What happens with the next Axis Of Evil target?
-
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...
-
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
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'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
Stan Shannon wrote: We have the right to defend ourselves certainly. now how exactly does Iraq threaten the US? -c
Zzzzz...
-
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
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."
-
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...
Chris Losinger wrote: no they can't. When was the last time your wrote to your congressman (woman). I promise you if hundreds (and even less) wrote to them they would be listening! "I will find a new sig someday."
-
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...
So you're saying that even if the vast majority of the electorate disagreed with them, there wouldn't be a thing they could do about it? Chris, if us Brits can rid ourseleves of a Prime Minister over an unpopular tax (Thatcher and her hated Poll Tax), then I have every faith the US could so the same with a rogue president! ;P Besides, doesn't the constitution protect you from becoming a dictatorship? :confused:
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: no they can't. When was the last time your wrote to your congressman (woman). I promise you if hundreds (and even less) wrote to them they would be listening! "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: When was the last time your wrote to your congressman why, it was just last month. their form letter reply was very touching. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I promise you if hundreds http://www.congress.org[^] this is a nice little site where you can send letters (email or printed and hand-delivered) to your congresscritter. since well before the Vote to give GWB his war, people have been sending "No war" letters to congress - and you can browse the letters yourself. the overwhelming majority of people sending letters on this site are anti-war-on-iraq (even those who claim themselves to be 'long-time republicans' or veterans, etc.). so, congress definitely heard about it and is continuing to hear about it...yet we all know saw deeply divided congress was on that particular vote. -c
Zzzzz...
-
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...
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.
-
So you're saying that even if the vast majority of the electorate disagreed with them, there wouldn't be a thing they could do about it? Chris, if us Brits can rid ourseleves of a Prime Minister over an unpopular tax (Thatcher and her hated Poll Tax), then I have every faith the US could so the same with a rogue president! ;P Besides, doesn't the constitution protect you from becoming a dictatorship? :confused:
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: wouldn't be a thing they could do about it? not until the next election. and, any organized display of political statement that causes any damage to persons or property is now legally classified as "terrorism". Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: doesn't the constitution protect you from becoming a dictatorship? all i'm saying is that between elections, the only way the public has any say at all over the course the US takes is by threatening the politicians with non-election in the next campaign. sometimes, that's not enough. -c
Zzzzz...
-
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: I never could make the jump from "320 adults" to "Most Americans". yeah, i know what you're saying. most 'public-opinion' surveys i see have a sample size in the low thousands. i've read that that's all you need for a statistically accurate survey. it seems crazy to me, too; but i was always bad at stats :) -c
Zzzzz...
-
David Chamberlain wrote: I never could make the jump from "320 adults" to "Most Americans". yeah, i know what you're saying. most 'public-opinion' surveys i see have a sample size in the low thousands. i've read that that's all you need for a statistically accurate survey. it seems crazy to me, too; but i was always bad at stats :) -c
Zzzzz...
The poll I quoted has a statement on this stat thing: The Post-ABC poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,133 randomly selected adults conducted from Jan. 16 to Jan. 20. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: We have the right to defend ourselves certainly. now how exactly does Iraq threaten the US? -c
Zzzzz...
Chris Losinger wrote: now how exactly does Iraq threaten the US? I am no more convinced by evidence than you are that it does. Frankly, I believe that Saddam is neck deep in international terrorism, but obviously have no proof of it. At the same time, I am more than happy to wait until he kills a few million people to convince the doubters of his intent. All of that aside, the point is that whether or not he does represent a threat is for you and I to decide without taking an international poll to get permission to do something about it. Saddam could be shooting death rays out his ass at us, and the UN would still want to deliberate. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: now how exactly does Iraq threaten the US? I am no more convinced by evidence than you are that it does. Frankly, I believe that Saddam is neck deep in international terrorism, but obviously have no proof of it. At the same time, I am more than happy to wait until he kills a few million people to convince the doubters of his intent. All of that aside, the point is that whether or not he does represent a threat is for you and I to decide without taking an international poll to get permission to do something about it. Saddam could be shooting death rays out his ass at us, and the UN would still want to deliberate. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: threat is for you and I to decide if only that were the case. GWB has already decided - actually he decided this before 9/11 - and now we all get to ride in his handbasket. -c
Zzzzz...
-
Stan Shannon wrote: threat is for you and I to decide if only that were the case. GWB has already decided - actually he decided this before 9/11 - and now we all get to ride in his handbasket. -c
Zzzzz...
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