What happens with the next Axis Of Evil target?
-
Chris Losinger wrote: GWB has already decided I agree that Bush wanted an excuse to do this. However,that does not mean he is wrong about the threat from Saddam. Furthermore, he is Command and Chief, constitutionally elected. Makeing this decision is the job we (well, I) gave him. Obviously, you and I do not get to decide directly. But we do get to decide with our vote. I voted for Bush, in part, knowing and hoping that he would be less likely to kowtow to the UN than an Al Gore would. So far, I'm content with that decision. If the world does not like that, they should create a UN capable of and willing to do dirty jobs that need to be done so that I would have less reason to vote for GWB. Otherwise, they can keep their bloody mouths shut about it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: they should create a UN capable of and willing to do dirty jobs that need to be done the US likes a UN it can control, not one that actually represents the will of the other 95% of the world. would you really allow the UN to exert any kind of influence on your life? i'm actually thinking more of the world court (or whatever it's called) that the US (govt) refuses to play along with because that would mean having to give the court the authority to try and convict US citizens. Stan Shannon wrote: kowtow to the UN just to see if i got this right: the US should have no obligation to do what the UN says; in fact, it's best if we ignore the UN and do what we want. and what we want is to invade Iraq because Saddam is a dangerous man, as proved by his refusal to live up to a deal he signed with the UN. so, the UN is a good excuse for GWB to do what he wants to do anyway. and this is good. ? -c
Zzzzz...
-
Stan Shannon wrote: they should create a UN capable of and willing to do dirty jobs that need to be done the US likes a UN it can control, not one that actually represents the will of the other 95% of the world. would you really allow the UN to exert any kind of influence on your life? i'm actually thinking more of the world court (or whatever it's called) that the US (govt) refuses to play along with because that would mean having to give the court the authority to try and convict US citizens. Stan Shannon wrote: kowtow to the UN just to see if i got this right: the US should have no obligation to do what the UN says; in fact, it's best if we ignore the UN and do what we want. and what we want is to invade Iraq because Saddam is a dangerous man, as proved by his refusal to live up to a deal he signed with the UN. so, the UN is a good excuse for GWB to do what he wants to do anyway. and this is good. ? -c
Zzzzz...
Chris Losinger wrote: the US likes a UN it can control, not one that actually represents the will of the other 95% of the world. I would like a UN with the balls to ignore 95% of the world in order to do the right thing, such as kicking Saddam Hussein's ass. And not one which exists almost exclusively to subvert the national soveriegnty of the US everytime 95% of the world starts whining about something. Chris Losinger wrote: the US should have no obligation to do what the UN says; in fact, it's best if we ignore the UN and do what we want. and what we want is to invade Iraq because Saddam is a dangerous man, as proved by his refusal to live up to a deal he signed with the UN. so, the UN is a good excuse for GWB to do what he wants to do anyway. and this is good. If Bush wishes to use UN sanctions as an excuse to defeat what he percieves as a threat to the US, than,yes, I am comfortable with that. I would prefer that he just openly tell the UN to go to hell, but I can understand his delimma. I am not opposed to the UN in concept, I am only opposed to what it has actually become. If the UN is to be a means of "balancing" off American power, and engendering an international climit hostile to our security, than it should openly admit to it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Paul Watson wrote: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? Perhaps not. Unless things change in China, we may one day see a US-Sino confrontation over Taiwan - and I'm sure that if this were to happen, the US would knock the Chinese military back to the stoneage. However, China has nukes aimed at the US - so, just like North Korea, you'd find the US reluctant to go to war unless they had both a VERY good reason (a Chinese invasion of Taiwan) and international support. Even then, it would be a very bloody affair indeed. Of couse, Chinese Communism may fall and then the US would have even less reason to dislike them. That would be a thorny one. Once communism has gone, a pro-Western (but anti-US) China would probably modernise very quickly - including it's armed forces. So, even now, the idea of the US invading China is hard to swallow - if it turned nuclear, the US would lose the entire West Coast. They wouldn't take that risk unless they actually get Son Of Star Wars working and how likely is that? Paul Watson wrote: Would the electorate do this though? How far would the leaders have to push before the electorate rebelled? You'd have to ask an American. Plenty of Americans on CP have said that the US is overdue for a revolution :eek:, so I wouldn't rule out a popular uprising if the government went all Nazi on them :mad:. Paul Watson wrote: Already with Iraq there have been massive rallies, but nothing has actually changed. Yeh, but the polls still claim that the majority will support a war in Iraq - and with UN support, those polls indicate something like 80% support. Those rallies haven't been anywhere near the size of the Anit-Vietnam ones, so the doves in the US have a LONG way to go before they'll change GWBs opinion I'm afraid :(.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: You'd have to ask an American. Plenty of Americans on CP have said that the US is overdue for a revolution , so I wouldn't rule out a popular uprising if the government went all Nazi on them . This sounds really strange. Isn't the US supposed to be the model of government stability? This is a county of freedom and democracy, not a dictatorship. Everybody has a chance to advocate a viewpoint. If that viewpoint doesn't have enough votes, then that's too bad. One shouldn't talk about taking up arms if they don't get enough votes for their viewpoint. This is America, not Venezuela.
-
Lol - I was wondering if you'd find this :cool:
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
I've got an app set up so that whever someone mentions my name, it tells me about it. ;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
-
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...
Oh please! That guy has almost no political value whatsoever. He is there merely for the entertainment of the masses and so that dumb callers can say "Mega Dittos Rush!" If you ever read the Washington Post, you will find that most of their articles are slightly liberal. And where they say that they had a "random survey of x adults", they neglect to mention that they surveyed in a highly liberal area. They may not select liberals, but they pick the area they reside in.
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
-
I used to visit the ABC News website, but then got tired of the headlines: "Most Americans approve of ..." or "Most Americans dislike ..." only to read to the bottom of the story to find "based on survey of 320 adults." While this doesn't correlate with the "hand-picked" liberal slant comment, I never could make the jump from "320 adults" to "Most Americans". Dave "You can say that again." -- Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
David Chamberlain wrote: While this doesn't correlate with the "hand-picked" liberal slant comment I'm just saying that usually the places where they poll are known as "liberal" areas. So even if it is a "random" smattering of individuals, they are picked from an area with a higher concentration of people with those views.
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
-
Oh please! That guy has almost no political value whatsoever. He is there merely for the entertainment of the masses and so that dumb callers can say "Mega Dittos Rush!" If you ever read the Washington Post, you will find that most of their articles are slightly liberal. And where they say that they had a "random survey of x adults", they neglect to mention that they surveyed in a highly liberal area. They may not select liberals, but they pick the area they reside in.
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: they neglect to mention that they surveyed in a highly liberal area. They may not select liberals, but they pick the area they reside in. prove it. -c
Zzzzz...
-
David Stone wrote: they neglect to mention that they surveyed in a highly liberal area. They may not select liberals, but they pick the area they reside in. prove it. -c
Zzzzz...
Just watch during election times. When they do their "sample group" for reactions to presidential debates, they are always in cities known to be liberal areas, and the majority of the group always goes with the Democratic candidate. ABC does this all the time...so does NBC.
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
-
Just watch during election times. When they do their "sample group" for reactions to presidential debates, they are always in cities known to be liberal areas, and the majority of the group always goes with the Democratic candidate. ABC does this all the time...so does NBC.
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: they are always in cities known to be liberal areas where's this list of 'liberal areas' ? David Stone wrote: and the majority of the group always goes with the Democratic candidate you might recall that the majority of the people who voted in the last [edit]presidential[/edit] election voted for the "D" candidate, not the "R". -c
Zzzzz...
-
"For every president, when the action is close, the public rallies to the commander in chief" So now we know when the war will begin, as soon as Bush will be low enough in the polls :((
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
Ah, Bush is planning a strategy. When Bush goes to war, he will kick out Saddam and find the weapons. Then for several days, there will be a parade of weapons and weapon making equipment in front of the cameras. This will vindicate Bush and restore his reputation. Current popularity is not important. What is important is the popularity at the end of the scenario. As long as Bush comes out on top as the destroyer of evil, people will flock to him. Bush's strategy relies on recovering the weapons. What if there are no weapons? Then the strategy would be a flop. The fact that Bush has invested so much of himself in fighting Saddam tells me that Bush is fully convinced that weapons do exist.
-
David Stone wrote: they are always in cities known to be liberal areas where's this list of 'liberal areas' ? David Stone wrote: and the majority of the group always goes with the Democratic candidate you might recall that the majority of the people who voted in the last [edit]presidential[/edit] election voted for the "D" candidate, not the "R". -c
Zzzzz...
Chris Losinger wrote: where's this list of 'liberal areas' It's not really a list, per se. You just know, for instance, that San Diego is a conservative city. New York is conservative, San Francisco is liberal, West Palm Beach is liberal. It's all just based on demographics. I don't have them...but they are available.
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
-
KaЯl wrote: IMO the ones who do nothing are the ones who sit back and say nothing. I think I agree with you here. If I were to nit-pik (is that too much of a US slang?) your first sentence does not agree with the last. If you are talking to me or whom ever you are doing something and not included in the first sentence. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: is that too much of a US slang?) Without explanation, yes. I've only learned english :-O This one :rolleyes: ? "Those that sit back and do nothing (i.e. do not offer other solutions or compromises)"[^]
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
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: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? It's not just China. The US is not letting anybody get anywhere close to challenging the US militarily. The US outspends everybody for military spending. The difference in spending is so overwhelming it's ridiculous. If this keeps up, even the NATO partners will become militarily irrelevant. Paul Watson wrote: Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. Well, it's really a love hate relationship. China is a great place to sell products. China is also the nation known for diplomatically manipulating foreign barbarians. Currently China is an ally to the US, but I suspect that China may still be playing tricks to extract out military and technology secrets from the US. It's no secret that China wants to unseat America as the strongest power in Asian pacific waters. China is tired of being humiliated by the West, and it desires greatly to reclaim its domination over Asia.
-
Ah, Bush is planning a strategy. When Bush goes to war, he will kick out Saddam and find the weapons. Then for several days, there will be a parade of weapons and weapon making equipment in front of the cameras. This will vindicate Bush and restore his reputation. Current popularity is not important. What is important is the popularity at the end of the scenario. As long as Bush comes out on top as the destroyer of evil, people will flock to him. Bush's strategy relies on recovering the weapons. What if there are no weapons? Then the strategy would be a flop. The fact that Bush has invested so much of himself in fighting Saddam tells me that Bush is fully convinced that weapons do exist.
-
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.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: it would harm the countries that were taking part in the boycott as much as it would the US. But doesn't war always hurt both sides ? If I stop buying TV's from the USA, I have to buy them from *somewhere*. So while it may be true that we export to the USA now, we would be able to export to other countries who also stopped buying from the USA. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002 -
Christian Graus wrote: America has always been about money, stop giving them ours. Then explain why the US gives billions to aid disaster victims. Then explain why the US pays 25% of the UN budget. Explain why the US gave away billions in goods to the allies in WW2? I do not have figures for Lend Lease to the UK, but to the Soviet Union alone it was over 20 billion (in 1945 US dollars.) What would you call the US if we stopped? "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Then explain why the US gives billions to aid disaster victims. For the same reason so many other countries do. That does not change the fact that the US is ultimately driven by profit. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Then explain why the US pays 25% of the UN budget Do they ? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Explain why the US gave away billions in goods to the allies in WW2? To win. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: What would you call the US if we stopped? It doesn't make a scrap of difference to what I said. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002 -
Christian Graus wrote: America has always been about money, stop giving them ours. Then explain why the US gives billions to aid disaster victims. Then explain why the US pays 25% of the UN budget. Explain why the US gave away billions in goods to the allies in WW2? I do not have figures for Lend Lease to the UK, but to the Soviet Union alone it was over 20 billion (in 1945 US dollars.) What would you call the US if we stopped? "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I do not have figures for Lend Lease to the UK, but to the Soviet Union alone it was over 20 billion (in 1945 US dollars.) Do you mean US gave the money, and USSR gave the men (10 millions KIA/MIA + 10 millions of civilians) ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the US likes a UN it can control, not one that actually represents the will of the other 95% of the world. I would like a UN with the balls to ignore 95% of the world in order to do the right thing, such as kicking Saddam Hussein's ass. And not one which exists almost exclusively to subvert the national soveriegnty of the US everytime 95% of the world starts whining about something. Chris Losinger wrote: the US should have no obligation to do what the UN says; in fact, it's best if we ignore the UN and do what we want. and what we want is to invade Iraq because Saddam is a dangerous man, as proved by his refusal to live up to a deal he signed with the UN. so, the UN is a good excuse for GWB to do what he wants to do anyway. and this is good. If Bush wishes to use UN sanctions as an excuse to defeat what he percieves as a threat to the US, than,yes, I am comfortable with that. I would prefer that he just openly tell the UN to go to hell, but I can understand his delimma. I am not opposed to the UN in concept, I am only opposed to what it has actually become. If the UN is to be a means of "balancing" off American power, and engendering an international climit hostile to our security, than it should openly admit to it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: If the UN is to be a means of "balancing" off American power, and engendering an international climit hostile to our security, than it should openly admit to it. Do you really think SH is the biggest threat nowadays that have to face the US? Do you realize the cost of the damage made to the public image of the US in the Rest-of-World (R-o-W) opinion, whatever the R-o-W opinion?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I do not have figures for Lend Lease to the UK, but to the Soviet Union alone it was over 20 billion (in 1945 US dollars.) Do you mean US gave the money, and USSR gave the men (10 millions KIA/MIA + 10 millions of civilians) ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
I do not think I implied any priority or disrespect to the people who died. I was only answering Christians comment that money is the only thing that matters for anyone in the US. From your response I do feel an implied disrespect for the men who died in the merchant marine getting those supplies to the USSR. When a ship went down in the Arctic Ocean you died in a few munites. Few were rescued. I also ask you to consider how many USSR lives would have been lost when they ran out of supplies (or only had a fraction of what they had) and were fighting with only sticks and stones. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
American CPians seem less and less confident in Bush strategy, am I wrong ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
Too many American CPians believe the garbage they get from CNN, Washington Post, and other "reliable sources". This is not a good reflection of the general sentiment here IMO, nor is the Washington Post - ABC poll of a selected 1000 people or so. Any good polster can create whatever results his client wants, either by skewing the supposedly random sample, or by the wording of the questions/choices. It's anybody's guess what the real situation is, just depends on who you talk to. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell