GOP has 51 senators, will we go to war?

[jefhatfield]

some pundits on the "far left" have suggested that because the republicans have sewn up 51 senate seats and maybe 52 (after louisina runoff), and a slight lead in the house, the GOP will send us to war with iraq

the democrats have 47 seats and there is one independent who is a liberal but not a democrat so in a sense, that is only 48 seats...even if the dems win lousiana in december, that will still be 49 seats and not a majority

i am a moderate democrat, and i realize it takes 67 votes in the senate to ratify such an action and many of the moderate republican senators are not so hot on an instant war with iraq, either

...but what do you think of the far left bush bashers who think this automatically means war?

and for those of you who are republicans, does this mean that bush may be able to help mend the economy in a measureable way in the next 24 months?

your thoughts...

[vniow]

I think we would have anywayz, but it seems even more likely now.

I don't want this to turn into some Republican vs. Democrat thread cuz there's too much ********* and whining on both sides, but I'm concerned when one side takes the majority in times like these.

I don't know ***** about politics, but I'm worried that if we go to war it's not going to be a good outcome seeing as a lot of the world is against it.

I still don't see why we must go to war against Iraq, I've read through a lot of these political threads lately and I'm still not convinced that it's a brilliant plan.

[job]

Originally posted by edvniow
I still don't see why we must go to war against Iraq, I've read through a lot of these political threads lately and I'm still not convinced that it's a brilliant plan.

Imagine this hypothetical situation:

"A month or so before Christmas, three people, most likely male, walked into a crowded shopping mall in Oklahoma City. Dressed as maintenance workers and carrying plant sprayers, they strolled among the holiday shoppers, tending to the potted plants that decorated the gaily lit corridors. A short time later, their work complete, the three walked to mall exits and vanished into the night. At that moment two other teams were doing the same thing at malls in Atlanta and Philadelphia.

A 7 p.m. on December 9th, the President of the United States met secretly with his National Security Council - which included the national security advisor, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The President stunned them with his opening remarks: "The Center for Disease Control has confirmed that at least one case of smallpox - and maybe as many as 20 - have occurred among civilians in Oklahoma City...Presumably, this disease has been deliberately introduced and [is] the result of a bioterrorist attack on the United States." As the President spoke, a lab in Oklahoma confirmed 20 cases of smallpox and said it suspected 14 more. Nine other cases were reported in Atlanta and seven in Philadelphia.

Federal and state authorities immediately swung into action, and within 24 hours FBI agents were combing the streets of Oklahoma City. At the White House, the deputy secretary of health and human services confirmed that the only two known sources of smallpox were at the CDC's heavily guarded repository in Atlanta and the Vector lab in Novosikirsk, Russia. Intellegence revealed that a former Vector scientist, an expert in smallpox, had left Russia and was believed to be in Iraq.

By the next week, ten of thousands of Americans showing symptoms, or imagining them, were overwhelming hospital emergency rooms. Television news repeatedly ran footage of a tearful mother, toddler in arms, pleading for a vaccine as a policeman shoved her back into the crowd.

Meanwhile, chaos swamped those who were trying to manage the crisis. Congress and state legislatures, the FBI and CIA, fire and police departments, the Defense Department and National Guard, public health services and private physicians - all lost valuable time and energy in the confusion over procedures and turf.

By December 15th, officials had confirmed 2,000 cases in 15 states, with more in Canada, Mexico, and Britain. The death toll had hit 300.

A week later there were 16,000 cases in half the states in the country, and a thousand people had died - 200 from reactions to the vaccine. Cities were paralyzed as millions tried to flee the epidemic. Vaccine supplies were now exhausted, and violence was rampant in the streets.

Health authorities projected that by February there would be over three million cases of smallpox in the United States. One million Americans would be dead, with no end in sight."

- Taken from the November issue of National Geographic

Something as virulent as smallpox will spread far quicker than antharax.

Imagine this situation.

It is possible.

[vniow]

Possible?

Of course.

Likely?

That's a question that I have yet to answer.

[job]

Originally posted by edvniow

Likely?

That's a question that I have yet to answer.

If Saddam had no qualms using chemical agents on his own people, I am confident that he, given the opportunity, would use similar weapons against us.

Why wouldn't it be likely?

[vniow]

Originally posted by hitman
Why wouldn't it be likely?


Well for one we are the biggest buyers of his oil, I don't think he would jeporadize that, then again the guy's nuts, so there's no telling what he could do.

I'm concerned that a lot of the rest of the world (Europe mostly) is against this for reasons that a lot of Americans can't seem to fathom.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman
- Taken from the November issue of National Geographic

Something as virulent as smallpox will spread far quicker than antharax.

Imagine this situation.

It is possible.
I realize it's a threat, but I disagree that it's a threat coming from Iraq, or any country in particular. Iraq would not do this to us, for the simple reason that within months, their country would become a radioactive parking lot, and Saddam Hussein's blood plasma would be used to paint the yellow stripes. He may be a vile person, but he's not stupid, or even insane, as is the popular accusation. More than anything, he wants to remain in power. He can't remain in power if he does something that leads us to overthrow him.

A biological attack on the US would only be likely by a loosely-knit al-Qaida-style organization. The problem is some Americans' rudimentary sense of justice: If we're being attacked by mysterious terrorists, who do we bomb? We have to bomb SOMEBODY, otherwise jusice is not being served!! We have to search for a scapegoat, and I believe Iraq is that scapegoat.

[job]

Originally posted by edvniow
I'm concerned that a lot of the rest of the world (Europe mostly) is against this for reasons that a lot of Americans can't seem to fathom.

Ehm...I'm confused..

Against what? A war, the oil, smallpox?? :confused:

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman


Ehm...I'm confused..

Against what? A war, the oil, smallpox?? :confused:
Exactly :)

[vniow]

Originally posted by hitman


Ehm...I'm confused..

Against what? A war, the oil, smallpox?? :confused:

Never mind. this is the reason I usually stay out of these.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gif

[wdlove]

I'll put my faith in President Bush, he has knowledgeable advisors, & in the end he will do the correct thing. This is not a political decision. The intelligence gathered will backup the decision made!

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by hitman


Imagine this hypothetical situation:

"A month or so before Christmas, three people, most likely male, walked into a crowded shopping mall in Oklahoma City. Dressed as maintenance workers and carrying plant sprayers, they strolled among the holiday shoppers, tending to the potted plants that decorated the gaily lit corridors. A short time later, their work complete, the three walked to mall exits and vanished into the night. At that moment two other teams were doing the same thing at malls in Atlanta and Philadelphia.

A 7 p.m. on December 9th, the President of the United States met secretly with his National Security Council - which included the national security advisor, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The President stunned them with his opening remarks: "The Center for Disease Control has confirmed that at least one case of smallpox - and maybe as many as 20 - have occurred among civilians in Oklahoma City...Presumably, this disease has been deliberately introduced and [is] the result of a bioterrorist attack on the United States." As the President spoke, a lab in Oklahoma confirmed 20 cases of smallpox and said it suspected 14 more. Nine other cases were reported in Atlanta and seven in Philadelphia.

Federal and state authorities immediately swung into action, and within 24 hours FBI agents were combing the streets of Oklahoma City. At the White House, the deputy secretary of health and human services confirmed that the only two known sources of smallpox were at the CDC's heavily guarded repository in Atlanta and the Vector lab in Novosikirsk, Russia. Intellegence revealed that a former Vector scientist, an expert in smallpox, had left Russia and was believed to be in Iraq.

By the next week, ten of thousands of Americans showing symptoms, or imagining them, were overwhelming hospital emergency rooms. Television news repeatedly ran footage of a tearful mother, toddler in arms, pleading for a vaccine as a policeman shoved her back into the crowd.

Meanwhile, chaos swamped those who were trying to manage the crisis. Congress and state legislatures, the FBI and CIA, fire and police departments, the Defense Department and National Guard, public health services and private physicians - all lost valuable time and energy in the confusion over procedures and turf.

By December 15th, officials had confirmed 2,000 cases in 15 states, with more in Canada, Mexico, and Britain. The death toll had hit 300.

A week later there were 16,000 cases in half the states in the country, and a thousand people had died - 200 from reactions to the vaccine. Cities were paralyzed as millions tried to flee the epidemic. Vaccine supplies were now exhausted, and violence was rampant in the streets.

Health authorities projected that by February there would be over three million cases of smallpox in the United States. One million Americans would be dead, with no end in sight."

- Taken from the November issue of National Geographic

Something as virulent as smallpox will spread far quicker than antharax.

Imagine this situation.

It is possible.

this is totally possible and that is the scary thing about iraq

i agree that we need to take out saddam, but no too hastily or without planning

some republicans have called for using delta force or the rangers to take him out or to assasinate him instead of using a large military force to oust him and kill a lot of innocent iraqi citizens

it will cost us twice as much to rebuild iraq according to cnn if we flatten them...and with today's weapons at our disposal, we can readily flatten them so that's not the issue here

you won't find a web link to delta force on the us army sight, but be sure of this, they do exist and can take out saddam immediately

in the local paper where i live, i saw this picture of dark skinned men with beards and turbins on, with camels and donkeys holding ak-47s and i initially thought, "so what?, more taliban...no, delta force" a very secret and elite organization that can infiltrate and disappear without a trace and still carry out their mission

this army ranger special forces unit, with ties to cilvilian cia control, traces their roots partially to the unit my dad served in during world war II...a us army unit of japanese americans who infiltrated and decoded the japanese army in world war II...interesting stuff

in monterey, there is a little known language school called defense language institute who trains many linguists who later go to texas for further spy training...it is warfare fought with information instead of howitzers and B-52s

[alex_ant]

Look at how inane your post is:
Originally posted by wdlove
I'll put my faith in President Bush, he has knowledgeable advisors,
I hope you're not putting your faith in President Bush because he has knowledgeable advisors, because to do so would be to admit that he himself has no clue.
& in the end he will do the correct thing.
Correct for who and what?
This is not a political decision.
I wonder if the push for war would be so strong were it not for the energy corporations' thirst for oil - the same energy corporations who donate copiously to Bush?
The intelligence gathered will backup the decision made!
There are a couple different ways to interpret this, but unfortunately I fear the decision has already been made, and the Republican Party is in the process of supporting that decision with various evidence while discarding any/all evidence which does not serve their purposes. Forgive me for being cynical, but with a party whose members are bought and paid for, I really have no choice.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Forgive me for being cynical, but with a party whose members are bought and paid for, I really have no choice.

i consider the democrats the lesser of two evils since there are plenty of democrats bought and paid for

enron had ties to clinton as much as the GOP and when clinton pardoned rich, the billionaire on the run, it was really sad

but it still does not take the cake like ford pardoning nixon:p :D

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i consider the democrats the lesser of two evils since there are plenty of democrats bought and paid for

enron had ties to clinton as much as the GOP and when clinton pardoned rich, the billionaire on the run, it was really sad

but it still does not take the cake like ford pardoning nixon:p :D
Definitely, they're both very corrupt parties. I guess which one is the lesser of two evils is debatable. It doesn't really matter to me though, because it's like choosing between having electrodes hooked up to my genitals, or being smashed in the face repeatedly with a hot frying pan: I'll take neither, thanks. :)

[bousozoku]

Please put the congress, current or just elected, along with the President on a nice plane for a holiday in Europe. When they arrive over Iraq, put parachutes on them and drop them. They're welcome to have guns except that they voted to keep guns off planes.

Next time, we'll get more interesting, honest people for the federal government. ;)

[GigaWire]

"We're going to war!"

[SPG]

What I'm really hoping is that the whole war on Iraq thing was just a Republican smoke screen to rally votes to support the Comander in Thief, I mean Chief, no I was definitely right the first time. Anyway, with any luck now that Bush has both the Senate and the Congress, he and his rich buddies will be too busy giving themselves tax cuts and cutting services that they'll forget all about the war.

[SPG]

"_ _ _But it’s not true that Bush is a man of his word. He has shimmied and shifted in lots of areas, including Iraq, manipulating language the way Clinton did and exaggerating in the same way that he once pilloried Gore for doing. Bush says “regime change” doesn’t have to mean deposing Saddam Hussein—that the regime would be changed if Saddam disarmed. This is rhetoric worthy of Clinton, and it doesn’t mean that Bush has altered fundamentally his commitment to displace Saddam through military force."
-Eleanor Clift
http://www.msnbc.com/news/826341.asp?cp1=1


THE AXIS OF EVIL STRIKES BACK
by Eric Margolis
24 October 2002

NEW YORK - Never trust an axis of evil. When President George W. Bush threatened to invade Iraq if it didn't readmit UN arms inspectors, that tricky Saddam immediately agreed. 'Welcome back to beautiful Baghdad,' he told UN inspectors, leaving the Bush Administration gnashing its teeth in frustration.

If the UN didn't give him a green light to re-bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age, Bush thundered - with stunning illogic - he would ignore the UN Security Council and take action unilaterally. The very same Bush who had a few days earlier vowed to invade Iraq because it was ignoring the Security Council.
http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/axis_strikes_back.html

[SPG]

Originally posted by hitman


Imagine this hypothetical situation:

"A month or so before Christmas, three people, most likely male, walked into a crowded shopping mall in Oklahoma City. Dressed as maintenance workers and carrying plant sprayers, they strolled among the holiday shoppers...

...A 7 p.m. on December 9th, the President of the United States met secretly with his National Security Council ...

Health authorities projected that by February there would be over three million cases of smallpox in the United States. One million Americans would be dead, with no end in sight."

- Taken from the November issue of National Geographic

Something as virulent as smallpox will spread far quicker than antharax.

Imagine this situation.

It is possible.

If you've been online for more than a year you will remember all the chain emails that were so popular a few years ago. Remmber the HIV needles in theater seats? They all had certain elements in common, a very personal scenario with names and locations specifically mentioned to add credibility, statistics of how this will affect YOU.
They all had the same intent to SCARE PEOPLE. All of these scenarios are possible. Any one of us can buy a couple hundred bucks worth of gasoline and start a firestorm that could raze a whole forest, suburb, or even city. Most of us could buy all sorts of hunting rifles and start sniping away too, but the reality is it highly unlikely, nearly a nonexistant chance of happening.
How many kids showed up to your door last week for Halloween? How many used to show up say twenty years ago? Afraid of razorblades in the apples? There have been no cases reported of razor blades in apples, ever. Not one. Poison candy? Two in the last decade and both cases were comitted by family members against other family members. So why would everyone keep their kids home and deprive them of some good old timey wholesome fun? fear...Fear...FEAR!!!!

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/fear/index.php

Sadam was just hanging out opressing his own people and watching them starve under the UN sanctions, and has pretty much been kept in check by our weekly bombing runs. If he was really the insane dictator in the dessert that everyone claims, he would have done something against Israel already, but he hasn't unless you count mailing checks to the families of people killed in the Intifadah, (including suicide bombers).
For the most part Sadam is at idealogical odds with the Islamic extremeists, and doesn't support them since eventually Sadam himself would end up on their hit list as he is a secular leader. Even the CIA reports stated that Iraq doesn't have a nuclear weapon capability at this time and won't for many years.
Guess who does? North Korea, and they're nuts enough to use it against South Korea, or Japan, but Bush won't mess with them since they've got a million troops and that would be a real war.
Who else has nukes? Pakistan and India do, and they've been engaged in a low level real shooting war over Kashmir for years. They've come to the brink quite a few times lately.
And to really piss everyone off I'll play devil's advocate for a moment before I go to bed, and ask a few questions... which country has a leader not elected by it's people, is a nuclear power that has used nuclear weapons against civilian targets in a war, and has been involved in combat in a half dozen countries in the past decade? Oh yeah, and this country has also used chemical weapons in war too!
I'm sure you've guessed that it's the good ole USA, head up by Bush Jr appointed by the supreme court, the same country that nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima (although that was a different war altogether, but it still counts), has fought in Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq (weekly), Afghanistan,Haiti, Panama, etc, and the chemical weapons were widely used in World War I.
I am not saying that if I were President I would have done a lot of this differently, but the point is that everything can look pretty bad with the wrong spin on it. Take the time to dig a little deeper and apply more than a superficial soundbite as analysis or hyperbole and scary fictional stories to justify policy that will affect real people in horrible ways.

End rant. Good night.

[alex_ant]

This thread is getting to be quite fantastic. I am rubbing my hands together with glee. :)

[diorio]

We are more likely to pass Bush's proposals now that the GOP has a majority in the senate. War is more likely, but in the end I think we would have seen the U.S. going to war with Iraq sooner or later even without the GOP majority.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by SPG


How many used to show up say twenty years ago? Afraid of razorblades in the apples? There have been no cases reported of razor blades in apples, ever. Not one.


it's like that guy who always shows up on pop ads two years ago who has the eighteen inch member:p ;) :D :eek:

something designed to make some of us males buy the new enlarging pills now on the market:rolleyes:

[bonehead]

Of course we're going to war. Bush has made clear his intentions long ago. There aren't enough Democrats in Congress willing to vote against it. This assumes that Bush will ask Congress for a formal declaration in the first place. Now that we've violated our own explicitly stated national policy against assassination I can't imagine the administration worrying about Congressional approval.

[ninjachild]

i think that we will definitly go to war with iraq,

its just a matter of if it will be a war or a police action like in vietnam,

the last big conflict america saw changed it forever,

imagine how a true war would be in the media today...

if they even told you about it,

it seems that we are fastly approaching a police state

scary.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by bonehead
Now that we've violated our own explicitly stated national policy against assassination I can't imagine the administration worrying about Congressional approval.

explicitly stated policy??

remember 9/11?

no more policy, vote was 100-0 (or 99-1 with one california senator against it) on that one in the senate a few days after 9/11 and by 9/14, we had some troops in afganistan

but i am worried about GWB holding his own private grudge match against saddam with young american lives

as i looked in today's paper, we killed one of afganistan's former high ministers who used to be with taliban control

[bonehead]

Jefhatfield:

explicitly stated policy??


(CNN) -- In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

The ban, however, did not prevent the Reagan administration from dropping bombs on Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's home in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. troops.

Additionally, the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles at suspected guerrilla camps in Afghanistan in 1998 after the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

Following the September 11. 2001, attacks, the White House said the presidential directive banning assassinations would not prevent the United States from acting in self-defense.

According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.

White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence "finding" is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists.

That was from a CNN story I found.

What the fizzuck is this intelligence "finding"? Now we are saying that firing a missile at a car of "suspected" terrorists is okay. What's to stop any other nation from doing the same thing. What we are condoning is, in effect, assassination. Killing the people in Yemen was not self-defense. What if Iraq killed a U.S. official? Certainly we've made it clear we are going to attack them. Could Iraq say they were only acting in self-defense?

[job]

Originally posted by SPG
If you've been online for more than a year you will remember all the chain emails that were so popular a few years ago. Remmber the HIV needles in theater seats? They all had certain elements in common, a very personal scenario with names and locations specifically mentioned to add credibility, statistics of how this will affect YOU. They all had the same intent to SCARE PEOPLE. All of these scenarios are possible. Any one of us can buy a couple hundred bucks worth of gasoline and start a firestorm that could raze a whole forest, suburb, or even city. Most of us could buy all sorts of hunting rifles and start sniping away too, but the reality is it highly unlikely, nearly a nonexistant chance of happening. How many kids showed up to your door last week for Halloween? How many used to show up say twenty years ago? Afraid of razorblades in the apples? There have been no cases reported of razor blades in apples, ever. Not one. Poison candy? Two in the last decade and both cases were comitted by family members against other family members. So why would everyone keep their kids home and deprive them of some good old timey wholesome fun? fear...Fear...FEAR!!!!

This scenario I posted came from a war game transcript conducted by the United States military in order how prepared we actually are.

The sad fact is, we are not.

We do not have enough vaccine for many of the diseases which could be potentially used as WMD. My own generation has never been innoculated for smallpox and therefore remains at risk. You can play with your own life, but I'd rather not.

Smallpox is far different than razor blades in candy.

he would have done something against Israel already, but he hasn't unless you count mailing checks to the families of people killed in the Intifadah, (including suicide bombers).

And you see nothing wrong with that?


Even the CIA reports stated that Iraq doesn't have a nuclear weapon capability at this time and won't for many years.

And this comes from the CIA who warned us so well about Osama, right? :rolleyes:

I sure like to see these "documents." :rolleyes:


Guess who does? North Korea, and they're nuts enough to use it against South Korea, or Japan, but Bush won't mess with them since they've got a million troops and that would be a real war.

Just blaim it on Carter. He actually believed that the North Koreans would not produce any nukes...


the same country that nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima (although that was a different war altogether, but it still counts)

I would not be here if we had not. My grandfather was in Burma at the time and was preparing for the planned invasion of Japan.

Our projected casualties were close to one million. Had we invaded, the Japanese, who were training their civilians to fight as well, would have suffered close to 2 million casualties. Those weapons shortened the war by at least one year and saved more American lived than I would care to count. But then again, I suppose you would not have any qualms sending American troops to their death.

Also, we gave the Japanese ample time to surrender. In the months leading up to the Hiroshima bombing we requested no less than 5 times for unconditional surrender. Even after the first bombing, they still refused. They are just as responsible for the deaths.

has fought in Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq (weekly)

And lets take one moment to remember who got us into Somalia, et al in the first place...

Oh thats right, good ole Slick Willy...Clinton...the bastard.

[wdlove]

"Our foreign policy is one of security" DaSouza 'Letter to a conservative'

America 1st, not worry what the rest of the world thinks! Need to do what is in our best interest.
:)

[job]

Originally posted by bonehead
Killing the people in Yemen was not self-defense.

Of course we will just forget about the Cole... :rolleyes:

Why the hell was it not "self-defense?"

We simply blasted the guy who blew a sizable hole in the side of one of the most advanced warships in the United States Navy.

Also, Saddam can be considered a general, i.e. a military leader. He wears a military uniform and during the Gulf War directly ordered specific troop movements.

As a military leader, he can be "legally" ( :rolleyes: ) assasinated.

It states that "political assasination" is banned, but it does not mention anything about the assasination of military leaders, which in essence, Saddam is.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman
Of course we will just forget about the Cole... :rolleyes:

Why the hell was it not "self-defense?"

We simply blasted the guy who blew a sizable hole in the side of one of the most advanced warships in the United States Navy.
Go look up "defense" in the dictionary. Go do it right now.
Also, Saddam can be considered a general, i.e. a military leader. He wears a military uniform and during the Gulf War directly ordered specific troop movements.
I know someone who wears a black trenchcoat and has long, black hair tied in a ponytail and a white-powdered face - does that mean I can consider him a Gothic vampyre?
As a military leader, he can be "legally" ( :rolleyes: ) assasinated.

It states that "political assasination" is banned, but it does not mention anything about the assasination of military leaders, which in essence, Saddam is.
In that essence, all political leaders are military leaders, aren't they? Hussein is military leader, just as Chirac or Blair or Schroeder is. First and foremost, though, they're all political leaders, and the fact that they are political leaders immunizes them to US assasination.

[job]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Go look up "defense" in the dictionary. Go do it right now.


I stand corrected. It was "retaliation." :rolleyes:


I know someone who wears a black trenchcoat and has long, black hair tied in a ponytail and a white-powdered face - does that mean I can consider him a Gothic vampyre?

Whatever floats your boat...


In that essence, all political leaders are military leaders, aren't they? Hussein is military leader, just as Chirac or Blair or Schroeder is. First and foremost, though, they're all political leaders, and the fact that they are political leaders immunizes them to US assasination.

However there is a distinct difference between a general and a politician.

Hussein issued direct tactical orders to his troops, which seperates him from the aforementioned group of politicans. Although he is an "elected" political leader, his regime nevertheless is on par with a military dictatorship.

I highly doubt that we will assasinate Saddam, but I nevertheless view him as a viable target.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman
However there is a distinct difference between a general and a politician.

Hussein issued direct tactical orders to his troops, which seperates him from the aforementioned group of politicans.
It doesn't matter what tactical commands he issued. Issuing commands is an important part of being a military leader. He's still a political leader, thus he's still not fair game for US assassins.
Although he is an "elected" political leader, his regime nevertheless is on par with a military dictatorship.
Is there any country in the world in whose political system the figure at the highest level of leadership is not also at the highest level of leadership of the military? If not, what's the difference between a military dictatorship and a regular dictatorship?

[SPG]

Originally posted by hitman

This scenario I posted came from a war game transcript conducted by the United States military in order how prepared we actually are.

The sad fact is, we are not.

We do not have enough vaccine for many of the diseases which could be potentially used as WMD. My own generation has never been innoculated for smallpox and therefore remains at risk. You can play with your own life, but I'd rather not.
Actually we are fairly well prepared for just such a contingency. There are stockpiles of vaccines in many locations and people trained to use them. These preparations have been underway since about the time of the Anthrax incidents last fall, and are now complete or very close to it. Check with the CDC.
BTW, most indications are that the anthrax was spread by a lone nutcase in the US, not foreign terrorists.

Originally posted by hitman
And you see nothing wrong with that?
Actually I do. But it is a far cry from arming the suicide bombers, or arming the Israelis with helicopter gunships and tanks. Did you know that our arms sales to Israel violate our own laws? Since the Israelis have consistently used these weapons against unarmed civilians all subsequent arms sales were to be automatically cut off. Of course they weren't because of Israel's value as an ally and also because of their strong lobby and numerous constituents in this country.

Originally posted by hitman
And this comes from the CIA who warned us so well about Osama, right? :rolleyes:

I sure like to see these "documents." :rolleyes:
Numerous reports. And if we recall the FBI, and especially the former FBI guy "The Man who Knew" - PBS Frontline had warnings that were even included in Bush's security briefings that he refused to read. Remember the illiteracy jokes going around last August when it came out that W wouldn't read any of his briefings?

Originally posted by hitman
Just blaim it on Carter. He actually believed that the North Koreans would not produce any nukes...
Clinton knew that North Korea was working on them and probably had them, Bush Sr knew, W knew. Japan knew. But what was anyone going to do?

Originally posted by hitman
I would not be here if we had not. My grandfather was in Burma at the time and was preparing for the planned invasion of Japan.

Our projected casualties were close to one million. Had we invaded, the Japanese, who were training their civilians to fight as well, would have suffered close to 2 million casualties. Those weapons shortened the war by at least one year and saved more American lived than I would care to count. But then again, I suppose you would not have any qualms sending American troops to their death.

Also, we gave the Japanese ample time to surrender. In the months leading up to the Hiroshima bombing we requested no less than 5 times for unconditional surrender. Even after the first bombing, they still refused. They are just as responsible for the deaths.
That's not the point. If you put the spin on it, we come across as bloodthirsty savages hell bent on the destruction of anyone who doesn't look like us. In a lot of the world this is exactly the spin that's being used.

Originally posted by hitman
And lets take one moment to remember who got us into Somalia, et al in the first place...

Oh thats right, good ole Slick Willy...Clinton...the bastard.
Why is Clinton a Bastard? Because he's a Democrat?
FYI US Forces were in Somalia in 1992 under BUSH's orders. Clinton came into office with them there and pulled them out right after the firefight that cost the US forces 19 lives, and the Somali's about 500-2000 dead.

[job]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Is there any country in the world in whose political system the figure at the highest level of leadership is not also at the highest level of leadership of the military? If not, what's the difference between a military dictatorship and a regular dictatorship?

Yes, most political leader are indeed in command of their country's respective armed forces.

However, these leaders are limited in the sense that they (or their legislative branch) only authorize the use of military force. It is left to the generals to actually decide how to use these forces.

Hussein instead maintains direct control over the Iraqi military. Yes, our presidents may be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, however, they are not a member of the military as Saddam is.

There is only a fine line of difference between a military and "regular" dictatorship, as most dictators use the military to their own ends.

I could see Stalin as a "regular" dictator, as he ruled without the help of the military and distrusted it greatly.

In contrast, almost any other dictatorship you would care to mention could be classified as a military dictatorship. Almost all other dictators have abused the power of the military to benefit their own meglomania.

[SPG]

I have still yet to hear a real reason to go back into Iraq.
Nuclear threat? nope.
Opression of his own people? UN sanctions have something to do with that. I don't think it's time to lift them, but it ain't like Sadam is sitting in a palace wringing his hands and thinking up ways to inflict pain on the populace. Sure he's a bad leader and he used chemical weapons against the Kurdish uprising, but that was over ten years ago. We were in Iraq after the fact and very easily could have supported the Kurds in their effort to become independent but didn't. In fact Bush Sr prompted the Kurds to rebel publicly promising them support but instead allowed the Iraqi military to use helicopter gunships in the no fly zone to put down the rebellion.
Security of the free world against terrorism? Iraq is fundamentally at odds with the Islamic fundamentalists.
Oil? maybe. There sure is plenty of it and we all know business W and his buddies are in so that might be it.
Political gains during the mid term elections? Rally around the comander in thief to win the war! What war? Oops, better start one.

[SPG]

Oh yeah, who gave Iraq the first batch of chemical weapons? Rumsfeld himself.
If you recall we openly supported Iraq in the war it waged agaisnt Iran, and secretly supported Iran at the same time (Ollie North, Iran Contra ring a bell?)
And who was that idiot woman acting as ambassador to Iraq before the Kuwait invasion that told Hussein that nothing would happen if he invaded?

[Ovi]

11

[SPG]

Originally posted by Ovi


You sumed up the Democratic platform regarding Iraq perfectly. You and your people will do even better next election if they talk a little louder.

You haven't answered the question just spit back some assinine quip to do nothing more than bait an attack. Why attack Iraq? Plain language. What's the pressing need to kill lots and lots of Americans and Iraqis?

[Ovi]

11

[SPG]

Originally posted by Ovi


Have you been living in a cave for the last 11 years? Sept 11 was a wake up call. If you want to trust Saddam your more than welcome. There were democrats who accused Bush of lying about Iraq. I trust the president when he says we must get rid of Saddam.

It is hard to explain on some thread all the details and reasons. But in plain language Bush said it himself rather well today. We can have a massive attack on this country and we will never know that Iraq was behind it. We don't need to get to that. I rather loose a few hundered soliders and a few dozen civilians in a short war versus a few hundered thousands people in the US.

I have read report after report on this subject. Believe me you do not want Saddam around much longer. But the democrats have a different take on this. They were well rewarded two days ago for their great courage to face evil and fight.

Still no distinct reason given.
What did Sadam Hussein and Iraq have to do with the attack on new York and the Pentagon? The hijackers were all Saudis and Egyptians. Our "allies" in the mideast. I know dubya is bad with geography, but where does Iraq fit in there? So no to the reason of 9/11.
We can have a massive attack on this country by Mexico too, and honestly before we started threatening to flatten Iraq I would have found it just as likely. With enough of a megaphone anyone can convince the people that anything is a threat to them. The Republican party has been having a field day with "non specific threats" to keep people scared and willing to go along with whatever they say.
Care to share any of your reports? Just a couple. I'm willing to read them. If they're convincing and accurate I will stop opposing the war on iraq. Seriously, convince me not with fear, nebulous accusations, and political agendas but with real facts and reasons and I will support the war. I am not a peacenik or ultra lefty that has to hate the powers that be, but someone who can not believe that there is a pressing need to bring down more bombs on another country and that it will magically solve all the problems of the world.
What will happen after even a successful attack on Iraq? Will the rest of the Middle east rally around the USA? I think not.
What will happen to the americans sent to fight? This isn't going to be the clean long distance tech war that we were able to fight last time. You don't think that the Iraqi armies have been digesting what happened last time? Think they will just roll over? Talk to some World War Two vets who witnessed what it was like to fight street to street. Ask any of the Vietnam Vets who fought in the Tet offensive. Once you get into something like this it will be bloody for BOTH sides. I don't want to see another 9/11. I lost kids I grew up with, my friends who were there still have nightmares, but I don't believe that Sadam left alone and isolated from the world was much of a threat until dubya decided he needed a ratings boost.

[Ovi]

11

[SPG]

Originally posted by Ovi


Sorry I don't have the time to give you all the reports right now. There are well over 100 pages and this forum will not allow to post them without breaking them up. This will take much too long.

A link? One link? Come on I'm ready to see the light! One link! A single link!
Originally posted by Ovi
If you can not be persuaded by what you read or see in the press, I doubt you will change your mind from my reports.
On the contrary. I do not just listen to the news I want to hear, I listen to NPR, Fox news, read the papers, check things on line, and talk to my colleagues. So far the for war arguments have been vague and emotional. I haven't heard or seen much to justify such an extreme action as war. Don't take war lightly no matter how many high tech gizmos you have.

Originally posted by Ovi
I will be joining the troops for 24 hours while they run military manuevers in a mock war in the desert. I will post some info but only after it all starts. We are going to war and it is happening very very soon. You will wake up one morning and all hell will break loose. The debate on Iraq is over.
Are you in the military? Government? Press? What the hell business do you have out in the desert playing war games if you don't?
How about that last bing joint war game against a rogue state? Kind of a whopper how that entire Navy battle group got wiped out in the first day. Hope the Generals are paying better attention and keep their eyes open this time.

[Ovi]

11

[SPG]

Thanks. I read most of the link, but not all just yet, bookmarked it tough. But what is it in there specifically that says after 12 years, now is the time to invade Iraq? Nothing so far. Saddam called back deserters to the army? Wouldn't you if you were about to be invaded? Iraq does not have a nuclear capability? More reason to not classify them as a threat. No smoking gun. Yugoslav rocket sale fizzles out due to international pressure, okay so they DONT have new ship to ship missiles.
If anything the link you gave provides evidence that there is no pressing reason to go to war with Iraq.

[Ovi]

11

[SPG]

The debate is not over. We do not live in a totalitarian state yet and so debate is never over. The ideals of this country espouse the right to express oneself and to speak in opposition to the government if the people feel that it is wrong. That was a radical concept in the 18th century and apparently a pretty radical one to the likes of Ashcroft and Cheney.
Your attitude that you know it all because you listen to a bunch of guys who you believe in is getting old and tiring.
You can not get a full understanding of foreign policy by simply reading the opinions of others. Do some research into the histor y of the regions and people involved and you will see that there is a lot more to it than Us vs Them and coloring in maps. How old is Iraq? Where then did it come from? third parties intervening in the affairs of others hasn't really worked so well lately has it?

[GeeYouEye]

You want a reason? Here's a bunch:
[list=1]
The most important reason: Saddam has been actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program since he came to power in 1979. If he ever completes it, he can, and by all accounts will, hold the world hostage. The Mossad's (Israeli equivalent of the CIA) profile of Saddam is something along the lines of "the aims and methods of Hitler, with the mentality of a serial killer". With this in mind, do you really see any reason that he might not use a nuclear device? While the first instinct is not to invade, but to use weapons inspectors, this brings up my second point.
After the Gulf war, Saddam was forced to have UN mandated weapons inspectors in Iraq, searching for anything that could be used for a nuclear weapon, or a nuclear weapon itself. While the intent of this was no doubt good, the inspectors were NOT allowed unfettered access, the only thing that MIGHT have found anything, and were kicked out in 1998 (did you know: the withdrawal of the inspectors was in part by request of Madeline not-so-bright? just one more reason she should be tried as a war criminal, among other things which I won't get into now). This should have been cause enough to invade, but all the liberals, with their whining "we have to blame the just, and elevate the criminals" stopped that. Which brings me to yet another point.
As much of a stretch as this may sound, Iraq needs to be invaded, and/or Saddam removed, by a UN based coalition, for the survival of the UN itself. While personally, I think the UN deserves to die from and for its ineffectuality, for all the one-worlders out there, I guess I'll concede this for now.
Along the same vein, the US cannot and will not be taken seriously if it does not follow up on its promises and threats. This leaves no one with any credibility to take the moral reins of the world (and no, there is no such thing as moral equivalency; there is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong), resulting in a day I would rather be dead for; Europe, with its long list of problems, would become the moral center of the western world, a problem which, if you cannot see, you are either blind or deluding yourself. But, to get back to Saddam's crimes...
His government has given aid to known terrorists, and families of known terrorists.
His mental instability and bloodlust (note: liberals use these as excuses. Let me be clear: these are NOT excuses, they are reasons for his removal) caused him to fire missiles into Israel during the Gulf War, with the express intent of provoking a violent reaction which would have resulted in full-scale war in the middle east, something he hoped would destroy Israel in the process.
He killed thousands of his own people using chemical weapons.
[/list=1]


To summarize: Saddam is a murderer, a liar, and a terrorist. He defies both the UN and the US, while at the same time trying to develop nuclear weapons and provoke a war. For all of these reasons, if nothing else, he needs to be removed from power.

Okay, I'm done... for now.

PS. In yet another example of left-wing hypocrisy, they accuses Bush of being too stupid to breathe (slight exaggeration there), yet at the same time call him essentially a criminal mastermind. Good grief, can't anyone ever make up their mind?

[Ovi]

11

[dabirdwell]

I am as opposed to the Bush administration's policies as anyone could be, but in this case, I think their ultraconservative Jesus-government may just serve them. Most problems that they deal with are far too complex to view in a "right and wrong" frame, and this is why they fail so miserably at social services, education, health care, economics, and progress in general.

However, they have finally come upon a situation where even though the moral frame still doesn't apply, it will lead them to accidentally make the right decision. The problems that have been festering in the middle east and around the world that have lead to the development of networks of terrorists are tyranny and despotism based on religious theocratic ideals.

Emmanuelle Kant said dictatorships tend toward war, democracies tend toward peace. It is true, two democracies have never gone to war, the machinery of diplomacy doesn't allow for it. So the real problem is that the populations of these Middle-Eastern, South American and African countries don't get to rule themselves, instead they serve in fear at the feet of tyrants.

A democratic Iraq would spur change in the region, especially if they can become economically active with Israel. Iran has a middle class, and most of its citizens are below the age of 22. They want a change, as do the citizens of the neighboring regimes, and would follow the lead of Iraq.

In my political journal last year I wrote that George Bush is going to accidentally save the future of the middle east. It may just happen. (If not in a politically bungled manner)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by dabirdwell
I am as opposed to the Bush administration's policies as anyone could be, but in this case, I think their ultraconservative Jesus-government may just serve them. Most problems that they deal with are far too complex to view in a "right and wrong" frame, and this is why they fail so miserably at social services, education, health care, economics, and progress in general.

i am a christian and a democrat who is a moderate

bush is a moderate and not a jesus government ultraconservative...look to pat buchannan or pat robertson for that

i know the GOP looks at the complex issues very carefully like the democrats do, but it is more in the style of the republicans to simply the talk when it comes to tv

i don't know if this works well, but it does sound very uneducated and bush with his publicized normal/dull normal iq actually ends up sounding like a complete idiot at times

but he may not be as smart as clinton, but i believe he is smarter than most of us give him credit for...it appears he has a good staff of people with him and i hope we can all get through this recession ok

i don't have too many doubts concerning disarming iraq...i just hope bush does it in a way where we won't have to engage in total war and occupation...i think, even with bush and his people, that is a last resort

if it was a first resort, we would have already been in baghdad with the stars and stripes flying over saddam's palace

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi
It will be over before you know it.

One needs to understand the middle east to see this.

many thought vietnam would be quick

while desert wars traditionally don't last as long as a jungle campaign...nowhere to hide, we are talking about occupying iraq

... different story

and then there's the rebuilding

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


Everyone wants to compare this to other conflicts. They said the same thing about Afghanistan and it was over in less than 30 days. People forget how strong the US is now. With each passing month we are getting better at what we do.

Did you know that last week we were able to knock down an canon shell with a laser?

We are not going to occupy Iraq. In fact it will be easier to control than Afghanistan. Once again one needs to understand internal politics of each country and region to see this clearly.

i hope it does not come down to occupying iraq

the world would be pissed at us for doing that and we would look like a policeman/bully of the world stage

i hope we can use those smart weapons, special forces, diplomacy...instead of carpet bombing and tanks which may mean many dead civilians and dead us soldiers from "friendly fire"

some now say general custer was accidentally shot by his own troops...a story i heard on abc when they were talking about ballistics evidence

it is amazing what one can tell from a single bullet and the evidence it leaves behind...as accurate and identifiable as a fingerprint

[dabirdwell]

There is no way to stabilize a post-Saddam Iraq other than to stay there with a joint peacekeeping force until internal security can be organized and coordinated with the interim government.

Without occupation we will only worsen the situation by an attack bent on regime change. The Iraqis will suffer more than they have under Saddam if one of his sons or a faction becomes the head of a new despotic government, and we (esp. Israel) will surely suffer the brunt of any force that can be obtained by the new regime.

Democracy is the key.

It has been since Lycurgus in Sparta and Solon in Athens began democratic tradition thousands of years ago.

[dabirdwell]

By "democracy" I mean a system based on republican ideals. Most of us know that we don't live in a democracy actually.

(By republican, I don't mean the party)

[diorio]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i hope it does not come down to occupying iraq

the world would be pissed at us for doing that and we would look like a policeman/bully of the world stage



The world is always pissed off at us. What would be the big deal if we pissed them off again? What are they going to do to us? It is sad that we often have to solve problems for other countries, but it is often the only way a problem will get solved.:(

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
Well said. Most with with common sense could understand but choose not to.

One needs to understand the middle east to see this.
Once again one needs to understand internal politics of each country and region to see this clearly.
You do realize how snide and condescending these quotes sound, right? Do you really think the debate between the liberal and the conservative is a debate between the stupid and the enlightened?

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

Well, if no one else will respond to this giant turd whopper, I guess I will.
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
You want a reason? Here's a bunch:

* The most important reason: Saddam has been actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program since he came to power in 1979.
Proof please. (Link from a credible source or two.)
If he ever completes it,
Quite a big "if," no?
he can, and by all accounts
Whose accounts?
will, hold the world hostage. The Mossad's (Israeli equivalent of the CIA) profile of Saddam is something along the lines of "the aims and methods of Hitler, with the mentality of a serial killer".
"Along the lines of" -- please come back and give us the exact wording. Hitler if I'm not mistaken tried to take over the world. Iraq in recent history tried to take over... a tiny little adjacent country called Kuwait? And failed! Wow, damn, look out, world! Piddly little third-world dictator today, WORLD NUCLEAR POWER tomorrow!
With this in mind, do you really see any reason that he might not use a nuclear device?
Perhaps... hmm... not wanting to get himself ousted from power and probably killed in the retaliatory strike? Duh?
While the first instinct is not to invade, but to use weapons inspectors, this brings up my second point.
* (meaningless unsubstantiated opinions removed to save space)
* As much of a stretch as this may sound, Iraq needs to be invaded, and/or Saddam removed, by a UN based coalition, for the survival of the UN itself. While personally, I think the UN deserves to die from and for its ineffectuality, for all the one-worlders out there, I guess I'll concede this for now.
Yeah, that does sound like a stretch alright. It would have helped if you would have maybe explained that a little bit?
* Along the same vein, the US cannot and will not be taken seriously if it does not follow up on its promises and threats.
Agreed, although I would say the US shouldn't be making threats in the first place.
This leaves no one with any credibility to take the moral reins of the world
"The moral reins." OK, John Wayne.
(and no, there is no such thing as moral equivalency; there is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong),
Your opinion is appreciated, but it's just that - your opinion.
resulting in a day I would rather be dead for; Europe, with its long list of problems,
As if the US has any fewer problems!
would become the moral center of the western world, a problem which, if you cannot see, you are either blind or deluding yourself.
I guess I'm both blind and deluding myself then...
But, to get back to Saddam's crimes...
* His government has given aid to known terrorists, and families of known terrorists.
He gave aid that may or may not have been effectual to people you don't agree with!
* His mental instability and bloodlust
Sources for both of these, please
(note: liberals use these as excuses. Let me be clear: these are NOT excuses, they are reasons for his removal) caused him to fire missiles into Israel during the Gulf War, with the express intent of provoking a violent reaction which would have resulted in full-scale war in the middle east, something he hoped would destroy Israel in the process.
Well, you have to admit, if destroying Israel is what you're after, that probably didn't seem like a bad way of going about it, did it? I mean it seems perfectly logical to me. Not sure where you get the "mental instability" from. He did manage to properly connect A to B there. It's not like he's going around wearing funny hats and singing Maria Callas inside a throne room full of fishtanks and bananas or something.
* He killed thousands of his own people using chemical weapons.
Define "his own", and explain how killing with chemical weapons is worse than killing by any other means.
To summarize: Saddam is a murderer, a liar, and a terrorist. He defies both the UN and the US,
For SHAME! He DEFIES us! It's okay for us to do whatever we want of course, but ANY other country in the WORLD that DARES defy US will have it!

(It's interesting how you make a big stink about the UN being a baloney organization and recommending the US break from it and ignore it, while then proceeding to hold it against Iraq for doing the same, but I'll leave that be for now.)
while at the same time trying to develop nuclear weapons
Blah blah, see above
and provoke a war.
How in the hell is he provoking a war? He's just sitting there, he hasn't been at war in over a decade, and he has no apparent aspirations for territory aside from Kuwait.
PS. In yet another example of left-wing hypocrisy, they accuses Bush of being too stupid to breathe (slight exaggeration there), yet at the same time call him essentially a criminal mastermind. Good grief, can't anyone ever make up their mind?
Too stupid to breathe: Well, he is breathing. Almost too stupid to breathe would be more like it. Criminal mastermind: No, I doubt he has any idea what he's doing. Any criminal behavior on his part I believe is purely unintentional. He believes what he's doing is "right."

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
Come on!! Now.

Stop being so sensative. Be man and stop whining.

But since you seem concerned I should clarify something. Those were all made to shorten my replies. Meaning I am not about to explain myself in every detail. I have thousands of hours in reading on these topics. I have no intention to write long letters to those who use this forum to be entertained versus educated.

And no I don't think liberals are stupid Most that I know have PHd's. But when it comes to foreign policy even the doctors are extreemly naive.
So liberals are not stupid - just naive. Well, that's a relief. "I'm right - they're wrong." Makes perfect sense to me.

I don't question your education. Could it be, though, that this is not a distinction between the right and the naive, but a question of different but equally valid ideologies?

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
Given your last few replies I am about to make a few assumption.

You are still in grieve over the loss of your past Senator.

You are very angry to see BUSH do well in the elections.

Get offline and take a long vacation. Mexico is awesome this time of year.
Way to make a comment that has absolutely no relevance to anything else in the thread. I salute you.

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

That's the whole point of these threads, isn't it? I'm glad I could make someone laugh. Although for some reason my knee is still itching for a few testicles to crush.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by Ovi
I am much better informed than most.

Here is a good link.
http://www.rferl.org/iraq-report/

And no I am not in the military.

I am in the Reserves and yes there is a chance that we might get called up. You can talk all high and mighty how great it is to go to war, but the fact of the matter is you will be sitting in your lazy-boy all fat and happy while my troops and myself are working our asses off winning the war. War is not a great thing. I signed the line to make a difference for my country and to protect my freedoms. If I get called up I will go and be proud of myself. I vote Democratic and always will. This notion that Democrats have always been weak as far as standing up for defense drives me nuts. Tell me Harry Truman was a weak man. Many times I wish we still could get people like that to lead this country instead of bought off multi-billionaire dynasties like the Bushes.

I like the idea that I can go into a voting booth and choose my party and candidate. I serve in the military because I never want to loose that right. You would not care if I was wiped out in Iraq cause to you it would just be one less Democrat to vote in an election, but just remember most kids that will be over there fighting are poor inner city kids, minority groups, and the list goes on and on. I love the troops I work with and trust them to cover my back.

I worked very hard to get Sen. Tim Johnson back into office and we did it. Yes the fact that he is a Democrat was one reason I have always liked him so much, but I also admire his son Brooks who is in the 101st Airborne, over in the middle east right now. In fact, Tim is the only person in congress that has a child on active duty. You can talk values all you want, but I know I trust someone who has a son in the hot spot right now more then anyone who lives a luxury lifestyle like the Bushes. If we start to get into war do you really think any younger Bush family member will be signing up...oh hell no. Can't leave the luxury lifestyle. They would refuse to eat an MRE or get dirty. They probably couldn't pass the military drug test as well, no pun intended of course.

Conservatives are against anyone that is different then themselves, that is not America. I serve my country to protect everyone here.

[Ovi]

11

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by Ovi


My hats off to you.

A great deal of incorrect assumptions on your part however. Democrats are weak on national defense. Do you want me to show you Dascle's voting record on military spending.

And no I would not be happy if you died. And no most of those in the military are not poor or minorities. Get your facts straight.

Are you in the military or have you ever been in the military? I am in the reserves and have spent time on active duty, I went through basic and my officers course. You are right as far as the officers side is concerned. Not a lot of minorities or lower class people. On the Enlisted side however, I have been in platoons during training where I was a minority as a white male. If you spend time on an active duty installation there are many minorities that serve this country. If you think there are only white males serving this country right now, your facts are really messed up.

Look I am not going to argue with you cause you are a know it all and I really believe that you don't really care who gets killed out there, because you know you won't be there. But even though I don't like your narrow minded political beliefs, if I end up there I will fight my ass off for ya, so you can have the freedom to choose and voice your side of the issues.

Tom Daschle is not a bad person. As our senator I don't always agree with everything he does. I support him more so for social issues and considering I make $23,000 a year as a teacher in my civilan job, I just don't feel that dynasties like the Bushes represent me. In fact, GW is the type of person that would laugh at me and call me white trash cause I don't have a million in my bank account. I am sorry, but I was born and raised on a farm in the middle of the prairie and I just don't trust smooth people.

You know the president came to our state 5 times and I never was able to go and see him, because most of the events costed $500 a head. I walked up just last week and visted with Tom Daschle while he was in our state campaining for Johnson and introduced myself and told him what I do. He was genuine and thanked me for serving my country and teaching the youth to become good citizens. The funny thing is it was free to see him and even talk with him.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


Democrats are weak on national defense. Do you want me to show you Dascle's voting record on military spending.


my god, man...come over and visit me the next time you play pebble beach...i am right over in carmel )pm me on the site...you can show me how to putt ;)

i was in the department of defense after university and while i was a junior college student, i worked for a cia operative

i was a democrat then and i am a democrat now

the other job i considered after university was as a naval officer

my father served in world war II in the us army and joined from inside the barracks of an american concentration camp

he votes democrat

as you have guessed by now, i am a japanese american and yes, a democrat

i could go on and on about democrats and military or dod personnel...jfk was a naval officer and so was jimmy carter

to make things fair, jesse ventura and ross perot both served in the us navy (they are reform party)

not all people who support the defense department, the intelligence community, police, or military are republicans

ovi, i know you know that:D

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


I am playing Poppy Hills. If you can get me unto Pebble Beach I would love to spend 5 hours with.:D

i wish i could afford pebble beach..he he

but i will gladly play peter hay (short course) with you...i did that a lot as a kid and teenager...peter hay is the practice course with nine holes on the other side of pebble beach golf links' clubhouse

i suck at golf

getting it on the green is easy...but i am a five putter...overshoot here, overshoot there

and i can't read the green worth a damn...how does one do that???

pm me and i will give you my home phone number...my wife hates golf so maybe she can go shopping

the only other macrumors member i know is mischief...he worked at a mac store while i was a ms techie who used to go in and check out the "real" computers ;)

my buddy used to be a greens keeper at poppy hills and his dad was head gold pro at cypress...his brother once played the crosby/att pro am but shot eighty-something...he's much better than that, but pressure has a way of making one choke

bobby klampett (sp?) is from nearby carmel valley, ca...and he's the locals' pride and joy...i think he played some majors at one time but i am not too sure on that one:p

[SPG]

I was too busy trying to make a living today to respond to the diatribe put out by ovi, so I just wanted to say thanks to Alex_ant for dissecting the crap reasoning put out by the resident republican mouthpiece.
Abercrombie, Valid points and I respect your choices and your convictions, I just hope we don't have to shed any more blood to advance the political agendas of a few old white men. I never thought about the personal accessibility issue before, but after thinking about it it's true, I've talked to Bill Bradley and a few other Democrats before, but never have been able to get within spitting distance of any republican. During all the debate in congress aobut giving up the checks and balances and allowing bush to declare war, I don't recall hearing too much input from any of the people who would actually have to fight it.
Ovi, why sould you bring up the death of Senator Wellstone? Was that to pour salt into someone's wound? Your callousness amazes me. Wellstone was a good man even if you ignore his politics and to say that you laugh out loud after mentioning his passing is indicative of a very serious lack of morality and basic human compassion on your part.
For the record, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was discussed beforehand with the US ambassador to Iraq beforehand, and sadam was given the green light to resolve the oil agreement breakdown with Kuwait however he saw fit, so long as Iraq would continue to meet the world's oil needs.

[SPG]

The Iraqi scud attacks on Israel were a deliberate attempt to destabilize the coalition in the Gulf War. By bombing Israel, Sadam figured that Israel would have to retaliate as a matter of pride and policy, and then all the Arab states would drop out of the coalition rather than be seen as fighting alongside Israel.
This time a around, there is slightly less incentive since we'll be going alone. If there is an attack on Iraq by the US, Israel might be struck again just to get some of the arab people to back Iraq. That would be the main reason.
Support for Palestinians is not uncommon throughout the middle east, so Sadam being claimed as a supporter of terrorists by giving the families of suicide bombers money after the fact would put him in the same league as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and just about every country there. In the eyes of the middle easterners, we are the supporters of terror by giving weapons to the Israelis.

Oh yeah, Ovi what do you have against Europe? Have you ever been to Europe? Do you understand their history and cultures? I can't believe you would get so bent out of shape over what you perceive as Europe's morality. What, seriously is the problem with Europe's morality? I'd like to know since I used to live there and still go there sometimes, I want to be on the lookout so that I'm not corrupted by the evil Europeans!

[GeeYouEye]

*Cracks knuckles*

Originally posted by alex_ant
Well, if no one else will respond to this giant turd whopper, I guess I will.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but calling my post a "turd whopper" is hardly the way to prove a point.


Proof please. (Link from a credible source or two.)


Fact: Iraq tried multiple times to buy a nuclear reactor from France, but, thanks to timely US/Israel led intervention, the cores of the reactors were destroyed before they could become operational. And don't give me the "Well maybe he needed power" argument. He's sitting on trillions upon trillions of barrels of oil. Proportionally, according to this CIA link (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html) and this CIA link (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html), Iraq produces proportionately the same amount of power as the US. Oh yeah, and there is, of course this (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) little gem. Quite damning, don't you think?


Quite a big "if," no?


You're right, as long as something (intervention and/or weapons inspections) is done about it. If not then it is "when" not "if"

Whose accounts?


Read a history textbook sometime. Preferably one from before about 1995 tho... these new ones are seriously skewed.

"Along the lines of" -- please come back and give us the exact wording. Hitler if I'm not mistaken tried to take over the world. Iraq in recent history tried to take over... a tiny little adjacent country called Kuwait? And failed! Wow, damn, look out, world! Piddly little third-world dictator today, WORLD NUCLEAR POWER tomorrow!


I don't remember the exact wording (information gained from a speech by the author of Five Minutes to Midnight, coincidentally, a former Mossad agent.), but the issue is synonyms, (aims vs. goals, and vs. plus vs. combined with), not ideas, and the second half (everything after the "and") is verbatim from the speech. As for the rest, I can clearly see you, ca. 1938

Hitler in recent history tried to take over... a tiny little adjacent country called Czechoslovakia? Wow, damn, look out, world! Piddly little third-rate dictator today, WORLD-SPANNING EMPIRE tomorrow!

Some of us, at least, actually learn from History.

Perhaps... hmm... not wanting to get himself ousted from power and probably killed in the retaliatory strike? Duh?


Only rational, sane, people think that way. Saddam my be rational, but sane people do not launch missiles at a trigger-happy, technologically superior country with a 6-0 war record.

Yeah, that does sound like a stretch alright. It would have helped if you would have maybe explained that a little bit?


Same reason the US needs to invade if the UN doesn't: credibility.

Agreed, although I would say the US shouldn't be making threats in the first place.


And I would say that Iraq should be abiding by its promises, and by security council resolutions applicable to it (there's a whole bunch, starting with, IIRC, number 648.

"The moral reins." OK, John Wayne.


Hmm... this one'll be easier to deal with later... see one response below

Your opinion is appreciated, but it's just that - your opinion.


I guess then, according to your worldview that Hitler was justified in genocide because some Jews occasionally resisted his attempts at genocide. Apart from the circular logic aspects of that, it deserves a long "Riiiiiiiight..." note that this response should also fill the role of the previous one.

As if the US has any fewer problems!


At least here, we aren't a) socialist, b) plagued by violent immigrants, such as Norway and France (ours are only sucking the budgets of various states dry, for the most part), c) we are not all nymphomaniacs (I'm a firm believer in sexual freedom, but there's a limit line somewhere, and Europe passed it quite some time ago) d) willing to relinquish much of our sovereignty for a tiny economic gain that could quickly turn into a loss.

I guess I'm both blind and deluding myself then...


I guess so.

He gave aid that may or may not have been effectual to people you don't agree with!


Terrorists, unless defending their lives, are not, in my book, human beings. Unlike the Jewish terrorists in the Warsaw ghetto, the primary reason for the suicide bombings in Israel is not self-defense. And unlike Israel, the Nazis were not going to stop their genocide if the Warsaw terrorism stopped. And you know where that money went? Into making bombs so more terrorists can blow themselves, and dozens of others, up.

Sources for both of these, please


Let's see... for mental instability, look upward about 8 responses. For bloodlust... remind me again, HOW many Kurds did he have gassed? Oh yeah, 35,000.

Well, you have to admit, if destroying Israel is what you're after, that probably didn't seem like a bad way of going about it, did it? I mean it seems perfectly logical to me. Not sure where you get the "mental instability" from. He did manage to properly connect A to B there. It's not like he's going around wearing funny hats and singing Maria Callas inside a throne room full of fishtanks and bananas or something.


1. So now it's okay for one country to destroy another in war, as long as it's not the US doing it? Riiiiiiiiiiight...

2. There is, as I have stated above, a difference between sanity and rationality. Saddam is definitely rational, but not sane.

Define "his own", and explain how killing with chemical weapons is worse than killing by any other means.


1. Get a dictionary. Quickly (quickly as defined as "as soon as possible").

2. It isn't really, though the numbers are still, or should be, shocking. I figured liberals of all people would think that death by WMD is worse than any other death. Glad to see at least one potential spark of hope for you.

For SHAME! He DEFIES us! It's okay for us to do whatever we want of course, but ANY other country in the WORLD that DARES defy US will have it!

(It's interesting how you make a big stink about the UN being a baloney organization and recommending the US break from it and ignore it, while then proceeding to hold it against Iraq for doing the same, but I'll leave that be for now.)


Name one time the US has defied the UN. The US is a super-power, and with such power comes responsibility. One of these responsibilities is making sure the world is safe for everyone who does not have the intent of hurting others, and making the world as unsafe as possible for them.

How in the hell is he provoking a war? He's just sitting there, he hasn't been at war in over a decade, and he has no apparent aspirations for territory aside from Kuwait.

What about the 8-year long war he waged with Iran, over territory. And don't tell me that, should the opportunity arise, he wouldn't destroy and occupy Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other Middle Eastern country. Remember, Hitler started with the sudetenland, nothing else.

Too stupid to breathe: Well, he is breathing. Almost too stupid to breathe would be more like it. Criminal mastermind: No, I doubt he has any idea what he's doing. Any criminal behavior on his part I believe is purely unintentional. He believes what he's doing is "right."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is - your opinion.

All I know is that I see liberals saying in one breath, "Bush is so stupid he choked on a pretzel", and in the next "Bush is so dangerous because he's eroding our liberties and freedoms and welfare programs, just subtly enough so we don't notice it until it's too late."


My that was fun. Care to go at it again some time?

[job]

GeeYouEye I salute you. :)

---------------

Anyways,

This thread got real interesting real fast.

I'm just going to sit back and watch GeeYouEye and alex_ant go at it...

Both are cynical enough to actually turn this debate into something I'd like to read...

[job]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Proof please. (Link from a credible source or two.)

Here's another link/article...

http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/ja1/wwwhse0855.html

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by hitman
GeeYouEye I salute you. :)

---------------

Anyways,

This thread got real interesting real fast.

I'm just going to sit back and watch GeeYouEye and alex_ant go at it...

Both are cynical enough to actually turn this debate into something I'd like to read...

Why thank you! I do this sort of thing quite often in The Neutral Zone at www.trekbbs.com. It's so fun to watch 'em squirm. :D

[Ovi]

44

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Fact: Iraq tried multiple times to buy a nuclear reactor from France, but, thanks to timely US/Israel led intervention, the cores of the reactors were destroyed before they could become operational. And don't give me the "Well maybe he needed power" argument. He's sitting on trillions upon trillions of barrels of oil.
Proportionally, according to ..., Iraq produces proportionately the same amount of power as the US. Oh yeah, and there is, of course this little gem. Quite damning, don't you think?
No, I said proof that Iraq is working toward becoming a nuclear power. We already have some evidence for that, and some evidence to the contrary. What I'm asking for is proof (e.g. something that will shut the liberals up). Not links to the CIA factbook about Iraq's energy consumption or a link to a UNSC draft by two countries that hate Iraq.
You're right, as long as something (intervention and/or weapons inspections) is done about it. If not then it is "when" not "if"
I don't want Iraq to have nuclear weapons, either. The UN has said "Let us inspect!" Iraq has said "**** off!" Conservatives and even a lot of liberals say "Die then, ****er!" We all need to stop being such children and sit down and work something out.
Read a history textbook sometime.
Answer the question sometime?
Preferably one from before about 1995 tho... these new ones are seriously skewed.
Skewed away from your argumentative advantage?
I don't remember the exact wording (information gained from a speech by the author of Five Minutes to Midnight, coincidentally, a former Mossad agent.), but the issue is synonyms, (aims vs. goals, and vs. plus vs. combined with), not ideas, and the second half (everything after the "and") is verbatim from the speech. As for the rest, I can clearly see you, ca. 1938

Hitler in recent history tried to take over... a tiny little adjacent country called Czechoslovakia? Wow, damn, look out, world! Piddly little third-rate dictator today, WORLD-SPANNING EMPIRE tomorrow!

Some of us, at least, actually learn from History.

From history we've learned that Hitler's aspirations were much greater than Czechoslovakia, of course, although at the time, that seemed like a far-fetched idea. What I did was contrast Iraq's actual status as a pathetic and weak country that could easily be crushed by the US in a matter of weeks against its image as another country in the mould of a 1943 Germany. My point was that even if Hussein's aspirations were anything like Hitler's - which is highly doubtful - we would have plenty of time to crush him before he even started to become a threat - AND, we would be able to do it without all the liberals throwing a fit! Wouldn't that be awesome? It would be like the Gulf War all over again! If the Republicans would just stop being so trigger-happy and actually wait for a good reason to get the bombs falling, they would certainly encounter much less resistance. They might even find that they have allies on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of the pond.
Only rational, sane, people think that way. Saddam my be rational, but sane people do not launch missiles at a trigger-happy, technologically superior country with a 6-0 war record.
They do if they think doing so will ultimately be advantageous to them.
Same reason the US needs to invade if the UN doesn't: credibility.
"Well, X would be the right thing to do, but we gotta do Y or else we'll lose our credibility!" Above all else, including the "credibility" factor, the US and the UN need to do what's right. Which, at this point in time, is, IMO, getting a dialog going with Iraq and working to dissolve the mistrust and settle their issues diplomatically.
And I would say that Iraq should be abiding by its promises,
I agree that it should, and this is a sticky situation that needs to be resolved. However, I am not so quick as you to order in the tanks and the bombs.
and by security council resolutions applicable to it (there's a whole bunch, starting with, IIRC, number 648.
Why? As you say, the UN is illegitimate and should be abolished. (Although I do agree.)
I guess then, according to your worldview that Hitler was justified in genocide because some Jews occasionally resisted his attempts at genocide.
Straw man
Terrorists, unless defending their lives, are not, in my book, human beings.
Of course they're "human beings." They're human beings who like to blow up various other people. I'm not saying here "Let's love and embrace the terrorists!", I'm saying, "Let's look at this rationally and not dramaticize or use crappy logic like 'they blow other people up, therefore they can't be human!" Of course they're human. Which again, is not to say that what they do is right. But in my book, you've got arms and legs and guts and a mind (vast oversimplification I know), so you're human, and no matter what bad things you do, you still are, whether other people want to equate you with some lower form of life or not.
Unlike the Jewish terrorists in the Warsaw ghetto, the primary reason for the suicide bombings in Israel is not self-defense. And unlike Israel, the Nazis were not going to stop their genocide if the Warsaw terrorism stopped. And you know where that money went? Into making bombs so more terrorists can blow themselves, and dozens of others, up.
You seem quite confused here. What do Nazis and suicide bombings in Israel have to do with Iraq?
For bloodlust... remind me again, HOW many Kurds did he have gassed? Oh yeah, 35,000.
Way to completely take the situation out of context (which is not to say that gassing others is well and good). The gassing was provoked by an Iran-backed Kurdish insurrection. I guarantee you that if any other minority population attempted to take over or secede from their government - any government, including the US - the exact same thing would happen, although probably with bombs and guns and not gas.
1. So now it's okay for one country to destroy another in war, as long as it's not the US doing it? Riiiiiiiiiiight...
No. I am establishing my opinion that Hussein is probably not a total nutcase, as you would argue.
2. There is, as I have stated above, a difference between sanity and rationality. Saddam is definitely rational, but not sane.
How is he not rational or sane? I mean, any other rational and sane person in his position with his desires would have done pretty much the same thing, wouldn't they have? Or must one be irrational/insane to wish another country's destruction? If so, are we irrational or insane for wishing for Iraq's destruction?
1. Get a dictionary. Quickly (quickly as defined as "as soon as possible").
You said Hussein gassed "his own people." I'd say that is a very ambiguous statement, which is why I asked you to define "his own."
2. It isn't really, though the numbers are still, or should be, shocking. I figured liberals of all people would think that death by WMD is worse than any other death. Glad to see at least one potential spark of hope for you.
Death is death, whether by bullet or by pancake syrup. And don't pigeonhole me as "liberal." You have no idea what my political beliefs are.
Name one time the US has defied the UN.
I suppose you're more or less right - the US has never defied the UN because the US basically is the UN. On those occasions on which it has come close (such as the war in Afghanistan), the US has been able to squeak by on technicalities.
The US is a super-power, and with such power comes responsibility. One of these responsibilities is making sure the world is safe for everyone who does not have the intent of hurting others, and making the world as unsafe as possible for them.
There's John Wayne again. "We're the good guys, and our job is to help out the other good guys and fight the bad guys." Works well in the movies, not so well in a world with staggering levels of complexity and interrelatedness.
What about the 8-year long war he waged with Iran, over territory.
And lost.
And don't tell me that, should the opportunity arise, he wouldn't destroy and occupy Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other Middle Eastern country. Remember, Hitler started with the sudetenland, nothing else.
Should the opportunity arise. The opportunity has not arisen, has it? Should the opportunity arise, we'd take over China in a heartbeat. Lots of countries have territorial aspirations - Iraq is hardly the only one.

(I'd also like to see less of the Hitler analogies. We all know they're useless)
All I know is that I see liberals saying in one breath, "Bush is so stupid he choked on a pretzel", and in the next "Bush is so dangerous because he's eroding our liberties and freedoms and welfare programs, just subtly enough so we don't notice it until it's too late."
I don't think he's stupid because he choked on a pretzel. I think he's stupid because he was a mediocre student, he stammers like an idiot, and his worldview is shockingly rudimentary (among other things). Every opportunity he has had to prove himself intellectually he has failed, from school to business to the presidency. I am continually depressed that we as a country didn't elect someone - anyone - more suited to the job.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman
GeeYouEye I salute you. :)
Are we on teams now? Are we playing a game? Who's winning?

[job]

Originally posted by alex_ant
And don't pigeonhole me as "liberal." You have no idea what my political beliefs are.

That statement got my attention...

You seem to dislike both Democrats and Republicans...

Adverse to party affiliation? ;) :p

[job]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Are we on teams now? Are we playing a game? Who's winning?

No, like I said, the advent of GeeYouEyes equally cynical post suddenly got me interested in this thread again.

He merely presented an opinion which is not often seen on these forums.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman
Here's another link/article...

http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/ja1/wwwhse0855.html
A defector speaks against the country from which he defected... No! It can't be!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman
No, like I said, the advent of GeeYouEyes equally cynical post suddenly got me interested in this thread again.

He merely presented an opinion which is not often seen on these forums.
I would say he presented an opinion which we see way too much of on these forums. :)

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman
That statement got my attention...

You seem to dislike both Democrats and Republicans...

Adverse to party affiliation? ;) :p
Yes, actually! That's another topic, though.

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
i actually expected better responses out of you. Weak very weak.
If "weak very weak" were all it took for me to dismantle someone else's argument, believe me, I would have stopped well short of the 10000 character limit. But since you have succeeded with just that, I must congratulate you, and admit defeat.

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
LOL

What I want you to say is simply

"All we have heard are lies about Saddam. All this proof is made up and there is no way he would ever do anything stupid like kill Americans or any other people. He never attacked Israel. That was all made up by the Israelis by buldozing down houses and pretending to be bombs. Those suicide bombers in Israel are actually Mossad agents killing themselves and the civilians to get the US to attack Israel. The money that he supposedly sends to the Palestinians is actually coming from the republican oil men like Bush. All those videos of him shooting missles at our aircraft are actually taken in Arizona. The UN passes resolutions just to stay busy since their boss the US would have a hard time justifying paying all that money to support them. There is a ton of countries doing exactly like him but they never make it on the news. Bush is brilliant because he makes look at him as a moron."
You would want me to say that, wouldn't you? Because if I said that, you would be able to fit me in conveniently with all the idiot liberals (or at least the idiot liberals who you've imagined) who do say that. The fact that I don't think that (or say it), and that therefore you can't pigeonhole me as just another bleeing-heart liberal, pisses you off to no end.
Don't cry now because SPG or whatever his call letters are will be with you in a few minutes
Who needs SPG when your mother is so soft and supple?

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

[inappropriate]

[jelloshotsrule]

why are there always a few people (or more) who can't discuss something without making it come down to party affiliation or some other "left" or "right" or whatever other stereotype and generalization?

and anyone who thinks that someone would be depressed because the republicans now have the majority has something wrong with them. and for whoever said "BUSH's win" this past week or whatever in reference to president bush "winning" because the republicans in general won the elections.... bush wasn't running. we only elect a president every 4 years. we did that two years ago so we won't do it again til 2004.

and the us has a 6-0 war record? we really kicked ass over in vietnam... good call.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

alex, can i be soft and supple too?

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

alex, can i be soft and supple too?
Why, Jello is soft and supple by its very nature... *wink* :D

[GeeYouEye]

Wow, the things that I miss when I'm away for a couple hours. You're persistent, and in that, admirable. Most people I know would have conceded defeat by now.

Originally posted by alex_ant

No, I said proof that Iraq is working toward becoming a nuclear power. We already have some evidence for that, and some evidence to the contrary. What I'm asking for is proof (e.g. something that will shut the liberals up). Not links to the CIA factbook about Iraq's energy consumption or a link to a UNSC draft by two countries that hate Iraq.


What would satisfy you? Saddam to come out in public and say "I want a nuclear weapons program"? I don't see that happening, so the closest you'll get is that defector (thanks for that, hitman, I'd forgotten about that). Beyond that, everything you want is classified by the government.

I don't want Iraq to have nuclear weapons, either. The UN has said "Let us inspect!" Iraq has said "**** off!" Conservatives and even a lot of liberals say "Die then, ****er!" We all need to stop being such children and sit down and work something out.

Repeat the first two phrases (UN and Iraq) a few times, but adding a "Ok we'll comply" on Iraq's part in between. And ya' know what? We HAVE sat down and worked things out, things Iraq agreed to, and then later did the "**** off!" routine. Enough is enough already. And us evil conservatives have given Iraq every opportunity to comply, and yet they continue not defy the US and the UN.

Answer the question sometime?


I did. You wanted proof, the proof is in the books, and I'm to lazy/tired to see if there's an online version of the book.

Skewed away from your argumentative advantage?


Skewed like they go on for two chapters about the life of black slaves, give two paragraphs to the Revolution, and make two references to George Washington, and then only in passing.

Note: numbers added for clarity
1. From history we've learned that Hitler's aspirations were much greater than Czechoslovakia, of course, although at the time, that seemed like a far-fetched idea. 2. What I did was contrast Iraq's actual status as a pathetic and weak country that could easily be crushed by the US in a matter of weeks against its image as another country in the mould of a 1943 Germany. 3. My point was that even if Hussein's aspirations were anything like Hitler's - 3a. which is highly doubtful - we would have plenty of time to crush him before he even started to become a threat - 4. AND, we would be able to do it without all the liberals throwing a fit! 5. Wouldn't that be awesome? 6. It would be like the Gulf War all over again! 7. If the Republicans would just stop being so trigger-happy and actually wait for a good reason to get the bombs falling, they would certainly encounter much less resistance. 8. They might even find that they have allies on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of the pond.


1. Agreed, but I'm saying, while it seems like a far-fetched idea for Iraq to have aspirations of World Domination, it was the same for Germany.

2. You lost me on this one. If I understand it correctly (and I don't think I do by any means), then you are comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing 1990-2002 Iraq to 1943 Germany, I'm talking 1938.

3. Right, and there's no time like the present. Germany violates the Treaty of Versailles with impunity, Iraq violates the UNSC resolutions with impunity. While we can't do anything to stop Germany from coming to power now, we can learn from our mistakes in the past and prevent them from repeating. Unlike you, I don't care about PR status. Didn't you ever have those signs in school "What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular"? Learn from those, if not from history.

3a. I assume you have evidence for this? Somehow, I'm more inclined to believe the opinion of the Israeli CIA than yours.

4. Ok, you're not liberal. What are you? And liberals not throwing a fit is like the sun going Nova: it'll happen someday, but I doubt I'll be alive to see it.

5. And you accuse me of fanciful thinking!?

6. Oh yea, let's make the mistake of leaving Saddam alive and in power again.

7. a) I'm not a Republican, just conservative, b) Let's see, what kind of excuse do you want. Okay, I've got one. Let's say, hypothetically, that there's this terrorist organization, let's call it Al-Queda, and let's imagine it has state-sponsored training camps throughout Iraq (hypothetically shown in the last weapons inspectors reports). And now let's say that some of these terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, killing almost 3,000 (with many more missing). Would that work? Guess what? It already happened.

8. Yes, but it doesn't matter. see this response, answer #3.

They do if they think doing so will ultimately be advantageous to them.


You are still confusing sanity with rationality. I will be the first to say that Saddam is coldly, brutally rational, but that doesn't say anything about sanity. After all, sane people have a desire to survive. Provoking Israel is not a good way to survive.

"Well, X would be the right thing to do, but we gotta do Y or else we'll lose our credibility!" Above all else, including the "credibility" factor, the US and the UN need to do what's right. Which, at this point in time, is, IMO, getting a dialog going with Iraq and working to dissolve the mistrust and settle their issues diplomatically.


Finally, something we can agree on, or at least everything above the last sentence. The problem is, your opinion has been tried and failed. Time to be more persuasive.

I agree that it should, and this is a sticky situation that needs to be resolved. However, I am not so quick as you to order in the tanks and the bombs.


But your method has been tried and failed, more than once. What do you do now?

Why? As you say, the UN is illegitimate and should be abolished. (Although I do agree.)


Agree with what? Regardless of my dislike of the UN, they are the ruling power in terms of international affairs, and as such, until the time of dissolution, need to have their edicts and resolutions obeyed.

Straw man


Prove me wrong then.

Of course they're "human beings." They're human beings who like to blow up various other people. I'm not saying here "Let's love and embrace the terrorists!", I'm saying, "Let's look at this rationally and not dramaticize or use crappy logic like 'they blow other people up, therefore they can't be human!" Of course they're human. Which again, is not to say that what they do is right. But in my book, you've got arms and legs and guts and a mind (vast oversimplification I know), so you're human, and no matter what bad things you do, you still are, whether other people want to equate you with some lower form of life or not.


They are human in form only. They want to slaughter me like an animal, I can call them the same.

You seem quite confused here. What do Nazis and suicide bombings in Israel have to do with Iraq?


It is you who are confused, I think. I was justifying and backing up my point on terrorism, but if you want to tie everything to Iraq, look up about 7 responses, in the numbered ones, at #7.

Way to completely take the situation out of context (which is not to say that gassing others is well and good). The gassing was provoked by an Iran-backed Kurdish insurrection. I guarantee you that if any other minority population attempted to take over or secede from their government - any government, including the US - the exact same thing would happen, although probably with bombs and guns and not gas.


lol... maybe 150 years ago (correction, definitely 150 years ago), but in this day and age, we'd give them all the territory they wanted and $20 billion a year until they were self-sufficient. Or haven't you heard the talk of creating a new country encompassing southern California, part of Arizona, part of New Mexico, and parts of Mexico, with the Capitol in LA, as a "latino land"? I'm not making this one up. There are actually people trying to do this.

No. I am establishing my opinion that Hussein is probably not a total nutcase, as you would argue.


Then how do YOU explain his actions? Find me a better explanation and I'll listen (and then dissect it of course, rebutting every single point if I have to, unless of course it's any good).

How is he not rational or sane? I mean, any other rational and sane person in his position with his desires would have done pretty much the same thing, wouldn't they have? Or must one be irrational/insane to wish another country's destruction? If so, are we irrational or insane for wishing for Iraq's destruction?


Last time I checked, the sane and rational among us do not establish absolute dictatorships (don't start on their elections; anyone with more than half a brain cell knows they were rigged, or the dissenters shot). And while the US may want a regime change in Iraq, they do not want to depopulate the country. The same cannot be said of Saddam's desires for Israel (or the US for that matter, if he had the capability).

[GeeYouEye]

You said Hussein gassed "his own people." I'd say that is a very ambiguous statement, which is why I asked you to define "his own."


Fine, bad choice of words on my part. That doesn't change the fact that 35,000 people were killed, including women and children.

Death is death, whether by bullet or by pancake syrup. And don't pigeonhole me as "liberal." You have no idea what my political beliefs are.


Glad to see some wisdom on both counts. So I don't make another, similar mistake, care to tell me just what those beliefs ARE?

I suppose you're more or less right - the US has never defied the UN because the US basically is the UN. On those occasions on which it has come close (such as the war in Afghanistan), the US has been able to squeak by on technicalities.


Technicalities which Iraq never had. Iraq is part of the UN as well, and is thus subject to its resolutions. Flouting the authority that it surrendered part of its sovereignty to (a whole different issue, worthy of its own thread lat-- *yawn* ... scratch that... tomorrow) for the protections of the UN against hostile neighbors, is not the way to play the game of geopolitical life.

There's John Wayne again. "We're the good guys, and our job is to help out the other good guys and fight the bad guys." Works well in the movies, not so well in a world with staggering levels of complexity and interrelatedness.


The problem is not that I see things in Black and White, but that you see things in too many shades of gray. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, no matter the consequences. You get in real trouble otherwise.

And lost.


So?

Should the opportunity arise. The opportunity has not arisen, has it? Should the opportunity arise, we'd take over China in a heartbeat. Lots of countries have territorial aspirations - Iraq is hardly the only one.

(I'd also like to see less of the Hitler analogies. We all know they're useless)


I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about getting it handed to them on a silver platter, I'm talking about waging war without anyone caring. It's still up to Iraq to defeat them. And these Hitler analogies are perfectly suited to this task, thank you very much. I'll use them as I see fit.

I don't think he's stupid because he choked on a pretzel. I think he's stupid because he was a mediocre student, he stammers like an idiot, and his worldview is shockingly rudimentary (among other things). Every opportunity he has had to prove himself intellectually he has failed, from school to business to the presidency. I am continually depressed that we as a country didn't elect someone - anyone - more suited to the job.

a) He went to Harvard and Yale, and stayed in them, where as Gore flunked out of both. b) not everyone is gifted with perfect speech. Last time I checked, being an articulate speaker is not a requirement for being president (though he has significantly improved in this area, something the media covers up by not playing or showing most of his speeches. c) Despite what you think of his worldview, he has still managed to do what's right (you said that was important, didn't you), at least when it comes to foreign affairs (domestic affairs are different, and haven't been handled very well at all beyond the tax cut, but that is another issue). d) I must say I wish there had been a better candidate in the 2000 election, but there wasn't, so we are are stuck with the lesser of two evils.


Holy crap, I've been at this for over an hour. I have to be up in 7 hours. I'll pick this up again near the end of the day tomorrow, should it continue. Good night, all.

[job]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
and the us has a 6-0 war record? we really kicked ass over in vietnam... good call.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think he meant Israel with that comment.

Hussein never launched Scuds at the US...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


wife is out of the house. I am back baby.

Thank you for the invite, I do appreciate it.

My time in Carmel is very limited. Between enjoying my family for the thanksgiving holiday and visiting with friends I will be fairly busy.

that's ok

just keep up the conservative end on these forums so i can have someone to debate against;)

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye





a) He went to Harvard and Yale



we can debate what W's iq score of 97 means

or we can look at the fact that he has an advanced degree from america's top university

it becomes an exercise in spin

but there are many different types of intelligence and while bush is definitely not an intellectual by any standard, he does have good common sense

even though i voted for gore, who i also think has common sense, i believe clinton was an intellect without much common sense

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


Good monrning. I take it you have enjoyed the facinating interlude between our two star debaters.:)

oh yeah, very interesting ;)

no matter how fierce these debates get, they never get as stupid as rush or jesse jackson

one uses no facts and the other prays on the emotions...both terrible debate tactics...terrible but often effective

i love my country but in general, americans hate to vote (look at low turnouts) and are also not very into politics

too many people i meet, even intelligent ones, from both sides, get so disgusted they think the answer is not to vote at all which makes the problem worse in the long run

sometimes i am underwhelmed by the candidates, so i vote other issues or measures

i didn't like davis for the energy debacle (maybe not entirely his fault) and the negative campaining

i didn't like simon because he was out of touch with the moderates in his own party and it was rumored he was anti abortion in every case possible

when i found out that was not the case with simon on abortion, but a slandering lie by davis, then i really got disgusted

but as hard as it was for me to get and and vote, i still did like i always do and went with another candidate for governor

i felt the same way in 1988 with bush vs dukakis...it was in later years that i found out they were actually decent people and decent politicians

in many ways, the two most successful politicians of the two parties have been clinton for the democrats and reagan for the republicans

on the democrat side, history will eventually show that lyndon johnson, even with his failures in vietnam, did more for america (think civil rights and title 7)

and on the republican side, history will eventually show that richard nixon, even with watergate, did more than reagan for america (think death of communism)

though i am a liberal by some people's definitions, i will admit that the most important president during the second half of the 20th century was richard nixon

sure, it was fun to hate him, but he was more responsible for taking down the iron curtain than anybody else

his alliance with china essentially divided the house of communism and it was just a matter of time before the communists would fall

our alliance with china thru nixon could have been the one thing that avoided a worldwide decimation thru nuclear war

even clinton would call nixon on difficult foreign policy issues because nixon was the expert of all time (and kissinger was a big part of that, too)

like spock said, "there is an ancient vulcan saying...only nixon can go to china"

nuff said

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi
We are going to war. The debate is weather it will be next month or next year.
http://thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1247552002

Where did you come up with his iq being 97?

someone provided a link somewhere on macrumors some time ago during these hotly debated political issues which i started here a couple of years ago

but really, does that matter?

we do not elect a president on his iq or his ability to remain faithful to his wife

al gore may have a better iq than bush and be more faithful to his wife than clinton, but in the end, al gore never got elected to the white house:p :rolleyes: :eek: :D

[Backtothemac]

Well, I am here Ovi. I have your back, and will keep an eye on what is going on. Going to read back through the thread and get up to speed. ;)

Hey, Forest Gump had an IQ of 50, but would still rather have him in Power than Tom Dachle ;)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, I am here Ovi. I have your back, and will keep an eye on what is going on. Going to read back through the thread and get up to speed. ;)

Hey, Forest Gump had an IQ of 50, but would still rather have him in Power than Tom Dachle ;)

me against you two guys!!!

that's a menage a trois (sp)?

bring it on...instead of being the moderate democrat i am, i will play devil's advocate and be a nancy pelosi (d) liberal:p :p :p

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


me against you two guys!!!

that's a menage a trois (sp)?

bring it on...instead of being the moderate democrat i am, i will play devil's advocate and be a nancy pelosi (d) liberal:p :p :p

you left wing, tree huggin, fema-nazi ;)

I just find it very cool that we are all mature enough to listen to one another and learn. I have softened my views on some issues since knowing Jeff, but not many ;)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


you left wing, tree huggin, fema-nazi ;)

I just find it very cool that we are all mature enough to listen to one another and learn. I have softened my views on some issues since knowing Jeff, but not many ;)

and i am working on ovi, too (he's more liberal than you but doesn't know it yet)

he turned me down for golf in california today, but that's ok

i will make democrats of you both someday

ooh, i am soooooo evil:D

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
every liberal i know keeps thinking that by talking to me, he will make me think like them. why do liberals try hard to change people while conservative try hard to help them?
"Liberals think conservatives are evil. Conservatives think liberals are stupid." -- Charles Krauthammer

[vniow]

I'd like to hear what some of our non-US members have to say about all this.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/smiley.gif

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
What would satisfy you? Saddam to come out in public and say "I want a nuclear weapons program"? I don't see that happening, so the closest you'll get is that defector (thanks for that, hitman, I'd forgotten about that). Beyond that, everything you want is classified by the government.
That's a good question. You know, I don't know. It's just that something tells me that if Iraq were amassing nuclear weapons capabilities and preparing to take over the Middle East, it would be a bit more obvious than record of a botched deal with France and a few spy satellite photos of trucks moving around on the surface, you know? The fact that any such evidence is classified forces me to trust that it does exist, because if it doesn't, nobody except in the highest levels of political and military power would know, and they would be able to go about their business bombing with impunity with no checks on their power whatsoever. And I would be just as concerned if Bush were a Democrat or a member of any independent party - or no party at all. Or if he were a completely different, smarter person. But in the meantime, I have to ask myself, in the face of his incredible corruption - is he doing this for the right reasons? Or is he doing this because Mobil/Lockheed/his-fellow-Republicans/etc. are telling him it would be good for his career?
Repeat the first two phrases (UN and Iraq) a few times, but adding a "Ok we'll comply" on Iraq's part in between. And ya' know what? We HAVE sat down and worked things out, things Iraq agreed to, and then later did the "**** off!" routine. Enough is enough already. And us evil conservatives have given Iraq every opportunity to comply, and yet they continue not defy the US and the UN.
You're right, and that's ****ed up. It's in the news now that Iraq has a week to comply or else very bad things will happen. I guess I don't know what to think of that. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but when I think about it more, I'm saddened that we have to resort to violence. We've come so far as humans, yet... when things like this happen... it's so clear we haven't. I realize my cause is a lost one, so all I can do is sit on my hands while is plays out and hope for the fewest deaths possible.
1. Agreed, but I'm saying, while it seems like a far-fetched idea for Iraq to have aspirations of World Domination, it was the same for Germany.
And I'm saying Germany seems like a big exception to the "trend" of third-world nations taking each other over. Certainly if Hussein has Hitler's aspirations for territory, he is much more patient and complacent.
2. You lost me on this one. If I understand it correctly (and I don't think I do by any means), then you are comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing 1990-2002 Iraq to 1943 Germany, I'm talking 1938.
Well, I was comparing modern Iraq to to a hypothetic future Iraq with the same power as a 1943 Germany, and noting that it would take a lot of time and political-military development for it to achieve anything like that kind of power - time during which it would be obvious said development would be occuring, during which the US or UN would be easily able to stop it from progressing any further. As opposed to now, when it's hazy at best that Iraq has any major territorial aspirations at all.
3. Right, and there's no time like the present. Germany violates the Treaty of Versailles with impunity, Iraq violates the UNSC resolutions with impunity. While we can't do anything to stop Germany from coming to power now, we can learn from our mistakes in the past and prevent them from repeating.
I agree that it's a good idea to learn from our mistakes, but I disagree that Germany and the Treaty of Versailles makes for an accurate or useful basis from which to learn. Iraq today seems very different - much tamer. The socio-political-economic environment necessary for such a massive power growth a la 1930s Germany just isn't there.
Unlike you, I don't care about PR status. Didn't you ever have those signs in school "What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular"? Learn from those, if not from history.
I'm not sure where you got this from, but I really don't care about PR status. Which is why I've spent so much time here arguing with you for such an unpopular idea.
3a. I assume you have evidence for this? Somehow, I'm more inclined to believe the opinion of the Israeli CIA than yours.
Why? If Hussein's aspirations were solely to build a giant jungle-gym in the center of Baghdad, on which Iraqis and Israelis could frolic in harmony, do you think the Israeli CIA would be keen on this? I think it's in the best interests of the Israeli CIA to make Hussein look as evil as possible, in order to build support for removing him from power. I think I'm comparatively unbiased, more or less. From what I've seen of his actions, I see very little of a desire for territory. There was the war with Iran, which he lost, and would lose again if he fought it again, and the attempted takeover of Kuwait, which failed. Who else could he take over, even if he wanted to? Nobody.
4. Ok, you're not liberal. What are you? And liberals not throwing a fit is like the sun going Nova: it'll happen someday, but I doubt I'll be alive to see it.
It doesn't matter what I am, it matters what I stand for. You're probably right about liberals not throwing a fit - maybe you could just force them to backtrack on or change their arguments.
5. And you accuse me of fanciful thinking!?
You're right, I forgot Republicans were in power. Well, one can always dream, I guess.
6. Oh yea, let's make the mistake of leaving Saddam alive and in power again.
With the war I "proposed," that certainly would not be necessary.
7. a) I'm not a Republican, just conservative, b) Let's see, what kind of excuse do you want. Okay, I've got one. Let's say, hypothetically, that there's this terrorist organization, let's call it Al-Queda, and let's imagine it has state-sponsored training camps throughout Iraq (hypothetically shown in the last weapons inspectors reports). And now let's say that some of these terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, killing almost 3,000 (with many more missing). Would that work? Guess what? It already happened.
From what I understand, the existence of these training camps is not well-established, and even in the event that they do exist and are active, would that give us justification to overthrow the Iraqi government? I'm not so sure it would.
8. Yes, but it doesn't matter. see this response, answer #3.
I know it's a popular notion amongst conservatives that the U.S. ought to do whatever it wants and screw the rest of the world, but I will have to disagree. Not wanting to run up against the 10000 character limit again, I will have to save that for another time/thread.
You are still confusing sanity with rationality. I will be the first to say that Saddam is coldly, brutally rational, but that doesn't say anything about sanity. After all, sane people have a desire to survive. Provoking Israel is not a good way to survive.
I think, at the time he provoked Israel, he knew those could have been his final days. I think, given the circumstances, there is no reason to believe he wasn't sane then. Anyone else with his convictions would have probably acted similarly.
But your method has been tried and failed, more than once. What do you do now?
I don't have a straight answer, but see my first reply in this post.

Prove me wrong then.
A straw man is by its very nature wrong. "I guess then, according to your worldview that Hitler was justified in genocide because some Jews occasionally resisted his attempts at genocide." Come on now.
They are human in form only. They want to slaughter me like an animal, I can call them the same.
You can indeed, but calling them something doesn't make them that something.
lol... maybe 150 years ago (correction, definitely 150 years ago), but in this day and age, we'd give them all the territory they wanted and $20 billion a year until they were self-sufficient. Or haven't you heard the talk of creating a new country encompassing southern California, part of Arizona, part of New Mexico, and parts of Mexico, with the Capitol in LA, as a "latino land"? I'm not making this one up. There are actually people trying to do this.
No, I haven't heard that talk - but I will guarantee you that no matter how many people tried to secede, they would be swiftly crushed. U.S. land is U.S. land and the U.S. Government wouldn't tolerate anyone taking that land away.
Then how do YOU explain his actions? Find me a better explanation and I'll listen (and then dissect it of course, rebutting every single point if I have to, unless of course it's any good).
Well, 1) see my above responses, and 2) perhaps a better question would be "how do you explain his inactions. Because he's apparently done basically nothing in the past decade other than scuffle around a bit with the no-fly zones.

(continued later)

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Last time I checked, the sane and rational among us do not establish absolute dictatorships (don't start on their elections; anyone with more than half a brain cell knows they were rigged, or the dissenters shot).
Actually, given no restrictions on their power, everyone would establish their own dictatorship. It's the perfectly rational, self-interested thing to do. Why give power to others when you can keep it all for yourself? That's not to say that "dictatorships are logical and good." It's to say that all forms of government would be dictatorships if they had no checks or balances inherent in their inner workings. Certainly one's chosen form of government has no bearing on their sanity. There are insane people in every government. Look at Qadafi, then look at Traficant. :D
Fine, bad choice of words on my part. That doesn't change the fact that 35,000 people were killed, including women and children.
Very true. And that's a tragedy that I'm definitely not going to defend. However, if the US or any country wants to pursue justice here (and I believe justice should be pursued), I hope they pursue it through the proper means, which means trying Iraq for war crimes in the UN, and not immediately going out and bombing them for other reasons.
Glad to see some wisdom on both counts. So I don't make another, similar mistake, care to tell me just what those beliefs ARE?
Well, they're not easily categorized. I'll leave it at that.
Technicalities which Iraq never had. Iraq is part of the UN as well, and is thus subject to its resolutions. Flouting the authority that it surrendered part of its sovereignty to (a whole different issue, worthy of its own thread lat-- *yawn* ... scratch that... tomorrow) for the protections of the UN against hostile neighbors, is not the way to play the game of geopolitical life.
I agree. See my first response in previous comment.
The problem is not that I see things in Black and White, but that you see things in too many shades of gray. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, no matter the consequences. You get in real trouble otherwise.
That's a possibility. In the meantime I think we'll have to simply agree to disagree on our "grayscale color depth" or whatever you want to call it.
So?
So you can't expand your territory when you go to war with another country for their territory and you lose the war.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about getting it handed to them on a silver platter, I'm talking about waging war without anyone caring. It's still up to Iraq to defeat them.
I'm afraid I've lost the train of thought here. Sometimes I wish these discussions were threaded.
And these Hitler analogies are perfectly suited to this task, thank you very much. I'll use them as I see fit.
OK, as long as I can keep using my Macintosh-automobile analogies!
a) He went to Harvard and Yale, and stayed in them, where as Gore flunked out of both.
Who said anything about Gore? He's roughly equally pathetic. Our president stayed in both Harvard and Yale. Well, give the man a cookie! He's obviously a genius.
b) not everyone is gifted with perfect speech. Last time I checked, being an articulate speaker is not a requirement for being president (though he has significantly improved in this area, something the media covers up by not playing or showing most of his speeches.
Neither is being smart, but I still want my president to be smart. Gifted speakers have the ability to communicate their ideas, to persuade, to rally support much better than dunderheads like Bush. Although I do give credit to his speechwriters for compensating. And you're right, he has been improving, slowly but steadily.
c) Despite what you think of his worldview, he has still managed to do what's right (you said that was important, didn't you), at least when it comes to foreign affairs (domestic affairs are different, and haven't been handled very well at all beyond the tax cut, but that is another issue).
I think what it comes down to here is a different definition of "right," but that can't really be argued.
d) I must say I wish there had been a better candidate in the 2000 election, but there wasn't, so we are are stuck with the lesser of two evils.
I'm glad you admit this, because lots of conservatives don't. In my opinion, we deserve no less than an absolute genius as our president.

[job]

Originally posted by alex_ant
I'm glad you admit this, because lots of conservatives don't. In my opinion, we deserve no less than an absolute genius as our president.

I found both candidates from the 2000 election pretty boring..

Neither of them had any real charisma nor appeal..

I'm sure that's why the election was so close..

Neither candidate gave any substancial reasons to be elected.

Although how would you determine if the candidate was "an absolute genius?" ;) :p

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hitman
I found both candidates from the 2000 election pretty boring..

Neither of them had any real charisma nor appeal..

I'm sure that's why the election was so close..

Neither candidate gave any substancial reasons to be elected.
Dead on. I'm positive that millions felt just like you did. I know I did.
Although how would you determine if the candidate was "an absolute genius?" ;) :p
I guess I was hoping that they would be such a genius that it would be immediately obvious because they would be floating their pen above their pedestal during the debates with telekinetic powers and so on. :)

[jelloshotsrule]

they would have brought their powerbook to the debate so they could easily check their notes on things.... though i suppose they wouldn't need notes.... but in any case, they'd have a powerbook there. maybe to play warcraft while they wait for their inferior opponents to respond... then when it's their turn, just say a few words, everyone's jaws drop, and the other candidates declare at that moment "i'm voting for them!'



gore and bush were both so moderate that they were effectively the same. just different corporations pulling their strings. gore is pro death penalty and his environmental record is anything but stellar. and bush is very good at playing the middle with the bipartisanship stuff...

too bad buchanan lost..... hahahahahahaha. ahhhh

[Ovi]

11

[jelloshotsrule]

and i'm sure the same could be said about gore... how he's not nearly as robotlike in person... hell, if i were on tv in front of tons of people i'd piss my pants. which would certainly hurt my savoir faire.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
not me. I saw Bush as a smar leader from the moment i started to hear him speak. not with reporters but real people.

i have a friend who had the rare opportunity to spend 15 minutes alone with him and one other person. it is nothing compared to what you see on tv.
The funny thing is that if he were a Democrat, and I were criticising him the same way I am now, you would be cheering me on.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
and i'm sure the same could be said about gore... how he's not nearly as robotlike in person... hell, if i were on tv in front of tons of people i'd piss my pants. which would certainly hurt my savoir faire.
If you pissed your pants on live TV, I swear to god I'd vote for you. :)

[jelloshotsrule]

what's the minimum age for president? 35? i could run the year i turn 35... 2016... keep an eye out for the pants pisser!

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi

on the contrary. i always found clinton to be extreemly intelligent and an excellent politician. maybe one of the best we ever had. he had his chance and he left a bad taste in everyones mouth so all that means nothing. he legacy will only get worse, you just wait. having said that he something to ponder.
I'm surprised to hear you say that, Ovi! I didn't expect to hear anything like that from you. You're very fortunate to have heard Bush speak outside the confines of media appearances. Unfortunately, most Americans aren't that fortunate. For their benefit, I wish this mysterious Bush intelligence would carry over more to his speeches and his television appearances etc. His approval rating is around 60% (?) at the moment, but I bet it could be 70 or more if he would stop goobering up his sentences and try to appear a little less artificial, melodramatic, and rehearsed on the platform. I watch him speak and it seems like his words are coming from anywhere but his heart - his speechwriters' hearts perhaps, but not his own.

[Ovi]

11

[jelloshotsrule]

the comparison of bush to a CEO is all too fitting, and frightening, given the (too) heavy hand of corporations in our government.

though i see your point.

good leaders know how to surround themselves with good people.

steve jobs can't do it all himself....

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
i am going to keep surprising you the way bush does. when i hear him speak i know it comes from the heart. one would have to be very bias towards republicans in general to think otherwise. the best way to understand him is to read what he says rather than listen to him. where i saw him speak well is in town hall meeting during his campaign. those were on C-SPAN. the media hates him and only shows parts of him. his problem is that he respects his job so much he does not want to say anything that would cause problems. unlike like Clinton who could say anything and squirm his way out of it later by lying.
I see what you're saying, and I agree that the media hates him. I often wonder though who writes those speeches of his. I wish he were more consistent in his eloquence - it would do wonders for his image in the eyes of many Americans (and in mine).

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi
you guys are starting to sound like republicans:)

do i detect a little evangelism in you, too?

:p

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by Ovi

what most people don't realize and i myself have fallen in that catergory is that he is an excellen judge of charcter and skill in other people. most of the candidates who won were hand picked by him and Chaney. this takes an incredible skill. great CEOs are those who can find the best people to put around them.

When did it become a Presidents job to choose who goes to congress from the states. I thought that was our job as voters! Is this a dictatorship where the leader puts his "hand picked" people into power to represent us or do we choose and put our people into power? Last time I checked this was a democracy.

Oh well it does not matter to me because his "hand picked" candidate lost here. In fact, the guy that Bush picked probably would have won, but his popularity started to sink at about the time that Bush made his 5th appearance here. We got tired of it and like everyone said in the end...do you really think Bush will ever show up in this state again after the election? Heck no! Who gives a dang about South Dakota in 2004...3 electorial votes. He was playing us for fools.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by alex_ant
That's a good question. You know, I don't know. It's just that something tells me that if Iraq were amassing nuclear weapons capabilities and preparing to take over the Middle East, it would be a bit more obvious than record of a botched deal with France and a few spy satellite photos of trucks moving around on the surface, you know? The fact that any such evidence is classified forces me to trust that it does exist, because if it doesn't, nobody except in the highest levels of political and military power would know, and they would be able to go about their business bombing with impunity with no checks on their power whatsoever. And I would be just as concerned if Bush were a Democrat or a member of any independent party - or no party at all. Or if he were a completely different, smarter person. But in the meantime, I have to ask myself, in the face of his incredible corruption - is he doing this for the right reasons? Or is he doing this because Mobil/Lockheed/his-fellow-Republicans/etc. are telling him it would be good for his career?
A couple points - first of all, where is this corruption? What has he done to boost the big corporations, beyond the bolstered defense, something I think was definitely needed after the evisceration of the military under Clinton. Second of all, do motivations REALLY matter, if the means and ends are good? While I'll be the first to say that if the best option doesn't benefit him, he should take it, I'll also say that if the best option does benefit him, he should take it. Also, though I don't generally believe that the ends justify the means, I do think that the ends and means justify the motivation, if that makes any sense.
You're right, and that's ****ed up. It's in the news now that Iraq has a week to comply or else very bad things will happen. I guess I don't know what to think of that. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but when I think about it more, I'm saddened that we have to resort to violence. We've come so far as humans, yet... when things like this happen... it's so clear we haven't. I realize my cause is a lost one, so all I can do is sit on my hands while is plays out and hope for the fewest deaths possible.
And I'll concede the point that we shouldn't have to resort to violence, but the fact that we do just proves my point that by forcing us to, Saddam is insane. He knows he cannot possibly stand up to a US or coalition attack, yet he provokes us to it anyway. At least Hitler had the good sense to start out by taking over the Sudetenland by diplomacy.

Note: numbers added for clarity.
[qtote]1. And I'm saying Germany seems like a big exception to the "trend" of third-world nations taking each other over. 2. Certainly if Hussein has Hitler's aspirations for territory, he is much more patient and complacent.[/quote]
1. That's because Hitler didn't have nuclear capability. see #2.

2. Of course he is. If you were a dictator like Saddam, wouldn't you bide your time until you can get a nuclear weapon(s)? Then you can hold the world hostage: something along the lines of, "Give me Kuwait or Los Angeles disappears." When that works (and there is no way it wouldn't, especially if he had suitcase nukes in various US cities. Then, if the government commits suicide and does get LA destroyed for Kuwait, there's nothing to stop Saddam from saying "OK, you didn't give me Kuwait, so you will now. Now, give me Saudi Arabia, or New York becomes a mushroom cloud" The second sentence would happen anyway after the US government (with full UN backing, of course) sells out Kuwait. After all, if you give a mouse a cookie... he'll want a glass of milk to go with it.
Well, I was comparing modern Iraq to to a hypothetic future Iraq with the same power as a 1943 Germany, and noting that it would take a lot of time and political-military development for it to achieve anything like that kind of power - time during which it would be obvious said development would be occuring, during which the US or UN would be easily able to stop it from progressing any further. As opposed to now, when it's hazy at best that Iraq has any major territorial aspirations at all.
The problem is that Saddam doesn't need the huge conventional armies that Hitler had, just a few, well-placed nuclear bombs, which he has been developing from day 1.
I agree that it's a good idea to learn from our mistakes, but I disagree that Germany and the Treaty of Versailles makes for an accurate or useful basis from which to learn. Iraq today seems very different - much tamer. The socio-political-economic environment necessary for such a massive power growth a la 1930s Germany just isn't there.
It seems much tamer because it has to be. In the 1930s-40s, in order to be the biggest, baddest-ass European nation, you had to have a lot of big guns and big talk. In the modern world, you have to have strategically placed nuclear weapons and a poker face, something Saddam is only mildly successful at, but successful nonetheless. Unfortunately, that makes him hard to read, and thus very dangerous.
I'm not sure where you got this from, but I really don't care about PR status. Which is why I've spent so much time here arguing with you for such an unpopular idea.
Hmm... I think one of us doesn't quite realize how popular/unpopular and idea this is. And no, I don't know who. Actually, I do. Both, and neither: you're arguing about the popularity of the government with the people of the US, I'm arguing the popularity of the US with the countries of Europe. That, and while I believe it's right, you don't.

Note:numbers added for clarity.
0. (I added it last, and I'm too lazy to change the rest)Why? 1. If Hussein's aspirations were solely to build a giant jungle-gym in the center of Baghdad, on which Iraqis and Israelis could frolic in harmony, do you think the Israeli CIA would be keen on this? 2. I think it's in the best interests of the Israeli CIA to make Hussein look as evil as possible, in order to build support for removing him from power. 3. I think I'm comparatively unbiased, more or less. 4. From what I've seen of his actions, I see very little of a desire for territory. There was the war with Iran, which he lost, and would lose again if he fought it again, and the attempted takeover of Kuwait, which failed. 5. Who else could he take over, even if he wanted to? 6. Nobody.
0. Because they are the intelligence agency for a country close (physically) to the one in question, and you are just a member of a forum devoted to Mac Rumors.

1. But those aren't his aspirations. His aspirations are to gain territory, depopulating it of whoever he doesn't like along the way.

2. But the thing is, that was their profile of him in 1980 (and still is, BTW). Back when he was still the good guy.

3. And I don't. Coincidence? I don't think so. Debating opponents will always call themselves unbiased.

4. Come now. Germany lost two World Wars, but by your logic, they never wanted to gain territory, because they lost them. I guess they didn't want the territory enough. Riiiiiiiiight...

5. See response a few posts up, #2

6. Not in a conventional war. But you don't need conventional arms to hold the world hostage with a suitcase size nuclear weapon.

Note: numbers added for clarity.
1. It doesn't matter what I am, it matters what I stand for. You're probably right about liberals not throwing a fit - 2. maybe you could just force them to backtrack on or change their arguments.
1. So don't label yourself, just state what you stand for.

2. I do so all the time. Repeatedly.
You're right, I forgot Republicans were in power. Well, one can always dream, I guess.
Um... what did that have to do with what I said?
With the war I "proposed," that certainly would not be necessary.
Either you're more devious than I thought (killing Saddam at the bargaining table is what I got out of that one), or seriously out of touch with the spirit of the statement I made.
From what I understand, the existence of these training camps is not well-established, and even in the event that they do exist and are active, would that give us justification to overthrow the Iraqi government? I'm not so sure it would.
So you're saying the 747 half they found in the desert actually was used to train police, as was the official story from the Iraqi government? That is remarkable self-delusion. And as to your question, YES! We did it Afghanistan, we can and should do it here.

continued next post.

[GeeYouEye]

deleted for consolidation.

[Ovi]

11

[GeeYouEye]

I know it's a popular notion amongst conservatives that the U.S. ought to do whatever it wants and screw the rest of the world, but I will have to disagree. Not wanting to run up against the 10000 character limit again, I will have to save that for another time/thread.
Ok, I was right in that whole popularity thing. And regardless of what the people of the US think, Europe is raising all hell about it.
I think, at the time he provoked Israel, he knew those could have been his final days. I think, given the circumstances, there is no reason to believe he wasn't sane then. Anyone else with his convictions would have probably acted similarly.
So he can die faster? That still doesn't fly with me. Fact is, had Israel joined the coalition and broken it up, Saddam wouldn't have lived to see the fruits of his labors.
I don't have a straight answer, but see my first reply in this post.
And that's part of the problem. NOBODY has a better solution.
A straw man is by its very nature wrong. "I guess then, according to your worldview that Hitler was justified in genocide because some Jews occasionally resisted his attempts at genocide." Come on now.
I took your statement/idea to its logical conclusion. Nothing more.
You can indeed, but calling them something doesn't make them that something.
Same applies to you. You can call Saddam sane, but that doesn't make him so. Since this will no doubt get into a circular argument, I suggest you don't respond to this in any way beyond "good idea".
No, I haven't heard that talk - but I will guarantee you that no matter how many people tried to secede, they would be swiftly crushed. U.S. land is U.S. land and the U.S. Government wouldn't tolerate anyone taking that land away.
And I'm saying you're wrong. This country has been so pussified, that it does any- and everything to not offend people, especially minorities.
Well, 1) see my above responses, and 2) perhaps a better question would be "how do you explain his inactions. Because he's apparently done basically nothing in the past decade other than scuffle around a bit with the no-fly zones.
See my responses above. It's all about the poker face.
Originally posted by alex_ant
Actually, given no restrictions on their power, everyone would establish their own dictatorship. It's the perfectly rational, self-interested thing to do. Why give power to others when you can keep it all for yourself? That's not to say that "dictatorships are logical and good." It's to say that all forms of government would be dictatorships if they had no checks or balances inherent in their inner workings. Certainly one's chosen form of government has no bearing on their sanity. There are insane people in every government. Look at Qadafi, then look at Traficant. :D
And I'm not saying governmental form is a test of sanity, merely that insane people don't go very far, and can't go very far, in a democracy, whereas in a dictatorship they can, because once in power, anyone who dares question their sanity is summarily shot.
Very true. And that's a tragedy that I'm definitely not going to defend. However, if the US or any country wants to pursue justice here (and I believe justice should be pursued), I hope they pursue it through the proper means, which means trying Iraq for war crimes in the UN, and not immediately going out and bombing them for other reasons.[/b]
In case you hadn't noticed, it's NOT immediately. It's many years later, after all things have been considered, analyzed, and potential solutions tried.
That's a possibility. In the meantime I think we'll have to simply agree to disagree on our "grayscale color depth" or whatever you want to call it.
Agreed, since I have no alternative at this point.
So you can't expand your territory when you go to war with another country for their territory and you lose the war.
See my comment about Germany and WWI and WWII in the last post. Just because they're losers, doesn't mean they don't have the aspirations.
I'm afraid I've lost the train of thought here.
1. What I meant was that, if given the guaranty that the world would look the other way, Iraq would wage war on the rest of the middle east, which you interpreted as Iraq would only take over the ME if it was handed to them on a silver platter.
Who said anything about Gore? He's roughly equally pathetic.
Okay, you've proven that you're not a liberal.
Neither is being smart, but I still want my president to be smart. Gifted speakers have the ability to communicate their ideas, to persuade, to rally support much better than dunderheads like Bush. Although I do give credit to his speechwriters for compensating. And you're right, he has been improving, slowly but steadily.
Right, but I think that speech ability is secondary to beliefs and actions. Unfortunately, some people see it the other way, mainly Clinton supporters.
I think what it comes down to here is a different definition of "right," but that can't really be argued.
I'll agree to that, for now.
I'm glad you admit this, because lots of conservatives don't. In my opinion, we deserve no less than an absolute genius as our president.
Of course we do. But for now, can't you at least accept the fact that Bush, while far from a genius, is more of a genius than the other guy who some people thought was a genius. Otherwise, he wouldn't have won. And given that, just take the speech problems as they are. I don't know about you, but if there was one candidate that was clearly a genius in the next election, but couldn't speak worth a damn, I'd vote for him far sooner than a witty guy with no smarts behind his charm.


Well, this one was certainly interesting. I look forward to continuing it if alex_ant does.

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

A couple points - first of all, where is this corruption? What has he done to boost the big corporations, beyond the bolstered defense, something I think was definitely needed after the evisceration of the military under Clinton.
Oh my. The Republicans are bought and paid for. I thought that was common knowledge. Philip Morris, AT&T, Microsoft, Eli Lilly, Chevron, AIG, SBC. Just a fraction of the $500K+ donors. Republicans collected $333 million from corporations during the 2002 electoral cycle. $8.5 million from oil companies, $4 million each from tobaccoo and telephone companies, $6 million from law firms, etc., etc., etc. (More info about financial statistics can be found at opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org). And that's just financial corruption.

What's worse is that it's all legal. No Democrat or Republican (except for a handful) have stood up and said, "This is wrong."
Second of all, do motivations REALLY matter, if the means and ends are good? While I'll be the first to say that if the best option doesn't benefit him, he should take it, I'll also say that if the best option does benefit him, he should take it. Also, though I don't generally believe that the ends justify the means, I do think that the ends and means justify the motivation, if that makes any sense.
Yes, I can see what you mean by that. And I suppose I agree. I'm still worried about the Republicans' "ends," though, and if you can understand why I'm worried about those, you can understand why I'm worried about their motivation.
And I'll concede the point that we shouldn't have to resort to violence, but the fact that we do just proves my point that by forcing us to, Saddam is insane. He knows he cannot possibly stand up to a US or coalition attack, yet he provokes us to it anyway. At least Hitler had the good sense to start out by taking over the Sudetenland by diplomacy.
I would liken what Hussein is doing to going out with guns blazing. He knows he's effectively screwed. If he lets the inspectors in, and they find something, he's a goner. If he lets them in and they don't find anything, they'll accuse him of hiding his WMD, and he's a goner. If he refuses them access, he's a goner. I would venture to guess that his reasoning is that he might as well kill a few of his bitter enemies before he gets blown into bits or captured and thrown in jail / executed.

1. That's because Hitler didn't have nuclear capability. see #2.

2. Of course he is. If you were a dictator like Saddam, wouldn't you bide your time until you can get a nuclear weapon(s)? Then you can hold the world hostage: something along the lines of, "Give me Kuwait or Los Angeles disappears." When that works (and there is no way it wouldn't, especially if he had suitcase nukes in various US cities. Then, if the government commits suicide and does get LA destroyed for Kuwait, there's nothing to stop Saddam from saying "OK, you didn't give me Kuwait, so you will now. Now, give me Saudi Arabia, or New York becomes a mushroom cloud" The second sentence would happen anyway after the US government (with full UN backing, of course) sells out Kuwait. After all, if you give a mouse a cookie... he'll want a glass of milk to go with it.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how the current policy of containment isn't working. Building nuclear weapons is not like mixing vinegar and baking soda - it's a monumental feat of engineering that would be very apparent in spy photos. Which is why I've got to cross my fingers and hope that those with the privilege of viewing the data and making the decisions are making the decisions for the right reasons - that there really is a valid reason for doing what they're doing, and that they're not just going in there to help out Exxon and Texaco and to divert attention away from domestic issues, under the guise that there really is a threat.
0. Because they are the intelligence agency for a country close (physically) to the one in question, and you are just a member of a forum devoted to Mac Rumors.
I didn't say "more knowledgeable," I said "less biased." Certainly I'm less biased against Hussein than Mossad is. If not due to the fact that he's never attacked me and I feel indifferent toward him.
1. But those aren't his aspirations. His aspirations are to gain territory, depopulating it of whoever he doesn't like along the way.
Of course those aren't his aspirations. It was a hypothetical example.
2. But the thing is, that was their profile of him in 1980 (and still is, BTW). Back when he was still the good guy.
You got me here.
3. And I don't. Coincidence? I don't think so. Debating opponents will always call themselves unbiased.
But I really AM unbiased!!! :D
4. Come now. Germany lost two World Wars, but by your logic, they never wanted to gain territory, because they lost them. I guess they didn't want the territory enough. Riiiiiiiiight...
No, Germany took over a ton of countries and was in a position to potentially take over tons more. Iraq is sitting where it sits, contained by the US and British military, next to countries that would, with UN help, crush it if it tried anything. Whether or not Iraq wants to gain territory is irrelevant, because it isn't able to. (I did read your nuclear hostage idea, see next response)
6. Not in a conventional war. But you don't need conventional arms to hold the world hostage with a suitcase size nuclear weapon.
You're right. But again, I don't believe Hussein would ever think of using such a thing, as it would violate his own desire for self-preservation. Basically, he's a dictator, and the thing dictators like most of all, even more than the excellent food and the kissing of feet and so on, is the power.
1. So don't label yourself, just state what you stand for.
What the hell does that mean? I stand for walking, and I sit for rest. No, I stand for snips & snails & puppy dogs' tails. Why is it important?
Um... what did that have to do with what I said?
It took me almost 4 minutes to trace this damned part of the discussion back to its origin. Don't worry, it's not important. I really really wish Macrumors were threaded sometimes.
Either you're more devious than I thought (killing Saddam at the bargaining table is what I got out of that one), or seriously out of touch with the spirit of the statement I made.
No, killing Hussein in an actual unmistakably legitimate war backed by the vast majority of the US and European populace. I'd still prefer that he be captured, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if he took a bullet to the head, if that bullet to the head were justified.
So you're saying the 747 half they found in the desert actually was used to train police, as was the official story from the Iraqi government? That is remarkable self-delusion. And as to your question, YES! We did it Afghanistan, we can and should do it here.
I don't know if it was used to train police or if it was used as a research & testing facility from which Iraq wanted to derive the secret recipes of that wonderful airline food, but I would like more solid proof that it was used to train al-Qaida operatives, and that those al-Qaida operatives were involved in the Sept. 11 attack. And I'd like "train" defined as well.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

So he can die faster? That still doesn't fly with me. Fact is, had Israel joined the coalition and broken it up, Saddam wouldn't have lived to see the fruits of his labors.
No, so he could die knowing he had killed a few more of his enemies than he otherwise would have.
I took your statement/idea to its logical conclusion. Nothing more.
No, you took my statement to a ridiculous, false conclusion, and did so knowing you would be able to plead "I just took your statement to a logical conclusion!" if pressed. "I guess then, according to your worldview that Hitler was justified in genocide because some Jews occasionally resisted his attempts at genocide." Pure crap, and that fact that it is pure crap should tell you something about your "logic."
Same applies to you. You can call Saddam sane, but that doesn't make him so. Since this will no doubt get into a circular argument, I suggest you don't respond to this in any way beyond "good idea".
My point was that calling something something doesn't make it that something - in other words, we should be reasoning by means other than labeling. You must agree with that.
And I'm saying you're wrong. This country has been so pussified, that it does any- and everything to not offend people, especially minorities.
With regard to secession - I will guarantee you that if 1000 adult blacks, Asians, and Hispanics stood up in southern California with guns and demanded that a swath of land be given to them from the southern tip of Baja to San Diego, they would be swiftly arrested, unless they failed to drop their weapons, in which case every single one of them would be shot dead.

And I'm not saying governmental form is a test of sanity, merely that insane people don't go very far, and can't go very far, in a democracy, whereas in a dictatorship they can, because once in power, anyone who dares question their sanity is summarily shot.
That's true. But that doesn't make dictators especially prone to insanity. Well, alright, I think arguing this is a lost cause, because next we'll have to define "sanity" and examine the psychological effects of absolute power upon the mind etc. And frankly, no thanks.
In case you hadn't noticed, it's NOT immediately. It's many years later, after all things have been considered, analyzed, and potential solutions tried.
No, this is regarding the domestic genocide, not the suspected WMD buildup. As far as I know, charges were never brought against Iraq for that, perhaps because when it happened, Iraq were the good, pro-U.S. guys fighting the Bad Kurds, and that made it okay.
1. What I meant was that, if given the guaranty that the world would look the other way, Iraq would wage war on the rest of the middle east, which you interpreted as Iraq would only take over the ME if it was handed to them on a silver platter.
But the world will not look the other way. There are a million eyes on Iraq and that's not going to change, and I don't advocate it changing. The Middle East would have to be handed to him on a silver platter in order for him to take it, because otherwise he likely wouldn't be able to (see previous comment).

Of course we do. But for now, can't you at least accept the fact that Bush, while far from a genius, is more of a genius than the other guy who some people thought was a genius. Otherwise, he wouldn't have won.
I accept that, but it's not worth very much to me. A cold is preferable to the flu, but that doesn't mean I'd like to have either one.
And given that, just take the speech problems as they are. I don't know about you, but if there was one candidate that was clearly a genius in the next election, but couldn't speak worth a damn, I'd vote for him far sooner than a witty guy with no smarts behind his charm.
There are 280 million people in this country. Surely there must be a handful who could excel marvelously at every task the presidency requires. We shouldn't have to choose between Mr. Slightly Above Average and Mr. Slightly Above Slightly Above Average as we did in 2000. I think we as a country have been seasoned to expect less from our presidents. That's why we're not exceptionally disappointed when we find that the guy at the podium has trouble forming basic English sentences and relies on his advisors for advice more than his own intellect.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by Ovi


your first paragraph is not even worth responding to. it speaks for itself to your lack of understanding regarding elections and gov. in general.

your second paragraph shows that you are very un-informed about your own state. Johnson pulled ahead of Thune about a week prior to the election. it was Bush's trip there that allowed him to get within striking distance. he lost by 528 votes. and Bush will come back because Thune will run agaisnt Daschle your favorite senator. take a little time and read the paper from time to time before making easy to respond comments.

I am ready for a Daschle-Thune matchup in two years. Bring it on. Daschle would run much stronger against Thune did then Johnson did. You might find this real hard to believe, but even though we went strong for Bush in 2000 we still like Daschle in this state. He maintains a 60% to 65% approval rating always. Why? Because he brings us pork and takes care of us in the end that is how Johnson won and that is how Daschle will win one more time.

[jefhatfield]

i saw daschle on cnn this morning and he admitted the president was popular and articulate

i agree with the first point:D ;) :eek: :p

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Oh my. The Republicans are bought and paid for. I thought that was common knowledge. Philip Morris, AT&T, Microsoft, Eli Lilly, Chevron, AIG, SBC. Just a fraction of the $500K+ donors. Republicans collected $333 million from corporations during the 2002 electoral cycle. $8.5 million from oil companies, $4 million each from tobaccoo and telephone companies, $6 million from law firms, etc., etc., etc. (More info about financial statistics can be found at opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org). And that's just financial corruption.

What's worse is that it's all legal. No Democrat or Republican (except for a handful) have stood up and said, "This is wrong."
True, and I don't like it any more, than you. But I must ask myself, is it REALLY wrong? The GOP hasn't done much to support all these financial backers, and, when it comes right down to it, votes, not $$ decides an election. If tomorrow they got rid of soft money completely, I'd say more power to 'em, as long as the $1000 per donor hard money limit was lifted. IMO, this particular limit on free speech needs to be lifted. But I do agree that, if the $1k limit were lifted, there should be no corporate donations.
Yes, I can see what you mean by that. And I suppose I agree. I'm still worried about the Republicans' "ends," though, and if you can understand why I'm worried about those, you can understand why I'm worried about their motivation.
Okay, I'll go with that. And once again, here we break down into one of our irreconcilable fundamental differences, because I'm not worried about the ends, in this case.
I would liken what Hussein is doing to going out with guns blazing. He knows he's effectively screwed. If he lets the inspectors in, and they find something, he's a goner. If he lets them in and they don't find anything, they'll accuse him of hiding his WMD, and he's a goner. If he refuses them access, he's a goner. I would venture to guess that his reasoning is that he might as well kill a few of his bitter enemies before he gets blown into bits or captured and thrown in jail / executed.
Hmm.. I'm not so sure. While I definitely agree with the last scenario, and possibly the first sentence, I don't know about the first two scenarios. If he let's them in, and they find something, despite the wishes of the US, Europe will restrain the US, and merely remove the WMD's, and the infrastructure for them. If they don't find anything, I'd bet the US would do nothing for fear of looking like an aggressor. Or if they do go in, it'll be for the Kurdish massacre rather than for the inspection issue.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how the current policy of containment isn't working. Building nuclear weapons is not like mixing vinegar and baking soda - it's a monumental feat of engineering that would be very apparent in spy photos. Which is why I've got to cross my fingers and hope that those with the privilege of viewing the data and making the decisions are making the decisions for the right reasons - that there really is a valid reason for doing what they're doing, and that they're not just going in there to help out Exxon and Texaco and to divert attention away from domestic issues, under the guise that there really is a threat.
The current policy isn't working because it is not applicable to everyone. Only US and a few other countries' corporations are prevented from exporting to Iraq, or at least that's how it's enforced. And would it really be that hard to put the manufacturing plants under various palaces, not coincidentally, the majority of places that Iraq said the UN couldn't go last time they were about to let the inspectors in. And while it may be somewhat difficult to make a nuclear weapon, it's not that hard to make a vicious strain of smallpox in even a relatively small laboratory, not to mention chemical weapons. He doesn't have to destroy the cities, merely render them uninhabited, which he can do with a chemical or biological attack.
I didn't say "more knowledgeable," I said "less biased." Certainly I'm less biased against Hussein than Mossad is. If not due to the fact that he's never attacked me and I feel indifferent toward him.
Okay, that's true, and my response was partially based on the time of day that it was written (around 11 PM), so it was probably a combination of bad choice of words and misinterpretation. I'd point out here again that this was their opinion in 1980, but you acknowledge that later
Of course those aren't his aspirations. It was a hypothetical example.
Argh... I agree, there really do need to be threaded conversations. This is getting annoying. As for the actual point, I don't think that the Mossad is out to get Saddam for being Saddam (I assume that's what I was supposed to get out of this.) If he was just going to build a Jungle Gym, for Israelis and Iraqis, or whatever it was that you proposed, I think that once the Mossad made sure it was safe, they would have no objection to it.
No, Germany took over a ton of countries and was in a position to potentially take over tons more. Iraq is sitting where it sits, contained by the US and British military, next to countries that would, with UN help, crush it if it tried anything. Whether or not Iraq wants to gain territory is irrelevant, because it isn't able to. (I did read your nuclear hostage idea, see next response)
Germany took over Belgium and Luxembourg in WWI, similar to how Iraq took over Kuwait. But, like I said, Saddam doesn't need a conventional army any more.
You're right. But again, I don't believe Hussein would ever think of using such a thing, as it would violate his own desire for self-preservation. Basically, he's a dictator, and the thing dictators like most of all, even more than the excellent food and the kissing of feet and so on, is the power.
Why? If Saddam were able to make it so costly to attack him that we would not (something along the lines of him saying "hand us the middle east on a silver platter, or 5 major metropolitan areas in the US will cease to exist, and should I die, the same thing will happen"), and he has the weapons to back it up, he would do so in a heartbeat. The fact that he hasn't says to me that the WMD's are still under construction. And like I said, it doesn't have to be a nuclear attack. It could always be biological or chemical.
No, killing Hussein in an actual unmistakably legitimate war backed by the vast majority of the US and European populace. I'd still prefer that he be captured, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if he took a bullet to the head, if that bullet to the head were justified.
But the problem here is that the dependent-on-Iraqi-oil-much-more-than-the-US populace and governments of Europe have deluded themselves into equating "right" with "good for the economy."
I don't know if it was used to train police or if it was used as a research & testing facility from which Iraq wanted to derive the secret recipes of that wonderful airline food, but I would like more solid proof that it was used to train al-Qaida operatives, and that those al-Qaida operatives were involved in the Sept. 11 attack. And I'd like "train" defined as well.

Come now, half of a 747 found by chance in the middle of the desert? And besides, the war on terror is not limited to Afghanistan. If the Iraqi government is not supporting terrorists (oh wait, they are, in Israel), then they should have no problems with us killing the terrorists. If they are supporting the terrorists, Saddam's government, like the Taliban, needs to be removed.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by alex_ant
No, so he could die knowing he had killed a few more of his enemies than he otherwise would have.
Would he have killed a few more of his enemies? I doubt it. The Israeli military is one of the most powerful in the world. They could take on Iraq alone, and do so with less collateral damage than a US-led coalition, in almost the same amount of time, with fewer losses.
No, you took my statement to a ridiculous, false conclusion, and did so knowing you would be able to plead "I just took your statement to a logical conclusion!" if pressed. "I guess then, according to your worldview that Hitler was justified in genocide because some Jews occasionally resisted his attempts at genocide." Pure crap, and that fact that it is pure crap should tell you something about your "logic."
Statement retracted, but on the basis that I assumed at the time you were a liberal following the standard liberal ideology of blaming the victim.
My point was that calling something something doesn't make it that something - in other words, we should be reasoning by means other than labeling. You must agree with that.
Perhaps, but still, it makes for a long winded debate to repeat over and over again, "The people who believe XYZ". Besides that, I've lost track of this particular part of the conversation. I could really go for the threaded format about now.
With regard to secession - I will guarantee you that if 1000 adult blacks, Asians, and Hispanics stood up in southern California with guns and demanded that a swath of land be given to them from the southern tip of Baja to San Diego, they would be swiftly arrested, unless they failed to drop their weapons, in which case every single one of them would be shot dead.
Perhaps in Mexico, but not here. Here, they would be applauded for standing up against incredible odds, and then they would be given whatever they wanted for trying break laws and lead an armed revolt.
That's true. But that doesn't make dictators especially prone to insanity. Well, alright, I think arguing this is a lost cause, because next we'll have to define "sanity" and examine the psychological effects of absolute power upon the mind etc. And frankly, no thanks.
It isn't that hard. Most of it can be summed up in "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
No, this is regarding the domestic genocide, not the suspected WMD buildup. As far as I know, charges were never brought against Iraq for that, perhaps because when it happened, Iraq were the good, pro-U.S. guys fighting the Bad Kurds, and that made it okay.
Right, and that no charges were brought is something I disagree with in the extreme.
But the world will not look the other way. There are a million eyes on Iraq and that's not going to change, and I don't advocate it changing. The Middle East would have to be handed to him on a silver platter in order for him to take it, because otherwise he likely wouldn't be able to (see previous comment).
Point taken. Still, with either a conventional army or nuclear weapons, he could do it.
I accept that, but it's not worth very much to me. A cold is preferable to the flu, but that doesn't mean I'd like to have either one.
Well, guess what... this is a disease riddled country. Don't like that? Run for office.
There are 280 million people in this country. Surely there must be a handful who could excel marvelously at every task the presidency requires. We shouldn't have to choose between Mr. Slightly Above Average and Mr. Slightly Above Slightly Above Average as we did in 2000. I think we as a country have been seasoned to expect less from our presidents. That's why we're not exceptionally disappointed when we find that the guy at the podium has trouble forming basic English sentences and relies on his advisors for advice more than his own intellect.
For that, you have the teacher's unions and the gradual dumbing down of lower education to thank, not to mention the lack of accountability introduced during the '90s. Like I said, if you don't like it, and if you think you can do better, run for office.


I look forward to mercilessly dissecting your response. :)

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by Ovi
GeeyouYee

check your private message box

hehe... check yours.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

True, and I don't like it any more, than you. But I must ask myself, is it REALLY wrong? The GOP hasn't done much to support all these financial backers, and, when it comes right down to it, votes, not $$ decides an election. If tomorrow they got rid of soft money completely, I'd say more power to 'em, as long as the $1000 per donor hard money limit was lifted. IMO, this particular limit on free speech needs to be lifted. But I do agree that, if the $1k limit were lifted, there should be no corporate donations.
Yes it's really wrong. Voters do decide an election, but there is a clear correlation between money spent on a campaign and likelihood of being elected. This is even more dangerous when the Democrat- and Republican-controlled FEC excludes third parties from debates - it ensures that while voters will always have choice, their choice will be limited to the two main guys/gals who have a chance of winning. (Not to mention the chicken & egg problem of only being able to receive federal funding with 5% of the vote.) As for the GOP not supporting their financial backers: Of course they do. It's not like corporations just donate to be charitable. A Google search for "corporate welfare" or a similar term will turn up plenty of examples, but in the meantime, see these links:
http://www.ccsi.com/~comcause/news/corwel.html http://my.execpc.com/~jlohman/examples.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1996/dom/960325/corporate.html

My point though is not that our government is corrupt - it's to question the effect the corruption is having on any decisions regarding Iraq. I'm sure it is having an effect - I just don't know what that effect is, and that's what worries me.
Hmm.. I'm not so sure. While I definitely agree with the last scenario, and possibly the first sentence, I don't know about the first two scenarios. If he let's them in, and they find something, despite the wishes of the US, Europe will restrain the US, and merely remove the WMD's, and the infrastructure for them. If they don't find anything, I'd bet the US would do nothing for fear of looking like an aggressor. Or if they do go in, it'll be for the Kurdish massacre rather than for the inspection issue.
Those are all possibilities as well. To tie in with the question of Hussein's sanity... well, I guess we haven't really gotten anywhere on that.
The current policy isn't working because it is not applicable to everyone. Only US and a few other countries' corporations are prevented from exporting to Iraq, or at least that's how it's enforced. And would it really be that hard to put the manufacturing plants under various palaces, not coincidentally, the majority of places that Iraq said the UN couldn't go last time they were about to let the inspectors in. And while it may be somewhat difficult to make a nuclear weapon, it's not that hard to make a vicious strain of smallpox in even a relatively small laboratory, not to mention chemical weapons. He doesn't have to destroy the cities, merely render them uninhabited, which he can do with a chemical or biological attack.
You're right about the chemical/biological weapons. Let's just use those as an example instead, because they seem to me to be more plausible than nuclear weapons. So I repeat what I said earlier about crossing my fingers and hoping that those in charge and in the know are making their decisions for the right reasons - by that, I mean I hope they're reaching the same conclusions they otherwise would reach if they weren't paid off by a defense industry that wants a war badly and if they weren't tempted to divert attention from mounting domestic problems.
Why? If Saddam were able to make it so costly to attack him that we would not (something along the lines of him saying "hand us the middle east on a silver platter, or 5 major metropolitan areas in the US will cease to exist, and should I die, the same thing will happen"), and he has the weapons to back it up, he would do so in a heartbeat. The fact that he hasn't says to me that the WMD's are still under construction. And like I said, it doesn't have to be a nuclear attack. It could always be biological or chemical.
You're right - this is a threat I haven't got an answer for. If it's as real as you make it out to be, I hope I can (but fear I can't) trust my leadership. See my previous reply.
But the problem here is that the dependent-on-Iraqi-oil-much-more-than-the-US populace and governments of Europe have deluded themselves into equating "right" with "good for the economy."
I don't think a war in Iraq would be especially bad for the European economy. With regards to the source of their oil, they'd still be able to buy it from Iraq, it's just that it would no longer be Hussein's regime selling it to them. I think the reason Europe is so opposed to the war is because they're substantially more liberal than the US.
Come now, half of a 747 found by chance in the middle of the desert?
I'm just not clear on how a 747 in the desert automatically leads one to believe it's an al-Qaida training ground.
And besides, the war on terror is not limited to Afghanistan. If the Iraqi government is not supporting terrorists (oh wait, they are, in Israel), then they should have no problems with us killing the terrorists. If they are supporting the terrorists, Saddam's government, like the Taliban, needs to be removed.
Perhaps. But it's not been well-established that they are. I think, in order to establish that Iraq harbors or trains "terrorists," it will take more than a 747 in the desert.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

Would he have killed a few more of his enemies? I doubt it. The Israeli military is one of the most powerful in the world. They could take on Iraq alone, and do so with less collateral damage than a US-led coalition, in almost the same amount of time, with fewer losses.
A few more is a few more whether it's 50,000 more or 3 more. I guess it doesn't matter when your enemy is what you believe to the physical manifestation of evil. I would liken it to kamikaze fighting - taking advantage of the fact that you know you're going to die in order to do more damage than you otherwise would be able to given your normal best interests of self-presevation.
Perhaps in Mexico, but not here. Here, they would be applauded for standing up against incredible odds, and then they would be given whatever they wanted for trying break laws and lead an armed revolt.
Under a modern democracy, secession is illegal, because it goes against the grain of the concept of democracy. If every oppressed minority group secedes, eventually there will be no more populace. If establishing one's own territory within the boundaries of the US were so easy, thousands of groups would have done it already. There are treason laws, which are very strict, that protect it from happening.
It isn't that hard. Most of it can be summed up in "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
But does it make insane absolutely? Not sure.
Well, guess what... this is a disease riddled country. Don't like that? Run for office.
Pants Pissers in 2016! Talk to jelloshotsrule. :D
For that, you have the teacher's unions and the gradual dumbing down of lower education to thank, not to mention the lack of accountability introduced during the '90s. Like I said, if you don't like it, and if you think you can do better, run for office.
I think I have a lot of different factors to thank. I would love to run for office myself, but... actually, I wouldn't. It's not the job for me. And I'm nowhere near smart/educated/articulate enough to be the kind of president I would want to see as president (or something like that). That doesn't mean I can't moan and complain from the sidelines, though! :)

[SPG]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I think I have a lot of different factors to thank. I would love to run for office myself, but... actually, I wouldn't. It's not the job for me. And I'm nowhere near smart/educated/articulate enough to be the kind of president I would want to see as president (or something like that). That doesn't mean I can't moan and complain from the sidelines, though! :) [/B]

The beauty of freedom of speech! And the freedom to urinate into ones own trousers without the King of England coming into your house uninvited!

[SPG]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

For that, you have the teacher's unions and the gradual dumbing down of lower education to thank, not to mention the lack of accountability introduced during the '90s. Like I said, if you don't like it, and if you think you can do better, run for office.

I look forward to mercilessly dissecting your response. :)

Since most teachers are too busy on a Sunday evening preparing the week's lesson plans or can't afford a mac to surf these forums I will respond for them:

KISS OUR COLLECTIVE UNDERPAID ASS YOU SNOT NOSED PUNK!

Now that I am back to speaking for myself, I will ask where you home schooled? Are you uneducated? Can you read and write?
While I do have a few qualms with the way the educational system works, how is the teacher's union responsible? Because they were able to gouge their school districts for fabulously expensive pay raises? The gold lined toilets in the teachers lounge? The limos? The private jets? The tax breaks given specifically to them?
Cut the military to one fifth of it's current size, and don't worry we'll still be the world's most badass cop on the beat able to crush anyone, and spend half that money on education. See what happens in twenty years.

[GeeYouEye]

Is it just me, or have you noticed that the replies are getting shorter and shorter?

Originally posted by alex_ant
Yes it's really wrong. Voters do decide an election, but there is a clear correlation between money spent on a campaign and likelihood of being elected. This is even more dangerous when the Democrat- and Republican-controlled FEC excludes third parties from debates - it ensures that while voters will always have choice, their choice will be limited to the two main guys/gals who have a chance of winning. (Not to mention the chicken & egg problem of only being able to receive federal funding with 5% of the vote.) As for the GOP not supporting their financial backers: Of course they do. It's not like corporations just donate to be charitable. A Google search for "corporate welfare" or a similar term will turn up plenty of examples, but in the meantime, see these links:
http://www.ccsi.com/~comcause/news/corwel.html http://my.execpc.com/~jlohman/examples.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1996/dom/960325/corporate.html

My point though is not that our government is corrupt - it's to question the effect the corruption is having on any decisions regarding Iraq. I'm sure it is having an effect - I just don't know what that effect is, and that's what worries me.
Well, the thing is, I see this corruption as being better in the war against Iraq. With their urging, we may be able to go to war before Saddam gets his WMD's in the necessary strategic locations. As I said before, the ends and means justify the motivations.
You're right about the chemical/biological weapons. Let's just use those as an example instead, because they seem to me to be more plausible than nuclear weapons. So I repeat what I said earlier about crossing my fingers and hoping that those in charge and in the know are making their decisions for the right reasons - by that, I mean I hope they're reaching the same conclusions they otherwise would reach if they weren't paid off by a defense industry that wants a war badly and if they weren't tempted to divert attention from mounting domestic problems.
The problem is that domestic issues are separate. Bush needs to deal with them, but after Iraq. I'd rather have a focused CinC than a distracted one. And to be honest, I'd hope they'd reach those conclusions you referred to without the defense contractors, the fact is, they are there, and in this case I think they are beneficial, or at least doing no harm.
You're right - this is a threat I haven't got an answer for. If it's as real as you make it out to be, I hope I can (but fear I can't) trust my leadership. See my previous reply.
Well, I guess we just have a different level of trust in the government then. Can't do a lot about that.
I don't think a war in Iraq would be especially bad for the European economy. With regards to the source of their oil, they'd still be able to buy it from Iraq, it's just that it would no longer be Hussein's regime selling it to them. I think the reason Europe is so opposed to the war is because they're substantially more liberal than the US.
Well, your second possibility hit dead on what I was dancing around for most of the time, for the very simple reason that I'd get attacked by more than just you if I said it outright. So thanks for that. Beyond that though, consider this: France has contracts with Saddam's government for oil at a slight savings, contracts that his successor might not honor. Also, in order to pay for the clean-up of Iraq, Saddam's successor might have to increase oil prices, leaving Iraqi-oil-dependent Europe in a pickle.
I'm just not clear on how a 747 in the desert automatically leads one to believe it's an al-Qaida training ground.
How can you not see it? They have the front half of a 747 in the desert, with men practicing storming the cockpit. Pretty damning, IMO.
Perhaps. But it's not been well-established that they are. I think, in order to establish that Iraq harbors or trains "terrorists," it will take more than a 747 in the desert.
Perhaps not, but there is still the fact that they support terrorists elsewhere, such as in Israel.
Originally posted by alex_ant
A few more is a few more whether it's 50,000 more or 3 more. I guess it doesn't matter when your enemy is what you believe to the physical manifestation of evil. I would liken it to kamikaze fighting - taking advantage of the fact that you know you're going to die in order to do more damage than you otherwise would be able to given your normal best interests of self-presevation.
I still don't see how it's killing a few more. The number he killed would still be less than the number that wouldn't have been killed in the rest of the coalition, had Israel joined.
Under a modern democracy, secession is illegal, because it goes against the grain of the concept of democracy. If every oppressed minority group secedes, eventually there will be no more populace. If establishing one's own territory within the boundaries of the US were so easy, thousands of groups would have done it already. There are treason laws, which are very strict, that protect it from happening.
You don't live in California, do you? If you did, you would see just how screwed up people's views are here. And treason is not about rebellion. Revolters trying to secede are guilty of rebellion. Clinton, on the other hand, is guilty of treason.
I think I have a lot of different factors to thank. I would love to run for office myself, but... actually, I wouldn't. It's not the job for me. And I'm nowhere near smart/educated/articulate enough to be the kind of president I would want to see as president (or something like that). That doesn't mean I can't moan and complain from the sidelines, though! :)
What else is there? It's the teachers who can't teach decent English thanks to the wonderful program known as "bilingual education", resulting in teachers being forced to cover only half the material in class because they have to go over it in two different languages.

[GeeYouEye]

deleted for consolidation.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by SPG


Since most teachers are too busy on a Sunday evening preparing the week's lesson plans or can't afford a mac to surf these forums I will respond for them:

KISS OUR COLLECTIVE UNDERPAID ASS YOU SNOT NOSED PUNK!

Now that I am back to speaking for myself, I will ask where you home schooled? Are you uneducated? Can you read and write?
While I do have a few qualms with the way the educational system works, how is the teacher's union responsible? Because they were able to gouge their school districts for fabulously expensive pay raises? The gold lined toilets in the teachers lounge? The limos? The private jets? The tax breaks given specifically to them?
Cut the military to one fifth of it's current size, and don't worry we'll still be the world's most badass cop on the beat able to crush anyone, and spend half that money on education. See what happens in twenty years.

1. I was not home schooled.

2. I am not uneducated, and I am forced to wonder if you are, since you cannot see that I am not.

3. I can read and write.

4. I don't think teachers are overpaid. I don't even think the problem lies with the individual teachers. The problem is with the unions the teachers are part of, which end up making fantastically bad decisions, such as supporting the Democrat party. That action in turn led to the idiocy known as bilingual education. I have no problems with a spanish class, designed to teach kids the spanish language, but the core curriculum should be taught in English, unlike how it is in most of this state (California).

[SPG]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Well, the thing is, I see this corruption as being better in the war against Iraq. With their urging, we may be able to go to war before Saddam gets his WMD's in the necessary strategic locations. As I said before, the ends and means justify the motivations.
How the **** is corruption of our government good? That's like saying crime is good because it's a redistribution of wealth. Disease is good since the sick will die leaving only the strong.
What's the motivation? Get the people to rally around the flag and elect more like minded republicans? Oh yeah, now we can't back down from our threats and look like wimps, so we'll have to kill a couple hundred thousand people and spend a few billion doing it.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
The problem is that domestic issues are separate. Bush needs to deal with them, but after Iraq. I'd rather have a focused CinC than a distracted one. And to be honest, I'd hope they'd reach those conclusions you referred to without the defense contractors, the fact is, they are there, and in this case I think they are beneficial, or at least doing no harm.
I'd rather have someone in office who cared about people here, and was willing to spend a couple billion on education. How about at least someone who is aware of the world outside the USA and has a good foreign policy that won't keep breeding terorists hell bent on our destruction.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
You don't live in California, do you? If you did, you would see just how screwed up people's views are here. And treason is not about rebellion. Revolters trying to secede are guilty of rebellion. Clinton, on the other hand, is guilty of treason.
I used to. How are their views screwed up? Are they screwed up because they don't think like you?
And please start another thread about how Clinton is guilty of treason, I'm curious. Your hyperbole is amusing, but let's stick to the current topics and not get sidetracked.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
What else is there? It's the teachers who can't teach decent English thanks to the wonderful program known as "bilingual education", resulting in teachers being forced to cover only half the material in class because they have to go over it in two different languages.
Do you listen to yourself? Have you any idea what bilingual education really is?

[Ovi]

1111111111111111111111111111111111111

[Rower_CPU]

Yes, GeeYouEye, please enlighten us as to the horrible plight of California's students having to learn...*gasp* a second language.

After all, the time wasted learning about a culture other than ours could be better spent learning history...wait, that's no good, no point in learning all that...the past is the past...then, uh art and music...no, no-one makes a decent living at that...math and science? Hmmm, the "orientals" are better than our kids at that...maybe just bowling and beer.

Yes, that's it: bowling and beer. The true American's education!

:rolleyes:

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by SPG

How the **** is corruption of our government good? That's like saying crime is good because it's a redistribution of wealth. Disease is good since the sick will die leaving only the strong.
alex_ant, I am beginning to respect. You, on the other hand, I do not. If you could read at all, you would realize that I was not saying corruption is good, but that in this case it is a necessary evil.
What's the motivation? Get the people to rally around the flag and elect more like minded republicans? Oh yeah, now we can't back down from our threats and look like wimps, so we'll have to kill a couple hundred thousand people and spend a few billion doing it.
Good God, you are hell-bent on some partisan crusade. You disgust me. As for the 'can't back down' thing, I refuse to believe you are a teacher as you seem to claim to be, or at least a history teacher. Let's think, for a second (I know, foreign concept to you, but try anyway), about the history of war. Would you care to guess the last time 'a couple hundred thousand' US military personnel died in combat? Get this: WWII. Wanna guess the time before that? Nope, not even WWI. The Civil War. America does not, no matter the party in power, lightly spend it's troops. As for spending a few billion, care to take a stab at the budget per DAY of the government? Get this - almost 700 Million dollars. A few billion is nothing compared to the budget for the year.

I'd rather have someone in office who cared about people here, and was willing to spend a couple billion on education. How about at least someone who is aware of the world outside the USA and has a good foreign policy that won't keep breeding terorists hell bent on our destruction.

Your partisan rhetoric, not to mention you're whining, is REALLY starting to annoy me. And let's not forget just who the first WTC attack attempts were made under, just like the bombing of the USS Cole. The same president that an intfada started against our strongest ally under, after that president tried to make peace with the terrorists. And had you any conception at ALL of the constitution, you would know that school spending is in the hands of the states, not the Federal government. And if I'm not mistaken, Washington already has a Democrat governor. Don't like that? Tough.

I used to. How are their views screwed up? Are they screwed up because they don't think like you?
And please start another thread about how Clinton is guilty of treason, I'm curious. Your hyperbole is amusing, but let's stick to the current topics and not get sidetracked.

You must have lived here a LONG time ago then. Did you know that in Berkeley, one of the measures on the ballot was about preventing the sale of non-organically grown coffee in the city? COFFEE! And the scary thing is that it was only defeated 60-40. California is also the only state to have banned the sale of SUV's, and the only state whose governor has sworn not to build another inch of highway, despite the fact that they are overcrowded, and some, notably US 101 south of San Francisco, are in danger of falling into the sea. Let's also not forget that our 'environmentalist' governor (unfortunately re-elected), after passing a law limiting dioxin (the epitome of carcinogen, for the uneducated out there, notably SPG), was paid $55,000 by Tosco; a day later, the law was not only repealed, but the limit was RAISED fourfold. I can go on if you want.

Do you listen to yourself? Have you any idea what bilingual education really is?

I have an idea of what it should be, and an idea of what it is in most parts of the state, notably greater LA, and the greater SF Bay Area, and they don't reconcile. Last time I checked, it's SUPPOSED to be the spanish language taught along-side English. Unfortunately, in those areas, it's been reinterpreted to mean that the core curriculum should be taught in Spanish, not just the language.


This was not a fun debate. Should you actually be able to come back with anything of substance, I will dissect it into the whiny, partisan rhetoric that it is. Good night.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Yes, GeeYouEye, please enlighten us as to the horrible plight of California's students having to learn...*gasp* a second language.

After all, the time wasted learning about a culture other than ours could be better spent learning history...wait, that's no good, no point in learning all that...the past is the past...then, uh art and music...no, no-one makes a decent living at that...math and science? Hmmm, the "orientals" are better than our kids at that...maybe just bowling and beer.

Yes, that's it: bowling and beer. The true American's education!

:rolleyes:

I spent 5 minutes debating whether or not I should respond to this. My need to have the last word and make idiots look like idiots won out over my need for sleep.

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am all for bilingual education in theory. In practice and implementation however, it has gone seriously awry. And in case you hadn't noticed, I use historical examples for most of my points. If you're hostile to history because it shows how much smarter than you people in the past were, that's your problem, not mine. As for arts and music, I'm for them more than Spanish class, and I really don't care how badly you sang off key, or that your comments on your report card in art included "Consistently eating paste". Unless there is some other reason you happen to hate them... either way, it's not my problem. And as for bowling and beer, math, science, art, music, and history will teach you quite a bit about them.

I don't know how they do it in San Diego, but in most of the rest of the state, bilingual education has been a miserable failure who's only success is in kids being able to say their multiplication tables in two languages. Good night.

[SPG]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

alex_ant, I am beginning to respect. You, on the other hand, I do not. If you could read at all, you would realize that I was not saying corruption is good, but that in this case it is a necessary evil.
Evil? yes. Necessary? no. Just because the current power structure is entrenched, doesn't mean that we should just accept it and say that it's fine. You seem to believe that if the end is the one you'd like to see that the means are then justified. I don't agree. Too many of these shortcuts have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Simplistic analysis of foreign events does not simplify the reality. By the way, I'm not really looking for your respect, especially with your snotty little quips "if you could read" and such.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Good God, you are hell-bent on some partisan crusade. You disgust me. As for the 'can't back down' thing, I refuse to believe you are a teacher as you seem to claim to be, or at least a history teacher. Let's think, for a second (I know, foreign concept to you, but try anyway), about the history of war. Would you care to guess the last time 'a couple hundred thousand' US military personnel died in combat? Get this: WWII. Wanna guess the time before that? Nope, not even WWI. The Civil War. America does not, no matter the party in power, lightly spend it's troops. As for spending a few billion, care to take a stab at the budget per DAY of the government? Get this - almost 700 Million dollars. A few billion is nothing compared to the budget for the year.
I'm not a teacher, I was just expressing the sentiment I hear from some friends of mine who are. They not only put up with low pay, but then they have to listen to crap like yours as if they are polluting children's minds with satanism. I have a lot of respect for anyone who goes into teaching, and with better funding I'm sure that more talent would stay in education.
When I throw the number out there I mean what impact the war would have on both sides and the civilians in between.
Think what a few billion could do outside of defense. I'm not saying we don't need a military, but come on, ours is definitely the biggest one and at this point it's ludicrous to justify it in light of current events.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Your partisan rhetoric, not to mention you're whining, is REALLY starting to annoy me. And let's not forget just who the first WTC attack attempts were made under, just like the bombing of the USS Cole. The same president that an intfada started against our strongest ally under, after that president tried to make peace with the terrorists. And had you any conception at ALL of the constitution, you would know that school spending is in the hands of the states, not the Federal government. And if I'm not mistaken, Washington already has a Democrat governor. Don't like that? Tough.
Our foreign policiy has been ****ed up since WWII. Before that as well, but current events are all products of decisions made in the past half century. Quick fixes don't work and things are a lot deeper than the surface. Of course the terrorists who killed thousands in New York didn't just wake up one day and decide to do it. This has been building for more than even the last decade. Also, when did Clinton sit down with Bin Laden? Bush did. He did business with the Bin Ladens quite often while running an oil business in Texas. Right after the attacks he had the State Department fly the Bin Laden family members home to Saudi Arabia on the US Government dime with one of our planes.
And anyone who had any concept of reality would also realize that a big chunk of the state's money comes from the federal government, and I also don't think that education stops with high school.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
You must have lived here a LONG time ago then. Did you know that in Berkeley, one of the measures on the ballot was about preventing the sale of non-organically grown coffee in the city? COFFEE! And the scary thing is that it was only defeated 60-40. California is also the only state to have banned the sale of SUV's, and the only state whose governor has sworn not to build another inch of highway, despite the fact that they are overcrowded, and some, notably US 101 south of San Francisco, are in danger of falling into the sea. Let's also not forget that our 'environmentalist' governor (unfortunately re-elected), after passing a law limiting dioxin (the epitome of carcinogen, for the uneducated out there, notably SPG), was paid $55,000 by Tosco; a day later, the law was not only repealed, but the limit was RAISED fourfold. I can go on if you want.
I was there for the Enron created energy crisis, I just moved to Seattle a couple years ago. I heard about the Berkely coffee thing, that was pretty funny but not realistic, and in no means a good indication of the state of politics in general.
When did CA ban SUV's? Last time I was in the Bay I could have sworn I saw dealerships full of them.
The highways are overcrowded not just there but here too. That's why I chose to live in the city where I work and not to commute. There are a lot of ways to solve a problem, and I'm not so sure that paving a new highway is the only solution to solving the traffic problem, banning all highway expansion might not be so great either, but I guess we'll have to see.
Why would you call me uneducated? Because I don't agree with you? Or are you just angry? I hadn't heard about the Tosco thing, but it illustrates my point above, corruption is bad for the democratic process. Money should not be the way to access.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I have an idea of what it should be, and an idea of what it is in most parts of the state, notably greater LA, and the greater SF Bay Area, and they don't reconcile. Last time I checked, it's SUPPOSED to be the spanish language taught along-side English. Unfortunately, in those areas, it's been reinterpreted to mean that the core curriculum should be taught in Spanish, not just the language.
There are a lot of schools, and for that matter neighborhoods, where most of the kids do not speak english very well. I don't know if you're aware of this either, but there are whole countries that don't speak english!

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
This was not a fun debate. Should you actually be able to come back with anything of substance, I will dissect it into the whiny, partisan rhetoric that it is. Good night.
It's funny though, I used to think like you. I used to even listen to Rush Limbaugh and agree with him. Of course after getting more experience in the real world I found that a lot of what the republican and conservatives stood for just didn't jive with the way the world is. You say whiny, I hear compassion.
One last thing that usually stumps most conservatives. Could you honestly see yourself voting for a Homosexual? a Black? a strong woman?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I spent 5 minutes debating whether or not I should respond to this. My need to have the last word and make idiots look like idiots won out over my need for sleep.

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am all for bilingual education in theory. In practice and implementation however, it has gone seriously awry. And in case you hadn't noticed, I use historical examples for most of my points. If you're hostile to history because it shows how much smarter than you people in the past were, that's your problem, not mine. As for arts and music, I'm for them more than Spanish class, and I really don't care how badly you sang off key, or that your comments on your report card in art included "Consistently eating paste". Unless there is some other reason you happen to hate them... either way, it's not my problem. And as for bowling and beer, math, science, art, music, and history will teach you quite a bit about them.

I don't know how they do it in San Diego, but in most of the rest of the state, bilingual education has been a miserable failure who's only success is in kids being able to say their multiplication tables in two languages. Good night.

Wow, you sure put me in my place. :rolleyes:

Let's try this again, shall we? I brought up the history, math, etc. to point out how easy it is to start picking apart everything that's wrong with our educational system. If you continue along to the far extreme of that continuum, you get bowling and beer, or something to taht effect.

What would you suggest then, to reform bilingual education? What are the problems you see with it? Pointing the finger without any constructive input doesn't help anyone.

The Bay Area has a very different population than we do here in San Diego. I'd be pretty safe in guessing that the percentage of Latino children here is greater than that where you live. Any program that helps them to succeed in school and integrate them into society is better for everyone. The Spanish speaking kids learn English without being placed in separate classes and the English speaking kids learn more Spanish and gain valuable insight into another culture.

No program is going to meet with 100% approval by everyone, but it makes more sense to try to improve it, than to squabble endlessly about its shortcomings.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by SPG


One last thing that usually stumps most conservatives. Could you honestly see yourself voting for a Homosexual? a Black? a strong woman?



i think the conservatives would rally around colin powell or elizebeth dole after bush went thru his second term (assuming he does make it)

i don't see cheney as one the country could get excited about

and dennis hastert is not a presidential type of guy even though, in reality, he has more power over domestic issues than bush, and a good deal of power on foreign policy...but overall, hastert is the most powerful single person in the world

newt knew this when he was the "gatekeeper" and was media saavy

[SPG]

I guess Ovi and GeeYouEye have spotted the land mine here and opted not to step on it. Most conservatives will quickly point out that they would vote for any minority, any gender that supports their views and ideals, well except for the homosexual "who is cursed by God to spend eternity in hell". When you ask how many minority candidates the Republican Party has put up lately, they often point out that too many of the minorities have their own agenda, which precludes them from being viable candidates for the republicans.
If you flip this around to the other perspective you will see that the republicans are viewed as the party of rich white men who have their own agenda to protect.

[Ovi]

11111111111111111111111

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


sometime I choose not to repond

this will happen more and more not because i feel overwhelmed but rather my time is becoming more precious.

and no offense to all you liberals, but i prefer to read about 10 newspapers a day instead of your iberal views.

i hope you read "some" of my moderate, moderate/liberal views because some of my more left leaning friends think i am this right wing mba money grubber:p ;) :D

[Ovi]

11

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by SPG
Evil? yes. Necessary? no. Just because the current power structure is entrenched, doesn't mean that we should just accept it and say that it's fine. You seem to believe that if the end is the one you'd like to see that the means are then justified. I don't agree. Too many of these shortcuts have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Simplistic analysis of foreign events does not simplify the reality. By the way, I'm not really looking for your respect, especially with your snotty little quips "if you could read" and such.

You didn't read a single word of what I was saying, did you? I was saying that the money-grubbing defense industry might push an otherwise too cautious Bush to do the right thing, in time.

I'm not a teacher, I was just expressing the sentiment I hear from some friends of mine who are. They not only put up with low pay, but then they have to listen to crap like yours as if they are polluting children's minds with satanism. I have a lot of respect for anyone who goes into teaching, and with better funding I'm sure that more talent would stay in education.
When I throw the number out there I mean what impact the war would have on both sides and the civilians in between.
Think what a few billion could do outside of defense. I'm not saying we don't need a military, but come on, ours is definitely the biggest one and at this point it's ludicrous to justify it in light of current events.

That's the problem with you Democrats, you think that the solution to everything is throwing money at i. Guess what. People don't stay in a job if they hate it enough, no matter how much they're paid. I, for example, would not become a lawyer for even Bill Gate's yearly income. Too much grief associated with it. The other thing is, of course, is that despite the amount of money thrown at education in CA (a ridiculously high amount, even in proportion), it is now #49 in terms of educations, and dropping. Look out, Alabama.

blah blah partisan ********* this blah blah blah partisan ********* that blah blah Bush Devil blah blah Clinton God blah blah

*yawn* In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not a Republican. I'll be repeating this one often, I think.

And anyone who had any concept of reality would also realize that a big chunk of the state's money comes from the federal government, and I also don't think that education stops with high school.[/b]

Neither do I and that's why CA is 49: we have good colleges, Alabama doesn't.

I was there for the Enron created energy crisis, I just moved to Seattle a couple years ago. I heard about the Berkely coffee thing, that was pretty funny but not realistic, and in no means a good indication of the state of politics in general.

So suddenly because you lived there two years ago, you're more of an expert than someone who actually lives there? Riiiiiiiiight...

[b]When did CA ban SUV's? Last time I was in the Bay I could have sworn I saw dealerships full of them.

About a month ago, with the law taking effect in 2 years.

[b]The highways are overcrowded not just there but here too. That's why I chose to live in the city where I work and not to commute. There are a lot of ways to solve a problem, and I'm not so sure that paving a new highway is the only solution to solving the traffic problem, banning all highway expansion might not be so great either, but I guess we'll have to see.
Are you really that naive? Would you care to tell me, outside of flying cars, just what WILL alleviate traffic? Not much that I can see.
Why would you call me uneducated? Because I don't agree with you? Or are you just angry? I hadn't heard about the Tosco thing, but it illustrates my point above, corruption is bad for the democratic process. Money should not be the way to access.

I could call you uneducated, or naive and arrogant. All three are true. And the fact that you hadn't heard about Tsoco just proves my point that your claims of expertise in this area are false. You want to debate Seattles' problems? Fine. And I won't argue, because I don't live there. And if you think money is not the way to access, or even should be, you really are a hypocrite. First you say "let's throw money on everything bad and it'll go away" then you condemn Tosco for doing the same? No, I'm not defending Tosco, I'm attacking the "throw money on it" worldview of yours.

There are a lot of schools, and for that matter neighborhoods, where most of the kids do not speak english very well. I don't know if you're aware of this either, but there are whole countries that don't speak english!

Now I know you're uneducated. Your best insults could have been thought up by a third grader. This is further demonstrated by your lack of understanding of bilingual education in practice. I'll type it real big so you can understand it.
Many, if not most, CA schools think that bilingual education means teaching everybody, no matter their native language, the core curriculum in both English and Spanish. They are not teaching just a separate Spanish class, or taking just the Spanish-speaking students for core in Spanish, but making EVERYONE take EVERYTHING in Spanish.If you don't get it now, you are hopeless.

It's funny though, I used to think like you. I used to even listen to Rush Limbaugh and agree with him. Of course after getting more experience in the real world I found that a lot of what the republican and conservatives stood for just didn't jive with the way the world is. You say whiny, I hear compassion.

As I have said before and will, unfortunately, probably have to say again, I am not a Republican, and while I am on the surface conservative, something closer to the truth would be Constitutionalist/Libertarian.

One last thing that usually stumps most conservatives. Could you honestly see yourself voting for a Homosexual? a Black? a strong woman?

If any of them held my values, or at least the majority of them, yes.

And the reason I did not post this earlier is because some of us have this thing called a "life" Deal with it.

[Ovi]

r

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Ovi
reading the debate between you two is very entertaining.

it is like talking to my five year old.

you can guess who the five year old is in this case.:)

I don't know what's scarier, you being entertained by this, or the fact that you have a 5 year old child.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi

just curious,

Alex_ant

after going back and forth with GeeYouEye are you any closer to approving of the war on Iraq?
In some ways, yes, actually! It is helping me see from an alternate point of view, as any debate should. But I fear that your question was intended in different spirits - asking whether I was any closer to agreeing with the one correct opinion (which would of course be yours). In which case I would have to laugh in your face.

GUI: I do wish to continue this, but I'm too busy at the moment. I'll probably respond sometime Wednesday.


reading the debate between you two is very entertaining.

it is like talking to my five year old.

you can guess who the five year old is in this case.
Since you never specified that the five year old was your child, it must be your older sister?

[SPG]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

You didn't read a single word of what I was saying, did you? I was saying that the money-grubbing defense industry might push an otherwise too cautious Bush to do the right thing, in time.
That's ludicrous. So if a psycho goes on a rampage and one of the people killed would have eventually committed a crime then it's okay? Ridiculous logic.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
That's the problem with you Democrats, you think that the solution to everything is throwing money at i.
And a better solution is to throw money at the wealthy and at the "money grubbing defense industry"

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
So suddenly because you lived there two years ago, you're more of an expert than someone who actually lives there? Riiiiiiiiight...
Are you really that naive? Would you care to tell me, outside of flying cars, just what WILL alleviate traffic? Not much that I can see.
I have never claimed to be an expert on anything here. I am just voicing opinions and stating facts just as you are. Ever been to New York City? There are more people living in less space and the traffic can get pretty bad, but there are alternatives. It's called mass transit. Until people push for some alternatives, they deserve to get stuck in their cars inching down the freeway. If you really look at it, cars are the most subsidized form of transportation in the way of highway and road construction. I own a car, I like my car, but I also live in the city where I work so my commute is short and I don't have to get in the car every time I have to buy a loaf of bread. If you're too scared to live in the city where you work, or want that lawn so bad, then fine, drive everywhere and get stuck in traffic it's your choice.
BTW, in this last election the people voted down increased highway spending and voted for a new mass transit system for Seattle.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I could call you uneducated, or naive and arrogant. All three are true. And the fact that you hadn't heard about Tsoco just proves my point that your claims of expertise in this area are false. You want to debate Seattles' problems? Fine. And I won't argue, because I don't live there. And if you think money is not the way to access, or even should be, you really are a hypocrite. First you say "let's throw money on everything bad and it'll go away" then you condemn Tosco for doing the same? No, I'm not defending Tosco, I'm attacking the "throw money on it" worldview of yours.
I can call you short, fat, ugly, and impotent. But what's the worst that I have said? And how often? Let's keep on the topics and not get personal.
I'm not keeping up with current California politics because I don't live there anymore. I did live there for five years which hardly makes me an expert either, but I do recall my electric bill skyrocketing, and I do recall rolling blackouts so a few guys in Houston and DC could make some more billions. The point that both sides share in the corruption does not excuse either side of it's responsibilities.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Now I know you're uneducated. Your best insults could have been thought up by a third grader. This is further demonstrated by your lack of understanding of bilingual education in practice. I'll type it real big so you can understand it.
Many, if not most, CA schools think that bilingual education means teaching everybody, no matter their native language, the core curriculum in both English and Spanish. They are not teaching just a separate Spanish class, or taking just the Spanish-speaking students for core in Spanish, but making EVERYONE take EVERYTHING in Spanish.If you don't get it now, you are hopeless.
okay, here goes:
THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE.
Look I wrote it bigger and used all caps so now it's true!
Are they really teaching everyone in Spanish? Come on, you can't really believe that. I hope you're just deluded and not pulling this out of your culo. Where the hell did they even get that many Spanish speaking teachers?

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
If any of them held my values, or at least the majority of them, yes.

Okay, so the majority of them, which one won't you vote for? Let me guess, the strong woman? Nope, Hillary scared the crap out of you but you feared what she might do. Black guy? Nope, even though you would never vote for him you like Colin Powel enough to let yourself think you could vote for a black guy. Hmm, must be the gay guy. Why not? If there was an admitted homosexual who had what it took to get your agenda into law and get the country to back it and make it your own little conservative utopia you still wouldn't vote for him because he didn't like having sex with women. Wasn't the other end of that spectrum why you hated Clinton so much? Anyhow, you can now see why conservatives are unpopular with minorities.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
And the reason I did not post this earlier is because some of us have this thing called a "life" Deal with it.
Oh and I don't? I posted maybe once or twice at lunch today and otherwise I had a fullfilling weekend. I was drinking, having premarital sex, giving money to street performers and homeless people, and then to cap it off I went and saw Parliament Funkadelic play the other night until about 2am...there were people smoking pot and everything! We missed you though.

[Ovi]

11

[SPG]

so far you two clowns [/QUOTE] have managed to insult every member of my family.

and you wonder why no one of any great importance takes you guys seriously. [/QUOTE]

yes i know you could care less just like the causes you seem to argue so fervently for.

thank god you have the internet to pump up your inflated egos. [/QUOTE]

Who's really the one throwing the insults so freely? And I hope you don't mean to say that I am one of the clowns attacking your family.

[jelloshotsrule]

spg: just a note... in geeyoueye's response regarding if he'd vote for those minorities, and he said:

If any of them held my values, or at least the majority of them, yes.

i believe he meant that if said minority candidate had the majority of his values, then yes he'd vote for them. as opposed to he'd vote for the majority of those minorities....

just wanted to clear that up so no unnecessary poop gets tossed.

[SPG]

Whawhawhat? This thread has become ALL about poop tossing. I've been eating bran muffins all weekend just to get pumped up, and now you're telling me that a conservative didn't admit to being a bigot, but tried to hide it? Ahhhhh, nevermind I've got to go sit in the bathroom now.

[jelloshotsrule]

ha. no doubt it's about poop tossing... and i'm glad to see you're preparing....

just figured you wouldn't want to get your own poop tossed back in your face.... word

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


don't worry i see as a moderate on your way to a republican:D

things like DoD, CIA, and MBA does look like a hefty set of conservative credentials

but i only worked for the DoD as an intern, worked for the CIA for an operative who was not a benefited (as far as i know) employee, and i dropped out of mba school to become a VP of a dot.com during that goldrush where clinton was still president

so upon closer examination, i could still be considered neutral and not completely "brainwashed" into the GOP law enforecement/military/wall street culture;) :p

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by SPG

That's ludicrous. So if a psycho goes on a rampage and one of the people killed would have eventually committed a crime then it's okay? Ridiculous logic.
You didn't read a word of what I said, did you? If you can't understand what I'm saying, don't even bother arguing against. If you actually have some beef with what I'm saying, say so already instead of changing the subject.

And a better solution is to throw money at the wealthy and at the "money grubbing defense industry"
The defense industry actually does something useful with the money it gets. It produces ships, planes, guns, etc. The CA school system, OTOH, sucks the money into a giant bureaucracy from where it never emerges. That is part of the reason why #50 is a very short distance away here.

I have never claimed to be an expert on anything here. I am just voicing opinions and stating facts just as you are. Ever been to New York City? There are more people living in less space and the traffic can get pretty bad, but there are alternatives. It's called mass transit. Until people push for some alternatives, they deserve to get stuck in their cars inching down the freeway. If you really look at it, cars are the most subsidized form of transportation in the way of highway and road construction. I own a car, I like my car, but I also live in the city where I work so my commute is short and I don't have to get in the car every time I have to buy a loaf of bread. If you're too scared to live in the city where you work, or want that lawn so bad, then fine, drive everywhere and get stuck in traffic it's your choice.
Last time I drove from LA to SF, on I-5 I never got above 40 MPH. On I-580, I didn't get above 30. And there was not a single accident along the way slowing things down. There were just too many cars, not enough concrete. There are already trains and busses, not to mention a very large number of flights every day, that go this route, and they don't help much. I see no alternative to highway construction. Do you? Ironically, traffic in the cities is not as bad as the freeways.
BTW, in this last election the people voted down increased highway spending and voted for a new mass transit system for Seattle.
But California is NOT Seattle, and votes in Seattle have ZERO bearing on what happens here.

I'm not keeping up with current California politics because I don't live there anymore. I did live there for five years which hardly makes me an expert either, but I do recall my electric bill skyrocketing, and I do recall rolling blackouts so a few guys in Houston and DC could make some more billions. The point that both sides share in the corruption does not excuse either side of it's responsibilities.
During the energy crisis, thanks to our idiot legislature, CA was not allowed to buy out-of-state power because it was too inexpensive. No, that doesn't make sense, but neither does the legislature. And it wasn't your power bills shooting up, it was your gas bills.

[/quote]okay, here goes:
THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE.
Look I wrote it bigger and used all caps so now it's true!
Are they really teaching everyone in Spanish? Come on, you can't really believe that. I hope you're just deluded and not pulling this out of your culo. Where the hell did they even get that many Spanish speaking teachers?[/quote]
Took you a while. I was wondering if you'd ever get the point. The fact that most schools require this form of bilingual education, combined with the fact that there aren't enough Spanish-speaking teachers, results in not enough, or bad, teachers.

Okay, so the majority of them, which one won't you vote for? Let me guess, the strong woman? Nope, Hillary scared the crap out of you but you feared what she might do. Black guy? Nope, even though you would never vote for him you like Colin Powel enough to let yourself think you could vote for a black guy. Hmm, must be the gay guy. Why not? If there was an admitted homosexual who had what it took to get your agenda into law and get the country to back it and make it your own little conservative utopia you still wouldn't vote for him because he didn't like having sex with women. Wasn't the other end of that spectrum why you hated Clinton so much? Anyhow, you can now see why conservatives are unpopular with minorities.
See jelloshotsrule's post. He got it right. I'm surprised you didn't. Wait, scratch that... I'm not surprised at all. You haven't understood pretty much anything else I've said.

Oh and I don't? I posted maybe once or twice at lunch today and otherwise I had a fullfilling weekend. I was drinking, having premarital sex, giving money to street performers and homeless people, and then to cap it off I went and saw Parliament Funkadelic play the other night until about 2am...there were people smoking pot and everything! We missed you though.
And I didn't, what's your point? I'll respond if and when I have time and want to.


On a separate but related note, English isn't your first language, is it? Either that, or you were smoking pot with all those other people. Nothing else (pot has been proven to lower your IQ 5 points per 4 joints) explains your lack of comprehension of what I'm saying.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Wow, you sure put me in my place. :rolleyes:

Let's try this again, shall we? I brought up the history, math, etc. to point out how easy it is to start picking apart everything that's wrong with our educational system. If you continue along to the far extreme of that continuum, you get bowling and beer, or something to taht effect.
Of course all those things are wrong with the educational system here. But, IMO, the worst and easiest to change is bilingual education. And FYI, learning everything in reverse (ie physics, math, art from analyzing bowling, chemistry, history from analyzing beer, etc.) is actually a viable teaching method. I don't particularly support it, but at this point, anything that would change the CA school system is probably a good thing.

What would you suggest then, to reform bilingual education? What are the problems you see with it? Pointing the finger without any constructive input doesn't help anyone.
Glad you asked. The problems start right at the source. Blanket bilingual education, for one. In certain areas, especially in the northern 2/5 of the state, bilingual education is just plain unnecessary. The farther south you go, the more useful it has the potential to become. This brings me to the next problem. The way many schools interpreted bilingual education results in a need of Spanish-speaking teachers. Teachers that don't exist, resulting in bad, or no, teachers being hired. In Oakland, for example, half the elementary school classes don't have teachers (not to mention some of the high schools, such as Fremont High (beats me why it's called that, it is in Oakland, at least according to US News magazine), because there aren't enough qualified (read: bilingual) teachers.

The Bay Area has a very different population than we do here in San Diego. I'd be pretty safe in guessing that the percentage of Latino children here is greater than that where you live. Any program that helps them to succeed in school and integrate them into society is better for everyone. The Spanish speaking kids learn English without being placed in separate classes and the English speaking kids learn more Spanish and gain valuable insight into another culture.
You're right. Like I said, in some areas, it may be a good thing, but up here, where the majority minority (if that makes any sense) is Chinese, not Latino, it's just plain stupid.

[wdlove]

Saddam Hussein is purchasing Atopine Injectors, used to treat nerve agents, from Turkey. He seemes to be convinced that war is imminent!

[jelloshotsrule]

got a link?

[GeeYouEye]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/12/iraq.antidote.reut/index.html

[SPG]

Excuse me for cutting out your insults from your quote but they're getting tiresome and not advancing the discussion. Aparently I've started to piss you off a little more than I intended so I will bring back some civility and conclude my thoughts on the subject.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

If you actually have some beef with what I'm saying, say so already instead of changing the subject.
I commented on your comment, then your reply, then your reply. The Bush twins are sexy when they're drunk. That's changing the subject!

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
The defense industry actually does something useful with the money it gets. It produces ships, planes, guns, etc. The CA school system, OTOH, sucks the money into a giant bureaucracy from where it never emerges. That is part of the reason why #50 is a very short distance away here.
This depends on your vision of useful. Allow me the oversimplification here, but short of piling the cash up and setting fire to it, any money spent will enter the economy. Since I doubt that any school system is sitting on it, or burning it, then the money will enter the economy through the purchases of the staff. The question is to what benefit of society is this money before it enters the general economy? I believe that educating the youth is of much greater benefit than building hardware that shows everyone else that we've got more weapons than we know who to point them at. I would also like to point out that these weapons were useless as a defense against the last attack on this country, and the attack on the USS Cole, and our embassies, and as a matter of fact when was the last time any of these weapons were used directly in defense? (To simplify this, let's just say retaliation doesn't count.)

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Last time I drove from LA to SF, on I-5 I never got above 40 MPH. On I-580, I didn't get above 30. And there was not a single accident along the way slowing things down. There were just too many cars, not enough concrete. There are already trains and busses, not to mention a very large number of flights every day, that go this route, and they don't help much. I see no alternative to highway construction. Do you? Ironically, traffic in the cities is not as bad as the freeways.
Thank you for illustrating my point through your own experience. Paving more lanes on to the highway will not automatically solve the traffic problem. You have a choice in travel options, you just have to be realistic and decide which one will work for YOU.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
But California is NOT Seattle, and votes in Seattle have ZERO bearing on what happens here.
Granted, but I thought I would point out that paving is not universally seen as the solution.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
During the energy crisis, thanks to our idiot legislature, CA was not allowed to buy out-of-state power because it was too inexpensive. No, that doesn't make sense, but neither does the legislature. And it wasn't your power bills shooting up, it was your gas bills.
That's funny that you say that, since I was the one paying the electric bill, and it did go up...a lot.
Gas? Gasoline prices? Not much to do with the subject of government condoned corporate shenanigans affecting the people.
natural gas prices? My house didn't use it, so I wouldn't know, but wasn't Enron trading that too?

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
The fact that most schools require this form of bilingual education, combined with the fact that there aren't enough Spanish-speaking teachers, results in not enough, or bad, teachers.
Go down to the school and find out what's going on for yourself, you may be surprised. If it is as bad as you claim it is, then go out and make a fuss to the powers that be or home school your kids. Or become a teacher yourself, or **** it, move to Utah.
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
See jelloshotsrule's post. He got it right.
Yeah, see my reply. I knew it too, but it was more fun to try and stir it up a little and try to get the bigot inside you to come out and play.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
And I didn't, what's your point? I'll respond if and when I have time and want to.
Once again, I was just baiting you and Ovi to get some comments on the sad state of morality, but that's Ovi's job.

Originally posted by GeeYouEye On a separate but related note, English isn't your first language, is it? [/B]
I am bilingual (but I don't speak Spanish).

Money, our tax dollars specifically, are being spent on many things that you and I do not agree on. Unfortunately we do not agree that they are being misspent on the same things. I would rather see less of our money go to what I see as an oversized and outrageously expensive military machine, which you support, but rather to a more carefully thought out educational system that is adequately funded. The scale of money spent on defense (or offense), is so out of step with the realities of our situation that it defies comprehension.
Even if you kept all social programs, education, social security, and everything the same, think what a cut in military expansion could do for our economy. HUGE tax cuts for everyone and a smaller government...isn't that what conservatives are after?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Last time I drove from LA to SF, on I-5 I never got above 40 MPH. On I-580, I didn't get above 30. And there was not a single accident along the way slowing things down. There were just too many cars, not enough concrete. There are already trains and busses, not to mention a very large number of flights every day, that go this route, and they don't help much. I see no alternative to highway construction. Do you? Ironically, traffic in the cities is not as bad as the freeways.

I need to interject here.

I drive from San Diego to far Northern CA and back (almost 800 miles each way) at least twice a year, and have for the last 3 years. The only time I've had traffic that bad was coming back to SD the Sunday after Thanksgiving (the busiest travel day of the year).

I take I-5 all the way up, and average about 70 mph. The big slow down you can count on is going through LA during the morning, noon and evening rush hour times. Otherwise you just skate on through. Driving through any city during a rush hour is far worse than driving on a freeway between cities.

But that's my thousands of miles and hours of driving talking...

The issue is that the population of the cities in CA has far outpaced the growth of the infrastructure. It has exceeded all analysts predictions. There is no-one to blame here except for the hordes of people flocking out here.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
There is no-one to blame here except for the hordes of people flocking out here.

yet another reason for me to avoid following the hordes to LA!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Well, the thing is, I see this corruption as being better in the war against Iraq. With their urging, we may be able to go to war before Saddam gets his WMD's in the necessary strategic locations. As I said before, the ends and means justify the motivations.
I see this differently. I find it likely that Iraq's ambitions to acquire WMD and threaten its neighbors are:

1) Exaggerated by a national media that, while generally liberal, loves wars because they boost ratings tremendously. You can't deny that it is in the media's best interest to sensationalize;
2) Exaggerated by a Republican government that knows a war would be perfect for diverting attention away from domestic problems and placating a defense industry whose very foundation is based upon war, and which donates generously to both major parties.

Those are two of the problems brought on by corruption and why I'm so suspicious about a war in Iraq.
The problem is that domestic issues are separate. Bush needs to deal with them, but after Iraq. I'd rather have a focused CinC than a distracted one.
Some people with greater levels of mental acuity and dedication to the job than Bush (and Clinton, for that matter) would be capable of this. Domestic issues shouldn't be a "distraction." If the president wants to eliminate all distractions, he ought to stop golfing and hanging out at Martha's Vineyard and going on hiatus at his ranch in Texas and flying all across the country stumping for his Republican political candidate brothaz.
Well, I guess we just have a different level of trust in the government then. Can't do a lot about that.
Aren't the conservatives supposed to be the ones mistrusting the government? :)
Well, your second possibility hit dead on what I was dancing around for most of the time, for the very simple reason that I'd get attacked by more than just you if I said it outright. So thanks for that. Beyond that though, consider this: 1) France has contracts with Saddam's government for oil at a slight savings, contracts that his successor might not honor. 2) Also, in order to pay for the clean-up of Iraq, Saddam's successor might have to increase oil prices, leaving Iraqi-oil-dependent Europe in a pickle.
1) I wasn't aware of this, but I'm sure something could be worked out anyway. If nothing else, France would now know that their source of oil is more stable.
2) Oil prices would probably not go anywhere, since the oil would be mined by corporations who would not be footing the bill for the cleanup.
How can you not see it? They have the front half of a 747 in the desert, with men practicing storming the cockpit. Pretty damning, IMO.
I agree that it would be damning if the link could be made between the men and al-Qaida. Are you sure they weren't Iraqi soldiers? Or desert loonies for that matter. And I'm not asking what's likely, I'm asking what has been proven.
Perhaps not, but there is still the fact that they support terrorists elsewhere, such as in Israel.
I don't want to get into Israel because it's a massive and very smelly bag of worms I don't want to go near, but I would like to state that attacking Iraq for this reason would demonstrate profound inconstency in the foreign policy of the U.S.
I still don't see how it's killing a few more. The number he killed would still be less than the number that wouldn't have been killed in the rest of the coalition, had Israel joined.
I don't remember the origin of this part of the argument, but I think it's time to stick a fork in it anyway, as it seems done enough.
You don't live in California, do you? If you did, you would see just how screwed up people's views are here. And treason is not about rebellion. Revolters trying to secede are guilty of rebellion. Clinton, on the other hand, is guilty of treason.
It doesn't matter where I live, secession is illegal and classified by the Constitution as treason no matter where in the US you are or what your views are. As is the case in most (all?) countries, Iraq included. See this link (http://www.kusd.edu/schools/lance/platinum/banaszynski/civil_war_2002/union_links_2002/patrions_of_preservation.html)
What else is there? It's the teachers who can't teach decent English thanks to the wonderful program known as "bilingual education", resulting in teachers being forced to cover only half the material in class because they have to go over it in two different languages.
You've already battled this one out with SPG and Rower_CPU, but to get back to what started this (accusations of Bush having questionable levels of intelligence) - there's also the factor that having a silver spoon up one's butt (in jefhatfield's words) breeds complacency. I don't think you can blame his overwhemling averageness on bilingual education.

[DakotaGuy]

GeeYouEye,

Why in the hell don't you leave CA? You sound very unhappy about the conditions there. I live up in South Dakota. Up in the northern midwest and west, if you want to go somewhere you set the cruise on 85 and never look back. New road projects are a priority here. I don't know why but, we tear up perfectly good roads and replace them with even better ones. My Dad always said it was to give people work, and he is probably right. Electricity and Natural Gas are cheap, pretty much all member owned coops here. We rank right up there on school test scores even though our teachers, that includes myself, are ranked 50th in pay.

Most people, even teachers never even heard of bilingual education here, if we do end up with a student that cannot speak English we just drop them in and give them all the help we can and they soon pick up if they are younger, older ones we do bring people in to help with them, but it is such a minor thing, we just don't worry about it. I don't know if that is the right approach, but that is how we do it.

Now why is this such a great place to live, but not many people move here? Well expect a huge pay cut, expect a lot of quiet nights at home, if you live in a small town like I do where I teach, about 400 people. Expect freaking cold winters, where there is enough snow that an SUV is really needed here. Of course cost of living is not bad, especially in a small town. I rent my house for $200 a month. Very simple, small house, it would not be good enough for the high society, but it works for me.

[GeeYouEye]

I'll answer this one before all the others, since it's the easiest.

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
GeeYouEye,

Why in the hell don't you leave CA? <snip>

Hey, that all sounds really great. The thing is though, CA does have some good points... Food, Water, and weather, make up most of 'em. That, and, once you get past Berkeley and Sacramento, the people aren't really all that bad. :) It's just Berkeley and Sacramento, or more specifically, Berkeley and the lawmakers in Sacramento.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by SPG
Excuse me for cutting out your insults from your quote but they're getting tiresome and not advancing the discussion. Aparently I've started to piss you off a little more than I intended so I will bring back some civility and conclude my thoughts on the subject.
Hey, you started this crap-slinging. As the saying goes, if you can't take the crap, get out of the monkey cage... or something like that.

I commented on your comment, then your reply, then your reply. The Bush twins are sexy when they're drunk. That's changing the subject!
*sigh* You've managed to misinterpret what I've said, or ignore it altogether every time. I'm out of this one. For the last time, Bush is, IMO, too cautious, and the defense contractors, even if motivated by greed, are pushing Bush to act before it's too late. If you have any relevant comments on the previous sentence, say so, otherwise shut up.

This depends on your vision of useful. Allow me the oversimplification here, but short of piling the cash up and setting fire to it, any money spent will enter the economy. Since I doubt that any school system is sitting on it, or burning it, then the money will enter the economy through the purchases of the staff. The question is to what benefit of society is this money before it enters the general economy? I believe that educating the youth is of much greater benefit than building hardware that shows everyone else that we've got more weapons than we know who to point them at. I would also like to point out that these weapons were useless as a defense against the last attack on this country, and the attack on the USS Cole, and our embassies, and as a matter of fact when was the last time any of these weapons were used directly in defense? (To simplify this, let's just say retaliation doesn't count.)
That's like saying that because books are purchased, students aren't actually being helped, because purchase does not equal distribution. Of COURSE retaliation counts. That's the way defense works in this day and age. The US is a counterpuncher and pretty much always has been. If we are struck, we do our damnedest to make sure it doesn't happen again. That is how defense works nowadays. If you want a defense network, as defined by you, you can kiss goodbye to all your civil rights, and read 1984 for a guide on how to live in a "real" defensive America.

Thank you for illustrating my point through your own experience. Paving more lanes on to the highway will not automatically solve the traffic problem. You have a choice in travel options, you just have to be realistic and decide which one will work for YOU.
You are being deliberately dense at this point I think. Despite the multitude of ways to get from point A to point B, the traffic doesn't decrease.

Granted, but I thought I would point out that paving is not universally seen as the solution.
And what's your point here? We already have public transit in the cities. Up here, we have no less than 4 different types!: BART, CalTrain, Muni (well... maybe not, given how rarely it's in service), and the ferries, as well as intra-county busses in nearly every county in the SF BA.

That's funny that you say that, since I was the one paying the electric bill, and it did go up...a lot.
Maybe after Davis allowed PG&E to uncap their retail prices, but by then it was too late.
natural gas prices? My house didn't use it, so I wouldn't know, but wasn't Enron trading that too?
Though the actions of some of their senior members were despicable, Enron is not the universal scapegoat.

Go down to the school and find out what's going on for yourself, you may be surprised. If it is as bad as you claim it is, then go out and make a fuss to the powers that be or home school your kids. Or become a teacher yourself, or **** it, move to Utah.
Your suggestion is unnecessary. I wouldn't have said anything about bilingual education if I hadn't seen its results already.
Yeah, see my reply. I knew it too, but it was more fun to try and stir it up a little and try to get the bigot inside you to come out and play.
Given the way you've responded to just about everything else, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Once again, I was just baiting you and Ovi to get some comments on the sad state of morality, but that's Ovi's job.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm not a Republican, I only look conservative on the surface, and anything I would object to in that post of yours would be on a scientific, medical, or logical basis. For example, I could have picked that apart to the point of telling you: [list=A] alcohol will destroy your liver and dehydrate your brain by putting ethyl, IIRC, in place of water in the blood, a Canadian study has shown that 4 joints of pot lowers your IQ by 5 points, and that I sincerely doubt you missed me being there, nor even expected me to be there at all, not to mention all those other people mentioned in the "we"[/list=A], but I didn't.

I am bilingual (but I don't speak Spanish).
That wasn't what I asked. Stop avoiding the questions.
Money, our tax dollars specifically, are being spent on many things that you and I do not agree on. Unfortunately we do not agree that they are being misspent on the same things. I would rather see less of our money go to what I see as an oversized and outrageously expensive military machine, which you support, but rather to a more carefully thought out educational system that is adequately funded. The scale of money spent on defense (or offense), is so out of step with the realities of our situation that it defies comprehension.
Even if you kept all social programs, education, social security, and everything the same, think what a cut in military expansion could do for our economy. HUGE tax cuts for everyone and a smaller government...isn't that what conservatives are after?

1. Though I support tax cuts, for the... let's see... 4th time, I'm not a conservative. Oh and interestingly enough, according to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/budii.html , the Bush tax cut has a $1.2 Billion increase for education. I just hope it goes to where it needs to, as opposed the bureaucracies.
2. I can toss around adjectives too, in my case to make the military sound better, and the education system like crap. What's your point?

Hmm... maybe I should have done alex_ant's first, instead of this one... it's late... well I'll see how it goes. AA, if I don't finish responding tonight, I will tomorrow.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by alex_ant
I see this differently. I find it likely that Iraq's ambitions to acquire WMD and threaten its neighbors are:

1) Exaggerated by a national media that, while generally liberal, loves wars because they boost ratings tremendously. You can't deny that it is in the media's best interest to sensationalize;
2) Exaggerated by a Republican government that knows a war would be perfect for diverting attention away from domestic problems and placating a defense industry whose very foundation is based upon war, and which donates generously to both major parties.

Those are two of the problems brought on by corruption and why I'm so suspicious about a war in Iraq.
1. True enough, but then I've not been one to watch mainstream media much.
2. That last phrase raised an eyebrow, I'll admit. You wouldn't happen to have a link to that info, would you? I just find it hard to believe that, especially given the evisceration of the military under Clinton. As for the rest of it, well that's what we get for having no really good candidates in 2000, from any party.
Some people with greater levels of mental acuity and dedication to the job than Bush (and Clinton, for that matter) would be capable of this. Domestic issues shouldn't be a "distraction." If the president wants to eliminate all distractions, he ought to stop golfing and hanging out at Martha's Vineyard and going on hiatus at his ranch in Texas and flying all across the country stumping for his Republican political candidate brothaz.Right. See above response. I think I'm repeating and contradicting myself somewhere in here... it IS 12:30 AM.
Aren't the conservatives supposed to be the ones mistrusting the government? :)
You're not a liberal democrat. I'm not a conservative Republican. Remember that. :)
1) I wasn't aware of this, but I'm sure something could be worked out anyway. If nothing else, France would now know that their source of oil is more stable.
2) Oil prices would probably not go anywhere, since the oil would be mined by corporations who would not be footing the bill for the cleanup.[/b][/quote]
1. True, I suppose. *mischievous grin* Maybe, given their propensity towards surrender, they think Iraq will win ;).
2. Oh I don't know about that one... if perchance, one of Saddam's last directives is to OPEC, telling them to raise prices astronomically if he dies (and most of them would comply except possibly Venezuela), things could get ugly.
I agree that it would be damning if the link could be made between the men and al-Qaida. Are you sure they weren't Iraqi soldiers? Or desert loonies for that matter. And I'm not asking what's likely, I'm asking what has been proven.
Okay, you got me there. Nothing's actually been proven, but the inspectors were very suspicious about it. While I know that's not proof, it does count for something IMHO.
I don't want to get into Israel because it's a massive and very smelly bag of worms I don't want to go near, but I would like to state that attacking Iraq for this reason would demonstrate profound inconstency in the foreign policy of the U.S.
Why? Last time I checked, the US is currently in the habit of taking out any regime that harbors and/or supports terrorists. Look at Afghanistan.
It doesn't matter where I live, secession is illegal and classified by the Constitution as treason no matter where in the US you are or what your views are. As is the case in most (all?) countries, Iraq included. See this link (http://www.kusd.edu/schools/lance/platinum/banaszynski/civil_war_2002/union_links_2002/patrions_of_preservation.html)
Interesting link. I suppose you're right in theory, but then when was the last time the CA government had much respect for the federal. After all, it was Davis who signed the legalization of marijuana for medicinal uses (or is at least close to it... I'm really tired), despite the fact that possession of marijuana is a federal crime. And the thing is, of course, that we're debating on what might happen. There really is no way to know for sure, especially if the revolt to create the "latino land" was a popular, not state supported one.
You've already battled this one out with SPG and Rower_CPU, but to get back to what started this (accusations of Bush having questionable levels of intelligence) - there's also the factor that having a silver spoon up one's butt (in jefhatfield's words) breeds complacency. I don't think you can blame his overwehlming averageness on bilingual education.
Okay, either I'm officially too tired to continue this thread, or I'm seriously confused, or you're confused somehow, or some combination of those. I don't think I ever said Bush's mediocrity was as symptom of bilingual education, did I? Okay, never mind, just took 5 minutes to retrace this whole thing... I meant more the dumbing down of education, as opposed to bilingual education specifically (since I don't think that was around when Bush was a kid). Regardless, I think we can count this as another overcooked argument. And as for the complacency thing, that's absolutely right, and it is, in part, to blame for that same dumbing down (hopefully I won't have to explain that).


Okay, I'm going to bed now.

[wdlove]

The inspection team setup by the UN is a shame. Won't be sharing intelligence with the CIA. Career UN employees. The nuclear inspectors have no experience in the nuclear field.

[SPG]

Originally posted by wdlove
The inspection team setup by the UN is a shame. Won't be sharing intelligence with the CIA. Career UN employees. The nuclear inspectors have no experience in the nuclear field.

If they were CIA employees, or even US Government employees, then not sharing with the CIA could be called into question, but since they are inspecting under the auspices of the UN they should distance themselves as far as possible from the CIA. If the inspectors were set up by the CIA, then that would be a shame.
As I recall the last group of inspectors got into some trouble because there were a couple guys who admitted to giving intelligence to the CIA(aka spying). That was a shame.

[wdlove]

They must be objective & professional in their work.

[job]

Originally posted by SPG
As I recall the last group of inspectors got into some trouble because there were a couple guys who admitted to giving intelligence to the CIA(aka spying). That was a shame.

They were Australian intelligence.

They willingly gave intel to the CIA without being asked.

[SPG]

Originally posted by wdlove
They must be objective & professional in their work.

Some chalk, a piece of cheese, and a beard.