http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html
That article is over a year old and surprisingly accurate
That article is over a year old and surprisingly accurate
The Onion seems to predict the future
- Thread starter Czar
- Start date
Czar isn't a troll. He is a very calm debator and really believes in what he debates. I think he is misguided but I am entitled to my opinion much like he is.
Maybe your right, bu I can't remember a thread that he's started that wasn't blantantly anti-american with no backup whatsoever....
Of course it is satire though. While you could say it "predicted" current US affairs it didn't. A random article of satire(which wasn't overdone satire) matches up with real world events. I hear that happening every day. As to accuracy, I can't recall the US acting as an aggressor. Saddam has chemical,bioogical and possibly nuclear weapons. That fact that we don't want this nutbag going loose and hurting our citizens or our Allies' citizens.
"Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend"
Czar, out of the quote I just listed, tell me how that is accurate in regards to the US as a whole today?
Seeing as though there was already an economic downturn visible coming into 2001, I don't see how this article states anything but the obvious.
Because Europeans and Democrats think that Bush wants to attack their liberal policies that allow them to smuggle drugs, fund terrorists, house child pornography rings and launder money.
All Bush wants is to protect and defend our assets overseas. Iraq is a hard campaign to win in Europe because they buy oil illegally from Saddam.
Edit-I find it funny that the only people who think it is accurate is from overseas or not in the US.
BTW Europeans and others(including Czar) tell me what YOU would do about Iraq. What would do to prevent Saddam from using his arsenal of weapons?
military aggression
- Iraq, they have not done anything to the US or its allies since the gulf war that counts as an "aggression" under international law, if the US attacks Iraq it does so as the aggressor unless Iraq attacks first, if the US removes Saddam from power it breaks another International law that is to prevent leader assinations by other countries.
deregulation of dangerous
- not exactly sure what they mean by it
greedy industries
- Worldcom, Enron, and so on and on (not Bush's fault though),
defunding of vital domestic social-service programs
- didnt Bush cut funding to social services a week ago?
DivideBYZero
Lifer
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
Most of the funding for the IRA came from the US (New York, prdominantly), blowing up MY countrymen.
Can you remember who supported the Taliban fight against the Russians in Afghanistan?
Step out of the glass house before throwing stones
Bigot.
Czar, out of the quote I just listed, tell me how that is accurate in regards to the US as a whole today?
military aggression
- Iraq, they have not done anything to the US or its allies since the gulf war that counts as an "aggression" under international law, if the US attacks Iraq it does so as the aggressor unless Iraq attacks first, if the US removes Saddam from power it breaks another International law that is to prevent leader assinations by other countries.
Iraq has been flagrantly denying all UN regulations and breaking the sanctions bestowed up them. Is that not breaking an international law. The law against assasination of foreign heads of state is a US law(unless you can find me an international weblink). Also has the US done ANYTHING to Iraq yet? Are they not trying to build an international coalition first?
deregulation of dangerous
- not exactly sure what they mean by it
greedy industries
- Worldcom, Enron, and so on and on (not Bush's fault though),
Those two go together. The article was implying that Bush would deregulate dangerous, greedy industries. Actually, Clinton was your deregularatory buddy. He did it to telecom, energy, and cable. That is what LED to Enron(energy), Worldcom(telecom), and Adelphia Cable(cable) and their busted up companies.
defunding of vital domestic social-service programs
- didnt Bush cut funding to social services a week ago?
Need a link to that.
military aggression
- Iraq, they have not done anything to the US or its allies since the gulf war that counts as an "aggression" under international law, if the US attacks Iraq it does so as the aggressor unless Iraq attacks first, if the US removes Saddam from power it breaks another International law that is to prevent leader assinations by other countries.
Iraq has been flagrantly denying all UN regulations and breaking the sanctions bestowed up them. Is that not breaking an international law. The law against assasination of foreign heads of state is a US law(unless you can find me an international weblink). Also has the US done ANYTHING to Iraq yet? Are they not trying to build an international coalition first?
deregulation of dangerous
- not exactly sure what they mean by it
greedy industries
- Worldcom, Enron, and so on and on (not Bush's fault though),
Those two go together. The article was implying that Bush would deregulate dangerous, greedy industries. Actually, Clinton was your deregularatory buddy. He did it to telecom, energy, and cable. That is what LED to Enron(energy), Worldcom(telecom), and Adelphia Cable(cable) and their busted up companies.
defunding of vital domestic social-service programs
- didnt Bush cut funding to social services a week ago?
Need a link to that.
Is that your signiture exit? How can you bring Ireland vs British into this and go so far as to call anyone else a bigot?
Ever heard of biting the hand that feeds you? It really does happen, imagine that!
1. Send weapons-inspectors in to the country. They would have unlimited access to sites they deem necessary to get the job done. If Iraq doesn't co-operate, they get punished accordingly.
2. destruction of any WMD's that they find.
I think that's sensible approach. But it seems that USA is just begging for a war against Iraq. I mean, didn't the weapons-inspectors and Iraq just agree to allow the WI's to return? US refused to accept that agreement, and demanded "destruction of Iraqi WMD's within a month or US will attack". Ummmm, shouldn't you people first make sure that there are WMD's there, before demanding that they are destroyed (and no, it's not good enough evidence if USA claims that they have WMD's, we need independent verification)? It's starting to look more and more that US has decided to have it's war with Iraq, no matter what. I would love to see what would happen if Iraq said "Look, we will agree to do anything you want. you have unlimited access to our country and to our facilities, starting right now". I bet official US reaction would be "Ummmmm.... Well, we are still going to attack!"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter