What happens with the next Axis Of Evil target?
-
A trade war? I don't think this would work - it would harm the countries that were taking part in the boycott as much as it would the US. No-one can oppose the US militarily/economically at the moment - and perhaps not for decades to come. The only handbrake that can be applied will come from the US electorate.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Stan you are obviously angry about the whole situation and not being your usual well thought out self.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaI'm very angry about it, and as frustrated as you are. I don't think we should invade Iraq, but I also don't think we (the U.S.) can set around waiting for the world's opinions on things of this sort. We have the right to defend ourselves - without asking permission from you. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. And you can discuss the issue with US citizens who can change the focus of their electorate. So I do not buy "Nothing" as an answer. It may very well seem small but it is not nothing, I will not accept hopeless as an answer. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: And you can discuss the issue with US citizens who can change the focus of their electorate So you see, even "Those that sit back and do nothing (i.e. do not offer other solutions or compromises)" may actually do something which may change the situation ;) IMO the ones who do nothing are the ones who sit back and say nothing.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Megan Forbes wrote: That is why this seems so strange to me. Hey, it worked for Thatcher in the 1983 election! :-D
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Hey, it worked for Thatcher in the 1983 election! Hmmm... and then she went on to win two more without a war. Makes sense. You don't think that breaking the unions, hacking income tax, North Sea oil and Michael Foot had anything to do with her winning in '83? There's no denying that the Falklands helped, but any war stopping an invasion (especially of home-owned soil) is going to work for the Prime Minister. It's a bit different when you're preempting an attack. However, as much as people in the UK are against a war without UN backing, it won't hurt Blair in the next election. Ian Duncan-Smith is doing a great job of securing another Labour landslide (to be fair, the battle for "opposition status" isn't helping). However, next term we will probably have a new opposition, one without the stigma still attached to the Tory party. Blair will have to be a lot more careful then; that's probably why he's not too keen on waiting for UN backing. X| Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Don't you have oil anymore in the North Sea :confused: ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: Don't you have oil anymore in the North Sea ? Not enough, unfortunately. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Paul Watson wrote: Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Does the U.N. have teeth or not, Paul? If it doesn't, than it should just shut-up and get out of the way and let a country that does have teeth deal with the worlds problems. If it does, than it should damn well stand up and bite somebody. That is up to you guys to decide. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Does the U.N. have teeth or not As long as 5 countries will have a veto power, UN will keep its dentures in a glass!
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
And therein lies the source of the problem. I believe the U.S. should force the issue. Maybe if we can make the UN bold enough to do something about us, it will finally become bold enough to do something about the Saddam Husseins of the world. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Hey, it worked for Thatcher in the 1983 election! Hmmm... and then she went on to win two more without a war. Makes sense. You don't think that breaking the unions, hacking income tax, North Sea oil and Michael Foot had anything to do with her winning in '83? There's no denying that the Falklands helped, but any war stopping an invasion (especially of home-owned soil) is going to work for the Prime Minister. It's a bit different when you're preempting an attack. However, as much as people in the UK are against a war without UN backing, it won't hurt Blair in the next election. Ian Duncan-Smith is doing a great job of securing another Labour landslide (to be fair, the battle for "opposition status" isn't helping). However, next term we will probably have a new opposition, one without the stigma still attached to the Tory party. Blair will have to be a lot more careful then; that's probably why he's not too keen on waiting for UN backing. X| Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Paul Riley wrote: Hmmm... and then she went on to win two more without a war. Makes sense. Actually, before the Falklands invasion, the Tories were way behind in the polls. The changes to the economy that they introduced were at the very difficult early stages and we were in the middle of a severe recession. By 1987, the pain was over, but in 1983, without a victory in the South Atlantic, the election would not of been a clear-cut Tory victory. Both my parents lost their jobs in 1982, and had both changed their vote from Labour to Tory in 1979 - they were VERY disenchanted with the Tories at this time, as were many others. Paul Riley wrote: However, as much as people in the UK are against a war without UN backing, it won't hurt Blair in the next election. Unless it all goes horribly wrong of course, and the price of oil goes through the roof. Without UN backing however, I think he could be in trouble - especially so if casualties are high and the war drags on (though I admit this is unlikely). Paul Riley wrote: Ian Duncan-Smith is doing a great job of securing another Labour landslide How true. We are effectively living in a one-party state. IDS is a joke. I'm no fan of the Tories, but man, do we need an effective opposition! This government is starting to take the piss and they are getting away with it. Paul Riley wrote: However, next term we will probably have a new opposition, one without the stigma still attached to the Tory party. If the Tories gain an effective leader before the next election, then they can still make a big dent in Tonys majority. If IDS is still leader this time next year, then they'll probably LOSE even more seats! Perhaps we'll see the current Tory party splitting into two - creating an anti-European party and a pro-European party - after all, Europe is all they bloody care about (unlike the majority of the electorate who couldn't give a damn). P.S. QOTSA ROCK!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Who is the World biggest economical power, the US or the European Union :~ ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Ok sorry, more war and terrorist talk. At least I put it in the Soapbox :) Very simple question: Everyone agrees that something must be done about Iraq. The what and how though is a bit more contentious. But still the target and the need for war can be argued for. My question though is what happens when the US turns to someone that no other country agrees is a threat? Hypothetically, what if the US just decides and starts invading some country without any support from anyone else, not even Blair? What can the rest of us do? Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Just curious.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaJust out of curiosity, whom has the US attacked? Do you really think that the UN will bring Iraq into compliance simply by saying please? There is a line from the movie The Untouchables that goes something like "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word". A country is more likely to cooperate if they think an attack is imminent. The UN's stance of repetitively saying "Now, Saddam please don't do that again or there will be trouble" has achieved nothing. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
Paul Riley wrote: Hmmm... and then she went on to win two more without a war. Makes sense. Actually, before the Falklands invasion, the Tories were way behind in the polls. The changes to the economy that they introduced were at the very difficult early stages and we were in the middle of a severe recession. By 1987, the pain was over, but in 1983, without a victory in the South Atlantic, the election would not of been a clear-cut Tory victory. Both my parents lost their jobs in 1982, and had both changed their vote from Labour to Tory in 1979 - they were VERY disenchanted with the Tories at this time, as were many others. Paul Riley wrote: However, as much as people in the UK are against a war without UN backing, it won't hurt Blair in the next election. Unless it all goes horribly wrong of course, and the price of oil goes through the roof. Without UN backing however, I think he could be in trouble - especially so if casualties are high and the war drags on (though I admit this is unlikely). Paul Riley wrote: Ian Duncan-Smith is doing a great job of securing another Labour landslide How true. We are effectively living in a one-party state. IDS is a joke. I'm no fan of the Tories, but man, do we need an effective opposition! This government is starting to take the piss and they are getting away with it. Paul Riley wrote: However, next term we will probably have a new opposition, one without the stigma still attached to the Tory party. If the Tories gain an effective leader before the next election, then they can still make a big dent in Tonys majority. If IDS is still leader this time next year, then they'll probably LOSE even more seats! Perhaps we'll see the current Tory party splitting into two - creating an anti-European party and a pro-European party - after all, Europe is all they bloody care about (unlike the majority of the electorate who couldn't give a damn). P.S. QOTSA ROCK!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Actually, before the Falklands invasion, the Tories were way behind in the polls. The Tories were marginally down in the polls every election and yet they went on to win quite convincingly every time. Hence the classic Spitting Image sketch with voters going into the polling stations bitching about the Tories and then some Tory sneaks up behind them and scoops out their brains as they enter the booth :-D. As I said, the Falklands certainly helped Thatcher but they weren't a sole factor. We needed a strong leader at the time and she offered it with proof, the Falklands was just a part of that. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The changes to the economy that they introduced were at the very difficult early stages and we were in the middle of a severe recession. Depended where/who you were. The recession was only just hitting then and it was inevitable but timed well. The miners were clearly still pissed off but they were very localised and an acceptable loss. Those that still had jobs (and they were still many) were feeling very well off with all the cuts in income tax; those that didn't have jobs realised what was coming but again they were an acceptable loss. The recession hit hardest during the next term but by the time the next election came, it had pretty much stopped and people were used to the excessive unemployment. The spin was fantastic at selling the inflation rate over unemployment and again there was no effective opposition. The danger for the Tory party was pretty much over until the poll tax came along. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Unless it all goes horribly wrong of course, and the price of oil goes through the roof. Without UN backing however, I think he could be in trouble - especially so if casualties are high and the war drags on (though I admit this is unlikely). I am absolutely convinced that nothing can stop Blair in the next election. The problem is not only IDS, it's that the Tory and Liberal parties are too busy fighting over who should be opposition to actually form one. Blair has skillfully ensured that IDS is still seen as the opposition, prefering to challenge him in parliament over Kennedy. Also people are becoming rapidly disillusioned by the whole thing. Voting rates will be at an all time low next election and that has to be good for the Prime Minister. Nothing will stop him, not the fire fighters, not Iraq, nothing. I'd like
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely Interesting point: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. They could easily spin up a fuss about China and validate an invasion to bring "democracy" to China. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate Would the electorate do this though? How far would the leaders have to push before the electorate rebelled? Already with Iraq there have been massive rallies, but nothing has actually changed.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. They could easily spin up a fuss about China and validate an invasion to bring "democracy" to China. This will never happen. Paul, where do you get your ideas about the US? Do you think we are war-mongerers hell-bent on world domination? If we wanted to, we could probably have taken over Europe after WW2 but we didn't. We could have taken out SH in Gulf War I but we didn't We could just let the world deal with its dictators, but we won't because we understand what happens if you let a dictator run the show. And another thing... Would you really want China to be more powerful than the US? I doubt it.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
You have more faith than I do then. Since when has the rest of the worlds opinion made a big difference to the average US voter??? I didn't say is was hopeless though Michael. Paul questioned what could be done if the US starting taking out anyone it didn't like, and in a situation like that I have every faith US voters would stand up and be heard.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Paul questioned what could be done if the US starting taking out anyone it didn't like, The Congress would not let this happen. They would impeach any president that tried to take away their authority to declare war.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Paul Watson wrote: Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. They could easily spin up a fuss about China and validate an invasion to bring "democracy" to China. This will never happen. Paul, where do you get your ideas about the US? Do you think we are war-mongerers hell-bent on world domination? If we wanted to, we could probably have taken over Europe after WW2 but we didn't. We could have taken out SH in Gulf War I but we didn't We could just let the world deal with its dictators, but we won't because we understand what happens if you let a dictator run the show. And another thing... Would you really want China to be more powerful than the US? I doubt it.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: Would you really want China to be more powerful than the US? I doubt it. Do I want an all powerful US with nobody to keep them in check? No I don't. And your last sentence just shows the thought patterns that your leader could be having: Lets stop China now before it poses a major threat, we can pin it on human rights abuse and freeing the people from a communist regiem to a nice happy democracy. Anyway, way off topic, not what I was asking. This is all hypothetical anyway.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Paul Watson wrote: Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Hope you didn't mean the American public in general. Poll: Doubts grow about Iraqi war Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found growing doubts about an attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. IN ADDITION to the public’s skepticism about military action against Iraq, the poll found that a majority of Americans disapproved of President Bush’s handling of the economy for the first time in his presidency.
ABC and the Washington Post both poll the most liberal base they can find. I've seen very conservative biased polls that show we should just turn the place into a parking lot. The polls are truly stupid because the base they interview are usually hand-picked to slant the poll one way. For instance, they would never poll here in San Diego because we are both a military city and the Republican stronghold here in California. So really, given the source, the poll is clearly whacked.
Hey, what can I say? I'm a chick magnet...a babe conductor...a logarithm for the ladies. -Strong Bad from HomeStarRunner.com Essential Tips for Web Developers
-
Paul Watson wrote: And the US knows this. One more reason for them to not give a toss what we think. Reminds me of something I saw on a site David Stone recommended to me yesterday (nothing to do with war however). It had this quote at the top - "The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote." :|
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
Wearing your Medusa mask today? ;P
Hey, what can I say? I'm a chick magnet...a babe conductor...a logarithm for the ladies. -Strong Bad from HomeStarRunner.com Essential Tips for Web Developers
-
ABC and the Washington Post both poll the most liberal base they can find. I've seen very conservative biased polls that show we should just turn the place into a parking lot. The polls are truly stupid because the base they interview are usually hand-picked to slant the poll one way. For instance, they would never poll here in San Diego because we are both a military city and the Republican stronghold here in California. So really, given the source, the poll is clearly whacked.
Hey, what can I say? I'm a chick magnet...a babe conductor...a logarithm for the ladies. -Strong Bad from HomeStarRunner.com Essential Tips for Web Developers
David Stone wrote: For instance, they would never poll here in San Diego because we are both a military city and the Republican stronghold here in California. [Humor] I guess Washington Times / Fox News would poll in San Diego then? [/Humor]
-
Paul Watson wrote: Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. They could easily spin up a fuss about China and validate an invasion to bring "democracy" to China. This will never happen. Paul, where do you get your ideas about the US? Do you think we are war-mongerers hell-bent on world domination? If we wanted to, we could probably have taken over Europe after WW2 but we didn't. We could have taken out SH in Gulf War I but we didn't We could just let the world deal with its dictators, but we won't because we understand what happens if you let a dictator run the show. And another thing... Would you really want China to be more powerful than the US? I doubt it.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: we could probably have taken over Europe after WW2 but we didn't Very short sighted of us. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
ABC and the Washington Post both poll the most liberal base they can find. I've seen very conservative biased polls that show we should just turn the place into a parking lot. The polls are truly stupid because the base they interview are usually hand-picked to slant the poll one way. For instance, they would never poll here in San Diego because we are both a military city and the Republican stronghold here in California. So really, given the source, the poll is clearly whacked.
Hey, what can I say? I'm a chick magnet...a babe conductor...a logarithm for the ladies. -Strong Bad from HomeStarRunner.com Essential Tips for Web Developers
David Stone wrote: The polls are truly stupid because the base they interview are usually hand-picked to slant the poll one way do you have any proof of this, or is this just what Rush tells you? -c
Zzzzz...
-
Paul Watson wrote: What can the rest of us do? Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. We can whine, bitch, slag off the USA until we're blue in the face - but it wouldn't do us any good. I recently read a very well written book on this subject called "Why do people hate America?" - and it described America as the first "Hyperpower". Certainly no-one will be able to touch them militarily for a long, long time. Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate no they can't. the US electorate gets to speak its mind once every 2 years. between those times, we are entirely at the mercy of the politicians (negative connotations implied) we elected. we can feel bad about the decisions they make today, but we can only threaten them with non-election the next time the vote comes around. and, they know perfectly well how short our attention span is. -c
Zzzzz...