- Joined
- Sep 7, 2001
- Messages
- 5,946
At least it's only on Wednesdays. For some, it's chronic.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
OT-Is there a solution to Iraq?
- Thread starter clearblue
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 61
Baathist insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorist alike would eat this up like candy. Can you imagine a more effective recruiting tool for Radical Islam? "See, the Great Satan will never leave. Their brutal occupation will continue until the Faithful cast them out!" The people of the Middle East do not remember colonialism with fondness.
The anger directed toward the West comes from many sources: lack of economic opportunity in restrictive, nationalistic societies; bitterness regarding western exploitation in the 19th/early 20th centuries; US support of Israel, which is widely viewed in the Mid-East as a colonial power itself; etc.
Some of these factors can be blamed on their own repressive governments. Some can be tied to OPEC's relationship with international oil companies (all overwhelmingly controlled by Western businessmen). Regardless, there is incredible anger, justified or not, directed at the US, Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Short of "killing them all and letting God sort 'em out" (a rather immoral policy prescription, to be sure), we must find a way to defuse that hostility. I don't pretend to know how to achieve that goal, but long-term occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is not the answer (e.g. Russian "liberation" of Afghanistan in the 80s).
It's a damn mess, and it's not one I'm confident our politicians can sort out (Bush or Kerry).
Sorry about the rant, this one touched a chord.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,331
Andreas,
I assure you, I do share your concern. Forced sterilization is a frightening and horrible thing.
It's just that sometimes even good people have bad ideas. The person may not be "bad", and if we can just demonstrate why the idea is...then we'll all join hands and share Cokes and there will be many kukuris for everyone and ice cream.
John
I assure you, I do share your concern. Forced sterilization is a frightening and horrible thing.
It's just that sometimes even good people have bad ideas. The person may not be "bad", and if we can just demonstrate why the idea is...then we'll all join hands and share Cokes and there will be many kukuris for everyone and ice cream.
John
I'm sorry to say.
Let's just take a moment and suppose that we could simply take one tiny pill just prior to reaching puberty and we would be infertile until we took another tiny little pill that would resume fertile status then after conception we take another tiny little pill to return to infertility. Is that so bad really? What are the advantages?
1-The immediate cessation of all legalized murder, ie.-abortions
2- An end to the single parent system rip off/con game ,of being a welfare sow-- to avoid being gainfully employed,etc.
3-Stopping rampant population growth that is threatening the destruction of the planet.
4-Every child becomes a wanted child instead of a cast-off thrown onto society to care for. No more orphans.
5-The elimination of parent to child transmitted diseases by requiring those wanting to have children to pass free state medical exams.
6-Humans MUST be allowed to engage in, with minimum restrictions, unlimited sexual congress-- especially during the years between 16 and 50.This most intense biological drive must be given free rein despite
certain religious edicts-Catholics not included, they already know about sex.
7-A redefinition of the word "sex" to that used by ex-president Clinton who said "I did not have sex with that woman-Monica Lewinsky".Oral contact could be said to be getting a "Lewinsky" and regular sex would retain it's original meaning.
8-A return to the traditional meaning of marriage: meaning one man one woman.Same sex joining would be a "civil union". This could later be modified if scientific progress resulting in virgin births or immaculate conceptions became a hot political issue.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head to show the miracles that just one tiny pill could bring. I happen to believe that pill is scientifically and technologically possible today.How could anyone not be for this?
Let's just take a moment and suppose that we could simply take one tiny pill just prior to reaching puberty and we would be infertile until we took another tiny little pill that would resume fertile status then after conception we take another tiny little pill to return to infertility. Is that so bad really? What are the advantages?
1-The immediate cessation of all legalized murder, ie.-abortions
2- An end to the single parent system rip off/con game ,of being a welfare sow-- to avoid being gainfully employed,etc.
3-Stopping rampant population growth that is threatening the destruction of the planet.
4-Every child becomes a wanted child instead of a cast-off thrown onto society to care for. No more orphans.
5-The elimination of parent to child transmitted diseases by requiring those wanting to have children to pass free state medical exams.
6-Humans MUST be allowed to engage in, with minimum restrictions, unlimited sexual congress-- especially during the years between 16 and 50.This most intense biological drive must be given free rein despite
certain religious edicts-Catholics not included, they already know about sex.
