Anyway, IMO it does seem to be getting further into 4T as 2002 ends, a 15.5 months after 9.11.2001. This new foreign discontent as well as the new North Korea situation seems to be jittery, and people seem to be getting nervous. Somebody wrote: "If 2003 is anything like 1931, 2003 should be most interesting (and scary)." (Or something like that.) Things are a-brewin', and as this recession (possibly already over) ends and 2003 begins, we shall see.


On a different topic, has anyone noticed that the party dominating the 1T seems to be the same party as the GC? The 1950s were controlled by Democrats after FDR. The 1870s wre controlled by Republicans after Lincoln. And I've also noticed that a Nomadic General during the 4T has always gone on to become president during the 1T. For example, George Washington, Ulysses Grant, & Dwight Eisenhower.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Actually, it's not just a British Paper, but it is also a British TABLOID. And we all know how highly respected, and above all accurate, tabloids are. And I suppose your next post (in reply to me) will be about how this particular paper "isn't like other tabloids" or some other excuse about how it (and you) are absolutely correct in every regard, and about how I am being "brainwashed" by the Bush Admin. as if I have no mind of my own whatsoever.
And I'm sure it will contain more words to liken Bush to Hitler, like "Reichen-whatever" and so forth. You are so predictable.

While The Mirror is a Tabloid and a Labour leaning one at that. However it's opinion of GW Bush is shared by a lot of non-Americans, especially if they are left of centre in their countries political spectrum. The non-tabloid press is less in your face in its language when airing such opinions.

You would be amazed how many Australians think GW Bush is at best a crazy cowboy, a man as bad as or even worse than Saddam Hussein or Usama Bin Laden, regard our foreign policy of a close alliance with the USA as Arse licking the Yanks and Australians are pretty mild compared to the French or even the British.

You have to realize that the political centre of gravity in the USA is either somewhat to the right of Australia, Canada and Britain or way to the right for example Germany and France, you Americans operate on a very different political spectrum to one I am familiar with in Australia.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

While The Mirror is a Tabloid and a Labour leaning one at that.

Isn't the Mirror a daily? I think of tabloids as those weeklies like the National Enquirer. The Mirror may have a lot of trash in it, but then so does USA Today.

However it's opinion of GW Bush is shared by a lot of non-Americans, especially if they are left of centre in their countries political spectrum. The non-tabloid press is less in your face in its language when airing such opinions.

Nevertheless, the rest of the world recognizes the obvious, that we have a puppet in office who cannot string together a coherent sentence unless he is angry. No doubt the majority of Americans do too, but you would never know it from the corporate American press. However the Brits are particularly entertaining, especially with respect to the rising sentiment that Blair is Junior's poodle and the Bush people quite obviously have something on Blair.

You have to realize that the political centre of gravity in the USA is either somewhat to the right of Australia, Canada and Britain or way to the right for example Germany and France, you Americans operate on a very different political spectrum to one I am familiar with in Australia.

Oh, I think the Americans see right through this BS, Tristan. You just never know it on account of the corporate press. Take this ludicrous Iraq deal. The Bush people have not even been able to pick a single reason for going there, nor have they remotely backed up any of their ever changing claims. It is SO obvious that this Iraq deal is a scam for oil and Israel (suits both mercantilists and neo-cons) as the media in the rest of the world points out daily. The Bush administration has acted like the "land shark" in that classic episode of Saturday Night Live:


(Knock. knock on the door)

"Who's there?"

"Jehovah's Witness!"

"Go away! You guys came by last week."

"Um.... Candygram!"

"We don't want any. Go away!"

"Um.... Girl scouts!"

"Hehe. You're not a girl!"

"Um.... Land shark?"

Speaking of the Mirror....



BLAIR SLAMMED OVER IRAQ WAR BY HIS OWN PRIEST

By Tom Newton Dunn, Defence Correspondent


TONY BLAIR was yesterday accused of "moral surrender" over war in Iraq - by his own priest.

Father Timothy Russ hit out after the Blair family attended his Catholic church near Chequers.

After the service Fr Russ, a family friend, told the Daily Mirror violence and loss of life are not God's way to solve the world's problems.

Father Russ, priest at St Anne's Roman Catholic Church near the PM's Chequers home said: "Man must live by the will to integrity rather than the will to power. The PM is caught up in the will to power game. That is his problem.

"He has had a moral surrender from his past. His positions have changed over the years... He may not like me very much for telling you but it is my job to try to speak the truth from God."

Father Russ spoke as religious leaders around the world branded military strikes on Baghdad unjustified and said they would unleash untold suffering in the region.

After giving the Blairs and other worshippers a sermon on peace in their Christmas Day trip to church, Father Russ said the PM had "morally surrendered" over plans to attack Iraq.

The Roman Catholic priest added: "My sermon was all about the need to keep the light shining bright and not let the darkness overcome it. It was a message about the need to replace our whole conduct on the wisdom of Christ and God.

"He may not like me very much for telling you but it is my job to try to speak the truth from God and apply it to a very fallen world." ...

(Continued at link below)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...l&siteid=50143

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Hey, Tristan, don't blame us ... the majority of us didn't even vote for the crazy cowboy!

XoE

I am aware of that, however do a majority of US people regard him as a crazy cowboy?

Well, that pretty much explains why the American people have handed the Republican Party every branch of the federal government, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships, circa 2002:

They believe the Republican Party is led by an "ass."







Does this say anything, at all, about the Democratic Party?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Isn't the Mirror a daily? I think of tabloids as those weeklies like the National Enquirer. The Mirror may have a lot of trash in it, but then so does USA Today.

Forgive me I am using a British defention for a Tabloid, in Britain they are daily papers which report real stories unlike the National Enquirer, however they have things papers in the USA would never have like for example semi-naked girls on page 3. Australia does not have newspapers like that or the USA.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Marc dearest, I said that I was speaking from personal experience, not a national poll.

XoE

Uh, that was pretty obvious... except to folks like Stonewall Patton, and all the other self-consumed libs posting here.

Yeah, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler...

What was his name? 'I am Dr. Rumlec,' or somesuch... from the Stern show idiocy.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Marc dearest, I said that I was speaking from personal experience, not a national poll.

XoE

Uh, that was pretty obvious... except to folks like Stonewall Patton, and all the other self-consumed libs posting here.

Yeah, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler...

What was his name? 'I am Dr. Rumlec,' or somesuch... from the Stern show idiocy.

Bush IS an idiot.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Bush IS an idiot.

Hehe. And that idiot is going to get us all killed too. Not that he cares, obviously.

What is it about the axis of evil countries (to identify a few) that makes you believe that appeasement or containment would work? That makes anyone believe that WTC type attacks would not continue? That a nuke explosion here is not inevitable?

Hasn't the coordination of the North Korean activities, the Palestinian and Chechyan bombings, and the shipping of materials and money between them all, demonstrated their intentions? Shall we continue to bribe them (while they starve their own peoples)? Is that the moral approach to foreign policy? How hypocritical is it for the anti war types to be implicitly in favor of the most oppressive regimes in the world?

Or shall we fight on our terms now? I believe that environmentalists call this application of the "precautionary principle", eh Mr. Meece? Bush's "preemptive strike" doctrine is one more example of the goals of the environmentalists permeating mainstream thought.

Frankly, the anti-Bush contingent seems motivated by nothing more than the moral principles of a cat. Just as long as the cat has food, a warm place to sleep and another cat now and then, a cat does not give a damn about anything else. I sure am glad that Bush has a dog.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Bush IS an idiot.

Hehe. And that idiot is going to get us all killed too. Not that he cares, obviously.

Oh, you're such an idiot, Stonewall.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Bush IS an idiot.

Hehe. And that idiot is going to get us all killed too. Not that he cares, obviously.

Oh, you're such an idiot, Stonewall.

Stonewall's appeasement is much like that of The New York Times, in that it is curiously "selective." I mean this is the very same "Stonewall Patton" who found it outrageous that Bush passed on the "politics of personal destruction" game by opting for a "new tone in Washington" rather than pursuing that slimebag Clinton, after he took office in 2001. I believe "Patton" referred to the Ray Report as some sort of conspiratorial coverup and whitewash.

In short, like the Times outrage on L'affaire Lott while pooh poohing the Iraqi threat, Mr. "Patton" would have galdly cheered as Bush nuked Clinton, and possibly exacerbated an already dangerously divided country following E2K in doing so.

Call it curiously strange, "selective appeasement," if you will. :wink:

XoE,

Isn't that X'er response unseasonable? Orwell liked to quote a line from Kipling about those who "mocked the uniform of those who watched over them while they slept."

If characterizing what I said as "bomb everyone" is the best analysis you have (and it is better than most from those of the anti-Bushies), then you again implicitly admit that the threat of continuing terrorist attacks is acceptable and that life after a regime change would be no better than it currently is for the Iraqis. Confront that fact and look yourself in the intellectual consistency mirror. Go ahead. What does that do to the rest of the political positions I suspect you hold dear.

Imagine no John Lennon
Easy now he's dead
No beliefs to fight for
Just spend the day in bed.

Imagine all the people
Yearning to be free
Yoo-hoo, achoo
I hope some day you'll join us
And just give war a chance.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Bush IS an idiot.

Hehe. And that idiot is going to get us all killed too. Not that he cares, obviously.

Name calling isn't really much of an argument one way or another and seems to engender more name calling rather than meaningful discussion.

I enjoy a good discussion and disagreement among the posters on this list, however this thread seems to have degenerated into a name-calling game similar to one played by my children:

You're an idiot!
Am not!
Are too!
Your mom is an idiot, too!
Is not!
Is too!
Well, you're an idiot, too!
Well...nanny nanny boo boo!

THere have been several posts where other folks have tried to discuss issues rather than name calling and these consistently are followed by more name calling. Really, guys this is getting to be pathetic.

Did you notice the irony of Heliotrope's name calling followed by the signature in which all the hatred in the world is decried...Hmmmm...

Originally Posted by elilevin

Did you notice the irony of Heliotrope's name calling followed by the signature in which all the hatred in the world is decried...Hmmmm...

Call it, "selective" hatred. :wink:

Monoghan:

What is it about the axis of evil countries (to identify a few) that makes you believe that appeasement or containment would work? That makes anyone believe that WTC type attacks would not continue? That a nuke explosion here is not inevitable?

Containment worked with the Soviet Union, why not with North Korea? (It's not even an issue with Iraq or Iran.)

WTC type attacks are indeed likely to continue, but that has nothing to do with Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. Indeed, the Bush League's obsession with one of these countries is making it harder to track down and put out of action the real perpetrators of that attack.

If a nuke explosion here is inevitable, it will come from terrorists who have gotten their hands on (most likely) Russian nuclear weapons under inadequate security, not from North Korea, let alone Iraq or Iran. (North Korea is actually not too far from getting nukes, but would be as unable to hit us with them, without committing national suicide, as other nuclear powers have been. Lest we forget, we're a nuclear power, too. Nuclear powers don't nuke each other. It's stupid to do that. Neither Iraq nor Iran is anywhere near getting nukes, of course.)

Hasn't the coordination of the North Korean activities, the Palestinian and Chechyan bombings, and the shipping of materials and money between them all, demonstrated their intentions?

Since those things have themselves not been demonstrated, no.

How hypocritical is it for the anti war types to be implicitly in favor of the most oppressive regimes in the world?

A stance against unilaterally and without provocation starting a war with another country, is not being "implicitly in favor" of that country's regime. War is bad. Starting a war is wrong. That is completely independent of moral judgments, good or bad, about the country we're proposing to fight.

Bush's "preemptive strike" doctrine is one more example of the goals of the environmentalists permeating mainstream thought.

ROTFLMAO!

Oh, wait -- you're not serious about this, are you? It's a joke, right?

Monoghan, what you're proposing, or rather what Bush proposes and you endorse, is that we make it a policy to attack other countries that have not attacked us, but that we suspect might intend to.

It is entirely possible for us to suspect almost any country in the world of harboring such intentions; indeed, as Bush's actions make this country increasingly unpopular, the list of such suspects will only grow. Ultimately, there will be few, if any, countries in the world that the Bush policy would not make a candidate for preemptive attack.

Characterizing this position as "bomb everybody" is, therefore, not at all unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

(North Korea is actually not too far from getting nukes, but would be as unable to hit us with them, without committing national suicide, as other nuclear powers have been. Lest we forget, we're a nuclear power, too. Nuclear powers don't nuke each other. It's stupid to do that.

But would it be stupid for North Korea, specifically, to nuke us? They are hard against China. If they launch, can the US afford to respond in kind? I am not sure it can. It seems to me that North Korea may well get a mulligan in the nuclear skins game. If North Korea launches, the only way to respond without igniting WW III is coventionally. But could WW III be avoided at all at that point? This is not pretty because North Korea, a client state of China, would likely be launching at the behest of China in order to provide cover for Chinese expansion. This is a very serious problem, unlike Iraq which is a very serious joke and a deliberate distraction.

Bush's "preemptive strike" doctrine is one more example of the goals of the environmentalists permeating mainstream thought.

ROTFLMAO!

Oh, wait -- you're not serious about this, are you? It's a joke, right?[/quote]

Don't you just love unintended consequences? All that time spent on the precautionary principle because, just maybe, GAIA might be mad at something we humans did, now gets applied to a real threat. Delicious.

Glad to see Stonewall set aside his monomania on Bush for a moment and analyzed North Korea. The North Koreans have a fairly decent short range missle system, and they have boats that could ferry it 100 miles off of Los Angeles. I'm glad to see that we are monitoring shipping from North Korea already and intercepted those scuds meant for Iraq...oh, yeah, Yemen. Someone lost of bundle of dough on that deal.

Brian, your moral equivalence is right there with the man who was so open minded that he would not take his own side in a fight. They got nukes, we got nukes. Ergo, we're the same. That type of thinking is so ivy tower that it gives university professors a bad name. It would give Neville Chamberlain a bad name.

A preemptive defense policy, combined with American interests in trade, travel and security, does not translate into bomb everybody. The status quo ante 9-11 assumed that there were no really serious threats to the functioning of our way of life. 9-11 (and Bali and the Moscow theatre) demonstrated that the threats are real. So a response is necessary. And only a person who blames America first believes that everybody hates this country. If you believe that, then you need to stop rereading On the Beach so often. What a bleak view of the future.

Abandon the Iraqis to the madman who now admits he had 500 scientists working on weapons of mass destruction, all the while claiming that 500,000 children were starving, is what you are proposing. Who is whistling past the graveyard now? Were you advising Neville Chamberlain at Munich?

Hillary is running. She and Bill are planning a replay of 1992, when no one thought that Bush 41 could be beaten and the Cuomos chickened out. She'll be heartened by the decline the stock market will take and a tough economy in 2003. But she needs a third party just like Bill to suppress the vote for Bush. She'll be too old in 2008. So this is it. I'm glad I still have my Democratic party registration so I can get two bites at the rotten apple.

If terrorists get their hands on a Russian nuke, an obvious target would be a Russian city. The Moscow theater attack may only be a hint of the future.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

... Dogs rule, cats drool!

XoE

And what about frogs? We're superior to dogs, but I'm not so sure about cats.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Hey, Tristan, don't blame us ... the majority of us didn't even vote for the crazy cowboy!

XoE

I am aware of that, however do a majority of US people regard him as a crazy cowboy?

No. Bush has the support of the American public, for good or ill.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Marc dearest, I said that I was speaking from personal experience, not a national poll.

XoE

Uh, that was pretty obvious... except to folks like Stonewall Patton, and all the other self-consumed libs posting here.

Yeah, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler...

What was his name? 'I am Dr. Rumlec,' or somesuch... from the Stern show idiocy.

Bush IS an idiot.

What evidence do you have for that? I know his opponents (except for a few who see the threat he represents to them) keep saying that, but they keep losing to him, too. Bush neatly outmanuevered the Democrats in E2002, letting their tendency to think him an idiot trap them.

He may be dangerous, he may be wrong, he might even be a fascist if Stonewall is right, but there's no evidence whatever for idiocy.

"They misunderestimated me."

George W. Bush
November 6, 2000
Comment made in Bentonville, Arkansas