Yes, I have visited every state except for Hawaii. Also, i was a bit general in what I thought about the East and West; mainly, avoid Los Angeles And New York City, both cities have alot of fake, scummy people.
Yes, I have visited every state except for Hawaii. Also, i was a bit general in what I thought about the East and West; mainly, avoid Los Angeles And New York City, both cities have alot of fake, scummy people.
Came out ages ago
LOL farenheit 911... If you had any idea what michael moore does with editing and sound bytes to twist things, then yeah it is funny.....
TV Nation was cool
That's what so funny about you.... foreigners from the 51st state
everything you bash the mother country* for is almost exactly word for word the stuff I hear espoused by I hear on telivision by so-called policy experts that in reality have dubious credentials yet get put on TV because of their provacative views. See provocative gets attention and attention brings advertising $$$$.
Like take Iraq (please) Every day you see some sorta car bombing or mortar attack or whatever.... Yet that's almost always in Bagdad and it's metropolitan area.
there's more to Iraq than just that city. there's a whole damn country and nothing ever really gets reported on in the rest of the place... like the LACK of violence Why? Who wants to see a couple a kids kicking a ball in a playground when you can see grieving mothers and dead kids? How could justifing the opinions that these "experts" come up with be done when there ain't no shouting and gunfire? And it's the doomsday experts that bring the $$$ in.
A good example of this is Egytology.
See when an archeologist publishes a book defining egyptian life and culture based on their findings, it's usally one of the dustiest books in the library. But when an "expert" in the paranormal writes some rant about UFOs building the Pryamids, It makes the NY Times best seller list, gets a movie that's "based on true events" made and the writer hits the talk show circuit. AND the majority of the sheep eat that crap up, never even hearing of the works by the scientist.
That's what's happening to alot of y'all with Bush.
If you REALLY wanna know what's going wrong with Bush's policies in Iraq
it's he had too many civilians in charge of high level operations, instead of field commanders on the ground. Yep he seems to be dictated by his own bunch of "experts" like some a y'all.
but like I've posted before, the President of the USofA ain't OUR leader, he's yours and LOL since the political pendulum we have is now swinging back towards the left, your next president will be a Euro trash all time favorite. A Clinton!!! (geesh, I hope there's not another blue dress scandal in the works... that would be REALLY weird)
Yes prepare for two terms of policy change, more bad decisions,
and an escalation in global hostilities from established thugs wanting to try the new kid in the house.
You know something tells me, she's gonna make Margaret Thatcher and Vera Peron
look like Mother Teresa and Florence Nightengale
Ok going back to Iraq, since that's what this thread is REALLY about.
The policies are a dismal failure. that simple. A whole lot of underestimating was done based on bad intelligence. And on the same token, SOMETHING had to be done about Saddam. If you honestly don't think he was financing terrorists and trying to get WMDs, you're kidding yourself. As for the WMDs...He may not have had anything concrete, but would it have been wise to wait around and let him?
And the sectarian violence that's outta control. uh yeah... and this was bound to happen sooner or later, invasion or not. IMHO, I think it's an extension of the rivalries already in existence since probably before Saddam. I also don't think the resulting sectarian violence was takien into account. I think the Bush bunch thought they'd come in like the Lone Ranger and Tonto and all that would be needed was to roll the credits.
And will the 20 thousand additional troops to be deployed there be of any use if they are to bolster the current strategy. As serious as what this is, I think more attention should be payed to these other areas like what I described earlier in the post. See there are some elements that are clearly fully autonomous and may think that their relations in surrounding countries need to be as well.
I can see the defensive logic Iran and Syria may have concerning the region, but their overall strategies are even stupider than ours.
And one thing that REALLY gets me about our mistakes in Iraq that NEVER EVER gets mentioned is how Turkey seems to be getting the shaft on this.
Turkey is our ally. The Turks have been with us through thick and thin since the post WW II era. and I think our policies over there are basically ignoring the insights and needs of the Turks (I also like Dick Dale's guitar playing) Turkey has enough problems dealing with the EU. The Last thing they need is some spill over from a conflict mis-managed by a bunch of civilian pencil pushers and poll monitors in DC.
Ok I'm tired a typing and wanna go race now... uh that lame comment about the 51st state... sorry please don't be too offended. ever since I seen Formula 51, Meat Loaf's line has stuck in my head
TV Nation was cool
That's what so funny about you.... foreigners from the 51st state
everything you bash the mother country* for is almost exactly word for word the stuff I hear espoused by I hear on telivision by so-called policy experts that in reality have dubious credentials yet get put on TV because of their provacative views. See provocative gets attention and attention brings advertising $$$$.
Like take Iraq (please) Every day you see some sorta car bombing or mortar attack or whatever.... Yet that's almost always in Bagdad and it's metropolitan area.
there's more to Iraq than just that city. there's a whole damn country and nothing ever really gets reported on in the rest of the place... like the LACK of violence Why? Who wants to see a couple a kids kicking a ball in a playground when you can see grieving mothers and dead kids? How could justifing the opinions that these "experts" come up with be done when there ain't no shouting and gunfire? And it's the doomsday experts that bring the $$$ in.
A good example of this is Egytology.
See when an archeologist publishes a book defining egyptian life and culture based on their findings, it's usally one of the dustiest books in the library. But when an "expert" in the paranormal writes some rant about UFOs building the Pryamids, It makes the NY Times best seller list, gets a movie that's "based on true events" made and the writer hits the talk show circuit. AND the majority of the sheep eat that crap up, never even hearing of the works by the scientist.
That's what's happening to alot of y'all with Bush.
If you REALLY wanna know what's going wrong with Bush's policies in Iraq
it's he had too many civilians in charge of high level operations, instead of field commanders on the ground. Yep he seems to be dictated by his own bunch of "experts" like some a y'all.
but like I've posted before, the President of the USofA ain't OUR leader, he's yours and LOL since the political pendulum we have is now swinging back towards the left, your next president will be a Euro trash all time favorite. A Clinton!!! (geesh, I hope there's not another blue dress scandal in the works... that would be REALLY weird)
Yes prepare for two terms of policy change, more bad decisions,
and an escalation in global hostilities from established thugs wanting to try the new kid in the house.
You know something tells me, she's gonna make Margaret Thatcher and Vera Peron
look like Mother Teresa and Florence Nightengale
Ok going back to Iraq, since that's what this thread is REALLY about.
The policies are a dismal failure. that simple. A whole lot of underestimating was done based on bad intelligence. And on the same token, SOMETHING had to be done about Saddam. If you honestly don't think he was financing terrorists and trying to get WMDs, you're kidding yourself. As for the WMDs...He may not have had anything concrete, but would it have been wise to wait around and let him?
And the sectarian violence that's outta control. uh yeah... and this was bound to happen sooner or later, invasion or not. IMHO, I think it's an extension of the rivalries already in existence since probably before Saddam. I also don't think the resulting sectarian violence was takien into account. I think the Bush bunch thought they'd come in like the Lone Ranger and Tonto and all that would be needed was to roll the credits.
And will the 20 thousand additional troops to be deployed there be of any use if they are to bolster the current strategy. As serious as what this is, I think more attention should be payed to these other areas like what I described earlier in the post. See there are some elements that are clearly fully autonomous and may think that their relations in surrounding countries need to be as well.
I can see the defensive logic Iran and Syria may have concerning the region, but their overall strategies are even stupider than ours.
And one thing that REALLY gets me about our mistakes in Iraq that NEVER EVER gets mentioned is how Turkey seems to be getting the shaft on this.
Turkey is our ally. The Turks have been with us through thick and thin since the post WW II era. and I think our policies over there are basically ignoring the insights and needs of the Turks (I also like Dick Dale's guitar playing) Turkey has enough problems dealing with the EU. The Last thing they need is some spill over from a conflict mis-managed by a bunch of civilian pencil pushers and poll monitors in DC.
Ok I'm tired a typing and wanna go race now... uh that lame comment about the 51st state... sorry please don't be too offended. ever since I seen Formula 51, Meat Loaf's line has stuck in my head
@Racer Y - most of your post seemed to be fairly senseless pro-Iraq arguments. The biggest question still unanswered is wtf was the point in invading Iraq? The fact it's now a complete shambles 5 years on just makes it worse.
we invaded iraq to help it; besides terrorists and plots for terrorist attacks in other countries (like yours), we also went in to save/set up the/a government..
Not the original excuse was it? I seem to remember that Saddam had WMDs that could be fired within 45 minutes, all that could be found were a few obsolete missiles about as dangerous as the average yanks stash of weaponry. Iraq was and always would have been a tiny threat compared to Korea/Pakistan/Israel etc. It just had oil.
The fact of the matter is that there are better ways of killing 1 or 2 guys than a full blown invasion.
Strobe lights and tunnels or similar ? They had a plan for Slobodan Milošević using that supposedly.
Yes, there was some - albeit very shakey evidence - for WMD and other atrocities. But there are simply better ways to topple a fovernment than invasion.
Besides, the US had a chance in the early 90's to get rid of SH.
Afghanistan was justified. But Iraq isn't borderline, it was plain unjustified and avoidable if correct action was taken earlier.
Strobe lights and tunnels or similar ? They had a plan for Slobodan Milošević using that supposedly.
Yes, there was some - albeit very shakey evidence - for WMD and other atrocities. But there are simply better ways to topple a fovernment than invasion.
Besides, the US had a chance in the early 90's to get rid of SH.
Afghanistan was justified. But Iraq isn't borderline, it was plain unjustified and avoidable if correct action was taken earlier.
I'm just being curious.
What kind of libertarian?
A moderate one,or an all out fanatic who even refuses to admit that there are posssible flaws in libertarian philosophy?
Although I like the general idea and concept of libertarianism,I think that pure libertarianism would result in a society of brutal efficiency and "liberty" for the strong, subjugation and desperation for the weak.
Sorry for this off-topic,I had to.
Ah, a good question! I beleive in what was originally layed down on the United States Constitution. Or, more specific, what people like Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Payne, in his book "Common Sense" had written. The ideals of the American Revolution.
Here is a good link to the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/
Having read the top right corner of that page it seems good principles that I mainly agree with apart from free markets, which concern me. They are good in theory but human nature just means that they exploit other nations.
Frankly I really don't care about organic products, think nuclear fuel is the answer to global energy issues and think GM food and to some extent cloning are important and should be allowed with proper controls in place. However two things that I stand by are free range poultry and fair trade.
Ever looked into the history of Hong Kong, before 1997? free markets worked damn good there, because the government was simple and stayed out of privately run businesses.
IMO there's no doubt that Hong Kong was better under British rule than the communist regime now being enforced on it but that's a bad example. Look at how the West is exploiting the people of other nations, it really makes me uncomfortable to live in luxury because others work in sweatshops, it's hardly fair although human nature means we don't want to acknowledge it/continue living with it for our own gain.
Bush SUCKS! SUCKS SUCKS.
The guy is from Croatia. That's quite a way from Iran.
Hope this helps.
@jtr - my feeling is that the reason for invading Iraq was (a badly thought out) plan to stabilize the middle east due to the fact middle eastern oil will be essential for the US following Alaskan supplies seizing up.
America is still by far the worst offender in the Western world and unlike most of the West refuses to acknowledge global warming or any need to cut emissions.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... gy-consumption-World2.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I ... on_Emission_by_Region.png
It's bad that Australia hasn't ratified the Kyoto agreement however the fact that the US hasn't will have a far far larger effect on the world than Australia ever could.
That's a lie that not even Bush had the courage to say, although the confusion with Al Qaeda helped a lot making his case for war. XCNuse, sorting these facts out would be one of the best favours you could do to your country, if you really love it.
Do you think it's fair to expect us to read all of that, when you don't put the slightest effort into the basics of the English language or sentence structure?
At least thirty percent of your words are severely misspelled and there is only about 3 real sentences in that entire post. Not exactly a good way to get a point across. I read it twice, and it in the language it was intended to be written in, (English I assume) it makes no sense what so ever.
how is it a lie when it happened?!?!
people ****ing DIED in england because of car bombs and stuff a while ago because of terrorists
Ok, OK!!! Fixed! I got this plus a PM about his country. It USED to say in his profile, "Iran, sofaraway". Now I know!! SO LAY OFF!!!!
(thisnameistaken)
DELETED
by thisnameistaken
XCNuse, don't be ridiculous. You're just reinforcing stereotypes while spreading false information about terrorism and Iraq. I find your effort damaging and uninformed.
The last time I checked the IRA weren't muslims, or black, nor did they live in Iraq/country full of oil so probably weren't terrorists in George's view. Please don't make up total bullshit. The only Al Queda attacks we've had were on the London underground in July 2005, which were massively overly reacted to and resulted in the police killing an innocent man, which should have gone to court as a murder case but was covered up by our government. A few people blowing up a few trains almost managed to create the mass terror reaction/blind excuse for a reign of terror that our government so badly wanted us to have. Thankfully it failed to give the British public the blinkers you seem to have been given from your government.
And Al Qaeda has no certified link with Saddam Hussein, as a lengthy article on Wikipedia (with 101 footnotes and external references) specifies in detail.
Bush the American Idiot
(92 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG