Bush Bashing

[Gotetsu]

Ok, here’s a question for all of you “Bush Bashers” out there.

On September 11th, who would you have rather had in the White House?
Can you imagine how Gore would have handled that?

Gore: I’m sorry Mr. Bin Laden. What exactly is it that you hate about America?
Bin Laden: I hate that you have a military presence in the Middle East, and that you spread your wicked ways through your decadent shows like Friends and The Cosby Show.
Gore: Oh, well, here. Let me pull out my troops from the Middle East. Oh, but there’s too many in Europe now. Ok, come home boys, you’re not needed there anymore!

Meanwhile, in Baghdad.

Hussein: Hey, I took over Kuwait before. And if the US hadn’t intervened I could have taken Saudi Arabia. I shall be the most powerful warrior for Allah. I shall have riches that make my palace here in Baghdad seem like a beggar’s hovel.

Back in the USA.

White House aide: Mr. President, we have a surplus of military personnel.
Gore: Then institute a reduction of forces.

Seemingly overnight, the workforce is flooded with displaced military personnel. Unemployment skyrockets and the economy takes a dump.

The rest you can just imagine…

My point is, even though Bush is not the best president we have ever had (even his dad did a better job), he isn’t the worst either. And if the people are displeased with him, well, hey, it’s an election year. Get out there and tell them who YOU want in that office (though it seems we have some slim pickins’ this time ‘round). That’s why the presidency only has a 4-year term, and a 2-term limit. 4 years, or even 8, is not enough time to do irreparable harm.

Just an observation, and my opinion on things. I could be wrong (and probably am), but then again, I could be right… :shock:

[mordraine]

Obviously this is complete guesswork as to what Gore would've done. We don't know. Nobody knows.

However, invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. So it's a spurious argument at best. And it's a falacy to think that Democrats would not do everything possible to protect the country from terrorism.

[Gotetsu]

Ok, my guesses may have been extreme. But, based on his track record, I just don't think Gore would have done a decent job.

As to the invasion of Iraq, I'm kinda up in the air about it. On the one hand, I know in my heart that SOMETHING needed to be done about Saddam. His past actions indicated that he would have done something. Talk to anyone who lived under his rule (which I have), and they will tell you he was a tyrant on the level of Hitler. That much is true. I just wish we had done it when I was there during the first one.

Did we need an all out war to get rid of him? Maybe not, but what else? I think that Bush's only mistake was in his timing. Saddam needed to be taken care of, yes. But maybe not so soon.

And that article you posted suggested that there has been no ties found to Al Qaida in Iraq. Ok, so I've got one reporter saying one thing, and a whole slew of networks saying the opposite, so who do I believe?

I do think that Iraq needs to be self-governed soon. We need to get the fuck out of there, and let the people of Iraq solve their own problems. We did it 200 years ago, and without any real support. They can do it too.

If nothing else, the next tyrant to rule Iraq will think twice about being a tyrant.

[Jake]

How about the fact that the only people allowed to fly in this country immediately after 9-11 were Bin Laden’s family? How about the known ties between Al Qaida and Saudi Arabia? There are known ties between the Bin Ladens and the Bushes. Just as there are known ties between Saudi Arabia and the Bushes. And can you tell me how Saudi Arabia was involved in 9-11? No, of course not. No on can. Cheney had meeting six months before 9-11 about developing Iraq's oil industry. There’s also the no-bid multi-BILLION dollar contract with Halliburton. And can anyone tell me who ran Halliburton until 2000? Plus we now have the patriot act. (I love that fucking name) And what I think is a huge waist of money the department of Home Land Security.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

Why did Saddam need to be taken care of? I'd like to know the exact reasons.

Yes this is bait. Any answer come up with is either fallacy or hypocritical.

[Gotetsu]

[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]Why did Saddam need to be taken care of? I'd like to know the exact reasons.



Yes this is bait. Any answer come up with is either fallacy or hypocritical.[/quote]

That's why I'm not going to answer. Here's another one for you. :finger:

[mordraine]

Also officially moved to Debate.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Gotetsu"][quote:1031c8545b="BreakfastOfChampions"]Why did Saddam need to be taken care of? I'd like to know the exact reasons.



Yes this is bait. Any answer come up with is either fallacy or hypocritical.[/quote]

That's why I'm not going to answer. Here's another one for you. :finger:[/quote:1031c8545b]



Seriously though. If the only answer you can give, or that anyone can give leaves you open to lies and hypocracy, don't you wonder about this at all?



Let me ask you something else: How do you reconcile being conservative with the blast of 'liberal' spending this administration and congress has advocated? Being financially irresponsible has been a long standing gripe of mine against the dems, and now it seems that no party is fiscally responsible.



And the way this administration has treated the military is abysmal. Why should Haliburton profit from the men and women who really do believe they are giving their lives for our country, and not for some lousy bastards to make a buck?



Lets say we find *no* WMD in Iraq. Lets say that we allow Shia law as we are toying with, which unto itself is not bad, but with some implemntations could leave the people even more persecuted than they were under Saddam. The people of Iraq are worried the Governing Council is going to let Taliban-Style Islamic law run in Iraq.



Is there nothing that could be happening/happens/has happened that would make you think that our policies in Iraq have gone astray? Even the most vehement of cheerleaders have their limits.

[Neuro]

The answer for why we had to get rid of Saddam is something I struggled with.

I was not in favour of our going over there. I was sick over it, lost sleep over it. I could not bear the coverage and couldn't stop watching it at first. I felt that it was utterly wrong to invade a sovereign nation. Then I started to hear about the atrocities of the old regime. I chalked a lot of it up to media hysteria. Probably because I am a comfortable American and these things can't happen in my world. My world is comfortable, even by American standards. I have never known real poverty or real oppression and I am thankful for that from the bottom of my heart.

My friend Peter was shipped out to Iraq in January. I hear from him every few days since he has access to email just about daily, except for last week while they were on the move. He tells me that it was as bad and sometimes worse than I had heard. He tells me that he sees a lot of grateful people. Some that want the Americans out, sure, but some honestly grateful people and that it makes him feel okay about being there - he wasn't sure if he would. That it even makes him proud to be there.

When I hear about the human suffering of Iraq, I still hate that we went because I think it was wrong, but at once I am glad if it has lessened some suffering in our world. The circumstances of our going seem clearly misguided and the 'what to do now' is ethically very tricky. I don't, however, feel that the wrongness of our going negates the rightness of relieving pain, suffering, and misery, which I think we may well have done.

The real trick is making that relief self-perpetuating. Time will tell us, if we fail, that we were wrong in the end. No one can see the future and ethical choices still don't always lead us to success. Good does not always prevail in our world, but we would be worse men who threw up our hands just because things might not turn out.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

I completely agree with your assessment.

I am of the mindset that *any* good that can come of our folly in Iraq will need to be painstakingly drug up out of this pile of shit that was laid on top of that kernel of good reasoning.

Saddam did horrible things. Well, we paid him to, when he was fighting Iran. Many of the mass graves are Iranians and Iranian sympathizers. Thousands of pages have been taken out of the Iraq report, which listed US companies that sold Saddam the means to make his chemical weapons used on the Shia.

Good. Saddam is gone. Good Riddance to Bad Trash. I *cannot* say to the family of a kid that died over there that he died for a noble cause. If the cause was noble, then why make up the lies. Bastards.

We have the opportunity to do the right thing by Iraq, but that window is closing fast, and has become the next gerneration of carpetbaggers. Haliburton is making a killing, while soldiers get killed. We can't afford schooling here, but we can afford schools in Iraq. Then we have Chalabi in his goons, who gave us the wrong info on the WMD, but since it was what we wanted to hear, he's on the payroll to this day.

Is it about peak oil? Yeah, I'm sure it is to some. I know the whole oil thing is a tired saw, but if you don't know what peak oil is, I'd suggest looking into it. You're going to hear a *lot* more about it.

So was it vengence to prove himself to daddy? Maybe to others that was their justification. Big events usually have many reasons. I hope that we do help make a better Iraq, but we don't have a great track record there -- The Philipines? No, they don't love us for occupying them. They love us because the Japanese were bigger bastards than we were. Viet-nam? No one wants to go there. Korea? That's the forgotten war.

Afganistan is *still* waiting on the promise of a better tomorrow. The rights of women? Still not so good. Opium crop is doing great. Even if we get Osama, we haven't made Afganistan any better.

The US is the most powerful nation in the world, and this is the best we can do? I don't believe that. We could do better. Perhaps we just choose not to.

Its not profitable.

[Gotetsu]

Funny, I was waiting until I got home to post my response to BoC's thrown gauntlet. But Neuro summed it up much better than I probably can (she has such a wonderful way of speaking on here).

Yeah, I will admit that the reasons for invading Iraq are kind of weak...in hindsight. But I think what happened is that Bush knew about Saddam's attrocities beforehand, and knew, along with several other world leaders, that the current regime in Iraq posed a threat to world safety. So, he made a tough deicsion. He decided that, as the world's most powerful nation, we have a social duty to our fellow man to right wrongs wherever we can (a belief I share 100%).

In 1991 Saddam was using SCUDs like they were going out of style (which they actually were). So, why would we not think he still has them? They are considered WMDs, if I'm not mistaken. And there was evidence to link him to Al Qaida, according to every network reporting on the war. So, Maybe some of the information was overly "extrapolated" from dicey intel. Does that mean Saddam is any less of a threat? Not in my book. Bush knew that to take care of this problem he needed to move quickly, while his approval rating was high. Had he waited, Congress probably would not have let him go. Was it the right thing to do? Yes and no.

I'm not going to comment on the Halliburton subject, as I have not followed it enough to know what it's all about. Besides, private corporations have been shafting the government and the military for decades. It's almost an American tradition. Why is this instance any different? Oh, right. Because it happened during a Republican presidency, under a president who isn't popular with the media or any other liberal group.

[mordraine]

[quote="Gotetsu"]I'm not going to comment on the Halliburton subject, as I have not followed it enough to know what it's all about. Besides, private corporations have been shafting the government and the military for decades. It's almost an American tradition. Why is this instance any different? Oh, right. Because it happened during a Republican presidency, under a president who isn't popular with the media or any other liberal group.[/quote]

Halliburton is a classic example of croneyism at it's worst. We're not talking about a company ripping off the government. We're talking about a company that was given the golden goose BY the government. Halliburton was the last place of employment for Vice President Chaney before he became Vice President. Coincidence?



Under ANY presidency, Republican or Democrat, that's repulsive to me.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

Wow, I wish I could justify dicey intelligence and cronyism as a reason to send young men to die.

I want the US to do right by the Iraqi people. They deserve that much.

Any bets on whether they'll get it?

Oh wait, its only repulsive under a democratic president.

[Neuro]

[quote="Gotetsu"]Funny, I was waiting until I got home to post my response to BoC's thrown gauntlet. But Neuro summed it up much better than I probably can (she has such a wonderful way of speaking on here).[/quote]

Thank you. That's very sweet of you to say.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Gotetsu"]Ok, here’s a question for all of you “Bush Bashers” out there.



On September 11th, who would you have rather had in the White House?

Can you imagine how Gore would have handled that?
[/quote]

Actually.. Gore... he was a product of the Clinton era White House, who updated our military technology so well that it allowed us to beat some serious ass in the past two wars. Clinton's military won the wars.



Additionally, the Clinton Administration had a plan to attack Afghanistan and begin a war on terrorism right before they left office. It was all there but they didn't want Bush to have to deal with it during a transition. They left it for him to do... and he failed to act on it. Gore might have just acted and then we wouldn't have had Sept. 11th happen.



Finally, Gore had a detailed plan of spending for the military which would increase pay and increase troop strength. I read all about it on his website during the election. Bush had nothing really planned. It was just campaign slogans. People voted for Bush because he decieved the public on what his plan was.



Gore would have been a better president.



Jonathan

[Count Zero]

[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]Why did Saddam need to be taken care of? I'd like to know the exact reasons.



Yes this is bait. Any answer come up with is either fallacy or hypocritical.[/quote]

He was a dictator. Dictators should never be allowed to rule. But then again... if they do what we tell them it seems to be okay... doesn't it. :x



I find it interesting that Iraq was a threat and was a dictatorship that needed to be removed, yet Saudia Arabia, our big Arab ally, was rated the second worst dictatorship on the planet... North Korea was first (and they actually have nukes) and Iraq was number five.



Jonathan

[Count Zero]

[quote="mordraine"]Halliburton is a classic example of croneyism at it's worst. We're not talking about a company ripping off the government. We're talking about a company that was given the golden goose BY the government. Halliburton was the last place of employment for Vice President Chaney before he became Vice President. Coincidence?



Under ANY presidency, Republican or Democrat, that's repulsive to me.[/quote]

Actually the thing that bugs me most about it is the fact that little is being said. If Clinton would have done something like that the media and the congress would have hung him with his own tie.



Jonathan

[Neuro]

I am only depressed that Bush and Gore were our options. The whole country and /this/ is the best we can do?

This is very nerdy, but since I'm among nerds I probably shouldn't hesitate to share it. Last night, I sat down to write something funny for a game I play in. (The long in coming (pun intended) 'Cordon's Balls', for those of you who play in Age of Dusk.) Humour is difficult to write well, at least for those of us who aren't inherently funny (looks aren't everything). So I wound up writing something else. The point of this is that I was thinking about heroism. A large part of the point of the poem was that our heroes are larger than life - history and the retelling makes them that way. Normal men are hardly worth telling a story about in any epic sense. I had meant for my character to express feeling inadequate to her task in the shadow of real heroes, only to realize that those heroes might not have been all they were cracked up to be, not really.

I I look back on our past presidents through history and think 'Where are our Jeffersons? Where are our Washingtons? Is there not a Teddy Roosevelt among us? Or even an FDR? And I wonder if they really were any better. I wonder if they were the George Bushes and Al Gores of their era or if they really were something more.

[SnakeEyesX]

Very Well said Neuro, you wouldnt belive how much i bring that exact same point(or opinion) to the table when talking to people. Everyone sides with a Political party(including myself, I'm a Republican but learn more librially towards some social issues, ill stop now on that im rambling) But you have to remember in today's world of dishonesty, the 2 are almost like 2 sides of the same coin.

But ya back to what you said, very interesting, very true, if you want to test it, get 20 people together and play telephone(gotta love kindergarden) where everyone gets in a cirlce and the 1st person whispers one thing to the next person and they pass it around in whispers, you wouldnt belive the things you'll end up with in the end.

[Lowly Uhlan]

All I will say is that Bush did a good job in Afghanistan. Those motherfuckers needed to pay for 9/11. Some may argue that we didn't have a good plan to rebuild that country. Fuck that. The Taliban should'nt have harbored Al Queda. A lot of Americans died because they did nothing more than show up for work on September 11th. I fully beleive that Afgahnistan got what they desereved.

As far as the war in Iraq goes, we went in on false pretenses. Our president lied to us. Bottom line. Americans died in Iraq as a result. Maybe there was some other way to justify our invasion, but right now that doesn't matter. But yes, a brutal dictator was removed from power. There's a chance that Iraq could become a real democracy. The Kurds might not get mustard-gassed by their own government again (the largest Moslem ethnic group without their own country). Women won't get raped by Saddam's lackeys. I was facsinated by the TV coverage of the war, watched it for days.

And now most of the world hates us. People have even less faith in the government than they did before. The abuses of the Bush administration continue. Things need to change.

[Jake]

I’m one of the few people who were against the war in Afghanistan. If you’ll remember the Afghani government said they had Bin Laden detained and they would be willing to hand him over. But of course the Bush administration had to make all sorts of demands they knew the Afghani government wouldn’t agree with. We could have gotten Bin Laden and used diplomatic means to weed out the Taliban. And if that didn’t work then we could have moved troops in. And right now we still don’t have Bin Laden and the Taliban most likely just moved to another country. I think it was mostly a case of blood for blood.

And has anyone else noted the irony that U.S. citizens are the largest fanatical supporters of the I.R.A.?

[Lowly Uhlan]

[quote="Jake"]I’m one of the few people who were against the war in Afghanistan. If you’ll remember the Afghani government said they had Bin Laden detained and they would be willing to hand him over. But of course the Bush administration had to make all sorts of demands they knew the Afghani government wouldn’t agree with. We could have gotten Bin Laden and used diplomatic means to weed out the Taliban. And if that didn’t work then we could have moved troops in. And right now we still don’t have Bin Laden and the Taliban most likely just moved to another country. I think it was mostly a case of blood for blood.



And has anyone else noted the irony that U.S. citizens are the largest fanatical supporters of the I.R.A.?[/quote]

And then a government that knowingly harbored terrorists would still have been in power. That kind of mindset, backed by ultra-fundamentalist Moslem beleifs would lead me to think they would be a problem for the US in the future. Nipped in the bud.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Lowly Uhlan"][quote:c8952498ce="Jake"]I’m one of the few people who were against the war in Afghanistan. If you’ll remember the Afghani government said they had Bin Laden detained and they would be willing to hand him over. But of course the Bush administration had to make all sorts of demands they knew the Afghani government wouldn’t agree with. We could have gotten Bin Laden and used diplomatic means to weed out the Taliban. And if that didn’t work then we could have moved troops in. And right now we still don’t have Bin Laden and the Taliban most likely just moved to another country. I think it was mostly a case of blood for blood.



And has anyone else noted the irony that U.S. citizens are the largest fanatical supporters of the I.R.A.?[/quote]

And then a government that knowingly harbored terrorists would still have been in power. That kind of mindset, backed by ultra-fundamentalist Moslem beleifs would lead me to think they would be a problem for the US in the future. Nipped in the bud.[/quote:c8952498ce]



I hope you're right. My Breakfast sense tells me otherwise. We bobbled the ball there, and angering fundamentalist muslims *without* supporting moderates. And we're still *in* Afganistan. And who's our ally? Pakistan? You mean 'nukes for a buck' Pakistan? We're really in over our heads with all this double dealing going on.



I hope I'm wrong.

[Lowly Uhlan]

Breakfst sense, eh?

[Wintermute]

[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]Breakfst sense, eh?[/quote]

Well, I was always told breakfast was sensible.

[Neuro]

[quote]Those motherfuckers needed to pay for 9/11. [/quote]

There are moments in life where it may become, regrettably, necessary to take martial action against other human beings for the safety of our own people. Hatred and vengeance, however, only ever increase our own sorrow.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Neuro"][quote]Those motherfuckers needed to pay for 9/11. [/quote]

There are moments in life where it may become, regrettably, necessary to take martial action against other human beings for the safety of our own people. Hatred and vengeance, however, only ever increase our own sorrow.[/quote]

Word. Those that died on 9/11 didn't have it coming. I don't think a lot of people who died in Afganistan had it coming either.



And yet, sometimes I hear people stand and talk about why the palestinians and the israelis can't 'just work things out'.

[Skyman]

I really don't know who would have been a better president. I really didn't have a good feel on Gore or of Bush.

As for 9/11, it was extremely SAD for me! I felt more grieved when folks were using the emotions arising from the tragedy to swing the public to their agenda. As a result I had my reservations about IRAQ.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Neuro"]
I I look back on our past presidents through history and think 'Where are our Jeffersons? Where are our Washingtons? Is there not a Teddy Roosevelt among us? Or even an FDR? And I wonder if they really were any better. I wonder if they were the George Bushes and Al Gores of their era or if they really were something more.[/quote]

They were only men.. all of them. It is history that makes you a hero or a villian. In twenty years the information might be around that Bush actually is a very good president who had forsight. While I doubt that. Hell... people say Regan was the greatest president in american history... I tend to disagree... but that is history at work.



Jonathan

[Count Zero]

[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]All I will say is that Bush did a good job in Afghanistan. Those motherfuckers needed to pay for 9/11. Some may argue that we didn't have a good plan to rebuild that country. Fuck that. The Taliban should'nt have harbored Al Queda. A lot of Americans died because they did nothing more than show up for work on September 11th. I fully beleive that Afgahnistan got what they desereved.
[/quote]

Actually, we need to be more specific about this... the military the Clinton Administration built up over the two terms is what did a great job in Afghanistan. Bush failed to understand the situation and didn't take the proper steps diplomatically. He has the attitude that anything we do is right. That is dangerous. He is arrogant and dismissive. Very dangerous also.



The information about Afghanistan had been in front of the Bush Administration since day one... and they failed to act because they were focused on Iraq. The Bush administration has failed on many levels. This is just one more.



As to the Taliban getting what they deserved. Only reason I had reservations about the war in Afghanistan was the concept of revenge. We weren't there seeking justice for a crime committed against us... "we want to kill those motherfuckers and make them hurt like they hurt us". Not the way a civilized nation does things. While the war was necessary because the Taliban and Al'Queda weren't going to just surrender, I haven't seen any Taliban or Al'Queda people from the war on trial. If we were seeking justice this is what we would have done.. but we were seeking vengence. Hate begets hate. All we are creating right now is more enemies. You can't fight terrorism with guns and bombs. You have to fight terrorism at its root causes: disenfrachisment, poverty, and ignorance.


[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]
As far as the war in Iraq goes, we went in on false pretenses. Our president lied to us. Bottom line. Americans died in Iraq as a result. Maybe there was some other way to justify our invasion, but right now that doesn't matter. But yes, a brutal dictator was removed from power. There's a chance that Iraq could become a real democracy. The Kurds might not get mustard-gassed by their own government again (the largest Moslem ethnic group without their own country). Women won't get raped by Saddam's lackeys. I was facsinated by the TV coverage of the war, watched it for days.
[/quote]

We did remove a brutal dictator and I wouldn't have had a problem with the war if we would have been told that was the purpose from the start, but if we are concerned about WMD's and dictatorships then why is North Korea still standing. I am sure if North Korea has a nice rich oil supply under rather than Iraq we would have been much more concerned. War and conflict is always more about resources than ideology. If it were about ideology we would be bombing Saudi Arabia too.


[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]
And now most of the world hates us. [/quote]

Understand they don't hate us.. they hate the policies which they see as short sighted and imperialist... which they are...



The people of the world are frustrated with the fact that we refuse to listen to them. A good way to put this in perspective is... imagine you have a young friend that is always involved in what you are doing. Every time you make a suggestion he gives you the finger and tells you that you really don't know any better. Wouldn't you get tired of his bullshit sooner or later. That is what is happening to us. We are the young guy who is being an asshole. We have to behave as equals in this world.



Even if we are better than everybody else with more money and "stuff", we don't have to be assholes about it... we could show some damn humility.



Jonathan

[Count Zero]

[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]/quote]



And then a government that knowingly harbored terrorists would still have been in power. That kind of mindset, backed by ultra-fundamentalist Moslem beleifs would lead me to think they would be a problem for the US in the future. Nipped in the bud.[/quote]

We are still doing this now. Saudi Arabia and North Korea are perfect examples of this. We are allowing brutal dictatorships to exist (some with our support) while we fight other dictorships claiming the Moral High Ground.



The big thing the world is seeing us as now... is hypocrits.



Jonathan

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Count Zero"]
We are still doing this now. Saudi Arabia and North Korea are perfect examples of this. We are allowing brutal dictatorships to exist (some with our support) while we fight other dictorships claiming the Moral High Ground.



The big thing the world is seeing us as now... is hypocrits.



Jonathan[/quote]

That could be very well true. However, the effective counter argument to this, and used by such 'Liberal Hawks' is thus:



"Oh, so because we cannot overthrow every brutal dictator, we shouldn't overthrow any. You'd be happier with Saddam in power!"



Which of course is a grain of fact with a huge assed strawman argument tacked on, just to quell discussion.



The fact of the matter is no, we can't take out every dictator. So what made Saddam one so attractive a target? Was it because he was the most brutal? Well, according to civil rights organizations, there are more brutal dictators out there. Much more brutal. Some of them are in the colalition of the billing. The argument that Iraq was a imminent threat has turned into a farce.



Was it that Saddam presented an attack of opportunity?

&lt]talk[/i] about freedom. We disappear American citizens in Gitmo. We [i]talk[/i] about leaving no child behind, and we won't sign a treaty that protects the rights of children worldwide.



It seems to me that every day, Americans play the Stuart Smalley game. They look in the mirror and say "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and goldarnit, people [i]like[/i] me." And then, we look around doe eyed at the cluster bombed fields, the depleted uranium polluted land, the utter contempt for the Geneva convention, the very clear bias the US has for Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and we wonder why they hate us?

[Lowly Uhlan]

I beleive Saudi Arabia will be dealt with in time. Probably not the same way we dealt with Iraq, but dealt with nonetheless. And the problem with North Korea is that they have nuclear weapons. And a delivery system that can hit the west coast. This makes it much more of a delicate situation, as well as a much greater threat. Only sound diplomacy will take care of that problem in the here and now. That's not something our current administration is capable of.

And it is blatantly obvious that Iraqi oil has been a big motivator in our 2 wars against Iraq.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]I beleive Saudi Arabia will be dealt with in time. Probably not the same way we dealt with Iraq, but dealt with nonetheless. And the problem with North Korea is that they have nuclear weapons. And a delivery system that can hit the west coast. This makes it much more of a delicate situation, as well as a much greater threat. Only sound diplomacy will take care of that problem in the here and now. That's not something our current administration is capable of.



And it is blatantly obvious that Iraqi oil has been a big motivator in our 2 wars against Iraq.[/quote]

I agree. I think that Saudi Arabia is after Syria and Iran. Logistically, we've stretched ourselves a bit, also, the stakes *are* higher.



Unfortunately, North Korea sets a dangerous precident, especially since the involvement in Iraq is sketchy at best.



The lesson as I see it is. "Want the US to back off? Get Nukes, and fast."

[Count Zero]

[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]I beleive Saudi Arabia will be dealt with in time. Probably not the same way we dealt with Iraq, but dealt with nonetheless.
[/quote]

The Saudis have way too much of a stranglehold over us. The only way to fight that is to stop using oil. We have to move to alternate fuel sources... whether they are fuel cells, hydrogen, or electric cars...


[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]
And the problem with North Korea is that they have nuclear weapons. And a delivery system that can hit the west coast. This makes it much more of a delicate situation, as well as a much greater threat. Only sound diplomacy will take care of that problem in the here and now. That's not something our current administration is capable of.
[/quote]

But they claimed that Iraq was also capable of attacking us indirectly and we went after them. There was the significant possibility that we could have been attacked. I have heard Dick Cheney state that we have no reason to attack North Korea because they aren't a threat to us. But, Saddam... now he was a threat... with no nukes and no delivery system. :P



Jonathan

[Count Zero]

[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
I agree. I think that Saudi Arabia is after Syria and Iran. Logistically, we've stretched ourselves a bit, also, the stakes *are* higher.



Unfortunately, North Korea sets a dangerous precident, especially since the involvement in Iraq is sketchy at best.



The lesson as I see it is. "Want the US to back off? Get Nukes, and fast."[/quote]

We need to be careful about Iran. Iran is very progressive even if the latest elections were tampered with by the eclesiastical council. There is a big push in Iran to become secular. Stating that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil was the biggest mistake Bush ever made. Simply because calling someone evil in Islam is a really major deal. You don't use that word lightly. It helped to polarize the Secular and the religious sides against us. The secular faction could have been a very good ally.



We could screwed up way to many things in Iran with the Shah... we have to make sure not to make the same mistakes.



Jonathan

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Count Zero"]
We need to be careful about Iran. Iran is very progressive even if the latest elections were tampered with by the eclesiastical council. There is a big push in Iran to become secular. Stating that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil was the biggest mistake Bush ever made. Simply because calling someone evil in Islam is a really major deal. You don't use that word lightly. It helped to polarize the Secular and the religious sides against us. The secular faction could have been a very good ally.



We could screwed up way to many things in Iran with the Shah... we have to make sure not to make the same mistakes.
[/quote]

Yup, I agree. Iran is a special case, which makes our current actions all the more frustrating because in many ways we give the fundamentalists a big boost in popularity.



In a way, its like those gaming scenarious where you find all your efforts to take out "Jimbo the Evil" has only strengthened his position

[Lowly Uhlan]

[quote="Count Zero"][quote:c1d96fc8a5="Lowly Uhlan"]I beleive Saudi Arabia will be dealt with in time. Probably not the same way we dealt with Iraq, but dealt with nonetheless.
[/quote]

The Saudis have way too much of a stranglehold over us. The only way to fight that is to stop using oil. We have to move to alternate fuel sources... whether they are fuel cells, hydrogen, or electric cars...


[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]
And the problem with North Korea is that they have nuclear weapons. And a delivery system that can hit the west coast. This makes it much more of a delicate situation, as well as a much greater threat. Only sound diplomacy will take care of that problem in the here and now. That's not something our current administration is capable of.
[/quote]

But they claimed that Iraq was also capable of attacking us indirectly and we went after them. There was the significant possibility that we could have been attacked. I have heard Dick Cheney state that we have no reason to attack North Korea because they aren't a threat to us. But, Saddam... now he was a threat... with no nukes and no delivery system. :P



Jonathan[/quote:c1d96fc8a5]



You know as well as I do that they'll make whatever claims they have to to support whatever little (big) scheme they're currently working on. And Cheney making that statement is ludicrous. I guess he's in a very small minority by thinking N. Korea is no threat.All you're doing is pointing out how the administration's PR campign is flawed and their statements are nonsensicle and contradictory we've already established that.



And alternative energy sources are a long way off. Well we've got Iraqi oil now. So why has gas gotten so expensive? Because WE'RE FUCKED. Oh yeah Bush has a big concern in the oil industry too.

[Count Zero]

[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]
And alternative energy sources are a long way off. Well we've got Iraqi oil now. So why has gas gotten so expensive? Because WE'RE FUCKED. Oh yeah Bush has a big concern in the oil industry too.[/quote]

Actually, alternate fuel sources aren't that far off at all. Fuel cells work just fine. The problem is the infrastructure to suppor them. They have this nice bi-product too... water. Dump that into the water supply and we have solved southern CA's water problem. A good alternative though is hybrids.



We state the technology isn't ready. Imagine if the government made its basic fleet cars (i.e. non-law enforcement or pursuit type) all fuel cell cars and gave major tax breaks to companies who used them... along with citizens. That would create a major demand and force fast tech development. But that won't happen... we have Iraq's oild and even higher gas prices... :P



Additionally, we need to have alternate energy production (i.e. residential electricity) pushed more. Imagine southern CA with every house with a solar panel on the roof feeding electricity into the grid. So long to black outs and power shortages. Similar things could be done everywhere. It just takes vision and the will to do it. The government has the chance to inspire, but instead they tell you to shop and do things the way you have always done, when in reality, if we really want to be safe, it will require sacrifice by the common citizen.



Jonathan

[Chulainn]

[quote="Count Zero"]
We are allowing brutal dictatorships to exist (some with our support) while we fight other dictorships claiming the Moral High Ground.

Jonathan[/quote]

{/TROLL}



And if we did not do this then the CIA would have absolutely nothing to do and would get bored



{/END TROLL}



C

[Chulainn]

[quote="Count Zero"]
Actually, alternate fuel sources aren't that far off at all. Fuel cells work just fine. The problem is the infrastructure to suppor them. [/quote]

Actually Fuel Cell technology is not efficient enough for commuter vehicles. They are very expensive. This , in addition to their lack of efficiency makes them very unattractive for consumer products. For this to be a viable alternative either the price has to come way down or efficiency way up.



Hybrid gas/electric vehicles and Propane powered vehicles are about the only reasonable choices right now. Even all electric vehicles are not an option due to battery efficiency and weight.



We need some serious research/science to get completely away from fossil fuels...and I see that as being a long way out



Just my $0.02



C

[Neuro]

Good morning. Do you know where electricity comes from?

[Chulainn]

[quote="Neuro"]Good morning. Do you know where electricity comes from?[/quote]

Good Morning as well... and yes the majority of electricity is produced by Fossil Fuel. Hydorelectric & Nuclear are other methods currently in use though not anywhere near as common.



My statement about needing serious Science and research was made to account for the use of Photovoltaic cells, Wind, & Cold Fusion (Big dream here). (Non-Fossil Fuel Technologies)



Of course we could always just use recycled grease from MCDonalds to run our Car :D



C

[Chulainn]

and for any interested:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windpoweringamerica/
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html

and of course

http://www.greasecar.com/products.cfm?productID=1

C

[BreakfastOfChampions]

California uses mostly natural gas, some coal, some nuclear.

I think one of the tricks of the hybrid is to use the idle time of the engine to recharge the battery.

I didn't think fuel cell tech was that far along. I could be wrong.

I do think that if we really put our minds and hearts into it, we could come up with other means.

Oil is used for *much* more than fuel though. A Chemical Engineer said to me once, "The stuff is far too valuable to be burning."

[Wintermute]

My car's actually set up to run on hydrogen with very little modification. Of course, until that becomes practical, I'll show my support for the middle east by getting 16mpg and running high octane.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Wintermute"]My car's actually set up to run on hydrogen with very little modification. Of course, until that becomes practical, I'll show my support for the middle east by getting 16mpg and running high octane.[/quote]

Don't sell yourself short! You're supporting the middle east *and* Bush and his cronies ;)

[Chulainn]

[quote="Wintermute"]getting 16mpg and running high octane.[/quote]

yep...my world exactly



C

[smartmonkey]

I don't think Bush handled 9-11 well.

But I think that Mr. Cheney, Colin Powell, Ari Spokesguy, and all the others did a passable job.

[Gotetsu]

[quote="smartmonkey"]I don't think Bush handled 9-11 well.[/quote]

What do YOU think he did wrong, genius?