First let me say-no she isn't a waste of time. Any circus act or horror movie would reel at the audiences such a horrendous monster would bring in.
Second let me say she is a waste of time for the kind of world we-and the vast majority of good people-want. She is a defender of the Plutocracy of America and its hold over the globe. She speaks of peace long enough for the Israeli war machine to grind in another NEW middle east which is suitable for America. Henry Ford once said "Yea sure you can have your car in any colour-any colour at all, as long as its black". This has been the way of America since (mostly)
"Sure you can have freedom, any freedom at all, as long as its the freedom WE want you to have". And so all manner of atrocities are commited in the name of democracy and the free world order.
Condoleeza Rice is a waste of time to humanity but very useful for Big Business and their neocon puppets.
Sad
2006-07-31 00:01:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋
No she is not a waste of time. As she pointed out repeatedly, she or the US is in favor of a cease-fire. But before a cease-fire is put in place certain considerations must be put on the table to be agreed upon by the two warring sides. What is the use of a cease-fire if Hezbollah just use this as opportunity to amass more weapons from Syria and Iran, and then if the Hez thinks its pile of weapons is getting so big its causing them storage problem, again, they go raid the Israeli country and kidnap some soldiers or kill its civilians, and we go through the same cycle once again.
2006-07-30 22:36:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Coring 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A waste of time? Not of her time. Seven short years ago she was provost at a small private university. She quit to become private tutor in foreign affiars to a presidential hopeful with no knowledge of world affairs. It is not know how much her student learned. In 2001 she became National Security Advisor to the president but the quality of her work is not known. National security was breached big time and she actually said "who could imagine planes flying into buildings" when everybody else could imagine all too well. With no diplomatic experience she became Secretary of State in 2005. She has wasted no time in career advancement. Does she do anything of value? I don't think so.
2006-07-30 23:04:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by murphy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I love this question. I love the way it was phrased. Very nice.
And you are correct. The whole song and dance over there is a charade. But I suppose she has to be over there to make it look like she's doing something, even if we all know what the policy line is:
Shake hands with the Prime Minister of Lebanon, then give Israel whatever they want.
2006-07-30 22:34:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by www.ayntk.blogspot.com 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course we support Israel. But that doesn't mean we don't want there to be peace in the middle east. I say you asking this question is a waste of time.
2006-07-30 22:15:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by nighthawk_842003 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Peace on our terms is not a fake.
We mean peace on our terms.
Our terms means that the Hezbollah stop attacking Israel forever and disarm. And in exchange Israel will not attack Hezbollah.
Get used to the concept.
Anything else is not peace.
2006-07-30 22:16:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Alan Turing 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
She might not be a waste of time, and I dont know if she was sent to cause more trouble but in the eyes of many, she is really trying to make peace :)
2006-07-30 22:15:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
She is not negotiating peace...that is just what they tell you on TV. You gotta watch out on that damn thing. They only tell you what they want you to know and think.
2006-07-30 22:17:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by blunter26 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
She may be the next US president in 2008.
The GOP needs big help after Arbusto (spanish for Bush).
She has a tanker named after her.
-Ted
2006-07-30 22:16:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe she is sent there as a target? For greater incitement of the conflict?
Maybe she behave in line with USA policy on oil?
2006-07-30 22:14:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