|
Post by who won on Jun 8, 2003 8:34:41 GMT -5
what changed things in South Africa were various things. A softening of the leadership. Pressure from around the world both from ordinairy people boycotting South Africa to Governments around the world condemning them. Economically they were suffering And the SA people.
I see very little of the other effect that could lead to a downfall of the Bush Regime.
No matter how much Bush may be despised in other nations by the people and or governments, no one is boycotting american goods, and people are still coming to the US for their 2 week vacation. Only France is brave enough to openly criticize them but still it insists it is their friend.
In South Africa, far more of the people suffered under apartheid than benefitted. When you are comfortable you are far less likely to be pushed into demonstrative action. The US and South Africa do not compare anyway.
As far as demonstrations go, US people are possibly one of the most proactive nations around. In fact of the western countries only the UK has had more political demonstrations than the US according to the statistic below.
Number of politically motivated demonstrations, strikes, riots and armed attacks over 30 years:
United Kingdom 5,136 United States 4,258 France 1,566 Germany 622 Japan 524 Canada 260 Finland 63 Netherlands 57 Denmark 55 Switzerland 39 Sweden 33
|
|
|
Post by worthless on Jun 8, 2003 9:46:49 GMT -5
Brainfade, "Apathy will be your downfall." No, it IS my downfall (one of many). I'm aware of that. I'm working on changing that opinion, however.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Jun 8, 2003 16:19:06 GMT -5
The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged last week that he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall, but believed Iraq had a program to produce them. Powell said parts of the DIA report have been taken out of context.
"The sentence that has gotten all of the attention, in this two-page, unclassified summary, talked about not having the evidence of current facilities and current stockpiling," Powell said. "The very next sentence says that it had information that weapons had been dispersed to units. Chemical weapons had been dispersed to units."
Rice said the justification for war was grounded in information from CIA directors, intelligence reports from abroad, information from U.N. weapons inspectors and efforts by Saddam's government to conceal what it was doing.
Rice also pointed to former President Clinton (news - web sites)'s statement in Dec. 16, 1998, to explain missile strikes he ordered against military and security targets in Iraq. "I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again," Clinton said then.
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 8, 2003 17:47:18 GMT -5
I believe Clinton only said that to gain a little favour with the arms industry in america. If the president can identify a clear and present danger, congress can be convinced to increase defense spending. Programmes like F/A 22 Raptor were on the verge of major downsizing and order cancellationwere not far off. That speech rescued the programme and many others like it.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Jun 8, 2003 22:55:56 GMT -5
Raptor- Clinton was known for dramatically downsizing the military. Many bases were scrapped due to him. Congress was controlled by the Republicans back then so the need to ask for more money for defence would seem rather silly.
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 9, 2003 3:31:48 GMT -5
Downsizing miliatary and Defence spending for R&D programmes are 2 different things aren't they? you can downsize personell but increase spending in weapons programmes..
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Jun 9, 2003 7:09:37 GMT -5
First of all, she has never been much appreciated by the French public due to her arrogance and total lack of feminine charm. Perhaps on court... Of court I think she (and her sister) have great charms... dress them up and they're both quite stunning... better than Anna!
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 9, 2003 7:54:41 GMT -5
I just want to add to that:
I sincerely hope that the Williams sisters are not being judged by their outward appearance. I also hope that their 'arrogance' is not taken out of context. Those young ladies have had a tough life and risen to the top despite of their circumstances.
Nobody would coach them because a) they are black and not very caucasian in their features b) they came from a really poor back ground c) did'nt fit the corporate profile of the ideal tennis player
Their father coached them, stood by them and paid most of their way into the top echelons of Tennis by morgaging their home. I think their arrogance or confidence can be overlooked. This does not mean that they have to be loved or even liked, but it sure as hell means they must be respected!
What that crowd did was downright narrowminded and I take my hat off to Sarena for actually congratulating Justine Hennin after the match. Even so she was boooed from the court. Not exactly the behaviour of a civilised peoples. Granted it may have been a minority but i aso feel that Hennin could have done a better job of silencing her fans. She did a good job of doing so once she had gained the upper hand in the last set, aided by her jeering, boooeing fans. How she could hold the trophy up after that sem final I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 9, 2003 8:32:32 GMT -5
I just want to add to that: I sincerely hope that the Williams sisters are not being judged by their outward appearance. I also hope that their 'arrogance' is not taken out of context. Those young ladies have had a tough life and risen to the top despite of their circumstances. Nobody would coach them because a) they are black and not very caucasian in their features b) they came from a really poor back ground c) did'nt fit the corporate profile of the ideal tennis player Their father coached them, stood by them and paid most of their way into the top echelons of Tennis by morgaging their home. I think their arrogance or confidence can be overlooked. This does not mean that they have to be loved or even liked, but it sure as hell means they must be respected! What that crowd did was downright narrowminded and I take my hat off to Sarena for actually congratulating Justine Hennin after the match. Even so she was boooed from the court. Not exactly the behaviour of a civilised peoples. Granted it may have been a minority but i aso feel that Hennin could have done a better job of silencing her fans. She did a good job of doing so once she had gained the upper hand in the last set, aided by her jeering, boooeing fans. How she could hold the trophy up after that sem final I don't know. I don't think you will find a tennis fan that did not want Arthur Ashe to beat Jimmy Connors in that memorable Wimbledon final. The same respect went out to Yoah (dodgy spelling, but the black French player) Yvonne Goolagong, Rubin’s and many other black players. As for not getting coaching, you might want to check your facts on that one. Their father may have coached them in the early days but by the time Venus was 13 she was well known on the tennis circuit and had top level coaching, Serena had coaching from an even earlier age. As for the handshake, tradition dictates that you shake hands over the net and then walk over to the umpire. Serena’s handshake to Hennin was no more than a slap on the hand as she got to her chair and after the umpire had received similar discourteous behavior. I don’t know how you can say Hennin gained the upper hand in the last set, both players lost their serve 3 times and Hennin had to break Serena’s serve to save the match and then hold her own serve to win 7 - 5.
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 9, 2003 16:26:14 GMT -5
Well I watched that match minute for minute and it really seemed to me that Serena was mighty P***ed off that the umpire did nothing to control the crowd especially duringher serve. he never offered a let nothing. I think she felt persecuted and who can blame her. Been in a same situation myself.
Finished 5th in an MTB race and Iknow I was fifth because the 4 guys who beat me were all within sight. Prizes went the first 5 positions. So when they called out the fifth riders name it was Hennie van der Walt. He had finished 6th. Sothey convenently bumped me down a place. Granted the situation is not the same and at the time I could bearlyshake the twats hand. He knewhe had'nt finished 5th but he took the prize money and the prize. I queried it with the organisers and they claim Ihad'nt entered. Although tey issuedme with an official race number, timing chip etal. You feel pretty hopeless at that stage.
I reckon that how Serena felt. I think the emotions Serena was going through were similar. She had the match virtualy won until the crowd started jeering. Her match deteriorated from there.
As for her slap o nthe hand, the Eurosport commentators all commended her for even shaking Hennin's hand. They were surprised that Hennin did nothing to stop the crowd, and when they interupted Serena's serve, she asked if she could get a let. Hennin refused. Hows that for sportsmanship.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jun 10, 2003 0:41:06 GMT -5
I finds the French audience can be really terrible with the players at times, and that goes for their own fellow countrymen as well.
When Noah won in three sets against Wilander, he was raised to god status amongst the French, and it seems any Frenchman who get to or near the finals, but doesn't actually succeed, is seriously booed by the audience. I recall distinctively when Henri Leconte made the finals, I think against Jim Courier. He lost in three staright sets, and the audience would boo and whistle, even though he was a Frenchman up against an American.
Then again, I find I see this sort of attitude far too often among sports "fans". It sucks, but it has become part of reality.
Speaking of sportsmen who knows the meaning of fairplay, does anybody remember when Wilander won his first Roland Garros? A match ball was played, and won by Wilander as the line judge ruled the ball out. However Wilander insisted that the ball was not out, and that he had lost that point. The umpire accepted, and so the point was given to the opponent (I think it was Vilas). Wilander did win the game in the end though.
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Jun 10, 2003 4:56:44 GMT -5
i didn't know about that incident Henrik, but from what you posted, i'd say he won a lot more than just the match.
about the french fans: cheering for your team is a good thing, but booing an opponent for no fault of hers is chauvinistic. sadly that has become a part of sports today. when india beats pakistan in cricket, we celebrate the pakis defeat and not our victory. at times like this the words of the song "where have all the flowers gone" always play in my mind: "o when will they ever learn?"
smokingun
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 10, 2003 7:46:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Jun 10, 2003 8:09:03 GMT -5
Oh! I get it. The Sorcerers Apprentice! Blairy simple, huh? ;D
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 10, 2003 17:27:30 GMT -5
ROTFLMAO ;D
|
|