Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Pegasus V on September 11, 2002, 02:38:52 am
-
Everyone I talk to thinks the President of the United States of America is an idiot. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence of this. Can you please explain to me why everyone has this opinion. I'm not referring to the US, just Bush.
Plus, what is everyone's opinion of the PM of the UK - Blair?
-
I think Blairs every bit as much of an idiot as Bush is, and no I'm not the rebellious type who hates authority on general principles - if either of them were any good then I would indeed have respect for them and their actions. However I don't - go figure.
Bush is an idiot (somewhat ironically) for the reason in your thread title. Bush (or rather forest) fires are common in the US, Bush was asked for a solution...
Cut the trees down.
Yep, Greenpeace will love that :doubt:
And yes, he's withdrawn from the Kyto agreement... generaly ignored all other similar issues and cocentrated on trying (and failing) to kill Osama bin Laden and fight a war on terrorism which threatens to plunge the world into another World War (or at least horrifically scar some of its population and land).
Of course most US citizens don't mind to much about this, following 11/9. I don't blame them for feeling bad about this but it seems that so many people have forgotten how many innocent civilians both the US and UK (and no doubt other) armies have killed over the past one hundred years. Now that it's gone the other way everyone is in up-roar, and whilst I don't think any death is a good death I do think that to act like this is some novel, new and outragous thing to happen to a country is rather stupid.
For the sake of clarity I say again that I don't condone the WTC attacks.
Meanwhile, even though Bin Laden is still apparently alive, Bush and Blair are turning their attentions to Sadam Hussain... if they fail the counter attack could possibly decimate the UK - certainly affect us, and no doubt have significant tolls on the US as well.
Of course, both nations will call for a counter attack. Perhaps nukes.
And we all know what happens next.
So, since Bush came into power we've had the US withdraw from (although IIRC it never entered) and break the Kyto agreement, ignore entirely the World Summit meetings in favour of finding new ways to kill more people and general plunge the planet further into chaos.
Of course Tony Blair had his hand in this as well, but I don't for the life of me know what makes his mind tick over...
Of course this is all down to opinion, but I like to think that my set of morals and ideals are more or less intact - personally I don't think waging wars now is a good idea at all, but Bush thinks it is. Thus people like me are screwed.
-
Bush is an idiot, and he knows it that's why he has a buch of smart people to make desisions for him,
now, the plan that has been put forth is not, "cut down the trees", but rather to clear out the rubble that would normaly not acumulate in the forests becase of natural smaller fires that would clear them out, US forest fire pollicy has been to not allow any forest fire, wich has led to a major stockpile of dead trees and a forest structure (too many small younger and quite flamable trees too close together) that is inductive to makeing huge fire storms. why not run an experiment in a relitivly small aria to see if the stratigy helps
now to respond to the second part,
western civilisation despises killing, it makes me sick for this stuff to be hapening to anyone, but we live in a world were there are people who hate us and want to kill us, if we don't defend ourselves we will be killed,
they are going to strike at us again, and the longer we take to respond then the more people are going to die in horable ways, and further they will be our people not just the opressed people in other contries,
the thing I remembered most of my inital reaction to the atacks, was a feeling of those "damned ****ers, why must they make us kill them why can't they just deal with us", it wasn't so much that the sucker punched us, or that they hated us, or they wanted to kill me my famly everyone I know and love, but rather they were giveing us no choice but to have to kill them, and that they were going to bring as many of there own people down with them
I realy wanted a peacful world, a world of talk and negotiations, but
they are unreasonable,
they will not negotiate,
anything that seems like they may is just a staling tactic,
that is what hepens every time, EVERY TIME,
I think I can see a fricking paturn,
now if you are woried about retalitation, why are you hesitating, they will use what ever that get on us eventualy, the longer we wait the worse it's gona be,
it's like a sewer that has backed up, it's gona be a foul disgusting sickening mess but the longer you wait the worse it'll be and it will back up into you're house eventualy, and then you've got another disaster on you're hands
they - referes to any insaine militant islamic groupe or regime, they all have the goal of destroing westurn civilisation in favor of strick islamic theocrocies
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
now if you are woried about retalitation, why are you hesitating, they will use what ever that get on us eventualy, the longer we wait the worse it's gona be, it's like a sewer that has backed up, it's gona be a foul disgusting sickening mess but the longer you wait the worse it'll be and it will back up into you're house eventualy, and then you've got another disaster on you're hands
This is what I've been trying to tell everyone (my work friends, etc)...
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Of course, both nations will call for a counter attack. Perhaps nukes.
of course not. Nukes would damage borderside countries, and Bush don't want to turn Koweit into a noman's land right? destroying what you've fought for would be a bit pointless :p.
Anyway, if you attack Irak, well, what? They won't be able to defend themselves,you'll prove nothing else than you can do it again, and then, what will be the next country?
If Kennedy acted like that years ago, we'd be all dead.
-
we won't nuke unless he does, even then we probly won't nuke
we want, to get Sadam out of power and instal a democratic republic
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we won't nuke unless he does, even then we probly won't nuke
we want, to get Sadam out of power and instal a democratic republic
then send a few snipers, not the friggin army. And let them decide the next move, its their own country, not yours.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
then send a few snipers, not the friggin army. And let them decide the next move, its their own country, not yours.
Yeah... It's THAT easy... Cmon Venom, the government of Iraq feels the same way as Hussein, we can't sniper each one of them. Even if we do, it is likely that their army would continue fighting until the next person who assumes power tells them to stop.
-
if we kill sadam and don't insure another ruthless dictator doesn't move in it'll just be another Sadam,
we have to ensure a fair elected government for there people,
one that considers it's starving people as a bigger problem than it's lack of implements of mass murder
-
Originally posted by Pegasus V
Yeah... It's THAT easy... Cmon Venom, the government of Iraq feels the same way as Hussein, we can't sniper each one of them. Even if we do, it is likely that their army would continue fighting until the next person who assumes power tells them to stop.
what's the difference, you snipe them, or you bomb them? and what about the other peoples? you think they'll listen to the guy you'll choose? if not, you'll kill them all?
-
Hmmm .... clueless ppl
Sadam and Snipers ,.... been there ...done that.
You don't think that's BEEN tried ? ? We lost at LEAST one Seal Team trying to get that guy back in Desert Storm.
And Venom.... the reason for it is simple ,... he's been linked to the attack by Bin Laden. If we just wanted him dead and a new Government installed .... don't ya think we'd have done it back when we first had troops there? Come on ppl.
Yup....everyone thinks Bush is an idoit,... funny thing ,... He's the first Pres to finally say Terroists can blow it out their asses and send troops to finish it. I never got crap for Tax Relief until now ,... brush fires ..... well ....if you payed attention ... nearly the SAME places have them CONSTANTLY ,.... thus in all actuallity ... cutting down the trees (what you ppl never heard of THINNING a forest?) would be the next logical step.
