'll answer anyway.

The other dictators don't have WMDs that they've used, along with supporting and perpetrating international terrorism, therefore posing a direct threat to us. The other dictators don't have numerous UN resolutions against them and they are not currently violating the terms of a cease-fire agreement.
Liberation and oil are both factors in the overall situation, but to say it's all about either one of them seems to be simplifying things too much imho.
But don't get me wrong. I'm all for taking care of some of the more egrigious situations when they crop up. If the world acted with unity , strength, and resolve when it comes to these things, the world would be a much safer place to live in for all.
Rwanda, for example, should have been handled, and it wasn't. Having war crime trials after the fact in that situation is a joke when no one stepped up to the plate when they could have made a difference. The world waited too long before taking care of Bosnia, and only that after the UN had already made an incredible mess of things. North Korea definitely needs to be dealt with, but the situation there is so incredibly dangerous that we cannot use the same means of handling them as with Iraq.
It should be noted however that not acting in one situation is absolutely no excuse for not acting in another.
[ February 28, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
Thomas -
If it's not about the oil, then why aren't we saving innocent people from other ruthless dictators in less 'oil rich' places on the planet?

You mean like Bosnia and Somalia for example?

East Timor...
The U.S. just has a really hypocritical foreign policy... no news there... :roll:

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The other dictators don't have WMDs that they've used, along with supporting and perpetrating international terrorism, therefore posing a direct threat to us.

And exactly who gave them WMDs and who kept their mouth shut and looked the other way when they were used? And as for supporting and perpetrating international terrorism - think CIA and NSA.
It should be noted however that not acting in one situation is absolutely no excuse for not acting in another.
I completely agree with you here but it should also be noted that interfering with the natural development of other countries and then blaming those countries for any retributions will not buy you any sympathy towards your (USA) cause. I wonder how many more "honest" mistakes it will take before US learns this lesson. Obviously, the western countries can not completely avoid their influence on other countries since it's a small planet, but we can minimize the impact by letting them develop their own society and technology instead of forcing western values on them and handing out technology without thinking of long term consequences for the world.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You mean like Bosnia and Somalia for example?

They intervened in Bosnia because they were afraid it might destabilize Europe and you can bet they wouldn't have intervened if it hadn't posed any threat to the US interests. And in Somalia, I don't know the whole story, but Clinton pulled out everyone from there after the images of dead, naked marines being dragged around in Somalian streets were broadcasted in US. So much for willing to risk your neck, Eh!
Here's some different views about US and George.
http://mindprod.com/politics.html
[ February 28, 2003: Message edited by: Bhupinder Dhillon ]

Originally posted by Bhupinder Dhillon:
...I don't know the whole story...

That's obvious.

I like it when you swirl the mouse around and George's nose gets curly like a pig's tail.

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
East Timor...
The U.S. just has a really hypocritical foreign policy... no news there... :roll:

In 1974 when the war started the US was involved in a little problem of its own called Vietnam. Does that ring a bell? We also had a president involved in the Watergate scandal. Is it any wonder that the US may have had its eyes looking in another direction at the time? :roll:
It seems like some people have the attitude that since America can't respond to every crisis exactly the same that makes us hypocrites. Try asking yourself this questions: What would have been the effect on regional stability if the US had intervened in East Timor and driven Indonesia into the Soviet camp?

Haw Haw -
I like it when you drag the mouse realllly slow and his nose looks like pinnichio !