four more years! four more years! - Page 3

PLATO · July 20, 2003, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman

Of course they favour what he's doing. If I was convinced that Saddam had enough anthrax to kill the entire world three times over, or that chemical weapons posed a significant danger, or that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, or that 9/11 couldn't have been prevented, I'd be behind Bush too.

That's a pretty limited thought pattern on choosing a leader. In addition, most Americans that I know definately know where the hijackers came from. WMD isn't settled yet (6 month rule). 9/11 could not have been prevented by the policies of any administration that has been in place in my lifetime. Surely you are not naive enough to blame Bush for 9/11 are you?

Al B. Sure! · July 20, 2003, 16:31

why is it that the 'stupid idiot' Bush is always so skilled at mass conspiracies?

PLATO · July 20, 2003, 16:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
We shouldn't give money to terrorists! WTF ARE YOU SMOKING! If anything, we should withdraw the support we give to Saudi Arabia... I would have to examine the relationship between Israel and the US further before commenting on whether or not we should give more, less, or no funding to them. But I'm against giving any money to those terror-supporting Arab states. **** them!

Sava, You misunderstand me. Under present conditions you could not be more right. Any economic aid to these countries would have to come at the price of verifiable terrorist disarmament, statements and commitments against terrorism as a weapon, acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist, and a treaty ending all hostile action against Israel. If they buy into that, then I'm all for pumping in th $$. Until then, Israel must and should be supported.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:37

Quote:

why is it that the 'stupid idiot' Bush is always so skilled at mass conspiracies?

He isn't the puppet master... there are armies of right-wing think tanks that are creating Bush's policies. American Enterprise Institute, PNAC, Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute are just a few I can name off the top of my head.

PLato: Hah, maybe I did misunderstand you.

But still, even if those people told us they were working towards disarming terrorists, etc, I doubt I would trust them farther than I could throw them.

PLATO · July 20, 2003, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
What does that have to do with the Israeli arms industry? Israeli arms industry would LOVE it to stop, since we'd make our own airplanes, and our own rifles, and they'd be good ones too. (esp. the rifles. )

You know that one of the reasons for the military help to Israel was to prevent the creation of a competing aircraft to the US industries. Because everytime the US or someone else has denied israel something, it just got it for itself by other means. The reason to Israel's nukes is the US denial of it's nuclear umbrella, for example.

Now I don't think that the US assistance is a bad thing, but it is a mixed blessing.

I agree with the final statement. It is a mixed blessing for you guys. But the good far far out weighs the bad. The effort that Israel doesn't put into some industry is well applied somewhere else. There is only so much to go around and a $3 billion dollar shot in the arm is significant.

PLATO · July 20, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Plato:

i dont see how that would be infringment though... they'd be getting money... and their enemy, Israel will be getting less money...

but i guess this is one of those solutions that seem so simple and would seem to work so great but would only fail utterly.

They would see it as infringement due to the conditions you placed on the money in your original post.

Az · July 20, 2003, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

I agree with the final statement. It is a mixed blessing for you guys. But the good far far out weighs the bad. The effort that Israel doesn't put into some industry is well applied somewhere else. There is only so much to go around and a $3 billion dollar shot in the arm is significant.

Personally, I think it's like large oil reserves. It's geo-political crack, we're the junkie, and you're the dealer.

PLATO · July 20, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
PLato: Hah, maybe I did misunderstand you.

But still, even if those people told us they were working towards disarming terrorists, etc, I doubt I would trust them farther than I could throw them.

Hence the bolding of the word verifiable .

To be truly verifiable would mean to have some type of inspection apparatus on the ground. With the overwhelming success (

) of this in Iraq, I can't see it as being acceptable to eithier side however. If a good system could be put in place to ensure the end of terrorist organizations, then economic aid shoul help these countries so that they will not again be breeding grounds for terrorist in the future.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Personally, I think it's like large oil reserves. It's geo-political crack, we're the junkie, and you're the dealer.

I agree. That is America's problems with all of it's "wars" (war on drugs, terrorism, etc). America is incapable of decreasing demand for the substances it craves (oil, cocaine, economic imperialism) so it tries to find solutions in order for them to have their cake and eat it to. Unfortunately, US officials never want to admit the solutions would require sacrifice.

Solly · July 20, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

He isn't the puppet master... there are armies of right-wing think tanks that are creating Bush's policies. American Enterprise Institute, PNAC, Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute are just a few I can name off the top of my head.

Why do these intelligent orgsanisations want someone stupid acting above them?

PLATO · July 20, 2003, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Personally, I think it's like large oil reserves. It's geo-political crack, we're the junkie, and you're the dealer.

I just don't know where to start with that one. I...I...

PLATO · July 20, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's

Why do these intelligent orgsanisations want someone stupid acting above them?

They don't. Sava just has to hate Bush vehemently so that he can continue to deny his growing conservatism.

Az · July 20, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

I just don't know where to start with that one. I...I...

You've bought the obedience of one of earth's most volatile and crucial regions' strongest player, for 3 Billion dollars a year. this is a very rare catch. In comparison, your war against a much weaker player, Saddam's failing Iraq, is about to cost you Tens of Billions of dollars, and force your Military and Foreign Policy thinkers be extremely talanted at managing that conflict.

PLATO · July 20, 2003, 16:56

Azazel, I wasn't disagreeing. I just thought that was the most hilarious way I've ever seen it put.

It's not like Israel doesn't get a lot out of the relationship as well though.

Sandman · July 20, 2003, 16:59

Quote:

That's a pretty limited thought pattern on choosing a leader. In addition, most Americans that I know definately know where the hijackers came from. WMD isn't settled yet (6 month rule). 9/11 could not have been prevented by the policies of any administration that has been in place in my lifetime. Surely you are not naive enough to blame Bush for 9/11 are you?

It's only a few examples of the Bush administration's attempts to spread fear and confusion. Orange alerts, duct tape, Golden Gate Bridge attacks, it's ongoing. In fact, we're due for another terrorist 'alert' quite soon.

Governments have a duty to protect the lives of their citizens. The American government failed to do this, and then started pleading that 9/11 could not have been avoided. I believe it could have been avoided, since there was ample intelligence pointing to the dangers, not least, the men who wanted to learn how to fly a jumbo jet, but not how to land it. There should have been an inquiry immediately into what went wrong on with the intelligence and security services. An inquiry was launched the very day after the Titanic sank, the same should have been true for 9/11.

Az · July 20, 2003, 17:01

Sure, we get a nice high for our beareucracy, that doesn't have to cut down, and restructure itself. Did you know that our spending levels in Education and Healthcare are among the highest, while grades have been slipping the past 20 years, so from top 5, we reached the honourable 29. Or was it 28? or was it 31?

And in healthcare, our hospitals went on strike, due to "lack of funding"?

But with your IV, we don't have to fund a part of our aquisitions, we don't have to clear-up the **** that goes on in Education or Healthcare.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 17:05

Quote:

Why do these intelligent orgsanisations want someone stupid acting above them?

Because none of them can get elected due to their extremist and immoral policies.

Quote:

They don't. Sava just has to hate Bush vehemently so that he can continue to deny his growing conservatism.

Heh... even if I were becoming a conservative, I'd still hate Bush and these think-tanks. Their policies go against the "pillars" (if you will) of conservatism: responsible spending, small government, more personal freedom...

It's a shame some conservatives can't admit their party has been hijacked by a self-serving group of elitist, corporate hooligans. Neo-cons, and their butt-buddies (cheney, rummy, etc), are the Osama bin Ladens of the Republican party.

GePap · July 20, 2003, 17:06

Sorry Azazel, but if Mighty Israel can't keep 3 million people who are fenced in, highly dependant on the Israel economy and relatively lightly armed dows successfully without having its economy in the tank, no way in hell you could handle the occupation of anything else: heck, the Syrians are the ones still sitting in Lebanon, not you guys.

As for Bush: I don;t find the cartoon unfnny, and neither would 290 million Americans: Bush won the elction, but he did not get the vote of the majority of even the voters in 2000. And his poll numbers are slipping. They have every summer: this time though a new war of his making is not in the horizon (if he screws up into one, that is a negative), and unlike on 9/11, a huge terrorist attack would crush his support with moderates and independents. At best, he can hope the economy picks up steam, but a jobless recovery won;t help him. As for Iraq: Until he comes out and is honest and says that the thing will cost 3 billion a month and require tens of thousands of troops ofr multiple years, it will only eat away at him: his best hope is to go to the UN, to cut the costs to the US, but then he will be exposed to the anti-UN people, and his opponents can always ask why he did not do that in the first place.

Giancarlo · July 20, 2003, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Bush's approval ratings have been steadily dropping. If there is a God, Bush will be gone in 2004.

Says some inadequately sampled polls.

Give it a rest Sava. No dumb democrat will take power in 2004. Bush will continue and the people will get what they want. It was like in Spain.. oh those dumbass polls said Aznar's party would lose big time... think again... it retained all provinces, but lost one and gain another.

Sava, you are one paranoid delusional person but I still like you.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Says some inadequately sampled polls.

Gallup/USA Today/CNN...

Quote:

No dumb democrat will take power in 2004.

I agree. A smart one will.

Quote:

Sava, you are one paranoid delusional person but I still like you.

If this is your opinion of me, then I know I'm right on.

Az · July 20, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry Azazel, but if Mighty Israel can't keep 3 million people who are fenced in, highly dependant on the Israel economy and relatively lightly armed dows successfully without having its economy in the tank, no way in hell you could handle the occupation of anything else: heck, the Syrians are the ones still sitting in Lebanon, not you guys.

What does that have to do with.. anything, really? Our economy isn't "in the tank". It is in recession. but that happens all over the place these days. I was just pointing out that american aid removes a need to work for improvement.

Giancarlo · July 20, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Gallup/USA Today/CNN...

Funny how Gallup still showed high readings...

Quote:

I agree. A smart one will.

Dean is smart? Since when?

Quote:

If this is your opinion of me, then I know I'm right on.

Say you want to have a date some time if we ever meet? Too bad you are straight...

Sava · July 20, 2003, 17:15

Quote:

Funny how Gallup still showed high readings...

53% approval... down from 80's IIRC... and steadily dropping.

GePap · July 20, 2003, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

What does that have to do with.. anything, really? Our economy isn't "in the tank". It is in recession. but that happens all over the place these days. I was just pointing out that american aid removes a need to work for improvement.

I guess I misunderstood your drfit..must have confused you with Eli some...
Anyway, that is a bad recession, at least with unemployment at record levels.

Evil Knevil · July 20, 2003, 17:15

Like my sig, Fez?

Giancarlo · July 20, 2003, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
53% approval... down from 80's IIRC... and steadily dropping.

No it is not dropping any further. Also the same poll shows that 66% think Bush will get reelected.

Funny isn't it...

Giancarlo · July 20, 2003, 17:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Like my sig, Fez?

I am reporting you to a moderator. Your behavior is unacceptable.

Az · July 20, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

I guess I misunderstood your drfit..must have confused you with Eli some...
Anyway, that is a bad recession, at least with unemployment at record levels.

That's true. But employment levels are stable, and participation in the job market is increasing. I am full of mixed emotions about this Thatcherist treasury minister's policies.

GePap · July 20, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

No it is not dropping any further. Also the same poll shows that 66% think Bush will get reelected.

Funny isn't it...

So Fezzian: forst, start with a BAM, I mean, why not? And then try to make a connection to some slightly relevant figure...at least that is an attempt, n?

If 66% think he will get reelected but 45% say they will not vote for him, that gives us a very cynical 13% (66-53) of voters. They must think brother Jeb will do something again.

Evil Knevil · July 20, 2003, 17:21

I've had this sig for a little while. Its not ment to be there just to offend you. Besides all of the included statements are true, aren't they