 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:37 PM Yeah. All this 'hide the weenie' stuff from Republicans and Democrats is getting boring. The up side is that someone other than the taxpayers is getting fu#ked for a change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:43 PM McCain is not Bush. The ems have shown they cannot win running on the "I'm not Bush!" ticket- they have to stand for something on their own. This is one of the strong points that Obama has. But to claim that because Bush did X, McCain is X is stupid- and I do not take you for a stupid person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 14 Mar 08 - 01:42 PM I greatly appreciate that, old friend. I hope you'll be at the next Getaway. I would not for a minute say McCain was Bush. I think he is much smarter than Bush in many ways. I mean more intelligent, not more wiley. But I think he has an overlap with Bush in his proclivity for armed engagement as a tool of diplomacy. I base this on his history, and what I have heard him say about the future wars we face, in his view. I respect that he feels he is simply confronting the tragtic but unavoidable nature of the world. But that postulate is (IMHO) a terrible foundation for national affairs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM Amos, A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war: Conversely, being unprepared for war and/or perceived as unwilling to engage in war has, and seemingly (vice human nature) will in the future, gotten many nations into wars they did not desire. I do not advocate war as the solution to all problems: But I will not cripple this country by stating we will not fight when our interests are threatened. Wishing human nature was different might sound good, but when the lion sleeps with the lamb, the lion is well-fed and the lamb is dinner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM fight when our interests are threatened. Bruce: Our interests are threatened by low-cost labor in India, by pollution being generated in China, by better manufacturing in Japan, and by our own media who distort and pollute our intellectual environment and promulgate reactive, non-analytical thinking and pushbutton emotions in the publics they are supposed to serve with reliable information. Our interests are threatened by special interests who put their own coffers above the national good in every discussion, and their profits above the good of their customers. Our interests are threatened by cocaine peddlers and teachers who will not consult the understanding of their students. None of these call for military solutions, do they? So, exactly what threats to our interests should be met with precipitate armed violence, or the rattling of sabers? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:03 PM Cheney--long may he rot--visited the tar sands. Does the USA feel it has an 'interest' in that part of Canada? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: pdq Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:20 PM Has Canada's prime minister killed 1.4 million people? Just curious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM Write and ask him. My question still stands. Yours has no standing at all, pdq. And you know it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: KB in Iowa Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:54 PM A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war That is just what the 'Great Powers' thought in 1914. I actually agree with you up to a point, a country does need to be seen as willing to go to war. The problem I see now is that the US is perceived by some as being anxious to go to war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: artbrooks Date: 14 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war. I expect that one could come up with an equal number of examples on either side of that argument: WW3 vs Vietnam, for instance, or the Pig War between the US and Great Britain vs the Franco-Prussian War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM "the US is perceived by some as being anxious to go to war. " And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD. And it is the PERCEPTION of THOSE nations that will get us into a nuclear war, regardless of what OUR intent or desire is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: KB in Iowa Date: 14 Mar 08 - 04:01 PM And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD. I don't think there are any nations who see us that way or will see us that way no matter who wins in November. Do you honestly think there are? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:18 PM Bruce: When were we being threatened by WMD? Do you have some intelligence the rest of us are not privy to on the subject? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM "I don't think there are any nations who see us that way or will see us that way no matter who wins in November. Do you honestly think there are? " 1. Yes, I do honestly think there are nations that will think that. 2. It does not need to be a nation: a small dissident group can build a 10-20 KTon fission device for about $1/2 million and six months, as long as they are willing to die. And there seems no lack of those willing to die in attacking us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:07 PM Amos, I can neither confirm nor deny... But I said "And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD." NOT the same thing, as you know. You want me to start telling the world what YOU said, and change the words and meaning? Will you state that the US is NOT threatened by nuclear weapons, and other WMD? I am sure that the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, and others will hate to hear that all their efforts are null and void since YOU do not recognize the threat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM We probably need a small nuclear war to put the idea of a major nuclear war in perspective. We seem to have learned bugger all from Chernobyl. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:24 PM Peace, I will have to disagree with you. Even a "small" nuclear war will establish that the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable in combat. Unless of course the side starting the use of WMD is removed from the face of the earth- but I doubt that would qualify as a "small" war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:46 PM SOrry, Bruce. I could have sworn you directly implied the condition of us being threatened by WMD had recently been or currently was a fact. I guess I over-justified the context of your remark. Sorry. It seems to me on the face of it that a decent government, if it were going to operate on the notion that we were so threatened, should provide its people with the facts on which it bases that perception. When W did so, the facts were poppycock -- Nigerian uranium and aluminum tubes and links between Saddam and Al Qeda, and WMDs in the desert -- they were al, apparently, figments of someone's overheated fears. That does not mean they always will be. I hear you with regard to N Korea. The Russians are mor eon our side of things than they were back in the Cold War, and the Chinese are self-limiting -- they have too much inertia toward a middle class society, I htink, to put it at risk by going whacko all of a sudden. Not that I would put it completely past them. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: KB in Iowa Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM It does not need to be a nation: a small dissident group can build a 10-20 KTon fission device for about $1/2 million and six months, as long as they are willing to die. And there seems no lack of those willing to die in attacking us. If they are willing to die in attacking us then the threat of retaliation is meaningless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:33 PM The only big bully to have ever used WMD is the US of A. The Big Ones. The minute we had 'em. Those awe inspiring clouds over Japan. So, lots of pot calling kettle colors there. MAD isn't any more quaint than detente at this point in history. We just call MAD detente the Bush Doctrine now. We've evolved, you see. We are liberators. Welcomed. Etc, etc. The Clinton/Obama/McCain campaign (I see it all as the same gibberish mix) are running the opposite way of WMD, nuclear war, the neo-con neo-arms race (did you REALLY think the shooting down of the satellite was to keep us safe? Puhleez!), AND THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!! SHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Don't say the 'E' word. Or the 'G' word (for gas). Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no.... Well, you catch the drift, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 15 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM This just in on my Google News Reader: John McCain now the favorite in U.K. to win the Elections The Republican presidential candidate John McCain is now the favorite to win the 2008 U.S. Elections with some of the odds makers abroad. After leading on the betting sheets for months, Barack Obama has been downgraded with some of the more popular British bookmakers and Sen. John McCain has become the new favorite to win the race in November. "With controversy raging over whether the Democrat Primaries in Michigan and Florida should be counted or even re-scheduled, confirmed Republican candidate John McCain has been backed from 6/4 to 5/4 favourite with William Hill to win the race to the White House," the bookmaker's representative Graham Sharpe told OGPaper. Hills have lengthened former favorite Barack Obama from 5/4 to 11/8 second favorite, with Hillary Clinton offered at 3/1 and Al Gore 50/1. But not all odds makers are willing to take the risk and "jump ships" so quick. Another British online bookmaker, Bet365, remains confident that Barack Obama will be the next U.S. President. At Bet365 Obama is still the favorite with odds 10/11, followed by John McCain at 7/4, while Hillary Clinton holds underdog odds of 18/5. The situation is similar at the North American bookie BodogLife, where Obama leads with odds 1/1, John McCain would pay out on 7/4 and Clinton is sitting on 7/2. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 15 Mar 08 - 04:39 PM Of course we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction. We are also threatened by relatively minor weapons of intermittent mayhem which will really unsettle us. A meat-packing plant here, a water filtration system there, a kindergarten here, a subway there. A florist shop, a Kingdom Hall, a radio tower. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Mar 08 - 06:44 PM Maybe we can talk them into taking out all of the Kingdom Halls and leave everything else alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 15 Mar 08 - 06:47 PM Fair trade. |
