Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[InfiniteNow]

We all tend to hear what we want to hear... posters and presidents alike.

[pmaust]

I didn't bother to read this whole thread. I don't care if Bush is a dork or not. I think going to Mars is an awesome idea and I would be willing to pay a little more in taxes to help fund it. We are so lucky to even exist as conscious intelligent beings. If we don't take advantage of branching out off of this blue marble we live on, we deserve the same fate of the dinosaur. :D

 

Where the heck is the spell check on this thing?????? :hihi:

[Boerseun]

I think going to Mars is an awesome idea and I would be willing to pay a little more in taxes to help fund it.

Bush snr. also wanted to go to Mars. Amongst a lot of media blurb, NASA started designing missions for human trips to Mars. This project was one of the first things cancelled by Clinton.

 

Presidents tend to commit themselves to Big, Grand Projects that will only materialise after their terms are up. If the following administration cancels it, they can blame it on the next president's lack of vision.

 

This time, however, they have got competition in China. So they might just push through to the moon and, hopefully, Mars.

 

But Bush jr. is by no means the first prez who wanted to go back to the moon post-Apollo.

 

[cue X-Files soundtrack]WHY do the Bush family want to go to the moon so bad? Are they ALIENS, and they want to rejoin their MOTHERSHIP parked on the DARK SIDE OF THE MOON in order to initiate the MASS INVASION? Or have they found oil there...? [/X-Files sountrack]

[TheFaithfulStone]

When I have conflicting reports about someone being a danger to me, if I make a mistake of judgement, it is going to be on the side of trust in my troops, not trust in my enemy.

 

True enough - but the big problem with the Iraq War is not it's sell or it's reasons, which frankly, I could support, but it's execution, and it's "pre-emptiveness."

 

If we had waged a pre-emptive war against Iraq, and been RIGHT, we could have done it again. Since we waged a pre-emptive war again Iraq and turned out to be WRONG (about what we were pre-empting) it's harder to sell the second time around.

 

Whether we truly believed it or not, our credibility was on the line, and we blew it, and now we don't have our credibility any more.

 

If Bush today said "I want to invade Iran because they're trying to make Nukes." (A perfectly true statement) I think he'd encounter MORE resistance because he last attempt at a pre-emptive strike has not been the success he told us it would be.

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

Whether we truly believed it or not, our credibility was on the line, and we blew it, and now we don't have our credibility any more.

 

If Bush today said "I want to invade Iran because they're trying to make Nukes." (A perfectly true statement) I think he'd encounter MORE resistance because he last attempt at a pre-emptive strike has not been the success he told us it would be.

This is where it gets very sticky. Why is our intelligence on Iran any better than it was for Iraq? Iraq had claimed to have all the capabilities that we went in to stop. They had used them. Either they used almost all of them, or they managed to hide the rest. What happens if we go into Iran and we find that the whole nuclear thing is a house of cards? Would you stick to your current assessment that they have the capabilities that they claim, or turn those who stick to that idea into liars?

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

You know what Bill, I believed him.. or rather I believed Colin Powell, when they said Iraq had WMD.

 

But afterward, all of that stuff came out about there being all of those reports that indicated otherwise. (Like Joseph Wilson's report about the Nigerian uranium or whatever it was.) It wasn't that the Administration got it wrong about Iraq, I can sorta respect just gettin' it wrong. It's that they got it wrong, in a few cases, they KNEW they had it wrong, and said it anyway, and now, three years later, they STILL won't come clean about it and say - "Yeah, we were sure wrong about that."

 

The intelligence for Iran in my opinion is a little better - yes, they are enriching uranium, and although there is no indication that they have a bomb right now all we have is their word that that don't intend to make one.

 

If we were to invade Iran, and then it were to come out later that there was an orthodoxy at the CIA that only allowed people to say "Yes, they are making a nuke! Oh noes!" Then I would think that people were lying about that as well.

 

TFS

[C1ay]

I wonder if this thread might soon qualify for The Most "Off Topic" Discussion Award...

 

based on the continuing discussion it might be a better fit in the Watercooler instead of Earth Science...

[TheBigDog]

I wonder if this thread might soon qualify for The Most "Off Topic" Discussion Award...

 

based on the continuing discussion it might be a better fit in the Watercooler instead of Earth Science...

Bush has a secret report that the Iraqi WMD were hidden on Mars. That is why the dumb bastard wants to go there so damn badly. When we arrive there and find the Iraqi stockpiles it will redeem every decision that he made.

 

Bill (Any better C? :) )

[InfiniteNow]

What was the outcome of domestic wire tapping?

Disgusting.

 

Great special on PBS tonight regarding this. Complete phase shift back to what caused the pilgrams to vacate their homes in search of the New World... They came here to escape the tyranny of over reaching, and yet... hmmm...

 

Now it's global. Can we really get away from it by flying to Mars? I don't think so. Anyway, check out the special. Despite my physiological symptoms surrounding the issue and my psychological desire to run from it, it's a very informative view and can illuminate context of the issue about which you may not be aware.

 

FRONTLINE: spying on the home front | PBS

 

Although the president told the nation that his NSA eavesdropping program was limited to known Al Qaeda agents or supporters abroad making calls into the U.S., comments of other administration officials and intelligence veterans indicate that the NSA cast its net far more widely. AT&T technician Mark Klein inadvertently discovered that the whole flow of Internet traffic in several AT&T operations centers was being regularly diverted to the NSA, a charge indirectly substantiated by John Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the official legal memos legitimizing the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Yoo told FRONTLINE: "The government needs to have access to international communications so that it can try to find communications that are coming into the country where Al Qaeda's trying to send messages to cell members in the country. In order to do that, it does have to have access to communication networks."

 

Spying on the Home Front also looks at a massive FBI data sweep in December 2003. On a tip that Al Qaeda "might have an interest in Las Vegas" around New Year's 2004, the FBI demanded records from all hotels, airlines, rental car agencies, casinos and other businesses on every person who visited Las Vegas in the run-up to the holiday. Stephen Sprouse and Kristin Douglas of Kansas City, Mo., object to being caught in the FBI dragnet in Las Vegas just because they happened to get married there at the wrong moment. Says Douglas, "I'm sure that the government does a lot of things that I don't know about, and I've always been OK with that -- until I found out that I was included."

 

A check of all 250,000 Las Vegas visitors against terrorist watch lists turned up no known terrorist suspects or associates of suspects. The FBI told FRONTLINE that the records had been kept for more than two years, but have now all been destroyed.

 

In the broad reach of NSA eavesdropping, the massive FBI data sweep in Las Vegas, access to records gathered by private database companies that allows government agencies to avoid the limitations provided by the Privacy Act, and nearly 200 other government data-mining programs identified by the Government Accounting Office, experienced national security officials and government attorneys see a troubling and potentially dangerous collision between the strategy of pre-emption and the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure

[Pyrotex]

This is where it gets very sticky. Why is our intelligence on Iran any better than it was for Iraq? ...

Put yourself in Iran's position.

 

You can't WIN a frontal shoot-out with the USA. But you CAN win the propoganda war by making them look like idiots. So, you build up your uranium enrichment facilities and swear that you ARE NOT building A-bombs.

 

And the truth is, YOU AREN'T!!! You're building NO WMD at all. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: But you make yourself look suspicious and you release tons of phony info about secret projects... :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

 

You get the USA to "capture" Iranian diplomats, gun down Iranian mercinaries (who later turn out to be something else). You get the USA to make accusations that turn out to be stupid. In other words, you play George W against himself. You KNOW GW is gonna jump at any straw to make himself look big, tough and smart, and you give him all the rope he wants.

 

With the likes of GW and Cheney in office, winning the foreign intrigue game is EASY. They are so predictable and gullible.

[Moontanman]

:hihi: yes? Did I get it right?

 

Michael

[jackson33]

prior to the latest Gulf War, i recall Netanyahu, a former PM of Israel and the one person i would trust to know where the dangers are in the Mid East, said there were no WMD, at least nuclear in Iraq, but that be careful about Iran in the near future. having said this, placing all the blame on Bush or his people for none found, should be spread out over a number of people. you all know exactly who all these people are and what they said, but continue to blame one or two persons.

 

Iran, is by all standards, is one that supports terrorist, harbors and finances all the groups they can. the Islamic cleric, especially in Iran have stated that Israel should at wiped out, that by any means possible cultures should be destroyed and that Islamic Law should rule, where ever Islamics reside. this means France, England, Minnesota and of course the entire Mid East. their interest are as ours, in the power or needs which the oil reserves provide.

 

as a Nation, we are going to have to make a decision and some how stick to that decision, regardless of short term events, as to whether we are going to fight the extreme elements of Islamic radicals or not. this means if not, then when attacks are made our only method for retribution is under our laws or treat as a criminal act. it will not matter if its a dirty bomb, some chemical attack or a scenario where tens of thousands or millions are killed. if we are at war, this means we fight it to an end, whether by diplomatic or destructive means. no more attempting to undermine the people chosen to accomplish this or the ones they choose to command the military.

 

IMO; even with the fighting for power in Washington DC, that the peoples in most the free Nations, realize a problem exist, must be stood up to NOW and to a final conclusion. this means in the US, both the parties and most the folks that live there. a total Democratic victory will change nothing and a positive ending to the WOT will be sought.

[CraigD]

Put yourself in Iran's position.

…

In other words, you play George W against himself. You KNOW GW is gonna jump at any straw to make himself look big, tough and smart, and you give him all the rope he wants.

 

With the likes of GW and Cheney in office, winning the foreign intrigue game is EASY. They are so predictable and gullible.

A shortcoming of this as a political career-enriching strategy is, if recent history is an indication, part of winning this game entails the US missiling , bombing, shelling, and shooting up your country, killing you, most of your immediate and much of your extended family, a few or many tens of thousands of civilians, a goodly fraction of your military personnel, and installing your worst political enemies in your place – what some might call a pyrrhic victory, others a complete catastrof**k.

 

If I were the leaders of Iran, I’d pursue the “be as evasive as possible, and if that doesn’t work, grovel like a dog, until the US Executive and foreign policy changes” strategy.

 

Pyrrhic victories suck.

[Guest chendoh]

Yes.

[InfiniteNow]

A shortcoming of this as a political career-enriching strategy is, if recent history is an indication, part of winning this game entails the US missiling , bombing, shelling, and shooting up your country, killing you, most of your immediate and much of your extended family, a few or many tens of thousands of civilians, a goodly fraction of your military personnel, and installing your worst political enemies in your place.

 

But, it is HIS government... ;)

 

A new perspective on "The Decider."

 

Check out the 4 minute clip above, specifically the final 30 seconds. You can see why we accomplish such great feats as a nation. We focus on issues that matter, and make real decisions based on true consensus.

 

Nice synopsis, Craig. :)

[HarmonyAlexandria]

prior to the latest Gulf War, i recall Netanyahu, a former PM of Israel and the one person i would trust to know where the dangers are in the Mid East, said there were no WMD, at least nuclear in Iraq, but that be careful about Iran in the near future. having said this, placing all the blame on Bush or his people for none found, should be spread out over a number of people. you all know exactly who all these people are and what they said, but continue to blame one or two persons.

 

Iran, is by all standards, is one that supports terrorist, harbors and finances all the groups they can. the Islamic cleric, especially in Iran have stated that Israel should at wiped out, that by any means possible cultures should be destroyed and that Islamic Law should rule, where ever Islamics reside. this means France, England, Minnesota and of course the entire Mid East. their interest are as ours, in the power or needs which the oil reserves provide.

 

as a Nation, we are going to have to make a decision and some how stick to that decision, regardless of short term events, as to whether we are going to fight the extreme elements of Islamic radicals or not. this means if not, then when attacks are made our only method for retribution is under our laws or treat as a criminal act. it will not matter if its a dirty bomb, some chemical attack or a scenario where tens of thousands or millions are killed. if we are at war, this means we fight it to an end, whether by diplomatic or destructive means. no more attempting to undermine the people chosen to accomplish this or the ones they choose to command the military.

 

IMO; even with the fighting for power in Washington DC, that the peoples in most the free Nations, realize a problem exist, must be stood up to NOW and to a final conclusion. this means in the US, both the parties and most the folks that live there. a total Democratic victory will change nothing and a positive ending to the WOT will be sought.

 

In many ways it is and always has been about Israel. I do not bear no grudges against Israel, but by the same token I owe them no favors or allegiances.

 

politics is a giant chess game, more often than not one must sacrifice a few, even many pieces to win the game....unfortunately when it comes to politics "pawns" = people and the higher ranking pieces = states.

 

Secondly, look at it from the Middle Eastern people's perspective, especially the Palestinians. A bunch of Europeans tried to genocide a bunch of Jews out of Existence, those Europeans lost, so the victorious Europeans gave the surviving Jews a huge chunk of Arab territory as a consolation prize.

 

Just doesn't make much, if any sense.

[Buffy]

Secondly, look at it from the Middle Eastern people's perspective, especially the Palestinians. A bunch of Europeans tried to genocide a bunch of Jews out of Existence, those Europeans lost, so the victorious Europeans gave the surviving Jews a huge chunk of Arab territory as a consolation prize.

Wanna try to justify calling it "Arab territory?" It was the Jews territory going back nearly to pre-history, dominated by the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, tossed back and forth between fractious Caliphate and Crusader rule, then left to drifting external colonial control by the Ottomans and Brits, peopled by all sorts of folks including Jews and Muslims of all sorts of stripes throughout its history because *everyone* claims that Jerusalem is central to their religious heritage. In fact, no "Arab" nation controlled Palestine since the Ottomans booted the Mamluks in 1516.

 

If you're going to toss off blatantly biased claptrap like that, you at least ought to be creative about it.

 

I saw it first,

Buffy