| 11th October 2006 10:51 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Lethargy wrote:
Your blind partisan devotion, and ignorance, are astounding. There's no point engaging you in logical argument.
Accusing me of what you yourself are guilty of may have worked at one time with the masses but not so much anymore. Really, don't let facts get in the way of your hatred for ol' Bill. I'm willing to lay some of the blame at Clinton's feet for many things. Are you willing to put ANY blame on Bush or at the very least disagree with any of his "policies"? If so, please describe. Just wondering so we can set the parameters. |
| 11th October 2006 10:52 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Accusing me of what you yourself are guilty of may have worked at one time with the masses but not so much anymore. Really, don't let facts get in the way of your hatred for ol' Bill. I'm willing to lay some of the blame at Clinton's feet for many things. Are you willing to put ANY blame on Bush or at the very least disagree with any of his "policies"? If so, please describe. Just wondering so we can set the parameters.
Say...how bout them Rolling Stones?...you ever talk about them here? |
| 11th October 2006 10:57 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Read my post below...as I say...if all you're going to do is regurgitate the same name calling over and over (and you're as bad as the worst of them)....why bother?..on a Rolling Stones message board?
Too funny. I believe I have resorted to "name calling" maybe twice before and only in response to an immature post by one of your ilk. That's OK, see my post above concerning accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. I look forward to your next posting of picture of a retarded individual. That cracks 'em up every time.
Who're the Rolling Stones? They still around? |
| 11th October 2006 11:05 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
"only in response to an immature post by one of your ilk."
Yeah...the "your ilk" thing is a dead giveaway...we'll be watching you boy
 |
| 11th October 2006 11:25 AM |
|
|
| nanatod |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
...on a Rolling Stones message board, at least make the effort to offer an original idea here or there...
The last time the Rolling Stones themselves had an original idea = 1973. |
| 11th October 2006 11:25 AM |
|
|
| Lethargy |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Accusing me of what you yourself are guilty of may have worked at one time with the masses but not so much anymore. Really, don't let facts get in the way of your hatred for ol' Bill. I'm willing to lay some of the blame at Clinton's feet for many things. Are you willing to put ANY blame on Bush or at the very least disagree with any of his "policies"? If so, please describe. Just wondering so we can set the parameters.
Well let's see, I voted for Clinton in 92 and 96, how's that for a parameter? And I criticize Bush continually for things like refusal to enforce immigration laws, refusal to veto any spending, etc.
But don't let that stop you from labeling me a right-winger, if it makes you feel powerful.
|
| 11th October 2006 11:29 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Lethargy wrote:
Well let's see, I voted for Clinton in 92 and 96, how's that for a parameter? And I criticize Bush continually for things like refusal to enforce immigration laws, refusal to veto any spending, etc.
But don't let that stop you from labeling me a right-winger, if it makes you feel powerful.
The boy do like his labels...that's why I can't fucking stand him |
| 11th October 2006 11:34 AM |
|
|
| jb |
My problem with this whole thing is Bush said N. Korea and Iran were also part of the axis of evil. Why then, have we allowed both of these countries to move forward the last 5 1/2 years with nuclear material, and paid only attention to Iraq...this is clearly not all Clintons fault. We needed to streike these cointries as well. |
| 11th October 2006 11:44 AM |
|
|
| Lethargy |
quote:
jb wrote:
My problem with this whole thing is Bush said N. Korea and Iran were also part of the axis of evil. Why then, have we allowed both of these countries to move forward the last 5 1/2 years with nuclear material, and paid only attention to Iraq...this is clearly not all Clintons fault. We needed to streike these cointries as well.
Don't forget that Iraq was in a multi-year violation of more than a dozen resolutions by the (pathetic) U.N. That alone warranted much overdue military action, and with more support by certain other nations (France, Germany, etc.) than was provided. The U.N. now has zero credibility, if it had any to begin with, but that's another topic. I remember the final U.N. resolution from the end of 2002 - "Iraq has 30 days to comply or else force will be used", and then four months later still nothing. Utterly pathetic.
Also (and this is pure speculation I admit, given the above, it possibly made sense to pick Iraq first if you think of it as a chess move in the big overall picture. The end game is clearly with Iran and the maniacs that rule the place., and having a resence in Iraq (when and if it get under control there, of course - right now it's a mess) does help in that endeavor. Striking Iran from Iraq is a nice card to be able to play.
|
| 11th October 2006 12:41 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
jb wrote:
My problem with this whole thing is Bush said N. Korea and Iran were also part of the axis of evil. Why then, have we allowed both of these countries to move forward the last 5 1/2 years with nuclear material, and paid only attention to Iraq...this is clearly not all Clintons fault. We needed to streike these cointries as well.
jb...you know very well what the response of the politically opportunistic democrats, the UN and other countries whose internal politics are consumed with anti-americanism would be if W did as you say...it would be all about not trying diplomatically...despire the fact that both of nuclear ambitious nations have told the entire world to fuck off
I don't disagree with you that strikes are/were necessary...but this is why I find your and others Bush bashing (and I'm not saying you're as bad as some of the others) peculiar...W is our best bet for effective "strikes"...and I say this because the democrats seem to be much more in line with the UN position...And why any objective American would side with the UN on matters of American security escapes me...someone will have to explain to me the benefit of siding with the UN given the composition of the UN Security Council and its motivations
BTW...I applaud you for taking a position...as opposed to just bitching and then crying when someone goes off on you for just bitching...you are a gentleman and a scholar...and it be showing baby
None of that Heinz crap...for you...only the best
[Edited by Fiji Joe] |
| 11th October 2006 12:57 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| 11th October 2006 01:02 PM |
|
|
| jb |
I have never been one to "hate" a particular party or leader. Yes I am a lifelong dem, and voted for both Gore and Kerry. However, much to the disdain of some of my dem. friends, I am very hawkish on the issue of national defense. For me, it changed a lot after 9/11. I want my kids to live in a free country and feel safe like I did as a child. I feel particularly vulnerable to radical Isalm as there is no reasoning with people who beleive you must either adhere to there form of Islam, or die. The mastery of the 9/11 attacks, and many more which I assume were undercovered , is the biggest threatour nation has ever faced....I initially was quite gong-ho for the invasion of Iraq...I am not unhappy Sadaam is gone. However, all of as can agree the post war has not gone well, and I beleive we need to gradual pull out-not b/c wed can't win, but b/c I don't want to see another american killed for a region that will never embrace our form of democracy-it just ain't going to happen.
As far as N. Korea and Iran, lets concede mistakes were made prior to Bush...I have no problem blaming Clinton, but he was trying to engage the N. Koreans into a meaningfuk dialogue....what really was the alternative at that time? Iran, meanwhile, has taken advantage of all the chaos and rapidly enhanced it's ability to enrich uranium. The issue now is not who is to blame, but how to fix it. I beleive we need to try the sanctions route with both nations first and at least on the surface appear to go the diplomatic route . Ultimately, if this does not work, the issue is one of whether we(USA) can tolerate a both a nuclear Korea peninsula and a nuclear Iran. I personally would be in favor of limited tactical strikes in order to hinder both N. Koreas and Iran's ability to progress any further with their nuclear ambitions. Sadly, it may be too late for that option, which leaves us basically in a vulnerable position of having nuclear devices ultimately reaching the hands of Islamo-facists who eagerly await there delivery ...
[Edited by jb] |
| 11th October 2006 01:06 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Lethargy, I actually voted for our current president in 2000 and his father in 88. Go figure. So, what exactly is your point and how does that relate to somehow excusing Bush's inaction of the past 5 + years and not holding North Korea accountable for breaking the Agreed Framework in 2002 other than inducting them into the Axis of Evil?
Fiji?
|
| 11th October 2006 01:08 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
jb wrote:
I have never been one to "hate" a particular party or leader. Yes I am a lifelong dem, and voted for both Gore and Kerry. However, much to the disdain of some of my dem. friends, I am very hawkish on the issue of national defense. For me, it changed a lot after 9/11. I want my kids to live in a free country and feel safe like I did as a child. I feel particularly vulnerable to radical Isalm as there is no reasoning with people who beleive you must either adhere to there form of Islam, or die. The mastery of the 9/11 attacks, and many more which I assume were undercovered , is the biggest threatour nation has ever faced....I initially was quite gong-ho for the invasion of Iraq...I am not unhappy Sadaam is gone. However, all of as can agree the post war has not gone well, and I beleive we need to gradual pull out-not b/c wed can't win, but b/c I don't want to see another american killed for a region that will never embrace our form of democracy-it just ain't going to happen.
As far as N. Korea and Iran, lets concede mistakes were made prior to Bush...I have no problem blaming Clinton, but he was trying to engage the N. Koreans into a meaningfuk dialogue....what really was the alternative at that time? Iran, meanwhile, has taken advantage of all the chaos and rapidly enhanced it's ability to enrich uranium. The issue now is not who is to blame, but how to fix it. I beleive we need to try the sanctions route with both nations first and at least on the surface appear to go the diplomatic route . Ultimately, if this does not work, the issue is one of whether we(USA) can tolerate a both a nuclear Korea peninsula and a nuclear Iran. I personally would be in favor of limited tactical strikes in order to hinder both N. Koreas and Iran's ability to progress any further with their nuclear ambitions. Sadly, it may be too late for that option, which leaves us basically in a vulnerable position of having nuclear devices ultimately reaching the hands of Islamo-facists who eagerly await there delivery ...
[Edited by jb]
Well said. |
| 11th October 2006 01:12 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Well said.
Ten bucks says you didn't even read it |
| 11th October 2006 01:25 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
jb wrote:
I have never been one to "hate" a particular party or leader. Yes I am a lifelong dem, and voted for both Gore and Kerry. However, much to the disdain of some of my dem. friends, I am very hawkish on the issue of national defense. For me, it changed a lot after 9/11. I want my kids to live in a free country and feel safe like I did as a child. I feel particularly vulnerable to radical Isalm as there is no reasoning with people who beleive you must either adhere to there form of Islam, or die. The mastery of the 9/11 attacks, and many more which I assume were undercovered , is the biggest threatour nation has ever faced....I initially was quite gong-ho for the invasion of Iraq...I am not unhappy Sadaam is gone. However, all of as can agree the post war has not gone well, and I beleive we need to gradual pull out-not b/c wed can't win, but b/c I don't want to see another american killed for a region that will never embrace our form of democracy-it just ain't going to happen.
As far as N. Korea and Iran, lets concede mistakes were made prior to Bush...I have no problem blaming Clinton, but he was trying to engage the N. Koreans into a meaningfuk dialogue....what really was the alternative at that time? Iran, meanwhile, has taken advantage of all the chaos and rapidly enhanced it's ability to enrich uranium. The issue now is not who is to blame, but how to fix it. I beleive we need to try the sanctions route with both nations first and at least on the surface appear to go the diplomatic route . Ultimately, if this does not work, the issue is one of whether we(USA) can tolerate a both a nuclear Korea peninsula and a nuclear Iran. I personally would be in favor of limited tactical strikes in order to hinder both N. Koreas and Iran's ability to progress any further with their nuclear ambitions. Sadly, it may be too late for that option, which leaves us basically in a vulnerable position of having nuclear devices ultimately reaching the hands of Islamo-facists who eagerly await there delivery ...
[Edited by jb]
Sanctions jb?
So Germany, France and a whole shitload of countries can violtate them like they did with Iraq?
Sanctions buy time and that is what NK wants
The UN won't don't anything
NATO can't do anything (see Afghan)
Greece won't do anything
It is either the US bombs the shit out of them or they keep the nukes that Clinton gave them
That simple |
| 11th October 2006 01:28 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Hello Tele...sadly, the stadium has been curtained of and it appears that this will be a really small audience. I am sure you and the rest of the gang will make up for this downer by partying your collective arses off....I feel bad for LJ, who will suffer through another curtain job, and be remeinded of the horror of Buffalo 97.
Now, as far as sanctions, I said this is an initial step. If it fails, which is likely, I am for military action. What is Buh waiting for? He also seems to be calling for sanctions? |
| 11th October 2006 01:32 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Ten bucks says you didn't even read it
Oops, wrong again. Be sure to donate that ten spot to a worthy cause in my name and no, The Human Fund doesn't count. Thanks. |
| 11th October 2006 01:33 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
So Germany, France and a whole shitload of countries can violtate them like they did with Iraq?
Like these violations or like Rumsfeld's business dealing with North Korea? Everyone climbs in and out of bed with scumbags as long as there is a buck to be made!
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
Halliburton and Iraq
The United Nations’ inspection of Iraqi weapons sites appears to be going well. But if the process turns south, the Bush administration may decide to move forward with its planned invasion of Iraq.
The military operation would benefit many corporate sectors in the United States. Let’s take a look at how Vice President Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, may benefit and how it has profited in the past from business relationships with so-called rogue nations.
A recent report by Deutsche Bank says oil field services companies like Halliburton are in a prime position to profit from a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
William Nordhaus of Yale University writes in an Oct. 29 paper on the “The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq” that China, Russia and France “are probably suspicious of American economic designs on postwar Iraq, particularly given the powerful influence in Republican circles of construction and oil exploration companies like Bechtel and Halliburton.”
When Cheney was running Halliburton, it sold more equipment to Iraq than any other company did. As first reported by The Financial Times on Nov. 3, 2000, Halliburton subsidiaries submitted $23.8 million worth of contracts with Iraq to the United Nations in 1998 and 1999 for approval by its sanctions committee.
Halliburton also has had dealings with Iran and Libya, both on the State Department’s list of terrorist states. Halliburton’s subsidiary Brown & Root, the Texas construction firm that does much business with the U.S. military, was fined $3.8 million for re-exporting goods to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions.
Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties.
[Edited by monkey_man] |
| 11th October 2006 01:34 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Oops, wrong again. Be sure to donate that ten spot to a worthy cause in my name and no, The Human Fund doesn't count. Thanks.
I have been watching a lot of Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermann, and Joe scarborough, I have given up on O'Reilly and Hannity and colmes as they are just to biased. |
| 11th October 2006 01:38 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
Oh monkey man.....the lenghts you will go to
Rumselfd was A NON EXECUTIVE director to a company who was LEGALLY allowed to do business with NK as part of a DEAL DONE BY CLINTON
France, Germany & various other companies ILLEGALLY did business with Saddam. Sadly, it just came out most was funneled through an Australian firm
And the date of your cut n paster is right before Saddam tossed the UN inspectors out for the 15,000 time
You must really like defending dictators
|
| 11th October 2006 01:46 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Oh monkey man.....the lenghts you will go to
Rumselfd was A NON EXECUTIVE director to a company who was LEGALLY allowed to do business with NK as part of a DEAL DONE BY CLINTON
France, Germany & various other companies ILLEGALLY did business with Saddam. Sadly, it just came out most was funneled through an Australian firm
And the date of your cut n paster is right before Saddam tossed the UN inspectors out for the 15,000 time
You must really like defending dictators
Show me where I defend a dictator? My point was that EVERYONE deals with scumbags when there is a buck to be made. . .rogue state or not. BTW companies don't get fined for doing business LEGALLY.
quote:
And the date of your cut n paster is right before Saddam tossed the UN inspectors out for the 15,000 time
What does this have to do with validity of the facts in the article??
|
| 11th October 2006 01:56 PM |
|
|
| nanatod |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
You must really like defending dictators
I think that one day people will wax nostalgic over Josip Broz Tito for (1) holding Yugoslavia together, and (2) standing up to Stalin. |
