George Bush
Pages
| Author | Topic: George Bush |
|---|---|
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, January 31 2007 16:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:Can we Can him for this garbage already? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
|
written Wednesday, January 31 2007 17:43
Profile
Which one is Alec? Protocols or the other guy? Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 27
|
written Wednesday, January 31 2007 17:46
Profile
Protocals Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
|
written Wednesday, January 31 2007 17:51
Profile
Ok, thanks. Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 09:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:I never said I meant that seriously... quote:Isn't the fact that they are busy with uranium, that they plan to operate a nuclear thingy (forgot it's English term) and that one of the world's madman is at the top of the opeartion to qualify it as a possible threat. And no, the Lebanon thing was a threat, actually, not a possible one. They kidnapped Israeli soldiers, they bombard(ed) Israel with rockets. That's no longer a posibility, that's an actual threat. Shall we stop about this? I feel it's the same like a Mac-Windows war: none of the parties will be convinced of the other party being right. -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 12:49
Profile
Criticizing the Iraq war on the grounds of its cost in dollars is actually kind of obscene, if you think about it. If Iraq were now peacefully democratic and nobody had been killed since the Republican Guard laid down arms, billions would have been well spent. And the appalling actual death toll would be just as catastrophic if it had cost 10 cents. So the dollar cost is morally negligible in comparison with the human cost. But if Alec is saying that arms companies have fomented the Iraq war for the sake of this morally negligible profit, then I'm prepared to believe they could sink that low, but I don't follow the argument. The makers of tanks and rockets don't get paid for having their products destroyed. They get paid if the products are replaced, but that's not automatic, especially if a high loss rate is making the products look bad. So I'm particularly missing the logic of how an RPG destroying a tank in Iraq would profit Haliburton, which doesn't even make tanks. As a merely trivial point: an RPG can temporarily disable a modern tank with a lucky track hit, but it is just not big enough to destroy a modern tank. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 13:01
Profile
Homepage
quote:Not really. Money represents the time and effort that somebody has put into working instead of doing something they'd rather do. There are about 700,000 hours in an 80-year lifespan. If we say that an average person earns about $10 an hour, that means that for every $7 million spent, one more lifetime of man-hours is wasted -- and every billion dollars is equivalent to 143 lives. [ Thursday, February 01, 2007 13:03: Message edited by: Cryptozoology ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 14:51
Profile
quote:I'm not saying they were not a threat, I'm saying that they killed far more innocent people than necessary, and saying that that would happen with Iran. Nuclear activity does not necessarily men that they are going to attack. Not very many people are stupid enough to attack Isreal unprovoked with the U.S. standing by. It would be suicide. Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 16:03
Profile
Homepage
I wonder how history will look back on the Iraq war. Regardless of whether or not is is a long term success, 20, 50, 100 years from now I think we will look at it as a minor annoyance. It doesn't hold a candle to the World Wars, and it falls far short of Vietnam and Korea as well. Sure it has cost many lives and much money, but I can’t help but think it will all be forgotten. Especially if we follow it up with something bigger, which is entirely possible. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 16:48
Profile
It's very likely if Bush manages to retain his presidency. He could start something huge. Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 17:27
Profile
Homepage
quote:Are you from the United States? Bush can not run for another term. Unless you were thinking he would be impeached, which is less likely to happen than a third term. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 17:40
Profile
Homepage
Tully: I think that may be the first time that I've agreed with you on anything politically related. I'm scared. Kyrek: Although speculation on Bush's assumed lust for power is at times amusing, one must eventually come to grips with the fact that if he pulled any sort of stunt to get around the two-term limit, he would likely be either impeached or assassinated within a matter of days, and possibly both. And I'm quite sure that even he realizes that. -------------------- The Silent Assassin has aquired control of a local board of education. He is now educating our neighbor's ferrari to not park in his favorite spot. -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 18:37
Profile
Homepage
History will look back on our debacle in Iraq as part of the end of post-Cold War optimism and the beginning of War on Terror paranoia and poor policy. I hope it will be regarded as a brief period of stupidity at the beginning of the 21st century, and I'm afraid it will be looked at as the start of an era. —Alorael, who knows that two years can bring a great deal of change. Nevertheless, he'd say that as of the current situation the Republican Party would be unlikely to field Bush as a candidate even if they could if they had any other likely prospects. His approval rating is currently under 30%. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 19:01
Profile
If the Democrats hadn't retaken the Congress, I'm sure some one in the White House was considering how Bush could have suspended the presidential election through an executive order. After all he could believe it was in the best interests of the country that he stay in charge to stay the course. Even if this would be the first time that a war president stayed past his term. Bush still could do this by declaring martial law, but I think he wouldn't last more than a few days before someone got him. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 27
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 19:08
Profile
It wouldn't work, he'd lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3220
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 19:21
Profile
quote:*snicker* Posts: 437 | Registered: Sunday, July 13 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 19:49
Profile
Homepage
The wonderful thing about suspending elections is that you no longer need public opinion. —Alorael, who hears that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. No, not you, Egol. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 20:59
Profile
Homepage
If you're talking about the emperor I think you are, you mean he has dissolved the 'senate' permanently. And replaced it with a council of planetary moffs. As for myself, I keep a council of advisors around so I have someone to blame when things go wrong. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 21:14
Profile
Homepage
I don't think that the Iraq War will be a footnote in history the way that the intervention in Kosovo will be. I suspect that the by-now old joke, "'Iraq' is Arabic for 'Vietnam,'" is a pretty accurate description of how it will be remembered. I think it will be remembered because it has been the most significant military involvement that the United States has had in thirty years, and it has received quite a bit of press over the past few years. I think it will also be remembered as a sham war on phony premises that accomplished nothing. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 21:21
Profile
Homepage
I don't like comparing this war to Vietnam. First of all, the body count would need to be almost ten times what it is now. Second, we lost Vietnam, horribly. Even though the goals in Iraq are kind of shadey and quite possibly non-existent, I wouldn't see it as a loss if we left tomorrow, at least, not a loss like Vietnam was. On the other hand, we have yet to see the results. If Iraq ends up like South Korea, we might look back on Bush as a hero, nauseating as the thought may be. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 21:35
Profile
Actually in some ways Iraq is worse than Vietnam. We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism as part of the domino effect. Our pulling out devastated the region since the communist regimes destroyed their economies and slaughtered the people. It has finally moderated and returned to a viable area. Iraq would be come the terrorist ideal state. Plenty of natural resources (oil) that would finance terror and be used for trade with China and other countries for support and weapons. A large population that now really hates the US for the chaos will provide plenty of new recruits. It would be worse than Taliban Afghanistan which relied on poppies to raise money for drugs. Bush got us into a mess that needs to be solved and not abandoned. But without a strong central government to disband the militias we will have the warlords and terrorists running things. Bush hasn't learned from Afghanistan where the government only controls the areas near the capital and along connecting roads. The outer provinces are almost independent especially near Pakistan. Bush wouldn't care about public opinion if he seized power because his advisors wouldn't let him hear negative reactions. Remember the shocked expression he had at Coretta Scott King's funeral where he was booed by mourners. He usually goes to friendly events where he meets loyal supporters. Congress is now considered hostile territory. [ Thursday, February 01, 2007 21:36: Message edited by: Randomizer ] Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 22:05
Profile
Homepage
quote:I will grant that the number of dead is not equal. However, the number of American dead in WWII was pretty insignificant compared to, say, the Civil War, and we still remember WWII as a major war on the same level. quote:Er, I'm not sure how you're defining a "loss." Vietnam was not a military defeat; it was a PR defeat. The American public soured on the war, and that's why we left, but our military was not defeated by any stretch of the imagination. The Iraq War likewise has not been a military defeat, but it has been a PR disaster. How is it different? quote:Um, is Truman a hero because of the Korean War? Not according to anyone I've ever talked to. [ Thursday, February 01, 2007 22:07: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 23:12
Profile
quote:Granted, but the dollar cost is why the human cost is being laid down. It's not the republic, it's not WMDs, it's not Saddam Hussein, it's the bottom line. quote:Halliburton is a construction and defense contractor - so yes, they don't make tanks, but I was employing metonymy. ('Halliburton' is used to represent the military-industrial complex pretty commonly, although I'll admit kind of hamhandedly.) And the more tanks that get destroyed, the more that have to be replaced. And if they get humiliatingly destroyed, why - that's an excellent opportunity for pork-clogged R&D, where the complex of companies the Pentagon contracts to (with exceptionally little actual competition, so the costs stay absurdly high) churn out marginal improvements for trillions of dollars. And yes, I said 'trillions'. That's the development cycle for you: when you have a budget larger than Congress's discretionary budget to work with - what Ludacris, a greater expert in the field than I, refers to as 'silly money' - you kind of have a free hand to spend that kind of lucre on asinine stuff. quote:Depends on where you put it. An RPG rigged into an improvised mine can destroy a modern tank just fine. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, February 1 2007 23:52
Profile
quote:A nuclear plant. Iran may or may not have nuclear ambitions. Frankly, if a pissant state like North Korea can have them unmolested, the undisputed heavyweight champion of the Middle East kind of has them coming. And just because Ahminwhatever is a crazy jerk doesn't mean he'll nuke anyone. Nuclear weapons are less than useless in combat, because they bear the risk of retaliation. Not even nuclear retaliation, either; use a nuclear weapon unnecessarily and you're gonna be a pariah state forever. The US used nukes on the Empire of Japan, one of the most actively vile nations ever to blight the Earth, and it is still deservedly catching crap for that. Nuking is not done, period. It's too politically messy. That's why nukes are useful: they're a rock so heavy you can't throw it. The mere possbility of firing up the forklift and having a go is enough to get people to shake at your command, though. ... I'd like to pose an uncomfortable dilemma for you all: Iran elected the guy ruling it as democratically as you could expect. He is, in a great many ways, the Shia/Persian answer to George W. Bush. He has a lot of problems, but that's because Iran has a lot of problems. He's an anti-Semite, but France, China, Israel, and Russia are all ruled by dyed-in-the-wool Islamophobes. Doesn't mean they're angling to A-bomb Medina. That's because Ahwhatever rules on a mandate from the Iranian people, who prefer not to face nuclear retaliation, just as Chiruh and Jinwhatsit and Puwhozat and Olmastein rule under mandates from their respective people, who similarly disdain fiery atomic death. However good it might make Ahmadinejad look to nuke Tel Aviv and strut, he'd no sooner pay attention to the counsel that advises he do so than Bush did to that which advised he turn Baghdad (or, lately, Tehran) into glass. (And, of course, strut.) The American people have mastered the atom and that demands an attending level of respect. So have the Iranian people, and they're gonna deserve that same respect when it comes to going to the bargaining table. (Before anyone thinks they are snarky by using the same for North Korea: North Korea is a villainous kleptocracy that oppresses its people. The Iranians, for whatever reason, have willed the oppression onto themselves. The normal laws of diplomacy apply.) ... If you want to know how to disable the like of Ahmadinejad or Bush, it's pretty simple. Kill the rich. I'm serious. Bleed them to death. The class at the top of society (ANY SOCIETY, not just rich or poor!) continuously attempts to agglomerate more and more power and wealth until brought violently to heel. They do this in a variety of ways - much of it driven by their control of the means of acculturization. In America, the interests of the wealthy - oil billionaires, defense contracting tycoons, and other modern robber barons - are represented not just by the idiot-in-chief, but the education system that produced his backers and the society that reinforced their self-destructive behavior. In much of the Middle East, it's much the same - oil tycoons, like the Sauds, descended from old aristocracy with land in the right places, use their tremendous clout to keep the poor oppressively stupid with 'fundamentalist' Islam, which is like its Christian counterpart obsessed with keeping its followers in a pre-Enlightenment stupor. If we had invaded Iraq, redistributed useful property seized from the government-backed elite equally among the people, and held off reactionary efforts at couping the government for a few years, the place wouldn't be the insurgent haven it is now. Nobody fights on a full stomach. Nobody votes for jackasses like Bush or Ahmadinejad if they haven't skipped a few meals - or, at the very least, if they don't want to make sure others do so. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, February 2 2007 01:00
Profile
quote:I think this is simplistic. It's not as though every X dollars spent supporting US troops in Iraq means one more person conscripted from their job testing game consoles, and sent to a chain gang in the depleted uranium mines. If armored divisions could be turned into school districts as easily as swords are beaten into ploughshares, then a peaceful Iraq might have been given some good schools for the same money. But a peaceful Iraq could build its own schools, while right now it needs peace before primers. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |