Cuba offers help
 

Cuba has offered to send 1,100 doctors and 26 tons of medicine and
equipment.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/03/katrina.castro/

Tell Bush & Congress:
Accept Cuba's offer to send doctors to the hurricane victims!
https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/...rAction&id=133
or
http://tinyurl.com/7kmds

sf wrote:
> Cuba has offered to send 1,100 doctors and 26 tons of medicine and
> equipment.
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/03/katrina.castro/
>
> Tell Bush & Congress:
> Accept Cuba's offer to send doctors to the hurricane victims!
> https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/...rAction&id=133
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/7kmds

And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The story
seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a "no
thanks" stance with previous countries offers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050904/ts_nm/aid_un_dc

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Bush administration, long critical of the
United Nations, has accepted a U.N. offer of help in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina and a U.N. team has gone to Washington to see how it
can complement American efforts.

The United Nations on Sunday announced the United States had accepted
its aid offer and said its staff will be based at the USAID Hurricane
Operations Center, where international assistance is being coordinated.

Then later:

In a reversal, the United States, a major world donor itself, last week
let it be known it would accept help from a variety of nations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has decided "no offer that can help
alleviate the suffering of the people in the afflicted area will be
refused," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said on Thursday.

Some 60 nations have offered help, from longtime American friends such
as Japan, Germany, Canada, France and Britain as well as Cuban President
Fidel Castro, who is willing to donate doctors and medicine and the
Venezuelan government, frequently criticized by the Bush administration.

Now, if we can just get them past the paranoid homeland security people
in time to do anything at all. Further, this answers sheldon's bs charge
that no one else was offering aid and (never) has.


Happy to say, that finally, San Diego is in the game:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/sddt/2005090...ricaneevacuees

The American Red Cross-San Diego/Imperial Counties Chapter notified the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Sunday that San Diego is
prepared, open and willing to accept evacuees immediately.


FEMA called upon San Diego on Thursday and within 48 hours the program
is in place.




jim



jim

sf wrote:
> Cuba has offered to send 1,100 doctors and 26 tons of medicine and
> equipment.
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/03/katrina.castro/
>
> Tell Bush & Congress:
> Accept Cuba's offer to send doctors to the hurricane victims!
> https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/...rAction&id=133
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/7kmds

Many physicians here in Honduras are Cuban or Cuban trained. This is
one group of doctors who know their stuff when it comes to treating
intestinal diseases, parasitic diseases, or other conditions brought on
by contaminated water supplies and other unsanitary conditions in
tropical and subtropical areas.

Sandi

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 01:34:59 -0000, Bubbabob wrote:

> JimLane > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The
> > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a
> > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> >
>
> In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian D.A.R.T.
> disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He actually
> went out of his way to prevent them from helping.

So, when is the impeach Bush movement going to begin?

Bubbabob wrote:
> JimLane > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The
> > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a
> > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> >
>
> In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian D.A.R.T.
> disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He actually
> went out of his way to prevent them from helping.

Source of this information?

Sandi

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 01:34:59 -0000, Bubbabob wrote:
>
> > JimLane > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The
> > > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a
> > > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> > >
> >
> > In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian D.A.R.T.
> > disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He actually
> > went out of his way to prevent them from helping.
>
> So, when is the impeach Bush movement going to begin?
>

January 2007.

On 4 Sep 2005 18:57:04 -0700, SD wrote:

>
> Bubbabob wrote:
> > JimLane > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The
> > > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a
> > > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> > >
> >
> > In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian D.A.R.T.
> > disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He actually
> > went out of his way to prevent them from helping.
>
> Source of this information?
>
> Sandi

I watched CNBC earlier today when they interviewed "someone in charge
of something" (I missed his name and position) who had a laundry list
of help that had been turned away. For beginners, Walmart was ready
to deliver thousands of gallons of water the day after the hurricane
hit. He finished saying what he had to say, but by the time he got to
the end of his list of companies, organizations and countries that
were turned away, the man was sobbing.

Tony P. wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 01:34:59 -0000, Bubbabob wrote:
>>
>>> JimLane > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted.
>>> The > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been
>>> taking a > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
>>> >
>>>
>>> In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian D.A.R.T.
>>> disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He
>>> actually went out of his way to prevent them from helping.
>>
>> So, when is the impeach Bush movement going to begin?
>>
>
> January 2007.

Waaaay too late.
BTW - you guys want some lumber?

Ken.

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:06:13 -0400, Tony P. wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 01:34:59 -0000, Bubbabob wrote:
> >
> > > JimLane > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The
> > > > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a
> > > > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian D.A.R.T.
> > > disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He actually
> > > went out of his way to prevent them from helping.
> >
> > So, when is the impeach Bush movement going to begin?
> >
>
> January 2007.

Sadly, that's true.

sf wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2005 18:57:04 -0700, SD wrote:
>
> >
> > Bubbabob wrote:
> > > JimLane > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The
> > > > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a
> > > > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian D.A.R.T.
> > > disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He actually
> > > went out of his way to prevent them from helping.
> >
> > Source of this information?
> >
> > Sandi
>
> I watched CNBC earlier today when they interviewed "someone in charge
> of something" (I missed his name and position) who had a laundry list
> of help that had been turned away. For beginners, Walmart was ready
> to deliver thousands of gallons of water the day after the hurricane
> hit. He finished saying what he had to say, but by the time he got to
> the end of his list of companies, organizations and countries that
> were turned away, the man was sobbing.

That doesn't explain where Bubbabob go the information about Bush
denying the overflight of Canadians. Where did he get that information?

Sandi

"SD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> sf wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 2005 18:57:04 -0700, SD wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Bubbabob wrote:
>> > > JimLane > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted.
>> > The
>> > > > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been
>> > taking a
>> > > > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian
>> > D.A.R.T.
>> > > disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He
>> > actually
>> > > went out of his way to prevent them from helping.
>> >
>> > Source of this information?
>> >
>> > Sandi
>>
>> I watched CNBC earlier today when they interviewed "someone in charge
>> of something" (I missed his name and position) who had a laundry list
>> of help that had been turned away. For beginners, Walmart was ready
>> to deliver thousands of gallons of water the day after the hurricane
>> hit. He finished saying what he had to say, but by the time he got
>> to
>> the end of his list of companies, organizations and countries that
>> were turned away, the man was sobbing.
>
> That doesn't explain where Bubbabob go the information about Bush
> denying the overflight of Canadians. Where did he get that
> information?
>
> Sandi

The top one of these links (from last Wed.) talks about how the US was
still assessing where the Canadian help would be needed. But it does
seem as though Canada has offered, and been asked to provide, help, and
is in fact doing so.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...s_name=&no_ads

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...125857169757_5


-T

In article >,
"skoonj" > wrote:

> "SD" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > sf wrote:
> >> On 4 Sep 2005 18:57:04 -0700, SD wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Bubbabob wrote:
> >> > > JimLane > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted.
> >> > The
> >> > > > story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been
> >> > taking a
> >> > > > "no thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > In fact, Bush denied overflight permission to the Canadian
> >> > D.A.R.T.
> >> > > disaster teams when they tried to deploy to NOLA on Monday. He
> >> > actually
> >> > > went out of his way to prevent them from helping.
> >> >
> >> > Source of this information?
> >> >
> >> > Sandi
> >>
> >> I watched CNBC earlier today when they interviewed "someone in charge
> >> of something" (I missed his name and position) who had a laundry list
> >> of help that had been turned away. For beginners, Walmart was ready
> >> to deliver thousands of gallons of water the day after the hurricane
> >> hit. He finished saying what he had to say, but by the time he got
> >> to
> >> the end of his list of companies, organizations and countries that
> >> were turned away, the man was sobbing.
> >
> > That doesn't explain where Bubbabob go the information about Bush
> > denying the overflight of Canadians. Where did he get that
> > information?
> >
> > Sandi
>
> The top one of these links (from last Wed.) talks about how the US was
> still assessing where the Canadian help would be needed. But it does
> seem as though Canada has offered, and been asked to provide, help, and
> is in fact doing so.
>
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...rina_template_
> 050831?s_name=&no_ads
>
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...125857169757_5
>
>
> -T
>
>

Assesing whether or not we need help??? WTF is the matter with those
morons? WE NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET RIGHT NOW!!!

Geez!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "skoonj" > wrote:
>> The top one of these links (from last Wed.) talks about how the US was
>> still assessing where the Canadian help would be needed. But it does
>> seem as though Canada has offered, and been asked to provide, help, and
>> is in fact doing so.
>>
>> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...rina_template_
>> 050831?s_name=&no_ads
>>
>> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...125857169757_5
>>
>>
>> -T
>>
>>
>
> Assesing whether or not we need help??? WTF is the matter with those
> morons? WE NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET RIGHT NOW!!!

Not 'whether or not' you need help, but 'what kind of help' you need. No
use sending water purifying equipment if what you need is medical supplies.
The request has been made for blankets, beds, etc.

Gabby

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:47:03 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>
> Assesing whether or not we need help??? WTF is the matter with those
> morons? WE NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET RIGHT NOW!!!
>
> Geez!
>
It's all a game of posturing and politics by people who are clean,
dry, well fed and not in immediate danger.

Apparently there was a fight between LA's governor and the Feds over
who would be in charge and that's part of the reason why the Feds
didn't get in as soon as they should have. Let's remember that FEMA
was absorbed by Homeland Security after 9-11, so we should be asking
what Homeland Security is supposed to do in times of a natural (or
national) disaster. So far, it has proven to be a master of
bureaucratic bungling.

How about that New Orleans mayor who is finger pointing everywhere?
He f*cked up big time! The Superdome is used for evacuations all the
time... so why wasn't it stocked with porta potties, water and MREs
(at the very least)???

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:25:31 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:47:03 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>>
>> Assesing whether or not we need help??? WTF is the matter with those
>> morons? WE NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET RIGHT NOW!!!
>>
>> Geez!
>>
>It's all a game of posturing and politics by people who are clean,
>dry, well fed and not in immediate danger.
>
>Apparently there was a fight between LA's governor and the Feds over
>who would be in charge and that's part of the reason why the Feds
>didn't get in as soon as they should have. Let's remember that FEMA
>was absorbed by Homeland Security after 9-11, so we should be asking
>what Homeland Security is supposed to do in times of a natural (or
>national) disaster. So far, it has proven to be a master of
>bureaucratic bungling.
>
>How about that New Orleans mayor who is finger pointing everywhere?
>He f*cked up big time! The Superdome is used for evacuations all the
>time... so why wasn't it stocked with porta potties, water and MREs
>(at the very least)???

--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:47:03 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>
>>
>> Assesing whether or not we need help??? WTF is the matter with those
>> morons? WE NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET RIGHT NOW!!!
>>
>> Geez!
>>
>
> It's all a game of posturing and politics by people who are clean,
> dry, well fed and not in immediate danger.
>
> Apparently there was a fight between LA's governor and the Feds over
> who would be in charge and that's part of the reason why the Feds
> didn't get in as soon as they should have. Let's remember that FEMA
> was absorbed by Homeland Security after 9-11, so we should be asking
> what Homeland Security is supposed to do in times of a natural (or
> national) disaster. So far, it has proven to be a master of
> bureaucratic bungling.
>
> How about that New Orleans mayor who is finger pointing everywhere?
> He f*cked up big time! The Superdome is used for evacuations all the
> time... so why wasn't it stocked with porta potties, water and MREs
> (at the very least)???
>

Yeah, he's just like Rawls (Exxon Valdez), not out faultism.


jim

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:07:26 -0400, The Cook wrote:

> --
> Susan N.
>
> "Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
> 48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
> Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974

Was this a mistake or a real reply? If this is your version of a
reply, there is no trace of envy on my part. Search elsewhere for
that.

skoonj wrote:
> "SD" > wrote in message

> >
> > That doesn't explain where Bubbabob go the information about Bush
> > denying the overflight of Canadians. Where did he get that
> > information?
> >
> > Sandi
>
> The top one of these links (from last Wed.) talks about how the US was
> still assessing where the Canadian help would be needed. But it does
> seem as though Canada has offered, and been asked to provide, help, and
> is in fact doing so.
>
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...s_name=&no_ads
>
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...125857169757_5
>
>
> -T

It still doesn't explain where Bubbabob got the information about Bush
denying the overflight of Canadian DART teams in US airspace. I'd like
HIM to quote his source.


Sandi

SD wrote:
>
> skoonj wrote:
> > "SD" > wrote in message
>
> > >
> > > That doesn't explain where Bubbabob go the information about Bush
> > > denying the overflight of Canadians. Where did he get that
> > > information?
> > >
> > > Sandi
> >
> > The top one of these links (from last Wed.) talks about how the US was
> > still assessing where the Canadian help would be needed. But it does
> > seem as though Canada has offered, and been asked to provide, help, and
> > is in fact doing so.
> >
> > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...s_name=&no_ads
> >
> > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...125857169757_5
> >
> >
> > -T
>
> It still doesn't explain where Bubbabob got the information about Bush
> denying the overflight of Canadian DART teams in US airspace. I'd like
> HIM to quote his source.
>
> Sandi

There are a lot of Canadian references to this incident. Do a search on
"Bush refused help". Presumably that's where Bubbabob got his info.
That's where I got mine.

JimLane wrote:

> And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The story
> seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a "no
> thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050904/ts_nm/aid_un_dc


NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt, very venal,
and very evil organisation...

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The
>> story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a
>> "no
>> thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050904/ts_nm/aid_un_dc
>
>
> NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt, very
> venal, and very evil organisation...

Interesting you should say that as since its inception the UN has been
controlled by the security council which was, in turn, controlled by the
'superpowers' including the USA.
Pot - kettle - eh?

Ken Davey wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > JimLane wrote:
> >
> >> And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The
> >> story seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a
> >> "no
> >> thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> >>
> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050904/ts_nm/aid_un_dc
> >
> >
> > NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt, very
> > venal, and very evil organisation...
>
> Interesting you should say that as since its inception the UN has been
> controlled by the security council which was, in turn, controlled by the
> 'superpowers' including the USA.
> Pot - kettle - eh?


Hardly, sport...

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>
>>And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The story
>>seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a "no
>>thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050904/ts_nm/aid_un_dc
>
>
>
> NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt, very venal,
> and very evil organisation...
>

Yes, ever since they refused to kowtow to the US, a lot of people have
been saying that.


jim

Arri London wrote:
> SD wrote:

> >
> > It still doesn't explain where Bubbabob got the information about Bush
> > denying the overflight of Canadian DART teams in US airspace. I'd like
> > HIM to quote his source.
> >
> > Sandi
>
> There are a lot of Canadian references to this incident. Do a search on
> "Bush refused help". Presumably that's where Bubbabob got his info.
> That's where I got mine.

I've read the many of the references. I've not seen any refer to
denying overflight. Refused help is very different from denied
overflight. Denied overflight implies help was on the way and they were
denied entrance into American airspace. Besides, if he is gonna spout
things as gospel and post statments like that, he's the one who should
quote the source if requested.

Sandi

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:48:18 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
>SD wrote:
>>
>> skoonj wrote:
>> > "SD" > wrote in message
>>
>> > >
>> > > That doesn't explain where Bubbabob go the information about Bush
>> > > denying the overflight of Canadians. Where did he get that
>> > > information?
>> > >
>> > > Sandi
>> >
>> > The top one of these links (from last Wed.) talks about how the US was
>> > still assessing where the Canadian help would be needed. But it does
>> > seem as though Canada has offered, and been asked to provide, help, and
>> > is in fact doing so.
>> >
>> > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...s_name=&no_ads
>> >
>> > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...125857169757_5
>> >
>> >
>> > -T
>>
>> It still doesn't explain where Bubbabob got the information about Bush
>> denying the overflight of Canadian DART teams in US airspace. I'd like
>> HIM to quote his source.
>>
>> Sandi
>
>There are a lot of Canadian references to this incident. Do a search on
>"Bush refused help". Presumably that's where Bubbabob got his info.
>That's where I got mine.

As of this morning, Swiss government was still awaiting US government
authorization in order to send several hundreds (or thousands? Can't
remember) tons of food and several specialized doctors :-(

Nathalie in Switzerland

JimLane wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > JimLane wrote:
> >
> >
> >>And here's mo the UN has offed aid and the US has accepted. The story
> >>seems to point back to the fact that the US had been taking a "no
> >>thanks" stance with previous countries offers.
> >>
> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050904/ts_nm/aid_un_dc
> >
> >
> >
> > NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt, very
venal,
> > and very evil organisation...
> >
>
> Yes, ever since they refused to kowtow to the US, a lot of people have
> been saying that.


Lemme tell ya, since the US is the single biggest donor to the UN they
*should* "kowtow" to the US. Someone is subsidising my nice lifestyle,
you'd better bet that I would pretty much do *anything* to keep them in my
good graces...it's how the Real World operates, "Show me the money,
honey...".

It's a certified FACT that the UN is corrupt, reams have been written on it.
Of course since the majority of it's member states are corrupt Third World
shite holes (in collusion with corrupt First World "do - gooders" like
France, etc.), whaddya expect...

The US should cut all funding for the UN, then the whole kit 'n caboodle of
the smarmy designer - suited slobbering pukes can decamp to Paris or Geneva
or wherever. We DON'T need that rabid scurrilous lot in this country and
their loss would be a net economic *gain* for the city of New York...and the
citizens of this country. Plus which just think what prime condos the UN
building would make...

--
Best
Greg

Nathalie Chiva > wrote in
:

> As of this morning, Swiss government was still awaiting US
> government authorization in order to send several hundreds (or
> thousands? Can't remember) tons of food and several specialized
> doctors :-(

I suspect this is part of the bafflegab of rcent years about the
"inferority" of doctors in "socialized medicine" countries. If people
realize how good they really are and how willing they are to help
anyone (even an avowedly medically obscurantist nation like the US),
the arguments for greed-driven medicine will be turned to dross.

Then everyone would have health care and families wouldn't be ruined by
the economic trap of dealing with hangnails on up.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

>NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt, very venal,
>and very evil organisation...

And this implies that the food they might deliver is inedible, the
doctors incompetent, the money counterfeit ?
Your attitude is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

Seamus wrote:

> >NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt, very
venal,
> >and very evil organisation...
>
> And this implies that the food they might deliver is inedible, the
> doctors incompetent, the money counterfeit ?
> Your attitude is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
>


Yet you failed to refute any single one of the points I brought up...

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote
in nk.net:

>> And this implies that the food they might deliver is inedible,
>> the doctors incompetent, the money counterfeit ?
>> Your attitude is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your
>> face".
>
> Yet you failed to refute any single one of the points I brought
> up...

And which you did not substantiate, might I point out. They were
nothing more than innuendo.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Seamus wrote:
>
>>> NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt,
>>> very venal, and very evil organisation...
>>
>> And this implies that the food they might deliver is inedible, the
>> doctors incompetent, the money counterfeit ?
>> Your attitude is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
>>
>
>
> Yet you failed to refute any single one of the points I brought up...

Umm.. points eh?
All the UN member states are incompetent (except the USA of course)?
- oh yah - they are also a "rabid scurrilous lot?
All the member states should bow down before the almighty US buck?
France is a 'third world' country?
The UN is corrupt?
Grain of truth here but you can rest assured that any corruption present has
USA 'interests' up to its elbow in it.

All the above 'points' fail to explain why the USA should deny offered
assistance for its present disasster.

Ken.

"Ken Davey" > wrote in message
...
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>> Seamus wrote:
>>
>>>> NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt,
>>>> very venal, and very evil organisation...
>>>
>>> And this implies that the food they might deliver is inedible, the
>>> doctors incompetent, the money counterfeit ?
>>> Your attitude is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yet you failed to refute any single one of the points I brought up...
>
> Umm.. points eh?
> All the UN member states are incompetent (except the USA of course)?
> - oh yah - they are also a "rabid scurrilous lot?
> All the member states should bow down before the almighty US buck?
> France is a 'third world' country?
> The UN is corrupt?
> Grain of truth here but you can rest assured that any corruption present
> has USA 'interests' up to its elbow in it.
>
> All the above 'points' fail to explain why the USA should deny offered
> assistance for its present disasster.
>
> Ken.
>

The UN certanly has its share of problems and is far from functioning the
way it should, but it has had many resounding successes and is at least a
start toward the kind of international cooperation we need if the human race
is to survive. The UN haters are among the most ignorant of right-wingers,
full of bigotry and and a puzzling fear of anything "foreign." I sort of
pity them because they are in a dilemma now. On the one hand they want to
criticize other countries for not offering aid to the US because they love
any opportunity to knock "them thar furriners." On the other hand they do
not want to accept any aid that is offered because it indicates that the US
might actually need help at a time like this. What a pitiful bunch.


--
Peter Aitken

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Ken Davey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>> Seamus wrote:
>>>
>>>>> NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt,
>>>>> very venal, and very evil organisation...
>>>>
>>>> And this implies that the food they might deliver is inedible, the
>>>> doctors incompetent, the money counterfeit ?
>>>> Your attitude is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your
>>>> face".
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you failed to refute any single one of the points I brought
>>> up...
>>
>> Umm.. points eh?
>> All the UN member states are incompetent (except the USA of course)?
>> - oh yah - they are also a "rabid scurrilous lot?
>> All the member states should bow down before the almighty US buck?
>> France is a 'third world' country?
>> The UN is corrupt?
>> Grain of truth here but you can rest assured that any corruption
>> present has USA 'interests' up to its elbow in it.
>>
>> All the above 'points' fail to explain why the USA should deny
>> offered assistance for its present disasster.
>>
>> Ken.
>>
>
> The UN certanly has its share of problems and is far from functioning
> the way it should, but it has had many resounding successes and is at
> least a start toward the kind of international cooperation we need if
> the human race is to survive. The UN haters are among the most
> ignorant of right-wingers, full of bigotry and and a puzzling fear of
> anything "foreign." I sort of pity them because they are in a dilemma
> now. On the one hand they want to criticize other countries for not
> offering aid to the US because they love any opportunity to knock
> "them thar furriners." On the other hand they do not want to accept
> any aid that is offered because it indicates that the US might
> actually need help at a time like this. What a pitiful bunch.

What you said.
Ken.

Ken Davey wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > Seamus wrote:
> >
> >>> NO reason we should be accepting UN "aid", it's a very corrupt,
> >>> very venal, and very evil organisation...
> >>
> >> And this implies that the food they might deliver is inedible, the
> >> doctors incompetent, the money counterfeit ?
> >> Your attitude is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yet you failed to refute any single one of the points I brought up...
>
> Umm.. points eh?
> All the UN member states are incompetent (except the USA of course)?


The UN is largely ineffective, their staff have an "entitlement"
mentality...


> - oh yah - they are also a "rabid scurrilous lot?


Just so you know, Ken, if you know me at all that is fairly "mild" language
I am using...


> All the member states should bow down before the almighty US buck?


Exactly - or else the member states should find ANOTHER funding source. The
UN is in NYC at our "grace and favour"...and they are welcome to take their
ungrateful asses elsewhere. Let 'em earn their own keep, bet they wouldn't
last two days without all the nice perks the US provides them.


> France is a 'third world' country?


IMNSHO...heck they don't have window screens and even during heat waves they
refuse to acknowledge the necessity for air conditioning (not to mention
bathing, at ALL times of the year...). Besides which they still boast about
failed French technologies like Minitel and the Concorde...

France (the premier member of the sclerotic "Old Europe" claque) is *barely*
in the 20th century, let alone the 21st. That's why it is increasingly
irrelevant and is in the process of being eclipsed by ever more dynamic
places like Eire, Scandianvia, the UK, Czechia, Slovenia, and even tiny
Estonia...


> The UN is corrupt?
> Grain of truth here but you can rest assured that any corruption present
has
> USA 'interests' up to its elbow in it.


Au contraire, do yer homework...it's top news frex on the BBC website at the
moment.


> All the above 'points' fail to explain why the USA should deny offered
> assistance for its present disasster.


I'd say you Canadians up there should consider yourself MIGHTY lucky that
you live right next to such a big, rich, and wonderful country as the
USA...your anti - US carping comes off as petty and paints you in a most
unflattering light.

--
Best
Greg

Peter Aitken wrote:

> The UN certanly has its share of problems and is far from functioning the
> way it should, but it has had many resounding successes and is at least a
> start toward the kind of international cooperation we need if the human
race
> is to survive. The UN haters are among the most ignorant of right-wingers,


Are you including me in that lot? If so, how to explain my ardent hatred of
the Shrub and the GOPee Christo - Corporate agenda that he and his cronies
have laid out for this country?

--
Best
Greg

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in
om:

> On the one hand they want to
> criticize other countries for not offering aid to the US because
> they love any opportunity to knock "them thar furriners." On the
> other hand they do not want to accept any aid that is offered
> because it indicates that the US might actually need help at a
> time like this. What a pitiful bunch.

What's even more galling is that they're being offered aid by
countries and leaders they have until just yesterday vilified
publicly: Cuba, Venezuela and to some extent Canada. The recent
comments by the US ambassador [dickhead, shurely?] on softwood lumber
were not well received.

It must really stick in their craw that aid is offered by Cuba but
that Kiribati and Vanuatu are not taking advantage of their "deep
friendship with the US" (tm pending) to send ten or twenty
warships...oh, wait, they don't have any...

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote
in ink.net:

> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>> The UN certanly has its share of problems and is far from
>> functioning the way it should, but it has had many resounding
>> successes and is at least a start toward the kind of
>> international cooperation we need if the human
>> race is to survive. The UN haters are among the most ignorant of
>> right-wingers,
>
> Are you including me in that lot? If so, how to explain my ardent
> hatred of the Shrub and the GOPee Christo - Corporate agenda that
> he and his cronies have laid out for this country?

You're ambivalent? :-)

--
"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote in
message ink.net...
>
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>> The UN certanly has its share of problems and is far from functioning the
>> way it should, but it has had many resounding successes and is at least a
>> start toward the kind of international cooperation we need if the human
> race
>> is to survive. The UN haters are among the most ignorant of
>> right-wingers,
>
>
> Are you including me in that lot? If so, how to explain my ardent hatred
> of
> the Shrub and the GOPee Christo - Corporate agenda that he and his cronies
> have laid out for this country?
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>
>

Did you say that the UN was an evil and venal organization? If so then the
answer is yes. Having some ignorant and foolish opinions does not preclude
you from having others that are right on target.

--
Peter Aitken

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Ken Davey wrote:
>
>> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>> Seamus wrote:

> I'd say you Canadians up there should consider yourself MIGHTY lucky
> that you live right next to such a big, rich, and wonderful country
> as the USA...your anti - US carping comes off as petty and paints you
> in a most unflattering light.

And I say you should know that we (Canadans) refer to your 'rich and
wonderful' country as
"the retarded giant to the south".

Ken.

Ken Davey wrote:
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > Ken Davey wrote:
> >
> >> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> >>> Seamus wrote:
>
> > I'd say you Canadians up there should consider yourself MIGHTY lucky
> > that you live right next to such a big, rich, and wonderful country
> > as the USA...your anti - US carping comes off as petty and paints you
> > in a most unflattering light.
>
> And I say you should know that we (Canadans) refer to your 'rich and
> wonderful' country as
> "the retarded giant to the south".
>
> Ken.

Ken....you really needed to put a spew alert on that post. I've got to
clean the pinapple juice off the monitor now.

Sandi