Old 14th December 2006, 19:13   #1
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
GWB worst prez in Us history?

From a discussion on another board where heated debate has W one notch below Woodrow Wilson and above Buchannon and Pierce. the criteria for anointing a winner was the state of the nation after each pres' term was finished.

I found this analysis particularly frightening and had me thinking about getting the Hell out of the Us as quickly as possible before the bills all become payable.



>>>
Say what you will about Wilson, the country was not left in such a sorry
state of lowered prestige and actual danger after WWI. W has left us seriously
insecure and in real and present danger. His incompetent misuse of the
American military has squandered its real power on an unnecessary war
and has - even more abysmally - eroded its perceived power dramatically.
American rivals are much less concerned about American military power in
2006 than they were in 2000.

His catastrophic incapacity for diplomacy has helped strengthen
and embolden rival states across the globe. Incompetent diplomacy has
accelerated the nuclearization of Iran and North Korea. It has pushed
Venezuela into the waiting arms of China. It has essentially ceded
all of central Asia to Russian influence. Around the world we see minor
nations Finlandizing to powerful nations that are not the US.

At every turn, the Bush administration has attempted to consolidate its
own political power, and reward its political supporters, without regard
for any long-term consequences - indeed, without regard for *short-term*
consequences. The damage wrought to the State Department and the CIA is
going to take decades to fix. In the meantime, the US doesn't know what's
going on in the rest of the world and doesn't know how to influence it.

For a really good illustration of how this is actually working, read
William Langiewiesche's article in this month's Atlantic Monthly. The
subject of the article is simple: if you were a well-funded terrorist
organization bent on attacking an American city with a nuclear weapon, how
would you do it? Langewiesche examines every step that such an
organization would have to take, from obtaining enriched uranium to
fabricating a weapon to delivering it. The route he traces was once
patrolled by American intelligence, but no more. Human intelligence
operations have disappeared, and have been replaced by (a phrase he does
not use, but that plainly describes what he is seeing) security theater:
huge expenditures of public funds on privately-contracted projects that
have erected great installations with video cameras and electric fences in
Russia's nuclear cities, and that provide next to nothing in the way of
actual security.

In the meantime, if jihadists have been trying to smuggle enriched uranium
out of Russia or are setting up a bomb-building workshop in Islamabad or
Istanbul, we don't know, because all our intelligence resources have
been diverted from what Langewiesche calls "laying traplines" to big-money
Homeland Security projects. We can take very good satellite photos, but
we don't know where to look.

The United States, for the first time since 1814, faces a real and
tangible military threat on its own soil. The Bush Administration's
response to this threat has been to squander authority and power that it
took this nation 60 years to accumulate on a personal vendetta, and to use
the threat of terrorism to bully the nation into funding an entire
constellation of Maginot Lines.

Indeed, every aspect of federal spending during the Bush administration
follows this pattern: the administration puts forward a united
ideological front, the ideology happens to dovetail with public monies
being spent in a new and specific way, immense public expenditures take
place, and all attempts to gauge the efficacy of these expenditures are
squelched.

Hence "No Child Left Behind," which has funnelled billions of dollars from
public agencies to private ones and imposed a new set of accountability
metrics that curiously make it impossible to determine if this huge change
in funding is having a positive effect. Hence the Strategic Defense
Initiative, which *even now* is fully funded. Hence the new regime at the
Environmental Protection Agency, which is spending money as fast as it can
on revamping its library system so that its records are inaccessible to
the public. Hence the prescription-drug plan, which commits the federal
government to pay the American pharmeceutical industry for medication and
prohibits it from negotiating prices.

Our nation has gotten weaker and poorer by just about every dimension you
could think of during the Bush administration, and it is a direct
consequence of the administration's incompetence and rapacity.

Wilson's idealistic foreign policy was a disaster. But the damage wrought
by idealists can't hold a candle to what cynics can do.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2006, 20:29   #2
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
How does this translate into breaking news?
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2006, 20:44   #3
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
a vaild point. Ask the moderator to remove it.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2006, 07:42   #4
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I was watching Henry Kissinger on Charlie Rose. He applauded the president on his moral standing in trying to do the right thing in Iraq.

His suggestion is that in recent years, even before Bush, that americans have been asked to sacrifice. He said that under normal circumstances americans would sacrifice for a noble project such as helping the Iraqis get peace.

His opinion is that americans have been asked to sacrifice so much for so long, that they are unwilling to give anything more for anything.

Someone also said that the country now has three parties. Republican, democrat and FED UP!.

This is why I think you can replace Bush and win a democrat government, but is all that will do is make taxes go up.

It's not going to solve any problems.

In the current political climate, I predict that any future democrat president will be just as unpopular as Bush.

That's just like Clinton. I think basically you could find as many people to hate Clinton as Bush.

I don't hate either. I really don't think you get to be the president of the US, and be a scumbag.

I think our presidents have all been men of at least acceptable moral character, and I really don't find anything to indicate that there is some devious plot we don't know about.

The country is now being run by the FEDUPs. Until that changes, nothing will improve.

Bush is running the country, because people were fed up with tax, spend, and sell us to the Chinese.... Clinton .... and give em a tax break Bush will suffer the same fate.

Because all of us are fed up.

So, ballot in hand, we find ourselves voting against who pissed us off last, and not finding anything better.

As far as taxes?. Everyone votes for someone else to pay them. We each, personally will only vote for tax increases if we don't pay. But it's a trap. When the "other guy" pays, he can't pay you.

If we are going to compare Clinton and Bush as presidents, I'd like to point out that they are almost identical moderate presidents.

Ignore who's standing around them, and they are very much the same guy.

"I hate Bush", but gee, the democrat is the same guy with a better tie.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 15th December 2006 at 08:33.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2006, 11:14   #5
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
It's interresting that you don't see any equivalent of the inherrent distrust of Americans to their own goverment, in Europe.

Sure, there are unpopular goverments in Europe, but nothing at the scale or maginitude that we see in the States. Too me it seems that Europeans trusts the concept of democracy much more than Americans.

A valid question one could then ask, if you consider the above to hold some truth to it, is wether the current administration and the social and coorporate elite in particular, and the american population in general, really care to spread Democracy to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria etc., or it's more about spreading american cultural hegemony to world - the Middle East is afterall one of last strongholds who has only fallen victim to Coca Cola, McDonalds & Hollywood to limited degree.

For all the sincerity, Americans may have in thinking American style capitalism is the only true form of a society, i find it very ethnocentric, especially comming from a country forged from immigration.

If you stop and consider where, and more important who, formulated, Bush's philosophical vantage point, it's really not as far fleged, as you may think it is.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2006, 12:47   #6
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
ITs because scumbags become politicians. There has rarely been anyone in power who has had a clean record in office these days.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2006, 13:51   #7
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
W's got my vote.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2006, 14:25   #8
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
His opinion is that Americans have been asked to sacrifice so much for so long, that they are unwilling to give anything more for anything.
What exactly have we been asked to sacrifice? Seriously I have so much stuff that I don't even need it's ridiculous. I think if Americans had truly been asked to sacrifice to fight the war after September 11th instead of told to go out and shop, many more Americans would still be in support of the war and would feel like they had a vested interest in seeing it through to victory...
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2006, 00:19   #9
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
A valid question one could then ask, if you consider the above to hold some truth to it, is wether the current administration and the social and coorporate elite in particular, and the american population in general, really care to spread Democracy to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria etc., or it's more about spreading american cultural hegemony to world - the Middle East is afterall one of last strongholds who has only fallen victim to Coca Cola, McDonalds & Hollywood to limited degree.

For all the sincerity, Americans may have in thinking American style capitalism is the only true form of a society, i find it very ethnocentric, especially comming from a country forged from immigration.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe we have a winner!

Which is why half the natural world hates us and has every right to hate America and her ideals in my humble opinion.
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2006, 08:50   #10
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
A valid question one could then ask, if you consider the above to hold some truth to it, is wether the current administration and the social and coorporate elite in particular, and the american population in general, really care to spread Democracy to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria etc., or it's more about spreading american cultural hegemony to world - the Middle East is afterall one of last strongholds who has only fallen victim to Coca Cola, McDonalds & Hollywood to limited degree.
A valid question, one could ask, is whether the United States government would have operated any differently under democrat control.

I think the answer is no.

Quote:
spreading american cultural hegemony
Americas melting pot is hardly melted. It doesn't have to be. About the only thing we do mostly agree on is that we shouldn't kill each other for our skin color or religion. At least in theory, we also have a constitution which supports individual rights, even when the majority says different.

So far. And no, don't tell me how much of a bunch of champions the democrats are for civil rights. They've taken more away than anyone.

And for the Iraqis, which is better?. A coke and a smile or their current system?.

America doesn't want hegemony, it wants prosperity. Prosperous neighbors are good neighbors. We'd like the Iraqis to sell the west it's oil. In return we will make them rich. All they have to do is quit shooting at each other and us.

Quote:
the Middle East is afterall one of last strongholds who has only fallen victim to Coca Cola, McDonalds & Hollywood to limited degree.
What victim?. Have a soft drink and watch a movie. More liberal nonsense that business is bad. Coke, McDonalds and Hollywood pay a lot of people a living.

Jihad doesn't.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 16th December 2006 at 09:17.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2006, 13:34   #11
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
It's interresting that you don't see any equivalent of the inherrent distrust of Americans to their own goverment, in Europe.
You can't really compare them unless the EU was a united country. Once you have a federal government making decisions for your state where another state's interest might override your state's interest, you have problems. I think the United states provides many examples that keep the EU from uniting.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2006, 21:36   #12
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by Jay
You can't really compare them unless the EU was a united country. Once you have a federal government making decisions for your state where another state's interest might override your state's interest, you have problems. I think the United states provides many examples that keep the EU from uniting.
That is an interesting point. European countries are more or less states of the EU in a much looser association that the US states.

I have a good example of this. Tree huggers in California and New York decided that we should be ecological and shut down the timber industry in Oregon. One of the critters involved is the endangered spotted owl. The economy here never has recovered.

The natives here had bumper stickers for a long time:

"Try wiping your ass with a spotted owl"



Now we don't harvest timber, we just wait for forest fires to burn the trees down. And while the "endangered" owl does live in old growth, it also finds a barn adequate

..... providing no one shoots them, which is really why they are endangered......

Last edited by rockouthippie; 16th December 2006 at 21:56.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2006, 02:28   #13
Bilbo Baggins
Wind Chime of the Apocalypse
 
Bilbo Baggins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: The Forest
Posts: 17,229
Quote:
Originally posted by Jay
You can't really compare them unless the EU was a united country. Once you have a federal government making decisions for your state where another state's interest might override your state's interest, you have problems. I think the United states provides many examples that keep the EU from uniting.
Or maybe its just that Europeans don't want to be that close. Afterall, the vast majority of European history has involved fighting to establish and then maintain national pride.
Bilbo Baggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2006, 22:58   #14
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I don't think WE want to be that close. Look at the breakdown of red and blue states and the demographics of people that vote one way or another.

California, New York and major cities like liberalism. The rest of us think liberals suck. Unfortunately these human toilets breed voters.

I'm live in a blue state (Oregon). If I drive 50 miles away from any major city in Oregon, I'm in a red state.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 18th December 2006 at 23:18.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2006, 23:43   #15
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
The rest of us think liberals suck.
Speak for yourself, dude.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 01:21   #16
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Well, you may be blue, but where you are isn't probably.

http://upperleftcoast.blogspot.com/2...county_12.html

I wasn't really talking about individuals, but about majorities.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...&ct=image&cd=1

Red vs. Blue. People in the cities vs. people that aren't.

And all those red counties/states.... they aren't in love with George Bush, they just despise the alternatives.

20 years ago, they were blue too.

Actually the "reds" are liberal too, they just didn't want to wallow in it.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 19th December 2006 at 01:36.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 02:21   #17
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Sadly the facts of the matter are only the wealthy have enough money (and therefore power) to become president and generally a large number of wealthy people are easily corruptable (at least those who would run for office). You then end up with a politician who for the right amount of money, power or personal benefits will do pretty much anything you want them to.

Bush is an idiot, Clinton was a perv, Bush Sr. couldn't read his own lips, Reagan was ok but half senile. Ford? Nixon? Giminy jimping Jesus. Kennedy likely would have been great but that's why they offed him.

Generally most Presidents have sucked. Senators and Representatives are corrupt as hell. State and local governments just shit on themselves.

When American finally finds a way to remove the financial equation from politics it might change. No one knows how to do that though and likely wont until we're as fucked up as a Third World country.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 04:17   #18
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
in 2000, Bush barely won (well technically he didn't Florida and therefore not the presidency)
in 2004, Bush barely won (well if I look at Ohio, where voter fraud DID occur, then Bush again didn't win)

In all honesty, its my firm belief that diebold fixed both presidential elections with the aid of the Republican party.

All this talk of red and blue is a waste of time. How about naive Americans vs. wealthy bastards

“The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” - Joseph Stalin

The new Democratic congress better make fucking sure they open source the electronic voting system.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 13:00   #19
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
in 2000, Bush barely won (well technically he didn't Florida and therefore not the presidency)
in 2004, Bush barely won (well if I look at Ohio, where voter fraud DID occur, then Bush again didn't win)


In all honesty, its my firm belief that diebold fixed both presidential elections with the aid of the Republican party.
There is no proof of any significant tampering. If I was going to pick a problem, I'd pick some of the voters that got disqualified. But why were some voters disqualified?. Because the democrats were stuffing the ballot box by recruiting illegal aliens.

Quote:
All this talk of red and blue is a waste of time. How about naive Americans vs. wealthy bastards
If you look at the red states/counties, the "red" places are poor. The actual schizm is something like this:

1. The reds don't believe in liberalism to the point of making an institution out of it.

2. They pay taxes and don't ever see the government.

3. When they do see it, they don't like it.

Quote:
“The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” - Joseph Stalin

The new Democratic congress better make fucking sure they open source the electronic voting system. [/B]
I don't think it would make any difference, because it wasn't just these elections where maybe it possibly might have gotten rigged. It's also proven that the democrats tampered by recruiting illegal alien voters.

The democrats lost. It's just that simple. Ask Al Gore. When the democrats quit riding a gay pony down the street towing an abortion wagon they might get the moderates back.

Like I said before. The "reds" are pretty much liberal too. They just didn't need a parade.

What part of this is hard for the democrats to understand?.

Why did they lose?. Because half of the country thinks they are decadent scum......

Find a deep, dark hole. Dump the Clintons in it with Gloria Allred, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Seal tightly.

The democratic party would start winning elections again.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 19th December 2006 at 13:19.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 15:08   #20
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
There is no proof of any significant tampering.
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
Because the democrats were stuffing the ballot box by recruiting illegal aliens.
The first hypocritical post I've seen today.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 15:15   #21
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
I was watching Henry Kissinger on Charlie Rose. He applauded the president on his moral standing in trying to do the right thing in Iraq.
Kissinger? The same Kissinger who organised the coup in Chile?
That guy certainly is a moral authority.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 21:29   #22
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally posted by ElChevelle
The first hypocritical post I've seen today.
It's called, a selective, creative interpretation of reality to suit whatever bs he's cooking up at the moment.

Otherwise known as I'm pulling factually deficient flying monkeys out of my ass and EVERYTHING I SAY IS RIGHT, YOU'RE ALL WRONG. BECAUSE, BECAUSE.... WELL JUST BECAUSE.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 21:30   #23
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
I'm sorry. I promised myself I wouldn't respond to anything rockouthippie posts ever again. I screwed up and let my temper get the best of me. I'll try not to let it happen again. Buh bye, hippie.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 22:30   #24
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
I said the same. It's impossible to argue against ignorance.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 22:47   #25
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
That's why ignorance always wins in the end!
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2006, 22:56   #26
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
Sadly, that has pretty much been the history of the world.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2006, 03:11   #27
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
That's why ignorance always wins in the end!
as jeb high-fived his brother...
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 04:49   #28
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Read the Iraq Study Group and follow it's recipe for failure. The purpose of this bipartisan document is to run away and make it look like Bush and the Iraqis fault. That's the bipartisan part

Dealing with these countries was always inevitable, and it was always going to be expensive. And finishing this task is also inevitable.... one way or another .....

The consequences of losing in Iraq are too dire to be fully understood.

I don't care how dire the current situation is. It's not as dire as the alternatives.

If you really want to see all hell break loose, leave Iraq.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 22nd December 2006 at 05:30.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 06:28   #29
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
If it was inevitable, then why is the current administration being critiqued for going in under prepared, and with a plan that has been under such scrutiny?

If it was inevitable, why Iraq? Iran and North Korea posed much greater threats then Iraq at the time... and even more so now.

Quote:
The consequences of losing in Iraq are too dire to be fully understood.
Yes but so is alienating the entire middle east with our western culture. THEY HATE US. We had the world's sympathy after 9/11 and now, George Bush is the most distrusted power in the world. Even our Ally GB had a poll where the US was ranked 2nd only to Iran as the greatest threat in the world. IMO GWB's goal in Iraq was much more then removing just saddam. He moved enterprise into the area.

For being such a republican he has wasted american dollars.

I do not believe saddam posed that great of a threat for us to say "lets invade and build up a country WITH OUR OWN TAX DOLLARS" build them an infrastructure FUCK THAT. Losing in Iraq? What about losing right here in America... Spend that 900 trillion right here in America!

Let the UN do their job, from what we have seen, they did do their job. There were no weapons in Iraq. btw, now there are. there are 13,000+ unaccounted american weapons in iraq.

It has taken far too long for Iraq to build up their police force. We have wasted far too much of our money on them. Didn't they have a national army as we invaded, or were they sworn only to saddam? What do we accomplish staying? There is a civil war now... are we to police them? they are fighting for religious freedom? will we persecute one side or the other?

Even the infrastructure we are buying for them is wrong. They are fucking out sourcing the labor. It should be Iraqis getting those jobs, if anyone is to get them

What about the 1 billion dollars that Halliburton has wasted because they won a no-bid contract? Eh?

This war's prolongation serves too many people. It is damaging our reputation as a caring nation. It was a mistake in the first place, and hopefully it will end soon.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 07:39   #30
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
If it was inevitable, then why is the current administration being critiqued for going in under prepared, and with a plan that has been under such scrutiny?
It's politically advantageous.

Quote:
If it was inevitable, why Iraq? Iran and North Korea posed much greater threats then Iraq at the time... and even more so now.
We already ignored the threat of NK and Iran until it was too late to do much about it.

Quote:
THEY HATE US.
They want to kill us too, and nothing we can say or do will change that.

Quote:
We had the world's sympathy after 9/11 and now, George Bush is the most distrusted power in the world. Even our Ally GB had a poll where the US was ranked 2nd only to Iran as the greatest threat in the world. IMO GWB's goal in Iraq was much more then removing just saddam. He moved enterprise into the area.
The naysayers in Great Britain have a political agenda as well. Mainly opposition to Blair.

Quote:
Let the UN do their job, from what we have seen, they did do their job.
Saddam tossed the UN out, and led us to believe he was working on WMDs. The security council was bought, so we had to act alone. The decision to start the war was bipartisan. It was also in keeping with the security council resolutions which were passed before Saddam bought the security council. We acted alone because the other countries took bribes and were in on the payola of "Oil for Food".

Quote:
It has taken far too long for Iraq to build up their police force. We have wasted far too much of our money on them. Didn't they have a national army as we invaded, or were they sworn only to saddam? What do we accomplish staying? There is a civil war now... are we to police them? they are fighting for religious freedom? will we persecute one side or the other?
None of that matters. This is one quarter of the worlds oil reserve. It cannot be in the hands of a radical government. Our withdrawal would hand it to Iran. No matter what it costs, this needs to get fixed. If we are forced to support one side or another to make this a stable country, that's just tough.

Quote:
This war's prolongation serves too many people. It is damaging our reputation as a caring nation. It was a mistake in the first place, and hopefully it will end soon.
Who cares what Europe thinks of us. With the exception of the brits, just about all of the countries that we "offend" were getting paid off in the oil for food scandal or were promised oil grants by Saddam for favors at the UN. Among the greatest whores were France and Russia.

Frankly, at this point, I don't think we want the reputation of a caring nation. Our enemies only see it as weakness.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 16:20   #31
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
A valid question, one could ask, is whether the United States government would have operated any differently under democrat control.
Well we won't know, will we. But fact of the matter is, that whatever you think about Clinton, he was mostly able to push his administrations agenda internationally, without alienating the entire world, America's own allies included. But then again his agenda's were infinitely more sane than what the Bush administration has come up with.

Quote:
So far. And no, don't tell me how much of a bunch of champions the democrats are for civil rights. They've taken more away than anyone.


While i don't know how this would have played down in a democratic led administration, the terrorism acts is the most profound reversion of civil liberties i can recall in modern history. And I'm pissed as hell that the European Union played along with it. Besides I think our definition about civil liberties are to wide apart to discuss this. But philosophically European nations differ to the United States, in that in Europe governments are perceived to guarantee civil liberties while Washington is perceived to be a threat to them, this is simply due to History.

Quote:
And for the Iraqis, which is better?. A coke and a smile or their current system?.


I think the right question would be, which is better, the Saddam regime or the current system - I'm beginning to have my doubts For what it's worth, Iraq before the international sanctions and devastation following Gulf war I, was one of the best functioning middle eastern countries - economically and sociological. Hell look at how our ally Turkey and Iran treats the Kurds.

I actually, believe it or not, believe that the only way we would have had a relatively peaceful transition would have been a UN backed International intervention. Instead of one being led by, like or not, a nation perceived by most people in the middle east to be the number one enemy of Islam. Would have taken long, and delicate, negotiations in New York but would probably have saved the life of thousands of young Americans.

Quote:
America doesn't want hegemony, it wants prosperity. Prosperous neighbors are good neighbors. We'd like the Iraqis to sell the west it's oil. In return we will make them rich. All they have to do is quit shooting at each other and us.


It's the formulated policy of the current administration to have a force so huge as to make it impossible for anyone to challenge it's power - if that's not hegemony - i don't know what is.

And while I know, this is philosophical rather than practical, the philosophical foundations of capitalism, dating all the way back to Adam Smith, tells us that the role of the nation states, in the capitalist system is to enforce the free flow of wealth, and to expand this to increase the total wealth. This has been the backbone of American politics since it's earliest days. Hence it can be argued that the goal of the USA is not only to achieve military hegemony, but also cultural hegemony.

Quote:
What victim?. Have a soft drink and watch a movie. More liberal nonsense that business is bad. Coke, McDonalds and Hollywood pay a lot of people a living. Jihad doesn't.


I'm not saying Business is bad, I'm saying that the US model of capitalism can't be exported, because it depends on a lot of historical factors that can't be recreated anywhere in the world as it looks today. Which is why it takes such a different face in Europe and Asia.

Oh, and sorry about my limited English, hope my points get across anyway.

Last edited by ertmann|CPH; 22nd December 2006 at 16:48.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 17:29   #32
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Well we won't know, will we. But fact of the matter is, that whatever you think about Clinton, he was mostly able to push his administrations agenda internationally, without alienating the entire world, America's own allies included. But then again his agenda's were infinitely more sane than what the Bush administration has come up with.
Clinton didn't have to deal with our trade centers getting blown up. Also what agenda?. GATT?. I guess when you give america away to the rest of the world for a nickel, it gains you fans abroad.

Quote:
are perceived to guarantee civil liberties while Washington is perceived to be a threat to them, this is simply due to History.
This is more due to the democratic party and liberals than anything. When Clinton violated civil liberties with his massive wiretapping program, no one drew attention to it. This is just a matter of perception. I don't think civil liberties were weakened at all because of the republicans. They are weakened by our government as a whole.

Quote:
I think the right question would be, which is better, the Saddam regime or the current system - I'm beginning to have my doubts For what it's worth, Iraq before the international sanctions and devastation following Gulf war I, was one of the best functioning middle eastern countries - economically and sociological. Hell look at how our ally Turkey and Iran treats the Kurds.
Agreed. It may have been better to leave Saddam in power. BUT THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THIS WAR TOO. Are you suggesting that the UN was wrong in sanctioning Saddam in 1991?. Iraq might have been one of the best functioning governments. It functioned well enough to be a threat.

Quote:
I actually, believe it or not, believe that the only way we would have had a relatively peaceful transition would have been a UN backed International intervention. Instead of one being led by, like or not, a nation perceived by most people in the middle east to be the number one enemy of Islam. Would have taken long, and delicate, negotiations in New York but would probably have saved the life of thousands of young Americans.
Like I've said before, the reason there was no UN action is that Saddam bought the security council. There was no UN intervention and there wouldn't have been. Too many members of the security council were getting paid off. The action that the US (not just Bush, but democrats too) took was in keeping with the unenforced UN resolutions unanimously adopted after Gulf War 1.


Quote:
It's the formulated policy of the current administration to have a force so huge as to make it impossible for anyone to challenge it's power - if that's not hegemony - i don't know what is.
That is the policy of the american government period. That hasn't changed for this administration.

Quote:
IAnd while I know, this is philosophical rather than practical, the philosophical foundations of capitalism, dating all the way back to Adam Smith, tells us that the role of the nation states, in the capitalist system is to enforce the free flow of wealth, and to expand this to increase the total wealth. This has been the backbone of American politics since it's earliest days. Hence it can be argued that the goal of the USA is not only to achieve military hegemony, but also cultural hegemony.
Huh?.

Quote:
I'm not saying Business is bad, I'm saying that the US model of capitalism can't be exported, because it depends on a lot of historical factors that can't be recreated anywhere in the world as it looks today. Which is why it takes such a different face in Europe and Asia.
The US "model" of capitalism is simple. We buy, we sell, you buy, you sell.... Everyone makes a buck, puts down the guns and goes for coffee.

How do you argue with success?. Americans are the wealthiest people on the planet.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 23:46   #33
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
Iraq might have been one of the best functioning governments. It functioned well enough to be a threat.
It was NOT a threat to the United States! if they'd had ballistic missiles the only countries under threat would have been Iran, since Europe and Israel has nuclear deterrent, and the US would have been too far away, for the technology available to Saddam.

Quote:
Too many members of the security council were getting paid off. The action that the US (not just Bush, but democrats too) took was in keeping with the unenforced UN resolutions unanimously adopted after Gulf War 1.
Bought off? I highly doubt it, and the Bush administration isn't a tad better at that point, i seem to remember them doing it when the International Court was brought up in the UN. The veto came from Germany and France, and if you think Saddam bought them off, you're more diluted than I thought.



Quote:
The US "model" of capitalism is simple. We buy, we sell, you buy, you sell.... Everyone makes a buck, puts down the guns and goes for coffee.
I study Economics, please don't... just don't

Quote:
How do you argue with success?. Americans are the wealthiest people on the planet.
May I please quote your very own CIA's world factbook entry for Denmark?

"Economic growth gained momentum in 2004 and the upturn accelerated through 2005. Because of high GDP per capita, welfare benefits, a low Gini index, and political stability, the Danish people enjoy living standards topped by no other nation."

oh, and we're the best place to do business aswell.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 15:57   #34
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
Clinton didn't have to deal with our trade centers getting blown up. Also what agenda?. GATT?. I guess when you give america away to the rest of the world for a nickel, it gains you fans abroad. <<<<


Huh? Were you in a cave for all of 1993? In February 26, 1993, a massive bomb exploded in the parking garage of the north tower of the World Trade Center building in New York City, killing six people and leaving a crater six stories deep in the building's basement floors. The mastermind of the bombing, Ramzi Yousef, later boasted that he had hoped to kill 250,000 people. Two years later, Yousef was involved in a plot to bomb a dozen US airplanes flying over the Pacific and The perps of the first trade center bombing were almost immediately CAUGHT, PROSECUTED AND IMPRISONED. Are you willfully dishonest or just lacking fundamental research abilities? This is a thread I find common to all your posts. Fix it. Sheesh.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 19:05   #35
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Bought off? I highly doubt it
You never heard about the Oil For Food scandal?. It has been rather underplayed in the press.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...8/ixworld.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...1280_1,00.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...759586,00.html

You must be watching CBS too much.

Meanwhile democrats screech about how Bush has alienated these eurocrooks.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 23rd December 2006 at 19:41.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2006, 00:15   #36
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
You never heard about the Oil For Food scandal?. It has been rather underplayed in the press.
No i hadn't, but looking through the wikipedia article bring up some rather interresting stuff

* Both (the french) men had retired at the time of the alleged crimes and acted in their personal capacity, not as official envoys of the French government

I don't find it hard to believe that Putin was involved though

Quote:
Meanwhile democrats screech about how Bush has alienated these eurocrooks.
* The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that;

"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein


Quote:
You must be watching CBS too much.
Hardly, we don't have CBS in Denmark
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2006, 08:27   #37
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
It was NOT a threat to the United States! if they'd had ballistic missiles the only countries under threat would have been Iran, since Europe and Israel has nuclear deterrent, and the US would have been too far away, for the technology available to Saddam.
Why would they need ICBM's?
They could just use the airlines.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2006, 15:03   #38
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Why would they need ICBM's?
They could just use the airlines.
So any country with access to primitive weapons and planes capable of trans atlantic flights are egliable for invasion?

wouldn't it be infinitely more cost effective to just prohibit international flights into US airspace?
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2006, 16:29   #39
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake

They could just use the airlines.
With that as criteria for invasion, we obviously should have invaded Saudi Arabia who's fundamentalist nutjobs, like, actually committed a terrorist attack on the US.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2006, 17:00   #40
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by watadoo
With that as criteria for invasion, we obviously should have invaded Saudi Arabia who's fundamentalist nutjobs, like, actually committed a terrorist attack on the US.
We should send them the bill for the 4 trillion.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump