Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on April 25, 2006, 01:40:50 PM
-
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html
It's an interesting read. Dean predicts that there will be an "October Surprise" and that this is a closely guarded secret of the White House.
Time will tell. In six months, we'll know how smart John Dean is.
-
intersting read, but it is clearly subjective and openly partisan. You stay on your side of the fence, I'll stay on mine.
I still remember those 8 years under the threat of klintonesque euro socialism and regard these past 6 years as a genuine pleasure by comparrison.
Of course, nuclear holocaust could change all that
:cry
-
agree with yeager.... these past six years have been nothing but good news compared to the lying, pandering rule by poll smothering socialist arrogance of the previous 8... klinton reign was depressing in the extreme.
lazs
-
You guys have done it now!
With all this Bush is good Clinton was bad talk is sure to bring out all the left wing limp wrist fudge packers.
Gonna sit back and watch the show. :D
-
Clinton is not relevant, but what the hell. It's your best argument so stick to it. :aok
-
Destablized the Middle East... check
Leaked classified CIA agent info in a hissy fit... check
Largest budget deficit in US history... check
Lowest approval rating in US history for a sitting president during wartime... check
Highest pump price for gasoline in US history... check
Largest profit margin ever for oil companies... check
Osama Bin Laden whereabouts unknown... check
I smell more sewage plant than fresh air in this 6 year breeze.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Destablized the Middle East... check
Since when was the Middle East ever stable
-
1 B.C. - 634 A.D.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
1 B.C. - 634 A.D.
Yeah, but tell 'em how they pulled it off...
-
Where are the Romans when you need them.
-
rome
-
Originally posted by rpm
Destablized the Middle East... check
Leaked classified CIA agent info in a hissy fit... check
Largest budget deficit in US history... check
Lowest approval rating in US history for a sitting president during wartime... check
Highest pump price for gasoline in US history... check
Largest profit margin ever for oil companies... check
Osama Bin Laden whereabouts unknown... check
I smell more sewage plant than fresh air in this 6 year breeze.
Largetst deficit in history.
Well yea Dollar wise yes.
But then again Hershey bars are also at an all time high too
Truman prior to leaving office managed an approval rating of 22%
Oh I forgot. The Korean war wasnt a war. It was a "Police Action"
Gas. As much as I dont like the high prices either I think if you check around you will find we dont pay any more here then they do in most other countries.
And while I dont like it. in a Free market economy buisnessess can charge what they want. If we dont like it we could always buy smaller cars or use less gass.
I heard on the radio the other day that just a 3% drop in demand would be enough to send prices tumbling.
Wonder what the percentage is of SUVs on the road today.
I'd be willing to bet its more then 3%
Bin Laden is just a figure head. nothing more.
Capturing him only means a big headline. It wont be an end to anything.
It would have all the significance of cutting the head off a Dandelion.
But since he seems to be so important to some it might be pointed out again that he could have been in our hands well before 9/11 ever happened. But it woud seem someone was too busy getting BJ's on taxpayer dime at the time to be bothered;)
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Originally posted by rpm
Destablized the Middle East... check
Since when was the Middle East ever stable
All things being relative, Iraq was more stable under Hussein than it is now.
-
All things being relative, Iraq was more stable under Hussein than it is now.
Yes.
But which do you rate higher? A Stabile Country? Or a country free from tyranny and murder?
-
Yeah, Germany was pretty stable in the late 30's too.
:)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes.
But which do you rate higher? A Stabile Country? Or a country free from tyranny and murder?
I think that we should not have sent American boys ten thousand miles away from home to do what Iraqi boys should have done for themselves.
-
Originally posted by majic
Yeah, Germany was pretty stable in the late 30's too.
:)
Compared to Iraq, Germany never lost stability at all.
-
got rid of the commie liberal majority on the supreme court.... check.
No new fedral gun bans.....check
tells what he is going to do and then does it....check
doesn't rule by poll....check
allowed federal gun bans put there by democrats to lapse.... check
knows what the defenition of "is" is.... check.
lazs
-
Compared to Iraq, Germany never lost stability at all.
=====
For the sake of discussion all German and Iraqi casualties prior to the rule of Hitler and Saddam are excluded.
Whats the stability comparrison between Hitlers Germany and Saddams Iraq?
Four Million and Eight Hundred Thousand dead Germans.
versus One Million and Three Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand dead Iraqis.
To say that "compared to Iraq, Germany never lost stability at all" speaks immensely of your failure to adequately express your intelligence here, I know you are intelligent. Might want to revise your expressed view in this instance....
If your comparing postwar Germany to the situation developing in Iraq today then I think your doing everyone in the discussion a disservice with your stability comparrison remark.....Iraq is still in a condition of warfare as the government tries to establish itself amid an insurgency led by several thousands of religious zealot gangsters and as many criminal remnants of Hussein baath party. The war for a free and stable Iraq is far from lost despite what you would wish for, but the truth is people of your way of thinking can and will (if provided the opportunity) destroy any and all hope for success in Iraq in order to regain the seat of power in the United States.
Politics as usual in a crumbling empire :cry
-
Originally posted by Sandman
All things being relative, Iraq was more stable under Hussein than it is now.
The Rape rooms and Stump grinders have a way of creating stability that Freedom can not?
TJ
-
I think that we should not have sent American boys ten thousand miles away from home to do what Iraqi boys should have done for themselves.
Should have done? Or Could have done?
Which do you believe it was?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes.
But which do you rate higher? A Stabile Country? Or a country free from tyranny and murder?
Who cares, unless it's in the country I live in.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Should have done? Or Could have done?
Which do you believe it was?
What difference does that make to me in the US?
-
Gas. As much as I dont like the high prices either I think if you check around you will find we dont pay any more here then they do in most other countries.
Apples to Porter House Steaks. They aren't even both fruits.
Next thing you'll be saying ahh look what a good job he is doing gas prices went from 3 bucks a gallon to 2.75 LOLH.
Record profits, 500 million dollar retirement packages - no justification can ease that BS. Other countries. Do these other countries refine their own oil? What are arab coutries paying per gallon? Answer less than 2.00 bucks.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes.
But which do you rate higher? A Stabile Country? Or a country free from tyranny and murder?
??? a typo ?
If Iraq is free of murder ...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think that we should not have sent American boys ten thousand miles away from home to do what Iraqi boys should have done for themselves.
The Iraqi boys tried it by themselves after Gulf War 1, didn't they?
Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.
It's not like they didn't try. The way you frame it makes it look like they were to lazy to give it a go.
-
Hmmm... that was something like eight years before the second invasion.
Not really relevant.
Seems there are plenty of Iraqis willing to fight today. Where the hell were they in 2002?
-
That was also the one based upon an expressed support by the US which never materialized, wasn't it?
"Rise up, and we've got your backs."
Turns out.... they left 'em hangin'.
So, the failed uprising aint that great of an example, really, is it?
I'm with those here who think that if Democracy was the reason for this fiasco-I-mean-the-war-on-terror, then the only way for it to happen would be through those citizens earning it for themselves.
Anything less than the citizen's full support? Well..... look out.
-
Yeah, it was after Bush 1 called off Gulf War 1 at 100 hours.
There were statements by Bush 1 saying he favored "regime change" IIRC, but I don't recall any published statements by the US that we would militarily support such an action. I also don't have any reliable data on any guarantees that were offered sub rosa. Do you?
Nonetheless, and no matter how long ago, the Iraqi boys and girls did rise up against their dictator. And, depending on which figures you choose, they paid the price of between 100,000 and 230,000 lives for doing so.
Maybe in 2002 these losses were an inhibiting factor?
After all, we're ready to fold up shop at ~10% of that.
Just pointing out that it's not like they didn't try at all. They did.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think that we should not have sent American boys ten thousand miles away from home to do what Iraqi boys should have done for themselves.
I saw FMJ the other night too... lol
-
Originally posted by mars01
Apples to Porter House Steaks. They aren't even both fruits.
Next thing you'll be saying ahh look what a good job he is doing gas prices went from 3 bucks a gallon to 2.75 LOLH.
Record profits, 500 million dollar retirement packages - no justification can ease that BS. Other countries. Do these other countries refine their own oil? What are arab coutries paying per gallon? Answer less than 2.00 bucks.
Not even. Gas for the most part. When taxes are stripped away. Is selling for about the same worldwide. With the possible exception of the oil producing countries.
But hey. they are producing their own oil.
Here in Jersey we dont produce our own oil but we do have our own refineries. Thus more often then not Gas here is Cheaper then in other states.
record profits. Hey I dont like it either and also feel ripped off.
But. Fact of the matter is this is a free market economy. As such they are free to charge what they want or at least what the going rates are.
The object of a business is not to provide charity but to make as much money as you can.
Reducing their profit level to make gas cheaper may be the nice thing to do but its not mandatory.
We. The people can have far more effect on gas prices buy simply using less of it.
But so long as we insist on using it like its as plentiful as water. So long as our once minivan driving Soccer moms keep driving Durango's and Suburban's and other SUV's. And so long as the Dads have to have "Thayerr truuck". Vehicles they only own because its cool to own them and not because they need them the prices will remain high.
Most of these people actually use these monsters for going off road or transporting large objects about as often as I do brain surgery. And Im no doctor.
They only own them because its a status symbol
Those are the ones hurting the gas prices driving them up for the rest of us.
Yea I have an 8 cylinder vehicle. But I have a need for it for work and occasionally have the schlep a couple thousand pounds of material ,plus my equipment around.
Which doesn't work real well for very long in a 4 cylinder vehicle.
Just a 3% reduction in consumption would cause prices to fall.
I looked around yesterday when I was driving.
Lemme tell ya these gas guzzling vehicles make up a hell of alot more then 3% of the vehicles out there. and its easy to see the very vast majority of those drivers have no other real need to have them then to be able to say they have one.
If only half of these people switched to a smaller more economical vehicle prices would fall.
But one of the byproducts of the political correct society we now live in is the "shift the blame/feel good about ourselves" mentality we have.
We cant be at fault ourselves. we have to shift the blame somewhere else.
Now Im not saying the oil companies dont have some blame in this.
But more so then them.
But for alot of us We need to look no farther then the mirror to find the major culprit.
And if your already driving one of the smaller cars. Then you can point your finger at the people in these monstrosities and say "your fault"
-
Not even. Gas for the most part.
LOL, you got me. hahaha
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
I saw FMJ the other night too... lol
Hmmm... I missed it. When?
-
Hey now - you added a lot more crap Dred
record profits. Hey I dont like it either and also feel ripped off.
But. Fact of the matter is this is a free market economy. As such they are free to charge what they want or at least what the going rates are.
The object of a business is not to provide charity but to make as much money as you can.
Don't be naive and think there is not tampering going on here. Thats like saying you also believed that the tobacco companies had no idea what they were doing to people, when in fact they knew exactly what they were doing and who they were hurting for the almighty profit.
We. The people can have far more effect on gas prices buy simply using less of it.
You talk like gas is a convienience and we as the consumer have a ton of choices. Yeah we can get back to driving cars with better fuel economy and yes it is our fault in that manner but that is about as far as it goes. I don't buy your next statement one bit.
But one of the byproducts of the political correct society we now live in is the "shift the blame/feel good about ourselves" mentality we have.
Total cop out. You can't really believe this crap. There is a problem with the current oil situation and it is much more than just demand and market fluctuations.
If demand is such a problem then how can Venezuela get away with only charging $.14 a gallon for gas. Even with their Gov subsidising. How can oil be at it's highest availability in 8 years and OPEC below it's operating capacity and yet we still have record prices.
The price of crude fell yesterday, do you think the people at the pumps are going to drop their price as fast as they raised them. Your right it must be all our fault. LOL
"free market economy" is one thing that is also very easily taken advantage of to swindle people all you have to do is look at the big oil companies and OPEC to see this.
IMO Clinton had his issues no doubt, but the world was a much better place 7 years ago, than it is today.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, it was after Bush 1 called off Gulf War 1 at 100 hours.
There were statements by Bush 1 saying he favored "regime change" IIRC, but I don't recall any published statements by the US that we would militarily support such an action. I also don't have any reliable data on any guarantees that were offered sub rosa. Do you?
Nonetheless, and no matter how long ago, the Iraqi boys and girls did rise up against their dictator. And, depending on which figures you choose, they paid the price of between 100,000 and 230,000 lives for doing so.
Maybe in 2002 these losses were an inhibiting factor?
After all, we're ready to fold up shop at ~10% of that.
Just pointing out that it's not like they didn't try at all. They did.
You're right. The Iraqi people were actively engaged in their own regime change when the U.S. stepped in, marched across the desert and removed Hussein from power in just three weeks, and then the Americans were greeted as liberators. The parades were spectacular.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You're right. The Iraqi people were actively engaged in their own regime change when the U.S. stepped in, marched across the desert and removed Hussein from power in just three weeks, and then the Americans were greeted as liberators. The parades were spectacular.
What's this?
Can't admit that the Iraqi boys (and girls) at least TRIED to change their own regime?
Pretty hefty cost to it as well, even if you take the low estimate.
But it's "not really relevant". Why is that?
Did they fail to make the cut for enough deaths?
Did they quit too soon? How long should they have continued?
Is a time or total death criteria that they have to equal or exceed before they get credit from you for trying?
-
They went another eight years and did nothing. One can only assume that they were content with the status quo.
An eight year old battle is not an active revolt. It's not relevant. They were not fighting any longer. Hell, if the Iraqi people gave Hussein as much trouble as their giving the current Iraqi government and the United States, I expect that his regime would have fell a long time ago.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They went another eight years and did nothing. One can only assume that they were content with the status quo.
An eight year old battle is not an active revolt. It's not relevant. They were not fighting any longer. Hell, if the Iraqi people gave Hussein as much trouble as their giving the current Iraqi government and the United States, I expect that his regime would have fell a long time ago.
Saddam's regime was able to fight a war succesfully against any insurgents. Democracies cannot. Hitler really did pull off democracy's downfall, afterall. (Well, at the very least, he made us squeemishly ineffective).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They went another eight years and did nothing. One can only assume that they were content with the status quo.
One could assume that.
Or one could assume that the revolt was so brutally suppressed, with the death of between 100,000 and 230,000 people... many of them non-combatants.... that they were beaten into submission.
Perhaps the "status quo" of having entire families exterminated was enough to make them submit.
An eight year old battle is not an active revolt.
Nor has anyone said it is at this time. It certainly WAS at that time, though.
It is also clear proof of "Iraqi boys" tried to change the regime. And long before we did. Funny how you can't seem to even give them credit for trying. Not enough died? What?
-
Originally posted by Toad
It is also clear proof of "Iraqi boys" tried to change the regime. And long before we did. Funny how you can't seem to even give them credit for trying. Not enough died? What?
If we tried as hard as they have, we'd still be part of England. Patrick Henry had it right.
-
If we hadn't had the immense help of the French Navy and the French Army we'd still be part of England.
Clearly, by your logic, they should not have sent French boys thousands of miles away from home to do what American boys should have done for themselves.
France began providing aid to the colonies in May 1776, when it sent 14 ships with war supplies to America. In fact, most of the gun powder used by the American armies came from France....
...In July 1780 France's Louis XVI had sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte Jean de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet harassed British shipping and prevented reinforcement and resupply of British forces in Virginia by a British fleet sailing from New York City. French and American armies and navies, totaling 18,000 men, parried with Cornwallis all through the summer and into the fall. Finally, on October 19, 1781, after being trapped at Yorktown near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Cornwallis surrendered his army of 8,000 British soldiers.
Although Cornwallis's defeat did not immediately end the war -- which would drag on inconclusively for almost two more years -- a new British government decided to pursue peace negotiations in Paris in early 1782, with the American side represented by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay.
Silly Frenchmen... they should have just let the American boys do it themselves.
Say what you want. I think the Iraqi boys showed a lot of brass... and paid the price.
In fact, I think it's a damn shame we didn't help them THEN, like the French helped us.
Probably would have turned out far better than this evolution.
-
Hmmm... the French sent troops four years after the fighting started rather than eight years after the fighting stopped.
Good for them.
-
So you're now saying we should have gone earlier like the French did?
Or that you should always let the fight go on 4 years before you get involved?
-
I'm saying that if the Iraqi people could have sustained a 2-3 year insurgency (kinda like now) against Hussein, I'd have felt much better about sending our people to help.
They weren't fighting. Why should we?
Now we've set the precendent. I'm sure we can find no shortage of countries ruled by pitiless dictators and inhabited by some poor sods, wallowing in their own oppression while waiting for a rich western country lousy with disposable wealth and lack of foresight to wade in and bring them liberty. Booyah, bring on the body bags.
-
So it's ok to offer military support to insurgents we find "useful" AFTER they've been in open, all-out conflict for a minimum of two years?
That's your personal yardstick?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They weren't fighting. Why should we?
Again, though, they DID fight. They stopped after losing 100,000 - 230,000 people though.
No credit for that still?
-
No.
-
Didn't bleed enough, huh?
So it's two years of all out fighting or no help? That's your yardstick?
-
Nope. Active revolt.
You keep wanting to make this a body count issue. I don't see it that way.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm saying that if the Iraqi people could have sustained a 2-3 year insurgency (kinda like now) against Hussein, I'd have felt much better about sending our people to help.
Well, COULD we have sustained our four year "insurgency" against Britain if it were not for those French supplies that arrived in 1776?
Furthermore, WOULD we have kept on fighting if the British went Roman on us like Saddam did to his insurgents? Contrary to popular belief, "The Patriot" is full of it. The Brits weren't Nazis. Saddam and his henchmen were.
I think Toad is hitting the nail on the head with this one.
-
Then I'm certain you'll be supportive of the next liberation effort the U.S. undertakes. :aok
-
Define "Active Revolt" then.
Is what is going on in Iraq now an "active revolt"? If so, what qualifies it as such? IED's? Suicide bombers blowing up Shia funeral processions?
Oh, and tell me why a month long active revolt that cost 100,000 - 230,000 lives doesn't qualify.
Or, just admit that Iraqi boys DID try to do what they should do for themselves. The fact that they failed doesn't change that.
-
active (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=active) revolt (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolt)
A month long revolt nearly a decade in the past is hardly active no matter how many people died in it.
They didn't fail. They quit.
-
Ah, I see. Well it was quite active in March of 1991 when US troops were close enough to see the fighting.
By your standard, I don't think the French would have helped us. Not enough "active" in the revolt.
And, I suspect, if the British had reacted to Lexington and Concord the way Saddam did to the Shia and Kurds in March of 1991, American boys would have quit as well.
The Uprising of March 1991 (http://www.indict.org.uk/crimedetails.php?crime=March1991)
Basra
The suppression of the rebellion was marked by:
mass executions of civilians.
Civilians were tied to tanks and used by government forces as human shields.
Civilians were reportedly drowned in the Shatt al-Arab waterway by tying them to rocks and pushing them in.
Wonder if the summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots would have met your criteria faced with that.
They fought. They died. They tried. I'll give them that.
BTW, do you consider what's going on now in Iraq an "active revolt"? By your online dictionary results, I'd have to think you do.
-
Meanwhile, between 1991 and 2003 there was... nada.
Some revolt.
-
230,000 dead in trying to overthrow Saddam.
Some revolt!
Do you consider what's going on now in Iraq an "active revolt"?
-
Tiananmen Square was a silly protest gone wrong. Those people who died just quit when the going got rough. The last job they pulled was never big enough, but they know where the cops hang out.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Meanwhile, between 1991 and 2003 there was... nada.
Some revolt.
And you don't think the 100,000+ eradicated revolters had anything to do with this?
-
Originally posted by Toad
230,000 dead in trying to overthrow Saddam.
Some revolt!
Do you consider what's going on now in Iraq an "active revolt"?
Not within the context of the rest of this discussion. We're past all that. Where's the Iraqi government? Who's in charge? All this talk in the past few weeks from Bush and Rice about "Unity Government" means just one thing. They don't have one. I suspect that Iraq will be in a state of civil war for the foreseeable future. When/if the U.S. pulls out, the peace loving Iraqi people can go about killing each other, something they should have been doing for themselves in the first place.
-
My, my, my.
September 3, 1783: the Treaty of Paris.
April 30, 1789: George Washington Inaugurated.
It never was going to run 23 minutes exclusive of commercial breaks.
Ok, so it's civil war there now. At least we didn't have to go through that, eh? ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ok, so it's civil war there now.
Woot! Heh... it is said.
The worst possible outcome discussed by us during the run-up to the war, now is[/b].... tossed out there for the first time with a mind bendingly dismissive: "Ok, so...."
Sorry man.... it's funny ****. Cracks me up.
(don't mean to interrupt - carry on)
-
Nah, follow the whole thing.
What I said is that in Sandman's view this is not an active revolt, it's civil war. See, we were talking about what's an active revolt and I asked him if this was one. He said no, it's civil war. I say, "ok, you're calling this a civil war, not an active revolt".
At this time, I don't consider it civil war.
If they get their Parliament up and running and their armed forces are providing the majority of the security and we're drawn way down and THEN they have open warfare between Kurds/Shias/Sunnis.. that would be civil war.
Anyway you slice it the majority of Iraqis are not fighting each other right now. But Sandman can see it anyway he chooses. I don't have to agree with it.
And my... aren't you just jumping on anything.
As i said, try to read it in the context of the whole discussion.
-
nah... I'm gonna let you two duke this one out. It's been a good read. Thanks for the explanation though.
-
Sorry to deny the slavering dog his pork chop.
Maybe next time.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry to deny the slavering dog his pork chop.
Maybe next time.
ouch!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Anyway you slice it the majority of Iraqis are not fighting each other right now.
I give up. Who are the fighting?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I give up. Who are the fighting?
You mean you don't know?
-
Iraq has a population of about 26 million or so. How many Iraqis are involved in the fighting? I'm guessing the vast majority of Iraqis are tending to the affairs of everyday living rather than forming up in battalions and fighting a civil war.
Also, guys like al-Zarqawi are not Iraqis.
For it to be a Civil War, it would be Iraqi v Iraqi, right?
I'm sure there's some of that going on. I'm also sure that their are non-Iraqis like al-Zarqawi involved and probably generating a good deal of the violence.
I'm not seeing the Shia militia and the Sunni militia in pitched battles though. And the Kurds seem pretty non-combatant too.
The last election had ~58% turnout, as good as or better than most US elections. I'd say most Iraqis are behind the effort to form a government.
It's not going as fast as you like but so far it's ahead of the timeline from the end of the American Revolution to the inauguration of George Washington. ;)
-
They're ahead of us. They'll beat us to the civil war stage by 80 years or so. ;)
-
Yep, we'll see. It could happen. It might not.
But it's not a civil war at this time.
-
We can agree to disagree.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
We can agree to disagree.
how original. :)
-
You guys have to remember Iraq was invented after WW1 by some British Army generals. It was 3 different cultures crammed together forcably, always a great idea. Sometimes shoving your chocolate into another guy's peanut butter doesn't work out as well as you'd hoped.