UNHCR goodwill ambassador Angelina Jolie says U.S. priorities are screwed up.
-
Sponsored Links
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
-
Recent Comments
- Sonagi on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
- stacked on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
- andy on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
- Kim on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
- No Clashes Reported as Beef Protests Continue & Counter-Demonstration Falters on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
- dogbert on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
- Park Hyun on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
- andy on Long Island Pride: The Christie Brinkley Divorce
- andy on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
- virtual wonderer on Police Bust Taliban-Linkied Drug Ring!
- Mcnut on Long Island Pride: The Christie Brinkley Divorce
- SusieQ on Four Days Later, US Beef Still Selling Well
- Popularity of US Beef In Korea Grows on Four Days Later, US Beef Still Selling Well
- Siddhartha on Long Island Pride: The Christie Brinkley Divorce
- Sonagi on Excellent Commentary on Demonstrations
-
Contact
Want to drop me a line? Send your emails to Robert at marmotshole@gmail.com. -
My Flickr Photos
25 Comments
Jolie’s a bit of a tit and media hound, but how can you argue with her statement? It just doesn’t get any truer.
Did you say “tit?” Yes, she has nice ones.
this is slightly off topic, but do you think brad pitt really cares about orphans and adoption, or he just got suckered into it cause of jolie? what they are doing is a good deed, its just that i never heard of pitt doing such things before his marriage to jolie.
Quote: “Our priorities are quite strange,” the 31-year-old actress said in an interview that aired Tuesday night on CNN. Jolie said spending money on war rather than “dealing with situations that could end up in conflict if left unassisted” could prove costly in the end. Unquote.
So, let’s pre-empt wars, but then that gets us into trouble with the Euros, because to them you have to be attacked first. Or does it mean bribing the tyrants so they don’t attack us (a la North Korea)? Mook: Help me out here if this is such a true statment.
“the U.S. government has ’strange’ priorities when it comes to spending money on war rather than on AIDS or refugees.”
I guess it would appear so to someone who thinks government’s job is the social welfare of the entire world. I understand there is a link (albeit very distant) between refugees, AIDS, poverty and its effects in the US. However, the War on Terrorism is much more directly related.
Hmm, I don’t actually want to defend that either but just to say the connection between terrorism and its affect on US is much closer than the connection between poverty/AIDS/refugees and its affect on the US.
Besides which, there is a governmental agency built around conducting war. What kind of colossal beast of an agency would the government have to create in the name of fighting poverty? The best thing the US could do is pressure the government’s of these places with high AIDS and poverty rates to back off and let the volunteer workers do their thing without hindrance. UN money, to the contrary, in the name of aid to the these countries is actually keeping these governments funded.
Jolie is pointing the finger at the government when she should be pointing it at the American people, and other people around the world. I know she is doing her part and its her job to do so. But to confuse governments’ purpose with societal obligation is not healthy. Changes are made when society gets involved not when government steps in to take over so everyone else can feel good and ignore the situation while big brother takes care of it.
Personally I wouldn’t want the government to spend a dime on either issue outside the borders (I speak in extremes only for effect - a mite more than a dime perhaps).
Doesn’t anybody care what Michael Jackson thinks anymore?
You know, I should ban anyone who attempts to use Ms. Jolie’s comments as a base upon which to engage in serious discourse.
Halle Berry’s tits have contributed far more to world peace than Jolie’s have, so who should be getting their priorities straight, huh?
Pity poor Brad and Angelina’s little one, Shiloh Pitt.
What an awful time she is going to have at school when some little wag switches the “Sh” and the “P.”
Angelina giving it up to Billy Bob is the epitome of goodwill. She - ahem - got the post and then got the post.
Sorry.
p.s. - Danger Mouse: Nice one.
doubtful.
homeschooling for the little j-p’s.
You know, what is it with Billy Bob? First getting hitched to Angelina, then getting to do “Monster’s Ball” with Halle. There really must be no God.
oh man, that is hilarious piloh shitt LOL!!
There really must be no God.
Au contrere, mon frere. This is proof positive that there indeed is a God, and He is benevolent.
Or BB made a deal with the devil. Take your pick.
Never more so than now, laden with nature’s bounty.
But I agree with the Halle Berry comment.
Sure, Halle Berry will still take off her top if the price is right, while Angelina’s given that up. Plus, that cat costume was some kind of kinkwear, for sure. But Berry just plays at freakiness for the movies - AJ’s the real deal.
I wonder what sort of education she has to be able to make this kind of comment.
Like any other Hollywood actor or actress, they just want attention.
–Remort
Yeah, our priorities are screwed up. Good thing we have the UN.
I just started reading “Shake Hands with the Devil,” by Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the UN mission in Rwanda. Thank God we have the UN to “deal[] with situations that could end up in conflict if left unassisted.”
Angelina better be careful; those cute rainbow tribe kids are gonna grow up and next thing ya know, they’re posin’ for porno with adoptive daddy Brad. Angie looks hot now, but by the time she’s forty, her face will be sporting that frighteningly taut Terri Hatcher look, and Brad’s eyes may wander to teenaged Zahara.
The U.N. is an absolute joke, and so are its goodwill ambassadors. I might listen to what she says if she gets naked though.
–Remort
Wedge from Korea (South) wrote:
Quote:
“So, let’s pre-empt wars, but then that gets us into trouble with the Euros, because to them you have to be attacked first.”
Ever read any European history? Actually, read?
“Or does it mean bribing the tyrants so they don’t attack us (a la North Korea)? ”
If even a tit like Jolie is able to distinguish development aid (tied or other), human rights and democracy from “bribing the tyrants” like KJI, why can’t you?
“Mook[,] Help me out here if this is such a true statment.”
“Yup, still true since five minutes ago. Hope this helps you.”
Robert Koehler from Korea (South) wrote:”You know, I should ban anyone who attempts to use Ms. Jolie’s comments as a base upon which to engage in serious discourse.”
Then why waste everybody’s time by posting them in the first place? Perhaps you should question why your political stance can’t be argued without resorting to Fleet Street tactics of bashing liberal views via some easy-target celebrities who happen to hold them. I’m surprised you’re sinking to that level, Robert. Or am I?
Oh, mook, have a sense of humor.
Ehhhh??? Jeebus, has the baby sucked Jolie’s brains out through her breasts? I fail to see how American policy is any different now from what it has been throughout our history. Back in the Cold War, we had a history of supporting any regime or group that would fight against the USSR (Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, anyone?) Before that, we basically had a huge rape/pillage/kill-fest across an entire continent under the name of ‘manifest destiny’, got a few islands from the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American war (and brutally suppressed some of them), and generally did then what we do now… America acts in what the current administration belives are in America’s best interests.
Brangalina is a diluted twat suffering from white guilt. I give her two years before she dumps the bradster and starts munching rugs again.