the AXIS of EVIL, hyperbole at its peak...

[RyanH]

North Korea, Iraq, and Iran have nothing in common, and yet President Bush has made it a point once again, to polarize the United States from the rest of the world and create another dichotomy of "us" vs. "them" or "good" vs. "evil." Much of the international and American press has recently been very critical of President Bush's hopes of using America's military as policemen of the world. Does America only go after those involved in 9-11 or do we expand our probe to any of those President Bush deems a potential threat, i.e. North Korea, immigrants, etc.

Grouping Iran with Iraq and North Korea is particularly troubling considering the Democratic reforms Iran has made, and the support by much of the Iranian people for democratic principles. Further, Hussein is largely a contained threat now, and while Hussein is certainly the leader of an oppressive regime, America has very little international support for overthrowing the regime and Hussein is largely ineffective now.

Also, troubling is President Bush's conspicuous absence of placing Saudi Arabia into the "axis of evil" (if he's going to use that analogy at all) since Saudi Arabia is the home to most of the terrorists from 9-11 and Saudia Arabia's continuous habit of turning a blind-eye to terrorist activity along with its constant lack of cooperation in cutting-off the money channels for terrorist networks. Why? Obvioius isn't it? OIL over principle.

On a final note, for all the naysayers who said that President Clinton drove our military strength down........Consider, just 9 months after President Clinton left office, the military he resided over for 8 years easily drove the Taliban from Afghanistan. Hardly, an indication of an utterly weak military, but instead an indication of an American military force that reacted with speed, skill, and decisiveness.

 

[danielson]

also by targeting two HUGE arab states, he is polarising the muslim world into muslim vs. anyone and everyone else, giving much ammo to extremists in recruiting cannon fodder...both over there and over here


just what the military action against iran will be, i do not know (i.e. with or without government co-operation)....however having ousted their peaceful leader and placing a crackpot dictator by the name of the shah in place, i wouldn;t expect much help from them. but with israel currently bombing the shit out of the palestinains (they responded to 2 israeli soldiers deaths today by a precise bombing), and now potential warfare against two huge oil filled arab states, is a wide spread jihad now a possibility

also with north korea...i heard it and south korea were staruing to talk last year. what happened?


he has also been less than welcoming of tony blairs idea of 'helping' africa get on its feet.....bad international PR all round

 

[HumorMe]

Oh......so now it is President Clinton's military that defeated the Taliban!?! It is President Bush who destroyed out economy!?! WOW....it's beginning to all make sense now.............NOT!!!!

 

[RyanH]

also by targeting two HUGE arab states, he is polarising the muslim world into muslim vs. anyone and everyone else, giving much ammo to extremists in recruiting cannon fodder...both over there and over here

Absolutely, President Bush is only adding fuel to the fire. He cannot go after all those countries he sees as a potential threat, since if he does, we'll be at war for centuries. As I've said before the only thing that, in my view, that is effectively going to reduce the threat of terrorism is a compromise between the Palestineans and the Israel's. And, now in the last week, Arafat once again seems ready to perhaps go to the bargaining table.

So long as America continues to support Israel without limits and we continue to target arab regimes, then we will see more and more Islamic terrorists combat what they see as in intrusion into their homeland.

You mentioned Bush's lack of support for Africa, have you also noticed Bush's lack of support for Argentina during its current financial crisis. Argentina has allied with America for decades now, and we have largely turned our back on them.

Also, do you believe its possible to prevent every single country that wants nuclear capabilities from getting them? Seems tough to do, doesn't it? Afterall, Pakistan has the capability, and we didn't have the love affair with the Pakistanis that we currently have until the 9-11 tragedy occured.

 

[RyanH]

Danielson, I'm also interested in knowing what you think the possibility is of an eventual nuclear bombing between Pakistan and India? Do you think that both countries will actually resort to such a self-destructive action. I saw a diagram of the nuclear capabilities of both countries: India had more nuclear capabilities than Paksitan, but the mapped targets would result in millions of lost lives.

 

[danielson]

that love affair with pakistan is temporary at best. why is it we chose the most shaky military dictatorship for an ally in that reeigon when indoa was one of the first countries to pledge political and military help AND is the biggest democracy in the world, as well as bordering afghanistan


the UN has just gone MENTAL at sharons latest bombings in the gaza strip.....and we are still blindly letting this guy prod the pali's with a stick

it might not be possible to help argentina financially due to the economy bing in a bad way (i dont understand all that muh about matters if the $$)....but he could have thrown support behind them politically, and got other countries to help out with them.

palestine is one of the biggest examples extremists use of opression of muslims on a constant basis. why is that reigon being left alone after so much publicity was thrown into arafat meeting blair. why has bush or a very senior bush aide not met him?

 

[danielson]

Danielson, I'm also interested in knowing what you think the possibility is of an eventual nuclear bombing between Pakistan and India? Do you think that both countries will actually resort to such a self-destructive action. I saw a diagram of the nuclear capabilities of both countries: India had more nuclear capabilities than Paksitan, but the mapped targets would result in millions of lost lives.

very possible

i think provided musharrif reigns in the extremists he said he would, the chances will decrease and troops might start being pulled back

however pakistan has no-where near the conventional weaponry, man power or quality of troops the indians have. if any wide scale conflict happened between the two, pakistan would go nuclear, their nukes have bigger range, but india's dont need em.

pakistan has already stated it spends more on nukes as it has no hope of catching india's conventional weapons cache

after they said that britain sold india like 60 fighter jets and few million $$ worth of weapons. gotta love our timing

 

[danielson]

FYI, Iran is not an Arab country.

Iraq is not huge at all. It's a mid-sized Arab country, bigger than Lebanon but much smaller than Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

Hate to say it, but there'll be no peace in the Middle East as long as Islamofascist dictators are in power in such places as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The day they'll be ousted (the regimes), there'll be peace.

ineresting then we sent in so many thousands of troops yet have still to remove saddam. and that we helped put him there

 

[RyanH]

that love affair with pakistan is temporary at best. why is it we chose the most shaky military dictatorship for an ally in that reeigon when indoa was one of the first countries to pledge political and military help AND is the biggest democracy in the world, as well as bordering afghanistan


the UN has just gone MENTAL at sharons latest bombings in the gaza strip.....and we are still blindly letting this guy prod the pali's with a stick

it might not be possible to help argentina financially due to the economy bing in a bad way (i dont understand all that muh about matters if the $$)....but he could have thrown support behind them politically, and got other countries to help out with them.

You first question is a very good one and I had not thought of; perhaps we chose Pakistan over India b/c apparently Pakistani intelligence as to Afghanistan was superior, but then again, their intelligence still haven't helped to apprehend most of the leaders of the Al Queda network......example: Bin Laden and Omar are still nowhere to be found. I also still wouldn't be surprised if the Pakistani government is eventually overthrown by islamic fundamentalists, which will create a Taliban part II problem, which would probably bring the India/Kashmir problem to a head.

Israel has used the 9-11 crisis as carte blanche to do anything against the Palestineans that they want. And, as you've said, we've let them.

 

[buddy28]

Labelling North Korea, Iraq, and Iran as an "axis of evil", is the begingings of the latest public relations campaign, mounted by the US Federal Government, to prep the American public for phase 2 of the war on terrorism. Gotta make any war America engages in "just", so why not have daddy president tell everyone who the "bad guys" are, so everyone can feel "ok" about the US airforce bombing the shit out of other countries.

Iraq will be targeted first. Bush and co. will attempt to overthrow Saddam. If Saddam is overthrown, and competiting Iraqi nationalist factions fight for power, which they will, Iran would be in a good strategic position to invade Iraq.

DanielSon, me, and some other dudes were talking about this before. Personally, I think Bushs inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil" serves 2 purposes:

1) to justify invasion and subversion of known militant Islamic groups based in Iran.
2) to qualify Iran for punitive US air strikes, if they choose to invade Iraq after an almost certian US lead Iraqi invasion.

Iraq is a difficult and serious issue. The Iraqi government *is* amassing weapons of mass destruction. The longer the US led colition, or the US alone, waits to invade Iraq, the greater the possibility of an IRaqi strike against US interests utilizing weapons of mass destruction -- and the greater the possibility of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction being diverted to Islamic miltants for attacks against US interests.


If Bush foolishly attacks Iran and Iraq, it will cause further consolidation of Arabic anti--US sentiment.

Bush is a very very rash man.

 

[manny78]

To put Irand and Irak into the same bag is ridiculous. Both countries have nothing in common. Also, Pres. Kathami showed his support to the US after sept. 11. So I just dont see why Iran. This isn't the Taliban army, they're far more organized. Irak as a target seems to be something personal for George W. Bush. Is he trying the un-accomplished job of his father ? North Korea now. Well they have never been a terrorist threat to the US. They're listed along with Iran and Irak cause they have the nuclear weapon and you know like me that the US would like to keep this privilege for themselves. But I wouldnt mind if they kicked out the noth korean gov. since people there are starving and living in the age of stone...

 

[buddy28]

also with north korea...i heard it and south korea were staruing to talk last year. what happened?

he has also been less than welcoming of tony blairs idea of 'helping' africa get on its feet.....bad international PR all round

U know, I used to blame Bush for his isolationist foreign policitical blunders. But its clear the American public, although by paper thin majority, elected this unqualified leader to office.

 

[p0ink]

will you please quit sucking on clinton's dick. god damn man, clinton is a fuckin joke. whats his legacy going to be? he thought it would be dumping all this money into sending shit to mars or dumping all this money into cancer research...nope, none of them. he is gonna go down in the history books for getting his dick sucked by some fat wench and lying under oath...president clinton's military driving out the taliban...please

 

[Diesel3d]

well this is what i think....

the govt knows a lot more than we know about what's really going on. Bush would not say it if he didn’t have a reason. Weather it’s inside information we don’t yet know about or to help justify the increased defense budget who knows. I would assume it’s a little of both.

I’m a bit on the far side and believe we ( US/NATO ) should take over the world militarily , politically and economically. In militarily I don’t mean by force but by being in control. I believe this because I believe the world needs to be peacefully united in order for human civilization to progress in the long run… and it’s obvious the US/western model of democracy is most effective. There is no reason for any other country to have a military if every country is in an alliance such as nato. Iraq, iran and n korea are the only really big world threats that would threaten unification for a peaceful world because of their independent private military expansions that we simply cannot trust. China is also in this group but bush did not mention them. I don’t think he wants to push china’s buttons in fear of them being more motivated to take Taiwan. All these countries resist western ways and present a general hatred to the west because of its differences and power that they are jealous of. We are the country on gear! We look and are great, and according to them that’s cheating. They just don’t know all the facts about it and refuse to understand it.

I don’t really see his justification for including Iran ( yet ), in this except for these reasons:
1. not a democracy
2. support for terrorism against Israel.
3. the seeking of nuclear arms when their enemy is mainly Israel. There’s just no reason for any more countries to have nukes in this world. We are trying to get rid of them.
4. Still pissed about 1979
5. Stuff we just don’t know about.

I don’t know all the facts but I don’t trust either one of those countries including the Saudis.

I say wax all of em: expand and control !!

 

[Rex]

I don't think the US military should act as the world's police. It's not its job.

Ryan, do you honestly think it was Clinton's 8 years that made the military wipe out the Taliban? Come on. If he, or Gore was in office a cruise missle would've been sent over, and it would've been called a day. Clinton had plenty of oppurtunities, and reasons to send troops over, and wipe out the Taliban and others just like it. But he decided to practicly neuter it instead. The US was egged on way before 9-11, and Clinton did nothing.

 

[Golfer18--old]

will you please quit sucking on clinton's dick. god damn man, clinton is a fuckin joke. whats his legacy going to be? he thought it would be dumping all this money into sending shit to mars or dumping all this money into cancer research...nope, none of them. he is gonna go down in the history books for getting his dick sucked by some fat wench and lying under oath...president clinton's military driving out the taliban...please

No hes on Daniels dickl bro.

 

[RyanH]

U know, I used to blame Bush for his isolationist foreign policitical blunders. But its clear the American public, although by paper thin majority, elected this unqualified leader to office.

Bush was elected by the right wing of the United States Supreme Court....Justices Thomas, Scalia, Rhenquist, O'Connor and Kennedy delivered the victory. Had a statewide recount been conducted, not just certain counties, and if Democratic ballots that reflected intent had been included, Gore would have won the election.

 

[RyanH]

will you please quit sucking on clinton's dick. god damn man, clinton is a fuckin joke. whats his legacy going to be? he thought it would be dumping all this money into sending shit to mars or dumping all this money into cancer research...nope, none of them. he is gonna go down in the history books for getting his dick sucked by some fat wench and lying under oath...president clinton's military driving out the taliban...please

President Clinton will go down in history: first, as a President who resided over one of the most prosperous times in history and secondly, as a man who did more for race relations since President Johnson. The list goes on...

His impeachment will be viewed as exactly what it was: A radical, extremist Republican Congress attacking his legacy and his popularity.

Of course, they failed.

 

[RyanH]

I don't think the US military should act as the world's police. It's not its job.

Ryan, do you honestly think it was Clinton's 8 years that made the military wipe out the Taliban? Come on. If he, or Gore was in office a cruise missle would've been sent over, and it would've been called a day. Clinton had plenty of oppurtunities, and reasons to send troops over, and wipe out the Taliban and others just like it. But he decided to practicly neuter it instead. The US was egged on way before 9-11, and Clinton did nothing.

President Clinton did not enjoy the broad public support for a war on terrorism as President Bush has enjoyed since 9-11.

Further, why didn't Bush do something during the nine months before 9-11? And why didn't his father go after Hussein during the Gulf War.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but to place it on President Clinton's shoulders alone is absurd.

 

[RyanH]

To put Irand and Irak into the same bag is ridiculous. Both countries have nothing in common. Also, Pres. Kathami showed his support to the US after sept. 11. So I just dont see why Iran.

Well-said!!!

 

[BuggyWhips]

If Clinton would've spent more time worrying about the economy while in office we wouldn't have had the recession we are in today. Anybody ever hear of the Great Depression, it was the overconfidence of the roaring 20's which let the Depression materialize. Bush just happened to jump on as it was on its way down.
How did Clinton do anything beneficial for destroying the Taliban? Did he attempt to drive them out of where they were? Maybe his infrequent bomb droppings rushed them from Afghanistan, but his "race" relations and open immigration policies let them come to our country to terrorize us. The Talibans master plan took more than Bush's nine months in office to think up. So while Clinton was getting his Dick sucked under the desk we had Muhammad Atta and his cronies learning how to fly jets and studying physics so they can take down some of our countries largest buildings. These terrorists left a large trail of evidence that a fully staffed CIA and FBI could've picked up on if Clinton was more interested in National Security rather than trying to be remembered as the "first black president."

Pres. Bush shouldn't have to worry about PR around the world. We are the United States, we are our own country. Its not our job to give hand outs to others. We built up what we had thanks to our hard work. Within a short time we became one of the most powerful countries in the world. Half the countries that hate us have been around longer but their ideals keeps them from prosperity. It is now our job to police the rest of the world, not to make it a better place for them, but to protect us. Thats all, our own protection.

 

[MurderInc.]

President Clinton will go down in history: first, as a President who resided over one of the most prosperous times in history and secondly, as a man who did more for race relations since President Johnson. The list goes on...

His impeachment will be viewed as exactly what it was: A radical, extremist Republican Congress attacking his legacy and his popularity.

Of course, they failed.

President Clinton will go down in history for his attraction to Twat-Flavored Cigars!!!!!

 

[danielson]

If Bush foolishly attacks Iran and Iraq, it will cause further consolidation of Arabic anti--US sentiment.

Bush is a very very rash man.

this is very true

they are already talking about kicking US troops out of saudio and a very fancy base they had their too....this would prtty much secure the bases fate

if he does go to all out conflict with rthese nations, ground troops will have to be used on a large scale. in afghanistan they weren;t and if there were large scale fatal casulaties (As crackpot pro-muslim websites said there were) they were kept quiet

by painting these three nations under the same brush (iran will NOT like that) is he suggesting that he intentds full out conflict on each one. or just small assasination squads taking out the terrorists one by one

militrarily he does have the israeli's in the reion already, andf they have a very powerful army completely adapted to that reigon......politically it will be 'interesting' to say the least if they get involved.

Also to see the repsonse of any pro-america reigimes in that area...

 

[RyanH]

Buggwhips-

Haven't you realized an obvious fact yet? The Bush name is synonymous with RECESSION.....whereever a Bush goes, so goes a recession. Both father and son are proof of that. The Republicans have proven for decades now that they are oblivious to sound, economic policy. Reagan's trickle-down economics drove our country into record deficits, and Bush's recent tax cut for the weathiest 1% of all Americans fueld the fire that pulled us into the current one. You can thank Senator Daschle for saving our great nation from another hand-out for the wealthy by rejecting the so-called Bush "Stimulus" plan, which would have only lengthened the unemployment lines, and delivered another victory to the wealthy while leaving the middle-class and poor empty-handed.

In regards to your statement that the United States shouldn't have to worry about PR around the world----our security is directly linked to how we are viewed by the rest of the world. If Arab nations view us as Pro-Israel and Anti-Muslim then we will continue to see more and more terrorist attacks. President Clinton enjoyed broad world-wide support, particularly in Europe, because his foreign policy had a consistent theme---the protection of democratic values. In part, thanks to Clinton's help Milosevich and his wife are now a sad footnote in history.

 

[danielson]

I also still wouldn't be surprised if the Pakistani government is eventually overthrown by islamic fundamentalists, which will create a Taliban part II problem, which would probably bring the India/Kashmir problem to a head.

expect to see musharrif at some stage hand control back to a civillian giovernment, which he either heads or to somone else

for the last few years he has slowly been replacing officials with his own stooges (look how easily the military deposed the last leader)....its gonna be nothing more than a puppet government

 

[Sushi X]

ryan, do us all a favor and stop your yapping. you have'nt paid taxes ever in your life. you admitted it personally. therefore, you have no say in the economic policies of any president seeing you have not contributed to it. you attack bush for his tax cut, clinton never put any money into anyone's hands lest it be his friends and the welfare folks. he raised taxes which you find ok. i guess you would seeing you don't pay any. when you have completed one year in paying taxes and file them then you may speak. i did'nt hear anyone complaining when they got that tax refund check from bush, afterwards it was the liberals who complained. i guess they just have to bite the hand that feeds them, look a gift horse in the mouth, find ways to be double faced cry babies.

 

[The MN Bulk]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me.

It was a fucking speech! Before Iran gets their panties in a bundle they should take a look around them and notice they still have some work to do.

 

[Longhorn85]

Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

North Korea, Iraq, and Iran have nothing in common

You are dead wrong. These three roque nations all are developing or harbor weapons of mass destruction, persecute their own people, proliferate weapons to terrorists and are a threat to freedom.

If they are not careful, they will have a wholesale change of govt courtesy the United States of America.

 

[danielson]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me.

It was a fucking speech! Before Iran gets their panties in a bundle they should take a look around them and notice they still have some work to do.

when the commander in cheif of the biggest superpower says he

a) considers you to be the same as you mortal enemy

b) that mortal enemy being a country his country has bombed silly

you take notice



if he didnt mean it he shouldnt have said it. words are the fuel extremists live on....they can tiwst and turn what some has aid until it suits their goal....how are the governments of the arabian countries supposed to convince their extremists that america isnt going for the whole muslim world?

 

[JohnyJuice]

Does America only go after those involved in 9-11 or do we expand our probe to any of those President Bush deems a potential threat, i.e. North Korea, immigrants, etc.

No, we should sit around and take it in the as like a true Clinton loving homo like yourself would. Let me fill you in on an age old proverb that you stupid bitch liberals just don't get. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I know, you would rather blame America for all the problems that go on, and tax the fuck out of succesful americans to pay for your retarded solutions. Had we dealt with these douchebag terrorrists before all this happened, we wouldnt be in the predicament we are now in. Instead, we just let things accumulate, and now we are neck deep in shit.

Grouping Iran with Iraq and North Korea is particularly troubling considering the Democratic reforms Iran has made, and the support by much of the Iranian people for democratic principles. Further, Hussein is largely a contained threat now, and while Hussein is certainly the leader of an oppressive regime, America has very little international support for overthrowing the regime and Hussein is largely ineffective now.

.

Just cause he said they are going to be dealt with, doesnt mean a military compaign. There are other ways to accomplish a goal you know. But go ahead, try and make Bush look like a war monger so you can make all the hippies mad at him for being a "meany". And since when do we need international support?? We are our own nation, and the most powerful one on earth. We dont need to suck the global cock to do what we want. I know it is a liberal habbit to go along with whatever the "polls" say (Clinton), and not do what is right. Polls can be made to say whatever you want. They are worthless. Do we need Europe's approval? Please, the governments in Europe are the biggest bunch of homo's around. They just sit there all wuss like and wait till all hell breaks loose, and then ask for our help. I shit on European governments. And yes jackass, illegal immigrants are a problem. There are over 10 million in the U.S. They are a drain on the economy and the nation as a whole. And you know what our Senate just decided?? To give illegals food stamps!!! Are they crazy?? Did they not notice the key word there...ILLEGAL!! These people pay no taxes, yet benefit from every social service we have to offer.

Your ideas and political viewpoints sicken me. If i ever meet you, i swear i am gonna punch the shit out of you.

 

[p0ink]

President Clinton will go down in history: first, as a President who resided over one of the most prosperous times in history and secondly, as a man who did more for race relations since President Johnson. The list goes on...

His impeachment will be viewed as exactly what it was: A radical, extremist Republican Congress attacking his legacy and his popularity.

Of course, they failed.

you are only kidding yourself man

 

[danielson]

Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

You are dead wrong. These three roque nations all are developing or harbor weapons of mass destruction, persecute their own people, proliferate weapons to terrorists and are a threat to freedom.

If they are not careful, they will have a wholesale change of govt courtesy the United States of America.

north korea had invited a delagation of US officials for talks before this speech was goven. as a direct result of it, they revoked that invitation, potentially closing the doors on any diplomatic endeavours in that country

iran has already vowed to rid itself of al-queada (they almost went to war with afghanistyan a while back)

i agree that these countries are shitholes, and that if they refused to co-operate with the US after diplomatic attempts had been made, then military ation would be a viable possibilty

how is that possible when speeches like this are being made.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020211/ap_to_po/us_axis_8

 

[spongebob]

On a final note, for all the naysayers who said that President Clinton drove our military strength down........Consider, just 9 months after President Clinton left office, the military he resided over for 8 years easily drove the Taliban from Afghanistan. Hardly, an indication of an utterly weak military, but instead an indication of an American military force that reacted with speed, skill, and decisiveness.

you idiot! we used the northern alliance as our own. whoever was the idiot that said the taliban was a bad ass anyway.....oh yea, it was you. i remember, you were one of the guys on here spouting off how bad the taliban was. saying how much trouble they gave the russians right.

aww, just another reminder of the HYPERBOLE at its peak from RyanH.

 

[spongebob]

when the commander in cheif of the biggest superpower says he

a) considers you to be the same as you mortal enemy

b) that mortal enemy being a country his country has bombed silly

you take notice



if he didnt mean it he shouldnt have said it. words are the fuel extremists live on....they can tiwst and turn what some has aid until it suits their goal....how are the governments of the arabian countries supposed to convince their extremists that america isnt going for the whole muslim world?

im willing to bet he meant it, and as they should "take notice".

 

[the nature boy]

the fact of the matter is that in all likely hood bush isnt' going to overtly attack anyone. As of late relations between north and south korea have warmed, Iran has a democratically elected president, and Iraq..... well lets just say we're still paying for putting that SOB in power and supporting his ass. Look for Bush to put more emphasis on supporting factions inside Iraq to remove Saddam. But I hate to break it to most of you, there's going to be no invasion of Iraq. Where are we going to invade from? Saudi? They're tired of footing the bill for keeping our troops on their soil anyway. They wouldn't stand for an invasion of Iraq.

Bush was pretty much sabre rattling. He needs to concern himself on one front of the war on terrorism at a time.

 

[freshr1]

Wow what a shock. Bush made himself look like a fucking retard again. Axis of evil, LOL. What an idiot. What the fuck does Iran have anything to do with anything?! Iran was helping out during the strikes in Afghanistan by providing more border patrol and letting Afghan refugees into their country. Bush has the mental capicity of a 13 year old and he proves it every time he opens his mouth. It's scary to think he runs such a powerful nation.

 

[spongebob]

Wow what a shock. Bush made himself look like a fucking retard again. Axis of evil, LOL. What an idiot. What the fuck does Iran have anything to do with anything?! Iran was helping out during the strikes in Afghanistan by providing more border patrol and letting Afghan refugees into their country. Bush has the mental capicity of a 13 year old and he proves it every time he opens his mouth. It's scary to think he runs such a powerful nation.

your an idiot, because i said so!

 

[freshr1]

your an idiot, because i said so!

OK, I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!

 

[Longhorn85]

Wow what a shock. Bush made himself look like a fucking retard again. Axis of evil, LOL. What an idiot. What the fuck does Iran have anything to do with anything?! Iran was helping out during the strikes in Afghanistan by providing more border patrol and letting Afghan refugees into their country. Bush has the mental capicity of a 13 year old and he proves it every time he opens his mouth. It's scary to think he runs such a powerful nation.

To you he may be an idiot, that is your opinion. His remarks happen to have resonated with the majority of the American people, with whom he remains hugely popular during challenging times. Starting during the campaign, in the early months of his term with Kyoto and Missile Defense, continuing through 9/11 and the present, W continues to say what he means and mean what he says. He is obviously not concerned about pleasing his critics.

 

[gymtime]

Buggwhips-

Haven't you realized an obvious fact yet? The Bush name is synonymous with RECESSION.....whereever a Bush goes, so goes a recession. Both father and son are proof of that. The Republicans have proven for decades now that they are oblivious to sound, economic policy. Reagan's trickle-down economics drove our country into record deficits, and Bush's recent tax cut for the weathiest 1% of all Americans fueld the fire that pulled us into the current one. You can thank Senator Daschle for saving our great nation from another hand-out for the wealthy by rejecting the so-called Bush "Stimulus" plan, which would have only lengthened the unemployment lines, and delivered another victory to the wealthy while leaving the middle-class and poor empty-handed.

In regards to your statement that the United States shouldn't have to worry about PR around the world----our security is directly linked to how we are viewed by the rest of the world. If Arab nations view us as Pro-Israel and Anti-Muslim then we will continue to see more and more terrorist attacks. President Clinton enjoyed broad world-wide support, particularly in Europe, because his foreign policy had a consistent theme---the protection of democratic values. In part, thanks to Clinton's help Milosevich and his wife are now a sad footnote in history.

Blaming Bush for the recession makes as much sense as crediting Clinton for the Tech Boom. While adminsitrations have some effect on the economy, market forces truly drive it. The last twenty years of recession and prosperity would have happened naturally, regardless of who was in office.

 

[RyanH]

ryan, do us all a favor and stop your yapping. you have'nt paid taxes ever in your life. you admitted it personally. therefore, you have no say in the economic policies of any president seeing you have not contributed to it. you attack bush for his tax cut, clinton never put any money into anyone's hands lest it be his friends and the welfare folks. he raised taxes which you find ok. i guess you would seeing you don't pay any. when you have completed one year in paying taxes and file them then you may speak. i did'nt hear anyone complaining when they got that tax refund check from bush, afterwards it was the liberals who complained. i guess they just have to bite the hand that feeds them, look a gift horse in the mouth, find ways to be double faced cry babies.

Congratulations SushiX in resorting to personal attacks and insults. But, of course, very often those who take the low road have no other recourse since their own arguments lack any substantial merit.

That said, I have never said that I have never paid taxes, not that it's any of your business, and further, you don't know that I'm not paying taxes now. You seem to be under the illusion that somehow I skate by without paying a cent. Quite the contrary, I'm now in a tax bracket that is paying a substantial sum of my money to the federal government, and my family pays almost 50% of its income to the federal government. However, we realize that selfishness is not what this country was founded on, but goodwill and responsibility and values are.

You are only as good as what you give, not what you get.

 

[RyanH]

Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

You are dead wrong. These three roque nations all are developing or harbor weapons of mass destruction, persecute their own people, proliferate weapons to terrorists and are a threat to freedom.

If they are not careful, they will have a wholesale change of govt courtesy the United States of America.

China and Russia and several other countries have nuclear weapons also. Do we police them as well? Do we from this day forward fight every country because they are not allied with us or because they possess nuclear weapons? If so, we have many wars ahead of us.

And, if you are so incredibly worried about persecution of people (which is a noble concern) then surely you do not support most favored nation trade statutus to a country like China, who has a grim history of oppressing its citizens.

 

[Longhorn85]

Re: Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

China and Russia and several other countries have nuclear weapons also. Do we police them as well? Do we from this day forward fight every country because they are not allied with us or because they possess nuclear weapons? If so, we have many wars ahead of us.

And, if you are so incredibly worried about persecution of people (which is a noble concern) then surely you do not support most favored nation trade statutus to a country like China, who has a grim history of oppressing its citizens.

Yes, we definitely keep an eye on China and Russia. No, we don't fight every country that has nukes, but we must be tough with, and wary of, roque nations that do.

I totally agree with you regarding MFN status for China, I have been disappointed as our last several presidents continue to grant that status.

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: the AXIS of EVIL, hyperbole at its peak...

you idiot! we used the northern alliance as our own. whoever was the idiot that said the taliban was a bad ass anyway.....oh yea, it was you. i remember, you were one of the guys on here spouting off how bad the taliban was. saying how much trouble they gave the russians right.

aww, just another reminder of the HYPERBOLE at its peak from RyanH.

As usual, you manage to set forth an argument that is only reactionary and at best represenative of a mere peppercorn of thought and rationale.

That aside, Spongebob, you do still have potential, if you just hang in there. The problem posed by your above "statement" is that it ignores most of the facts (another customary practice of yours)---the fact that we deployed thousands of troops to the Gulf region, that we used sophisticated military tecnology in driving the Taliban from power, and that in the end it was the U.S. military that was the catalyst in driving the Taliban from power. "But for" the U.S. military the Taliban would still be in power today.

Shame on you for not giving our strong military its credit, particulary where credit is due!

By the way, we were justified in going after the Taliban, I have never said otherwise.

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

Yes, we definitely keep an eye on China and Russia. No, we don't fight every country that has nukes, but we must be tough with, and wary of, roque nations that do.

I totally agree with you regarding MFN status for China, I have been disappointed as our last several presidents continue to grant that status.

It's taken a year, but finally I have found some common ground with you......thanks for stepping on over to the sensible side

 

[RyanH]

Wow what a shock. Bush made himself look like a fucking retard again. Axis of evil, LOL. What an idiot. What the fuck does Iran have anything to do with anything?! Iran was helping out during the strikes in Afghanistan by providing more border patrol and letting Afghan refugees into their country. Bush has the mental capicity of a 13 year old and he proves it every time he opens his mouth. It's scary to think he runs such a powerful nation.

You should post more often freshr1---the enlightened cannot be silenced by the voice of passion, prejudice, and hate.

 

[freshr1]

To you he may be an idiot, that is your opinion. His remarks happen to have resonated with the majority of the American people, with whom he remains hugely popular during challenging times. Starting during the campaign, in the early months of his term with Kyoto and Missile Defense, continuing through 9/11 and the present, W continues to say what he means and mean what he says. He is obviously not concerned about pleasing his critics.

Since when does majority = being right? I'm not too shocked that he's so widely popular. Most Americans are blindly partiotic, undereducated, and get their world news and "facts" from the completely unbiased sources such as CNN. Bush is a retard with the intelligence of an ape. Everytime he says something he proves it again and again and again. You know.. like cowboys and stuff? With the wanted posters which say dead or alive? LOL.

 

[gymtime]

You should post more often freshr1---the enlightened cannot be silenced by the voice of passion, prejudice, and hate.

 

[Longhorn85]

Bush is a retard with the intelligence of an ape.

Your emotional rants betray your biases, and you make absolutely no sense.

He has run circles around those that have called him names since he has been in office, and will continue to do so.

 

[RyanH]

Since when does majority = being right? I'm not too shocked that he's so widely popular. Most Americans are blindly partiotic, undereducated, and get their world news and "facts" from the completely unbiased sources such as CNN. Bush is a retard with the intelligence of an ape. Everytime he says something he proves it again and again and again. You know.. like cowboys and stuff? With the wanted posters which say dead or alive? LOL.

Better yet, have you noticed the belt buckle with the presidential symbol on it that Bush wears? Class act, isn't he? Also consider some of the jargon Bush speaks with.....example: "heck" "get-em" and so on. The White House went from a bastion of intellect under President Clinton and Senator Clinton to a rodeo show who has trouble speaking without prepared notecards. But neverfear, history shows that the American voters do not vote on the basis of a war, but instead vote with their pocketbook. When voters stand in line to vote in 2004, and they are hungry, unemployed, and in bankruptcy, war will be the last issue on their minds. Outcome: Bush is dust (reminiscent of his father's failure).

You are absolutely right as to the wisdom of the American electorate, at times. For instance, when Stevenson was defeated by General Eisenhower, the country ignored intelligence, reason, and ideas in favor of a man who represented nothing but war and combat. Steven's intellect and leadership skills were far superior to that of President Eisenhower's.

 

[RyanH]

Your emotional rants betray your biases, and you make absolutely no sense.

He has run circles around those that have called him names since he has been in office, and will continue to do so.

What are his accomplishments, domestically?

 

[the nature boy]

I'd like to hear why china shouldnt get MFN status. Why? Besides not having MFN status isnt going to stop the rest of the world from trading with them.

 

[RyanH]

I'd like to hear why china shouldnt get MFN status. Why? Besides not having MFN status isnt going to stop the rest of the world from trading with them.

Do you have all day to discuss the many reasons they don't deserve MFN status? To highlight a few: Tieneman square, consistent and present abuses of its citizens, the lack of any sort of fair justice system for its citizens, the lack of any attention to the growing AIDS crisis in China , persecution of citizens there living with AIDS. Not to mention their aggression against Tibet, and moreover, China is just waiting to take Tiawan.

 

[Longhorn85]

Better yet, have you noticed the belt buckle with the presidential symbol on it that Bush wears? Class act, isn't he

I suppose you prefer the "quick-release" version of your hero, Bill Clinton?

 

[Longhorn85]

For instance, when Stevenson was defeated by General Eisenhower, the country ignored intelligence, reason, and ideas in favor of a man who represented nothing but war and combat. Steven's intellect and leadership skills were far superior to that of President Eisenhower's.

Just war and combat to save the free world from Hitler.

Definition of intellect and leadership according to Ryan: liberalism.

Is it so outrageous to consider that some would appreciate Eisenhower's Generalship durign WWII as adequate intellect and leadership?

 

[Longhorn85]

What are his accomplishments, domestically?

Tax Cut.
Education Bill.
Defense Authorization Bill.

To name just a few.

 

[buddy28]

To you he may be an idiot, that is your opinion. His remarks happen to have resonated with the majority of the American people, with whom he remains hugely popular during challenging times.

Thats whats so scary. The majority of Americans love his reckless, brash, political style. Reflective of wide spread American arrogance? Yes.

Kyoto accord? A good decision. Hmmm.... Thats pretty consistent with American reactionary policy style. Hey! The earth is going to shit, but at least my generation wont have to live it! What makes Bush's decision to withdrawl from the Kyoto accord so fucking stupid?

You are shitting in ur own nest. Dont think increased CO2 emissions are going to efffect American citizens? What planet are u living on.

Good lord. Its so fucking apparent greenhouse warming, possibly caused by increased CO2 emissions, is a major enviromental issue that needs to be addressed.

Bushs political "savvy": Well shiiiiiiiiiiit.......if i dont have to deal with it before I die , who gives a fuck?! Besides, it may get me relected cause Im sticking up for the American people!!

Stupidity. The majority of Americans support Bushs withdrawl from the Kyoto Accord because outwardly he's protecting Americas short term economic goals. Funny thing is, Americans who agree with his decision obviously have no idea what the fuck increased Greenhouse gases are going to do to the American economy in the long term.

What happens when sweeping inter-industry domestic pollution restriction legislation needs to be implmented due to massive green house warming?

The American economy takes a huge fucking hit.

What happens when the US doesnt become an active supporter of reducing CO2 Emissions?

Other countries jump on the band wagon. Why should their economy suffer if the world leaders wont activily support the Kyoto Accord?

What does that mean?

Increased probabilty of global warming = massive long term weather pattern changes. More extreme weather. More droughts, more fires, more hurricanes, more damage. Both to property and to cash crops.

But hey, were protecting the American economy!!! No you arnt. Your just fooling urselves.

Gotta think long term here guys. This is so fucking obvious, its ridiculous. Its like addition, or subtraction. Easiest shit in the world. Unbeleivable.

 

[HumorMe]

I suppose you prefer the "quick-release" version of your hero, Bill Clinton?

I'm sure Ryan has a closet full of them!

 

[spongebob]

Re: Re: Re: the AXIS of EVIL, hyperbole at its peak...

As usual, you manage to set forth an argument that is only reactionary and at best represenative of a mere peppercorn of thought and rationale.

That aside, Spongebob, you do still have potential, if you just hang in there. The problem posed by your above "statement" is that it ignores most of the facts (another customary practice of yours)---the fact that we deployed thousands of troops to the Gulf region, that we used sophisticated military tecnology in driving the Taliban from power, and that in the end it was the U.S. military that was the catalyst in driving the Taliban from power. "But for" the U.S. military the Taliban would still be in power today.

Shame on you for not giving our strong military its credit, particulary where credit is due!

By the way, we were justified in going after the Taliban, I have never said otherwise.

LMAO, i actually liked this one.

my point, which you did not comprehend(and i am surprised, because you are supposed to have good comprhension skills) is that the taliban were not shit. we provided air power and special ops and few ground troops.

this was not desert storm. the reserves could have pulled this off.

again, your comprehension fails you, i didnt say that you said we were not justified in removing the taliban. re-read my post but slowly this time.

i believe you were one of those arm-chair quaterbacks that said the u.s. would have alot of trouble with the taliban in afganistan. remember comments like this one, "the taliban beat the russians for ten years", "it has moutainous terrain that we are not accustom to fighting in". "winters coming and its gonnna be a tough fight"

okey-d-dokie, wiped em out in a matter of months.

and now you wanna sing a different tune and jump on the military bandwagon and give credit to clinton.

p.s. what the hell are you talking about 50%, are your family members dead, is that an estate tax. nobody pays 50%

 

[the nature boy]

Do you have all day to discuss the many reasons they don't deserve MFN status? To highlight a few: Tieneman square, consistent and present abuses of its citizens, the lack of any sort of fair justice system for its citizens, the lack of any attention to the growing AIDS crisis in China , persecution of citizens there living with AIDS. Not to mention their aggression against Tibet, and moreover, China is just waiting to take Tiawan.

OK then, I'm going to play devils advocate here, so please no flames my way.

Who are we to tell china what do to within their borders. You bring up Tieneman Square, I can bring up Waco, or Ruby Ridge. As for the whole AIDS thing, that's their business. I'm sure Amnesty internatinal could could find some flaws with how we take care of our citizens. As for agression towards tiawan, I could bring up numerous instances of the US putting all kinds of crooked stong men into power, which is pretty much similar to agression to other countries and their citizens.

again just playing devils advocate.

 

[Longhorn85]

Kyoto accord? A good decision.

(I certainly think so. Kyoto won't solve our environmental challenges. )

Good lord. Its so fucking apparent greenhouse warming, possibly caused by increased CO2 emissions, is a major enviromental issue that needs to be addressed.

(It is being addressed, and scientists disagree on its affects and how to best curb it, if necessary. We are not in an emergency situation here. Calm down. Besides, I guarantee the answer doesn't lie in the Kyoto Treaty!)


Stupidity. The majority of Americans support Bushs withdrawl from the Kyoto Accord because outwardly he's protecting Americas short term economic goals. Funny thing is, Americans who agree with his decision obviously have no idea what the fuck increased Greenhouse gases are going to do to the American economy in the long term.

(You have no monopoly on awareness of this issue over most Americans, they simply disagree with you. Why can't you accept that?)

Other countries jump on the band wagon. Why should their economy suffer if the world leaders wont activily support the Kyoto Accord?

What does that mean?

(It means there is no support for it)

Gotta think long term here guys.

(I know, that's why Missile Defense and domestic drilling are important)

 

[buddy28]

To interject for a second.

First. Nature Boy. Good points above.

Human rights abuses, or alledged abuses have nothing to do with trading status prescribed to foriegn nations. Its about the money. The US will lose out on Chinas massive economy if they prohibit trade between the two nations.

The US, like Nature Boy mentioned, is in no position to lecture the Chinese government about human rights. Take a look at recent and historical American foriegn policy. Its all bullshit. Its about the bucks. Appeasing human rights lobbys comes second.

A friend of mine lives in China and I asked him about the influence of China's human rights record on US-Sino relations.

he said the American government has singled out China for human rights violations because their economy, and national ideaology, represents a significant threat to American global hegemony. He pointed out a couple asian nations, Maylasia and somewhere else I beleive, that has terriable human rights records, worse then Chinas, but we dont hear a peep from the American government.

Why not?

Because those asian countries are quiet supporters of US foriegn policy.....they alter their laws to faciliate massive US foreign direct investment.....which all earns American corporations huge $$$...which keeps uncle sam happy. Why stir the shit about a country when its making u massive dollars?

Chinas a hardass. The majority of Chinese citizens harbour nationalitistic sentiment parrelled only by Americans. Scary thought. Their culture is completly aware of historical British and American explotiation of the domestic Chinese economy in the early 20th century, and are ashamed about it.

The American government has singled out Chinese human rights abuses because China represents the polar opposite of good ol American values. They are extremely nationalistic, and not incrediably supportive of American foriegn policy. They represent a threat. Therefore, the US government spins CHina as a "big evil" in an attempt to cool their economy = decrease their fiscal power.

I spend waaaaaaaay too much time here

 

[the nature boy]

does anyone know where a list of MFN can be found? I'd like to find out what unsavory nations we put at the top of the trading pedistal because they're buddies with us.

 

[Sushi X]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sushi X
ryan, do us all a favor and stop your yapping. you have'nt paid taxes ever in your life. you admitted it personally. therefore, you have no say in the economic policies of any president seeing you have not contributed to it. you attack bush for his tax cut, clinton never put any money into anyone's hands lest it be his friends and the welfare folks. he raised taxes which you find ok. i guess you would seeing you don't pay any. when you have completed one year in paying taxes and file them then you may speak. i did'nt hear anyone complaining when they got that tax refund check from bush, afterwards it was the liberals who complained. i guess they just have to bite the hand that feeds them, look a gift horse in the mouth, find ways to be double faced cry babies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Congratulations SushiX in resorting to personal attacks and insults. But, of course, very often those who take the low road have no other recourse since their own arguments lack any substantial merit.

That said, I have never said that I have never paid taxes, not that it's any of your business, and further, you don't know that I'm not paying taxes now. You seem to be under the illusion that somehow I skate by without paying a cent. Quite the contrary, I'm now in a tax bracket that is paying a substantial sum of my money to the federal government, and my family pays almost 50% of its income to the federal government. However, we realize that selfishness is not what this country was founded on, but goodwill and responsibility and values are.

You are only as good as what you give, not what you get.

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

i never called you a name did i nor did i resort to low blowing. so to say i called you a name or attacked you is absurd. as for the tax issue you said in a post some time ago you have yet to pay taxes yourself. not your family. speaking of which don't you find it wrong they pay such high taxes? would'nt you like to see them pay less?

my arguments have a great deal of merit. you often take the high and mighty attitude and shun other people's opinion thus doing the same thing you accuse others of.

goodwill and responsibility? is it really good will to force people to pay 25%-50% of their income to the government to pay for bs? is it responsibility for them to be forced to pay it? i think not. it's taxation without proper representation.

i did'nt take the low road not will i. if you see what i said as an attack look again. it was not an attack. try again.

 

[buddy28]

ttlpkg

(I certainly think so. Kyoto won't solve our environmental challenges. )

No, it wont solve all enviromental problems. But it will address global warming, which is one major enviromental problem facing the world today. Gotta start somewhere. Cant expect to find a solution at the last minute that solves every problem simultaneously.


(It [global warming] is being addressed, and scientists disagree on its affects and how to best curb it, if necessary. We are not in an emergency situation here. Calm down. Besides, I guarantee the answer doesn't lie in the Kyoto Treaty!)

Really? What knowledge are u privy to which 36 signatory nations of the Kyoto Accord -- including all G-7 countries except the US, are not?

The Kyoto Accord is a prudent enviromental policy shift because it *is* a start. We, as in citizens of the earth, need to start somewhere if we want to reduce the potential efffects of global warming.

The reason why all scientists are not unanimous in suggesting a causal relationship between increased emission of greenhouse gases and global warming, is due to the"time series" experimental design in which data concerning global warming is arrived at.

"Time series" is a type of experimental metholodology which makes no attempt to control ancillary variables that co vary with the independant variable. In order for any causal relationship to be proven between two variables (say global warming and emmission of CO2 gases), an indenpendant variable has to be applied in *controlled* conditions while holding all other relevent variables constant.

Since time series experimental methodologies provide extremely speculative data, scientists cannot be absolutly sure about the relationship between increased CO2 emmissions and global temperature warming.

Then why did over 36 nations --- including all EU member nations and G7 nations except the US; agree to honor the Kyoto treaty?

Because the best scientists from around the world, using the most accurate computer modeling available, arrived at the conclusion that increased CO2 emmissions *do* cause increased latent air temperature in specific circumstances.

Knowing this, and knowing the human species expells massive amounts of carbon gases as a by-product of buring fossil feuls, 36 nations felt it was a prudent move to reduce CO2 emissions to curb the probable effect greenhouse gases have on global warming.

Why didnt Bush feel it was a prudent move to reduce CO2 emissions?

a) the American people elect, and relect presidents who promise positive domestic economic growth.
b) Bush and his administration claim over 1-13 million USD a year for personal income. Where the fuck do they get their money from?? Oil. The majority of Bushs senior cabinet, and President Bush himself, are invested heavily in the American oil industry. Do you think Bushs decision to withdraw America from the Kyoto Accord had anything to do with his personal business investment in the oil industry??? and the personal business investments of his senior staff?? ie Cheney ie Rumsfeild. and the personal investments of affluent oil business people who partially financed Bushs presidential election campaign???? ie Enron....now fucking bankrupt.

But I suppose ur going to tell me that Bush made an objective, rational decision based on emperical facts, which valued the long term interests of the American people and the global enviroment.

Please.

http://www.feer.com/articles/2001/0106_28/p024region.html


"Giant swathes of Asia could be devastated by global warming. Robert Watson, chief scientist on climate change at the World Bank, said in June that greenhouse gases could cause the temperature of the earth's surface over the next 100 years to increase 1.4-5.8 degrees Celsius, which could cause sea levels to rise by nearly a metre. Flooding in low-lying coastal areas of Bangladesh and along China's Pearl River could displace 50 million-100 million people, Watson told the World Bank conference.

Watson warned that violent storms triggered by the El Nino weather phenomenon could become more frequent, while droughts in other areas could parch cropland. Agricultural productivity would fall and coral reefs and forests would become more vulnerable. On top of that, water shortages could become widespread and diseases such as malaria and dengue fever would increase."

 

[buddy28]

does anyone know where a list of MFN can be found? I'd like to find out what unsavory nations we put at the top of the trading pedistal because they're buddies with us.

try the US Department of Commerce online homepage. They should have links to export and international trade pages which list foreign country tariff classifications.

 

[Longhorn85]

ttlpkg

1) Really? What knowledge are u privy to which 36 signatory nations of the Kyoto Accord -- including all G-7 countries except the US, are not?

2) The Kyoto Accord is a prudent enviromental policy shift because it *is* a start.

3) The reason why all scientists are not unanimous in suggesting a causal relationship between increased emission of greenhouse gases and global warming, is due to the"time series" experimental design in which data concerning global warming is arrived at.

"Time series" is a type of experimental metholodology which makes no attempt to control ancillary variables that co vary with the independant variable. In order for any causal relationship to be proven between two variables (say global warming and emmission of CO2 gases), an indenpendant variable has to be applied in *controlled* conditions while holding all other relevent variables constant.

Since time series experimental methodologies provide extremely speculative data, scientists cannot be absolutly sure about the relationship between increased CO2 emmissions and global temperature warming.

4) Then why did over 36 nations --- including all EU member nations and G7 nations except the US; agree to honor the Kyoto treaty?

buddy28,

1) Actually all ARE privy to the fact that the US will lose and these other nations will gain. It is not in the interest of the US, and it is not the only solution.

