Don't give W any ideas. He has trouble enough with the ones he has!
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Location
- Irish Hills, Michigan
- Posts
- 1,997
Don't give W any ideas. He has trouble enough with the ones he has!
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
and Pakistan has far more deadly weapons than Iraq, in fact, they detonated a nuclear weapon in 1999 to announce their entrance into the world of nuclear powers.Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59
Plus the country is by far less stable than Iraq ever was in the past twenty years. If memory serves correct, Musharraf came to power via a coup in August/September 1998. That means he's been controlling that country for only six years!
Pakistanis have also threatened their neighbor India on many occasion. In fact fighting over Kashmir never seems to cease. And there have been terrorist raids in India by Pakistani militants bent on killing high ranking officials.
Yet somehow, because Musharraf kisses Bush's ass, he gets a get out of jail free card. Which proves to you that all of the Iraq War propaganda was just that, propaganda.
If all it takes is one nuke to get the US to kiss your ass, then obviously Saddam was light years away from obtaining a new one in March 2003 :lol:
Huh?
:?: :?: :?:
It looks like your fingers got a little out of control when typing. :wink:
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Glad to have you on board, Terminator!! I assume you'll be voting for Bush, now that you understand the threat. A majority of Middle Eastern states, including Iraq, were sponsoring Al Qaeda.
I'll be sending along your "vast right-wing conspiracy" kit with the secret decoder ring promptly.
If you have any beef with the one-country-at-a-time-(prioritizing-the-countries-we-are-already-at-war-with-and-whose-oil-is-already-off-market-such-as-Iraq)-then-wait-to-see-whether-the-others-change-their-behavior-or-collapse-like-dominos strategy, we're all open to suggestions. Should Iran be next, or should we give the student revolutionaries there one more year to solve the problem themselves? Is Pakistan's behavior sufficiently reversed now, or should we hit them anyway? Should we just let India do it for us?
Should we say to hell with American troops lives, let's just invade all the countries at once just so liberals can't accuse us of being inconsistent? Some of us think it was pretty smart to start with a country we might be able to convert into a democracy at a cost of less than 1000 American lives, but all that liberal sarcasm really stings, so maybe you're right. Screw the troops!
Maybe it was unwise to assume the Democrats would have America's best interests at heart rather than be willing to do anything to gain power.
Personally, I think we should stop giving Egypt billions of dollars of aid every year until their anti-American propaganda broadcasts cease, but strangely, even the Democrats haven't made this an issue, so I must be wrong.
These are all important questions that we wrestle with every day. Welcome to the fold!
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame84.html
Agent is a sinister and elusive opponent who usually works in concert with other Agents. Agent generally uses standard combat techniques, but differs from other Warriors in that he is in the employ of some organization. The organization may be political, commercial, or even criminal, and it?s Agent?s job to post messages that advance his employer?s interests. For example, several Agents who have been hired to promote a new theater production will invade theater discussion forums, and while energetically plumping for their own production, they will pick fights, spread malicious gossip and post fraudulent reviews about competing productions. Some Agents are benign shills, while others are malicious crusaders. Agents typically use hit and run tactics to avoid detection, but sometimes they can be detected by alert forum members who have seen them in other forums, or they may arouse suspicion by the obsessive monotony of their postings.
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
Personal insults, the last refuge of those who've lost the argument. 8)
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame84.html
Agent is a sinister and elusive opponent who usually works in concert with other Agents. Agent generally uses standard combat techniques, but differs from other Warriors in that he is in the employ of some organization. The organization may be political, commercial, or even criminal, and it?s Agent?s job to post messages that advance his employer?s interests. For example, several Agents who have been hired to promote a new theater production will invade theater discussion forums, and while energetically plumping for their own production, they will pick fights, spread malicious gossip and post fraudulent reviews about competing productions. Some Agents are benign shills, while others are malicious crusaders. Agents typically use hit and run tactics to avoid detection, but sometimes they can be detected by alert forum members who have seen them in other forums, or they may arouse suspicion by the obsessive monotony of their postings.
Hehehe. Good one!
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."
-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater
I can only drum up four countries the United States has invaded while scoring a major victory for its interests.Glad to have you on board, Terminator!! I assume you'll be voting for Bush, now that you understand the threat. A majority of Middle Eastern states, including Iraq, were sponsoring Al Qaeda.
I'll be sending along your "vast right-wing conspiracy" kit with the secret decoder ring promptly.
If you have any beef with the one-country-at-a-time-(prioritizing-the-countries-we-are-already-at-war-with-and-whose-oil-is-already-off-market-such-as-Iraq)-then-wait-to-see-whether-the-others-change-their-behavior-or-collapse-like-dominos strategy, we're all open to suggestions. Should Iran be next, or should we give the student revolutionaries there one more year to solve the problem themselves? Is Pakistan's behavior sufficiently reversed now, or should we hit them anyway? Should we just let India do it for us?
Should we say to hell with American troops lives, let's just invade all the countries at once just so liberals can't accuse us of being inconsistent? Some of us think it was pretty smart to start with a country we might be able to convert into a democracy at a cost of less than 1000 American lives, but all that liberal sarcasm really stings, so maybe you're right. Screw the troops!
Maybe it was unwise to assume the Democrats would have America's best interests at heart rather than be willing to do anything to gain power.
Personally, I think we should stop giving Egypt billions of dollars of aid every year until their anti-American propaganda broadcasts cease, but strangely, even the Democrats haven't made this an issue, so I must be wrong.
These are all important questions that we wrestle with every day. Welcome to the fold!
1) Mexico. 1848. Method used Colonization.
The United States relied on colonization to render the effect of Mexico's authority over California and New Mexico provinces null and void.
2) The Confederate States of America. 1865. Method used Scorched Earth
The United States exhausted the resources of its enemy, destroyed much of its enemy's economy, and decimated the population of an entire generation.
3/4) Germany/Japan. 1945. Method used Scorched earth.
The United States cannot take full credit for dismantling the Third Reich. Such credit should obviously be shared with the now defunct U.S.S.R.
Victory was acheived by wreaking destruction that took decades to rebuild from.
Some how, people think that invade=end to problems.
I don't know why. That old crusader blood must have trickled down.
But there are your two solutions. Colonize, or blow 'em all to hell, women and children notwithstanding.
And by the way, I'm voting for Kerry, because his hair is amazing, and he doesn't quote Scripture in his speeches.
Signed,
Never read the Bible, nor wanted to.
Interesting priorities.
You're right about his hair, but wrong about scripture; it's a minor point, though, so you can Google it yourself.
Hmm... I wonder if Kerry's hair would be an asset in the WOT...
"Look at the infidel president's hair! I no longer wish to kill Americans and spread Islam throught the world!"
Naaa...
The Flame Warrior site has been updated, I see. Mr. Mulder certainly fits that description.
(I also have suspicions about "msm" and "eric cumis" (who used to go under the name of "firemind" some time back).
I hear a buzzing noise.Personal insults, the last refuge of those who've lost the argument. 8)
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
The enemy of mine enemy is my friend. Now,I hear a buzzing noise.
repeat after me: al Qaeda ain't so bad,
it's Dubya who we worry about. bin Laden's
not nearly as frightening as Dubya is. Saddam,
shazzam, what we need is real regime change,
right in our own backyard! Peace and love
to all. Can't we all just get along, now? :wink:
This is BS. Regime change had nothing to do with the War on Terror or al Qaeda. The purpose for the war is given here.
Note that terrorism isn't even mentioned. At the time it was written al Qaeda wasn't even on the radar (it was before the embassy bombings in August 1998). Two-thirds of the signers of this document have been involved in shaping adminstration policy towards Iraq. Eight are currently serving in the administration (Abrams, Armitage, Bolton, Dobriansky, Rodman, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Zoellick). Four are or were influential adminstration foreign policy advisors (Schneider, Khalilzad, Kristol, Perle). It is also a fact that regime change in Iraq was discussed as a major administration priority before 911.
Taken together, it is clear that had 911 never occurred or al Qaeda didn't exist, the US would still have invaded Iraq. Thus, to say that the Iraq operation is part a series of regime changes to combat terrorism is flatly wrong. Not only that, but you are tarring the Bush administration as warmongers. Show me where the Bush adminstration has expressed intent to invade countries other than Iraq.
Well, are you going to stand there, or are you going to swat it?
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
Yeah, I had suspicions about all of those, too. You can't help it when a poster is always parroting the Bush League line, and never wants to talk about anything else, and no matter what the discussion is finds a way to turn it around to a defense of Bush administration policies and/or tar-and-feathering Bush critics, either the ones here or the prominent ones in public. Real posters usually have a number of interests and are not so monotonous.
A gnat is not worth my time nor can it do much damage anyway.Well, are you going to stand there, or are you going to swat it?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
It has. The latest additions are a series of partisan flame warrior in a special section of their own. I guess this election year has produced an unusual number of politically motivated flame warriors, a high enough number for Mr. Reed to notice. Here is the URL for the first in the series:
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/fwdr1.html
I think we can recognize one or two of these here on T4T!
Back to Kiff's post and the comment re: Agents.
Yes, he does, or, rather, did. I haven't seen him around since I posted the Agent description and people agreed with me.Mr. Mulder certainly fits that description.
You aren't alone. Have we seen them around since "Agent Mulder" was outed?(I also have suspicions about "msm" and "eric cumis" (who used to go under the name of "firemind" some time back).
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
Drudge has this up. If it checks out, it'll be no shock, but it is the opening phase of the PR blitz.
http://drudgereport.com/bc1.htm
The following is quoted without intention of profit or infringement for discussion only.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON JUNE 14, 2004 18:00:24 ET XXXXX
CBS RADIO HEAD ORDERS 'MUST CARRY' TO STATIONS FOR CLINTON BOOK SPECIAL
**Exclusive**
Move over Rush Limbaugh!
Bill Clinton is set to hit the talkradio waves with a live special promoting his new book -- one that CBS has ordered a "must carry" directive for all of its news affiliates, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
MORE
Each and every one of CBS's news and talk stations will be required to take the Clinton book radio special, now scheduled for next 6 PM ET Thursday -- whether local programming management wants it or not!
"It's going to be like one big commercial for the book! Why didn't Mr. Clinton's publisher just buy an hour," one angry executive for a CBS news station said late Monday. "This is not news, this is marketing. I already feel dirty!"
MORE
Other CBS radio excutives are excited about Clinton finally appearing on live talkradio.
"I can't wait for the callers," said one CBS radio suit.
The one hour session titled "CLINTON CONNECTS WITH AMERICA" will be moderated by CBS EARLY SHOW host Harry Smith.
The program appears to be part of a larger cross-promotion platform package with Clinton and CBS parent VIACOM.
The former president is set to sit with CBS's Dan Rather at the Clinton library in Arkansas for Sunday's CBS 60 MINUTES.
Developing...
CBS RADIO HEAD ORDERS 'MUST CARRY' TO ALL STATIONS FOR CLINTON BOOK SPECIAL
Mon Jun 14 2004 17:08:11 ET
From: Rivers, Steve
To: @Infinity PD News; @Infinity PD Talk
Cc: @Infinity GMs Eastern Mid-Size; @Infinity GMs Eastern Region; Sykes, John; Hollander, Joel L; @Infinity Regional VPs; @Infinity Regional Directors of Engineering
Subject: Clinton Broadcast
Importance: High
I wanted to give all of you a heads up regarding a "MUST CARRY" event coming up with former president Clinton. Mark Mason will be forwarding you the vital information, the 800#, link information, etc. very soon. There is a lot of work being done behind the scenes at the moment. The event will be 60 minutes, and a format clock is being designed to accommodate 12 minutes of commercials. Bill will be discussing his book and taking calls from listeners across America. Your listeners. At this time we are trying to get advance audio passages from the book that you will be able to run a week ahead to promote your broadcast.
Stand by for further details and thanks for the cooperation on what could be a huge event for us.
Riv
Steve Rivers
President/Programming
Infinity Broadcasting
No, he gets out of it because he's useful to America. That's what matters.Yet somehow, because Musharraf kisses Bush's ass, he gets a get out of jail free card. Which proves to you that all of the Iraq War propaganda was just that, propaganda.
In the Fourth Turning, if S&H's theory is right that is quite likely to be a common tactic on all sides, the moreso since the Boomers (so far) have shown a tendency to be less like the Missionaries (who were quite ruthless enough) and more like the Transcendentals (who raised ruthlessness to a madness).
This coming mood is precisely what S&H were warning about. Bush is likely to be one of the most restrained Boomer Presidents we have, future ones will probably be more precipitate.
Again, you read too much into minor things.This is BS. Regime change had nothing to do with the War on Terror or al Qaeda. The purpose for the war is given here.
Sooner or later, yes, that probably would have happened. The way the first Gulf War ended made a second one essentially inevitable. It's highly unlikely to have happened during the Bush years, though, for basic political reasons.
Taken together, it is clear that had 911 never occurred or al Qaeda didn't exist, the US would still have invaded Iraq.
You need to provide some evidence of that to make such a sweeping statement. What you linked to is not evidence.
Thus, to say that the Iraq operation is part a series of regime changes to combat terrorism is flatly wrong.
Over on rec.arts.sf.written and rec.arts.sf.science, it seems like every thread is trying to turn into a political argument between pro and anti Bush types, with angry libertarians every which way as a side-show. The political threads are running to hundreds of posts, and repeat endlessly.It has. The latest additions are a series of partisan flame warrior in a special section of their own. I guess this election year has produced an unusual number of politically motivated flame warriors, a high enough number for Mr. Reed to notice. Here is the URL for the first in the series:
Not really, as in they were never really very high to begin with. It was the high approval numbers after 911 that were the illusion. Note that in spite of everything that's happened to Bush's numbers, Kerry's haven't significantly moved.Dude, have you not seen the latest opinion polls? Bush's approval ratings have plummeted.I think what the Hopeful -- the Cynic thus being quieted -- is trying to say is that, much like Clinton's era, Bush is merely leading the way most of America wants to be led.Hee hee. America needs speech therapy.Boy, how nuts are you?
I predicted well over a year ago that Bush's numbers might at times drop below 50% (or just a bit lower), but would rebound back to about there.
Regarding which:
Right now, Gallup shows Bush trailing Kerry by 6 pts, which isn't much given all the bad news that has been piled on lately. Note that by Gallup's poll, we've been seeing 'gyration' since the start of the year, someting else I was predicting a year or more ago.
When we add in Nader, according to Gallup we get:
The Gallup poll data comes from: http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11941
The Zogby data comes from: http://www.zogby.com/
I'm only just now beginning to pay much real attention to the rolling polls, and even then, despite the spin you'll hear from various factions one each side, it's still very early. This is mid-June. We've got the conventions, the dog-days of summer and the attendant 'silly season' stories ahead, a lot of things left to develop in Iraq, Arabia, and elsewhere, the economy could still go south or stoke higher, we've got the debates, various distractions (and potential soures of problems) like the Olympics, etc yet to come.
That doesn't even allow for the intrigues we're gong to be seeing.
So no matter what you see in the polls, folks, keep a crystal of salt handy for a while yet.
As long as I'm talking about the polls, now that I've begun to pay a little attention to them, the June 2004 Tarrance Battleground poll is out at:
http://www.tarrance.com
It contains a mix of graphs taking as rolling averages, producing somewhat contradictory data, depending on how the question is asked.
One question was: Do you feel that George W. Bush has done his job as President well enough to deserve reelection, or do you feel it is time to give someone new a chance?
Reelect: 48%
Someone new: 49%
Unsure: 3%
---------------------------------------
Interestingly, their job approval results don't match Zogby's:
Approve of GWB's job as President: 50%
Disapprove: 45%
Unsure: 5%
---------------------------------------
Please tell me, for each one, who better represents this quality.
Strong Leader: Bush 56% Kerry 39% Neither 1% Unsure 5%
Cares About People Like Me: Bush 44% Kerry 49% Neither 3% Unsure 5%
Represents My Values: Bush 47% Kerry 47% Neither 2% Unsure 4%
Is Honest and Trustworthy: Bush 46% Kerry 41% Neither 6% Unsure 7%
Says What He Believes: Bush 53% Kerry 36% Neither 3% Unsure 6%
--------------------------------------
Now, interestingly, many of these numbers don't match the numbers recevied from the same group of people, with the questions phrased somewhat differently. Overall, it shows the usual patterns emerging, with the GOP trusted more on foreign policy and the Dems getting a marginal nod on domestic economic matters. Classic Jacksonian attitudes expressed via the two party system.
As I said above, keep the salt handy when studying polling data 5 months out.
