10-6-2003 Chicken Little for Gore in 2004
Speaking of declared candidates, is any of them "inevitable" at this point? To be honest, when I was doing my Chicken Little thing a month ago, I was quite scared. I thought Dean might be unstoppable. Then when he had that not-so-secret meeting with Wesley Clark, I was petrified. Because if Clark had agreed to run as Dean's VP, that would have been a tough nut to crack. Momentum city, as they say. But apparently General Clark's advisors told him that he could enter this field and steal Dr. Dean's oxygen. It certainly has played out that way.
So there is no front runner and may well not be one coming out of New Hampshire (unless of course we get Gore in by then, in which case he should win in a walk).
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
How could terrorism increase in Iraq? Wasnt the entire SH regime a huge terrorist organization? The terrorism against the US soldiers has increased but certainly not on the Iraqi population. For the first time in a decade they are dishing out more than they are recieving. And I am quite certain the primary offenders are the very ones who attacked thier own people with the same viciousness. Its going to take a long time to domesticate wild animals.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Well, how about China? The USSR? The Martians in Mars attacks?
NO NO NO Saddam was not a terrorist!!!!!!!!!!
Dang it, people need to get their terminology straight. If Saddam was a terrorist, he would be sending airplanes into buildings in NY. If you want to play this game, then the US has a history of sponsoring terrorists. We caused Pinochet to be installed in SA, and he was as bad as Saddam, and you say Saddam was a terrorist, then the US supports or at least supported them. If the US props up any unsavory government even now, then we are sponsoring terrorists.
This obfuscates the whole issue. If you cannot understand the difference between a dictator and terrorist, then grab a dictionary.
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
Who was defining anything? They were living a life being brutalized,terrorized, and murdered in droves by thier leaders, police, and every other form of authority, and if you cant see that you are too blind to READ a dictionary. You can polish it any way you want by calling it by any other name, but it was still terrorism. You Saddam loyalists really need to stop groping Bush and start gripping reality.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Great, now Saddam loyalists. Want to be the Nazi Facist? Your grip on reality slipping away ever faster. I suggest you hide under your bed. So, I see you agree we sponsor terrorists. Good deal
The POINT is how things are delt with depends on the situation, and the situation often depends on WHAT the offenders are. Hell, no one said that these people had a good time, no more than under Pinochet, which you curiously avoid dealing with. Get a grip before you have a stroke.
I would have to agree with winston here. It is important not to atribute the term "terrorist" to saddam, it distorts the meaning significantly. Saddam was a dictator running a totalitarian regime. There are many people in the world like him in the middle east, SA, and africa. I dont support the things he did to his people but that doesnt give the US the right to dismantle the country and kill its citizens. Then claim that he is somehow a terrorist instead of an A$$hole doing a poor job of running his country.
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Great, now Saddam loyalists. Want to be the Nazi Facist? Your grip on reality slipping away ever faster. I suggest you hide under your bed. So, I see you agree we sponsor terrorists. Good deal
The POINT is how things are delt with depends on the situation, and the situation often depends on WHAT the offenders are. Hell, no one said that these people had a good time, no more than under Pinochet, which you curiously avoid dealing with. Get a grip before you have a stroke.
No you pacifists who believe the world could go to hell as long as "I've got mine" who sit around smoking your crack pipes singing Peace Baby, No more war, while watching contently while all the slaughter goes on around the world and do or say nothing and WATCH our boys do the work for you are the ones who are having the strokes because our leaders had the nads to finally shut you the hell up and turn you the hell off. You are the one that agrees we sponsor terrorists, I said nothing of the kind. Get out from under YOUR bed its dark under there.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Great, now Saddam loyalists. Want to be the Nazi Facist? Your grip on reality slipping away ever faster. I suggest you hide under your bed. So, I see you agree we sponsor terrorists. Good deal
The POINT is how things are delt with depends on the situation, and the situation often depends on WHAT the offenders are. Hell, no one said that these people had a good time, no more than under Pinochet, which you curiously avoid dealing with. Get a grip before you have a stroke.
No you pacifists who believe the world could go to hell as long as "I've got mine" who sit around smoking your crack pipes singing Peace Baby, No more war, while watching contently while all the slaughter goes on around the world and do or say nothing and WATCH our boys do the work for you are the ones who are having the strokes because our leaders had the nads to finally shut you the hell up and turn you the hell off. You are the one that agrees we sponsor terrorists, I said nothing of the kind. Get out from under YOUR bed its dark under there.
Again you go on the labling offensive. So be it slick. You know all about "us". You know nothing. You are like our leaders, with more balls than sense, and are glad to have our servicemen committed to having theirs blown off. Instead of reasoning things out, and finding a solution other than picking a fight, you are there wrapped in Ole Glory, which you dishonor with your careless attitude. You still cannot even begin to address the issue. It is completely beyond your meager comprehension. You do great at name calling, but I suggest you do it over the internet, because in real life you will be shocked that certain "pacifists" aren't. Many would rather use force with more restraint, but still have the inclination and ability to use it WHEN NEEDED, however they are quite capable of putting you in time out to be polite. Given a choice between peace and war, you pick the latter.
Your problem is that someone dared to disagree with you. You said something stupid on an internet forum and got called on it. You continue to do so. Worse, you cannot even begin to see why. So you trot out the old crack pipe lines. You sharpen your Bush-like "reasoning" skills, and go for the throat and people with the reasoning ability of a 10 year old (which you so obviously lack) are STILL not be able to see where misunderstanding the fundamental nature of this conflict is a good thing. Shoot first, and justify after. Hopefully in real life you are in a nice safe place kept away from sharp objects.
If you ever decide to engage in rational discussion we might be able to get into hows and whys, but so far you do not show much promise in that regard.
Flame away Bucky.
Chazz: Johnson was a Democrat and he oversaw the killing of plenty of people. Just because we elect Dean, Clark or Gebhart, doesn't mean people will stop dieing. One may reasonably wonder what bit of stupidness any one of them could drag us into. I operate on the premise that if someone is running for President they are, ipso facto, dumber than a box of rocks and not to be trusted. The only elected official I might trust is a write in candidate who stated publicly he did not want to serve. 
On the other hand, is our current Genghis Khan worse than the Idi Amin's who are running as Dems? Once they get the fascia of power God help us....
Edit: Off the top of my head, I seem to recall that every President since Kennedy has lied to us except, possibly, Ford and Carter. Why should anyone vote when the candidates are such losers? Where are the best and brightest?
-Robert
On the other hand, is our current Genghis Khan worse than the Idi Amin's who are running as Dems? Once they get the fascia of power God help us....
Edit: Off the top of my head, I seem to recall that every President since Kennedy has lied to us except, possibly, Ford and Carter. Why should anyone vote when the candidates are such losers? Where are the best and brightest?
-Robert
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Great, now Saddam loyalists. Want to be the Nazi Facist? Your grip on reality slipping away ever faster. I suggest you hide under your bed. So, I see you agree we sponsor terrorists. Good deal
The POINT is how things are delt with depends on the situation, and the situation often depends on WHAT the offenders are. Hell, no one said that these people had a good time, no more than under Pinochet, which you curiously avoid dealing with. Get a grip before you have a stroke.
No you pacifists who believe the world could go to hell as long as "I've got mine" who sit around smoking your crack pipes singing Peace Baby, No more war, while watching contently while all the slaughter goes on around the world and do or say nothing and WATCH our boys do the work for you are the ones who are having the strokes because our leaders had the nads to finally shut you the hell up and turn you the hell off. You are the one that agrees we sponsor terrorists, I said nothing of the kind. Get out from under YOUR bed its dark under there.
Again you go on the labling offensive. So be it slick. You know all about "us". You know nothing. You are like our leaders, with more balls than sense, and are glad to have our servicemen committed to having theirs blown off. Instead of reasoning things out, and finding a solution other than picking a fight, you are there wrapped in Ole Glory, which you dishonor with your careless attitude. You still cannot even begin to address the issue. It is completely beyond your meager comprehension. You do great at name calling, but I suggest you do it over the internet, because in real life you will be shocked that certain "pacifists" aren't. Many would rather use force with more restraint, but still have the inclination and ability to use it WHEN NEEDED, however they are quite capable of putting you in time out to be polite. Given a choice between peace and war, you pick the latter.
Your problem is that someone dared to disagree with you. You said something stupid on an internet forum and got called on it. You continue to do so. Worse, you cannot even begin to see why. So you trot out the old crack pipe lines. You sharpen your Bush-like "reasoning" skills, and go for the throat and people with the reasoning ability of a 10 year old (which you so obviously lack) are STILL not be able to see where misunderstanding the fundamental nature of this conflict is a good thing. Shoot first, and justify after. Hopefully in real life you are in a nice safe place kept away from sharp objects.
If you ever decide to engage in rational discussion we might be able to get into hows and whys, but so far you do not show much promise in that regard.
Flame away Bucky.
Look, I simply proposed my OPINION of what terrorist activity in Iraq was before the war. Sure you can pull out your dictionary and quote the defined interpretation of the word is, but I was expressing my opinionated view of terrorism within the dictatorship. Flying planes into buildings is not the only way to achieve it. Flying planes over your populated regions and dumping chemicals to create mass death is pretty damned close to it however. Using torture, murder, rape, depriving entire cities of water, and threats of death to anyone who disagrees is another form of it. Using fear of death and other atrocities to achieve your desired effect is in MY OPINION terrorism. You however decided that since I didn't choose to use a by the websters dictionary defined view of it that NO NO NO!! its not possible to be a terrorist within your own country for which you are a dictator and that I am so much an ignorant fool for believing as such. At least that is how I interpreted your reply.
So yes maybe I did get on the defensive as a result, because nothing is black and white, by the book defined in life, and I feel for the oppressed people of this world and despise those who are in fact pacifist and isolationist who care little to nothing about what goes on behind the Iron curtains of the world because life in America is good. We are the strongest, richest and most capable country in the world and though we can not overturn every regime in the world, we do have the capability to shut down some, and if we dont do it now when we ARE at the top, what can we do for them when all of thier dictatorial governments have fully developed nuclear capabilities?
It is clear that the UN is almost completely incapable of garnering a majority to enforce human rights around the world, so someone sometime has to step up, be bold in spite of public opinion, and stand up for the human rights of others. It is clear that years of sanctions would not and did not do anything to stop SH from violating all that he agreed to, from starving his people in favor of building shrines to himself, from murdering his people in mass. George Bush may have reacted to the worst intel ever gathered on a world wide basis, and maybe he even decieved us in the true threat that Iraq posed on the world, but I believe his overall intention was to right a wrong that his father failed in, and that was to depose SH before he had a chance to murder so many over the past decade. Perhaps it wasnt militarily feasable during that era and SR Bush was right not to move in but he should never have encouraged them to rise up only to turn the cheek when they were being slaughtered. And the rest of the world joined us watching from the side lines.
Im not waving the Bush banner, I am simply stating that we owed these people the freedom we had promised.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Originally posted by: chess9
Chazz: Johnson was a Democrat and he oversaw the killing of plenty of people. Just because we elect Dean, Clark or Gebhart, doesn't mean people will stop dieing. One may reasonably wonder what bit of stupidness any one of them could drag us into. I operate on the premise that if someone is running for President they are, ipso facto, dumber than a box of rocks and not to be trusted. The only elected official I might trust is a write in candidate who stated publicly he did not want to serve.
On the other hand, is our current Genghis Khan worse than the Idi Amin's who are running as Dems? Once they get the fascia of power God help us....
Edit: Off the top of my head, I seem to recall that every President since Kennedy has lied to us except, possibly, Ford and Carter. Why should anyone vote when the candidates are such losers? Where are the best and brightest?
-Robert
I thought this was worth repeating.
If they are the best and the brightest, most likely they are business men and keep as far away from government as possible
Red Dawn, I'm kinda with you on this.
Saddam wasn't good for U.S. interests, and the fact that he killed hundreds of thousands made him even less attracticve (except to those who "make love not war"). The United States could not allow Saddam the power to dominate the Middle East. Saddam gave us the ammo for our proverbial gun, then kicked us in the shins. It's a wonder that we waited 12 years to finish the job!
Nothing is owed to the Iraqi people by the U.S. or it's allies. This action wasn't about making the Iraqi people sleep better. The action was about U.S. interests, and defusing a bomb before it actually was planted (for perhaps the first time in modern history). Saddam could not be trusted as a foe, or a puppet, and had to be removed.
People should get of their high moral horse and realize that it was sound economic and military thinking. Bad PR, but good action. Clinton did better at the PR in Kosovo (which had little economic or military value to the U.S.). Busch should have taken notes.
Saddam wasn't good for U.S. interests, and the fact that he killed hundreds of thousands made him even less attracticve (except to those who "make love not war"). The United States could not allow Saddam the power to dominate the Middle East. Saddam gave us the ammo for our proverbial gun, then kicked us in the shins. It's a wonder that we waited 12 years to finish the job!
Nothing is owed to the Iraqi people by the U.S. or it's allies. This action wasn't about making the Iraqi people sleep better. The action was about U.S. interests, and defusing a bomb before it actually was planted (for perhaps the first time in modern history). Saddam could not be trusted as a foe, or a puppet, and had to be removed.
People should get of their high moral horse and realize that it was sound economic and military thinking. Bad PR, but good action. Clinton did better at the PR in Kosovo (which had little economic or military value to the U.S.). Busch should have taken notes.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter