or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Rove foresees GOP victory
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rove foresees GOP victory - Page 5

post #161 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Come on. Not even you really believe there is a valid comparison between Republicans and Nazis, right?

Also, this "damage" you speak of...what exactly are you talking about? Foreign views of America and George Bush? What has been "damaged" exactly? Let me guess: "Bush invaded a [buzz word] soveriegn nation[/buzz word] which was clearly a violation of[buzz word] international law[/buzz word]. He listened to the [buzz word]neocons[/buzz word] within his own administration and [buzz word]lied[/buzz word] to the American people. Something like that?

Mmm, no.

More like 'George Bush and his government have made the world a more dangerous, destabalised place. America does whatever it wants. America does not give a fuck what we think. George Bush is an incompetent and very foolish man, and power in his hands makes us really, really nervous.'

We're all thinking stuff like that.
post #162 of 176
Does this now make coddling the House of Saud alright? Is it now ethical to jump into bed with any Tom, Dick, or Hussein that happens to help our interests? Starve them if they don't behave?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #163 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Come on. Not even you really believe there is a valid comparison between Republicans and Nazis, right?

well yes actually, every day more evidence emerges that comparison between the Nazi's and the Republican party is valid. You may not have full blown Nazi horrors yet, but you're more than a few footsteps up the wrong path.
post #164 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Mmm, no.

More like 'George Bush and his government have made the world a more dangerous, destabalised place. America does whatever it wants. America does not give a fuck what we think. George Bush is an incompetent and very foolish man, and power in his hands makes us really, really nervous.'

We're all thinking stuff like that.

How do you quantify more dangerous? North Korea and Iran were going to do what they were going to do anyway. You can always disagree with the Iraq decision, but I don't know that it makes the world more dangerous.

Bush is incompetent? How so...and why? Because of Iraq? I don't know...here at home I see an America that has not been attacked in 5 years. I see a booming economy and stock market and a shrinking deficit. I see tax policies that have benefited the middle class (e.g. me). I see the Taliban gone. Saddam sentenced to death. The closing of rape and torture rooms. Certainly there is room for disagreement. But incompetent and dangerous? That's a stretch.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #165 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

How do you quantify more dangerous? North Korea and Iran were going to do what they were going to do anyway. You can always disagree with the Iraq decision, but I don't know that it makes the world more dangerous.

Bush is incompetent? How so...and why? Because of Iraq? I don't know...here at home I see an America that has not been attacked in 5 years. I see a booming economy and stock market and a shrinking deficit. I see tax policies that have benefited the middle class (e.g. me). I see the Taliban gone. Saddam sentenced to death. The closing of rape and torture rooms. Certainly there is room for disagreement. But incompetent and dangerous? That's a stretch.

" but I don't know that it makes the world more dangerous. "

Because of the nature of how we attacked. Without real provocation. Countries don't trust us the same way anymore and that region is anything but stable because of what we've done. We're supposed to be the good guys with integrity remember?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #166 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

" but I don't know that it makes the world more dangerous. "

Because of the nature of how we attacked. Without real provocation. Countries don't trust us the same way anymore and that region is anything but stable because of what we've done. We're supposed to be the good guys with integrity remember?

Without provocation?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #167 of 176
The US did not see a need to build globs of nukes after WWII... at least not until the Soviets developed the bomb. We reacted to the percieved threat.

If the US shows that it will invade a country with little or no provocation and against the desires of the UN, then countriesa that are on a scare list (Axis of Evil, anyone?) might perceive a threat and rally to the call just liike the US did several decades ago. Howevver, when we do it, it is good but when someone else does it it is evil.

It may be difficult to know for sure what the true rationale behind their buildups are, but they may be playing a game just like the US did. There was a time when the US populace was scared to death of the Soviet nuke threat and the US thus needed to hurry and build a deterent, despite the US already having a far larger nuke arsenal than the Soviets att that time. Did the government relay this info? No. So, is it possible that these two nations are simply responding to a US threat? iraq wwas supposedly developing nukes... we invaded and found out otherwise. Iran and NK now probably have nukes; I doubt we will invade.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #168 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister

The US did not see a need to build globs of nukes after WWII... at least not until the Soviets developed the bomb. We reacted to the percieved threat.

If the US shows that it will invade a country with little or no provocation and against the desires of the UN, then countriesa that are on a scare list (Axis of Evil, anyone?) might perceive a threat and rally to the call just liike the US did several decades ago. Howevver, when we do it, it is good but when someone else does it it is evil.

It may be difficult to know for sure what the true rationale behind their buildups are, but they may be playing a game just like the US did. There was a time when the US populace was scared to death of the Soviet nuke threat and the US thus needed to hurry and build a deterent, despite the US already having a far larger nuke arsenal than the Soviets att that time. Did the government relay this info? No. So, is it possible that these two nations are simply responding to a US threat? iraq wwas supposedly developing nukes... we invaded and found out otherwise. Iran and NK now probably have nukes; I doubt we will invade.

You don't really believe what you're saying do you? You don't really think Iran and NK are developing Nukes because of Iraq? Their programs have been going on for years. It's totally flawed reasoning.

Secondly, you can't say it was "against the wil of the UN" They didn't specifically authorize force. That's not the same thing.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #169 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Without provocation?


Do we have to go through this again?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2948068.stm


How many WMDs were found? A few old shells that had actually come from, where was it, the US.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #170 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You don't really believe what you're saying do you? You don't really think Iran and NK are developing Nukes because of Iraq? Their programs have been going on for years. It's totally flawed reasoning.

Secondly, you can't say it was "against the wil of the UN" They didn't specifically authorize force. That's not the same thing.


I thought a teacher would have better reading skills. I was suggesting the posibility that their preparations were in reaction to Iraq, which may have implied that the programs were sped up. It is indeed a possibility. I did not say anywhere that the programs were started as a result of Iraq. Notice also I said we may not be sure, and other ideas to suggest what I was saying was an idea. In short, it doesn't matter when the programs were started, but they are very active now and we cannot say that it is just because they felt like it; we must examine the possibility that our actions, however well-intended, may have negative impacts on other people (something most of us learned in kindergarten).

Japan and Germany were both trying to develop nukes in WWII. We just happened to beat them to it and lop two big ones on civilians, setting a great precedent for the world to come, and yet patting ourselves on the back for our accomplishment. If either of those countries had used nukes on us, what would our reaction have been?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #171 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Do we have to go through this again?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2948068.stm


How many WMDs were found? A few old shells that had actually come from, where was it, the US.

That's hindsight, but sure, we can go through it again, if you'd like.

1. Defiance, clear defiance of 17 UN resolutions

2. Firing on our aircraft in the no fly in violation of ceasefire agreement

3. Open praise of 9/11, something no other country did.

4. Links to terror, at minimum suport for Palestinian suicide bombers

5. Failure to account for tons, literally tons of WMD materials as required



Now, let's put it in context, as I did earlier:

You're the President. The nation has just experienced the worst terror attack in history. You realize that we're at war with islamo-facists that want to destroy the Western World as we know it.

Now here's Saddam. He has done all of the above. Every major intel agency on the planet tells you that Saddam has WMD and is currently producing bio and chem weapons, and has possibly restarted his nuke program. Tenet tells you that the case for Saddam having WMD stockpiles is a "slam dunk" Saddam also tortures and gases his own people. He's a brutal dictator in the ME that hates the US. So you ask yourself: Are you willing to chance that this guy is NOT going to arm a terrorist group with one of these weapons?

Now, you go to the UN. They pass another res. after years of failed ones, this one giving Saddam one last chance, lest he face "serious consequences." Now, the UN already tried sanctions. The US tried limited military strikes in 1998. The result? Saddam continued to refuse to comply. He didn't give full access to the inspectors as he was required to do.

Look at the list. Look at the context. Are you telling me there was no provocation? Many wars have started without one nation directly provoking another with military action. The whole idea of pre-emption was to not wait and see. What other choice was there? We had tried everything else and were no longer willing to take a chance on this guy. Prior to 9/11, it was a different situation. But that event changed the way we percieved threats to our national security, as it should have, I guess I can see you disagreeing with the call, but to say there was no provocation is dubious.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #172 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

How do you quantify more dangerous? .

Suicide bombers on the transport system in the town in which I live? Bombers in Madrid? And foiled in France? A radicalised Muslim community with a cause? Iranian influence on Iraq?

Mmm... stuff like that.
post #173 of 176
Add to that people being kidnapped, carried across borders, held without counsel, denied theiir fundamental human rights for long periods of time, never formally charged and their status legally changed after the fact. Laws can be changed retroactively to suit any need the prez has, and they do not have to coincide with international law.

It's like a bunch of pre-schoolers with very sensitive egos run the country and can be insulted by anything and will change the rules at a whim whhen it will benefit them.

Don't worry, SDW. I don't like politicians, period (never met one whom I would consider giving CPR to and I have met quite a few), so I may be saying the same thing a year from now about the new democratic congress.

Guess Rove was wrong about things this year. Poor boy.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #174 of 176
I wonder how many times Karl has slapped his own forehead today?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #175 of 176
It's pretty big, so I imagine it can take quite a few hits...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #176 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

It's pretty big, so I imagine it can take quite a few hits...




Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Rove foresees GOP victory