7-A redefinition of the word "sex" to that used by ex-president Clinton who said "I did not have sex with that woman-Monica Lewinsky".Oral contact could be said to be getting a "Lewinsky" and regular sex would retain it's original meaning.
8-A return to the traditional meaning of marriage: meaning one man one woman.Same sex joining would be a "civil union". This could later be modified if scientific progress resulting in virgin births or immaculate conceptions became a hot political issue.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head to show the miracles that just one tiny pill could bring. I happen to believe that pill is scientifically and technologically possible today.How could anyone not be for this?
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,182
Kismet said:Er....uh....
Maybe time for something else to be discussed?
Kis
Yeah all this talk of "unlimited congress" is getting me excited
"7-A redefinition of the word "sex" to that used by ex-president Clinton who said "I did not have sex with that woman-Monica Lewinsky".Oral contact could be said to be getting a "Lewinsky" and regular sex would retain it's original meaning."
So Chelsea Clinton came home from college. Hillary called her aside for a little mother daughter talk. "Honey" she said. " I know you are a young woman now and I want you to level with me. Are you having sex?"
"Not according to dad" she answered
Ahh, the days of worrying about the president lying about sex. Makes me nostalgic in these dark days of lying about WMD and torture.
Saw a good bumpersticker recently.
"When CLINTON lied NOBODY died"
I just saw this over at the Onion proclaimed to be America's finest News Source.:
Bush Posts Classified Ad For 90,000 Troops
WASHINGTON, DCIn an effort to relieve the burden on his overextended armed forces in Iraq, President Bush placed a four-line classified ad in the Monday edition of 75 U.S. newspapers. "WANTED: motivated, dedicated, obedient people looking for career in growing field of nation liberation," the ad read. "90,000 jobs avail. F/T days, nights, weekends. No exp. necessary. Will train. Arabic a plus. Starter pay, solid bnfts." To further boost military enlistment rates, Bush plans to post the job offer at employment offices in 300 cities across the country.
Could this be the beginning of that Department of Foreign Law- Enforcement?
http://www.theonion.com/index.php?pre=1
Bush Posts Classified Ad For 90,000 Troops
WASHINGTON, DCIn an effort to relieve the burden on his overextended armed forces in Iraq, President Bush placed a four-line classified ad in the Monday edition of 75 U.S. newspapers. "WANTED: motivated, dedicated, obedient people looking for career in growing field of nation liberation," the ad read. "90,000 jobs avail. F/T days, nights, weekends. No exp. necessary. Will train. Arabic a plus. Starter pay, solid bnfts." To further boost military enlistment rates, Bush plans to post the job offer at employment offices in 300 cities across the country.
Could this be the beginning of that Department of Foreign Law- Enforcement?
http://www.theonion.com/index.php?pre=1
It would occur to me that the first thing to do is to get rid of the
guy who started the problem. I'd say empeach him, starting a war under false pretences is a hell of a lot worse than any BJ . Even if it was questionable, War has it's casualities, why not politicians
? Don't you think it's funny how politicians generally don't get "sacrificed for the common good". It's not like 10 more won't spring up from where this one came from.
I think we could get a lot better cooperation with the world as a whole without him at this point. Afganistan, to his credit has worked out to this point ( still no Osama, funny no one mentions that, seems that started this whole mess), and we got lucky( for what ever reason), George got carried away with the power he held and jumped the gun. He gambled, he lost and the price must be paid. I say let him. Like any other commander, It's his responsibilty. It's not like we can't find somebody else that can do the job, despite what some partician political types would have you believe.
One "aw $hit" cancels a whole load of "attta boys" if I remember correctly.....
just think if we did it quick , then their would still be time for republicans to come up with another lacky , I mean "candidate".
rant out.....
guy who started the problem. I'd say empeach him, starting a war under false pretences is a hell of a lot worse than any BJ . Even if it was questionable, War has it's casualities, why not politicians
? Don't you think it's funny how politicians generally don't get "sacrificed for the common good". It's not like 10 more won't spring up from where this one came from.I think we could get a lot better cooperation with the world as a whole without him at this point. Afganistan, to his credit has worked out to this point ( still no Osama, funny no one mentions that, seems that started this whole mess), and we got lucky( for what ever reason), George got carried away with the power he held and jumped the gun. He gambled, he lost and the price must be paid. I say let him. Like any other commander, It's his responsibilty. It's not like we can't find somebody else that can do the job, despite what some partician political types would have you believe.
One "aw $hit" cancels a whole load of "attta boys" if I remember correctly.....
just think if we did it quick , then their would still be time for republicans to come up with another lacky
, I mean "candidate". rant out.....
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 302
I think we can eventually work out a solution in Iraq. But that the operative word is "eventually".
I am saddened that so many Americans have the idea that a government can be toppled, and a new one set up and running with little or no disruption or loss of life, especially in an area with the hostile inter-tribal histories that are common in that part of the world.
I don't know what the solution is in Iraq. I only know how I would pursue it. Some might find my ideas funny since some of them were taken from the satire article and even Clearblue's initial post.
1. We need to, to the best of our ability, create an effective intelligence network so we can seek out and capture or kill those known insurgents and terrorists.
2. Abuse prisoners? Yes, I think so, depending. Like I said in the past, there are three types of prisoners: (1) Those in there because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. You don't torture these. (2) The "soldier" type fellow who is "simply doing his job" as we would define it under the Laws of Land Warfare. You don't torture these guys either, but I do think an appropriate use of truth serum or bribes wouldn't be out of line. (3) The real bad hombres. With these guys, no holds barred. Am I concerned that doing this will make us as bad as the enemy we are fighting? Nope. Not in the least.
3. We need to continue to build the infrastructure in Iraq and turn the running of that infrastructure over to the Iraqis as soon as possible.
4. We need to get a truly sovereign, and truly self-elected government in place as soon as possible. The vast majority of Iraqis polled do not want a theocracy, they want some kind of democracy or representative republic. I think we should do everything we can to make that happen as soon as we can make that happen.
5. We need to train and hopefully help select a body of law enforcement and military men that are pro-Iraqi and hopefully not anti-American.
6. In every way that we can, we must try to do "the right thing."
But above all, we need to stay the course. We need to understand that Iraq is not THE problem. Iraq is merely one of many fronts or campaigns against the terrorists. We need to understand that the people we are fighting, are not our enemies because we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. They were our enemies long before then. They have simply used Afghanistan (to a small extent) and Iraq (to a greater extent) as rallying cries. And the good news is, they are coming to Iraq to try to kill our men and women soldiers, who are killing them instead. Better in Najaf than Omaha or St. Louis.
When we get a stable, sovereign, popularly elected government in Iraq, we won't need to be there, any more than we need to be in Egypt or Jordan. But, we are going to have to overcome decades' worth of indoctrination to do it. I don't see how it can happen quickly.
The funny thing is, it is true - that if they simply quit killing Americans, we'd be out so fast you couldn't believe it.
Don
I am saddened that so many Americans have the idea that a government can be toppled, and a new one set up and running with little or no disruption or loss of life, especially in an area with the hostile inter-tribal histories that are common in that part of the world.
I don't know what the solution is in Iraq. I only know how I would pursue it. Some might find my ideas funny since some of them were taken from the satire article and even Clearblue's initial post.
1. We need to, to the best of our ability, create an effective intelligence network so we can seek out and capture or kill those known insurgents and terrorists.
2. Abuse prisoners? Yes, I think so, depending. Like I said in the past, there are three types of prisoners: (1) Those in there because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. You don't torture these. (2) The "soldier" type fellow who is "simply doing his job" as we would define it under the Laws of Land Warfare. You don't torture these guys either, but I do think an appropriate use of truth serum or bribes wouldn't be out of line. (3) The real bad hombres. With these guys, no holds barred. Am I concerned that doing this will make us as bad as the enemy we are fighting? Nope. Not in the least.
3. We need to continue to build the infrastructure in Iraq and turn the running of that infrastructure over to the Iraqis as soon as possible.
4. We need to get a truly sovereign, and truly self-elected government in place as soon as possible. The vast majority of Iraqis polled do not want a theocracy, they want some kind of democracy or representative republic. I think we should do everything we can to make that happen as soon as we can make that happen.
5. We need to train and hopefully help select a body of law enforcement and military men that are pro-Iraqi and hopefully not anti-American.
6. In every way that we can, we must try to do "the right thing."
But above all, we need to stay the course. We need to understand that Iraq is not THE problem. Iraq is merely one of many fronts or campaigns against the terrorists. We need to understand that the people we are fighting, are not our enemies because we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. They were our enemies long before then. They have simply used Afghanistan (to a small extent) and Iraq (to a greater extent) as rallying cries. And the good news is, they are coming to Iraq to try to kill our men and women soldiers, who are killing them instead. Better in Najaf than Omaha or St. Louis.
When we get a stable, sovereign, popularly elected government in Iraq, we won't need to be there, any more than we need to be in Egypt or Jordan. But, we are going to have to overcome decades' worth of indoctrination to do it. I don't see how it can happen quickly.
The funny thing is, it is true - that if they simply quit killing Americans, we'd be out so fast you couldn't believe it.
Don
Very well said Don!
Don't despair Munk you'll be back to maximum adrenaline output before you know it or maybe you're seeing the grains of truth in various points of view and discarding the chaff.
I learned something from Yvsa's post--- that ndns have had their own history with the feminists, infanticide activists,and pro-choice crowd.Interesting.
Don't despair Munk you'll be back to maximum adrenaline output before you know it or maybe you're seeing the grains of truth in various points of view and discarding the chaff.
I learned something from Yvsa's post--- that ndns have had their own history with the feminists, infanticide activists,and pro-choice crowd.Interesting.
I'd Like To Teach The World Sing Lyrics
I'd like to build the world a home and furnish it with love
For apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle dove
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms and keep it company
I'd like to see the world for once all standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills for peace throughout the land
It's a real thing what the world wants today
As the way it will stay with the real thing
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
A song of peace that echoes on and never goes away
Put your hand in my hand let's begin today
With your hand in my hand let me find the way
I'd like to see the world for once all standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills for peace throughout the land
I call this a "loop song" like the Eagles "Take it Easy,take it easy -don't let the sound of your own whells( oops-- freudian slip I meant to type wheels) drive you crazy" Gotcha!
I'd like to build the world a home and furnish it with love
For apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle dove
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms and keep it company
I'd like to see the world for once all standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills for peace throughout the land
It's a real thing what the world wants today
As the way it will stay with the real thing
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
A song of peace that echoes on and never goes away
Put your hand in my hand let's begin today
With your hand in my hand let me find the way
I'd like to see the world for once all standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills for peace throughout the land
I call this a "loop song" like the Eagles "Take it Easy,take it easy -don't let the sound of your own whells( oops-- freudian slip I meant to type wheels) drive you crazy" Gotcha!
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 302
Hey, Bran;
You wrote, "It would occur to me that the first thing to do is to get rid of the guy who started the problem. I'd say empeach him, starting a war under false pretences is a hell of a lot worse than any BJ."
Me: As I recall, the war started years before Bush was elected. The Achille Lauro, the embassies in Africa, the first bombing attempt on the World Trade Center, the marine barracke in Beruit, the USS Cole. There were no pretenses, false or otherwise. Saddam had WMD's. We have been finding them, and some of them turned up in Jordan less than a month ago.
The entire operation against Saddam and his regime could have been avoided if Saddam had simply declared his weapons, or provided proof of their destruction. He did neither. HE started the war, not Bush. You're blaming the cop for arresting the criminal who's illegally carrying a gun.
Besides, please get your facts straight. Clinton was not impeached over a BJ. He was impeached for obstruction of justice and giving false testimony. You do of course realize that Clinton was disbarred because of it? And that was at the hands of the Arkansas state bar and legal system - not some Republican witch hunt.
You: "Even if it was questionable, War has it's casualities, why not politicians ? Don't you think it's funny how politicians generally don't get "sacrificed for the common good". It's not like 10 more won't spring up from where this one came from."
Me: You know, although I agree with that comment in principle, it is really pretty lame (shrug). Politicians have been sending others off to die for millenia. That is the nature of the beast. I lost an acquaintance in Bosnia - a war embarked on by Clinton, without UN support nor UN "permission". I don't see anyone calling for the draft-dodger's head because of that.
I guess just wish people would make some other counter-point to a leader's allegedly flawed policies other than, "it's pretty easy to send men into harm's way when they aren't the ones going." Well, duh! No sh*t, Sherlock. But I do not believe for a minute, any president lightly sends troops into battle, not even sleazy, lying disingenuous ones like Clinton, a person I genuinely despise. Draft-dodging coward and opportunist that I think he is, even I don't think he sent those troops into Somalia or Bosnia without understanding what that might mean.
You: "I think we could get a lot better cooperation with the world as a whole without him at this point."
Me: Better cooperation from whom? The French and Germans? The Russians? The Iraqis themselves? The terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center maybe? You know they would have blown it up even if Gore were president.
And, let's be specific shall we? Exactly what KIND of cooperation would we get? By my recollection, most of Europe isn't interested in any kind of cooperation. They have turned down our requests for troops and financial aid. But boy, they sure want to be in on the rebuilding contracts. I don't suppose you knew that Germany, Russia and France were up to their eyeballs in business deals with Saddam, which was their unspoken reason for not wanting to go to war against him. You do of course realise that the Saddam regime owed all three of those countries BILLIONS of dollars, right?
And guess what ol' "W" Bush has suggested, the very thing that France, Germany and Russia didn't want to hear - that Bush is pushing for either complete forgiveness of Iraq's debts, or a pennies on the dollar settlement for them.
Let's be honest here shall we? France, Germany and Russia were willing to gladly, and enthusiastically leave Saddam in power because they were in bed with him, even if it meant that tens of thousands of Americans died because Saddam decided to make a few million bucks selling WMD's to guys like Osama Bin Laden to use against the US. "Hey, they're not blowing up our buildings," said the French, Germans and Russians.
You: "Afganistan, to his credit has worked out to this point ( still no Osama, funny no one mentions that, seems that started this whole mess), and we got lucky( for what ever reason),..."
Me: Uhh, maybe you can answer this question for me. Ready? Okay, here goes: Osama Bin Laden is worth MILLIONS of dollars right? Prior to Afghanistan, we saw his lanky butt on Al Jazeera television every week in a newly released videotape.
But after Afghanistan, and specifically after the US was bombing the snot out of those caves in Tora Bora with bunker busters and Daisy Cutters and such, we haven't seen a single, not one, photo or video image of Osama that can be placed to have occured after Tora Bora. Now, why is that? Did Osama suddenly lose his ATM card? He suddenly can't afford to buy a hundred dollar video camera and $5 worth of casette tapes to videotape himself holding up a recent newspaper, and flipping us the bird?
Why is it all we get are audio tapes of lousy quality that various voice experts can't agree on whether it's Osama or not?
I'll tell you why. I'll bet you a dollar that Osama was killed in Tora Bora. I'll bet you that his rotting decomposing carcass is buried under a few thousands tons of rock and rubble in one of those caves.
I don't believe he's alive. Or if by some oddball fluke he is, he must look like something out of a horror movie. Think about it - the Arab mentality is one of humiliating your enemy. Recall the fuss at Abu Ghraib? They'd rather be dead than humiliated. So how come a fellow who comes from that culture, with the kind of money he has, can't acquire a hundred dollar video recorder and make of tape of him waving his weenie at the US and saying, "Nanny nanny boo boo! Missed me missed me now ya gotta kiss me!"
Funny how no one seems to mention THAT.
Bush got lucky in Afghanistan? Nah. Went off pretty much as could be expected. The Afghans were not fond of the Taliban.
You: "George got carried away with the power he held and jumped the gun. He gambled, he lost and the price must be paid. I say let him. Like any other commander, It's his responsibilty. It's not like we can't find somebody else that can do the job, despite what some partician political types would have you believe."
Me: Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You say he jumped the gun. I say that he was very, very worried about having another 9/11 happen, and there would be no forgiveness at all for him if that occured. So, who else would you have had in charge? Gore? A man who can't find his butt with both hands? Did you SEE the cabinet that Clinton put in place? A bunch of pointy headed academics and friends who had little or no real world experience. Bush on the other hand, hey, can you REALLY argue that Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld were BAD choices for a cabinet?
The one thing Bush does well, is surround himself with high caliber people. You cannot say that about Clinton, and I doubt Gore would have done any better than Clinton, in fact, maybe even worse.
You: "One "aw $hit" cancels a whole load of "attta boys" if I remember correctly....."
Me: But it doesn't have to, does it. If you did 99 things right in your job and dropped the ball on the hundredth, would you think it fair to be "fired" for it? If so, then your bosses must have been more forgiving than you.
You: "...just think if we did it quick , then their would still be time for republicans to come up with another lacky , I mean "candidate"."
Me: The term lackey means someone who does the bidding of another. So, who is Bush doing the bidding for? Besides, if we get a Demo in the Oval Office, he'll just be a lackey for other countries who do not have the US's best interest at heart. Do you really think France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Russia or Spain gives a rip whether the US suffers one 9/11 or a dozen of them, as long they are safe? If you do, then you need to get out more. Every man jack of them would sacrifice any number of Americans if it would buy their own security. And that goes for the Brits too, with Tony Blair being the only exception.
By the way, false pretenses you say? So you're saying that Iraq had no WMD's, that Bush lied? If so, then Blair lied, as did Bill Clinton, as did John F. Kerry, as did the presidents and prime ministers of France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Italy, Canada, etc, etc.. Hell, even Syria, Libya and Iran thought so too!
And do you know why? Because Saddam did have them. Had them for decades and still had them up until the time he fell.
I hope, for the sake of all Americans, that you are right - that Bush lied. I really do. Because if you are wrong, we are going to someday be very, very sorry. I don't believe for a moment that that one Sarin-filled artillery shell they found last week was the ONLY WMD warhead in Iraq. If that shell had found its way into the ventilation system of a stadium or theater or some other event with lots of people crammed in close, no telling how many would have died.
Don
You wrote, "It would occur to me that the first thing to do is to get rid of the guy who started the problem. I'd say empeach him, starting a war under false pretences is a hell of a lot worse than any BJ."
Me: As I recall, the war started years before Bush was elected. The Achille Lauro, the embassies in Africa, the first bombing attempt on the World Trade Center, the marine barracke in Beruit, the USS Cole. There were no pretenses, false or otherwise. Saddam had WMD's. We have been finding them, and some of them turned up in Jordan less than a month ago.
The entire operation against Saddam and his regime could have been avoided if Saddam had simply declared his weapons, or provided proof of their destruction. He did neither. HE started the war, not Bush. You're blaming the cop for arresting the criminal who's illegally carrying a gun.
Besides, please get your facts straight. Clinton was not impeached over a BJ. He was impeached for obstruction of justice and giving false testimony. You do of course realize that Clinton was disbarred because of it? And that was at the hands of the Arkansas state bar and legal system - not some Republican witch hunt.
You: "Even if it was questionable, War has it's casualities, why not politicians
? Don't you think it's funny how politicians generally don't get "sacrificed for the common good". It's not like 10 more won't spring up from where this one came from."Me: You know, although I agree with that comment in principle, it is really pretty lame (shrug). Politicians have been sending others off to die for millenia. That is the nature of the beast. I lost an acquaintance in Bosnia - a war embarked on by Clinton, without UN support nor UN "permission". I don't see anyone calling for the draft-dodger's head because of that.
I guess just wish people would make some other counter-point to a leader's allegedly flawed policies other than, "it's pretty easy to send men into harm's way when they aren't the ones going." Well, duh! No sh*t, Sherlock. But I do not believe for a minute, any president lightly sends troops into battle, not even sleazy, lying disingenuous ones like Clinton, a person I genuinely despise. Draft-dodging coward and opportunist that I think he is, even I don't think he sent those troops into Somalia or Bosnia without understanding what that might mean.
You: "I think we could get a lot better cooperation with the world as a whole without him at this point."
Me: Better cooperation from whom? The French and Germans? The Russians? The Iraqis themselves? The terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center maybe? You know they would have blown it up even if Gore were president.
And, let's be specific shall we? Exactly what KIND of cooperation would we get? By my recollection, most of Europe isn't interested in any kind of cooperation. They have turned down our requests for troops and financial aid. But boy, they sure want to be in on the rebuilding contracts. I don't suppose you knew that Germany, Russia and France were up to their eyeballs in business deals with Saddam, which was their unspoken reason for not wanting to go to war against him. You do of course realise that the Saddam regime owed all three of those countries BILLIONS of dollars, right?
And guess what ol' "W" Bush has suggested, the very thing that France, Germany and Russia didn't want to hear - that Bush is pushing for either complete forgiveness of Iraq's debts, or a pennies on the dollar settlement for them.
Let's be honest here shall we? France, Germany and Russia were willing to gladly, and enthusiastically leave Saddam in power because they were in bed with him, even if it meant that tens of thousands of Americans died because Saddam decided to make a few million bucks selling WMD's to guys like Osama Bin Laden to use against the US. "Hey, they're not blowing up our buildings," said the French, Germans and Russians.
You: "Afganistan, to his credit has worked out to this point ( still no Osama, funny no one mentions that, seems that started this whole mess), and we got lucky( for what ever reason),..."
Me: Uhh, maybe you can answer this question for me. Ready? Okay, here goes: Osama Bin Laden is worth MILLIONS of dollars right? Prior to Afghanistan, we saw his lanky butt on Al Jazeera television every week in a newly released videotape.
But after Afghanistan, and specifically after the US was bombing the snot out of those caves in Tora Bora with bunker busters and Daisy Cutters and such, we haven't seen a single, not one, photo or video image of Osama that can be placed to have occured after Tora Bora. Now, why is that? Did Osama suddenly lose his ATM card? He suddenly can't afford to buy a hundred dollar video camera and $5 worth of casette tapes to videotape himself holding up a recent newspaper, and flipping us the bird?
Why is it all we get are audio tapes of lousy quality that various voice experts can't agree on whether it's Osama or not?
I'll tell you why. I'll bet you a dollar that Osama was killed in Tora Bora. I'll bet you that his rotting decomposing carcass is buried under a few thousands tons of rock and rubble in one of those caves.
I don't believe he's alive. Or if by some oddball fluke he is, he must look like something out of a horror movie. Think about it - the Arab mentality is one of humiliating your enemy. Recall the fuss at Abu Ghraib? They'd rather be dead than humiliated. So how come a fellow who comes from that culture, with the kind of money he has, can't acquire a hundred dollar video recorder and make of tape of him waving his weenie at the US and saying, "Nanny nanny boo boo! Missed me missed me now ya gotta kiss me!"
Funny how no one seems to mention THAT.
Bush got lucky in Afghanistan? Nah. Went off pretty much as could be expected. The Afghans were not fond of the Taliban.
You: "George got carried away with the power he held and jumped the gun. He gambled, he lost and the price must be paid. I say let him. Like any other commander, It's his responsibilty. It's not like we can't find somebody else that can do the job, despite what some partician political types would have you believe."
Me: Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You say he jumped the gun. I say that he was very, very worried about having another 9/11 happen, and there would be no forgiveness at all for him if that occured. So, who else would you have had in charge? Gore? A man who can't find his butt with both hands? Did you SEE the cabinet that Clinton put in place? A bunch of pointy headed academics and friends who had little or no real world experience. Bush on the other hand, hey, can you REALLY argue that Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld were BAD choices for a cabinet?
The one thing Bush does well, is surround himself with high caliber people. You cannot say that about Clinton, and I doubt Gore would have done any better than Clinton, in fact, maybe even worse.
You: "One "aw $hit" cancels a whole load of "attta boys" if I remember correctly....."
Me: But it doesn't have to, does it. If you did 99 things right in your job and dropped the ball on the hundredth, would you think it fair to be "fired" for it? If so, then your bosses must have been more forgiving than you.
You: "...just think if we did it quick , then their would still be time for republicans to come up with another lacky
, I mean "candidate"."Me: The term lackey means someone who does the bidding of another. So, who is Bush doing the bidding for? Besides, if we get a Demo in the Oval Office, he'll just be a lackey for other countries who do not have the US's best interest at heart. Do you really think France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Russia or Spain gives a rip whether the US suffers one 9/11 or a dozen of them, as long they are safe? If you do, then you need to get out more. Every man jack of them would sacrifice any number of Americans if it would buy their own security. And that goes for the Brits too, with Tony Blair being the only exception.
By the way, false pretenses you say? So you're saying that Iraq had no WMD's, that Bush lied? If so, then Blair lied, as did Bill Clinton, as did John F. Kerry, as did the presidents and prime ministers of France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Italy, Canada, etc, etc.. Hell, even Syria, Libya and Iran thought so too!
And do you know why? Because Saddam did have them. Had them for decades and still had them up until the time he fell.
I hope, for the sake of all Americans, that you are right - that Bush lied. I really do. Because if you are wrong, we are going to someday be very, very sorry. I don't believe for a moment that that one Sarin-filled artillery shell they found last week was the ONLY WMD warhead in Iraq. If that shell had found its way into the ventilation system of a stadium or theater or some other event with lots of people crammed in close, no telling how many would have died.
Don