Here it's not most, it's every people. It's the end of humankind.
You are right anyway, why did i watched this one. Probabily because i was interested by the storie of a group of marine trying to reach an sanctuary in order to save the human specie. But the movie turned in an another way.
Generally i watch movie for entertainement, not to for masochism. I don't need movie to know that a total nuclear war will means for our planet.
Well I guess you got the point and don't need to watch it again. However there are actually people out there who don't understand or think we could live through it. They need to get the reality that nobody wins in a war like that.
If Bush wants to win hand over fist in the next election, his chief goal should be to collect the votes from women.
Figure out a way to do this, and boom. Republican voters are mostly male, and as it seems are pretty much 50/50 with the dems otherwise. woo the women, and he'll win by a landslide. Reagan did this too, by the way.
Are women inherently illogical and foolish? (. . . I'd actually be tempted to say yes.) anyway, they make up something close to 50% of the voting sphere and tend to be more heavily swayable, especially when social issues are at stake. It will be interesting to see what happens.
We've seen Wag the Dog. We've seen the silence after Afghanistan swiftly redirected into hate mongering against Iraq. And now approval for the Iraq initiative, and the continuing thereof, is at an all time low. Approval for the home-ec. of Mr. B. is even lower, though that's hardly a surprise. I wonder who'll he go after now. That question, paraphrased: "who can the average brainless American be riled up against the quickest?" Maybe France? The usual suspects are such a boring lifeless bunch anyways, aren't they? Taking on France... a country with some real defense. Oh! The effects that will have on the world, the biggest schism we've seen since, since Hastings, 1066 maybe. That might save Mr. Jekyll's hide.
We already invaded France. It was part of the effort to liberate Europe from the Nazis. The people of France don't have social security numbers and don't pay taxes to the U.S., despite the fact that we had armies there. They also refuse to pay us back for any of their war debts.
Maybe we should give France back to the Nazis?
Just a thought about American power and France and who was in the right of things, before and after.
If you'd like to defend the French, we can talk about the Vichy.
Vichy.
Yes, the V-word.
Vichy.
Are you defending the French, or attacking America? It seems to me that you're wrong about the argument in either case.
We already invaded France. It was part of the effort to liberate Europe from the Nazis. The people of France don't have social security numbers and don't pay taxes to the U.S., despite the fact that we had armies there. They also refuse to pay us back for any of their war debts.
Maybe we should give France back to the Nazis?
Just a thought about American power and France and who was in the right of things, before and after.
If you'd like to defend the French, we can talk about the Vichy.
Vichy.
Yes, the V-word.
Vichy.
Are you defending the French, or attacking America? It seems to me that you're wrong about the argument in either case.
Look I know your type doesn't like one word responses or an emoticon so here's both.......
Hey if theres going to be a bunch of piling on in this thread, why doesn't someone at least intelligently address James' dissenting opinion. It's very easy to make yourself look cool by cutting him down because he disagrees, but it's quite another to offer rational opposition.
How about Syria, considering Israel just staged the first air strike deep inside their border in roughly 20 years? And they pretty much quoted our policy exactly in defending themselves against [the recent terrorist attacks].
From the NYT:
Quote:
Israeli warplanes bombed what the military called an Islamic Jihad training base in Syria on Sunday in retaliation for a suicide bombing at a Haifa restaurant. It was the first Israeli attack deep inside Syrian territory in more than two decades.
The attack -- one day after an Islamic Jihad bomber killed 19 people -- threatened to widen three years of Israeli-Palestinian violence into neighboring countries and marked a dramatic new strategy in Israel's efforts to stop terror attacks.
Israel, which accuses Syria of harboring and funding Islamic Jihad, said it would strike at terrorists anywhere in the region. A statement from the military also accused Iran of funding and directing Islamic Jihad, saying Israel "will act with determination against all who harm its citizens."
"Any country who harbors terrorism, who trains (terrorists), supports and encourages them will be responsible to answer for their actions," government spokesman Avi Pazner said.
Syria's Foreign Ministry issued a terse statement saying it plans to lodge an "urgent complaint" against Israel with the United Nations. A Jihad spokesman denied the organization has any bases in Syria.
Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if the administration did find an excuse to launch another military operation in the ME. They're just arrogant enough to assume the American public wouldn't put 2 and 2 together. I'm just cynical enough to believe they might be right....
Hey if theres going to be a bunch of piling on in this thread, why doesn't someone at least intelligently address James' dissenting opinion.
Dissent is good, but it has to be intelligent or at least have some substance. His post doesn't really address anything as far as I can tell. The suggestion that the U.S. would attack France was obviously sarcasm, but the idea that Bush might rile up another enemy to boost his numbers in time for the election was not.
If you're taking about the post I think you're talking about, JamesBSD addressed the former issue but not the latter.
They're running out of crap opponents though aren't they ?
The Iraqi army was perhaps one of the worst outfits on the face of the planet, never mind the ME. And that ain't even over yet.
Going purely by lame opposition you'd have to put Syria in the frame although their air force is a significant force. Unlike Iraq's which didn't exist. But then you'd have to take into account the Saudis who might well support Syria in the event of more aggro - if only because it would signal that they're maybe next on the list. And they have some serious hardware.
Bush would run a mile from a scrap with Turkey so it would have to be someone that the Turks hated too. Syria looks like it imo but then the Saudi factor might make Iran a safer bet but they are a real loose cannon - they might be off the boil right now but they invented martyrdom operations. I really don't think Bush can chance pissing off those guys.....which probably means he'll give it a go.....
I'm sorry to say but there are a lot of little countries that we could beat up on to claim a noble victory. However Bush is out of time to do this. Another war right now would be bad politically.
The approval ratings of both Reagan and Clinton were significantly lower at this point in their first terms...both won reelection.
Though we certainly have our share of morons in this country, I still find it amusing that der kopf clings to the old tradition: Anyone who disgarees with his liberal anti-war views is a simpleton fool. Classic!
I asked for another thread. I got it!
Dream on! Bush is under attack on many fronts now. Also now it looks like Blair knew there weren't any WOMD in Iraq before the war.
Add this all together and it spells another president in the whitehouse come 2005.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A warning by the U.S. Labor Department (news - web sites) that it expects to revise down past employment data pours cold water on the view of some economists who believed the jobs market had been improving for some time, analysts said on Friday.
Does anyone know if this tidbit is true? I heard it but do not have links so i did not verifiy
At this point in Reagan's and Clintons Presidency, yes their numbers where like JUNIOR'S but they were trending up where as JUNIOR'S are in a state of downward spiral*?
*And by "Downward Spiral" I mean, despite knowing exactly what NOT TO DO, by simply remembering his father's actions yet he's still managing to frell things up royally...
No, No, wait. Its' the liberal media's fault. Ahh. I feel better now...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A warning by the U.S. Labor Department (news - web sites) that it expects to revise down past employment data pours cold water on the view of some economists who believed the jobs market had been improving for some time, analysts said on Friday.
Maybe we need some more tax cuts.
I kept telling SDW to take the " improving economy " with a grain of salt.
All I got for my trouble was : " You want the economy to stay bad so Bush will lose the election ".
Now if that isn't childish I don't know what is!
It won't truly improve until we get someone else in there that isn't digging us deeper into a hole.
Hi, I just want to stick it to my opponents that there are still no weapons found in Iraq, that precedent has failed even if there were because Iraq is still total anarchy and Bush has done nothing for your national security, economy, education system or health care system,. Thnakyou.
Cliche as it is only one person needs to be fired next Nov.
I never gave them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.
-Harry Truman, 1956
You don't think the spineless democrat congressmen that only looked at their own reelection when they voted to support the Iraq War Resolution need to be fired?
You don't think the spineless democrat congressmen that only looked at their own reelection when they voted to support the Iraq War Resolution need to be fired?
Although i would have loved the Democrats to have grown a backbone over the past couple of years. In this case most of them took into consideration a) Bush's constant drumbeat of sadadam has WMDs b) rummy's "we know where they are" and c) some believed that voting for the measure would give bush more of a stick when he went to the UN (united front and all) instead he went to the UN and pissed over decades (and hundreds) year long allies.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Here it's not most, it's every people. It's the end of humankind.
You are right anyway, why did i watched this one. Probabily because i was interested by the storie of a group of marine trying to reach an sanctuary in order to save the human specie. But the movie turned in an another way.
Generally i watch movie for entertainement, not to for masochism. I don't need movie to know that a total nuclear war will means for our planet.
Well I guess you got the point and don't need to watch it again. However there are actually people out there who don't understand or think we could live through it. They need to get the reality that nobody wins in a war like that.
Figure out a way to do this, and boom. Republican voters are mostly male, and as it seems are pretty much 50/50 with the dems otherwise. woo the women, and he'll win by a landslide. Reagan did this too, by the way.
Are women inherently illogical and foolish? (. . . I'd actually be tempted to say yes.) anyway, they make up something close to 50% of the voting sphere and tend to be more heavily swayable, especially when social issues are at stake. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Originally posted by der Kopf
We've seen Wag the Dog. We've seen the silence after Afghanistan swiftly redirected into hate mongering against Iraq. And now approval for the Iraq initiative, and the continuing thereof, is at an all time low. Approval for the home-ec. of Mr. B. is even lower, though that's hardly a surprise. I wonder who'll he go after now. That question, paraphrased: "who can the average brainless American be riled up against the quickest?" Maybe France? The usual suspects are such a boring lifeless bunch anyways, aren't they? Taking on France... a country with some real defense. Oh! The effects that will have on the world, the biggest schism we've seen since, since Hastings, 1066 maybe. That might save Mr. Jekyll's hide.
We already invaded France. It was part of the effort to liberate Europe from the Nazis. The people of France don't have social security numbers and don't pay taxes to the U.S., despite the fact that we had armies there. They also refuse to pay us back for any of their war debts.
Maybe we should give France back to the Nazis?
Just a thought about American power and France and who was in the right of things, before and after.
If you'd like to defend the French, we can talk about the Vichy.
Vichy.
Yes, the V-word.
Vichy.
Are you defending the French, or attacking America? It seems to me that you're wrong about the argument in either case.
Originally posted by JamesBSD
We already invaded France. It was part of the effort to liberate Europe from the Nazis. The people of France don't have social security numbers and don't pay taxes to the U.S., despite the fact that we had armies there. They also refuse to pay us back for any of their war debts.
Maybe we should give France back to the Nazis?
Just a thought about American power and France and who was in the right of things, before and after.
If you'd like to defend the French, we can talk about the Vichy.
Vichy.
Yes, the V-word.
Vichy.
Are you defending the French, or attacking America? It seems to me that you're wrong about the argument in either case.
Look I know your type doesn't like one word responses or an emoticon so here's both.......
Geez!
It's really all that post was worth.
From the NYT:
Israeli warplanes bombed what the military called an Islamic Jihad training base in Syria on Sunday in retaliation for a suicide bombing at a Haifa restaurant. It was the first Israeli attack deep inside Syrian territory in more than two decades.
The attack -- one day after an Islamic Jihad bomber killed 19 people -- threatened to widen three years of Israeli-Palestinian violence into neighboring countries and marked a dramatic new strategy in Israel's efforts to stop terror attacks.
Israel, which accuses Syria of harboring and funding Islamic Jihad, said it would strike at terrorists anywhere in the region. A statement from the military also accused Iran of funding and directing Islamic Jihad, saying Israel "will act with determination against all who harm its citizens."
"Any country who harbors terrorism, who trains (terrorists), supports and encourages them will be responsible to answer for their actions," government spokesman Avi Pazner said.
Syria's Foreign Ministry issued a terse statement saying it plans to lodge an "urgent complaint" against Israel with the United Nations. A Jihad spokesman denied the organization has any bases in Syria.
Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if the administration did find an excuse to launch another military operation in the ME. They're just arrogant enough to assume the American public wouldn't put 2 and 2 together. I'm just cynical enough to believe they might be right....
Originally posted by rageous
Hey if theres going to be a bunch of piling on in this thread, why doesn't someone at least intelligently address James' dissenting opinion.
Dissent is good, but it has to be intelligent or at least have some substance. His post doesn't really address anything as far as I can tell. The suggestion that the U.S. would attack France was obviously sarcasm, but the idea that Bush might rile up another enemy to boost his numbers in time for the election was not.
If you're taking about the post I think you're talking about, JamesBSD addressed the former issue but not the latter.
Originally posted by segovius
They're running out of crap opponents though aren't they ?
The Iraqi army was perhaps one of the worst outfits on the face of the planet, never mind the ME. And that ain't even over yet.
Going purely by lame opposition you'd have to put Syria in the frame although their air force is a significant force. Unlike Iraq's which didn't exist. But then you'd have to take into account the Saudis who might well support Syria in the event of more aggro - if only because it would signal that they're maybe next on the list. And they have some serious hardware.
Bush would run a mile from a scrap with Turkey so it would have to be someone that the Turks hated too. Syria looks like it imo but then the Saudi factor might make Iran a safer bet but they are a real loose cannon - they might be off the boil right now but they invented martyrdom operations. I really don't think Bush can chance pissing off those guys.....which probably means he'll give it a go.....
I'm sorry to say but there are a lot of little countries that we could beat up on to claim a noble victory. However Bush is out of time to do this. Another war right now would be bad politically.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Back to planet Earth, my liberal friends.
The approval ratings of both Reagan and Clinton were significantly lower at this point in their first terms...both won reelection.
Though we certainly have our share of morons in this country, I still find it amusing that der kopf clings to the old tradition: Anyone who disgarees with his liberal anti-war views is a simpleton fool. Classic!
I asked for another thread. I got it!
Dream on! Bush is under attack on many fronts now. Also now it looks like Blair knew there weren't any WOMD in Iraq before the war.
Add this all together and it spells another president in the whitehouse come 2005.
What about those employement numbers? Did i hear someone say revised?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bs_revision_dc
Data Revision Confirms Weak Jobs Picture
Sun Oct 5, 7:33 AM ET
Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A warning by the U.S. Labor Department (news - web sites) that it expects to revise down past employment data pours cold water on the view of some economists who believed the jobs market had been improving for some time, analysts said on Friday.
Maybe we need some more tax cuts.
At this point in Reagan's and Clintons Presidency, yes their numbers where like JUNIOR'S but they were trending up where as JUNIOR'S are in a state of downward spiral*?
*And by "Downward Spiral" I mean, despite knowing exactly what NOT TO DO, by simply remembering his father's actions yet he's still managing to frell things up royally...
No, No, wait. Its' the liberal media's fault. Ahh. I feel better now...
Originally posted by segovius
What about 'A boy and his dog' ? That's another goodie.
How about "a girl and her goat". Watching that was/is truly scary.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Blair lied, Brits died.
What about those employement numbers? Did i hear someone say revised?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bs_revision_dc
Data Revision Confirms Weak Jobs Picture
Sun Oct 5, 7:33 AM ET
Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A warning by the U.S. Labor Department (news - web sites) that it expects to revise down past employment data pours cold water on the view of some economists who believed the jobs market had been improving for some time, analysts said on Friday.
Maybe we need some more tax cuts.
I kept telling SDW to take the " improving economy " with a grain of salt.
All I got for my trouble was : " You want the economy to stay bad so Bush will lose the election ".
Now if that isn't childish I don't know what is!
It won't truly improve until we get someone else in there that isn't digging us deeper into a hole.
It won't truly improve until we get someone else in there that isn't digging us deeper into a hole.
Cliche as it is only one person needs to be fired next Nov.
I never gave them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.
-Harry Truman, 1956
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Cliche as it is only one person needs to be fired next Nov.
I never gave them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.
-Harry Truman, 1956
Who'd you think I was talking about?
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Cliche as it is only one person needs to be fired next Nov.
I never gave them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.
-Harry Truman, 1956
You don't think the spineless democrat congressmen that only looked at their own reelection when they voted to support the Iraq War Resolution need to be fired?
Of course you don't. Damn partisan rat bastard.
Originally posted by bunge
Quiet. It's quiet in these threads.
It's this sort of "I told you so nyah nyah nyah nyah IN YOUR FACE BIATCH" mentality that ALSO stifles progress and FURTHER POLARIZES this nation.
You, as usual, are part of the problem.
You don't think the spineless democrat congressmen that only looked at their own reelection when they voted to support the Iraq War Resolution need to be fired?
Although i would have loved the Democrats to have grown a backbone over the past couple of years. In this case most of them took into consideration a) Bush's constant drumbeat of sadadam has WMDs b) rummy's "we know where they are" and c) some believed that voting for the measure would give bush more of a stick when he went to the UN (united front and all) instead he went to the UN and pissed over decades (and hundreds) year long allies.