idrankwhat

I figured i would post here. I want the "politicly correct" way to tell him. "Politically correct"? This is the wrong place for that. Post his email addy and I'm sure it'll be taken care of pronto! Oh, and if anyone needs any anonymous email addresses for "the hit" give these a shot http://www.tshirthell.com/emailhell.htm

Here are some of the ideas from the left. I haven't read all of this yet but I thought you might like to read in detail what "cut and run" refers to Caution! Left Click

I can't remember one of those ever existing. All I can remember is the more recent debacles like "peacekeeping" that was done in Bosnia (Dutch soldiers handcuffed to a bridge) and Somalia and the dismal failures in Africa. Don't have much faith in "peacekeepers." What I had in mind resembles about 100,000 Samuel Jacksons. Maybe the Jedi but I'm leaning more towards Jules and Ezekial 25:17.

My question is, why not (I love this) let the market sort it out? Why doesn't the US just say to Venezuela and Iran, or Iraq or....or....or... "hey, we don't like your methods and we're not going to buy anything from you? I think I already know the answer to that one but I thought the pot could use a stir

"Worst president ever" might be an overstatement. I think "greatest threat to world peace" may be more accurate

We used to at least pretend that we were interested in making peace over there. 43 stepped into office and said "yea, peace is a great idea but you have to do it Israel's way and we're backing them regardless of what they do." I think it would go a loooooong way towards world peace if we were to get tough with Israel. We could start by making their soldiers, and cabinet members for that matter, walk into Lebanon to pick up the thousands of cluster bomblets that they lobbed in the last few days of the recent conflict. (Crap, that's a thread hijacking comment isn't it? My bad).

jeez, I don't always agree with Idrankwhat, but he seems like a nice enough guy. Is it syntax or sin tax?

I didn't say that I liked him and I think you should re-evaluate who's applying hate before reason. Your disdain for the man, which is probably well founded, is putting words in my mouth. I said I agreed with what he said about Bush's imperialist attitude toward global influence and the fact that the UN is democratic only in appearance. If you throw out the devil and sulphur firey rhetoric, which the media thrives on, and you listen to his complaints then he does make some valid points. But *my* main point is that I don't think that the US wants to get rid of him because he's a lousy ruler. We supported Saddam militarily and financially and have done the same with numerous bad guys while simultaneously disrupting stable governments or potentially stable governments all over the world. I think this is another instance where it's about oil. Venezuela a major supplier of oil to the US and even with the Citgo/7-11 thing I don't think that the US is suddenly going to stop importing from that source. But thanks for your input. It's a viewpoint that I didn't have before yesterday. I thought that he was a popular leader with the majority of the citizens, with or without his flair for the dramatic.

You rang? Ok, first of all I'd very publically fire the executives who got us into this mess and say "sorry world, temporary insanity. He means well but he's a bit unstable." Then I'd publically drop the reality hammer on Israel. "Hey, Olmert....pull back, let your administrative hostages go and host a meeting with the PA to hammer this out otherwise we're cutting off every dime that we send you. Don't worry about security, we're sending in an overwhelming multinational peacekeeping force who will shoot anybody who shoots at anybody." Then I'd very publically state to the world that we're going to have a special election (that looks nothing like an Ohio election) in Iraq regarding US troop withdrawl. If they want us to leave then we leave. Sorry but I don't have a good answer to the timeline question yet. The main thing that I wanted to post was that I'd fire the people responsible. There has to be some accountability somewhere! I mean these folks are business execs right? What's the first thing shareholders should do when your execs drive a business into bankruptcy whilst packing up their own golden parachutes? I say we undo the chest straps and push them out the door.

I didn't have any time to read up on him last night because we have a one week old future skydiver that's setting the itinerary. But I'll have to say that his politics are not likely the basis for US condemnation. We have a history of overthrowing democracies that we don't approve of and we ignore or even support brutal regimes and dictatorships if it's perceived to be in the best interest of the US or a multinational campaign donor. That's why the cynic in me thinks that the real reason that we don't like him probably has more to do with the way he handles his country's oil resources. He's repeatedly spoken about how the US could cut out the middle man so-to-speak with regard to getting oil to the US consumer more cheaply. I think that the "middle man" is probably pissed. Well, that and his lambasting of what he perceives to be the US's global imperialism and the lack of any real democracy in the UN. But that's just my hunch. He may very well be an asshole dictator to his people but I have to admit that he has expressed some valid observations. The nature of his rise to power and abuse of his Constitution can't be the reason that we're against him. We don't have to go south to find examples of that.

Just curious, why not? Admittedly Chavez does his best to poke at Bush every chance he gets but, I can't discount his reasoning for doing so. He thinks the US has either tried or is trying to oust or kill him. I'm pretty sure that anyone reading in this forum would agree that that's probably not out of the question. Secondly, he uses his nation's oil for the benefit of his nation and his buddies instead of playing along with the multinationals. Does that make him a bad guy? Seriously, I haven't researched this much but I'm trying to figure out why we're supposed to have a problem with him, well other than that Pat Robertson says so and the fact that he said that Bush thought he was King of the world.....which, once again......I can't say that I disagree.

The people I hear bitching the most about insufficient armor, salary, medical benefits, payday lending predation etc. were/are from the left. The people who finance additional armor (money for the troops!!!!) through supplemental "emergency" spending bills laden with earmarked bridges and railways to nowhere happen to be from the right.

Pretty good. But you'll have to admit that that vision of heaven is more appealing than just hanging around in a white robe and listening to new age music

It has become one in the same. Merely a differen't front in the same war. If you can't see that you have no business even discussing this subject. You should try to get a job back in the states as a Bush speech writer. Hmmm...on second thought, this last one was more Cheney's style, inaccurate, repetitive of the "official" mantra and dismissive. Great for selling the Kool aid (see attached)

Maybe.............maybe not. Castro has done OK and he doesn't have oil. We don't have that option against terrorist threats like "Al Qaeda." I keep getting lost here. Are we talking about the Iraq fiasco or the "war" on terrorism? I'm reading these posts and they're as confusing as a Bush speech

I'll agree. I'd say it's got something to do with (R)ecord profits and (R)ecord subsidies, who was cont(R)olling the Cong(R)ess (R)ecently and who big oil would like to see win in novembe(R).

FOX news? Matthews? I missed that one. I saw this one today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4 I'm interested to hear some folk's response to his assertion that Clinton had battle plans to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and go after bin Laden but the CIA and the FBI wouldn't certify that bin Laden was involved in the attack on Cole. But I'm probably unrealistic in thinking that the conversation will be about anything other than blow jobs.

Just to clarify, that's "shitload of homeland security SPENDING", not necessarily security. What was the most recent grade we got for implementing 9/11 commission recommendations? I can't recall off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure it was even lower than the proverbial "gentleman's C".

Ok, let's take the revisionist, 20/20 hindsight view that Clinton did nothing and run with it. Ok, so then what happened? Bush's response to the al Qaeda threat was to actively ignore it for the first eight months of his term (while simultaneously having plans drawn up for an Iraq offensive.....oooops...I mean "defensive"). Then what did he do after 9/11? He responded just enough to oust the Taliban then he left OBL and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and pulled almost all of the resources so that we could engage in a premeditated nation building project in Iraq. If your definition of good leadership is being decisive then Bush is certainly your man. Too bad that his decisions are bad ones.....you know, ones that leave us with fewer allies, overstreached military, as human rights violators and war criminals, half a trillion more in debt and (in case you missed the headlines) the poster child for terrorist recruitment. Feel free to be ticked off about the 18 dead soldiers in Somalia. Fair enough. I'm ticked off about the more recent 2700. Clinton fucked his intern. Bush fucked everyone else.

Yea, and here's the resulting offspring http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2455343&page=1

If you're interested in what they actually have to say on these matters I find it helpful to get it from the Palestinians as opposed to the interpretation provided through the media or SC. snipped from http://palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story416.html and http://palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story725.html All Israelis, Zionists, and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. From our point of view, anything is negotiable except for the Right of Return and East Jerusalem. What was offered at the failed Camp David summit is unacceptable to many Palestinians for the following reasons: * The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block. * To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war. * Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims. * Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question? * According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration. * It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well. Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example, * The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever, * Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day, * Unemployment has tripled, and above all * Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit. It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states. It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.

No. It means that if you're going to start a war, it is really stupid to do so if your military is lousy. It also means that if your enemy has a lousy military but starts a war with you anyway, it is OK to pursue a decisive military victory even though the enemy doesn't match up well militarily. So it looks like we're back to "who started it" and I know I don't want to re-hash that crap all over again. 'Who started it' is not just crap, it is essential knowledge. Was Israel occupying Lebanon? Yep. But only a little part of it. And if you go to some older threads you'll find links to the UNIFIL documentation of the daily incursions into Lebanon, well those which were recorded before the Israeli Destruction Force killed the observers. Like I said, I really don't have to time to re-hash this again. There are very few people out there who are actually interested in considering both sides of the conflict and who are willing to place blame where it applies. They have their preconceptions and seem to be quite happy with them. This thread is a perfect example. People will slam Hizbollah for committing war crimes and base it on an Amnesty International report yet they will turn around and play apologist for Israel even though Amnesty International documented their war crimes as well. It's kinda like screaming for a balanced budget amendment for years and then gaining control of the purse strings only to run up record deficits through massive discretionary spending. It's two faced, hypocritical and shows a complete lack of integrity.

No. It means that if you're going to start a war, it is really stupid to do so if your military is lousy. It also means that if your enemy has a lousy military but starts a war with you anyway, it is OK to pursue a decisive military victory even though the enemy doesn't match up well militarily. So it looks like we're back to "who started it" and I know I don't want to re-hash that crap all over again.

So to sum up your philosophy, might makes right. Is that correct?