The Presidential Inaguration

Smooth

Like

Butter

I'm sorry I just got done watching Bush's speech, and two things.

#1. I don't think I have ever been more terrifed of a world leader in my short lifetime.

#2. He's no longer an idiot, he's an idiot with a plan...

a plan to get us all killed in a nuclear retaliation from some third world country that he will decide to invade and half of the troops he will send over there won't even know how to pronounce.



*Bush' speech summary for those who missed it*

"End tyranny all over the world in the name of God." (And I don't wanna hear anyone complaining about that summary because that is exactly what he fucking meant by invoking God that much in his speech, that God gives him the right to do whatever he feels is just, and that should scare you.)


So in summary, I've always hated the guy, but now I actually fear him.

I've been terrified for years.

That's cool. As long as you admit he won this last election fair and square. I mean shit, our fellow Americans want apocalypse....let'em have it.

Well yeah in the creeping sense I was. But now its more like, being terrified after a revelation, y'know?

Like you just saw the some guy who has a gun to your head's soul and you realized he is crazy enough to pull the trigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltor

That's cool. As long as you admit he won this last election fair and square. I mean shit, our fellow Americans want apocalypse....let'em have it.

---

I still think the system for doing elections in America is totally flawed, wrong, and yes was somewhat corrupted last election, but not flawed, wrong, and corrupted enough to cost an election.

I still wanna see the system changed though, before it gets bad enough that it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltor

I mean shit, our fellow Americans want apocalypse....let'em have it.

---

That's fine, but can they wait a couple of years so I can finish getting my degree and get out of the country?

You talk about Bush and how you don't like him too much.

Thats a good summary as well.

... *shrugs and continues eating his breakfast*

That was Bush's the last speech done for him by Mike Gerson, who won't be staying through the next term. I guess you can say he decided to go out with a bang by crafting something laden with abstract ideological promises, threats, and accusations.

You shouldn't worry so much YAWA, all of what was said on that podium was just lip service. None of it will likely come to anything.

:\ Quite early to be overreacting to a flowery speech isn't it? We'll see what happens - country is still divided, he has a fair share of obstacles to cross in Congress and whatever he means by that end tyranny business (man thats a hella tall order) is going to have a hard time flying with the American public in the face of over 1,000 US troops killed. Personally I think January 31st will be one of the most important dates this year, might even dictate how long we remain over there. I hope it all works out really well, I dont want my army friends going to Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-K

... *shrugs and continues eating his breakfast*

---

...*grabs box of cinnemon toast crunch, pours another bowl*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by station82o

:\ Quite early to be overreacting to a flowery speech isn't it? We'll see what happens - country is still divided, he has a fair share of obstacles to cross in Congress and whatever he means by that end tyranny business (man thats a hella tall order) is going to have a hard time flying with the American public in the face of over 1,000 US troops killed. Personally I think January 31st will be one of the most important dates this year, might even dictate how long we remain over there. I hope it all works out really well, I dont want my army friends going to Iraq.

---

Creepy speech. Thats all I'm saying.

I doubt he'll be able to unite this country, he just isn't capable of it, and considering he had a get out of jail free card going with 9/11 and he still couldn't keep this country together.

He does have a lot to own up to. He has since his administration made the war mistakes. The truth is though you shouldn't worry about him trying to fly with the American public, he's been President long enough now that we should all know he flies pretty high by himself.

If its not Iraq they go to, it will be Iran eventually, but I feel ya, I don't want people I know getting shipped out either.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind Iran's government being toppled...I'd like to visit the land someday in the future but without worry of being arrested or vanished for whatever reason... but if it meant US military intervention then forget it, lets get the soldiers back home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

If its not Iraq they go to, it will be Iran eventually, but I feel ya, I don't want people I know getting shipped out either.

---

And who will we send there? If you take the troops out of Iraq to invade Iran, the militants just spill into Iraq and install the Revolutionary Muslim Republic Tehran has been building on since the fall of Saddam. We could end up playing war musical chairs with these people for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by station82o

To be honest, I wouldn't mind Iran's government being toppled...I'd like to visit the land someday in the future but without worry of being arrested or vanished for whatever reason... but if it meant US military intervention then forget it, lets get the soldiers back home.

---

FACT: It does not take U.S. military intervention to topple a dictator. If we just supported the pro-democracy youth in Iran, they could eventually change things themselves from within. This method works a lot better than 'occupation' unless you're just trying to secure oil fields and centers of commerce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

That was Bush's the last speech done for him by Mike Gerson, who won't be staying through the next term. I guess you can say he decided to go out with a bang by crafting something laden with abstract ideological promises, threats, and accusations.

You shouldn't worry so much YAWA, all of what was said on that podium was just lip service. None of it will likely come to anything.

---

I really can't see how reading a speech like that at a supposedly uniting event is gonna do him any favors, but I'm just stating that I thought the guy was a mongrel idiot before, but a well meaning mongrel idiot. Now I just think he's trying to get us all killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

And who will we send there? If you take the troops out of Iraq to invade Iran, the militants just spill into Iraq and install the Revolutionary Muslim Republic Tehran has been building on since the fall of Saddam. We could end up playing war musical chairs with these people for decades.

---

Hey I hear ya Gozen, but you know thats not from my mouth, there is more and more buzz about having to invade Iran going around and you know after the way we went into Iraq, well sorry, but I can't just dismiss it and say to myself, "Nah, that doesn't make any sense, so it can't happen...", y'know, considering thats what I said before the Iraq war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by station82o

Personally I think January 31st will be one of the most important dates this year, might even dictate how long we remain over there. I hope it all works out really well, I dont want my army friends going to Iraq.

---

Yeah, there's pretty much no chance in hell of that working out well.

For the record, this isn't about Republican or Demorcrat to me anymore.

Liberal or Conservative.

I just think he's a dangerous, stupid, President, who is right in between leaving my kids alone with Glen Danzing, and getting into a car with Jeremy behind the wheel right after he broke his glasses reaching for a bottle of vodka, on the having faith in people list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Yeah, there's pretty much no chance in hell of that working out well.

---

It's a good excuse for Bush to pull out and claim victory. It's like telling the girl the next morning you've got a important meeting and can't be late, and that she doesn't need your number because you've memorized hers.

You know, as much as I can't believe he got re-elected, he did. As much as I know all of the rest of the world is going to just sit back and say hah, told you when it blows up in his face, I applaud Bush for doing something that very few Presidents have done. Actually lead. I don't like where he's going, I don't believe a word he says about anything other than oil being important (not that I have actually heard him say that), but I'll give him this much, if he pulls off this whole tyrany "bad" freedom "good" thing in even two or three countrys he'll go down as one of the greatest presidents in history.

I'll just use one other president as an example, though it really does gall me to make the comparison. Abraham Lincoln was a failure at everything he did in life until he somehow managed to make it into office. The south seceeded specifically because he won, yet he still is revered as one of if not the greatest president in history because he stubbornly held firm, freed the slaves and fed thousands of Americans into a meat grinding civil war, and saved the union, then got capped in the head before he could screw that up too.

The difference between the two is obvious of course, Bush couldn't write a meaningful speech if he was given Shakespear as a consultant, while Lincoln wrote two of the most powerful speechs in the history of the world, the Gettysburg Address and his second Inaguartion Address. But American history is full of presidents that were viewed as morons and idiots, and you seem to have done alright for yourselves.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/featu...inaugural.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Error

You know, as much as I can't believe he got re-elected, he did. As much as I know all of the rest of the world is going to just sit back and say hah, told you when it blows up in his face, I applaud Bush for doing something that very few Presidents have done. Actually lead. I don't like where he's going, I don't believe a word he says about anything other than oil being important (not that I have actually heard him say that), but I'll give him this much, if he pulls off this whole tyrany "bad" freedom "good" thing in even two or three countrys he'll go down as one of the greatest presidents in history.

I'll just use one other president as an example, though it really does gall me to make the comparison. Abraham Lincoln was a failure at everything he did in life until he somehow managed to make it into office. The south seceeded specifically because he won, yet he still is revered as one of if not the greatest president in history because he stubbornly held firm, freed the slaves and fed thousands of Americans into a meat grinding civil war, and saved the union, then got capped in the head before he could screw that up too.

The difference between the two is obvious of course, Bush couldn't write a meaningful speech if he was given Shakespear as a consultant, while Lincoln wrote two of the most powerful speechs in the history of the world, the Gettysburg Address and his second Inaguartion Address. But American history is full of presidents that were viewed as morons and idiots, and you seem to have done alright for yourselves.

---

I guess it really comes down to intetions.

A good president can be a moron (Carter).
A good president can also be a liar (Clinton).
A good president can be a leader (Roosevelt).
A good president can be a terrible human being (Nixon).
A good president can be ambitious (Kennedy).
A good president can make unpopular choices and be right while everyone thinks he's wrong (Lincoln).

But can a good president be all of those?

No. He can't.

I swear to God, this is the most boring and tired topic in the world.

I said the same thing about the abortion topic but it didn't stop that bullshit from going three pages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

I guess it really comes down to intetions.

A good president can be a moron (Carter).
A good president can also be a liar (Clinton).
A good president can be a leader (Roosevelt).
A good president can be a terrible human being (Nixon).
A good president can be ambitious (Kennedy).
A good president can make unpopular choices and be right while everyone thinks he's wrong (Lincoln).

But can a good president be all of those?

No. He can't.

---

I'm sorry but Carter was not a good president. He's become a good elder statesman, but he was a moron in office. I'd use Reagan for that one myself.

And can a president who was literally forced to resign be considered a good one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Error

I'm sorry but Carter was not a good president. He's become a good elder statesman, but he was a moron in office. I'd use Reagan for that one myself.

And can a president who was literally forced to resign be considered a good one?

---

Eh I just liked Carter as that example. Thats me though. Also Reaganomics erased everything good Reagan ever was responsible for in my eyes.


And Nixon? Uhh ask some conservatives that question. They still think what Clinton did was worse.

And he was pretty good at foreign policy. "Only Nixon could go to China."

When he first came into power, his spoken goal was to make the country united. He has made the country more divided than ever. I actually heard a woman on the radio (NPR) yesterday saying that her love for Bush is founded through her love for God.

I could move back to the UK, but it is just as bad. Tony Blair has done a better job with talking to the public than Bush, but the country has also divided. He has the worlds superpower on his side. That's what matters to him. I think that Blair should have teamed up with the Canadians, or the French.... (not the French Canadians) ;)

Bush needs to invent a characteristic salute to greet his followers. Then he'll earn the spot in history he's been clamoring for all this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

And Nixon? Uhh ask some conservatives that question. They still think what Clinton did was worse.

---

Nixon covered up what somebody else did. Clinton covered up what he did. Of course what Clinton did was worse.

What sort of logic is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

What sort of logic is that?

---

Ummmm...

Cover up = Cover up
Original Act > Nothing

Clinton is worse. How could you possibly see it any other way?

YAWA, just move to fucking Europe already, shack up with Almaci, and be happy. Stop polluting TNL with this garbage.

"A good president can be a moron (Carter).
A good president can also be a liar (Clinton).
A good president can be a leader (Roosevelt).
A good president can be a terrible human being (Nixon).
A good president can be ambitious (Kennedy).
A good president can make unpopular choices and be right while everyone thinks he's wrong (Lincoln). "

This makes the least sense out of everything that doesn't make sense here. Err, I forgot to put in the last line too.

YAWA, your political wit is awesome. And your av adds a nice touch of, "You Republicans don't know shit." Keep on posting that stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedCoKid

YAWA, your political wit is awesome. And your av adds a nice touch of, "You Republicans don't know shit." Keep on posting that stuff!

---

You can add wit to nonsense all day, and it is still nonsense, with or without Hobbes.

This was the first inauguration speech I've missed. I can't believe I forgot.

I'm too lazy to look, but whoever brought up Clinton first loses. And Carter, though a great and pleasant man, was not a good President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

YAWA, just move to fucking Europe already, shack up with Almaci, and be happy. Stop polluting TNL with this garbage.

---

Forgive me, I wasn't sure the Presidential inaguration was off limits. I wasn't aware recent news was off limits either, as was having or stating opinions.

Its a fucking topic. Its a highly heated debated topic, and this speech is a recent entry into that topic, and yes its fucking controversial and is setting off a lot of people. If you wanna go back to tricking people into looking at pictures of dicks and shit, then go post in the veteran's board. Otherwise, stay out of the topic unless you have opinion to share.

All the articles are from Drudge, Diffusion, headlines, y'know caught my eye, cause the rest of the world is stating how much they hate us and how ridiculous Bush looked and sounded yesterday, IN RECORD FUCKING NUMBERS.

Its worth a fucking topic.

Also, don't ever tell me to leave my country again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

You can add wit to nonsense all day, and it is still nonsense, with or without Hobbes.

---

Wit, or nonsense its all opinion. All in the spirit of getting someone to think about something in a different way. The only bad opinions are held by people who treat what they believe as fact, and only have an ear for the things that support their own cause.

YAWA is right. The first amendment protects liberals' rights to whine about everything, especially how the rest of the world loved us while Clinton was in office. :rolleyes:

As your president I solemnly swear to goof off and eat candy.

It's amazing how Peggy Noonan, Reagan's speech writer, could dis Bush after inflating his image on MSNBC during the campaign. I had to doublecheck the author by the time I reached the end of the article.

She basically called him drunk in grandiose ideas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

This was the first inauguration speech I've missed. I can't believe I forgot.

I'm too lazy to look, but whoever brought up Clinton first loses. And Carter, though a great and pleasant man, was not a good President.

---

Ok fine I'll change it to Reagan, jesus. I was just trying to make a point about something that really doesn't make much sense now that I think about it.

As your president I solemnly swear to operate with my own agenda, make bad decisions, and get you killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

YAWA is right. The first amendment protects liberals' rights to whine about everything, especially how the rest of the world loved us while Clinton was in office. :rolleyes:

---

I like to think of the first amendment more as, the right for liberals to protect conservatives from their own inablity to question authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedCoKid

It's amazing how Peggy Noonan, Reagan's speech writer, could dis Bush after inflating his image on MSNBC during the campaign. I had to doublecheck the author by the time I reached the end of the article.

---

Thats really the only reason I made this thread, because it was her dissing Bush's speech and agenda. Not just the regular round of liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

As your president I solemnly swear to operate with my own agenda, make bad decisions, and get you killed.

---

You sound like our manager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

As your president I solemnly swear to operate with my own agenda, make bad decisions, and get you killed.

---

Thats a good impersonation.

The first article critizes the loftiness of the goals, of all things. I fail to see how that is bad.

Conservatives: I want everything back to the '50s!

Liberals: I want everything back to the '60s!

Everybody Else: I want pie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

I like to think of the first amendment more as, the right for liberals to protect conservatives from their own inablity to question authority.

---

Questioning authority != Anarchy, not matter what Harvard teaches to the contrary.

I just want some blueberry mini-muffins. And the 90s.

Well let me put it this way. This speech, is at the least supposed to be the one time the President should visibly make an attempt at uniting the country after a heated election. Also this woman criticizing Bush in anyway is pretty big news.

Did you hear one thing (I'm not looking for much here, just one or two little bones he could have thrown) that would have appealled to the other side of the coin in that speech. The 50 million registered voters who don't believe in him, or his policies, or his God, or his war, or his oil, or his family. The President of the United States needs to know how to compromise something and for the state of the union, even if it goes against his own beliefs, because he is not only representing the people who voted him in, he is representing the people he didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Its a fucking topic. Its a highly heated debated topic

---

The only person heated here is you. The rest of us are apathetic or annoyed that this topic is here to be wanked on for the 500th time.

Wanking is fun. Sometimes I use both hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Questioning authority != Anarchy, not matter what Harvard teaches to the contrary.

---

The ablity to question authority, in all its forms, is the only thing that makes our state of democracy (in theory) uncorruptable. To take away the other half who question what one parties agenda does over another would be to sign this country over to tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omfgninjas

The only person heated here is you. The rest of us are apathetic or annoyed that this topic is here to be wanked on for the 500th time.

---

Then go post tubgirl in veteran's board, what do you want from me? I post one topic a month at best guy, and I thought it was interesting the president's address was so poorly recieved. Next time I promise I'll ask your permission first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

The President of the United States needs to know how to compromise something and for the state of the union, even if it goes against his own beliefs, because he is not only representing the people who voted him in, he is representing the people he didn't.

---

No he doesn't. A President with a majority in both houses of Congress can do whatever the hell he wants, as long as it doesn't piss his party off. Where was Willy compromising when he had the same situation? You forget that the country was just as polarized then. Just because that fat idiot still couldn't get anything passed doesn't mean that Bush is not playing by the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

The ablity to question authority, in all its forms, is the only thing that makes our state of democracy (in theory) uncorruptable. To take away the other half who question what one parties agenda does over another would be to sign this country over to tyranny.

---

Nobody is taking away anything. We also have a right to ignore tired psychobabble.

"The 50 million registered voters who don't believe in him, or his policies, or his God, or his war, or his oil, or his family. The President of the United States needs to know how to compromise something and for the state of the union, even if it goes against his own beliefs, because he is not only representing the people who voted him in, he is representing the people he didn't."

First of all, EVERYONE compromises. Do you think he did/will do everything he wants to? Of course not. Second of all, if you are truly supposed to represent whateveryone wants equally, why have a platform? Why not just go up and there and say "I'll do what you want when I get in"?

So question authority is a bad thing now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

So question authority is a bad thing now?

---

No one said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

No he doesn't. A President with a majority in both houses of Congress can do whatever the hell he wants, as long as it doesn't piss his party off. Where was Willy compromising when he had the same situation? You forget that the country was just as polarized then. Just because that fat idiot still couldn't get anything passed doesn't mean that Bush is not playing by the rules.

---

Yes he should. So he should run the country like there is a 100 million people in it who don't exist is what your saying right? Are you out of your mind?

And christ get over your Clinton obession ok, Clinton > Bush.

So I guess your telling me its awesome that Bush is in and he can do no wrong because when the little name tag comes up on screen when he gives a speech, it says (R) next to it.

Which is nothing you haven't stated to me before.

Just because you don't approve of something he does doesn't mean he's not compromising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Clinton > Bush

---

I love the unbridled arrogance that it takes to state this bullshit. The people that matter in this country are better off now than they were in 2000, and the world is a safer place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

"The 50 million registered voters who don't believe in him, or his policies, or his God, or his war, or his oil, or his family. The President of the United States needs to know how to compromise something and for the state of the union, even if it goes against his own beliefs, because he is not only representing the people who voted him in, he is representing the people he didn't."

First of all, EVERYONE compromises. Do you think he did/will do everything he wants to? Of course not. Second of all, if you are truly supposed to represent whateveryone wants equally, why have a platform? Why not just go up and there and say "I'll do what you want when I get in"?

---

Who said it had to go to that extreme? I didn't say that at all.

I simply said, to be a uniter (which is what he claimed to be), hell to be any kind of politician at all, he must take reponsiblity for the whole country. He is unwilling to even take responsiblity for his own actions (when the press asked him if there was one mistake he made in his first term that he'd like to change, he said he couldn't think of anything).

I'm saying you there must be at least some part of you that is a diplomat to be president and this one has shown when push comes to shove, its just not in his blood.

Let me put it this way, I could deal with Bush senior as president, and before that I could deal with Reagan, because they both made efforts to appease. They weren't who I would have voted for, but I didn't hate them. You guys really have to realize something about this shit, and that is, for me at least, its not about the party affiliation, its about the man.

I hate the man, and his beliefs, not the (R) next to his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I love the unbridled arrogance that it takes to state this bullshit. The people that matter in this country are better off now than they were in 2000, and the world is a safer place.

---

No they aren't and no it isn't.

The end.


(Wow Yoshi its a lot of fun to answer things like you, I don't have to even remotely try to explain myself. I wonder if this is what its like to be a conservative)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

No they aren't and no it isn't.

---

Explain how it is not safer. The only things that have changed since 2000 is that the Taliban and Saddam have been removed from power. Did that make the world less safe?

"when the press asked him if there was one mistake he made in his first term that he'd like to change, he said he couldn't think of anything"

So he's confident. For some reason, if he did name something, that still wouldn't change anyone's opinion of him...

...but I think there are things he'd do differently, regardless of his admittance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

No one said that.

---

Of course not, they're too afraid of being labeled a 'terror suspect' to say anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

So he's confident.

---

He should have answered that he wasted time asking for the other side of the aisle's opinions before he figured out that they don't have any and that they are just against whatever he decides to do.

Reading Yoshi's posts makes my nose bleed.

Dude, I'm sorry, but I like you a lot more when you stay the fuck away from politics. Let's stick to playing games and hating on women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Explain how it is not safer. The only things that have changed since 2000 is that the Taliban and Saddam have been removed from power. Did that make the world less safe?

---

The Iraq war has made the area unstable, garnering support for future terroists, when we leave that country will be worse off that it was, in that there will be an almost immediate breakdown of any semblance of a control system there.


Also we still haven't gotten Osma Bin Laden, Iran has nuclear weapons, and North Korea might someday send some our way just for the fuck of it. Also we lied to the rest of the world about WMD's so they are kind of mad as well.

Oh yeah and...



I feel safe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

"when the press asked him if there was one mistake he made in his first term that he'd like to change, he said he couldn't think of anything"

So he's confident. For some reason, if he did name something, that still wouldn't change anyone's opinion of him...

...but I think there are things he'd do differently, regardless of his admittance

---

It was a chance to show a humble side for a change. Him answering that question truthfully would have gone a long way to me (at least me anyway) believing this President can admit mistakes, and try to fix failures.

Instead he answered it with a smugness combined with a cluelessness that I don't believe I've ever seen before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

He should have answered that he wasted time asking for the other side of the aisle's opinions before he figured out that they don't have any and that they are just against whatever he decides to do.

---

Hang on wait a minute...

The other side hates this man with a venom I can't describe Yoshi, I'll give you that. But that doesn't mean he hasn't given them every reason to attack (I'm surprised the Dem's are as incompetent as they are right now, I know the Republicans would have had this guy impeached by now if he was a Democrat).

More so that doesn't mean I am shaped by a consensus liberal opinion on all of this. I do despise him, but really wouldn't care if he was Republican or a Democrat, if it was this man in office, I'd despise him.

You honestly can't sit there and tell me that you feel the same way. That if this man was a democrat you'd defend him so vehemently. Cause I know I'd hate him just the same no matter which party he was associated with.

"and try to fix failures"

He's too busy trying to fix other people's failures. Whether that is good or bad, I can't say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

No they aren't and no it isn't.

---

Are you saying that the people who matter (the rich folks) aren't better off now than they were before Bush? I think Yoshi's right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

"and try to fix failures"

He's too busy trying to fix other people's failures. Whether that is good or bad, I can't say.

---

No he's too busy trying to fix one persons failure...

His father's, in Iraq.

No, that's just rhetorical nonsense. All you see is Iraq, and until you see anything else, threads like this will always be the exact same way this one is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

No, that's just rhetorical nonsense. All you see is Iraq, and until you see anything else, threads like this will always be the exact same way this one is.

---

That is not all I see. His priority being that mistake, which he need not have taken on his shoulders now. His focus should have been Afghanastan, economy, North Korea, in that order after 9/11.

And we went to Afghanistan. And the economy is being worked on. And North Korea just sits there and does nothing, so it's not really a high priority right now. North Korea is going to take out North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

And we went to Afghanistan. And the economy is being worked on.

---

You obviously know dick about Afghanistan. They've become a narco-economy just like they were prior to the Taliban, when we PAID the Taliban to take care of the druglords in the country. Now, the druglords are back.

And before you cry the praises of the U.S. puppet administration there, you need to come to grips with the fact that they control next to nothing outside the Kabul city limits.

"And before you cry the praises of the U.S. puppet administration there, you need to come to grips with the fact that they control next to nothing outside the Kabul city limits"

Which is more than they did before we went there. I don't see any other country doing a bit of damn anywhere, so how can you say "oh this should have been a prioirity" when it was for ONLY us and no one else? Can't get much higher than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Which is more than they did before we went there. I don't see any other country doing a bit of damn anywhere, so how can you say "oh this should have been a prioirity" when it was for ONLY us and no one else? Can't get much higher than that.

---

What the hell are you talking about? Look, the point is we did a good thing invading Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban. Anyone would have done that, it was an unavoidable course of action. However, the regime we put in place in the aftermath shouldn't have been a corporate puppet who'll just let the nation fall back into the hands of the druglords and warlords.

" Anyone would have done that, it was an unavoidable course of action."

Well EVERYONE else seemed to avoid it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Well EVERYONE else seemed to avoid it.

---

But at least we had their support then, even if they didn't lend a hand. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Well EVERYONE else seemed to avoid it.

---

Oh so there weren't any foreign troops fighting with us in Afghanistan, eh?

God, you just spout this garbage and have no idea what you're saying. You don't research any of it.

"Oh so there weren't any foreign troops fighting with us in Afghanistan, eh?"

Very few. We compromised (and still do) the MAJORITY of the number of troops there. So if it was SOOOOO unavoidable, why were there more Americans than non-Americans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Very few. We compromised (and still do) the MAJORITY of the number of troops there. So if it was SOOOOO unavoidable, why were there more Americans than non-Americans?

---

Hmm..I dunno, maybe it's because we were the ones who were attacked?! I'm sure if we wanted to build a Coalition to invade Afghanistan we would have got a lot more help than we did with Iraq. Can you guess why?

Because you said so?

"I'm sure if we wanted to build a Coalition to invade Afghanistan "

Well, it was so unavoidable, I'm sure someone else was going to do it. Oh wait. Nope, that was us again!

Joust, no offense, but he had you at hello on this one.

How so? If everyone would have helped us, why didn't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

However, the regime we put in place in the aftermath shouldn't have been a corporate puppet who'll just let the nation fall back into the hands of the druglords and warlords.

---

Considering that the regime it replaced was also put there by the U.S., what'd you expect?

The U.S. has done nothing but fuck up in situations like this over the last 20 years. What do you expect when the president talks about "spreading freedom" when he's sitting on a half dozen territories which he refuses to address.

It's no wonder we have no credibility around the world.

..and I thought this was funny. It's from CNN:

Quote:

---

Cheney said the Bush administration might seek U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program if necessary. The administration prefers to address the problem with diplomacy and doesn't want more war in the Middle East, he said.

---

:lol: Pathetic.

We didn't ask. It was our thing. I wouldn't interfere if someone killed your best friend and you wanted revenge, but I would help if you asked.

We didn't ask. It was our thing. I wouldn't interfere if someone killed your best friend and you wanted revenge, but I would help if you asked.

But "...and taking down the Taliban" is good for everyone right? Which is the point I'm trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

But "...and taking down the Taliban" is good for everyone right? Which is the point I'm trying to make.

---

I understand. However, hardly anyone knew or cared about the Taliban before 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

I understand. However, hardly anyone knew or cared about the Taliban before 9/11.

---

Except the Bush administration, which was giving them $43 million in taxpayer dollars.

You know what I mean, you smartass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

You know what I mean, you smartass.

---

Yeah I do. I still love you too, baby. If that means anything anymore. We could still work it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

who'll just let the nation fall back into the hands of the druglords and warlords.

---

As long as the heroin industry is free market, all is good.

"HAY GUYZ, OMG U HEER WHAT BUSH SAID? THE SKY IS FALLING! WTF!"


how fucking boring.


I still read all 4 pages

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

a plan to get us all killed in a nuclear retaliation from some third world country.

---

I love hearing about this, the US getting hit with a nuclear attack of sorts from some third world country. It's not going to happen, no matter how much your idealogy makes you think it can happen. Do you know anything about missile ballistics? Do you know how time consuming and expensive it is to develop them? The only country that presents a viable threat to the US as a nuclear power is N. Korea and they present a very very very small threat. They may have the nukes but I'd like to know just how they would get them here, and no, they're not going to use one of those IRBM's they fired into the Sea of Japan last year. That was just the media trying to scare you so they could line their pockets some more.

You can argue that there is 4 other countries in the world that could nuke the US (not including ourselves), France, Great Britian, Russia and China. France and Great Britian probably couldn't do it, Russia could, they have tons of ICBM's laying around and China might be able to do it. China spent years working on their ICBM technology and they could never get it to work and it is believed they finally did get it to work by using technology from a US rocket that crashed (Conspiracy relating to Bill Clinton, true or not, we're not getting into that).

Let's just say for a second that N. Korea (as they're the only third world country in the world that is likely to be able to develop this technology, although it is also very unlikely at the same time) was able to develop an IRBM that could reach the US and they decided to fire one. We would most likely be aware immediatly and would shoot it down. IRBM's fly in the atmosphere, hell, a fighter jet could probably intercept it. The military thinks AEGIS Cruisers can shoot ICBM's down which re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at over 11,000 miles per hour, this has not been tested but the SAM targeting systems on AEGIS cruisers are pretty advanced stuff.

Fear not YAWA, unless we really really piss Russia or China off, nobody is going to hitting the US with a nuclear strike (although I would say a terrorist attack involving a "suitcase bomb" is a possibility but still not likely).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Let me put it this way, I could deal with Bush senior as president, and before that I could deal with Reagan, because they both made efforts to appease. They weren't who I would have voted for, but I didn't hate them. You guys really have to realize something about this shit, and that is, for me at least, its not about the party affiliation, its about the man.

---

Bush Senior over Bush Junior? Why, exactly? Bush Junior (Dubbya) isn't a globalist prick who convinced one country to go to war with another and went to war with that country simply to test out his new military toys and then just up and left a few thousand well-meaning revolutionaries to be killed.

In the conspiracy realm Bush Sr. is also supposedly affialiated with the Illumanati (SP) to a good extent, I believe you subscribe to a lot of this stuff (and no, I'm not making fun of you or criticizing you).

A lot of the bad stuff people say about Dubya, I don't think it's true, although Bush Sr. seems like the type, definately. I'll take Dubya over his Globalist Old-Money pop anyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

(Wow Yoshi its a lot of fun to answer things like you, I don't have to even remotely try to explain myself. I wonder if this is what its like to be a conservative)

---

This is really funny, nice wit there :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I love hearing about this, the US getting hit with a nuclear attack of sorts from some third world country. It's not going to happen, no matter how much your idealogy makes you think it can happen. Do you know anything about missile ballistics? Do you know how time consuming and expensive it is to develop them? The only country that presents a viable threat to the US as a nuclear power is N. Korea and they present a very very very small threat. They may have the nukes but I'd like to know just how they would get them here, and no, they're not going to use one of those IRBM's they fired into the Sea of Japan last year. That was just the media trying to scare you so they could line their pockets some more.

You can argue that there is 4 other countries in the world that could nuke the US (not including ourselves), France, Great Britian, Russia and China. France and Great Britian probably couldn't do it, Russia could, they have tons of ICBM's laying around and China might be able to do it. China spent years working on their ICBM technology and they could never get it to work and it is believed they finally did get it to work by using technology from a US rocket that crashed (Conspiracy relating to Bill Clinton, true or not, we're not getting into that).

Let's just say for a second that N. Korea (as they're the only third world country in the world that is likely to be able to develop this technology, although it is also very unlikely at the same time) was able to develop an IRBM that could reach the US and they decided to fire one. We would most likely be aware immediatly and would shoot it down. IRBM's fly in the atmosphere, hell, a fighter jet could probably intercept it. The military thinks AEGIS Cruisers can shoot ICBM's down which re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at over 11,000 miles per hour, this has not been tested but the SAM targeting systems on AEGIS cruisers are pretty advanced stuff.

Fear not YAWA, unless we really really piss Russia or China off, nobody is going to hitting the US with a nuclear strike (although I would say a terrorist attack involving a "suitcase bomb" is a possibility but still not likely).

---

Hahaha, yeah thats why I posted a link to the Boston "dirty bomb" story.

But yeah I was just going over the top for effect on that statement. Also, just for the record, (and to add a little courtesy in this thread) I listen to your views Gohron (even though we don't usually agree), and want to acknowledge you for avoiding the general sweeping statement thing in your answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

Bush Senior over Bush Junior? Why, exactly? Bush Junior (Dubbya) isn't a globalist prick who convinced one country to go to war with another and went to war with that country simply to test out his new military toys and then just up and left a few thousand well-meaning revolutionaries to be killed.

---

I didn't quite have the, in the passenger seat with a drunk driver at the wheel thing going on, that I do now.

Quote:

---

In the conspiracy realm Bush Sr. is also supposedly affialiated with the Illumanati (SP) to a good extent, I believe you subscribe to a lot of this stuff (and no, I'm not making fun of you or criticizing you).

---

No I know. Actually if you get really deep into the illumanati stuff, the shit really hit the fan with Lyndon Johnson.

Quote:

---

A lot of the bad stuff people say about Dubya, I don't think it's true, although Bush Sr. seems like the type, definately. I'll take Dubya over his Globalist Old-Money pop anyday.

---

We only differ here I think because I'm a lot more of a means to and end type of guy. I think a lot of conservatives would be surprised with how many little things this Bush could have done to silence the critics, and the opposition. Really think about it. The distrust was there, but so was the sympathy (after 9/11). I just don't understand why he went about shit the way he did, and split this country in two in the process.

That is a greater crime than anything his father did in my opinion (though I don't think he was a model president, he certainly was a competent one).

Quote:

---

This is really funny, nice wit there :P

---

eh thanks :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

You obviously know dick about Afghanistan. They've become a narco-economy just like they were prior to the Taliban, when we PAID the Taliban to take care of the druglords in the country. Now, the druglords are back.

And before you cry the praises of the U.S. puppet administration there, you need to come to grips with the fact that they control next to nothing outside the Kabul city limits.

---

I know an Army Ranger/Marine (he's done both) who was in Afghanistan. From all the stories he told me, the drug problem is being dealt with very aggressively and with probably what you would consider a violation of human rights. Things don't always happen real quick, but with troops in the country who so far in all of our battles and combat have come no where near being matched by any other force violent and destructive problems can be dealt with. I know we've all talked about the new generation of terrorists and how we can't defeat them and all but think of it like this. If the fighting that's going on in Iraq now continues with the same intensity it's going at now we may have 10,000 dead troops in a decade (probably less as they will adapt to their enviorment much more effectively by then) but do some number crunching...how many dead insurgents will their be? These people cannot continue to keep up this fight forever, their weapons are old, they're running out of rockets for their 40 year old RPG's at an alarming rate and each successive wave that comes behind them is less and less skilled. If this fight goes on there will be nobody left that is able to fight in the Middle East, they don't have a high enough population of able-bodied men and women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I know an Army Ranger/Marine (he's done both) who was in Afghanistan. From all the stories he told me, the drug problem is being dealt with very aggressively and with probably what you would consider a violation of human rights. Things don't always happen real quick, but with troops in the country who so far in all of our battles and combat have come no where near being matched by any other force violent and destructive problems can be dealt with. I know we've all talked about the new generation of terrorists and how we can't defeat them and all but think of it like this. If the fighting that's going on in Iraq now continues with the same intensity it's going at now we may have 10,000 dead troops in a decade (probably less as they will adapt to their enviorment much more effectively by then) but do some number crunching...how many dead insurgents will their be? These people cannot continue to keep up this fight forever, their weapons are old, they're running out of rockets for their 40 year old RPG's at an alarming rate and each successive wave that comes behind them is less and less skilled. If this fight goes on there will be nobody left that is able to fight in the Middle East, they don't have a high enough population of able-bodied men and women.

---

Peace at any price? No thanks.

I submit to you that they CAN continue this forever, because they've embraced a cult of death within their religion. They're breeding new 'martyrs' everyday or converting others left in the wreckage of our stupid bombing campaigns.

I mean, you think about this. If someone invaded your country, bombed your home, left you with no job or any way to sustain yourself. What would you do? Wouldn't you want to fight back?

As long as we're there, they will fight us.

I couldn't stand watching it for more than 20 minutes. It made me kind of sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Err, I forgot to put in the last line too.

---

You know how I remember to to quote people properly... BY USING THE FUCKING QOUTE BUTTON IN THE GODDAMN CORNER.

Nobody is ever going to fire nukes again. Ever. Why, you ask? Because whoever gets fired at will fire back. It's called a domino effect. Whenever people of a country get attacked, they want to attack back. Case in point: after 9/11 we wanted BLOOD, and blood we got. A few years ago, if a Palestinian would fire an RPG into a market, the Israeli army would break out the tanks.

And as much as we love drilling oil, nuking a place is a lot worse than sucking it dry. Loving the environment may not be on our priority list, but we as a people do have the common sense not to radiate it up.

I don't like Bush, but bitching about his inaugural parade is kind of pointless. It's his party, let him have it since he actually won fair and square this time. Save your ammo for when he actually does something stupid besides getting a dude with a mullet to sing "Let the Eagle Soar."