Originally posted by OmnislashDamn straight, he's not my president.
I believe such leaders do exist, but commonly do not have the financial and political power to do so. I would also speculate that the lack of power to win office may greatly be affected by the fact that these people ARE great leaders, and have done more for the people around them than they have for themselves.
As for us having great leaders, I do not f ...[text shortened]... I will never acknowledge him as being fit to lead so much as a zoo tour, let alone my country.
Originally posted by AcolyteErm...more people are killed on US highways burning imported oil each month, than were killed that day.
[b]
If you're talking about fighting back when your survival is threatened, the survival of the US as a country is not threatened by terrorists; although it was clearly an atrocity, more people are murdered each year in the US than were killed on 11th Sep 2001.
Originally posted by kirksey957you are right, dispite my misgivings of the americans missile defence system, It is not americas fault, good analogy btw.
OK, let me see if I get this right. If someone tries to shoot me and say my neighbor tried to prevent it from happening, but failed, then I should have had a better neighbor and that it is really my neighbor's fault?
in responce to rossroe...
Blair alright? he is worse than bush!!! not only is he blindly following george bush (in my opinion bush is a madman), but blair is despairatly trying to make every other country see america as the saviour of the world, a white kight if you will.
Is it just me or are bush and blair behaiving like a single enity, like someone with Schizophrenia, bush is the side of this enity which seeks action. Blair the weaker personality runs around seeking a peaceful solution, whilst being forced along for the ride in a body not under his control.
Is there something we dont know about? some kind of greater power-play other than GW2?
Originally posted by AcolyteHrmph... Acolyte, I believe you are correct. I apologize for any factual errors in my previous posts. It looks like I got my muslims disciplines confused, which is a pretty serious error in that they are very different philosophies and intepretations of the religion. Just another example of the way ignorance can influence judgement, I'm afraid to say.
Saudia Arabia is indeed mostly Sunni (I think), but Iraq has a majority of Shiites and a Sunni-controlled government, while Iran is a mostly Shiite country with a clerical Shiite government. In fact I think one of the differences between Sunni and Shia is that Shia approves of a powerful role for clerics, whereas Sunni does not support an established church ...[text shortened]... n, given their war in the 80s, and I doubt Saudi Arabia would be too friendly to either of them.
However, the point of my post was to highlight the potential difficulties in governing a potentially Balkanized post-war Iraq (I use that term in full knowledge of the recent assassination of the Serbian leader, as I think it illustrates my position well). The scenario that I put forth is far-fetched, to be sure, but the idea was to show the uncertainties in eliminating a strong government (and say what you will about Hussein's regime, there's no doubt that it's strong) in a country with a lot of potential internal strife, and how the outcomes can come back and bite the rest of the world in unexpected ways. I still feel this is a salient point, and one that even a multilateral coalition force should seriously consider before taking action.
-mike
When all is said and done, someone stands to make billions of dollars of this oil war, and lets be honest to ourselves at least, this is all about control of the oil. I believe this is not debateable. Our vice President is or was CEO of one of the largest oil companies out of that area. I believe the name of that company is Hofbringer. Now i am an American and I believe for us to stay a powerful country we need to do thngs like this to show the world what we are made of. I know it sounds like macho "stuff" because it is. We are the spoiled rich kids of the world and if we don't get a taste of every so often we will become weak. Similar to the fall of ROME. The longest lasting empire of all time. I am not saying this to be the sole reason for the downfall, but the end of the Gladiator days marked the beginning of destruction. People started losing their taste for blood and slightly barbaric tendencies and became weak, lethargic and didn't want to bother with power anymore. If we, however, enjoy are liberties and freedoms I hope we can come together on the idea that something has to be done, enough talking-no more waiting. Either we go in and do some damage(not saying bodily damage, but it could happen) or bow out of Iraq and take one in the L column.
I don't like war anymore than anyone else, but there are a lot of soldiers out there that need our support that they are doing something good...
Originally posted by bbarrThat comment makes me want to throw up. As a matter of fact, I feel so insulted by that comment I will do something about it. I WILL LEAVE THIS SITE because of you. I resign my current games as of now. I will not be exposed to the advertisers on this site and the owners will never get a dime from me. I challenge all who agree with me do the same.
Damn straight, he's not my president.
Another thing, i don't know why so much emphasis is put on Bush. Not in practice unfortunately, but in "law" the presidents only job is to carry out the will of the Congress. Rather than try to explain all aspects of the Branches which i am sure most here already understand I will just ask this question, -How did our system of democracy run by checks and balnces be placed in the hands of one man??
Originally posted by britt2001bIf you feel that strongly about it, why don't you just stick to playing chess and stay out of the forums. You're going to find similar opinions in any public forum you go to, unless it's something like a Republican Christian forum. I disagree with a lot that I read here as well, but I'm not going anywhere.
That comment makes me want to throw up. As a matter of fact, I feel so insulted by that comment I will do something about it. I WILL LEAVE THIS SITE because of you. I resign my current games as of now. I will not be exposed to the advertisers on this site and the owners will never get a dime from me. I challenge all who agree with me do the same.
Originally posted by britt2001bYou think someone who received votes from less than a quarter of registered voters, who actually lost the popular vote and was appointed president by an uneleccted court has some sort of mandate to rule? You must be from the 'America: Love it or Leave it' school of thought. Oh well, good riddance to bad rubbish.
That comment makes me want to throw up. As a matter of fact, I feel so insulted by that comment I will do something about it. I WILL LEAVE THIS SITE because of you. I resign my current games as of now. I will not be exposed to the advert ...[text shortened]... et a dime from me. I challenge all who agree with me do the same.
Originally posted by britt2001bSo you're trying to start a boycott of the site because you disagree with the opinions of one of its members? How bizarre.
That comment makes me want to throw up. As a matter of fact, I feel so insulted by that comment I will do something about it. I WILL LEAVE THIS SITE because of you. I resign my current games as of now. I will not be exposed to the advertisers on this site and the owners will never get a dime from me. I challenge all who agree with me do the same.
Seriously, I fail to see why it's so disgusting for a person to disclaim allegiance to a president he didn't vote for, doesn't care for and doesn't trust. Whether you like Bush or not, it has to be admitted that it's theoretically possible for someone undeserving to get elected, no?
(And of course we can be sure you would you have reacted just the same way if someone had expressed similar sentiments about Clinton, right)?
Cheers. I think the site will manage to struggle along without you.
Originally posted by royalchickenI said 'registered voters' in my post, and then I claim he lost the popular vote, which is of course constituted by voting voters 😀
Hear, hear. But speak clearly. He got votes from less than a quarter of REGISTERED voters, but from about HALF of VOTING voters, since the voter turnout was about 50% (which, as he pointed out, indicates that "fewer people are going to the polls"😉.