Bad Times For W

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
See You Next Wednesday
De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:34 pm

Bad Times For W

Post by See You Next Wednesday »

Bush Popularity at an all-time low
WASHINGTON - When it comes to public approval, President Bush and Congress are playing "how low can you go." Bush's approval mark is 43 percent, while Congress checks in at 31 percent, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found. Both are the lowest levels yet for the survey, started in December 2003.

"There's a bad mood in the country, people are out of sorts," said Charles Jones, a presidential scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. " Iraq news is daily bad news."

The public also is showing concerns about the direction of the country as the war in Iraq drags on. Only about one-third of adults, 35 percent, said they thought the country was headed in the right direction. Forty-one percent said they supported Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, also a low-water mark.

Gail Thomas, an independent who leans Democratic from Prattville, Ala., said the war in Iraq was a distraction after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack ordered by Osama bin Laden.

"They're not going after the one who did it," said Thomas. "They were too anxious to go after Saddam Hussein. All they're doing is getting our guys killed."

Car bombings and attacks by insurgents killed 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis last month. Pentagon officials acknowledge the level of violence is about the same as a year ago, when they were forced to scrap a plan to substantially reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

While Bush has gotten generally low scores for his handling of domestic issues for many months, Americans have been more supportive of his foreign policy. Not any more.

The poll conducted for AP by Ipsos found 45 percent support Bush's foreign policy, down from 52 percent in March.

David Fultz, a Republican from Venice, Fla., is among those who are sticking with the president.

"In terms of where we're going in the future, President Bush is laying out a plan," said Fultz, an assistant principal at a middle school. "When it's all said and done, we'll be where we want to be. We need to help establish democracy in the Middle East."

Bush's popularity reached its zenith shortly after the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when various polls found nearly 90 percent approved of the job he was doing. It was close to 80 percent when Ipsos started tracking attitudes about Bush at the start of 2002, and was just over 50 percent when the AP-Ipsos poll was started in December 2003.

Approval for Congress has dipped from the 40s early this year into the low 30s now. A majority of Republicans and Democrats said they don't approve of Congress.

Those figures, combined with Bush's low numbers, could make some lawmakers a little nervous.

"Presidents who are low in the polls have a hard time getting Congress to go along with them," said Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "He has to persuade the people in Congress to follow his legislative agenda and they're all worried about 2006."

Support for Bush's handling of domestic issues remained in the high 30s and low 40s in the latest AP-Ipsos poll.

Thirty-seven percent support Bush's handling of Social Security, while 59 percent disapprove. Those numbers haven't budged after more than four months of the president traveling the country to sell his plan to create private accounts in Social Security. Support for his handling of the economy was at 43 percent.

The low numbers for Congress as an institution don't necessarily spell trouble for all incumbents.

"It's easier to despise an institution than to work up animosity toward an individual lawmaker," said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political scientist who studies Congress. "The institution is held in low regard, but many of the individual representatives and senators are held in high regard."

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults was taken June 6-8 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
War Support Eroding
WASHINGTON — Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.

Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in January has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn't abated. For the first time, a majority would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased.

The souring of public opinion presents challenges for the president, who has vowed to stay the course until democracy is established and Iraqi forces can ensure security. He hasn't suggested sending more U.S. troops.

"We have reached a tipping point," says Ronald Spector, a military historian at George Washington University. "Even some of those who thought it was a great idea to get rid of Saddam (Hussein) are saying, 'I want our troops home.' "

The pattern of public opinion on Iraq — strong support for the first two years that then erodes — is reminiscent of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, he says.

White House spokesman David Almacy, asked about the poll, said it was "vital" for U.S. peace and security that "we complete the mission by training Iraqis to provide for their own security, and then our troops can return home with the honor they have earned."

Bush's approval-disapproval rating was 47%-49%, a tick worse than it was two weeks earlier but in the same range it has been for a year.

The poll is consistent with other recent surveys that show growing concern about the war. In an ABC News-Washington Post poll last week, two-thirds said the U.S. military was bogged down in Iraq, and nearly three-quarters called the casualty level unacceptable.

Bush says progress has been made in fighting the insurgency and training Iraqi forces, but the administration hasn't set a timetable for the withdrawal of nearly 140,000 U.S. troops. The Defense Department said Friday that 1,293 Americans have been killed in hostile action.

In the Gallup Poll, 56% say the Iraq war wasn't "worth it," essentially matching the high-water mark of 57% a month ago.

• Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited are fraudulent claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the number of people killed and wounded; and the belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.

• Of the 42% who say the war was worth it, the top reasons cited are the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the need to stop terrorism and a desire to end the oppression of the Iraqi people.

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday that an "incredible gap between the reality on the ground and the rhetoric back here" is costing Bush support on the war.

On ABC's This Week, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., an ardent supporter of the invasion, called on Bush for a timetable for withdrawing troops. "I feel that we have done about as much as we can do," he said.
'Freedom' Fries Guy Changes Mind
RALEIGH, N.C. Jun 12, 2005 — A Republican congressman who voted for the Iraq war said Sunday that "we've done about as much as we can do" in the country and that the reason for invading Iraq has proven false.

Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina will be among the lawmakers introducing legislation this week calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq.

"When I look at the number of men and women who have been killed it's almost 1,700 now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded and I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there," Jones said on ABC's "This Week."

President Bush has said any timetable for withdrawal would encourage insurgents to wait for the foreign troops to leave, but Jones said he believed Iraqis can defend their own country.

His stance leaves Jones sided with Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, the most prominent Democrat calling for a timetable to leave Iraq. Jones said he had not discussed the issue with Kennedy.

Two years ago, Jones helped lead an effort to make sure Capitol Hill cafeterias retooled their menus to advertise "freedom fries" instead of french fries to protest France's opposition to the war.

Jones said he began changing his mind about the war after attending the funeral in April 2003 for Sgt. Michael Bitz, 31, who was killed in the southern city of Nasiriyah. He recalled that Bitz's widow read the last letter she received from her husband.

"And that really has been on my mind and my heart ever since," he said.

Jones, whose district includes Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point, has written condolence letters to the families of more than 1,300 service people killed in Iraq, and posters outside his congressional office show the faces of those killed.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Cicero
Unintentional Humorist
Posts: 7675
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Tampa

Post by Cicero »

I hate these libs who have no solutions to any of the "so-called problems." Seems, that is why their Boy Heinz didnt get elected.

Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?
User avatar
Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Insha'Allah
Posts: 19031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: filling molotovs

Post by Shlomart Ben Yisrael »

"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

Polls usually only ask 1,000 people. A war that drags on like this one has with no let up of attacks is bound to make people want it to end. It's hard to paint a pretty picture when soldiers are still dying.

That being said IMO Congress getting a low rating is no surprise.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
Bizzarofelice
I wanna be a bear
Posts: 10216
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by Bizzarofelice »

Cicero wrote:I hate these libs who have no solutions to any of the "so-called problems."
We offered "don't invade iraq." I figure that was a big enough one.
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Post by Diogenes »

Martyred wrote:"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
Fuck off.

Sin,

J. Madison.
J. Polk.
W. McKinley.
T.W.Wilson.
F.D. Roosevelt.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
User avatar
Dr_Phibes
P.H.D - M.B.E. - O.B.E.
Posts: 4217
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Dr_Phibes »

BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

Diogenes wrote:
Martyred wrote:"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
Fuck off.

Sin,

J. Madison.
J. Polk.
W. McKinley.
T.W.Wilson.
F.D. Roosevelt.
I see 2 bullshit wars fought only to gain territory. Can we guess which two?
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Polls usually only ask 1,000 people.
Yeah, but Gallup does not fuck around. Ever done one of their surveys? They don't just call people up and ask a bunch of questions of just anyone. They ask you for your income, where you're from, if you're registered with a particular party, if you own a home, if you have kids, if you're married, if you're employed, etc. THEN they decide if they want to ask you questions from a particular survey.

Once you've answered their questions, if you agree, they put "Mr. Bushice" in the rotation and call you whenever they want an opinion from and effeminate Bush-hater who sashays when he walks. :D

I applied for a job with them back when I got out of the service and would've liked to have worked for them, but their hiring process takes longer than it does to get a security clearance to NORAD. Even so, I was very impressed with the way they do business.

They would never ask a biased question like a liberal rag like the LA Times:

Do you feel that our troops have been in Iraq way too long?

They would say:

If you had to say it in one word, how do you feel about the war in Iraq? Postive? Negative?

Do you feel that some or all of our troops should leave Iraq?

That type of thing...

Anyway, just thought I'd shed some light on the way they do things. Solid outfit.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Martyred wrote:"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
This must have been after they voted for the use of military force, eh??
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Martyred wrote:"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
Fuck off.

Sin,

J. Madison.
J. Polk.
W. McKinley.
T.W.Wilson.
F.D. Roosevelt.
I see 2 bullshit wars fought only to gain territory. Can we guess which two?
To gain territory...

Damn, why do you call yoursef an American.

Die, already.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

DrDetroit wrote:
Martyred wrote:"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
This must have been after they voted for the use of military force, eh??
Wrong again cocknocker. Congress voted to give the President the ability to make the choice to use force. Otherwise Bush would not have been able to present a credible threat of force from which to negotiate from. Personaly, I would have voted to cut his nuts off. But the Congressional Democrats once again decided it was more politicaly expedient to go along. As we now know, they were dead wrong.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
Hapday
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: The Great White North

Post by Hapday »

Martyred wrote:"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
.....but after tossing that out there, the left still decided to bomb Yugoslavia and go into Somalia.
Otis wrote: RACK Harper.
Cicero
Unintentional Humorist
Posts: 7675
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Tampa

Post by Cicero »

I guess the Left is gonna be pretty pissed when we invade Iran by this time next year. Its not like anyone from their party will be in charge anyway the following term.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
Martyred wrote:"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
This must have been after they voted for the use of military force, eh??
Wrong again cocknocker. Congress voted to give the President the ability to make the choice to use force. Otherwise Bush would not have been able to present a credible threat of force from which to negotiate from. Personaly, I would have voted to cut his nuts off. But the Congressional Democrats once again decided it was more politicaly expedient to go along. As we now know, they were dead wrong.
We voted against it after we voted for it.

Nice logic, dolt.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

Hapday wrote:
Martyred wrote:"Does the Left have one original thought, or do they simply point out the faults w/ no plan of recourse?"

I seem to recall the "Hey, let's not start a fake, bullshit war" plan being tossed about.
Or words to that effect.
.....but after tossing that out there, the left still decided to bomb Yugoslavia and go into Somalia.
Somalia was Bush 41's war. Clinton inherited that clusterfuck. Lear your history or STFU.

As for Yugoslavia, that has worked out rather well. The dictator is out of power, Serbian agression has been limited and you can count the number of US casualties on one hand.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote: This must have been after they voted for the use of military force, eh??
Wrong again cocknocker. Congress voted to give the President the ability to make the choice to use force. Otherwise Bush would not have been able to present a credible threat of force from which to negotiate from. Personaly, I would have voted to cut his nuts off. But the Congressional Democrats once again decided it was more politicaly expedient to go along. As we now know, they were dead wrong.
We voted against it after we voted for it.

Nice logic, dolt.
No you cockdrip. They voted the authority because they felt that they would be unfairly hindering Chimpy's negotiating position if they took force completely off the table.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

The Yugo adventure has worked out rather well? Over ten years later and what do we have?

Milosevic is still on trial.
US troops, UN troops are still there.
Muslims and Christians are still killing each other there.
The former Yugo republics are in political and economic shit.

Yeah, it's worked out real well...

Now that was a fake war that Europe could have and should have handled by themselves. But Clinton needed the diversion...
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

DrDetroit wrote:The Yugo adventure has worked out rather well? Over ten years later and what do we have?

Milosevic is still on trial.
So, he's not killing anybody.
US troops, UN troops are still there.
US troops are still in Germany. Give it another 40 years. Know of any troops killed in Bosnia?
Muslims and Christians are still killing each other there.
Not in any kind of organized systematic way. Certainly you don't expect instant results?
The former Yugo republics are in political and economic shit.
Whatever that means. But keep up that Clinton envy. It suits you.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

So, he's not killing anybody.
Kinda supports the theory that international is toothless and impotent...
US troops are still in Germany. Give it another 40 years. Know of any troops killed in Bosnia?
Yet you people are frothing at the mouth that troops are still in Iraq???

Nice dodge.
Not in any kind of organized systematic way. Certainly you don't expect instant results?


Ten years the UN has had to get something positive happening...ten years.

Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan, they have already had elections. In Iraq, elections have been held and the Constitution is being drafted.

And yet you people have the audacity to characterize Iraq as a failing enterprise??

Nice dodge, though.
Whatever that means. But keep up that Clinton envy. It suits you.
That you can't understand what I wrote demonstrates your incapacity to formulate a reasonable argument.

Ten years later and the former Yugo republics are in economic and political shit.
User avatar
Hapday
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: The Great White North

Post by Hapday »

BSmack wrote:
Somalia was Bush 41's war.
You are seriously one dumb fuck.
Otis wrote: RACK Harper.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

Hapday wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Somalia was Bush 41's war.
You are seriously one dumb fuck.
Who was President December 4, 1992?
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
tough love
Iron Mike
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

Cicero Wrote:
I guess the Left is gonna be pretty pissed when we invade Iran by this time next year.


Your military is now having trouble finding enough cannon fodder for the Iraqi_Clusterfuc.
IF Bu$h_Corp is stupid enough to go after Iran, a whole lot a folk are also gonna be pissed at the nesessary DRAFT to fill that Bu$h_Corp bill.
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Who was President December 4, 1992?
Facts and mattering and all, but that op would have changed hands and most likely gone down the way it did regardless of who was in office.

The port area of Somalia housed a CIA base of operations. The warlords and their chaos were making it a real possiblity that our spooks would have to uproot and move somewhere else.

Additionally, Somalia had the only docks in all of Western Africa large enough to accomodate our carriers for refueling ops. If we lost refueling capability in that country, it would severely limit our ship range in that part of the world.
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Your military is now having trouble finding enough cannon fodder for the Iraqi_Clusterfuc.
IF Bu$h_Corp is stupid enough to go after Iran, a whole lot a folk are also gonna be pissed at the nesessary DRAFT to fill that Bu$h_Corp bill.
How pissed will they be when Iran starts dropping nukes on western nations?
User avatar
Hapday
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: The Great White North

Post by Hapday »

BSmack wrote:
Hapday wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Somalia was Bush 41's war.
You are seriously one dumb fuck.
Who was President December 4, 1992?
Bush Sr. sent in troops with the U.N. for humanitarian aid in December 1992, but who was the President in August 1993 who sent in Special Operations forces to capture Aidid? That's is what turned the mission into a clusterfuck.

Everyone here knows you are a complete dumbfuck, yet you continue to offer up evidence every time you hit 'submit'. Good job, I guess. :?
Otis wrote: RACK Harper.
User avatar
Miss Demeanor
That other bitch
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:01 pm

Post by Miss Demeanor »

Variable wrote:
How pissed will they be when Iran starts dropping nukes on western nations?
Iran has no intention of dropping nukes on anybody.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

Even if we think they are going to, who are we to be pinning on the "world police" badge and invading them?

If Iran or any other country moves towards nuclear proliferation, it is a world issue, not a United states as invader issue.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Miss Demeanor wrote:
Variable wrote:
How pissed will they be when Iran starts dropping nukes on western nations?
Iran has no intention of dropping nukes on anybody.
Yeah, they're developing them to protect themselves from the big bad United States, right?

Nah, they are sponsoring and harboring terrorists, are they?
User avatar
tough love
Iron Mike
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

Variable wrote:
How pissed will they be when Iran starts dropping nukes on western nations?
Not to mention all those Iraqi WMD's they are holding on to for safe keeping. :wink:
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
User avatar
Miss Demeanor
That other bitch
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:01 pm

Post by Miss Demeanor »

DrDetroit wrote:
Yeah, they're developing them to protect themselves from the big bad United States, right?
You tell me. Who's invaded a neighboring country and has now begun the war chant for potentially invading Iran?
Nah, they are sponsoring and harboring terrorists, are they?
Is this a question, a statement, or another exercise in your patented "Gibberish Speak".
User avatar
Tom In VA
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:04 am
Location: In Va. near D.C.

Post by Tom In VA »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Even if we think they are going to, who are we to be pinning on the "world police" badge and invading them?
Who do we need to be?
Apparently, the only people that are allowed to "police" other countries are the likes of PETA, GreenPeace, NOW, NAMBLA, The National Coalition For the Amnesty of Chinchillas", etc... etc...
With all the horseshit around here, you'd think there'd be a pony somewhere.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Even if we think they are going to, who are we to be pinning on the "world police" badge and invading them?
Who do we need to be?
We don't "Need" to be the invasion force for every worldwide threat. As useless as the UN is, it is an option, but there is also the EU. Collectively, every western nation has a vested interest in wack job countries like North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear arms, but Bush haring off on his own and invading every country that rattles its saber is wrong.

The real problem is the war mentality. Solve every potential threat by stomping it into the dust, and without world wide support.

If Canada* or Mexico, or other south american countries rise up as a serious problem, this is our neighborhood, and we'd have not only justification, but immediate support to quell it.

But problems in countries half a world away are a part of the larger world stage, and working with other countries rather than in spite of them is the road to a solution.

* Canada was provided as a neighbor example only. Any inference that they could be a threat was purely unintentional. :)
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Even if we think they are going to, who are we to be pinning on the "world police" badge and invading them?
The same "we won't invade them until they invade us" strategy is what got all of Europe under Hitler's control. Additionally, the "we'll be over here waiting to be attacked before we do anything" strategy was proved to be pretty stupid on 9/11/2001.

You've got a country with nuclear know-how, nuclear fuel(potentially), the equipment to produce a bomb and a deep bitter hatred for the USA. Why not take a wild stab where they're going to try to detonate that weapon...

Seriously, do we wait for a nuke to be dropped on us or do we attack pre-emptively? Granted, it would be difficult for Iran to get a nuke here and detonate it, but not impossible. If you know they have the means and the intentions, I think you'd be stupid to NOT try to stop them and wait for them to make the first move.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

So you advocate an invasion and war as opposed to diplomacy?

They're having elections over there soon, and one of the leading candidates is a reformist, aimed at bringing iran closer to heal international problems, not increasing them. If he wins it could change the picture there drastically.

Yet if he does not - you would have us invade and destroy iran based on a perceived threat before any other channels have been pursued?
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Before any other channels are pursued? WTF do you think we've (and Europe) been doing for months, weeks, years?

War is always a last resort, but there's a fine line between waiting long enough and waiting too long. I'd rather err on the side of caution, especially with a country that has moved their nuclear production facilities underground so that we don't know what they're up to.

I'd love to see the middle east conflicts resolved peacefully, but I'm also realistic. Jordan and Iraq are the two most "moderate" islamist nations. The rest just get worse from there. The idea that these places will listen to reason doesn't seem very likely to me. That doesn't mean that you don't try, but you have to be realistic about the prospects, which I don't think are good.

If that reformer gets elected in Iran, I'd be surprised if he makes it through a year in office. They're so backwards over there that the hardliners believe that anything other than an oppressive religious state is an abomination to God. We all know how they handle such things...
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

66% of the population there is under the age of 30. The big messages of hate are driven by the old guard hardliners, and the reformist candidates have been using television to compete on who would be best one to manage and secure improved relations with the US. Even mentioning the US has been a taboo subject over there for years. There's a big call for social and economic change over there.

Besides that, are you saying that we've done enough talking and that we should invade iran now without any international support?
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
tough love
Iron Mike
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

Mister Bushice wrote:
As useless as the UN is, it is an option,

mv Wrote:
An option for what?
Hummm...For not placing America into another Iraqi like ungodly mess.
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote: As useless as the UN is, it is an option,
An option for what?
Avenue for diplomacy. Yeah I know they suck. Never said it was a good option, but in the face of marching in there and killing people.....
but there is also the EU.
The what? You're kidding, right? Those useless pantloads couldn't even clean up a tin-star shitheel like Milosevic without the US to do the heavy lifting.
But with their backing we'd have a coalition if it came to needing it.
Wake the fuck up. Europe's military power has atrophied to the point where it can't even function as regional constabulary force.
It's not about them leading the charge, it's about them bearing some of the financial responsibility for it.
Collectively, every western nation has a vested interest in wack job countries like North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear arms,
But where the rubber meets the road, we are the only ones who are able to do anything about it.
That's where I step off. I don't see constant war as a solution to anything unless all other avenues are exhausted.
The real problem is the war mentality. Solve every potential threat by stomping it into the dust, and without world wide support.
We don't need world wide support. Just American support. So why don't you pull your fucking head out of your ass and get with the program.
Because I'm fucking tired of seeing our money being used to rebuild the countries of the heartless fucks who hate us, after we've just recently destroyed it. We invade iran without the support of the non muslim world and it'll just be iraq part 2.

And you can expect other countries in the arab world to come to Irans aid. They may have hated saddam, or perhaps not cared about getting rid of him, but they won't feel the same way about an invasion of iran.
We are at war right now, not in some hypothetical future.
No we are not. We are killing local religious insurgents wearing sneakers and T shirts. Iran has a ways to go before they can nuke anybody. For one thing they'd have to test.

At that point in time, I do not think that getting unilateral support to stop them would be a problem, but at this point are we to trust the oh so reliable intelligence reports, like the ones we received about Saddams WMDs? Do we know for sure they have a bomb ready for launch?
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

destabilizing iran from within using their own methods would be the better option. Another "Shock and awe" would not.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
Post Reply