2) It is a start in the wrong direction for the US, and therefore a non-starter.

3) Thanks for the lesson on experiemental methodology. A little boring (even to this math major), irrelevant, and it didn't help your argument at all.

4) See number 1.

 

[manny78]

Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

You are dead wrong. These three roque nations all are developing or harbor weapons of mass destruction, persecute their own people, proliferate weapons to terrorists and are a threat to freedom.

Just like the US. US have the nuclear weapon, till recently chemical weapons too. They have been supporting in the past scumbags like Pinochet, Batista, Ben Laden, Franco, Laurent-Désiré Kabila, Noriega, and many more.......

 

[the nature boy]

Re: Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

Just like the US. US have the nuclear weapon, till recently chemical weapons too. They have been supporting in the past scumbags like Pinochet, Batista, Ben Laden, Franco, Laurent-Désiré Kabila, Noriega, and many more.......

don't forget Saddam, baby doc Duvalier, and everyones favorite the Shah of Iran.

Don't get me wrong, I love my country, but some of our policies are very hippocritical.

Pinochet was a super huge scumbag.

 

[buddy28]

buddy28,

1) Actually all ARE privy to the fact that the US will lose and these other nations will gain. It is not in the interest of the US, and it is not the only solution.

Really? How? See if u can defend ur position without regurgitating GW rhetoric.

Its not in the interest of the US? hmmm. It may not be in the short term interest of the US. but its certaintly in the long term interest of the US. Is it really difficult to see?

2) It is a start in the wrong direction for the US, and therefore a non-starter.

Y? Because its not good for the short term domestic economy?

3) Thanks for the lesson on experiemental methodology. A little boring (even to this math major), irrelevant, and it didn't help your argument at all.

Irrelevent?? If you dont even know how the majority of data is developed to support ur argument, u really cant make an effective argument one way or the other, can you? Boy o boy.

Where is ur argument by the way?

 

[buddy28]

by the way,

you forgot to address Bush and companies massive personal investment in the oil industry.

Or is that irrelevent too?

 

[Longhorn85]

Re: Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

Just like the US. US have the nuclear weapon, till recently chemical weapons too. .......

Of course we do, we were the first, and we will always maintain a powerful military. For this reason you speak English and French in Canada, and not Russian or Chinese.

But we are not a roque nation proliferating weapons to terrorists.

 

[Longhorn85]

you forgot to address Bush and companies massive personal investment in the oil industry.

Or is that irrelevent too?

Bush's pro-business stand is no secret, he ran on that issue, and was elected. It is quite relevant. Kyoto would hurt business, therefore cause unemployment, and that is not good. Especially since it is not necessary.

Has global warming even been proven to exist? Or is it a theory?

 

[manny78]

Re: Re: Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

Of course we do, we were the first, and we will always maintain a powerful military. For this reason you speak English and French in Canada, and not Russian or Chinese.

But we are not a roque nation proliferating weapons to terrorists.

1- even without the US I would still be speaking french and english.

2- US have been selling weapons to the scumbags I mentionned before. They're equal to terrorists.

 

[Longhorn85]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

2- US have been selling weapons to the scumbags I mentionned before. They're equal to terrorists.

I seriously doubt that you believe that statement.

 

[buddy28]

Has global warming even been proven to exist? Or is it a theory?

Are u asking seriously?

The existing interaction between CO2 emissions and the reflection of thermal waves, resulting in net increased latent air temperature, has been well documented in the physical sciences.

however, like my post mentioned, there are too many unknown relationships between known and unknown variables which prohibit scientists from determining a causal relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming.

I am not an expert. Computer modelling using known parameters indicates global warming does occur under certain circumstances. The argument against computer modelling predictions is that all relevent variables are unaccounted for, which they are, and the estimated relationships between known variables may be less than accurate.

That being said, common sense dictates if there is a significant chance global warming will occur due to increased CO2 emissions, which there is, then a prudent global enviromental policy intiative should attempt to reduce global CO2 emissions. This is being attempted.

The argument against the validity of global warming data is not an objective argument, rather a biased argument, formulated to support short term domestic business interests. There is a reason why the *majority* of independant scientific federations support the Kyoto Accord. Not because they know for a fact that global warming is occuring, but because this is a situation where the odds need to be played.

Basically it comes down to this. If there is a strong chance global warming is occuring, why not take procautionary measures to reduce its potentially wide-spread, destructive effects?

As far as the US being at a economic disadvantage by restricting domestic fossil feul emissions. Yes, they would be at a disadvantage. However, the economic disadvantage incurred by the US domestic economy would be no different then the cost incurred by various foreign economies. Most western European countries jumped on green technologies a long time ago because convservative pollution restrictions could not support healthy living standards in a massivily overcrowded Western Europe. North America has enjoyed the luxury of waiting to restrict CO2 emissions , and other types of industrial pollution, because North American population densities are relativily low compared to Western Europe.

The enviroment is in pretty tough shape. If our governments continue to put domestic business before the enviroment, our home planet may be seriously jepordized. A fair treaty is required that makes most countries submit to CO2 emission reductions . That way, no one "loses". This has already occured, but Bush put short term domestic business interests ahead of global enviromental issues, and backed out of the deal.

Possibly because he was aware of the US economic downturn prior to his presidential election, and realised domestic CO2 emission restriction would prompt a deeper economic slowdown and jepordize his presidential re-election campaign?

 

[danielson]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough of this Liberal Love-Fest!

I seriously doubt that you believe that statement.

i do....they supported some real big assholes in the cold war, and help them overthrow many peaceful reigemes....(why tony blair refers to africa as a 'scar on the concience of the west')

 

[the nature boy]

yeah, the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion are a big hoax perpitrated by liberal scientists.

 

[spongebob]

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd111398a.html

http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

i dont wanna pay alot of money for gasoline and electricity just for the possibility of having the temperature rise approx. 0.19 degree's. thats why we have ac.

 

[the ice]

right wing commie bastard demacrats. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. Read! There is a reason for everything.

 

[the nature boy]

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd111398a.html

http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

i dont wanna pay alot of money for gasoline and electricity just for the possibility of having the temperature rise approx. 0.19 degree's. thats why we have ac.

so I guess all the scientists that say global warming is a problem are wrong?

 

[spongebob]

so I guess all the scientists that say global warming is a problem are wrong?

so i guess all the scientist that say global warming is not a problem are wrong?

and yes, scientist can be wrong. but im not one, so im not right or wrong. i just presented another side to it.

 

[JohnyJuice]

The greenhouse effect is barley budged by human interactions. It is a cyclical cooling and warming of the earth. Remember the ice age? I bet that was a result of the dinosaurs and their huge SUV's fucking up the environment.

 

[the nature boy]

no, the ice age is formulated to have started by a meteor or comet crashing into the earth. I guess the liberal made that one up too eh?

 

[the nature boy]

back to the topic at hand anyway, it really seems like the axis of evil comment has backfired. IRan, who a number of weeks ago offered to assist in helping any down US pilots has now been backed into a corner. The moderates who have been looking to renew ties with the US, have now been pushed into the arms of the fundamentalists. On top of that, Saddam made a statement that if the US attacked Iran, that Iraq would take that as an act of war on Iraq.

Now in reality this move really isnt' a big deal militarily, however Bush may have made a gross miscalculation by potentially pushing Iraq and Iran to at least start talking again. They still hate each other but it seems like the old addage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is starting to look accurate.

A bad move IMO. We still havent' caught bin ladden yet either. I think we should tackle one bad guy at a time.

 

[danielson]

no, the ice age is formulated to have started by a meteor or comet crashing into the earth. I guess the liberal made that one up too eh?

shut your pie hole liberal boy

 

[the nature boy]

smartass.

 

[p0ink]

this is from a different thread...i should have posted it here

Are you still angry about bush calling evil regimes what they really are? EVIL. Maybe we should try to buy them off like clinton did when he offered Iran 2 nuclear power plants if they stopped trying to acquire nuclear arms. well guess what, they got their power plants and continued to look for nuclear weapons. The people that live in these countries are living in poverty thanks to a tyranical government (a type of government you would love if we had a black, transexual, pro-abortion, anti-religion, female with aids, that was the supreme dictator). You are opposed to these countries being called what they really are. EVIL. Remember when Regan called the soviet union 'the evil empire?' and all you liberals were bitching and moaning about that. Saying it is only going to make things worse. And when Reagan refused the Soviet Unions proposition to lower nuclear arms if we lowered our stock pile and got rid of SDI, you liberals were crying and moaning saying that we were putting the country in serious peril. well guess what, it's because Reagan didn't follow that shit that the Soviet Union collapsed, and when it did, you liberals were trying to take credit for your fantastic diplomacy. Do you people know you lie about everything or do you just live in your own fantasy world?

 

[the nature boy]

I don't even bother responding to that bullshit you call a post when it takes that lame ass condesding tone painting everyone who has a problem with a presidential policy a liberal. What a load of crap.

 

[danielson]

smartass.

was just joking dude

 

[p0ink]

I don't even bother responding to that bullshit you call a post when it takes that lame ass condesding tone painting everyone who has a problem with a presidential policy a liberal. What a load of crap.

ok, i see. it is bullshit because you dont agree with it. or is it bullshit because you dont like hearing the truth. not to be a dickhead or anything, but those are the facts my man. it was the democrats there were bitching and moaning about Reagan's shit with the soviet union. dont just say it's bullshit because you dont agree with it. call it bullshit when you prove it to be wrong (which it isnt, but you can try if you want)

 

[Longhorn85]

back to the topic at hand anyway, it really seems like the axis of evil comment has backfired. IRan, who a number of weeks ago offered to assist in helping any down US pilots has now been backed into a corner. The moderates who have been looking to renew ties with the US, have now been pushed into the arms of the fundamentalists. On top of that, Saddam made a statement that if the US attacked Iran, that Iraq would take that as an act of war on Iraq.

I couldn't disagree more NB! On the contrary, as a matter of fact. The moderates that you speak of will now have to "shit or get off the pot". If they are willing to side with the likes of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il and The Iranian Leadership over the US, then so be it. I don't think they'll make that decision. It is time for action, and the sides must be chosen. As W said in his famous post 9/11 speech, "you are either for or against terrorism". There is no middle ground.

As far as Saddam H's statement, he is continuously sabre rattling, and Iran and Iraq are enemies anyway. If they want to ally vs the US, that is neither news, nor threatening.

It is also time for Iran to come clean. So what if they have "offered assistance". They continue to arm, feed, train and harbor terrorists.

The Axis of Evil comment was RIGHT ON TIME.

 

[the nature boy]

ok, i see. it is bullshit because you dont agree with it. or is it bullshit because you dont like hearing the truth. not to be a dickhead or anything, but those are the facts my man. it was the democrats there were bitching and moaning about Reagan's shit with the soviet union. dont just say it's bullshit because you dont agree with it. call it bullshit when you prove it to be wrong (which it isnt, but you can try if you want)

hey, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I said I didn't care for your condesending attitiude. Because I disagree with Bush's policy I'm a liberal? What the hell do you know about me? How do you know if I'm liberal or not? You want to talk in a constructive manner, then fine, I'll debate you on CURRENT policy decisions. You want to insult my intelligence and tell me I'm in some dream world, go save it for somebody else.

 

[the nature boy]

I couldn't disagree more NB! On the contrary, as a matter of fact. The moderates that you speak of will now have to "shit or get off the pot". If they are willing to side with the likes of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il and The Iranian Leadership over the US, then so be it. I don't think they'll make that decision. It is time for action, and the sides must be chosen. As W said in his famous post 9/11 speech, "you are either for or against terrorism". There is no middle ground.

As far as Saddam H's statement, he is continuously sabre rattling, and Iran and Iraq are enemies anyway. If they want to ally vs the US, that is neither news, nor threatening.

It is also time for Iran to come clean. So what if they have "offered assistance". They continue to arm, feed, train and harbor terrorists.

The Axis of Evil comment was RIGHT ON TIME.

well I disagree with you too. Saddam needs to be dealt with. Fine. We'll send inspectors and he'll play a shell game with us then we'll take action. That's how it's going to go down.

With Korea, things were moving along. Why force that issue. Just recently they started talking again. A total change of stance isn't going to happen in a day! It takes time. You're sadly mistaken if you think we're going to invade North Korea. It's not going to happen.

As for Iran it's the same thing. 10 years ago having a moderate in power was unfathomable. Look at where they are at now. 60% of the popluation is under 30, and they are desire relations with the west. Now we're looking like bullies.

I'm just saying he didn't need to include north korea and Iran into the mix. I think it's backfiring and I'm predicting that we're not going to hear him EVER say the term Axis of Evil again. Watch.

 

[danielson]

I'm just saying he didn't need to include north korea and Iran into the mix. I think it's backfiring and I'm predicting that we're not going to hear him EVER say the term Axis of Evil again. Watch.

uh-huh

having said that, is it likely this speech was even written by him? do you think his team of speechwriters intended this reaction, because they MUST have realised this would get quite a few peoples panties in a bunch

 

[Longhorn85]

having said that, is it likely this speech was even written by him?

Of course not, Presidents have always had speechwriters. It really doesn't matter if he says it again, the term stuck, and journalists keep repeating it and it will be in history books.

The countries in question will either live up to the title and pay the price, or start to behave. Either way is fine with me.

 

[danielson]

The countries in question will either live up to the title and pay the price, or start to behave. Either way is fine with me.

the question is would the outcome have been the same if he didnt say it. guess we'll have to wait and see wht happens

 

[chesty]

They are the axis of evil. Iran has possibly been hiding al qaeda and taliban.

And we never fought the Taliban, the Northern Alliance did. We just bombed the shit out of them.

Fuck Korea, Iran, Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia

 

[manny78]

Fuck Korea, Iran, Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is the root of all problems. Once we take of these pigs you would be surprised how things would be so different.

 

[buddy28]

This thread is funny. All the right wing conservatists think that "taking out" a nation (as if that could ever be accomplished), will solve all US national security problems.

These "problems" have taking decades to form, and the US has played a major role in cultivating the majority of them.

What did u think was going to happen in Iran when the American government supported the overthrow of a democratically elected ruler and put in the Shah? Fuck.
Gimmie a break. Of course Iranians are going to turn fundamentalist and harbour anti-American sentiment.

Tell me, if Russia turned out to be the victorious superpower after the cold war, and rigged American elections so that a Soviet puppet ruler was installed who oversaw the killing and imprisonment of thousands of ur own innocent countrymen, what the fuck would u think??

"Oh....the US is good. Theyre good people." U people who beleive that are fucking brainwashed.

Every person on this thread needs to read at least 100 years of global modern history before blanket statements can be made like "fuck the the Iranians! Bomb the shit out them!"

Its ridiculous. We are talking about human lives. Americans and Canadians are no better than Iranians or North Koreans. All humans have inherent worth, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

calm down u say. Fuck that. People that follow leaders blindly because of their unfounded sense of nationalistic superiority, need to crack a fucking history book. The US has been great at providing freedoms and liberties to American citizens. But those same freedoms ur government provided u, have been afforded in part by puppet dictatorships, ruthless warlords, and innocent foreign civilian lives...all thanks to uncle sam.

U shed a tear when 3000 people die at the world trade center, and couldnt give a fuck when 5000 children die a month in Iraq?? Fuck.

If you dont care to learn ur history - Not the biased, patriotic censored bullshit handed out in elementry school.....but the real history...the historical oppressive role ur government has taken in numerous countries to support US big business.....youll never see the truth.

The funny thing is, this country, the place we live in, is ours. We, the citizens, own it. But we think we dont. We think the politicians and big business have more weight then we can ever pull. We dont realise how wrong we are. We have the power to change our own government-- if we choose to exercise that power. The wars and bullshit weve seen over the last 100 years have been a net result of the indifference citizens like us, have succombed too, because they chose to turn a blind eye.

The more we choose to buy into nationalistic fevor. The more we choose not to rationally question our governments actions. the more we choose not to take an active role in exploring our own countries historical role in global history. Then we'll suffer the same fate our forefathers did and hand over more power to the politicians whose agenda is already determined.

What is that agenda?

More power to the nation state by capitalistic penetration of foreign economies -- by any means necessary. If this means killings hundreds of thousands, including children, to justify stabilizing the global price of oil. Done. That happened just a short decade ago.

If u agree with this. Thats ur opinion. But dont claim ur patroitic and a loyal defender of democracy and freedom for all humanity. Because your not. Your just fooling urself.