PDA

View Full Version : Bush: Hate Him or Love Him (split from UK terror thread)


Pages : [1] 2 3

jackenton
12-08-2006, 07:57 AM
It's all "bushes" fault!!! lol Clinton never had these much problems.

Hazzle
12-08-2006, 03:36 PM
Yeah...terrorists didn't exist before Bush came along.

All that nonsense with the IRA and the bombings in Israel, those were just in our imagination. And Clinton never had to deal with, say, a bomb attack on the foundations of the World Trade Centre by Al-Qaeda (why does that name sound familiar?) or the same organisation bombing US embassies around the world. Those Tomahawks launched into Afghanistan were all just a dream we had. Bush is the root of all evil.

Swordsman
12-08-2006, 06:26 PM
Yeah, Bush is also extremely incompetent. A lot of people are wondering why they wanted him to be the prez. Sort of like how Lex Luthor is the president.

Apparently my friends dad was gonna be on one of the planes that was targeted. She said something like that, her dad might've been one of the pilots...

acliff
12-08-2006, 07:27 PM
I don't believe that Bush is as incompetent as we are led to believe.

Anyways, its good to see the British Intelligence system working effectively.

Leah
13-08-2006, 12:02 AM
If you don't think Bush is incompetent you haven't been watching. The man is dumb and incapable of running a country...or a toaster oven for that matter. Have you heard him speak? My favorite example of Bush's ignorance is this "Is our children learning?" HELLO how ironic that the president of a world super power can't seem to use proper grammar...or even notice when he's wrong... how ironic that that president, seemingly fighting a war against terror and nuclear weapons, can't manage to say "nuclear weapons" without mispronunciations. It makes me a little scared that my IQ is higher than that of the man that holds my future in his hands.

Swordsman
13-08-2006, 12:20 AM
We also invaded the wrong country. Bush is going to be a worse president than Buchanan.

Kelsey
13-08-2006, 04:08 AM
Thank you U.K. Glad it was stopped.

As for all of this Bush talk...it makes me so sad to see my country divided against him and the War Against Terrorism. This division between us is going to prove much more dangerous than anything the terrorists can do to us now. I'm glad we had this wake up call on the 10th (I just wish more people woke up). Where we are at sort of reminds me of the general feelings right before the U.S. joined World War II. It might take a while, but someday people might have the guts to admit Bush wasn't the fuck up they once that. I think we need to buckle down and get serious in this war, we're just fucking around now.

Jacoby
13-08-2006, 04:59 AM
It makes me a little scared that my IQ is higher than that of the man that holds my future in his hands.

Don't worry, he may not do to well with the whole 'words and language' thing, but he does put lotion on his hands three to four times a day. So you're in good hands. You're in good, moisturized, soft, and sweet-scented hands.

acliff
13-08-2006, 11:04 AM
If you don't think Bush is incompetent you haven't been watching. The man is dumb and incapable of running a country...or a toaster oven for that matter. Have you heard him speak? My favorite example of Bush's ignorance is this "Is our children learning?" HELLO how ironic that the president of a world super power can't seem to use proper grammar...or even notice when he's wrong... how ironic that that president, seemingly fighting a war against terror and nuclear weapons, can't manage to say "nuclear weapons" without mispronunciations. It makes me a little scared that my IQ is higher than that of the man that holds my future in his hands.

Most doctors, firemen, police officers have a lower IQ than we do. They hold our future in their hands far more often than any president. Bush is smart enough to realise that most of the decisions should be left to his advisors. Who are some of the smartest people on the planet.
The capability to speak well in public does not necessarily correlate to being good at running a country. I agree that a well spoken president would be far more charismatic and worthy of trust, but hey. I suppose I don't live in the US, and he's not my president, but from what I can tell, he hasn't actually fucked anything up internally.

Foeni
13-08-2006, 11:25 AM
Leah, how old are you? 15? 16?
It's my experience that most 15 to 16-year olds don't know very much about politics, and therefor have rather extreme opinions about a given political person, such as 'he's the worst president ever', or 'he would make the best president ever' etc. It's the same with our prime minister. A huge part of the 16-year olds run around with their ugly Che t-shirts 'hating' the Prime minister. The change when they learn to see things from more than one perspective.

Leonie
13-08-2006, 12:06 PM
Leah, how old are you? 15? 16?
It's my experience that most 15 to 16-year olds don't know very much about politics, and therefor have rather extreme opinions about a given political person, such as 'he's the worst president ever', or 'he would make the best president ever' etc. It's the same with our prime minister. A huge part of the 16-year olds run around with their ugly Che t-shirts 'hating' the Prime minister. The change when they learn to see things from more than one perspective.

Who died to make you so wise? I think a 16-year-old can have a well-informed opinion as much as you can. No need to be so damn condescending :) I think Bush has managed to annoy a great deal of foreign countries, which isn't the wisest thing to do in our current world of extremities and fanatacism. Moreover, he has proven himself to be less than grammatically capable, and sorely lacking in the "quick response in case of an emergency" department. He's not the worst, but he's a clown alright.

deviljet88
13-08-2006, 12:15 PM
Hm... entirely ignorant youth who doesn't give a damn or the youth that at least makes an attempt to be political, regardless of how little perspective they've had opened to them?

Foeni
13-08-2006, 01:07 PM
Who died to make you so wise? I think a 16-year-old can have a well-informed opinion as much as you can. No need to be so damn condescending :) I think Bush has managed to annoy a great deal of foreign countries, which isn't the wisest thing to do in our current world of extremities and fanatacism. Moreover, he has proven himself to be less than grammatically capable, and sorely lacking in the "quick response in case of an emergency" department. He's not the worst, but he's a clown alright.
Of course a 16-year-old can have an as well-informed opinions as much as I can. All I'm saying is that very often they don't. I've too often seen people that age (usually boys, I know) only see things from one perspective. We have in Denmark this really left-wing political party. One of its front figures is a young woman, and you'd be surprised how many would vote for her 'because she's cool'. Luckily, they're not old enough to vote yet.
Another example is a political party that's rather nationalistic and wants a strict policy on immigrants. To a lot of the before mentioned youth, they're practically nazis. They simply look at a few issues and judge them on that.

I didn't mean to be condescending, Leah.

Leonie
13-08-2006, 01:14 PM
Of course a 16-year-old can have an as well-informed opinions as much as I can. All I'm saying is that very often they don't. I've too often seen people that age (usually boys, I know) only see things from one perspective. We have in Denmark this really left-wing political party. One of its front figures is a young woman, and you'd be surprised how many would vote for her 'because she's cool'. Luckily, they're not old enough to vote yet.
Another example is a political party that's rather nationalistic and wants a strict policy on immigrants. To a lot of the before mentioned youth, they're practically nazis. They simply look at a few issues and judge them on that.

I didn't mean to be condescending, Leah.

Dude, you're my age. All I'm saying is that four years of age difference don't really qualify you to start professing utterances of great wisdom on the political capacity of people.

Hazzle
13-08-2006, 02:45 PM
I think what Foeni's getting at is young people jumping on the bandwagon. It may be harsh, but ironically enough had Leah come out in support of Bush, I think she would've come off as being a lot less naive.

Being anti-Bush these days, and using grammatical errors to back it up, smacks of believing everything you read in the press and everything you see on TV. In fact I've yet to hear any coherent anti-Bush argument, from teenagers or adults. It all focuses on the obvious negatives pointed out by an overtly left-wing media. We had the same issues with an overtly right-wing media in the 80s. People have short memories.

Never ever trust anything you read in the papers. And certainly not what you see on US TV stations. The UK TV stations probably operate under the strictest standards for unbiased, balanced and fair representation of the facts, and I know that as I've studied the regulations that the UK TV companies operate under and have compared them to the lax standards in Europe and even laxer ones in the US. However the corporates still have a massive problem. Ever since media ownership has become more and more converged in a minority of hands, the bias has become overt, and frankly, slightly worrying as I'd say the media are now a 4th arm of government and should be impartial.

That's why I tend to put a little more credibility behind what, for example, the BBC says. It's British, so subject to stronger regulations, and it's non-corporate, so it doesn't have the same sort of corporate bias. However even then I question it, largely as their close ties to the government mean that the BBC often strives too hard to appear impartial at the risk of actually becoming biased against the government. I try to apply my own intelligence to the facts presented, rather than believing the spin and simply "borrowing" the conclusion the media give me.

Bush seems a competent enough President. The fact is, like Cliff said, he's smart enough to leave the decisions up to those who know what they're doing. In fact, any good president does that. Clinton did the same. Just because he appears intelligent on TV (and he does) and has charisma (which he does) it does not mean his administration was any better, and it's those people that actually make the decisions. If you want to criticise Bush's administration, slag off Rice or Cheney, but to criticise them just because Bush has a low IQ is poor form.

As it happens I agree with Kelsey. Future generations will look back and realise how wrong they were about Bush and this war on Terrorism. So I applaud him and Blair for taking the flak and criticism now, for going against what their country wants and realising that perhaps, thanks to the intelligence available to them, they know better than us what our countries NEED (regardless of what we want). A good leader always ignores what the people want and does what they need. If they didn't we'd never pay any taxes, because you can sure as hell bet we don't WANT to pay taxes (but we have to). That's why we elect leaders, to insulate our politics from self-interest.

Leah
13-08-2006, 07:44 PM
I apologize if this comes off as disrespectful because in reality I respect all of you for your opinions because it's nice to see people who actually have them instead of the normal "I think you should follow someone even if you don't agree with them" or my favorite "You're a teenager, don't care about politics, it doesn't matter." But frankly you don't live in my country, you don't live in TEXAS more specifically. Every day of my life I think about that man because every day of my life I think about whether or not we have enough money to send my sister to college, whether my mom will be able to pay herself this month, whether we'll have to move again because living where we live may be too expensive. I have lived in 5 different houses since the Bush administration went into office because since then our economy has fallen to a deep and depressing low. My opinions of this administration don't come from the media though I do watch the news and it does enforce my opinions. My views come from my own experiences and my own life and the fact that at 15 my level of maturity and intelligence, and empathy exceeds that of my president. Perhaps my president knows about history, or calculus and things I don't know about but don't treat me like a naive child because you're sadly mistaken. My life revolves around president Bush. When I wake up in the morning I may get news that my cousin has died in that "war on terrorism". Don't underestimate what I know about the world or my intellect, because you don't live in my country, and you may know what goes on but you don't live under him. President Bush and the Bush administration is a lie, based on lies, living every day a lie. Every time president Bush says no child is left behind, it's a lie because thousands of our people and other citizens of other countries died so that he could "free Iraq" and "get rid of the threat of nuclear weapons" when in reality that's yet another lie. We are also terrorists because we're the ones bombing peoples homes, raping their children, murdering innocent families for a dream that is a lie.

Foeni
13-08-2006, 08:41 PM
Wow. You hold the universal truth, don't you?

Hazzle
13-08-2006, 11:10 PM
Yes because the war on terror only involves America. British soldiers aren't dying or anything. Believe it or not, Bush has as much impact on my life as yours. Want to know why? A rudimentary knowledge of economics would tell you that as the largest economic power in the world, a poor US economy has a knock-on effect everywhere else in the world. And as a member of the "coalition", my country has been involved in the same wars yours has. Ironically enough, this all began because of an attack on your country, so if anyone should feel resentful about being drawn into an "unnecessary" conflict, it should be us, not you.

The major concerns in the US economy (which I know because I have to study what goes on in your country for the sake of my job) are rising house prices and rising fuel prices. Newsflash: These are a concern internationally. In fact, your house prices and fuel prices are comparitively MUCH lower than ours. Your tax burden is MUCH lower than ours. Inflation is just as big a concern in this country, and many others, explaining why so many fiscal bodies have opted to raise interest rates, including the BOE, which was actually expected to pause. Oddly enough the Fed, which wasn't, did. The US economy is comparitively strong when internationally, every major country (including the US) is entering a slowdown. Even China, which is the fastest growing economy in the world, is slowing down. I don't need to "live in your country" to know all this.

Equally your point about the US economy? Massively flawed. Anyone with a basic understanding of government economic policies would know that they take years to have an effect. The slowdown in the US economy is actually the effect of the latter Clinton policies, not those of Bush, which are barely reaping any effect just yet. If anything Bush's economic and fiscal policies are far sounder than those of Clinton. Cutting taxes has served to fuel the US economy when it's entering a period of stagnation. You were headed that way anyway (economies are cyclical and you were reaching the end of a cycle this year anyway) but actually the statistics show that economic growth has been promoted by Bush's policies. The everyday life you're experiencing comes down to poor policies by his predecessor (who I liked, btw, so this isn't biased).

The hyperbole about an administration based on lies (as if any isn't) and about how America is the terrorist smack of media soundbites rather than sensible thought. And that's not based on your age, but on what you're saying, which sounds incredibly naive, and I'd say so whether it was coming from you or someone in their 20s, 30s or 40s. It's naive to believe the war in Iraq had just one reason behind it, it's equally factually incorrect to say WMDs were the reason for the war. Look back on what was said at the time. There were about a half-dozen reasons given. And some that weren't given (such as the Bush administration containing leftovers from his father's time and perhaps bearing a grudge). See I'm not apologist, I just recognise that whatever the reasons, the result caused will be the right one. Which is all that matters to me.

Bombing innocent homes? Murdering families? Do you even know how low the civilian death toll (caused directly by Allied troops/bombs) was? Most of the deaths happened as a result of insurgency, and yes, whilst that wouldn't have happened under Saddam, most of the same people would've been killed as a result of Saddam's fondness for genocide.

Between what the media tell you and what the government do, lies the truth.

Leah
14-08-2006, 12:01 AM
Hazzle I never said he didn't have an affect on you I said you didn't have to live under his governing. And another thing, if you had actually read what I'd said about the war you would have read the part about "other country's citizens". That includes yours too. Yeah as a world super power we have a pretty good economy compared to other countries but have you checked out the exchange rates lately? Hello? Your fuel prices are high but you have to recognize the difference in the way our countries are built. London is close together, has an underground, and taxis running throughout. In my country there are very few cities like that. Where I live everything is spread out and we use cars to get every place we need to go. Think about how cost effective it would be to add a subway to a city that spread apart? Thus we use alot of fuel. The US is a market economy, the more we need the more we get. The more there is the cheaper it is. Now another flaw I see is this...where do you think Bush gets the money for his war? where do you think he got the money to pay for the clean up of NYC? From our TAXES. He lowered the taxes the wealthy people have to pay significantly not that of the middle or lower classes of our country. I didn't say there was ONE reason for the flipping war either you just assumed that was the only one I thought there was because I didn't list the reasons. Media soundbites? That's bull. I can SEE, I have family members in the military. I don't need the media to know what happens in Iraq. Do you think that just because the amount of deaths for civilians is low it makes it okay? Do you think gang raping a 14 year old girl and murdering her parents and sister in front of her is okay?

"because you don't live in my country, and you may know what goes on but you don't live under him."

"I don't need to "live in your country" to know all this."

That's funny I didn't say you did.

"so if anyone should feel resentful about being drawn into an "unnecessary" conflict, it should be us, not you."
Excuse me but last time I checked Al Qaeda does not make up 100% of the Iraqi population so why wage war on the soil of a country who does not want us there? If waging a war like that isn't unnecessary I don't know what is. It's unnecessary to everyone involved just because we were attacked doesn't make it any less unnecessary. Enough people died win the towers fell, we don't need more to die over there. Freeing Iraq from the clutches of Saddam? Yay good plan but not when our president has enough problems to deal with in his OWN COUNTRY. Last time I checked Osama Bin Ladden was the one who decided it would be fun to knock down our towers. So what business do we have in Iraq? We're pulling regiments from Afghanistan but...(I'm really not sure about this one) isn't that a plausible place for him to be? Didn't we get news that he was there?


But actually you know what you probably know more about the technicalities of that war and the US economy than I do. I just know what I've learned and how this whole thing has effected me so whatever it doesn't really matter, does it? I know my opinions of him will never change.

kingdumbass
14-08-2006, 12:26 AM
Bush has been packing the courts with extreme conservatives for the past six years....
That's my biggest complaint with him. In this country, the courts often have more of a direct impact on every day life than our elected leaders, as those leaders are usually too worthless and weak to take a real stand on anything.

We will not REALLY know how Bush affected this country for several years, once some matters of significance have come up before various courts. As for the war in Iraq and other assorted foreign policy blah blah -- I think it's impossible to say how history will view these situations. How Iraq will turn out is really going to depend on the next president, not Bush.

ryan
14-08-2006, 12:43 AM
If you don't think Bush is incompetent you haven't been watching. The man is dumb and incapable of running a country...or a toaster oven for that matter. Have you heard him speak? My favorite example of Bush's ignorance is this "Is our children learning?" HELLO how ironic that the president of a world super power can't seem to use proper grammar...or even notice when he's wrong... how ironic that that president, seemingly fighting a war against terror and nuclear weapons, can't manage to say "nuclear weapons" without mispronunciations. It makes me a little scared that my IQ is higher than that of the man that holds my future in his hands.


and how old are you?
how well are you politically informed?

i cannot stand random people who try to slam the president because their friends do or because its the "in" thing to do.
those same people couldn't argue political issues if their life depended on it because they rely on others for their biased information.
it's like going to michael moore for information on gun control...why bother?

that's not meant to be an attack on you, but general people like those described above.

ryan
14-08-2006, 12:46 AM
and i didn't read any of the replies below hers...SOMEONE BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH.

sorta.

acliff
14-08-2006, 12:48 AM
Do you think that just because the amount of deaths for civilians is low it makes it okay? Do you think gang raping a 14 year old girl and murdering her parents and sister in front of her is okay?

Eh? That phrase in isolation seems like you're jumping topic there.

A few fun things for you to think about.
In any war there are going to be civilian casualties, especially if the enemy are using good tactics and hiding their troops in civilian areas, hospitals and schools. What would you do if the entire stockpile of rockets to be launched at your home were 'hidden' under a school in enemy territory, and were going to be launched tomorrow? The US army is doing everything they can to minimise civilian death, and to that aim they are doing very well.

A 'leave them be' attitude against terrorism and insurgency will not work. Even if Al Qaeda are not 100% of a population, where else would you fight them? In Walmart? Ignoring the action of terrorists would work, if they were the type of people who were in it just for the thrill of it. Unfortunately they will keep at it until they are stopped.
Independent of terrorism, we should have just left a genocidal dictator in control of a country where he regularly condemned people to die for opposing him, and torturing the olympic team before and after the olympics if they did not perform well. That is a perfectly suitable candidate for a leader of a country.

I'm sure you'll agree that many country leaders are fucked up. Some are very much more fucked up and dangerous than others.

I'm afraid your complaint about taxes doesn't fall to very sympathetic british ears, as we pay ALOT more tax for everything. Also I'm afraid your comment about your family members in service (I wish them safety and wellbeing from the bottom of my heart) will skew your opinions as much as watching reports on the news.

acliff
14-08-2006, 12:51 AM
Moreover, he has proven himself to be less than grammatically capable, and sorely lacking in the "quick response in case of an emergency" department. He's not the worst, but he's a clown alright.

If you're referring to the currently Israel Lebanon 'crisis', what makes you think that wasn't entirely planned and intentional?

acliff
14-08-2006, 12:56 AM
[QUOTE=Hazzle]Yeah...terrorists didn't exist before Bush came along.

They most certainly did. Bush wasn't the president when the World Trade Center was attacked the first time. I like the man and the terrorists are the ones that attacked us. So, it's not necessarily his fault we went to war. Plus, if we wouldn't have avenged what happened to the Trade Center in 2001 we would have gotten attacked again and again and the U.S. would have been a much worse to live.

Welcome to the wonderfully 'difficult to grasp' concept of sarcasm.

allied_assult
14-08-2006, 01:04 AM
Haha. Oops. I should read everything before i post something

Leah
14-08-2006, 01:16 AM
Though everything you say is completely true and accurate it doesn't make it okay. I don't think that Saddam's genocide on his citizens was okay either, I think how Bush handled this whole situation was wrong though. The reason people say "none of this happened when Clinton was in office" doesn't mean they didn't know of the terrorist attacks. I'm pretty sure we all remember the attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. But Clinton handled it better he left fewer people angry and he kept his country as loyal to him as possible. When running a country it's a big deal to keep your country happy. Bush on the other hand doesn't handle the terrorist threats/attacks well because though he may try his best in those fields he does not try his best to do what is best for his own country.
And Of COURSE my views are biased. Wouldn't yours be? If everytime someone left the house you didn't know whether they'd be back again? If in every email they sent they told you about someone they had to shoot? or a friend that died? And that has NOTHING to do with media influence and it doesn't even relate to it because often when the media reports what's happened they weren't actually there, and they didn't actually have to fire a gun.

Liam
14-08-2006, 03:16 AM
The only thing wrong with the US-led invasions in the wake of the September 11 attacks was the lack of contingency planning. Having arguably the most powerful military in the world (I'm going out on a limb and saying that the Chinese and possibly the Russians have a stronger military) doesn't mean you don't need to plan for the bumps in the road. Everyone knew that resistance to an invasion from regular military forces would be relatively weak and that insurgency and resistance fighters would pose a greater threat to Coalition forces after the 'victory' announcement, yet it would outwardly appear that no great effort went into planning for it.

Clinton never had to deal with any sort of attack on the scale of those Bush faced in 2001, so the whole point of Clinton possibly handling the attacks better is moot. Don't pretend otherwise.

IQ has nothing to do with the ability to lead a country. Do you know exactly what Bush's IQ might be? I have an IQ of 152, does that make me a better leader than Bush? Should I be sworn into office straight away? Don't judge a man on his apparent inability to make a convincing speech. John Howard is hardly the most convincing man on the lecturn and he is the most successful Prime Minister our country has had for a long time. Our economy is going gangbusters, inflation is more or less under control, taxes are widely regarded as fairly moderate and our standard of living has never been better. All the while we are making valid and important contributions to the war effort, but I wouldn't expect anyone (except maybe the Brits) to have any sort of handle on what our military is doing.

Listen to Haz children. He might come across as a bit of a clown but the man is intelligent and educated, and holds well formed opinions on political topics.

Leonie
14-08-2006, 07:57 AM
If you're referring to the currently Israel Lebanon 'crisis', what makes you think that wasn't entirely planned and intentional?

No, I was talking about New Orleans.

acliff
14-08-2006, 08:10 AM
No, I was talking about New Orleans.

Sad to say, but I'm certain if it was a particularly high priority, a faster reaction would have been seen. In hindsight it would have been rather helpful if better hurricane protection was in place before, but not everywhere can be like Florida.

kingdumbass
14-08-2006, 08:16 AM
It's too bad all of them folks in New Orleans weren't embryos....
Bush would have helped them immediately!

You know -- cuz he's PRO-LIFE.

That means you've got to protect the unborn. Of course, once you're born, you're on your own!

Hazzle
14-08-2006, 08:29 AM
Warning this post is a fucking essay:

Yeah as a world super power we have a pretty good economy compared to other countries but have you checked out the exchange rates lately?

Yes. But do you realise the causes of that have little to do with Bush? People will blame Bush's tax cuts and the war for the increased deficit but in fact the trade deficit is caused largely by the fact more Americans need to buy more American-made products instead of buying cheap alternatives from abroad. Hence the tax cuts, designed to fuel the domestic economy.

Hello? Your fuel prices are high but you have to recognize the difference in the way our countries are built. London is close together, has an underground, and taxis running throughout. In my country there are very few cities like that. Where I live everything is spread out and we use cars to get every place we need to go. Think about how cost effective it would be to add a subway to a city that spread apart? Thus we use alot of fuel.

Understood but your fuel prices are still a quarter of ours. Perhaps if you could build cars that didn't guzzle petrol, your fuel crisis wouldn't be so bad. You can blame the geography all you want, but US cars are just as bad at fuel consumption anywhere in the world. Ironic, given you lot invented the damn thing.

The US is a market economy, the more we need the more we get. The more there is the cheaper it is.

So? I presume you mean the more fuel you use, the more you get, the more you get, the cheaper it is? Explaining the difference in price? So what? You may buy more, but as you so eloquently pointed out, in a market economy that means it costs you less. So where's the concern about fuel prices? Your price per gallon as a %age of GDP is lower than ours, I'd venture a guess.

Now another flaw I see is this...where do you think Bush gets the money for his war? where do you think he got the money to pay for the clean up of NYC? From our TAXES. He lowered the taxes the wealthy people have to pay significantly not that of the middle or lower classes of our country.

No, he gets it by increasing borrowing. This myth that taxation is paying for the war is just that, a myth. Equally, how the does one lower the taxes of the wealthy alone? Wealthy people get the most out of the tax system as they can afford to hire good tax lawyers and accountants to take advantage of loopholes. But lowering tax is lowering tax, and it's a lovely cop-out used by left wingers whenever a tax cut happens that it favours the wealthy. Bollocks. The wealthiest are usually getting the best out of the tax system anyway, it's the poorest that aren't, and who benefit from a cut. The whole rationale behind the cuts was to give people more money to spend, thereby fuelling the economy, it makes no sense for the cuts to favour the wealthy.

Excuse me but last time I checked Al Qaeda does not make up 100% of the Iraqi population so why wage war on the soil of a country who does not want us there? If waging a war like that isn't unnecessary I don't know what is. It's unnecessary to everyone involved just because we were attacked doesn't make it any less unnecessary. Enough people died win the towers fell, we don't need more to die over there. Freeing Iraq from the clutches of Saddam? Yay good plan but not when our president has enough problems to deal with in his OWN COUNTRY. Last time I checked Osama Bin Ladden was the one who decided it would be fun to knock down our towers. So what business do we have in Iraq? We're pulling regiments from Afghanistan but...(I'm really not sure about this one) isn't that a plausible place for him to be? Didn't we get news that he was there?

1) Iraqis don't want us there? Odd that, since the US approval rating in Iraq has shot up and the Iraqi president has thanked the US for freeing the country. Numerous soldiers have given accounts of being thanked in the streets. Iraqi blogs (you should look some up) tell the story of a country pleased to be rid of Saddam. Not saying EVERY Iraqi wants the coalition there, but enough seem to, based on the many many facts available. So that's a media myth if ever there was one.

2) Your understanding of the "we were attacked" scenario is flawed. It was the first attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. The reason you were attacked at Pearl Harbor was because of the US isolation policy and your failure to engage the world. 9/11 was caused by the same inaction. You're utterly failing to grasp the significance here. The towers falling was symbolic; America needed to stop thinking the world's problems didn't affect her, and Iraq was a festering problem that America had ignored as it didn't need to worry anymore (Kuwaiti oil was getting through fine). It was time to engage, and Bush did that. It's easy saying "enough people died when the towers fell" but until you understand WHY they fell, geopolitically, you can't understand why the war is necessary. Without it, another 9/11 was begging to happen.

3) Noone but the media connected Al Queda with Iraq. Bush never used that as an argument for the war. The most telling reason was that the man was a dictator. A little understanding of geopolitics is necessary here. The Middle East is FULL of dictators. It's easy to say that Saddam wasn't the only dictator, or even the worst, but Mugabe (for example) is hardly the biggest problem in Africa. Removing Kim Jong-il would have less of a geopolitical effect on the region because China (increasingly liberal thanks to capitalism, America's secret weapon in the War on Terror) and Japan are the power players in Asia. The geopolitical rammifications of a democratic Iraq could potentially mean an end to the Palestinian conflict (though I don't hold out any hope). Democracy has a habit of spreading like a rash. Even Iran has liberalised a lot recently, since the Iraqi invasion. I wonder why...

4) The "he has enough problems in his own country" mentality is what got you attacked in the first place. Burying your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist does you no favours.

5) OBL was in Afghanistan, originally, but there's nothing to suggest he's still there. Even if he is, the withdrawal of US troops doesn't make a difference as the US regiments are being replaced by Nato troops. Heaven forbid Bush try and get more US troops back home to be with their families...

kingdumbass
14-08-2006, 08:53 AM
I'm going out on a limb and say that the Chinese and possibly the Russians have a stronger military

That's hysterical!

Pygmalion
14-08-2006, 09:11 AM
I don't care for Bush, he practically dictates Autralian politics because our government is content sucking his redneck knob.
Thats really all I have to say.

Leonie
14-08-2006, 09:24 AM
Sad to say, but I'm certain if it was a particularly high priority, a faster reaction would have been seen. In hindsight it would have been rather helpful if better hurricane protection was in place before, but not everywhere can be like Florida.

I didn't mean that either. I meant that in the event of a large number of people losing their homes, their possessions and their pets, he could have sent help a tad quicker. If the reason for tardiness was the lack of priority, then that in itself is enough to fault Bush.

Liam
14-08-2006, 09:39 AM
That's hysterical!

I love how the one contentious line in my post gets jumped on by someone with the old fashioned invincibility complex but the rest is left alone because nobody can argue with it without appearing downright foolish.

Let me put it in an analogy that even you could understand: One man with a high tech rifle, against 7 with some form of low tech weapon - a Kalashnikov or something similar. Who wins? If you tell me you believe the man with the high tech rifle will win, you are an idiot.

Do yourself a favour and do some research before you attempt to argue with someone who has studied the area for the last 10 years.

acliff
14-08-2006, 09:46 AM
I love how the one contentious line in my post gets jumped on by someone with the old fashioned invincibility complex but the rest is left alone because nobody can argue with it without appearing downright foolish.

Let me put it in an analogy that even you could understand: One man with a high tech rifle, against 7 with some form of low tech weapon - a Kalashnikov or something similar. Who wins? If you tell me you believe the man with the high tech rifle will win, you are an idiot.

Do yourself a favour and do some research before you attempt to argue with someone who has studied the area for the last 10 years.

Also, its not like China or Russia are technologically deficient. In addition to having superior numbers, they both have pretty powerful airforces and nuclear capabilities. Having many many spy satellites each helps them somewhat also.

kingdumbass
14-08-2006, 09:59 AM
Oh, MY APOLOGIES, Mr. IQ of 152....
In modern warfare, numbers do not matter as much as they used to. If the US and China were to REALLY go head-to-head in some third-party's territory (for instance, Taiwan), the US would win. There's simply no question about it. Same goes for Russia (this is assuming no one went nuclear).

Your "one man vs. seven" analogy is laughable in this case. It simply does not apply to the argument of whether the US or China is stronger. The United States outclasses China on almost every level. Of course one man with a high-tech rifle would lose to seven men with a low-tech rifle; what's that got to do with this discussion? By your logic, whoever has the highest active troop strength would win a war. So I guess that means North Korea is a superpower, huh? After 9/11, the US sent a relatively small force into Afghanistan, and yet we wiped out an entire Army. One Daisy Cutter bomb eliminated thousands of Taliban soldiers (many of whom, incidentally, were probably carrying Kalashnikovs).

As far as my failure to mention the rest of your post is concerned -- I did not do so because I don't have an argument there. I don't have any particular objection to the foreign policy of George W. Bush. It's his DOMESTIC policy that irks me. Whether or not his little adventure in Iraq will work out remains to be seen. At this point, it's a stricly academic argument.

And "years of study"??? It happens that I spent YEARS studying Eastern Europe, with a heavy emphasis on Russia, in particular. You want to get into Russia, bring it on.

Liam
14-08-2006, 10:56 AM
Not sure if you want to get into an argument with someone who has relatives LIVING in Russia at present who are studying towards a PhD in Russian history, but anyway. I want to play World of Warcraft so I'll keep this brief.

How is the one man versus seven argument irrelevant? That is exactly the situation. Think back, if you will, to 1942. The Russians were totally outclassed, technologically and strategically, yet managed to break through at Stalingrad and begin pushing the Germans back. This is BEFORE the US got heavily involved in the European Theatre of War, so dont go trumpeting your contribution at that point. I'd ask you to exercise a little common sense when dragging North Korea into the argument; they clearly are little competition when it comes to conventional warfare. China and Russia are very, very different propositions altogether. Both, particularly the Russians, are technologically advanced, well equipped and very well led. The US main battle tank is *old* and is being hastily retrofitted with new equipment to keep it on a technological level with 'the old enemy'. The Russian T-90 and newer tanks are technological marvels, virtually immune to the shoulder launched rockets that plague other heavy tanks. Russian radars and surface to air missile systems (especially the S-300 long range system, known as SA-10 to the west) are widely regarded as the best in the world. I am a firm believer in air power winning wars and the Su-27, Su-33, MiG-29 and MiG-31 are all equal to or superior to the F-15 and F-16, in terms of radar detection range, track-while-scan capabilities, and ability to engage low flying cruise missiles. The Russian aircraft also accelerate faster than the F-15 and carry the formidable R-77 (AA-12) which is so damn good that it is unofficially known as AMRAAMski in the west. The Su-27 and MiG-29 are both capable of passing through zero airspeed without engine damage and operating from rough, hastily prepared frontline airstrips. This is a capability that is not present on ANY U.S frontline fighter aircraft. The next generation F-22 still cannot operate from that sort of airfield, neither can it pass through zero airspeed without engine flameouts. And the next generation Sukhoi S-37 is designed to combine the new technology like thrust vectoring and rear aspect fire control with the ability to operate from the front line. An army without air support isn't going to last long on a modern battlefield (in a war between comparable opponents) and this ability allows the Russian military to be more mobile than its US counterpart.

The Chinese can be considered to have the same abilities on a smaller scale. Any Russian technology they have has been cleared for export meaning the best stuff has been removed but the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Chinese offsets this.

Please note that me throwing my IQ in was only to demonstrate my point about IQ being irrelevant.

deviljet88
14-08-2006, 12:08 PM
Few slightly off topic questions since I'm not entirely willing to be dragged into the actual topic about Bush, what with my entire lack of knowledge of anything political, or to the extent everyonelse claims... Anyway...

@Hazzle: Mainly just point 1...
"Odd that, since the US approval rating in Iraq has shot up and the Iraqi president has thanked the US for freeing the country"
Just wanted some clarification on who runs the approval rating polls and also if they actually have relevance etc. Many a time, one candidate had a majority vote in popularity polls, then the poor guy receives a landslide loss in the actual election. Also, not sure who the president for Iraq is, but do some people claim him to be a puppet, or that's only referring to Afghanistan?
"Soldiers and blogs"
Ratio of Iraqis that stayed inside in fear of rebels compared to Iraqis that came out to thank soldiers? Blogs is... I've got a generalised view of the academics and such, not a large majority of people, who can get access to a computer/net and would post their opinion on the medium. Under the impression that they can't exactly tell the whole story for the rest of the country. It'd be like myself trying to comment on how the Australian Aborigines are suffering in the Outback while living in a city...

@Liam: Stalingrad, don't they generally blame the weather and logistics too for the Axis loss? Plus it's uneven footing ground, one on defense with knowledge of own area and equipped to be at an optimum in it compared to the Germans. Then again, dumbass and yourself swinging off topic about lots of conventional war ranting... Terrorism escapes those bounds, no? "Air power winning wars". If only so in the current situation.

Yep, lots of bullpoop but wanted to ask a few questions. Sorry ^^

Hazzle
14-08-2006, 12:29 PM
@Hazzle: Mainly just point 1...
"Odd that, since the US approval rating in Iraq has shot up and the Iraqi president has thanked the US for freeing the country"
Just wanted some clarification on who runs the approval rating polls and also if they actually have relevance etc. Many a time, one candidate had a majority vote in popularity polls, then the poor guy receives a landslide loss in the actual election.

This was a poll done by the Guardian, I believe. A paper that's been overtly anti-Bush. The same poll showed support for OBL has dropped, not increased, since the war in Iraq. Of course the relevance/accuracy can be overstated but if noone wanted the US there, approval would be 0, surely?

Also, not sure who the president for Iraq is, but do some people claim him to be a puppet, or that's only referring to Afghanistan?

A fair point, it's an opinion, though, and I disagree with it. I don't think I could claim to be right or anyone else could. He was elected by their public though, so he speaks for them. I think what he says holds merit.

"Soldiers and blogs"
Ratio of Iraqis that stayed inside in fear of rebels compared to Iraqis that came out to thank soldiers?

Irrelevant. My point was simply that not ALL Iraqis don't want the US there. Minority or otherwise. Only a minority of Americans want the US there!

Blogs is... I've got a generalised view of the academics and such, not a large majority of people, who can get access to a computer/net and would post their opinion on the medium. Under the impression that they can't exactly tell the whole story for the rest of the country. It'd be like myself trying to comment on how the Australian Aborigines are suffering in the Outback while living in a city...

That's a massive assumption. A lot of these blogs are written by young people, not old academics. Young people who're the future of Iraq. It's actually wrong to suggest that only a minority have access to computers or the internet, or use that medium. It's massively popular in the middle east, and in fact computer literacy in the region is probably higher than a lot of "western" countries.

I didn't mean that either. I meant that in the event of a large number of people losing their homes, their possessions and their pets, he could have sent help a tad quicker. If the reason for tardiness was the lack of priority, then that in itself is enough to fault Bush.

Not sure it is. Hurricanes are a natural part of life in the US, Louisiana, given its location, should've been better prepared. As Florida is. It's a state issue, and I think the Federal help given, however late, is a bonus they should get on their knees and be thankful for. It's not Bush's fault Louisiana is so badly run. Equally Bush's other priorities must surely rank above that. A war where millions of lives are at stake, not to mention the potential history-making rammifications of it, must be number one priority. A failing domestic economy must be second. He can't devote his time to a minority who should really have been taken care of by their state.

duckula
14-08-2006, 12:44 PM
Do yourself a favour and do some research before you attempt to argue with someone who has studied the area for the last 10 years.

May I?

Leonie
14-08-2006, 01:14 PM
Not sure it is. Hurricanes are a natural part of life in the US, Louisiana, given its location, should've been better prepared. As Florida is. It's a state issue, and I think the Federal help given, however late, is a bonus they should get on their knees and be thankful for. It's not Bush's fault Louisiana is so badly run. Equally Bush's other priorities must surely rank above that. A war where millions of lives are at stake, not to mention the potential history-making rammifications of it, must be number one priority. A failing domestic economy must be second. He can't devote his time to a minority who should really have been taken care of by their state.

This is where we disagree. I think it Bush's job to make sure the state takes care of its people. He hadn't. Full stop. Before you go "saving citizens from a tyrant" in Iraq, save your own bloody people first eh? Just an idea.

ryan
14-08-2006, 01:30 PM
This is where we disagree. I think it Bush's job to make sure the state takes care of its people. He hadn't. Full stop. Before you go "saving citizens from a tyrant" in Iraq, save your own bloody people first eh? Just an idea.


how can one man take on the additional responsibilities of 50 states on top of all of his federal and international responsibilities?

some of it has to fall on the state.

Hazzle
14-08-2006, 03:41 PM
In fact all of it does. It's not the Presidents job to ensure the State takes care of its people at all. If it's in the constitution I'd love to see where. Prevention of hurricane damage would not be acceptable Federal spending. Once the bloody thing had hit, it was a bit late to take care of anyone. Blame Louisiana for not being prepared, but after it hit, blaming anyone for the aftermath is like blaming Chris Evans for having ginger pubes. A lack of preparedness was the cause of the problem.

As for "saving people from a tyrant" vs taking care of his own, I believe I adequately explained the geopolitical rammifications of that attitude. In fact, but for America "saving people from a tyrant", there's every possibility we'd both be speaking German right now. A cliched argument but nonetheless true.

True, America didn't "save" Europe but it was an allied effort and unlike Britain and Russia, America was fighting a war which didn't technically involve her. Hitler's declaration of war on America was never serious and had she wanted to, the US could simply have focussed on bombing the fuck out of Japan and leaving the Europeans to take care of their own mess.

Katrina was so overblown by the media and the left-wing. It killed less 2,000 people! Unless we're being racist and suggesting an American life is worth more than that of a foreigner, what about the Asian tsunami which killed 100 times that many people? Should America have sent more relief efforts there?

Leah
14-08-2006, 05:03 PM
I don't have much more to say about Iraq or even foreign affairs for that matter but I agree with Leonie on Katrina and the reaction time. It's a common misconception that New orleans wasn't prepared...they thought they were. After recent storms their levees grew weak and no one knew despite checking them. The people of Lousiana (the majority of them anyways) do have hurricane supplies to sustain them for a while but Katrina came mildly as a shock to the people of Louisiana people didn't think it would be as bad as it was. Those people who were elderly, or didn't have much money, or had some ailment keeping them from leaving the coast and heading north were stuck. Mainly buses came AFTER Katrina hit to haul people away. It is most likely Ray Nagin's fault that he failed to get people out of New Orleans before hand on school buses because there obviously were buses; but even if he had used the buses the gas stations were shut down and the highways out were already at stand stills. So for those people who didn't get out in advance they were seemingly doomed. New Orleans was virtually leveled and because the levees broke at contact they had no way to get the water out. Now heres where I come to Bush. Bush is the president of our country first and last, he is the leader of the world super power and because of that he has to play cop around the world but America did not become a world super power by forgetting about domestic affairs. First and foremost comes our country and our well being. Apparently Bush forgot this commitment. He left the people there for days without food, without water, without medicine for the sick, without a way out. They should have done something.

Leonie
15-08-2006, 12:22 AM
In fact all of it does. It's not the Presidents job to ensure the State takes care of its people at all. If it's in the constitution I'd love to see where. Prevention of hurricane damage would not be acceptable Federal spending. Once the bloody thing had hit, it was a bit late to take care of anyone. Blame Louisiana for not being prepared, but after it hit, blaming anyone for the aftermath is like blaming Chris Evans for having ginger pubes. A lack of preparedness was the cause of the problem.

As for "saving people from a tyrant" vs taking care of his own, I believe I adequately explained the geopolitical rammifications of that attitude. In fact, but for America "saving people from a tyrant", there's every possibility we'd both be speaking German right now. A cliched argument but nonetheless true.

Katrina was so overblown by the media and the left-wing. It killed less 2,000 people! Unless we're being racist and suggesting an American life is worth more than that of a foreigner, what about the Asian tsunami which killed 100 times that many people? Should America have sent more relief efforts there?

You keep making it sound as though Katrina was just your average storm they should have been prepared for. Fact is, it wasn't. It was an extroardinarily heavy blow; a special hurricane that required special attention. This wasn't average state business - it was a natural disaster on America's own soil that killed many people, and left others homeless till today even. When a state is in way over its head, it is the umbrella organisation that needs to take action.

Next point: I'm talking about America having the responsibility to take care of it's own people. That's not racist, it's logic. It would make little sense to pass on the charity all over the world, letting another country take care of your problems every time, like a big chain of goodwill.

You are also taking my argument out of context: I am merely suggesting that before America goes off to save the world, they may want to look at a few things that are harming their own people. After all, America is one of the Western countries where you can happily die of starvation still. There weren't enough soldiers left to help in an emergy such as Katrina. To my mind, that sounds as though there wouldn't be enough to help out in the event of say... a terrorist attack either? You may want to leave your people well and safe before you rush off overseas. That's not to say you can never go overseas to fight a war that, to my mind, isn't unjust, unless your country is perfect. It does mean that you have the obligation to take care of emergencies on home soil before you put all your money in overseas warfare.

Seeing how you're a war expert, surely you know that WWII was a good thing for the home economy of America. There were no urgent matters that needed taking care of within borders at that stage. That's when you can afford to give others a hand. To compare this to the current situation in America seems strange.

how can one man take on the additional responsibilities of 50 states on top of all of his federal and international responsibilities?

some of it has to fall on the state.

I think you know that all these responsibilities only officially rest upon his shoulders. Unless you have fifty clones of your president to deal with it all on time. Then you must know I meant part of the government needs to take on that umbrella function and merely check whether America's states are taking accurate measures to ensure the safety of their people.

Taking care of people overseas should not be mutually exclusive with providing means to survive in your own country.

Haz! Look what you've done to me! Now I'm as wordy as you!

Leah
15-08-2006, 01:58 AM
and you're exactly right!

kingdumbass
15-08-2006, 06:10 AM
Liam, the Nazi invasion of Russia failed for many of the same reasons that Napoleon's invasion of Russia failed....
Sure, numbers were a factor, but not the only factor.

Hazzle
15-08-2006, 07:22 AM
I'll keep this brief.

Katrina killed less than 2,000.

9/11 killed over 3,000.

Without the war in Iraq, another 9/11 would have happened by now. It's all good and well having troops in your own country to prevent terrorist attacks Leonie, but how exactly do troops on the ground prevent planes flying into buildings? Troops in the US would've been wasted on saving Nagin's arse. If a few thousand people had to die to prove what an inept cunt he was, so be it. Better than another 9/11 killing even more people, which presumably Bush would've been slated for too. Let's face it, the knives were out because of how he won the election, who his father is, and his low IQ.

You also act as if the war began AFTER Katrina, what was Bush supposed to do, withdraw troops in mid-conflict? Presumably if he had and millions of Iraqis died in insurgency, he'd have been blamed for that too. As you point out, Katrina was unexpected. Or was Bush supposed to predict it when Nagin couldn't? As it happens the proof is that Nagin's infrastructure wasn't prepared, for any hurricane, it just so happens that he got hit by a particularly bad one and it caused more damage.

Priority-wise Katrina had to rank lower than the war. It would do with me, it would do with any sane President. Perhaps this is why they let men rule the world ladies ;)

kingdumbass
15-08-2006, 08:02 AM
Oh, give me a break, Hazzle....
Bush handled Katrina poorly. It's incredibly obvious. Even hard core Republicans here in the United States will admit that.

I think that if Bill Clinton or Al Gore had been president at the time of Katrina, they would have been working at the White House, observing events as they unfolded, and making sure that their political cronies were managing their respective agencies in an appropriate manner in order to respond. Bush was at his Texas ranch, playing in the woods.

The handling of that entire disaster was shameful. Watching the television coverage of people sitting on rooftops, THREE DAYS after the floods hit, waiting for water or some kind of rescue, was outrageous. Made us look like some kind of second-rate, third-world country. Horseshit. It was a fucking embarassment.

Bush has dealt with terrorism pretty well; but that hurricane was another matter entirely. You can't even ATTEMPT to argue otherwise. And there's no reason why he could not have been expected to be on top of BOTH issues.

Hazzle
15-08-2006, 08:09 AM
Really? So you mean my post wasn't an attempt to argue otherwise? How strange.

I read a lot of "I think" in your post but no cold hard facts or reasoning. So "I think" you can shove that in your pipe and smoke it. Come back to me with something worth arguing. Using Clinton or Gore as examples of good presidency? Fuck's sake, Gore didn't even get to prove it (although I think he would've been a good president) and you have no idea what Clinton would've done in the same situation, to say otherwise is mere speculation. The truth of the matter is Clinton or Gore probably would've responded to 9/11 with a couple of missiles launched into Afghanistan, and that's it. So they would have no other issues to contend with but Katrina. Entirely different situation.

It would, of course, help if you could read. I merely stated that priority-wise Katrina ranked lower than the war. Oh, and the Hurricane WAS handled poorly. But not by Bush. It wasn't his job to handle it, that was Nagin's job, and he fucked up royally. In fact noone's logically stated a damn thing Bush could've done in the event.

He was on top of both events, as best he could be. Try and come back with something other than another "blah blah blah" post with no substance, ok?

Leonie
15-08-2006, 08:32 AM
I'll keep this brief.

Katrina killed less than 2,000.

9/11 killed over 3,000.

Without the war in Iraq, another 9/11 would have happened by now. It's all good and well having troops in your own country to prevent terrorist attacks Leonie, but how exactly do troops on the ground prevent planes flying into buildings? Troops in the US would've been wasted on saving Nagin's arse. If a few thousand people had to die to prove what an inept cunt he was, so be it. Better than another 9/11 killing even more people, which presumably Bush would've been slated for too. Let's face it, the knives were out because of how he won the election, who his father is, and his low IQ.

You also act as if the war began AFTER Katrina, what was Bush supposed to do, withdraw troops in mid-conflict? Presumably if he had and millions of Iraqis died in insurgency, he'd have been blamed for that too. As you point out, Katrina was unexpected. Or was Bush supposed to predict it when Nagin couldn't? As it happens the proof is that Nagin's infrastructure wasn't prepared, for any hurricane, it just so happens that he got hit by a particularly bad one and it caused more damage.

Priority-wise Katrina had to rank lower than the war. It would do with me, it would do with any sane President. Perhaps this is why they let men rule the world ladies ;)

You make it sound as though I want ground troups to prevent a 9/11. I merely suggested some troups would have been helpful in evacuating people out of the struck area. He left his country in such a state that no people were available to help New Orleans. My point is: if there aren't enough soldiers to help out in the event of a natural disaster, Lord knows what could happen if they were needed after a terrorist attack. Like you said: it was unexpected, and the state failed on many levels, but isn't it a country's duty to ensure help is on its way in such an event? The FBI and the regular police and no doubt many a SWAT team can deal with 'regular' criminals, but wouldn't you want trained fighters up against deranged terrorists planning attacks on home soil, London-style for example?

Like I said before: I believe that fighting wars overseas should not mean that people struck by Katrina are left to fend for themselves. Going into a flooded area and saving those left there, locked in, is an army's job (Where I'm from it would be anyway: we've had many river floods and dams breaking, and the army there to try and keep the water out, get people out if need be. If the Netherlands are the only country in which this would be an army's job then I'll leave that point, and put it on the pile of "cultural differences.") They weren't there to do it. I do not disagree with Bush's foreign policy, but again, it shouldn't be mutually exclusive with caring for your people at home.

Lastly: without the war in Iraq, another 9/11 would have happened? Bollocks, there's absolutely no proof for that. I'll give you this: without the war in Afghanistan, another 9/11 could have happened. I don't think the war in Iraq is unjust, but I do believe that Afghanistan is a far more dangerous area than Iraq ever was. They're too busy killing their own people to make plans for an overseas attack. If we go by your logic, dividing the troups over the two areas is entirely unhelpful and will only weaken the US' force. I have nothing against the war in Iraq, but wish they'd focus on what has been proven to be a terrorist fieldtrip destination.

kingdumbass
15-08-2006, 08:41 AM
The truth of the matter is Clinton or Gore probably would've responded to 9/11 with a couple of missiles launched into Afghanistan, and that's it.


You weren't here in this country when 9/11 happened....
I was. And believe me -- people would not have accepted just a few lobbed missles. Everyone wanted WAR. In fact, many people at the time would have been perfectly in favor of nuking someone. I had never seen such bloodlust.

The FACT is that Bush is a shitty president domestically. He's packing the courts with conservative nutjobs, ignoring the environment, allowing the worst elements of society to get away with whatever they want, and mismanaging just about everything but his ranch. His presidency is DAMAGING this country in the long-term.

Oh, and your claim that it was Nagin's responsibility to deal with Katrina is laughable on its face. You obviously are ignorant of how things work here. The mayor of a city is not the one who is expected to coordinate a response to something like that. He would naturally lack the resources. We have a little federal agency called FEMA to manage those things, and FEMA FAILED.

End.
Of.
Story.

Hazzle
15-08-2006, 10:01 AM
I don't need to have been there to know the bloodlust. I also don't see what people would've "accepted" making any difference. Even if Clinton or Gore had been president, they'd have bombed Afghanistan, and certainly not gone into Iraq. So when Katraina hit there would've been no war to distract either.

I'm also well aware of the role of FEMA. AFTER an emergency has occured. It was too late by then. Nagin was to blame for the poor infrastructure that ensured the roads were blocked and noone could get out. That was his responsibility. FEMA have no jurisdiction over issues like that, their job is to coordinate RESPONSES to emergencies, not deal with issues like road traffic management.

Bush "packing" the courts is no different to what any Democrat would have done, except the court would've been packed with liberal nutjobs instead. And that's just as bad. Who gives a fuck about the Environment? My worry with the right-wing court is stem cell research, overuling Roe v Wade, bans on gay marriage etc.

I'm not pro-Bush, I just don't think you can slate him for the economy or Katrina. There are lots of things you can slate him for (his policies on the above topics, stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage) and those are what I criticise him for. FYI I was pro-Gore when he stood against Bush, and I only supported Bush against Kerry, as Kerry was an inept twit, Bush isn't. It's a common misconception that he is.

Bush's failing isn't his IQ, it's his extreme politics, although arguably that's the fault of the Democrats, because this partisanship was definitely a beast of their creating after Gore lost. Bush stood as a moderate against Gore, and an extremist against Kerry, yet won more support in the latter election. I think that suggests the blame for these right-wing extremist policies rests with the US electorate, not Bush.

Leonie: I think we're suffering from a communication break-down as you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. So I'll try again:

1) You said that a lack of ground troops to deal with Katrina suggests the US was ill-prepared for another terrorist attacks. Having the soldiers at home wouldn't have been any assistance with Katrina, or with any terrorist attack. You don't send soldiers to clean up wreckage, and that's all there would've been with another 9/11 attack, surely? A London-style attack could never happen in the US, security to get into the country is too tight. Equally Katrina was an issue because there wasn't enough air support, but there isn't an overwhelming amount of air support in Iraq. It's mainly in Afghanistan.

2) I didn't mean that the people struck by Katrina were left to fend for themselves. Only that response times would be slower, the priority would be lower than the war (more lives at stake) and resources would be lower. The war was already in full flow, it's not like Bush could have brought resources back. He had no way of knowing they'd be needed for Katrina before it hit.

3) Without the war in Iraq another 9/11 would have happened. Not because Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. But because 9/11 didn't happen because of terrorists. Islamic terrorists have been around for decades, how come this was the first successful attack on US soil? Because America had disengaged from the world. Without the war in Iraq, America would equally have been seen as disengaged. Afghanistan was retaliation, Iraq wasn't.

acliff
15-08-2006, 10:16 AM
Leonie, I don't think that the US was short of soldiers on its own soil in the aftermath of Katrina. I do not believe that there will ever be a lack of soldiers on US soil in the case of a terrorist attack.
The biggest issue is the delay of response. I don't believe the soldiers were particularly well versed in mass flood rescue either, or at any rate not as the Dutch military might be.

In terms of a terrorist attack, a great deal of the ground work is done by the police, ambulance and fire/rescue services. This is assuming that a terrorist attack would be in the form of explosions and hijacks. As a direct response to a terrorist attack, the military is pretty useless except for additional manpower and policing. Unless martial law is declared.
The military response to a terrorist attack would be action overseas, with counter terrorism units (which there are many) to do their job. Counter terrorism units are designed for extremely quick response and extreme competence in their field, mobilising the army in my opinion would be way too slow.

Edit: If I'm talking bollocks, let me know.

AureaMediocritas
15-08-2006, 12:41 PM
Hazzle I never said he didn't have an affect on you I said you didn't have to live under his governing. And another thing, if you had actually read what I'd said about the war you would have read the part about "other country's citizens". That includes yours too. Yeah as a world super power we have a pretty good economy compared to other countries but have you checked out the exchange rates lately? Hello? Your fuel prices are high but you have to recognize the difference in the way our countries are built. London is close together, has an underground, and taxis running throughout. In my country there are very few cities like that. Where I live everything is spread out and we use cars to get every place we need to go. Think about how cost effective it would be to add a subway to a city that spread apart? Thus we use alot of fuel. The US is a market economy, the more we need the more we get. The more there is the cheaper it is. Now another flaw I see is this...where do you think Bush gets the money for his war? where do you think he got the money to pay for the clean up of NYC? From our TAXES. He lowered the taxes the wealthy people have to pay significantly not that of the middle or lower classes of our country. I didn't say there was ONE reason for the flipping war either you just assumed that was the only one I thought there was because I didn't list the reasons. Media soundbites? That's bull. I can SEE, I have family members in the military. I don't need the media to know what happens in Iraq. Do you think that just because the amount of deaths for civilians is low it makes it okay? Do you think gang raping a 14 year old girl and murdering her parents and sister in front of her is okay?

"because you don't live in my country, and you may know what goes on but you don't live under him."

"I don't need to "live in your country" to know all this."

That's funny I didn't say you did.

"so if anyone should feel resentful about being drawn into an "unnecessary" conflict, it should be us, not you."
Excuse me but last time I checked Al Qaeda does not make up 100% of the Iraqi population so why wage war on the soil of a country who does not want us there? If waging a war like that isn't unnecessary I don't know what is. It's unnecessary to everyone involved just because we were attacked doesn't make it any less unnecessary. Enough people died win the towers fell, we don't need more to die over there. Freeing Iraq from the clutches of Saddam? Yay good plan but not when our president has enough problems to deal with in his OWN COUNTRY. Last time I checked Osama Bin Ladden was the one who decided it would be fun to knock down our towers. So what business do we have in Iraq? We're pulling regiments from Afghanistan but...(I'm really not sure about this one) isn't that a plausible place for him to be? Didn't we get news that he was there?


But actually you know what you probably know more about the technicalities of that war and the US economy than I do. I just know what I've learned and how this whole thing has effected me so whatever it doesn't really matter, does it? I know my opinions of him will never change.


Hear, hear, a reasonable American :icon_popc . Quite an interesting perspective.

Nuck-39
15-08-2006, 01:27 PM
Hate'em

hasselbrad
15-08-2006, 01:43 PM
Oh, and your claim that it was Nagin's responsibility to deal with Katrina is laughable on its face. You obviously are ignorant of how things work here. The mayor of a city is not the one who is expected to coordinate a response to something like that. He would naturally lack the resources. We have a little federal agency called FEMA to manage those things, and FEMA FAILED.

You are so wrong it hurts.
It is the mayor's responsibility to take the necessary measures on the local level. That did not happen. He didn't order a mandatory evacuation until nineteen hours before landfall. I have never, in 34 years of living in a coastal environment, seen a mayor do less than Nagin did to secure the well being of his constituents. His reasoning was that they didn't want to adversely affect the tourism by evacuating, only to have the storm miss the area.
There was no contra flow on the interstates leading out of New Orleans. I recall sitting there watching the shots of people leaving the city and wondering "why are lanes into New Orleans not being used to funnel people out?"
Of course, you are right, it wasn't all Nagin's fault. Most of the blame falls squarely on the, weak and ineffective shoulders of Gov. Blanco. For days, all she could say was "we're in crisis mode" whilst Govs. Barbour and Riley were moving forward with the recovery efforts in Mississippi and Alabama, respectively. The main reason there were too few troops to effectively deal with the situation is that she failed to call out the National Guard soon enough. That's her job, and she didn't do it.
Have you ever taken a gander at the State of Lousiana's plans for just such a disaster? I have. One of the first items it covers is the use of public transit systems to get people in the endangered areas (i.e.: those in the Old 9th Ward) to less vulnerable parishes to the North. Hundreds of buses were flooded where they remained parked because this did not happen! How is it George Bush's fault that these two elected officials didn't do what the state's plan specifically called for?
Was Mike Brown the best guy for the job? Probably not. Is FEMA over politicized? By all means. However, FEMA can only deal effectively with the situation they find when they get there, and I heard many FEMA people remark about the utter lack of preparation they found in New Orleans and Louisiana. Had public transit been used effectively (or, for that matter, at all) we would not have witnessed the humanitarian disasters that occurred when those who didn't get out became stranded.
Does anyone else remember the young man who commandeered (nautical term) the school bus and drove it to Houston? He managed to get roughly fifty people to safety. Just imagine if all the buses had been used in this manner. Fifty people on 250 buses is 12,500. Now, multiply that by the number trips each bus could have made if Nagin had ordered the mandatory evacuation the standard 48-72 hours out, and you start to see a vastly different situation unfolding once Katrina comes ashore.
As far as I'm concerned, FEMA's management should be gutted and replaced with retired military men. They understand moving men and material. Bureaucrats only understand moving paper from one pile to another. However, many of FEMA's "failures" were indicative of serious failures on the local and state level, and the errors and/or failures at those levels simply compound and magnify the problems as the situation unfolds.

Cliff's Notes:
Local...clusterfuck
State...bigger clusterfuck
Federal...clusterfuck on top of clusterfuck

Now another flaw I see is this...where do you think Bush gets the money for his war? where do you think he got the money to pay for the clean up of NYC? From our TAXES. He lowered the taxes the wealthy people have to pay significantly not that of the middle or lower classes of our country.

Ahem...what's so hard to understand about this. John Kennedy understood that if you cut taxes, the Federal Government takes in more money. It's simple economics. When taxes are cut, more money is spent on capital investment. Businesses expand. Greater tax revenues are enjoyed from a smaller percentage and the economy is strengthened. Reagan's tax cuts were what got us out of the disaster we call the Carter Administration, and these tax cuts are what have gotten us out of the mess the dot com collapse rendered.

Hazzle
15-08-2006, 02:07 PM
Hear, hear, a reasonable American :icon_popc . Quite an interesting perspective.

May be "reasonable" or "interesting". It's also very very wrong.

The geopolitical rammifications of a "there are enough problems in my own country" attitude have already been discussed. But by all means feel free to ignore those because they don't fit in with your dislike of Bush. It's not like that attitude is why 9/11 happened or anything...

Well put Brad. Glad to see an American understanding why Bush's economic policy is the way it is. Like I said, I completely disagree with his stance on stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage and the like, but I entirely agree with his handling of the economy. Even the Fed acknowledged a slowing US economy by pausing its tightening policy, so tax cuts fit in with this. Few Americans actually grasp how close the US is to being gripped by stagflation (stagnation coupled with inflation) and how tax cuts are the only viable way to deal with a potential recession that could be looming.

Rudimentary understanding of macro economics required.

mehrdad368
15-08-2006, 04:56 PM
In fact i can see Iraq and afkanistan become better after American armys captured there.I prefer American capture Iran too.But surely Our leaders pay them hush money.For this reason they don't attack here.I also know that Iran has nuclear weapons.But Bush still for his advantages.Hush money is better than attack.

Leah
15-08-2006, 09:46 PM
Part of that was Nagin's fault. But perhaps if Bush hadn't cut funds in the first place they would have been able to replace the levees.

I still think Bush is a fucking dumbass and I still hate him for all of the reasons I've said.

hasselbrad
15-08-2006, 10:41 PM
Part of that was Nagin's fault. But perhaps if Bush hadn't cut funds in the first place they would have been able to replace the levees.


Oh...I see. The levees failed because Bush cut funds.
The lack of funding had nothing to do with Louisiana politicians siphoning money out of federal funding over the past decades. They've gotten plenty of money over the years to make the repairs, but they didn't. Millions have vanished over the years, and yet, the repairs were never made. Often, state officials didn't even put paperwork through to get federal matching funds.
Katrina was a systemic failure decades in the making.

ryan
15-08-2006, 11:59 PM
Part of that was Nagin's fault. But perhaps if Bush hadn't cut funds in the first place they would have been able to replace the levees.

I still think Bush is a fucking dumbass and I still hate him for all of the reasons I've said.

reasons that carry no weight ;)

Leah
16-08-2006, 02:02 AM
reasons that carry no weight to you...I have personal reasons that carry weight with me.

Leah
16-08-2006, 02:04 AM
Oh...I see. The levees failed because Bush cut funds.
The lack of funding had nothing to do with Louisiana politicians siphoning money out of federal funding over the past decades. They've gotten plenty of money over the years to make the repairs, but they didn't. Millions have vanished over the years, and yet, the repairs were never made. Often, state officials didn't even put paperwork through to get federal matching funds.
Katrina was a systemic failure decades in the making.

Levees have to be replaced quite often, especially in Louisiana. It's not the fault of them that they couldn't replace them most recently.

ryan
16-08-2006, 03:46 AM
reasons that carry no weight to you*...I have personal reasons that carry weight with me.

*everyone but me

Hazzle
16-08-2006, 09:04 AM
Heh Ryan. Leave the girl alone!

He's right though...

Leah, you're talking to Brad, a Floridian. As far as Hurricanes go, they know their shit. And like he said, Louisiana has been diverting federal funding for the repairs onto other things. It doesn't matter how regularly the levees need replacing, they've not been replaced in years because the State government has been "less than prudent" with the money it does have. It's all good and well complaining about not getting more, but they had plenty and wasted it. There's severe question marks over where all that money went, and at the time I definitely remember some eyebrows raised over potential corruption within the State. In that environment Bush carries no blame.

hasselbrad
16-08-2006, 12:49 PM
Levees have to be replaced quite often, especially in Louisiana. It's not the fault of them that they couldn't replace them most recently.
Yes, they do. One would think that politicians would realize this and not fritter away tens of millions of dollars on vote buying programs, but, they did. Much of the federal money was appropriated for other programs by state officials. Much of it simply disappeared.
Hardly surprising in a state where a congressman was caught with a $90,000 bribe in his freezer, wrapped in tinfoil.

Leah
17-08-2006, 12:47 AM
Oh well in that case it's more Nagin's fault than I initially thought..oh and thank you Hazzle.

Lacy
17-08-2006, 03:38 AM
I'm not going to spend the time to read all the other posts, sorry but I am quite tired. I will simply say that I dislike Bush very much so. I don't hate him, because I don't believe in hate, but he is on my list of people I am not so fond of :) I guess the main reasons I don't like him are that we are still in the war. It is one thing to make a mistake and get in a war, but to stay in it this long when it has nothing to do with us anymore really is rediculous(sp?) he may be just trying to help but it's not our job to take care of other countries problems. Also, he makes Americans and Texans look like quite the dumbasses. I don't like America all that much, but I still don't appreciate the way he represents us. On the other hand, I do believe that he is most likely trying his hardest, and I will give him that much, afterall we were the fuckups that voted for him again.

Foeni
17-08-2006, 05:39 AM
So you'd rather that you left Iraq (I'm assuming that's the war you're talking about), and thereby left the country to terrorists and extremists? The international society has a responsibility for helping out when a dictator is torturing and murdering his people. And yes, it does have something to do with you. Don't you think a stabile oil market is good for you? A democratic Iraq would help in that matter.

Ok, that was a little off-topic.
We have had that discussion a few times before, haven't we?

On-topic: I think Bush has a reputation in lots of European countries that USA thinks it's the world cop that we all should follow. Bush is a rather unpopular man over here. I personally would rather have Bush than Kerry. Not thereby saying Bush is good, just saying he's better than Kerry.

Leonie
17-08-2006, 06:47 AM
So you'd rather that you left Iraq (I'm assuming that's the war you're talking about), and thereby left the country to terrorists and extremists? The international society has a responsibility for helping out when a dictator is torturing and murdering his people. And yes, it does have something to do with you. Don't you think a stabile oil market is good for you? A democratic Iraq would help in that matter.

Yeah, that must be why the UN couldn't wait to help out. Puh-lease.

Hazzle
17-08-2006, 07:27 AM
The UN? Since when has that organisation had ANY credibility?

Security Council countries that voted against the proposal:

China - ALWAYS opposes the US in the UN. Check the history for yourself

Russia - Tends to oppose the US in the UN too and yet sat on the fence here.

Germany - ALWAYS opposes war. Even opposed Kosovo

France - Had a financial interest as French oil producers had deals with the Iraqi oil producers whereby they could bypass the sanctions to get cheap oil to France. An invasion would've meant the end of this and would've put them on a level playing field with other oil producers around the world.

Former French colonies - And plenty of evidence of French coercion. In fact since there were 3 former French colonies, plus France, that means the French controlled 4 votes automatically. At best you could argue the US controlled the UK vote (and they didn't, we just tend to vote with them every time anyway). Bit skewed that.

Pakistan - Heh.

Syria - Even bigger heh.

Hardly a resounding victory for the anti-war brigade.

Leonie
17-08-2006, 07:43 AM
That's all lovely, but not quite the point is it? It's the official organisation representing the international society and its duty that Foeni were talking about.

acliff
17-08-2006, 08:32 AM
And what Haz is saying is that the UN is not necessarily the place to go when you're talking about international duty. For example members have been known to overlook dictatorships and minor genocides for monetary or political gain. And when some nations oppose each other as a matter of course, it makes the whole thing look like a farce. I'm not even going to mention reaction times.

Foeni
17-08-2006, 09:00 AM
I wasn't talking about the UN. Reasons: see haz's and cliff's posts.
I'm glad some countries took action even though the Security Council didn't approve. I think that's a point in Bush's favour.

acliff
17-08-2006, 09:16 AM
Of course countries taking action despite what the Security Council says doesn't do the SC's credibility any good.

Leonie
17-08-2006, 09:45 AM
Retry: the UN should be what Foeni is describing, and aspires to be. Of course, the plan fails when people go off and do what suits them at the time anyway (US/China/all of Haz's examples).

Hazzle
17-08-2006, 10:52 AM
I think we all agree it SHOULD be. But it's not, so the fact it didn't back the war in Iraq doesn't really work as an anti-war argument.

The fact is the UN is a shambles. It's not just the US that believes this.

Syria and Pakistan, for example, would probably argue that the US support of Israel makes it impossible for a UN-backed war on Israel. The only reason those countries don't go it alone like the US is because Israel would annihilate them in a war, not because they have any more respect for the UN than the US does.

AureaMediocritas
17-08-2006, 04:14 PM
The Bush problem will be solved anyway since he will not be elected three times
like Roosevelt. Or is there a legal possibility ? I would appreciate if someone
could clarify (although it admittedly is off-topic).

Foeni
17-08-2006, 04:32 PM
Before Roosevelt you just didn't run for president more than twice. Now it's a law.
And he had four terms.

Hazzle
17-08-2006, 04:33 PM
The problem you lefties have is the Republicans will win the next Presidential race anyway. So it'll be roughly the same people behind the scenes, just a new face ;)

AureaMediocritas
17-08-2006, 04:58 PM
Okay thank you very much. And righty Haz, despite the fact that you are
right as always, I would nevertheless appreciate a new face that does not
make me laugh by its mere semi-moronic (drop the semi if you like) behaviour. ;)

hasselbrad
17-08-2006, 07:33 PM
Oh well in that case it's more Nagin's fault than I initially thought..oh and thank you Hazzle.

Actually, I think most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the state legislature (or whatever they call it in steamy Quebec) for the most part. It's that bunch, who over the last few decades, were most responsible for what happened (or, more importantly, didn't happen) to the levees.
Nagin and Blanco just put a sound-byte style face on the general unpreparedness of the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana.
There's a reason your state was able to step up and handle the amount of refugees that it did. Texas had a plan, and they followed it.

wishingtobefamous
17-08-2006, 08:45 PM
i have to say this. i think bush is a complete and total moron. his trem has completely devastated our economy here. but he really doesnt give a crap because he has millions of dollars. im pretty sure you all know this but the us has massive oil reserves in the gulf and those need to be tapped. right now the excuse is that they were damaged during katrina. that may be the case but its been almost a full year shouldnt the problems have been fixed? the anwser is yes. bush is enjoying these high oil prices because he owns an oil comapny so he is making lots of money off of this.

Foeni
17-08-2006, 09:07 PM
That was just like listening to an average left-wing Danish 16-year-old.

I suppose Bush went to war in Iraq to finish his father's job?

acliff
17-08-2006, 09:28 PM
i have to say this. i think bush is a complete and total moron. his trem has completely devastated our economy here. but he really doesnt give a crap because he has millions of dollars. im pretty sure you all know this but the us has massive oil reserves in the gulf and those need to be tapped. right now the excuse is that they were damaged during katrina. that may be the case but its been almost a full year shouldnt the problems have been fixed? the anwser is yes. bush is enjoying these high oil prices because he owns an oil comapny so he is making lots of money off of this.

Hmm... I'll ask a couple of questions which should give away what I think of what you just said.

Do you have anything to back the above up?
Do you even read?
Have you even read this thread and noticed the huge difference in quality between your posts and others?
Do you even realise how naively derivative you sound?

hasselbrad
17-08-2006, 10:07 PM
i have to say this. i think bush is a complete and total moron. his trem has completely devastated our economy here. but he really doesnt give a crap because he has millions of dollars. im pretty sure you all know this but the us has massive oil reserves in the gulf and those need to be tapped. right now the excuse is that they were damaged during katrina. that may be the case but its been almost a full year shouldnt the problems have been fixed? the anwser is yes. bush is enjoying these high oil prices because he owns an oil comapny so he is making lots of money off of this.

Holy fucking shit...you call him a moron and then misspell "term"?

1. The dot-com collapse followed by 9/11 "devestated" our economy. And now, due to Bush's tax cuts, the economy is humming along pretty good. If you knew anything but what they tell you on MT fucking V, you'd know that tax cuts stimulate the economy, period. Unemployment, for all of the lather created by the left, is about as low as it can get. It was at about 5.3 percent throughout the Clinton administration...which the media portrayed as low. You know what it's been running now? Right about the same...about 5.4 percent. Of course, now, because it's Bush in the White House, we hear about how high it is.

2. Oil reserves in the Gulf? If the fucking leftist enviro-weenies would let us drill more in the Gulf it wouldn't be the problem that it is. Of course, the real problem isn't crude, but rather the fact that we haven't built any new refineries in the last few decades. Why not? Because of far too strict environmental restrictions. You want cheaper gas? Build more refineries.

wishingtobefamous
18-08-2006, 03:14 AM
2. Oil reserves in the Gulf? If the fucking leftist enviro-weenies would let us drill more in the Gulf it wouldn't be the problem that it is. Of course, the real problem isn't crude, but rather the fact that we haven't built any new refineries in the last few decades. Why not? Because of far too strict environmental restrictions. You want cheaper gas? Build more refineries.


i was speaking of the reserves we have down there not more drill sites. down there is an area we keep procesed gasoline in the case of a gas shortage or a national crisis. theres enough gasoline down there to suport the entire nation (by it self) for months. dot you think we can dip into that when its costing us as much as it is?

ryan
18-08-2006, 11:22 AM
i was speaking of the reserves we have down there not more drill sites. down there is an area we keep procesed gasoline in the case of a gas shortage or a national crisis. theres enough gasoline down there to suport the entire nation (by it self) for months. dot you think we can dip into that when its costing us as much as it is?

for months?
okay, let's burn all of our reserves now so we save 25 cents per gallon. awesome trade.

gas can go up another 50 cents a gallon and it wouldn't impact most people. another $5 a week...who gives a fuck?
cut out one fatass mcdonalds meal a week and you've already saved that $5 back.

acliff
18-08-2006, 11:58 AM
for months?
okay, let's burn all of our reserves now so we save 25 cents per gallon. awesome trade.

gas can go up another 50 cents a gallon and it wouldn't impact most people. another $5 a week...who gives a fuck?
cut out one fatass mcdonalds meal a week and you've already saved that $5 back.

Not to mention the money and gas saved by not driving to macdonalds in the first place.

hasselbrad
18-08-2006, 12:44 PM
i was speaking of the reserves we have down there not more drill sites. down there is an area we keep procesed gasoline in the case of a gas shortage or a national crisis. theres enough gasoline down there to suport the entire nation (by it self) for months. dot you think we can dip into that when its costing us as much as it is?

Oh, well...that's a much better plan. That way we can save a nickel a gallon and then drop our nuts into a vice come winter heating season.
Besides, you still have to refine it. There are almost 700 million barrels. Roughly 300 million of those barrels are sweet crude, but you still haven't got the refinery capacity.
I realize that when you get your news from move on dot org, you have the image of Bush and Cheney greedily rubbing their hands together as they keep the American public away from their magic gasoline spigot, but that's not really how it works. Those reserves are for emergencies...you know...like all out war in the middle east and a complete shutdown of oil production. Three dollars a gallon is not an emergency.
Maybe if we, as Americans, showed a bit more restraint when it comes to what we drive, demand wouldn't be so high. I don't mean we all need to drive hybrids, but there is no conceivable reason that anyone needs to drive a Hummer on a public road.

wishingtobefamous
18-08-2006, 04:44 PM
This is true the hummer is a useless civilian vehicle that should not be seen on the road only in combat. and where i got this information was when they did a special on it on the history channel. that gas is already all refined.

Hazzle
18-08-2006, 05:19 PM
And what's refined is being used. If it wasn't the oil price would be even higher, I assure you, as I've seen it drop $8 a barrel in front of my eyes.

The oil market isn't quite as simple as you make out. The geopolitical situation is what ramped the price up in the first place. Oil's natural value is around $50-55 a barrel but there's about $20-$25 risk premium built into the market right now because of the issues in the Middle East. Using your reserves too quickly is very risky given the situation in the Middle East, and should all-out war break loose and you have no reserves, the price of oil could shoot up over $80 a barrel, and some doomers even project $100 a barrel. That would basically double your price at the pump.

hasselbrad
18-08-2006, 06:48 PM
This is true the hummer is a useless civilian vehicle that should not be seen on the road only in combat. and where i got this information was when they did a special on it on the history channel. that gas is already all refined.

If it's already refined, why would Schumer and Durbin propose creating a federal gasoline reserve? There is gasoline at the refineries waiting to go to market, but that's what's called inventory. The refineries have reserve stock to ensure that they just don't flat run out, but even that is strained and causing prices to rise according to Bloomberg.
There isn't any sort of government reserve system for gasoline.
You want to wait a couple of hours to buy five gallons of gas at less than two bucks a gallon? Get the fed involved. That's what happened in the seventies. Anytime the federal government begins dictating the terms in a free market economy, production plummets, supply is crippled and demand forces shortages.

Leah
20-08-2006, 04:30 AM
Texas had a plan, and they followed it.
You mean when Rita hit Galveston?? Yeah that's true. (Question *because I've never actually known* did anyone actually die in Rita from the actual hurricane?) Galveston had a very good plan. Houston on the other hand flipped shit and got themselves into more trouble trying to get out than they would have been if they'd just stayed in Houston. My aunt stayed and she barely flooded.

Lacy
21-08-2006, 03:00 AM
I know this hasn't got much to do with what yall are all talking about, but I work at a grocery store and today this lady that had to weigh atleast 300lbs and her 7 year old child who weighed more than me, I'm sure, came in and bought $300 worth of groceries, mostly junk food. It didn't bother me until she whipped out her food stamps card. Now, I am completely against rasicm, so when I say this I want you to know I am in no way being racist. She was Mexican, and spoke no english. She most likely moved here recently (I'm assuming because she didn't know english). So what really ticked me off was that she moved into my country and eats my food for basically nothing. Now, I understand if you are poor and you need to buy the necessities, but this woman was (pardon me) gigantic, as was her child. And they "spent" $300 on JUNK FOOD. I'm sorry, I really just needed a place to vent, it really ticked me off this afternoon. Gah.

Wow, I just read that and it is pretty choppy and doesn't make a whole lot of sense...I'm too worn out to redo it but you can atleast get the jest of what I am saying.

Swordsman
21-08-2006, 03:42 AM
So, you hate illegal aliens and obesity?

I think maybe 150 or so people died from hurricane Rita.(just sort of skimmed the real topic)

Lacy
21-08-2006, 03:49 AM
I don't hate, but I exremely dislike illegals. I'm not sure if people were paying attention to the protests, but they were saying they hated America, they had our flag upside down, dissing our country as a whole. If America is as bas as they are saying, why did they risk their lives and cross the border? They don't pay taxes and they get free medical care. Who pays for their medical care? Tax paying LEGAL Americans. Yes, it is a hot button issue with me. As for obesity, I have no problem with it other than the fact that it is unhealthy, and it's not me to decide if they choose to live unhealthy like that. What bugged me was that she obviously had enough food to eat, and so did her child, and yet she used food stamps and got food for free. It doesn't make much sense to me. Not only was it free food. It was free JUNK, not even healthy stuff. Gah.