Christ ... what you ppl want Ross Perot,...Mr I've got money so I should be president ,....or Dan Quayle ,.... Mr I lost the election... I'm going to sue! Oh ya ....good choices.
:wtf:
-
shhhh. quiet guys, he's making a speach
-
Ok now Speechs ... THOSE I hate :D Luckily the GF's still asleep so I have a reason not to be watching anything that might be suddenly taken over by a speech :lol:
-
I do agree that Bush is an idiot, but not in the sense that everyone here is talking about; he is quite simple-minded and this is apparent in the things he says in speeches. However, as I said in that other thread, he is probably not the one who is making all the decisions; I bet he is simply a tool of the more intelligent people around him (i.e. his cabinet).
I am quite supportive of most of his actions so far, but seeing as his thoughts are probably pretty easy to influence, I doubt he is the one really behind things so far.
Anyway, if you attack Irak, well, what? They won't be able to defend themselves,you'll prove nothing else than you can do it again, and then, what will be the next country?
The rest of the world, what else?
And let them decide the next move, its their own country, not yours.
The world belongs to whoever has the power to control it. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The world belongs to whoever has the power to control it. :p
tell that to the WTC people :rolleyes:
some people never learn. what you've done so far is bombing a few caves, and Bin Laden is most likely still running. Outstanding power you have, there's no doubt about it, but seems you don't know how to use it.
-
And here we go again... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by venom2506
tell that to the WTC people :rolleyes:
some people never learn. what you've done so far is bombing a few caves, and Bin Laden is most likely still running. Outstanding power you have, there's no doubt about it, but seems you don't know how to use it.
You're right .... instead of bombing the areas he's most likely to be hiding in we should just carpet bomb the country until he's dead . :wtf:
And ... buddy ....there's been ALOT more than cave bombing going on there ,... Ive got a few friends from when i was active duty that are over there .... they wouldn't be there to just sit and watch the lightshow.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
You're right .... instead of bombing the areas he's most likely to be hiding in we should just carpet bomb the country until he's dead . :wtf:
No. when you hunt a man, you send soldiers, not B2. Seems common sense to me, but maybe it's not :p
bah, I don't want to argue, plus my teacher is looking at me in a weird way :p.
-
tell that to the WTC people
some people never learn. what you've done so far is bombing a few caves, and Bin Laden is most likely still running. Outstanding power you have, there's no doubt about it, but seems you don't know how to use it.
what are "WTC people?" It is true that he is still alive, but that's not the point; what we want to do is to keep them running so to hinder their progress otherwise. We cannot stop them completely, but we can certainly forestall their plans.
when you hunt a man, you send soldiers, not B2.
The B2 is more likely to get him though while taking less damage than the soldiers would. :D
-
Besides .... if we JUST sent in troops ....and thus lost soldiers to get ONE man .... THEN the US would be labeled "A killer of her own sons and daughters".
Hell if it were me I'd just carpet bomb the caves until they were the world's largest parking lot and be done with it.
Still funny .... the guy hijacks CIVILLIAN planes and crashes them FULL of innocent ppl into our biggest buildings ,... we go after him ...and WE'RE the bad guys ? ?
Cp ,.. ummm WTC = World Trade Center would be my guess.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The B2 is more likely to get him though while taking less damage than the soldiers would. :D
Only if you do extensive bombing, what is obviously not being done. And he's probably very far away from there anyway - most certainly inside the US - it's not like any of us would be able to recognize him if he shaved his beard off anyway.
:p
-
I think I remember seeing some pictures of him without a beard somewhere, maybe on the Interpol website; he did look quite different. :p
Cp ,.. ummm WTC = World Trade Center would be my guess.
lol yes I know that; what I wasn't sure about is whether he was talking about the victims or the assailants.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I think I remember seeing some pictures of him without a beard somewhere, maybe on the Interpol website; he did look quite different. :p
Yeah, but would you recognize him in the streets if you passed by him? I know I wouldn't.
-
so the US goverment is working towards minimizing the risk of terrorism in general, but also the risk of terrorists/ hostile governments acquiring the bomb.
Meanwhile they themselves wish to enlarge the nuclear power, refrain from doing something about the global environmental problems (c'mon, they could have attended the Johannesburg conference), which, for the most part are their fault (the US uses roughly 70% of the worlds oil products and power). Bush cares for noone but his fellow americans. But for the only superpower in the world, as the US has been dubbed, that is just WRONG. It's the 'apres moi, la deluge' mentality that is destroying this world, and if anyone should care about it, then it should be the US. There are 5,7 million other people in the world as well.
[edit] BILLION, 5,7 Billion other people.
-
Originally posted by Pegasus V
Everyone I talk to thinks the President of the United States of America is an idiot.
:yes: Bingo! I bet that even if HemaroidFrogButt (from the VBB) would give him an ultimatum, Bush would wet his pants and do whatever he was told to!
By the way, did you know taht his IQ is below average? No wounder since he grew up on a ranch in Texas.
Bush: Hey ma! Bring me that bucket to milk them cows!
-
Originally posted by Razor
:yes: Bingo! I bet that even if HemaroidFrogButt (from the VBB) would give him an ultimatum, Bush would wet his pants and do whatever he was told to!
By the way, did you know taht his IQ is below average? No wounder since he grew up on a ranch in Texas.
Bush: Hey ma! Bring me that bucket to milk them cows!
So we've now devulged into slandering person based on which state they were born ? ?
And ppl wonder why the world's going to hell.
If you hate a man ... hate him for being HIM .... not his race, relgion, locality, or other such bull****.
-
What? Are you telling me that i should love a man who can practically decide when he will annihilate me? You silly fool! No one loves the person that is "all powerfull". And by the way, if Bush continues the way he started, he will bring America to hell! The only thing he is capable of is doing the most elmental things for a human being, not to lead a country of some 200 million people or so.
-
Ummmm ok now let's try reading what I actually posted k ?
-
(hesitates to bring up topic)
Bush - I think he's just undereducated for the job. I don't see him as a great statesman or diplomat, but merely a reactionary. he also seems vastly self centred, caring little for world opinion over Iraq, and not giving a damn about the effects of US pollution (possibly due to his oil background)... I think he'd maybe be a decent governor, but I doubt he has the capacity to act sensibly or 'properly' within the whole world context.
I'd have to agree with Stunaeps feelings on this whole environmental issue, and I think Powell (SP?) got off lightly at the Earth Summit.
Blair - Bush's lapdog, to be honest. He seems obsessed with public image, and has done little, to me, to actually improve the UK. I don't see him as anything other than a shallow self publiciser.
-
You'd think that, but Blair was instrumental in getting the US to go the UN road of getting inspectors in.
-
George Bush... from Texas... big export of Texas: oil... kyoto agreement wants to cut use of oil.... so bush doesnt sign up. Simple.
I don't like bush at all. It call him names for a bit here, but that wouldnt achive much.
And as for Tony Blair: he's ok as a PM, he just hangs about George Bush to much, and tries to be to goodie goodie with america instead of payying more attention to the views of the EU and the UN. Margret Thatcher would have sorted out Iraq in the time i take to finish this sentence...
-
well, Tatcher did well in some cases, and bad in others. That pretty sums up most politicians.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
well, Tatcher did well in some cases, and bad in others. That pretty sums up most politicians.
True...
thats all i have to say
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
(hesitates to bring up topic)
caring little for world opinion over Iraq, and not giving a damn
In world you mean the UN's opinion?
UN has 16 international laws against Iraq none of them are enforced. US wants to go in and enforce them. The UN says no you can't because we don't approve. Well the UN won't enforce the resolution that was signed in 1991 and by international law it does gives another country a right to go in and enforce the laws.
If the speed limit is 70 and nobody enforces it most people will being doing 100. The whole basis of his speech to the UN was to do their ****ing job. If not then the US will enforce the resolution alone period. The UN is full of empty words and has no legitamit force to deal with. Even in Korea, 1 out of 10 soldiers were not for the US, and you call that a UN coalition?
-
so what the hell is up with that? if the UN doesn't enforce any oft their laws, then why do they have them?
-
because they are a joke
-
Originally posted by venom2506
then send a few snipers, not the friggin army. And let them decide the next move, its their own country, not yours.
technically, specifically targeting leaders in war is against the geneva convention
-
Nobody follows that either. Iraq is a perfect example: use of chemical weapons.
Under a US Executive Order enacted in the 70s by Gerald Ford (i think), we can't assassinate a foreign in leader in peacetime, but in wartime, all bets are off
oh and Codedog, 1 of every 50 soldiers in korea wasn't american. it worked out that the "UN" force was ~98% american.
i'd love to see what reagan would have done in this situation.
-
Remember, no sensible national leader will or should act in the interest of the entire world, but only the interests of the people of his particular nation.
And the UN laws, or any laws for that matter, really mean nothing unless they are enforceable.
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/805226.asp?pne=msn&cp1=1
so bush is basically gonna piss off the entire world (save his "faldero" Blair and israel) jus to remove Saddam. you've all heard this before... but if u shoot him, one of his lil buddies will take charge next, and so on. You'd need to get rid of the entire army.
i don't have a lot of time lately so i haven't been able to read EVERYTHING but am i correct in assuming that basically we want to kill him because he could have weapons hidning under his bed, but won't let us look?
I am by no means saying that Saddam is a good guy, but , i would probably do the same if i were a evil, tyrannical, pyschopathic leader, i would probably do the same. Generally, i think bush is lookin for some nuts to break since we haven't found Osama's corpse. Personally i am also pissed that he isn't dead/confirmed dead but w/e.
didn't the us end up creating the taliban last time they tried to topple a evil regime?
correct me if i am wrong, as always, most of this is before my time and i have a lot of reading to catch up on
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
Nobody follows that either. Iraq is a perfect example: use of chemical weapons.
Under a US Executive Order enacted in the 70s by Gerald Ford (i think), we can't assassinate a foreign in leader in peacetime, but in wartime, all bets are off
oh and Codedog, 1 of every 50 soldiers in korea wasn't american. it worked out that the "UN" force was ~98% american.
i'd love to see what reagan would have done in this situation.
1 in 50? hmmm I read 90%.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
http://www.msnbc.com/news/805226.asp?pne=msn&cp1=1
so bush is basically gonna piss off the entire world (save his "faldero" Blair and israel) jus to remove Saddam. you've all heard this before... but if u shoot him, one of his lil buddies will take charge next, and so on. You'd need to get rid of the entire army.
i don't have a lot of time lately so i haven't been able to read EVERYTHING but am i correct in assuming that basically we want to kill him because he could have weapons hidning under his bed, but won't let us look?
I am by no means saying that Saddam is a good guy, but , i would probably do the same if i were a evil, tyrannical, pyschopathic leader, i would probably do the same. Generally, i think bush is lookin for some nuts to break since we haven't found Osama's corpse. Personally i am also pissed that he isn't dead/confirmed dead but w/e.
didn't the us end up creating the taliban last time they tried to topple a evil regime?
correct me if i am wrong, as always, most of this is before my time and i have a lot of reading to catch up on
Enforcing UN law doesn't mean topple his regime. And according to the resolution signed in 1991 "having a look at what he is hiding under his bed" was in the agreement. Anybody remeber back in 98' Clinton wanted to invade when the UN inspectors were kicked out? The UN inspections were jokes anyways, they drove them to a plant made them wait for about an hour and then showed them around once all there real goodies were being tucked out the back door. The inspectors that are raising hell now are liberal democrats as well, and have all been "out of the loop" for awhile anyways so their opinions are nulified. Words can only say so much. Then you have to start slapping hands.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
http://www.msnbc.com/news/805226.asp?pne=msn&cp1=1
so bush is basically gonna piss off the entire world (save his "faldero" Blair and israel) jus to remove Saddam. you've all heard this before... but if u shoot him, one of his lil buddies will take charge next, and so on. You'd need to get rid of the entire army.
i don't have a lot of time lately so i haven't been able to read EVERYTHING but am i correct in assuming that basically we want to kill him because he could have weapons hidning under his bed, but won't let us look?
I am by no means saying that Saddam is a good guy, but , i would probably do the same if i were a evil, tyrannical, pyschopathic leader, i would probably do the same. Generally, i think bush is lookin for some nuts to break since we haven't found Osama's corpse. Personally i am also pissed that he isn't dead/confirmed dead but w/e.
didn't the us end up creating the taliban last time they tried to topple a evil regime?
correct me if i am wrong, as always, most of this is before my time and i have a lot of reading to catch up on
KT, you're right that just killing Saddam alone won't solve the problem. His family will probably hold onto power in Iraq if only saddam is neutralized by a sniper's bullet. And they'll still keep going on to try and get weapons of mass destruction even with Saddam gone. so it makes sense to go in full force and take out his whole army in that respect.
That said, I don't, won't and can't support Bush invading Iraq until and unless he manages to build an international coalition of support. Yeah, I agree, Saddam is a bad guy, but Bush seems intent on dragging us into a war just because he thinks its a good idea. Congress and the American people need to debate this out in the open. Bush's word that we need to go to war is simply not enough. Otherwise, all we'll be doing is repeating the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that started Vietnam.
For those of you that don't know about this; President Johnson fabricated a naval incident in the Gulf of tonkin near Vietnam and used that incident (which was a total lie) to start the Vietnam War. Now it seems that Bush is doing pretty much the same thing. People all over the world and in Congress are asking Bush and his Cabinet for evidence that Saddam is now an imminent threat. How does Bush and his Cabinet respond? They all say that we don't need evidence and that we should just trust the President's word! :rolleyes:
Sorry, but I'm going to need a little more evidence than that!
Then there's the fact that Al Queda is still out there. We have them on the run, true, but while Al Queda may be down, it's certain that they're not out. Most, if not all of us here at HLP have experience with strategy games, so we all know that only a fool opens up a new war front before his other war fronts are secure. We all know that Al Queda is still an imminent threat today. Osama is still unaccounted for and there are thousands of his cronies still at large. For right now, Iraq is NOT an imminent threat. There is no indication (and Bush hasn't given any evidence to show otherwise) that Saddam is about to get the Bomb. Even if he does, he wouldn't be stupid enough to use it on us, because he knows that if he did, we'd stomp him immediately afterwards, international coalition or no.
Yes, Saddam needs to be taken out, but now is NOT the time. Better to deal with Al Queda first.
Bush is a fool for thinking that he can fight Saddam and Al Queda at the same time and not have serious repercussions in the Middle East as a result.
KT, about the taliban, the US didn't create it, Pakistan helped create it. What happened was that when Russia invaded Afganistan in 1979, the US gave arms to Afgan rebels, known as the mujaheddin. A lot of these guys were islamic fundamentalists, but since they were killing Russians, the US thought it was a good idea to arm these guys. (It was the middle of the Cold war, after all.) Once the Russians finally got kicked out in 1996, the Taliban was the largest group of mujaheddin (and the most radical group) and basically absorbed or killed most of the remaining rival mujaheddin.
During 1996, Pakistan (another hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism) gave support to the Taliban, but the US, once the Russians had been kicked out in that same year, basically decided to stop sending money and aid to Afganistan. The country decended into chaos for a year, then the Taliban took over and imposed a harsh religious order on almost all of Afganistan.
The survivors of the Taliban purge of the rival mujaheddin fled to Northern Afganistan and became the Northern Alliance. As a result, the Taliban wound up controlling 95% of Afganistan until last year when we came in and bombed the **** out of them.
Hope this answers your question, KT.
-
Thomas Aquinas 5 rules of just war(and they still work today):
1. War must be declared by a legitimate government.
2. The reasons for going to war must be good (just) and have the right intention.
3. It must be resonably possible to win.
4. It must be as a last resort.
5. No more force than necessary should be used and civilians must be protected.
1. Bush thinks he can declare war if he wants to, which he hasn't. According to the constitution, which I think is the finest set of rules in the world(at least the first ten), the only part of government that has the authority to declare war is Congress.
2. I'll give Bush that one.
3. That's a maybye, the Iraqis could go guerrila and bam! Vietnam #2.
4. This is the rule Bush has violated most. Saddam could be anywhere from 15 years to 5 months away from a nuclear device. We need more information, at least before we dicide to kill 10,000 civillians or more.
5. Hell no! If Saddam is that much of a threat, than kill him!, not civillians while your at it!
This basically proves Bush is a simple-minded idiot who has little understanding of politics, and as a whole, the value of human life.
Razor: not all Texans are your standard steriotype which Bush plays so well.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Razor: not all Texans are your standard steriotype which Bush plays so well.
:nod:
But it is still about time the Persian Gulf Resolution was enforced.
-
Then give Iraq a show of force instead of attacking cities first.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Then give Iraq a show of force instead of attacking cities first.
We already gave Iraq a recent show of force. It was called Afganistan.
Hussein still hasn't capitulated. Go figure.
-
He's a ruthless but rational dictator. He's not just going to give up.
And Afganistan was a bit of slow victory which involved accidental bombing of weddings.
Just War Rules 4 and 5 aplly here.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
George Bush... from Texas... big export of Texas: oil... kyoto agreement wants to cut use of oil.... so bush doesnt sign up. Simple.
MOST. IGNORANT. STATEMENT. EVAR!
-
Originally posted by beatspete
George Bush... from Texas... big export of Texas: oil... kyoto agreement wants to cut use of oil.... so bush doesnt sign up. Simple.
Originally posted by Shrike
MOST. IGNORANT. STATEMENT. EVER!
I dunno, Shrike. It doesn't seem all that implausible to me...
Bush isn't known in Europe (and here in the States) as the "Toxic Texan" for nothing. :doubt: :sigh:
-
Need I repeat that the Kyoto agreement was soundly voted down by the US Congress during Clinton's term in office? Bush is merely delivering the verdict which had already been decided.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Need I repeat that the Kyoto agreement was soundly voted down by the US Congress during Clinton's term in office? Bush is merely delivering the verdict which had already been decided.
the problem with congress/governmentingeneral is that it's filled with old geezers who're too concerned about their own investments to think of the good of the environment .....
-
2. I'll give Bush that one. [/B]
I see. Securing more sources for oil is a "just" reason for war? Perhaps in Civilization.
Yes, Bush is most indeed an idiot. The only way he got to power was because of his friends at the oil companys.
-
hey Su-tehp, thanks for the response/answers. CodeDog too
-
Securing more sources for oil is a "just" reason for war?
of course it is! :D
Bush is stupid, but he is being bashed for the wrong reasons here. :p
-
of course it is! :D
Bush is stupid, but he is being bashed for the wrong reasons here. :p
I quite agree but when you use the word "we" when refering to the US government it's hilariously naive, unless you're one of the Multi Millionaires that the US Governement truely represents. Any US citizen that isn't a multi millionaire should support any US political moves that will weaken America on the world stage and harm its government (perhaps war with Iraq will do this).
-
KT, you're right that just killing Saddam alone won't solve the problem. His family will probably hold onto power in Iraq if only saddam is neutralized by a sniper's bullet. And they'll still keep going on to try and get weapons of mass destruction even with Saddam gone. so it makes sense to go in full force and take out his whole army in that respect.
Of course, last time they tried to do that, they failed miserably (the Gulf War), and before that, they ended up with the Nam. Just for information.
That said, I don't, won't and can't support Bush invading Iraq until and unless he manages to build an international coalition of support.
So far only Great Britain seems to be totally with Bush, even though the Russians are considering it. Of course, Bush has not yet started the war, which may partially be because the lack of support and general approval by the majority of Europe
Then there's the fact that Al Queda is still out there. We have them on the run, true, but while Al Queda may be down, it's certain that they're not out. Most, if not all of us here at HLP have experience with strategy games, so we all know that only a fool opens up a new war front before his other war fronts are secure. We all know that Al Queda is still an imminent threat today. Osama is still unaccounted for and there are thousands of his cronies still at large. For right now, Iraq is NOT an imminent threat.
Of course this gives Bush one major reason to start a war. As shown already by the CCCP (USSR) before the WWII, and by Italy at the same time period, just for an example, war is a convinient (sp?) way, to divert the attention from a more... painful matter (the suffering economy of the CCCP and Italy in the 1930-es, and Al-Quaida now). If Bush can succesfully deal with the Iraqis, which is somewhat unlikely, his inability to destroy Osama and his bad-ass organization will be shadowed.
-
"last time they tried to do that, they failed miserably (the Gulf War)"
we failed miserably in the gulf war?
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
So far only Great Britain seems to be totally with Bush, even though the Russians are considering it. Of course, Bush has not yet started the war, which may partially be because the lack of support and general approval by the majority of Europe.
Correction. Only Tony Blair and his cronies are with Bush. Because this pseudo socialist (who has actually betrayed the ideals of his party by becoming one of the most right wing prime ministers we've ever had) values his relationship with a plutocratic country that has rejected leftism more than any other, than that of his own people, who are firmly against any war.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Of course, last time they tried to do that, they failed miserably (the Gulf War),
Stunaep, the US didn't "fail miserably" in the Gulf War. The objective then was to get Iraq out of Kuwait and that objective was accomplished, so there was no failure there. The problem was, Poppa Bush thought that if he tried to invade Iraq back in 1991, he would have lost his Arab allies from his coalition and he was also afraid of having to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years. Bush didn't want to deal with that headache and thought containing Iraq and Saddam would be a longer-term but less painful option. (Economic snactions don't cause American casualties, go figure.)
So, the Gulf War wasn't a "failure," it's just that people now think we should have gone after Saddam after all. Hindsight is always 20/20, don't you know.
Originally posted by Top Gun
Correction. Only Tony Blair and his cronies are with Bush. Because this pseudo socialist (who has actually betrayed the ideals of his party by becoming one of the most right wing prime ministers we've ever had) values his relationship with a plutocratic country that has rejected leftism more than any other, than that of his own people, who are firmly against any war.
Tony Blair, one of Britain's most right-wing prime ministers???:confused: :confused: :confused:
Damn, now THAT'S news to me!
As for Bush (not America) having abandoned leftism or America becoming a plutocratic country, I can't argue there...much. :doubt:
-
withdrawn. I stand for everything else though.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Correction. Only Tony Blair and his cronies are with Bush. Because this pseudo socialist (who has actually betrayed the ideals of his party by becoming one of the most right wing prime ministers we've ever had) values his relationship with a plutocratic country that has rejected leftism more than any other, than that of his own people, who are firmly against any war.
Actually, everyones pretty much, we'll go along, but only if you give proof. Not that i'd know, i mean, i havent asked everyone, so i couldnt speak for them and in fact, im just voicing what i think public is, from what i,ve read.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Tony Blair, one of Britain's most right-wing prime ministers???:confused: :confused: :confused:
I think Privatization of the Country's most vital public services through the back door (PFI) (Including Schools, hospitals, BNFL, Air Traffic control, London underground and municipal services), the supression of personal freedoms, Xenophobia against immigrants and co-operation with Scumbags like Rupert Murdoch, the Shrub and Burnesconi (sp?) qualifies him as a nasty right winger. Not even Maggie Thatcher dared pull some of the stunts he's trying to do.
-
Originally posted by Pera
I see. Securing more sources for oil is a "just" reason for war? Perhaps in Civilization.
Yes, Bush is most indeed an idiot. The only way he got to power was because of his friends at the oil companys.
no, he got there because of his father
-
Originally posted by Pera
Yes, Bush is most indeed an idiot. The only way he got to power was because of his friends at the oil companys.
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
no, he got there because of his father
Actually, Bush got to be president because of his father's friends in the oil companies. Not to mention those five guys and gal in black robes... :doubt:
That and the fact that the Southern conservative old boys' network really came through for Dubya during the South Carolina primary. I still remember when McCain beat Dubya in the Republican New Hampshire primary. Man, those were the days...
Bush needs another come-uppance today. Here's hoping the Democrats take back Congress in November...:nod:
-
Heres another thread that needs closing. If you want the reason why. Goto the thrwad started by Thunder and read my post. This is just sad that this subject keeps coming up.
:no:
-
Point. If you keep talking about how you don't like him you stop not liking him. So just post in one of the earlier ones if you really want to.
Note-I think we're finally beginning to run out of topics.
-
Originally posted by JBX-Phoenix
Heres another thread that needs closing. If you want the reason why. Goto the thrwad started by Thunder and read my post. This is just sad that this subject keeps coming up.
:no:
i pretty much agree with what you said
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,9607.0.html
-
Well, this is the thing: Bush may be pretty stupid in terms of his intelligence but that is because of the ridiculous things he says in his speeches and his past record; as far as his actual actions go (i.e. policies), his administration has been doing very well so far.
There are certain actions of his that I do not like though; foremost among them is the tax cuts. Cutting taxes may be good for individuals, but it is not going to solve any problems for the nation as a whole, and especially during a war more cash is required.
I quite agree but when you use the word "we" when refering to the US government it's hilariously naive, unless you're one of the Multi Millionaires that the US Governement truely represents. Any US citizen that isn't a multi millionaire should support any US political moves that will weaken America on the world stage and harm its government (perhaps war with Iraq will do this).
eh? I never said "we" in there. :p But anyway, this is a slightly different topic; recall what I said about lobbying earlier. The sole reason these millionaires are so powerful is their money and consequently their ability to bribe government officials, and that is why the government today represents them for the most part. Ban lobbying through money and they are completely powerless. If the government is taken down completely, the rest of us would also suffer, so we want to eliminate the millionaires while still keeping the government intact. The government is fine; it is the rich business executives that are the problem.
-
Don't you guys have anything better to do than slag off Bush? God, get a new hobby.......
-
I'm doing math at the moment... :D
(finally solved this stupid problem have been trying for the last hour...yay!! :p )
-
Originally posted by CP5670
as far as his actual actions go (i.e. policies), his administration has been doing very well so far.
Doing a good job at what? Suspending habeas corpus? I'd say a good job was done with that.
It doesn't matter if the men being held are guilty as sin or not, those laws exist for the protection of all.
-
I am not sure what you are talking about there; what "men?"
-
i think he means those people on the naval base in cuba.
doesn't really matter because they aren't us citizens. we did the same thing with pows in WWII
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
i think Ace means those people on the naval base in cuba.
doesn't really matter because they aren't us citizens. we did the same thing with pows in WWII
No, Phreak, Ace was talking about Jose Padilla and that other guy the Justice Department arrested, they were both American citizens and they're both being held incognito and aren't being allowed to talk to their lawyers.
There is also the 1100 Muslim men, mostly immigrants who have been rounded up and held incommunicado as well. Justice Dept hasn't said a word about where they are or let their lawyers meet with thm either, despite being ordered by about 6 different Circuit Courts and Courts of Appeals to do so. None of these men have been linked to terrorism, but they're being rounded up anyway. Racial profiling, you gotta love it. :rolleyes:
When you consider that everyone (citizens AND residents alike) in the USA has the Constitutional right to an attorney, locking people up without letting them even see their attorneys smells just like what happened during WWII (the Korematsu case).
And Phreak, it wasn't just POWs, that happens in every war. What happened in WWII was that Japanese-American families, all of whom were American citizens, where rounded up, taken from their homes at gunpoint and put in "detainment camps" (which were nothing more than outdoor jails) for years, violating their constitutional rights not to be locked up and have their liberty infringed on without just cause. NONE of these people had committed a crime, yet they were locked up for nearly four years as WWII was fought. Korematsu was one of these people. He sued the USA and the case got all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Those nine guys in black robes actually decided that even though these people were American citizens who had not committed any crimes, it wasn't the Supreme Court's place to tell how the federal government to behave in perptuating national security. And all those people, mothers, fathers, children, grandparents, all of them American citizens, stayed locked up.
Legal scholars and constitutional law professors have decried this decision for more than fifty years. The decision was 7-2 as I recall, meaning that 2 justices vigoruosly dissented. Even some of the seven Justices who made that decision later publicly said that they wished they had voted differently.
Yes, friends, normal American citizens, people like you and me, were locked up for no reason other than they were a certain ethnicity. If you're an American and this sort of thing doesn't make your blood boil, you need to read the Constitution again.
Now that the same thing is happening AGAIN, people are understandably nervous. It's unconstitutional to lock someone up without charging him with a crime OR letting him meet with his lawyer. :nervous: :wtf:
And for those of you who say that constitutional standards can be relaxed during wartime, then just go ahead and go through the process of formally amending the Constitution then. Good luck getting 3/4 of ALL state legislatures to see things your way.
John Ashcroft scares me more than Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. All three piss me off, but it's only Ashcroft who can ultimately do more harm to America in the long run.
Bin Laden or Hussein can only kill Americans, they can't kill America. Ashcroft, if he's successful in diminishing our Constitutional freedoms, can kill the essence of what makes America great.
So all of you will just have to forgive me if I choose not to trust him or his boss Dubya, who has signed off on all this. :wtf:
-
anything they do will be reversed by the first democratic presedent we get, as soon as this war is over, don't you think the democrats might use this and stuff like it for political leverage.
*tips loard Ashcroft off to Su-tehp subvertive belefs*
...
odd were is that goon squad
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Anything they do will be reversed by the first Democratic president we get, as soon as this war is over. Don't you think the Democrats might use this and stuff like it for political leverage?
*tips Lord Ashcroft off to Su-tehp's subversive beliefs*
...Odd, where is that goon squad?
LOL, they're probably on their way as we speak, Bobboau. Just give them a few minutes. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
eh? I never said "we" in there. :p But anyway, this is a slightly different topic; recall what I said about lobbying earlier. The sole reason these millionaires are so powerful is their money and consequently their ability to bribe government officials, and that is why the government today represents them for the most part. Ban lobbying through money and they are completely powerless. If the government is taken down completely, the rest of us would also suffer, so we want to eliminate the millionaires while still keeping the government intact. The government is fine; it is the rich business executives that are the problem.
Pah, the US government is rotten down to the core for allowing them to exist in the first place. It's a more formidable ememy of the people than Imperial Britain was in the 18-19th century because of its propaganda and hostile agression against international socialism. Backing bad decisions that will harm it (and its relations with the countries it leeches off of) is IMHO the only route to true democracy in the US.
-
Guys put this in perspective for just a minute. Tony Blair and George Bush are the leaders of the two most powerful nations in the civilized world. They can't be that stupid.
-
So was King George III but he was hardly a shining example of intellect.
The Srub has his policy dictated to him and his speechs written for him by an army of advisers, spin doctors and focus groups. His Election Camaign was paid for by Oil companies and his recognition within the party came from Daddy's influence. Intelligence means nothing in American Politics, family background, money and contacts mean everything.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
So was King George III but he was hardly a shining example of intellect.
The Srub has his policy dictated to him and his speechs written for him by an army of advisers, spin doctors and focus groups. His Election Camaign was paid for by Oil companies and his recognition within the party came from Daddy's influence. Intelligence means nothing in American Politics, family background, money and contacts mean everything.
Yes but in his country and in mine, the class divide is pretty fair. In the middle east the class divides make Victorian England look good. So here we come to a question of just and unjust ways of life. At least Bush believes in democracy, while the middle east is nothing more than a bastardised version of communism where there's very poor and very rich. :blah:
Meh, forget it - people just want an excuse to bash the yanks anyway.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Yes but in his country and in mine, the class divide is pretty fair. In the middle east the class divides make Victorian England look good. So here we come to a question of just and unjust ways of life. At least Bush believes in democracy, while the middle east is nothing more than a bastardised version of communism where there's very poor and very rich. :blah:
Meh, forget it - people just want an excuse to bash the yanks anyway.
Vyper has a point. I'll be the first to admit that America isn't perfect. Hell, witnessing the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore that handed the presidency to Bush was the LAST thing I needed to see right before my first semester law school exams, but there isn't a better government system anywhere in the world.
Bash Bush if you like or bash the corporate robber-baron tycoons or bash social right-wingers (I won't mind, honest) but don't bash America.
Well, go ahead and bash America if you want (we cherish free speech and all that) but if you don't come from a democracy, your bashing of America will ring hollow.
And if you come from the Middle East (not including Israel, which is a democracy) and you bash America in my presence, I'll laugh in your face. :blah: :rolleyes:
-
Suspending Haebus corpus isn't new in wartime. Am i safe to assume that in law school you learned that this was suspended by Lincoln during the Civil war? (1861-1865 for all you who aren't americans).
I do think that the internment during WWII was a little extreme, but you do have to realize the prevailing attitude at the time was: "I don't want japs telling their country what we're doing". America was far more racist then as it is today, but everyone will always be suspicious of people who are "different"
-
Originally posted by vyper
Yes but in his country and in mine, the class divide is pretty fair. In the middle east the class divides make Victorian England look good.
There is great variation in many Arab States, Just like western ones. But for the US to decry their regiemes whilst funding them (through oil consumtion) is hypocracy.
Originally posted by vyper
At least Bush believes in democracy, while the middle east is nothing more than a bastardised version of communism where there's very poor and very rich. :blah:
I swear there was nothing in the communist manifesto about that. The average american middle class family is neglagably more wealthy in proportion to his country's super rich (which the state allows to exist), than the average Saudi Peasant. It's also interesting that the ferrocity at which a politician decrys communism is normally directly proportional to his bank ballance.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
we cherish free speech and all that
ROTFL :lol: There's probably more censorship in America than there's ever been in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USSR put together. It just goes by a different name: Intellectual Property. Where the rich get to read what they like and the poor are branded pirates and sued if they dare try.
-
ditto. Your freedom of speech gets you sued for $20 million for saying another person that he's fat. (ok, perhaps a bit overexagerated)
-
Pah, the US government is rotten down to the core for allowing them to exist in the first place. It's a more formidable ememy of the people than Imperial Britain was in the 18-19th century because of its propaganda and hostile agression against international socialism. Backing bad decisions that will harm it (and its relations with the countries it leeches off of) is IMHO the only route to true democracy in the US.
These people exist because of the system of capitalism, and you will find such people in any capitalist nation. I'm ready to let them exist (for the moment, anyway) as long as they don't have much of a say in government affairs, and this can be done simply by making lobbying completely illegal. If the government falls everyone will suffer, and the government is mostly okay aside from this lobbying thing. Now I'm quite a supporter of communism in general (you might have seen some of my previous posts), but as we have seen, the cultural systems of today are not very conducive to it and capitalism seems to be the best solution for this day.
As for the Padilla thing, I am not quite sure whether I am for or against it. On one hand, detaining people for no reason will start protests everywhere (since it is "unconstitutional"), but on the other hand, once these guys get lawyers to fight for them, they have a pretty good chance of escaping and will then be on the loose again.
-
One of the invevitable problems of democracy is that personality is valued ahead of competence.... then again, it's better than most of the other alternatives. Personally, I'd require candidates to have a minimum level of ability before they can stand for parliament. sure, it's discriminatory against the uneducated, but I think it's justifiable.
-
I certainly agree there; in fact, I personally would say that it should be mandatory to have at least a PhD and some good academic credibility in a government-related subject (political science, etc.) to be able to run for one of these governmental positions (president, congress, etc.). We want those in power to be capable.
-
Just wonder how many of the ppl in here *****ing are even Americans.
And Skrike .... this is their hobby .... sadly ... some ppl need a reason the ***** :D
-
I am a US citizen but I have been supporting most of the US actions so far, but anyway I'm doing math as I write up posts here, so I do not need to just sit here waiting for more posts to show up; I still have something to do. :D
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
ROTFL :lol: There's probably more censorship in America than there's ever been in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USSR put together.
This is quite probably one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. Congrats, Top Gun! :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Top Gun
It just goes by a different name: Intellectual Property. Where the rich get to read what they like and the poor are branded pirates and sued if they dare try.
I haven't studied IP law, and likely won't learn anything about it for a long while, if ever, so I'm not going to speak on a subject I have no knowledge of, but to say that the US has "more censorship than there's ever been in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USSR put together" is the hallmark of a fool.
We don't disappear people just for saying that "maybe our enemies aren't so bad." Iran, Iraq, China and USSR have.
We don't close down our newspapers whenever they critize the government. Iran, Iraq, China, Saudi Arabia and USSR have.
We don't force people to abide by a certain state religion or force them into giving up all religious belief entirely. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, China and USSR have.
We don't force people to abide by a certain style of dress or force men to wear long beards or execute women for engaging in adultery. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afganistan under the Taliban have.
So, please, Toppy, tell me again how "there is more censorship in the USA than there's ever been in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USSR put together."
Ignorant putz. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
This is quite probably one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. Congrats, Top Gun! :rolleyes:
Perhaps you should be prepared to back it up with some examples and explain why ip. isn't censorship.
The issue here is censorship, not government brutality. The fact that the methods of censorship in those contries were far more brutal than that of the US, or you don't agree with the ideology that the censorship was trying to perpetuate is irrelevant to the argument of how widespread the actual censorship is.
My argument is that there are more instances of censorship [The banning or with holding of material from public view] in the form of IP so stop trying to fish for emotional brownie points with irellevant facts.
The Point: In [Insert random dictatorial regieme here] there are a hell of a lot of books banned, in America Every book is banned if you can't afford to pay for it (And if certain politicains/publishers get their way, the only possible exception to this: libraries, will be turned into pay per view outlets).
-
What does intellectual property have to do with state censorship anyway? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
What does intellectual property have to do with state censorship anyway? :wtf:
Intellectual property law (as it stands in the US and most of Europe) is censorship on the poor.
-
eh? How is that?
One may as well say that universities are censorship on the unintelligent... :p
-
Ummmm wtf ARE you talking about ? IP is just a freaking concept of patenting an IDEA.
"books are censored if you can't afford them"
LMAO!
Censoered as a concept means it's meaning or text is CHANGED or not ALLOWED to be viewed.
This is the point I've been trying to make in this whole thread lol Ppl with no clue about what they're *****ing about :)
Anyways .... this IS good comedy :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
eh? How is that?
One may as well say that universities are censorship on the unintelligent... :p
Well by his definition .... every damned thing is censored :)
A good resterurant is censered to those that can't afford $100 a meal.
Video rentals are censored to those that aren't members of the rental store.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Censoered as a concept means it's meaning or text is CHANGED or not ALLOWED to be viewed.
Yes :nod: and if you can't afford to pay for a book (of which a tiny percentage of the profits go to the authors), you aren't allowed to read it :rolleyes:
Originally posted by CP5670
One may as well say that universities are censorship on the unintelligent...
Or those who aren't good at standardized tests.
Mind, you said yourself that self tuition to a degree level is possible, and a lot of university material is in the public domain. Also, there is the Open University in the UK (you may have something simmilar) where you can get a degree without any prior qualifications. Of course if you're not intelligent, you will find the material difficult to understand, which isn't anybody's fault.
The poor being deprived of reading material because of ip. law is someone's fault and needless.
Well by his definition .... every damned thing is censored
A good resterurant is censered to those that can't afford $100 a meal.
Video rentals are censored to those that aren't members of the rental store.
Food (restaurant food in particular) costs a great deal of labour (both in the growing and preparation stage) and once it's been eaten, it's gone (certainly as food anyway) so its expense is justified. Books (read: books/journals/films/music) can be read an infinite number of times without the author having to do anything more. Obviously there's cost of producing the book (binding and printing) but the current price of books far exceeds the ammount of money needed to make the author a living and produce the book, not to mention the zealous prevention of the sharing of content both by the state and the publishers. That's censorship.
-
So...you are saying that because publishers set book prices to be what you think is expensive, the government actively censors everything it does not like? :wtf: (most books are actually pretty cheap; I would agree with you that most textbooks are way too expensive, but that is somewhat understandable since the markets are limited) And how is this different from the systems in any other capitalist nation?
Mind, you said yourself that self tuition to a degree level is possible, and a lot of university material is in the public domain. Also, there is the Open University in the UK (you may have something simmilar) where you can get a degree without any prior qualifications. Of course if you're not intelligent, you will find the material difficult to understand, which isn't anybody's fault.
Exactly; if you really want to learn, nobody is going to be able to prevent you. As for the formal credits and degrees, that's what the public schools are for. I do quite support your point of making some sort of standarized university education too, though.
The poor being deprived of reading material because of ip. law is someone's fault and needless.
There are public libraries, you know...
not to mention the zealous prevention of the sharing of content both by the state and the publishers
Where did this part come from? If they wanted to "prevent the sharing of content", they could simply not publish the book. :rolleyes:
You may have had some valid points in other parts of this thread, but this simply an excuse (and a ridiculous one, at that) to complain about the US. :p
-
if someone is so poor that he can't buy a book, reading is not the least of his worries.
-
What's funny .,... he quotes ME and has it saying "Quoted by CP" LMAO!
-
Oo;; this is a very strange thread...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
One of the invevitable problems of democracy is that personality is valued ahead of competence.... then again, it's better than most of the other alternatives. Personally, I'd require candidates to have a minimum level of ability before they can stand for parliament. sure, it's discriminatory against the uneducated, but I think it's justifiable.
Personally I'd rather have a slightly less intelligent but generally better rounded leader than a downright intelligent one who has a bitter temper or is xenophobic.
Bush is showing right now that he can be a pretty good wartime president...despite his other misgivings.
-
me thinks... Republicans... not all but republicans in power, are loosers...! they always start wars or get caught up in wars with there pants down lol.
2. bush is an idiot to some degree, but he's atempting to make the best of the situation but hasnt yet finished his focus on the comitment he made to new yorkers and americans alike, get bin ladens ass. he's moved agendas to previous pre-war goals, finding ways to finish what his father didnt.
if bush was half the man his father was, he'd do things the right way, but he cant be like his father and quit when u got the enemy running. we shoulda caused a bushfire (lol:lol:) in there back yard see how they like it.
3. when the next presidential election comes around, colin powel better friggen run...!
-
bah liberals....I'm moving to the Moon.
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
me thinks... Republicans... not all but republicans in power, are loosers...! they always start wars or get caught up in wars with there pants down lol.
2. bush is an idiot to some degree, but he's atempting to make the best of the situation but hasnt yet finished his focus on the comitment he made to new yorkers and americans alike, get bin ladens ass. he's moved agendas to previous pre-war goals, finding ways to finish what his father didnt.
if bush was half the man his father was, he'd do things the right way, but he cant be like his father and quit when u got the enemy running. we shoulda caused a bushfire (lol:lol:) in there back yard see how they like it.
3. when the next presidential election comes around, colin powel better friggen run...!
Ok, now that I've had time to look at it and pick at it I'm going to. :p
Originally posted by deep_eyes
me thinks... Republicans... not all but republicans in power, are loosers...! they always start wars or get caught up in wars with there pants down lol.
Always is the key word there. Never say always because always doesn't always happen. Do I make any sense? Ok, I'm going to pull out the history book and slap somebody with the U.S. Historical Sea Trout. :D
If I recollected properly I believe that during the 1960's President Johnson (D, Texas) falsified an attack on the U.S.S. Maddox which was later investigated and was proven to be a lie, so that LBJ(Lyndon Baines Johnson for you European People.) could have an excuse and some support to send troops into South Vietnam. Not only did he send troops, but just before he left office he did escalate the war even further, AND then in 1968 began making negotiations with North Vietnam. So, to many of the soldiers it was like the troops over in Afghanistan were still fighting a war and President Bush came over the TV and said, "Alright, we are going to negotiate with Bin Laden and the Taliban." The war was over in 1968, Johnson left it in a big mess.
If memory has failed me or something, but I do recall the last president to enter America into a war with Lincoln in 1861.
Originally posted by deep_eyes
2. bush is an idiot to some degree, but he's atempting to make the best of the situation but hasnt yet finished his focus on the comitment he made to new yorkers and americans alike, get bin ladens ass. he's moved agendas to previous pre-war goals, finding ways to finish what his father didnt.
Going to divide this into an A' and B'.
A) Finding one person in amongst over 6 billion people is kind of hard. Especially when there are many fundamentalist in the area that agree with his cause, and are willing to aid him.
B) A Pre-War goal was invading Iraq? I didn't recollect that being on his list of things to do before 9/11, tax cuts were more on his agenda. So easily do we forget that Clintion (D, Arkansas) in 1998 was moving plans to invade Iraq after he threw out the UN weapons inspectors, the Democrats were more hawkish than the Republicans. Finish what his father started? His father helped free a poorly armed nation that was quickly over run by an agressive enemy. Kind of like Britian declaring war on Germany when Poland fell. Sixteen times Iraq has defied the U.N. resolution without any reprocussions by the U.N. What good is a resolution if it is not enforced? If the speed limit says 70 mph and nobody enforces it, do you think many people are going to go 70 mph out of the goodness of their heart? Granted some will, but most won't. Anyways, back to what I was saying. An aggressive nation like Iraq that has agreed to the U.N. resolutions must obey them, or face reprocussions. Bush isn't willing to use the empty words of the U.N. to 'make' Iraq comply.
[Originally posted by deep_eyes
if bush was half the man his father was, he'd do things the right way, but he cant be like his father and quit when u got the enemy running.
THIS! is why we still have to deal with people like Saddam. It would have been better to take Baghdad when we had forces already there and removed him from power while he was in ruins. Some people make me wonder when they make comments like this. (No pun intended.)
Originally posted by deep_eyes
3. when the next presidential election comes around, colin powel better friggen run...!
Hehehe....not likely.
I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative.
-
double quote, but nicely done :D
-
Yea, I noticed that but i fixed it.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
bah liberals....I'm moving to the Moon.
Fine by me, that'll leave more air for the rest of us staying on Earth. :D
But seriously, Codedog does make some cogent points and I do want to respond to them, but I gotta finish my law school homework...which basically means that I'll respond in about a week or two. :sigh:
That is, if the pile of legal textbooks next to my bed doesn't collapse and kill me in my sleep...
Like I should be so lucky. :doubt:
-
I'm all ears or um fingers. Except for this carpal tunnel stuff. Ouch, it hurts. :(