What happens with the next Axis Of Evil target?
-
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
-
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 AfricaBitching seems to be all anyone has done for the past year now. I think the problem is that for average joe citizen of the United Democratic Republic of Communistic Commmonwealths, there are still too many problems in their own backyard to bother keeping track of whats really happening somewhere else in the world. So when an issue comes up, like Iraq, its too late to change the decisions that have been made up to that point, and we react to whatever tidbits of (mis)information we happen upon. And while the population is trying to catch up and understand just whats happening, those in power are on a tighter timeline. The gov't side of this, is that it cannot risk revealing the source of its information, and so is stuck leaving the population to gather reliable info on its own. Which sort of weakens any credibility in the wisdom of its decision. Even if it released the info, the proof would still be needed. Thats about all the time I have right now to say about my thoughts, but my direction in a nutshell, I think we need less governments, perhaps one per continent is reasonable... BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
-
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