ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Jim Price - the "Kids nowadays ain't got no shame" sessions
© 1971 Ethan A. Russell
[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [FORO EN ESPAÑOL] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: President Dubya's favorite tracks ??? Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
February 28th, 2005 01:32 PM
Riffhard You guys can sit back and throw insult upon insult on Bush. You can deny that the Cold War was ever real. Which,by the way,is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have ever heard! You don't believe that Reagan helped bring down the USSR? Well then I would strongly suggest you read up on the thoughts of the people that were trapped behind the iron curtain. They will,and have,told a completely differnt story. Even Gorby had to admit that the desolution of the Soviet Union was spurred by pressure from the west. That,ofcourse,means nothing to the people that refuse to give credit where credit is due. Time to put down the liberal Kool-Aid.

Oh,and by the way,the entire Lebanese goverment resigned today! Why? Well the Lebanese people on the streets are saying quote,-"The Iraqi vote was like our very own Berlin Wall being toppled!" Gee,who helped bring down the Berlin Wall? That's right Reagan! Who was directly responsible for the Iraqi vote? Bush! I know it's tough to always be on the wrong side of history,but it's time to fess up. Bush was right and Stewart Smalley and his ilk were wrong. Again!

Today in Iraq the insurgents have killed over 100 people in a car bombing. What are the Iraqis doing? Protesting! The insurgents are like a wounded animal. They are doing everything in their power to unleash their brand of evil. They want the freedoms rolled back. They are evil fucks and they will not succeed. People all over the Middle East are starting to see the light and they are taking to the streets. That's great news! The people of Lebanon would not have dreamed of protesting as recently as one month ago.

Yesterday Syria,having always denied that they housed terrorists,arrested and handed over Saddam's half brother. This guy was in charge the rape rooms and torture chambers. He was responsible for carrying out political executions. He's now in our hands!

The whole of the Middle East is changing before our very eyes and all liberals can do is deny the obvious. It would be funny if it weren't so frustratingly predictable.

Clinton did a good job in the Middle East,jizzy?! Oh really? Let's see.

1.-Kobar Towers are bombed on his watch.

2.-The US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are bomed on his watch.

3.-The WTC was first bombed in 1993......his watch.

4.-The USS Cole was bombed on his watch.

5.-The 19 Islamic fucks that took down the WTC,struck the pentagon,and crashed in a Penn. Feild all were in flight schools in the USA on his watch.

6.-We can't forget the Berlin disco bombing carried out by Islamic fucks against US service men and women on his watch.

7.-Oh yeah,we mustn't forget Somolia. Again more Islamic fucks kill a slew of American service men and we turned tail and ran away! On his watch!

8.-the second infatada in the Isreal was started and persued with thousand of deaths on his watch!


The list goes on and on,but that means nothing right? History is always the ultimate judge,and Clinton will go down in history has a man who had the morals of 42nd street whore. He did little to nothing on the world stage with the exception of Ireland. Which he did a very good job on. Other than that? Nothing. At least I can give the man credit for his work with the UK and Ireland. Liberals are so blinded in their hatred of Bush they cannot give Bush credit for anything! Even as the domino that is Lebanon has been the first to fall. It's happening! History! Right before our very eyes. Ain't it great!

Oh,and here you go-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59555-2005Feb28.html?sub=AR


Riffhard



[Edited by Riffhard]
February 28th, 2005 01:41 PM
FPM C10
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
that's the funny thing about wars, there's never really a proper exit strategy when your dealing with them, things don't always go accordingly, because, well they're wars,



See, that's the thing - that rule, "The Rumsfeld Excuse", doesn't count in "pre-emptive" wars. When it's a war that YOU start on your own timetable, that you've been looking for ANY reason to start, you owe it to your own troops, your own country, and the country you're "liberating" (although I'm not sure - is the pre-emptive war and the war of liberation the same war? I don't think these excuses were ever offered in tandem; when the first one turned out to be bullshit they switched to the second one, and then it morphed into "spreading democracy through the Middle East") to make sure you know what you're doing. Bush's Sec'y of State knew that. Too bad Bush never listened to him.

quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
but since we're on the subject what were our great exit strategies we had in place for the major conflicts we entered into last century ?

WW2 in 1941 ?


I'm really sorry to burst your bubble, but Bush's filthy little excursion into Iraq has no similarities to WW2, unless you're talking about the Invasion of Poland. But I don't think you are.


quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
Korea 1950 ? 1st Gulf War in '91 ?



Now you're getting warmer! For the exit strategy in '91, or at least to read about a intelligent concern for lack of same, do what Bush never did - read his daddy's book.



quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
Last time I checked we're still in Germany, still in Japan too, and Heeeey mama mia! Wadda ya know, we even got a few bases in Italy still, damn if that wars been over for over half a century now, but we're still over there.



...so that makes it a good idea to start another one that we'll be tangled up in 50 years from now? Maybe this stuff makes sense to YOU but I gotta tell you, the rest of the world is unconvinced. Saddam wasn't Hitler, he wasn't even Mussolini...



quote:
Bloozehound wrote:

Lets see, Korea, yup army bases in south korea, 1st Gulf War with Iraq, yup we were still there before this one started, in fact Saddams boys, sly devils, have been taking pot shots at our jets for past 10 yrs around them "No fly zones"



Funny thing about Korea - all the stuff Bush said about Iraq but which proved to be unfounded is actually true of Korea - yet we didn't invade them. Why do you suppose that is?

Could it be that we don't have the money or cannon fodder needed to police the entire world? Could that be why the "looney left" thinks Bush's War is a giant mistake that can't be blotted out by holding an election? That, far from making us safer, it renders us incapable of an adequate military response to a REAL threat? Oops, that doesn't play into your "pansy pacifist" argument.



quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
Wow! Amazing stuff!



Not particularly, and none of it has anything to do with this argument - but what else is new? You'd swear the last election was between Bush and Bill Clinton to listen to you guys. And WE need to "get over it"? I'm sorry that someone from my side mentioned the Swift Boat Veterans because that gave you guys a chance to jump back on THAT dead horse. Hey, guys - get over it. If Kerry's record isn't exactly what he said it was, it doesn't really matter now, and it also doesn't make your boy any less of a "Fortunate Son".


quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
but I'm sure a great, enlightened intellectual thinker like yourself knows all about this, or do you not? If so why not, did you cut class to go smoke dope too, miss a few lectures, not that it surprises me that the only thing a Non-dodgeball playing, cunt pacifist like yourself would dwell on in a time of war are all possible "exit strategies"

Did you cook up some good "exit strategies" to get out of dodgeball ? I'm sure you did, but how many times could they buy the "my wrist is broken" routine until they realize it wasn't broke, just terminally limp



careful, there, Tiger. Some less enlightened and intellectual thinkers might call such verbiage defensive, bitter, shrill, hostile...

quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
No it's called "realism", but I'm glad to see you've got such a big heart and sympathy for these terrorists, next time you're cutting class (or work, you do work doncha?) to go get stoned and wallow around in the daisys because your too much of a fuckin pussy to play dodgeball with the boys. Pick a few of those flowers and go place them down the barrels of your buddies AK-47's, spark up a few joints, then suck their dicks off and let'm bend ya over a barrel to demonstrate to you their expert "exit strategies", bet your partial to that, always gotta keep exploring the realms of newer and better "exit strategies" to get out of playing dodgeball




Hee hee heee! Man, you make your friends Tele and Poplar look like...um...adults! I haven't seen such nasty, desperate yet arrogant incoherence since the televised debates. I would stick to your hero's debating strategies - pretend you don't understand the question, and wear a wire so your smarter friends can feed you the answers. Because this little homophobic outburst makes you look like an idiot with "issues".

See, funny thing about us liberals - calling us gay doesn't really make us all that mad, because we don't hate gays. Calling us "cunt pacifists" and attacking what we do for a living doesn't really earn you any points either unless you're a guest on the O'Reilly Factor. And since we're dealing with the written word it's impossible for you to shout down your opposition, which is the method favored by your side. You're stuck trying to actually say stuff that makes sense, which is not your forte. Better leave it to the bigger boys.


February 28th, 2005 02:39 PM
gimmekeef Hey Poplar..we're WAY over him......4 more years.....
February 28th, 2005 03:08 PM
Dan The reason Clinton turned tail and ran after Somailia was the same reason Reagan did the same thing after Beirut - no vital U.S. interests at stake worth risking any more lives for. Unfortunately it sent the wrong message but it doesn't change the fact that American soldiers shouldn't have been there to begin with.
February 28th, 2005 05:02 PM
Riffhard This is what the march to freedom looks like! Kinda reminds me of East/West Berlin circa 1989! Gee,you think that the fact that democracy has always followed a domino like pattern is a coincidence? History has shown that once democracy takes hold that all surounding nations follow suite or at the very least reform quickly follows. It's happening before our very eyes! Bush did,in fact,state that the main objective in going into Iraq was to remove the threat of WMDs that the whole world believed he had. Why did the world think this to be true? Because Saddam refused to account for his WMDs in direct violation of the UN Security Council's 17 seperate resolutions. It was not because Bush lied! Bush also stated all the way back on September 26th of '01 that the ultimate goal was for the spread of democracy in order to "drain the swamp",and it is working at a quicker pace than even Bush dared dream. Yet,for our liberal friends there can be no good news so long as Bush is in the WH. Funny,but typical.


Here's what freedom's march looks like ladies and gentlemen.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4304639.stm


The terrorists are in the process of losing their stronghold in Lebenon and Isreal will no longer have the Syrian threat to deal with north of their own boarder. Great news for sure! Where's Rip Taylor when you need him?!


Riffhard


February 28th, 2005 05:40 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Gee,who helped bring down the Berlin Wall? That's right Reagan!


[Edited by Riffhard]




the Germans brought it down....Shrub I was the then American chief executive
February 28th, 2005 05:46 PM
Riffhard LOL! Jizzy I know that GHWB was the POTUS at the time,but it Reagan's massive amount of pressure that spurred the wall to come down. Even the former East German officials have gone on the record and stated that fact.


Riffhard
February 28th, 2005 07:08 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Even the former East German officials have gone on the record and stated that fact.


Riffhard



Gee, the East Germans said it? it MUST be true!
February 28th, 2005 07:13 PM
Dan Now if only someone had the nutsack to pressure China on its human rights record.
February 28th, 2005 07:20 PM
Riffhard
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:


Gee, the East Germans said it? it MUST be true!



So let me get this straight. If you say it is not true that Reagan had a hand in the reunification of Germany then that is true,but if the actual players on the scene at the time contradict your revisionist history they are lying? Does that just about sum it up? TIA!



Riffhard
February 28th, 2005 07:39 PM
stonedinaustralia well riff - it's so much face saving from the Eastern block nabobs to a degree - much less embarassing to say - "well we were pressured into it by the west" rather than admit "we lost control of our country and the confidence and support of it's people" (if,indeed, thay ever had the latter)





[Edited by stonedinaustralia]
February 28th, 2005 08:27 PM
Riffhard
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
well riff - it's so much face saving from the Eastern block nabobs to a degree - much less embarassing to say - "well we were pressured into it by the west" rather than admit "we lost control of our country and the confidence and support of it's people" (if,indeed, thay ever had the latter)





[Edited by stonedinaustralia]




Oh I fully agree with you SIA,but the fact is that the people of East Germany thanked Reagan profusely after the wall came down. I vivedly remember the news reports and many of the East Berliners waving the German flag and the American flag. There can be no doubt that the speech at the Brandenburg Gate gave many inside East Berlin the courage to publically show their dismay at the Soviet controlled East German goverment.


Just as there can be no doubt that the Iraqi election has had a like effect on the people of Lebenon. They are calling the Iraqis' vote "our very own Berlin Wall toppling". That speaks volumes,and to even suggest that the people inside Lebenon would have taken to the streets en masse against the Syrian controlled goverment without the Iraqi vote is wishful liberal thinking. They gained their own sense of courage after watching the Iraqis risk life and limb for the chance at democracy. Domino effect. It's happening inside the Middle East. Yet many said that the Middle East cannot handle democracy. That's utter crap! Japan had never known democracy until the end of WWII. It has been a roaring success there. In Germany they never experienced democracy either. Who is going to argue that both Japan and Germany are today great democracies?

I just have this feeling that no matter how succesful this spread of democracy is that the ultra-libs will never ever admit that Bush had it right. It is amazing how the unbrideled hatered for this president blinds people to the good that is starting to take place in the Middle East. Well it is starting to take shape and even though that is good for all involved the libs still hate it. Amazing! I guess when those hard core right wingers say that if it's good for America it's bad for liberals they are wrong? That would not appear to be the case. Good things are happening for America,Europe,and the Middle East,yet all I hear from liberals is that the sky is falling and it's all Bush's fault. Weird!


Riffhard
February 28th, 2005 09:46 PM
time is on my side I've always felt that you can never really change anyone's mind on post like these. Everyone seems so convinced, so certain in their own beliefs, in their own mind that there really is no room to give away any kind of middle ground. Reading all these post, everyone has their own points of view about geopolitics with the usual suspects stating this view and the other's stating the opposite. As you may have already suspected, I, too, have my views about the world. Some people may agree, some may disagree, most could care less. Let me state that my views have always been considered from what is normally called the liberal point of view.

First, let me throw a few bones out. Someone earlier said that the Cold War was a myth, written up in newspapers, a figment of one's imagination. A spook story or a bedtime story to put your children to sleep by. Well, let me tell you at one point in time it was some pretty scary, serious stuff. It was a contest mainly between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and it came about after WWII (the U.S. and Soviet Union being what were, are called superpowers). It was so serious that we nearly had ourselves what would have been a nuclear holocaust. It was called the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the Soviet Union hadn't blinked, there no telling what might have happened. I might not be here typing this right now. Yes, the Cold War was real all right. Scary too. They used to gather up all the school children, have drills. They would all go into some underground place called a fallout shelter with a sign nearby. Remember it well. I used to be one of those school children. Well, they don't have those drills anymore. I consider that to be good thing. What happened??? Why don't they have those drills anymore. They don't even have the Cold War anymore. Some people miss it; most said good riddance. You see it was a contest largely won by the U.S. All those things are gone now (they had a space race too but that's another story). The U.S. was on the right side of history. People didn't know it then; didn't know how it was going to turn out. Well, there had to be a hero didn't there??? Somebody that was in charge. If you look through history, isn't there always someone who gets credit for something if they are on the right side of history??? Don't they??? As much as I hate to say it and as much as it pains me to be admit it, the credit will largely go to one Ronald Reagan. Why??? Because, he was on the right side of history. About 20 years ago, there was massive demonstrations in Europe against the deployment of ICBM's. It was all part pf some lunatic strategy called peace through strength (spiritually I was right there will them). Because, we didn't have the benefit of knowing what was going to happen, we thought we were right. In fact, as judged by the objective analysis of history, we were wrong. We were on the wrong side of history. There are no ICBM's anywhere in Europe today. There is no Cold War. Hell, my children don't even know what the Cold War or Red Square mean. Times indeed change. If it means school children are no longer preparing for nuclear attacks, I say that's a good thing.

Hey, I thought you were on the liberal side???? Reagan remembered through history as a man of peace??? Are you nuts??? Hold on a second. I said in the beginning I was going to throw a few bones. Now it's time to eat some meat. There was an earlier post that said that with courage, vision, guts, and a sense of history that people, leaders can change the world. Be on the right side of history. Examples were used showing that by using these qualities, the U.S. was on the right side of history with the result being flourishing democracies (Japan, Germany from WWII; South Korea from the Korean War; the redrawn map in Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union caused by the end of the Cold War). Clearly, history has shown the U.S. was on the right side of history. I agree with this analysis. The current year is 2005. So in 1945, 1955, and 1985, it appears the U.S. was on the right side of history. People just didn't know it then. Hindsight is always 20 20. Sounds convincing doesn't it??? Going back 60, 50, and 20 years, it seems to fit, doesn't it??? But wait a minute aren't we forgetting something??? What's been left off this rosy picture??? What happens if I go back not 60, 50 years but 40 years??? What year is that??? Well, the year would be 1965 and we would be right in the middle of that foreign policy mess called Vietnam.

In my next post, I'll explain why the similarities in Iraq are in fact much closer to the ones in Vietnam than they were in WWII, Korean War, or the Cold War. Just a thought, the people in charge of the government in 1965 believed they were in a deadly war with communism that must be stopped at all cost. They believed in a domino theory where they thought all the countries in Southeast Asia would all soon turn communist. So they planted a democracy in a place called South Vietnam. This country held free elections... I got to go now Part II coming









[Edited by time is on my side]
February 28th, 2005 11:49 PM
Child of the Moon I love the Rolling Stones, if that makes any difference here...
March 1st, 2005 02:17 AM
Poplar
quote:
Child of the Moon wrote:
I love the Rolling Stones, if that makes any difference here...



hell yeah - that shit's like The Force, it surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds us all together.


anyways... check this out:

GlencAR
RiffhARd
PoplAR
Telecaster

If we could just change it to TelecastAR - we'd have a great little right-wing consipracy here.

[Edited by Poplar]
March 1st, 2005 05:14 AM
lotsajizz
quote:
time is on my side wrote:

Someone earlier said that the Cold War was a myth, written up in newspapers, a figment of one's imagination. A spook story or a bedtime story to put your children to sleep by.



[Edited by time is on my side]



No. No one said that. The far right wing here though prefers arguing strawmen than arguing what was actually said. This thread is replete with examples of such.
March 1st, 2005 08:17 AM
Starbuck
quote:
Riffy wrote:

"This is what the march to freedom looks like! Kinda reminds me of East/West Berlin circa 1989!"


gee, it looks more like "bleeding kansas" to me....and we all know what happened after that!

March 1st, 2005 08:49 AM
Maxlugar [quote]Poplar wrote:
anyways... check this out:

GlencAR
RiffhARd
PoplAR
Telecaster

If we could just change it to TelecastAR - we'd have a great little right-wing consipracy here.


MaxlugAR...

March 1st, 2005 10:58 AM
Ten Thousand Motels
March 1st, 2005 12:34 PM
FPM C10 I don't know how this thread got HERE, to the deification of the star of Death Valley Days, from the basically benign jibing about what songs our brilliant and heroic president might listen to. But whatever! Although Reagan's role in the downfall of the "Evil Empire" was wonderfully stage-managed - now THERE was a guy who could read a telepromptor!- and he will be forever associated with the fall of communism by dint of his unforgettable line, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", this is just the birth of sound-byte history. His imaginary missle defense system was a brilliant ploy (I'm not giving HIM credit for it, though - he actually LISTENED to his advisors) which helped defeat the Russians too, except NOW we have a President who actually wants to build it!

The real stories of things this big are far too complex for people who have been conditioned to have 6-second attention spans to grasp.

A gigantic piece of the puzzle of what happened to Russia that all of the right-wing pundits have been too busy rewriting history to mention is the fact that Russia got themselves into an ill-advised war against a country that they really didn't understand, (Afghanistan), without an exit strategy, and the cost in rubles and human lives proved to be more than they could afford. Now Reagan DID have a hand in that because he made sure the international terrorists fighting against the Russians, who were known then as "freedom fighters" and whose ranks included Osama bin Laden, had lots of high tech weapons to blast those commie bastards with. He was always good at getting guns to anyone who hated commies. Unfortunately most of these former enemies of our enemies are now our enemies themselves.

If there's a chapter of this story that should resonate with people who are concerned about our situation today (and although we're painted by our detractors as terrorist-coddling antheistic anarchists, that's basically how I would categorize "the looney left") it's this one. Nobody's saying that elections in Iraq are bad - although the jury is out on how legitimate the outcome is, or even what it is. We're just saying that this election was NOT worth the blood of 1500 Americans, tens of thousands of uncounted dead Iraqis, and 300+ billion dollars. And the last version of Bush "winning the war" - the capture of Saddam - also was not worth this same price tag.

Remember there for awhile the reasoning behind the war was "we're gonna fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here"? We're going to invade a sovereign nation, to, um, liberate it, and in the process the infrastructure of the country and historic treasures of the cradle of civilization are going to get destroyed because "boys will be boys", and then we're going to announce that even though we now know that Iraq actually had nothing to do with anything we accused them of - oops! - we're going to turn the country into a battlefield against the terrorists who weren't there before but who, thanks to us, are now. And assure that every day innocent Iraqis are going to get killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or rounded up and thrown into prison by the "liberators" because they have a similar last name as someone who's suspected of something, and while they're in prison they stand a good chance of being buggered by their liberators. All of the damage we did blowing shit up is rebuilt by companies (coincidentally formerly CEO'd by the Vice President) who somehow got the contract without bidding. Yet despite the fact that these companies specialize in just this sort of war-profiteering, they have been unable to keep the pipeline open long enough for any oil to be pumped out of Iraq.

So despite the glorious and rosy picture painted by our right-wing friends here in this highly unlikely venue for political "debate", to me the whole thing stinks of death and deceit. It was a Republican president, Dwight David Eisenhower, who left office with a sincere warning to the American people to "beware the military industrial complex." (The many right-wing history professors here at Rocks Off will recall that he had quite a bit of experience in the field) Another Republican president, Richard Nixon, said in his memoirs that war must be made unprofitable if it is to be eliminated as a means of settling political issues. Neither of those warnings have been heeded by anyone in power in America because THEY are the people Ike warned us about.
March 1st, 2005 01:13 PM
Maxlugar Anyone interested in some T-shirts?

http://www.thoseshirts.com/coulter.html
March 1st, 2005 01:17 PM
gypsy
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
Anyone interested in some T-shirts?

http://www.thoseshirts.com/coulter.html



Is it me or does Coulter look just like Amber Frey on those t-shirts?
March 1st, 2005 01:47 PM
FPM C10 Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with here.

Man! That Ann Coulter is one hot babe! If I wasn't so fucking gay I'd like to have conventional, boring sex with her!
March 1st, 2005 01:48 PM
Riffhard FPM, I could take your post apart point by point and history would serve as by judge,but I'll just say this. For over sixty four years the entire Western world turned their back on the Middle East. As long as the pipeline was puming oil the WHOLE world just sat idly by and turned a blind eye while the terrorism,despotism,and radicalism festered in the Middle East. Dating back to the 1968 Olympics,and even before,the Islamic ideal has been growing like a cancer. Nobody said a damned thing. Or had the nerve to demand a change. Fast forwrd thirty odd years and the worst terrorist attack in history takes place on American soil. Bush,far from the idiot that you would like everyone to think,was bold enough to say it ends right here,and right fucking now.

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11/01. No,but they certainly did business with known terrorist groups. However,after violating the UN's own empty threats for over 13 years nobody was ready to demand that Iraq comply. What about,they housed,they armed,they encouraged,terrorism don't you guys get?! This is why liberals must never ever be in control of national security. I could only imagine the Monday morning quarterbacking that the libs would engage in had we not taken action and then WMDs fell into the hands of a terrorist group.


You're always so quick to point to Halliburton. It's a crap argument and you know you it damned good and well. Halliburton is one of two companies in the world that does what it does. The other is in France. No bid? Ofcourse no fucking bid!! France was doing everything in their limpwristed power to prevent a war. Gee,the fact that their own companies were making hundreds of millions from Saddam in direct violation of the UN sanctions means nothing to you,eh? With friends like that .... It's only wrong when Halliburton is mentioned? Funny logic. Considering that Cheney had divested himself from that company before the 2000 elections. He would be violating federal law were he to accept even $1.00's worth of kickback money. I have yet to hear anyone on the left accuse him of that. Did I miss it? I hear alot of rehtoric about the Halliburton connecection,but not one shred of evidence of any improprieties. By the way,during the war in Bosnia(you know the one where we went into a soverign country without consulting congress,the American people,or the Sacred Church of the toothless UN)Clinton granted Halliburton a profit margin of 7%. Bush,on the other hand,only allowed them a profit margin of 3.5%.

Your complete and absurd revisionist history about Reagan is eoally wrongheaded. The SDI(Star Wars)program was told directly to Reagan from none other than the scientist would thought it up. His name was Edward Teller. He,in a private meeting with Reagan and COS Don Regan,was told that the tecnology was very close to possibly buil such a system. Against his own Cheif of Staff's,Sec of State,and Sec of Deffenses advice Reagan included the not so subtle message of the system while addressing congree and the UK goverment in three seperate speeches. He was warned repeatedly to drop it from his speech. He never blinked. He said quote,"By God we are going to drive the point home to the Soviets. We will use this tecnology and make them obsolete!" One Reagan's speech writers,Peter Robinson,told of Reagan's determind effort to back the Soviets into a corner that it would be impossible for them to escape. He did just that.

In 1989 when Soviet US relations began to thaw Gorbechov paid a state visit to the WH. Reagan introduced him to Edward Teller. Gorby refused to even shake his hand! He turned his back on him and told his aides that he would never shake that man's hand.

No,guys,the only one with revisionist history here is the left. Hell,even the NYTs had to admit to Reagan's brilliance regarding the fall of the USSR. Granted that was only last December after the Gipper had died! At least they admitted it though. That's more than I can say for some here.


Riffhard

PS-By the way FPM Saturday night! Hubert at BB Kings! You in? NO POLITICS! You have my word! LOL!
March 1st, 2005 01:57 PM
FPM C10 Of course I'm in! I can't wait! I hope the snow is done by then but I'll be there come hell or high water.

The new Rolling Stone mentions (very briefly) that the "hammy" David Johansen singing with the "sublime" Hubert Sumlin is "a trainwreck". Well, that is even more open to debate than politics! I just saw the Dolls reunion DVD over the weekend with SS and MAN it rocks! I am as psyched to see Johansen as I am Hubert - well, almost. And I finally heard "About Them Shoes" - now that's good stuff. Sounds like Chess Studio round about 1955.

Any chance you can get a looney liberal and his girlfriend backstage?
March 1st, 2005 02:01 PM
Maxlugar Me agree wit dat Riffy.

But me can no type more because knuckles broken from smashing against curb on way to hunting fields.

Sometime being stupid cave man no good. No good!



March 1st, 2005 02:07 PM
FPM C10 As for your boy saying "it ends here, right fucking now" (I love how in your stories all of these Republican creeps talk like Clint Eastwood) - it doesn't end here(Iraq) or now (2 years ago). N. Korea and Iran are both far more likely candidates for actually being guilty of the stuff you accuse Iraq of, yet neither one of them is TOO concerned about us, because we're mired down for the foreseeable future in Iraq. Another country guilty of housing terrorists is, of course, Saudi Arabia, but we can't invade them. Wouldn't be prudent.

Hey, we just have different pictures of what we think America is or should be, and mine doesn't wear jackboots. That's all.

See you Saturday, my friend!

(ahem...Tele, Poplar, Bloozey - this is how civilized people have political discussions.)
March 1st, 2005 02:34 PM
telecaster
quote:
FPM C10 wrote:
"(I love how in your stories all of these Republican creeps talk like Clint Eastwood)"-

We forgot FPM, you like it when liberal tuff guys sound and act like Jimmy Carter, Alan Alda & Liberace


"Hey, we just have different pictures of what we think America is or should be, and mine doesn't wear jackboots. That's all."

Good point FPM, in your picture of America all the men where ballet slippers or high heels and cry over Oprah

(ahem...Tele, Poplar, Bloozey - this is how civilized people have political discussions.)

I agree. One side civilized(Riffy) providing a position backed up with facts and evidence, the other side (FPM) offering hyper-emotional positions and responses based on emotion, wishful (negative)thinking, and their fears of what they thought would happen 10 years ago but didn't

Enjoy the next 4yrs FMP

I know I will



March 1st, 2005 02:52 PM
FPM C10 No, I meant it was civilized in that no one accused anyone of being gay, no one used racial slurs, and so on. The rest of you guys seem completely incapable of it. Riffy and I have met and quaffed Guinness together (now don't get scared - "quaffed" isn't a gay thing. It means "drinked".)and have plans to do it again real soon. So we tend to just talk about stuff. About the nastiest it gets is "there you go again" type remarks. Nobody gets bent over a barrel.

In fact, the only thing I got hyper-emotional about was the prospect of seeing the great Hubert Sumlin and the also great (although possibly gay) David Johansen. I think all politicians are scum buckets, and if you notice I really don't do a lot of horn-honking about any of them. It's really lovely (although a little gay) that you guys have such manly heroes to worship, but aren't there any astronauts or cowboys (REAL cowboys, not the pretend kind that are favored by the GOP) that are more worthy of your hyperbole? Now, don't get scared - "hyperbole" means "over-stating your case." It's not a gay thing.
March 1st, 2005 05:03 PM
Riffhard
quote:
FPM C10 wrote:
As for your boy saying "it ends here, right fucking now" (I love how in your stories all of these Republican creeps talk like Clint Eastwood) - it doesn't end here(Iraq) or now (2 years ago). N. Korea and Iran are both far more likely candidates for actually being guilty of the stuff you accuse Iraq of, yet neither one of them is TOO concerned about us, because we're mired down for the foreseeable future in Iraq. Another country guilty of housing terrorists is, of course, Saudi Arabia, but we can't invade them. Wouldn't be prudent.

Hey, we just have different pictures of what we think America is or should be, and mine doesn't wear jackboots. That's all.

See you Saturday, my friend!

(ahem...Tele, Poplar, Bloozey - this is how civilized people have political discussions.)




I certainly was not quoting Bush. I was merely pointing out that his words and actions made it plainly obvious that his track was one of no wiggle room for Iraq. Iraq,ofcourse,felt that some key members of the UN Security Council had their back. Iraq,with France,Germany,and Russia's tacit appproval,tried to wiggle out of the UN Sanctions and Resolutions once again. Bush was having none of it. With the evidence mounting concerning the Oil-for-Food scandal it's easy to see why Saddam felt he had an out. Afterall,he had receipts that would show that these very countries were in direct violation of the UN Resolutions that they had help draft to begin with! It's called blackmail and Saddam has made a career out of it. Along with murder,torture,invasion,and just being an all around evil tyrant. This guy is directly responsible for the death of well over six million people in the last 25 years alone. Admittedly he's not quite on par with Hitler with numbers like that,but what the hey,he is pretty twisted fuck in his own right.


I have always wondered why the left,and Kerry in particular,felt that we had to have France's blessing to defend the UN Resolutions. They were drafted has a means to gain a cease fire agreement with Iraq back 1991. We never ended the war. The stipulation was that Iraq comply with UN Resolution 1441. They never did. Then 16 resolutions later they still refused to comply! With every one of those sacred UN Resolutions,and people wonder why the right has a problem with the UN,geesh! France then went out of their way to state publically no matter what evidence we may,or may not have against Iraq the point was moot. They were never going to consent on action agaist Saddam. By the way,did I mention the whole Oil-for-Food(Palaces) Scandal?


As to Korea and Iran. Two different countries with two different approaches all together.

We can't very well invade Iran when,to date,they have not violated any of the brave UN's resolutions as none have been drafted against them. Iran did not invade it's neighbors or use WMD's against it's own poulace. It's also a country on the cusp of another,decidely more democratic,revolution from within. There is no doubt that the vast majority of Iranians are pro Western,and are longing for the day when they can throw out the mullahs out once and for all. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the US has special ops agents on the ground inside Iran working with the opposition groups to spur this revolution on. It's only a matter of time before the shoe drops inside Teherran. The recent elections inside Iraq will only hasten this process.

North Korea. A tuff nut for sure. However,China dosen't trust this nutball Kim Il Jong any more than we do. If they start to get too arrogant and dangerous with their own WMD programs Bejing will have to act. It will be in their own national security intrests. We have diplomatic pressure that can be applied to North Korea. That did not exist with Iraq. Did I mention the Oil-for-Food(Palaces)Scandal? Also,the fact that Lil' Kim is such a whackjob with his finger already on the button is reason enough to persue other avenues of action. Could you imagine that bloodbath? God,I don't even like to consider the possibility!


Bottom line is this. Iraq,in military parlance,was an "actionable target". They had violated the international law that they had agreed to abide by. They sit in the heart of the Middle East. They are also in between Iran and Syria. If we can successfully get democracy to take root inside Iraq it will only be a matter of time before it spreads. History is rife with eveidence that every time democracy has gained a foothold it has led to more democracy and,get this,liberalism! That's right totalatarian states have always been forced to adopt a more open and liberal form of goverment when democracy sits on their doorstep. See Eastern Europe cira 1989,and South East Asia after WWII. Admittedly things went a little south in Asia during Nam,but still the majority of Asia has adopted a very pro democartic goverment since the desolution of the Japanese Empire of the 1930's and 1940's.


That's my take anyway. So far the signs are pretty good. Syria out of Lebenon? Who would have thought that possible as recently as two months ago? Egypt is now considering new national multi-party elections?! Jordan's King Abdula stating publicly that he wants a more secular form of goverment and a true democracy?! Isreal and the Palistinians are trying to give peace a chance? Saudi Arabia holding national elections last week? Not perfect for sure,but it's certainly getting better. Overall Bush's plan is succeeding better than many on the left would ever admit,but they are certainly beggining to take note.



Riffhard



Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood