RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration

RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 8:23:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them, and if taking this chance caused a nuclear weapon to be detonated on US soil, there would have been no end to the chaos that the same people who critize him now, plus more, demanding to know why he did nothing about reports of WMD's from Iraq or/and terrorist organizations. Remember when Reagan suggested the Sandinistas could invade the US to drum up support for his criminal acts? Some dopes actually thought they really could and would! It's all a bit like Groundhog Day.

SimplyMichael -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 8:35:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them, and if taking this chance caused a nuclear weapon to be detonated on US soil, there would have been no end to the chaos that the same people who critize him now, plus more, demanding to know why he did nothing about reports of WMD's from Iraq or/and terrorist organizations. oh the irony of kids! Imagine if Osama and Al Queda who have emerged stronger due to Bush's invading the wrong country do manage to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil. Irony ain't gonna be the fucking word for it

Alumbrado -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 8:44:02 AM)
quote: .......i'm sure you're aware of game theory. Essentially it creates probability ranges so that decision makers can tell what is the more likely outcomes. Arguably its heyday was back in the 60's. i heard that the proponants of game theory in the whitehouse during the Cuban missile crisis ran their models and came up with a horrifying conclusion..... a US first strike against Russia would save the most US lives. Kennedy ignored them and was proven correct. Why did he ignore them? Perhaps the problem with numbers is that although they create awesome maps they are still only maps. Or perphaps he ignored them for the same reasons he ignored good advice to abandon the flawed and doomed Bay of Pigs plan. [;)]

Sinergy -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 10:56:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them, and if taking this chance caused a nuclear weapon to be detonated on US soil, there would have been no end to the chaos that the same people who critize him now, plus more, demanding to know why he did nothing about reports of WMD's from Iraq or/and terrorist organizations. oh the irony of kids! Imagine if Osama and Al Queda who have emerged stronger due to Bush's invading the wrong country do manage to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil. Irony ain't gonna be the fucking word for it I dont know what all the whining about weapons of mass destruction is about. Mercnbeth, on another thread, pointed out that since we invaded and did not find any, we should just give them some and leave. Sinergy

Politesub53 -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 11:07:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I dont know what all the whining about weapons of mass destruction is about. Mercnbeth, on another thread, pointed out that since we invaded and did not find any, we should just give them some and leave. Sinergy May as well, its how he got the first lot [:D]

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 11:19:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them, and if taking this chance caused a nuclear weapon to be detonated on US soil, there would have been no end to the chaos that the same people who critize him now, plus more, demanding to know why he did nothing about reports of WMD's from Iraq or/and terrorist organizations. oh the irony of kids! Imagine if Osama and Al Queda who have emerged stronger due to Bush's invading the wrong country do manage to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil. Irony ain't gonna be the fucking word for it I dont know what all the whining about weapons of mass destruction is about. Mercnbeth, on another thread, pointed out that since we invaded and did not find any, we should just give them some and leave.Sinergy Appreciate that you are a 'fan' but take the position in context. The goal for all in the region is for the US to leave and for them to handle their own issues themselves. Before the US disturbed their neighborhood with US troops they were doing a good job killing each other, stoning raped woman, and sending their children off to school with bombs in the backpacks. Leaving behind a few nukes as parting gifts will make them more efficient when we leave.

Sinergy -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 12:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Before the US disturbed their neighborhood with US troops they were doing a good job killing each other, stoning raped woman, and sending their children off to school with bombs in the backpacks. I am not the one who needs to keep it in context, Mercnbeth. Texas just killed it's 400th inmate. China kills people all the time. We did nothing while Pol Pot, etc., killed millions of people in Kampucha, Stalin killed a million in the former USSR, etc. The things you claim they were doing are still being done in Saudi Arabia even after we invaded Iraq to protect those people. Are we invading them next? Why stop there? They do similar things in Turkey, Iran, etc. How many people have to die before your bloodthirsty desire to invade other countries is sated? To make the point that we invaded Iraq as some sort of Feminism-driven, jingoistic, kumbaya-singing, do-gooder action to free the oppressed women is simply idiotic on the face of it. The reasons we were given was to prevent them from having weapons of mass destruction. So to make the point that we should give them weapons of mass destruction and leave when they are broken is breathtakingly obtuse or indifferent to problems that people who supported the war created in the first place. These problems were first created when 51%+ of the people in this country put the Republican's in power and then continued to support their idiocy as they dragged the rest of us into a one way trip to the dumpster of empire building gone seriously wrong. Sinergy

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 1:04:00 PM)
quote: China kills people all the time. We did nothing while Pol Pot, etc., killed millions of people in Kampucha, Stalin killed a million in the former USSR, etc. The things you claim they were doing are still being done in Saudi Arabia even after we invaded Iraq to protect those people. Are we invading them next? Why stop there? They do similar things in Turkey, Iran, etc. I'm suggesting just the opposite and have been for some time. No intervention or invasion anywhere for any reason. I think self determination should be our foreign policy, with the caveat that any attack on the US will result in a very big counter attack. Clear, for those who take US jobs and work outside the US this does not mean "US interests" a buzzword for multi-national companies with assets relocated from the US to a foreign country. They want US protection for their industries - keep the industries in the US. No foreign aid, no inspections, no advisers - no US funds used anywhere but the US. But quick, Israeli type retaliation in the event of an 9/11 type incident. An example of retaliation - take the President Clinton decision regarding taking out bin Laden in Afghanistan. Whether President Clinton did or didn't say no to the cruise missile approach in Afghanistan because he wasn't sure it would kill bin Laden, that issue would be moot if he lobbed a nuke in the neighborhood. A quick call to the Afghan embassy and a 24 hours notice to turn him over or else... Lets see what happens with that approach. Meanwhile, Turkey, Cambodia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia should all be allowed to do whatever they want to with their citizens. Surprised you would take a position otherwise. Why should your standards, or the West's standards be used regarding the treatment of women, dissidents, or children. It doesn't seem to bother anyone in Darfur - why make it different anywhere else? I don't represent any view or political view other than mine. I have the "balance of power" example to draw from the fact that when two enemies are assured of mutual destruction, no mutual destruction occurs. So there are 10 or 20 various tribal and sect enemies in the Middle East - they should be able to work our their differences similarly to how it was done with the US/USSR - with thousands of nukes none were ever used. Are you saying the good Islamic leaders of the region have less value for life? Giving each and every faction an equal number of nukes should assure peace shouldn't it? The argument has always been that its unfair that Israel has nukes and their good neighbors don't. This proposal should put the US in high regard with these people - why wouldn't that convince them that we are "friends"? I think we should also re-built Saddam's people shredder for whoever comes to replace his regime. quote: How many people have to die before your bloodthirsty desire to invade other countries is sated? My desire? I don't take this personally. The only desire I have is to take on the same tactics of our enemies. If you consider their actions bloodthirsty its best to respond similarly so the message is clearly understood in any language. I never supported a war with Saddam and/or Iraq - I supported the destruction of a base for Radical Islam which I identified at the time as Saddam and Iraq. Somethings are true whether you believe them of not and Radical Islam is at war with the US and the West. They aren't shy about saying so. I'll stipulate to being fooled by the rhetoric regarding WMD's but even on that issue there is a lot of desert and a lot of open border with other places who may have received Saddam's stash prior to the invasion. Even so - the pragmatic fact is me, along with many others with more information that me, were wrong on that issue. quote: These problems were first created when 51%+ of the people in this country put the Republican's in power and then continued to support their idiocy as they dragged the rest of us into a one way trip to the dumpster of empire building gone seriously wrong. May have been the case in the past that you love to talk about but not now. The plurality exists and power of funding exists with a different party, although for the life of me I see no difference in the actual results. Oh yeah, I remember, they don't have "enough" of a plurality. I guess you are just more accepting than me.

SimplyMichael -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 1:12:43 PM)
this "issue" became our problem when we started overthrowing every democracy the arabs created. The ME was actually a fairly tolerant place (Israel aside) before Raygun radicalized them in order to create support and volunteers for the trap Carter laid for the Russians in Afghanistan. Unfortunately we didn't do anything to deradicalize them after the Russians left. We support and have as allies every dictatorial regime in the ME, we undermined the only new democracy, and have made a complete mess out of Iraq. Al Queda was based in Saudi Arabia (which we were of course not going to invade) and afghanistan which was also home to Bin Laudin. If we had simply stayed in Afghanistan and rebuilt it at 1/100 the cost of Iraq, Bin Laudin would be dead and the arabs would be stringing up Al Queda. Instead we have destabilized the entire ME, probably set off an internal war within the Muslims over the Shia/Sunni divide, and have nothing to show for it.

Sanity -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 1:24:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercnbethI don't represent any view or political view other than mine. I have the "balance of power" example to draw from the fact that when two enemies are assured of mutual destruction, no mutual destruction occurs. So there are 10 or 20 various tribal and sect enemies in the Middle East - they should be able to work our their differences similarly to how it was done with the US/USSR - with thousands of nukes none were ever used. Are you saying the good Islamic leaders of the region have less value for life? Giving each and every faction an equal number of nukes should assure peace shouldn't it? The argument has always been that its unfair that Israel has nukes and their good neighbors don't. This proposal should put the US in high regard with these people - why wouldn't that convince them that we are "friends"? The Soviets wanted to live, and we wanted to live. But many Muslims believe they will be fantastically rewarded if they can manage to die in Jihad... that being so, why wouldn't they launch nukes at their enemies? Mutual destruction is promised to be heavenly to them.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 1:47:11 PM)
quote: The Soviets wanted to live, and we wanted to live. But many Muslims believe they will be fantastically rewarded if they can manage to die in Jihad... that being so, why wouldn't they launch nukes at their enemies? Mutual destruction is promised to be heavenly to them. Sanity, I think you have been fooled into believing the propaganda of the Fox News channel. Radical Muslim wants nothing more than to be left alone and live in peace in the way of Allah. You really think they would kill each other? Do you really believe the propaganda concerning Saddam or the Iran/Iraq war? However, I recommend providing the nukes, NOT an intercontinental delivery system. Sure, China could provide that vehicle but without having the military expenditure of the Iraq war to consider maybe the nuclear umbrella defense system can be make practical for the US.

Sanity -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 1:57:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Sanity, I think you have been fooled into believing the propaganda of the Fox News channel. Radical Muslim wants nothing more than to be left alone and live in peace in the way of Allah. You really think they would kill each other? Do you really believe the propaganda concerning Saddam or the Iran/Iraq war? However, I recommend providing the nukes, NOT an intercontinental delivery system. Sure, China could provide that vehicle but without having the military expenditure of the Iraq war to consider maybe the nuclear umbrella defense system can be make practical for the US. I don't know if you're joking or not... but another obvious mistake you're making is thinking that anyone has to rely on high tech delivery systems. They don't.

Sanity -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 2:10:03 PM)
I take that back, I know exactly where your tongue is in relation to your cheek... But you know, in regards to the Iran - Iraq war, there are those here who would argue that Saddam Hussein used to be the very essence of peace, tranquility, and stability in the Middle East.

farglebargle -> RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration (9/13/2007 6:50:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Sanity, I think you have been fooled into believing the propaganda of the Fox News channel. Radical Muslim wants nothing more than to be left alone and live in peace in the way of Allah. You really think they would kill each other? Do you really believe the propaganda concerning Saddam or the Iran/Iraq war? However, I recommend providing the nukes, NOT an intercontinental delivery system. Sure, China could provide that vehicle but without having the military expenditure of the Iraq war to consider maybe the nuclear umbrella defense system can be make practical for the US. I don't know if you're joking or not... but another obvious mistake you're making is thinking that anyone has to rely on high tech delivery systems. They don't. Look at all the damage caused by the CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORISTS, with Tim McViegh with ANFO....

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625