Juanson World

Christian, I think that's a very valid point you make. Have you been reading about William Hurlbut? I like this guy very much and hope he keeps doing what he's doing.
 

"Let's do what's right, and that means holding military leaders and interrogators responsible for killing and torturing innocent people."

Let's start by trying, convicting, and punishing Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice. The Geneva Conventions state that agression is a fundamental war crime. The invasion of Iraq is clearly aggression. So Americans are hypocrits for not holding ourselves to the same standards as we deem on others.
 

Reed,

You wrote: "But for you to be voicing concern over what fundamentalist Muslims think of us....I mean, you genuinely think that is the issue here?"

I meant that a small thing that the US does can have a ripple effect throughout the world. The fact that we are the world's economic and political power implies, for some, a huge responsibility. I think we abuse that responsibility when we portray ourselves as hypocrites.

You wrote: "You're proposing that Bush needs to "consider the consequenes" of making a stance on stem cell research due to the international reaction it might elicit in light of the fact that the U.S. tortures suspected terrorists? Ok..."

Your point is well taken. I wasn't quite sure how to conclude the post. My general point was that I agree that it sounds ironic for Bush and Delay to say how sacred life is when American foreign policy leads to the deaths of innocents.
 

Bob Herbert is a bleeding heart liberal and is staunchly against this administration.

That said, I think he's a good writer and he's an advocate for those who are less fortunate.

He also calls a spade a spade.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

I would deepen Gomez's concern about "how" the war is being fought to addressing the essential "why?".

I think that Muslims (moderates and fundamentalists), as well as most of the world, are ultimately still more concerned with the latter question than the former.

Moreover, it is hypocritical to wage an illegal and unethical war while claiming higher moral ground on issues such as abortion, stem cell, gay rights etc.

If the criminal nature of the war, which is uncontroversial according to centuries of international law, isn't reason enough to consider it unethical, then polls showing that the overwhelming majority the world (academics, politicians, and people from all walks of life included) were against the war in Iraq should.
 

You wrote: "Bill Clinton had oral sex with a 19 yr old subordinate in the oval office, which most would consider to be immoral. He also worked with the Republican Congress to overhaul health care so that less fortunate people would have better access to medical care, which is a moral, noble cause. These seemingly divergent initiatives prove that Bill Clinton is a hipocrite and all of his policies should be viewed as such."

By your logic:

Abraham Lincoln was arguably America's greatest president. Hiw actions resulted in Union victory in the Civil War and the Emancipation of the slaves.

Abraham Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior to whites. He would have allowed slavery if it kept the southern states in the union. He would have shipped all African Americans to Africa if that would have solved the race issue in the United States.

These seemingly divergent initiatives prove that Abraham Lincoln is a hipocrite and all of his policies should be viewed as such. You don't like Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party. We get it.
 

reed, you have embarassingly simple and foolish logic skills.
 

Reed,

You unfairly converted my argument into a partisan one. I think it is possible to have opinions that work outside of the Democrat/Republican framework.

It is also quite impressive that you compare the hypocrisy of having sex in the oval office while supporting health care for the poor, to waging war while attempting to ban abortion and stem cell research in an effort to save lives.

I certainly do believe Clinton's promiscuous actions, and lying under oath, make him a hypocrite and an immoral person.

However, Bush waging an illegal and unnessecary war and having thousands of people killed, places him in a world of immorality unparalleled to that of Clinton.

By taking anti-abortion and anti-stem cell positions in his crusade to save lives, he will actually cause greater death and suffering (unless, of course, you consider a embryo/fetus to be a person).

Out of curiousity, on what grounds do you support the war on Iraq?
Secondly, are you behind your government on its stance on abortion and stem cell research?
 

Why is it arrogant to believe that a leader loses his legimitacy once he wages an illegal war that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people?

You mention that the war has turned into a disaster. At what point would you say this happened, and why?

Have you considered the possibility that instead of being wrong about WMD, that "almost every lawmaker in the U.S., the CIA, British intelligence and Russian intelligence" may have actually lied? For instance, there is proof that the documents accusing Saddam of acquiring Uranium in Africa were forged.

Isn't it also possible that WMD, ending Saddam's tyranny, bringing democracy to the Middle Eastare are among a list of excuses that are fed to the American public by leaders who are attempting to ensure unilateral world domination through military superiority.

Let's not be naive - you don't become the world's greatest ever superpower through honest, ethical means.
 

Reed,

"It is only in your opinion that the war is illegal. And I assume Bush had lost legitimacy in your eyes long before any decision was made on Iraq. Unfortunately terrorists are blowing up suicide bombs on a daily basis, killing tens of thousands of their fellow countrymen. If you choose to blame this on George Bush, knock yourself out."

Once again, I don't understand why you are trying to make this into a partisan debate. Bush had lost much of his legitimacy the day he became president with record low approval ratings. He was only able to acquire legitimacy post-9/11, when the American public was scared and vengeful. Without 9/11 he would have almost certainly been one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history. But I digress.

The point I want to make is: I would be just as opposed to the war had it been led by Gore, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, etc. I think it is possible to oppose the Iraq war from a non-ideological or non-partisan stance. However, it seems you are bent on labeling me as a left-wing conspiracy nut.

I am not the only person who believes that the war is illegal and immoral. Dare I say that most of the world holds such an opinion. Even many conservatives, some from the Bush administration itself, have recognized the illegality of the war.

For instance, Richard Perle readily admitted the illegality of the war despite being for it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Furthermore, many realist thinkers, most of which are probably Republicans, have criticized the war because of its shaky Wilsonian ideals. I found this article particularly interesting: http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp#

Give it a read. I would like to read your thoughts on it. I'm sure there are somethings in there that we can actually agree upon despite our diverging views on the war.

By the way, what you provided wasn't an excerpt from Wilson's book. That was an excerpt from a Washington Post article, which actually goes on to say: "That knowledge has not altered Wilson's much-expressed view that the Bush administration distorted intelligence on Iraq's weapons capabilities to help make the case for going to war."

I don't think Wilson helps the pro-war case. He is actually quite hated by the Bush administration.

Finally, you say:

"So you will view anything that the United States does as unethical and dishonest due to the fact that it has a powerful military. Interesting, but I had pretty much caught that drift before you came out and said it."

No, I dont view anything that the US does as unethical and dishonest. Contrary to what you may believe, I don't have a personal hatred towards the US, or the Bush Administration.

I am simply advocating the responsible use of power. Given that the US has an unparalleled empire, I feel that it should act a lot more ethically. Failure to do so will only lead to more wars, more deaths, more instability, and ultimately the fall of the US. This is something I dont want, especially considering China's growing ambitions.
 

Reed,

I'll cease to ramble and let you come to your own conclusions.

I never mentioned anything about election results. I was talking about approval ratings. What does the following graph tell you about American public opinion and Bush's so-called popularity?
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

I am ultimately holding Bush responsible because he is both the commander in chief and the President of a country which conducted an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. (By the way, what did you think of Perle's view on the legality of the war?)

I also hold responsible all of the American soldiers stationed in Iraq (as well as feeling sorry for most them - since many do not want to be there) and I am especially disgusted by the Iraqi's who are blowing up their fellow countrymen and foreign soldiers.

Did you have a chance to read the Mearsheimer article? I'm curious to know your thoughts. The article also touches upon Saddam's past with WMD and the support given to him by the US.
 

By speculating that Bush would have "almost certainly been one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history," I meant to underline that Bush's popularity was mediocre right before 9/11, at around 50%, yet shot up to 90% immediately afterwards. If I am not mistaken, this is a record high.

How would you explain this sudden spike of approval?

Upon further examination of the graph, it is very possible that without three key events, particularly the first, (9/11, invading Iraq, and finding Saddam) Bush would have been a very unpopular leader (this hypothesis is also supported by comparing approval ratings for his handling of domestic issues vs. terrorism issues).

How would you explain the consistent decline in approval after each of these three events?

As for your comments regarding the article:

"I think it's a pretty hard sell to claim that Bush "favors" unilaterialism. Very few countries were willing help the U.S. in Iraq and Bush was left with the decision to go it alone or not go at all."

You're right. By failing to build genuine multilateral support, Bush had a choice to make. He opted for the unilateral strategy (attacking Iraq) over the multilateral one (deterring/containing Iraq). His rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and the ICC are further examples of his disdain for multilateralism.

"The diplomacy angle that he is taking just doesn't have much credibility. Using diplomacy with dictators and radical regimes simply doesn't work. The "realist" approach sounds frighteningly similar to appeasement."

The diplomacy angle doesn't have much credibility? If this so-called 'appeasement' method worked with the Soviet Union, a totalitarian superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons, why couldn't it work with Saddam? I expand upon this point at the bottom.

"When the author says it is problematic to label North Korea
and Iran as part of the "axis of evil" he seems to forget that is exactly what Reagan did 20 yrs ago in describing the Soviet Union. I think it is naive to think that a label we give these countries will have any effect on their nuclear aspirations. Let's just call a spade a spade and go from there. These three (with Iraq) regimes are evil in the truest sense of the word."

First off, the 'axis of evil' term is probably one of the most illogical phrases to be uttered by Bush (which was, interestingly enough, written by a Canadian). The term 'axis' is incorrect because there is no coordination between these three states (unlike the Axis of Powers of WWII). Secondly, is it really necessary to envoke WWII imagery in the War on Terror?

Thirdly, despite sounding like it came straight out of Star Wars, Reagan's use of 'Evil Empire' was logical. The Soviet Union was an empire, and it was quite evil.

Finally, what do you think about the following statement: "Iran is seen by many as in the process of secularization, and it is speculated that the US terming it evil will give more influence to the radical Islamists in that country."?

How did you feel about Libya, Syria and Cuba getting added to the list?

"Ok, he officially lost me at the point where he started discussing the U.S.'s use of nuclear weapons in WWII and suggesting that good vs. evil in international politics is purely objective. That is quite a slippery slope, particularly these days with a lot of people suggesting that U.S. foreign policy is to blame for 9/11."

I think you meant to say "subjective" instead of "objective".
You rightly talk about the slippery slope that exists when criticizing US foreign policy. However, this is a dilemma that one confronts in most contentious questions of peace and war.

Obviously, the US is not to blame for the 9/11. However, past US support for radical Islamic 'freedom fighters' (such as Bin Ladin), as well as Middle East dictators (such as Saddam), demonstrate that actions which were once considered 'good', in hindsight, may have actually generated more 'evil'.

"Throughout the entire article there is no concrete example of a realist's approach to foreign policy except that they "favor diplomacy.""

My response to this last point and your final question: "What would your approach have been with regard to Iraq back in early 2003." Is pretty much summed up by this phrase in another Mearsheimer article:

"In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively - even if Saddam has nuclear weapons - just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War."

I urge you to give the article a read:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm

Here's the Perle link again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
 

"I don't think we can come to any sort of meaningful conclusion debating whether or not George Bush would have been popular had 9/11 and the Iraq war not occurred."

Agreed. We'll leave this topic. But you never addressed this question: How would you explain the enormous spike in Bush's approval right after 9/11? (remember, you criticized my comments on the American populace being scared and vengeful, thus rallying behind their 'unpopular' leader in record numbers).

"No, not when infringements upon U.N. mandates are made without suffering any sort of consequence, or when the sanctions are put in place by an organization which is in cahoots with the very dictator they are trying to subdue."

The UN was in cahoots with Saddam?

You still haven't addressed the idea that Saddam could have been contained through deterence in much the same way the USSR was contained. If you are against this hypothesis, I urge you to take on Mearsheimer and Walt's arguments in: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm

"Is this imagery not sensitive to the terrorists? Not sure what you are suggesting."

Not at all. I was suggesting that we should be sensitive to the millions of WWII victims. I think it is senseless to envoke parallels between the Iraq-Iran-North Korea axis and the Germany-Japan-Italy axis.

"I think somebody is taking their cues from Michael Moore. No one said that Bin Laden or Iraq were "good" in the instances in which we provided aid. It was clearly an example of supporting the lesser of two evils."

Reagan labeled Bin Ladin and his radical fundamentalists as 'freedom fighters'. I think this qualifies as being 'good', as opposed to simply being called 'lesser of two evils.'

Regarding Kyoto: given its flaws, more needs to be done to reform the treaty. However, claiming that it is "an abomination" does nothing to help solve global warming - a problem that requires a multilateral solution.

You sent me an article written by Bjorn Lomborg. The guy is a very politicized and controversial scientist who claims: "We will not lose our forests; we will not run out of energy, raw materials, or water. We have reduced atmospheric pollution in the cities of the developed world and have good reason to believe that this will also be achieved in the developing world. Our oceans have not been defiled, our rivers have become cleaner and support more life. ... Nor is waste a particularly big problem. ... The problem of the ozone layer has been more or less solved. The current outlook on the development of global warming does not indicate a catastrophe. ... And, finally, our chemical worries and fear of pesticides are misplaced and counterproductive."

I'd be interested in reading a more balanced viewpoint if you care to pass something else along.
 

The Perle article:

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.
 

I care about the extremely high approval ratings post-9/11, because I believe that they are essential to understanding why the invasion of Iraq was allowed to take place.

I believe that because the American population was scared and vengeful, they were easily persuaded by their government to believe that there actually existed Saddam-9/11 links.

For instance, according to one poll, 70% of the population in 2003 thought that Saddam was linked to 9/11: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm.

Do you think the invasion of Iraq would have happened without 9/11?

"How would you explain his low ratings after 1,500 Americans have died in Iraq, despite a strong economy?"

I can’t answer this question because I don’t agree with its premise. How would you go about arguing that there is 'a strong economy' under Bush?

"There was never a chance of getting security council support for any sort of military action due to the fact that influential people in France and Russia were being paid off by Saddam Hussein through the oil for food program. One high ranking member of the U.N. has been fired and there is likely more to come."

I might see some truth to this hypothesis if US complicity wasn’t so evident:

“It has also been alleged that USA and British government was fully aware of the scandal, but opted to close their eyes to smuggling because their allies Turkey and Jordan benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil.

“Senator Levin is cited in an interview for the New York Times as saying "There is no question that the bulk of the illicit oil revenues came from the open sale of Iraqi oil to Jordan and to Turkey, and that that was a way of going around the oil-for-food program [and that] We were fully aware of the bypass and looked the other way.

"The Senate committee assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that:

"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

"The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of theses recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US department of Justice for their actions."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_Food_program#US_Complicity)

“Deterence to what? Use WMD's or develop them?”

Both. If the US can contain a nuclear Soviet Union, then they can contain a nuclear Iraq. This argument is taken from the Mearsheimer/Walt article I mentioned earlier:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm - see section “Saddam with Nukes”

“The Kyoto protocol would cost the U.S. an estimated $150 billion per year for minimal returns. Seems that your claim about "Bush's disdain for multilateralism" was a tad off base here.”

Given its huge demands on the American people, I can understand why there is such strong resistance to the Kyoto Protocol. I found a few interesting facts and figures:
- The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions.
- The cuts required by Kyoto would mean some fundamental changes in American lifestyle. US citizens tend to drive larger cars and make more frequent trips.
- The average American produces six tonnes of carbon dioxide, the average Briton three tonnes, a Chinese 0.7 tonnes and an Indian 0.25 tonnes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1820523.stm

Here’s Bush’s alternative:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/bush.global.warming/index.html
 

Reed, this will be my last post. It’s been a fun debate. Our stances seem to be quite ingrained so there’s probably not much point in beating this dead horse any further. Plus, I need to start dedicating more time to an upcoming work trip.

Re: 9/11 – Saddam links

“Please point me to some instances where George Bush ever said that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.”

Although Bush never explicitly said that Saddam was behind 9/11 (something which I never claimed anyways), he did go to significant measures to find, and imply, such a connection.

Without a strong majority of the American public believing that a Saddam-9/11 connection existed, it would have been a lot tougher to invade Iraq. I don’t solely blame the Bush administration for creating this misperception; the irresponsibility of the media and the ignorance of many Americans are also key factors.

This paragraph from a Newsday article from July 2002 shows that the administration publicly decided that it would try to find Saddam-9/11 links:

‘An intensive effort by U.S. intelligence to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq is being driven, in part, by a conclusion reached in recent weeks by White House and Pentagon legal and legislative advisers. They believe that connecting Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks would allow the administration to avoid debates at the United Nations and in Congress over what some would call an unprovoked strike.’ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-07-28-iraq-al-qaeda_x.htm

This Fox News article from January 2003 demonstrates that Bush was keen on establishing Al Qaeda-Saddam links in order to gain support for the upcoming invasion:

‘In his State of the Union address Tuesday, Bush used the alleged link between Saddam and Al Qaeda as a major argument in his push for a tough stance on Iraq. ‘Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida,’ the president said. ‘Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known,’ he added.’”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77046,00.html

Finally, this Australia Times article from April 2005 discusses a recently declassified report which reveals a divergence between the administration’s public statements on Saddam-9/11 links and what intelligence really knew:

‘The declassified documents undermine the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's involvement in training al-Qaeda operatives and the likelihood of a meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, Senator Levin said in a statement. In October 2002, Mr Bush said: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." But a June 2002 CIA report, titled Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, said "the level and extent of this is assistance is not clear".’
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12875384%5E1702,00.html

There are countless more articles that point to statements made by the Bush administration that fed the 9/11-Saddam misperception held by most Americans.

Re: US economy

“We have had significant monthly job increases over the past year and a half or so…”

In order to evaluate the hypothesis that there is a ‘strong economy’ under Bush it is necessary to consider his entire tenure, as well as economic trends leading up to his mandate. A year and a half of job growth is certainly a good thing. But this analysis is incomplete if one considers the previous three years of poor economic performance.

I’ll end my comments on the subject since this is an even more complex debate I don't want to unravel.

Re: US multilateralism

“…But the topic at hand was your assertion that Bush has a "disdain for multilateralism" because he opted not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. And that, as you likely know, is ridiculous.”

Whether or not you believe that Kyoto is good for the US, it remains accurate to say that Bush took a unilateral approach to the problem of global warming. I also mentioned Iraq and the ICC as examples of his favoured unilateral approach.

His ‘disdain for multilateralism’ was evident even a few months into his first term. In April 2001, it was noted: “Coming on the heels of Bush's decisions to end talks with North Koreans designed to curb their missile and nuclear programs, proceed with the deployment of ballistic missile defense, expel 50 Russian diplomats (to retaliate for the actions of an American spy) and cut back on spending on Russian denuclearisation programs, the decision to walk away from the climate change agreement must have been seen by the German chancellor as a sign that the United States is turning its back on multilateral engagement in favor of a policy of defending American interests much more narrowly defined.”
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/gordon/20010402.htm

All of this being said, it is impossible to be objective in measuring how much Bush favours unilateralism over multilaterism, or vice versa. I think the following statement captures the dilemmas faced by a superpower like the US: “Multilateralism is a matter of degree, and not all multilateral arrangements are good. Like other countries, the United States should occasionally use unilateral tactics.”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/us/2002/0613uni.htm

Re: Containing Saddam

“…allowing Iraq to develop nuclear weapons just because academics are suggesting that we can contain them isn't sound foreign policy in my opinion.”

There is nothing particularly ‘academic’ about this type of reasoning.

In fact, it was used by Condoleeza Rice:
“Ironically, some of the officials now advocating war used to recognize that Saddam could not employ nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. In the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, National Security Advisor Rice described how the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. "The first line of defense," she wrote, "should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence - if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration." If she believed Iraq's weapons would be unusable in 2000, why does she now think Saddam must be toppled before he gets them? For that matter, why does she now think a nuclear arsenal would enable Saddam to blackmail the entire international community, when she did not even mention this possibility in 2000?”
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm
 

酒店經紀 酒店打工 酒店工作 酒店上班 酒店兼差 酒店兼職 打工兼差 打工兼職 台北酒店 酒店應徵 禮服店 酒店 經紀 打工 兼差 兼職 咖啡
 

2019.12.04台北市知名酒店經紀公司近期正在尋找酒店工作，或有意在公家機關內上班的人請注意，台北市政府依各轄內機關酒店上班人力需求，近期有66個機關釋出150個約聘僱酒店打工人員職缺。但因各酒店兼差需求人力職務、業務不同，因此薪資落差不小。例如北市府資訊局釋出的聘用高級研究員職缺，其月薪依學經歷，最高可達新台幣70000元，但台北市制服店、便服店、禮服店、鋼琴酒吧、日式酒店、飯局、傳播等服務員職缺，月薪僅給70000元。此次北市八大行業約聘僱人員招募自即日起～酒店兼職12月9日（週一）止受理報名，預計12月14日（週六）、12月15日（週日）舉辦甄試。
 

2020.08.24不敢來酒店上班-酒店打工的原因雖然我不知道這篇貼文是否有人願意看但我們有義務表達我們在八大行業-酒店工作的想法與立場酒店小姐的基本介紹跟工作內容許多人對八大行業-酒店都有所誤解，認為是偏門社會中不正派的人在做的工作但是你們有沒有想過？我們我在酒店上班的日子依然是服務業的一環，也是憑著自己的努力在賺錢，這當中一定也有些毒瘤在破壞我們的名聲，酒店兼差不是一個複雜的工作環境？在這行我們看了太多人在這花花世界沈淪，許多剛入行很乖巧的妹妹，入行後整個人變調了。開始吃藥、吸毒、每天開趴..活在EDM的世界裡當初的初心？忘了吧?
酒店小姐去酒店上班都一定要出場接s嗎？最後整個人走針...只是為了買毒而賺錢！在此我們必須鄭重表示！！！
有吃藥吸毒習慣的人我們不收！！！酒店小姐上班通常會取什麼名字?入行後若發現有吃藥吸毒也一律下檔永不錄用！！我們雖然也要賺錢，但這種缺德錢，我們寧願不賺，因為我們並不想妳為了吃藥吸毒，毀了妳下半輩子。
每個人心中都有一個美好的夢想，只是有的人在這個殘酷的社會中...他們會把夢想放在內心最深處的地方，不再被提起...直至遺忘..當然有的人就會全力以赴去追求自己想要的夢想，畢竟只要自己行的正，何必在意外界的眼光，所有的成功人士都只會專注在自己的目標而有目標的人，才沒空理會那些甘願活在平凡的人許多年輕妹妹會來問我們八大好不好賺？我很老實回答好賺！非常好賺！
可以短期賺到妳希望的財富但是我會反問妳為什麼需要快速賺到這些錢呢？如果妳是因為家裡很需要錢
如果妳是為了實現自己想創業的夢，只要是正當理由，我們都非常願意幫妳協助妳，我們也會要妳設立一個期限。妳打算在八大圈待多久？因為我們有義務必須告訴妳正確的金錢觀念，畢竟我們這裡只是妳人生的一塊跳板，我們也會不時提醒妳!千萬不要覺得錢好賺，所以開始忘了開源節流，甚至當初努力奮鬥存錢的決心也忘了，我們只幫家裡真的有困難的年輕女孩或是有創業資金需求，有人生目標的女生，並且幫助她一段時間內賺到得她需要的錢！。

 

2020.09.04不敢來酒店上班-酒店打工的原因最近梁曉尊應徵時, 酒店小姐的基本介紹跟工作內容有些女孩們都會問到有沒有行政助理的職缺?
這是在酒店業存在很久的應徵的騙人噱頭了, 我在酒店上班的日子其目的就是以高薪來引誘不知情的美眉上門應徵,應徵時再叫一位大姐姐或是阿姨之類的老女人面試,談話聊天的同時再混淆妳的價值觀,告訴妳脫衣陪酒是小事一件,他們會說只要有錢賺,犧牲是應該的!用這種釣魚的方式來引誘天真無邪的女孩們,加上美麗的話術做包裝,實在會讓沒有社會經驗的女性心動不已,於是踏上了一條黑暗的不歸路!!
如果行政助理月薪有50000元,有誰要去當酒店小姐呢??
梁曉尊說在酒店可以很有尊嚴的賺錢,妳不用出賣肉體也可以生存,不要想一步登天,月入三十萬要付出什麼代價妳知道嗎?
酒店小姐不要去做特別交易,用公務員的心態來上班,月入十來萬不是難事,何苦去出賣色相呢?
被警察抓到怎麼辦? 妳的經紀人能幫妳嗎? 他也因妳違法要避風頭!
妳之前賺的錢夠妳打官司嗎? 妳在坐牢期間家裡的生計可以維持嗎?染上性病或愛滋病怎麼辦?
很多事情的前因後果要想清楚!酒店應徵的廣告說的愈生動就要愈小心,小心糖衣的背後就是陷阱。

 

GX娛樂經紀公司-酒店娛樂經紀（爵尊聖日耳曼）影音⬇️GX娛樂知名酒店經紀梁小尊 Lady of Law專業經紀團隊女人經濟要獨立 ，勇於改變自己的生活讓我們陪伴妳

國際知名酒店經紀影音⬇️酒店經紀推薦首選梁小尊