Kudos to Bush

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Sunday, March 26, 2006 02:14
VIEWED: 2704
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, March 18, 2006 7:20 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4819610.stm

Apparantly I was wrong to blame our beloved leader for the breakdown in communications. Iran has been stonewalling us for two years. But things have changed, and it looks like the administration is *actually* trying to work out a *compromise* to gain a potential *ally*.

After the initial shock of the idea, I say, well, hats off. My hat that is, my tinfoil hat. I took some of the things some of your posted to heart, and I think that I had wondered a little far towards tinfoil hat, and I'm coming back to reality. Not because I'm afraid of the tinfoil hat label, I'm really not. Just because I think that this is an act of good faith on the part of the Bush Admin, as if they're actually trying to win, and that makes much stronger the argument that its failures have been a result of miscalculation rather than bad faith.

I still have a lot of issues with Bush, and think he's fairly pathetic for a republican, but on the scale of zero to 100, where Andrew jackson is a zero and eisenhower is 100, I'm kicking Bush up 10 points back to 40.

In other news, I'm knocking McCain down 10 points to 65 for supporting Intelligent Design. I think I'll look in to the Mitt Romney candidacy. He seems to have a broad base of GOP support and is going to make a speech tonight on CSPAN which I intend to watch. I think it's 8pm est, but I'm not sure, if anyone knows for sure, let me know. This is by no means an endorsement, just always open to possibilities.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 18, 2006 11:26 PM

You're giving a guy who supports ID 65?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:

You're giving a guy who supports ID 65?

Yeah, cause he used to be really really good.

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:00 AM

So was Tony Blair.

Then we elected him in '97.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:44 PM

I thought you were posting proof

Kodos = Bush

Same Dull Lifeless Look

Same Drool

Both follow a power mad tyrannt

Cheney = Kang theory to follow.......

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 20, 2006 4:30 AM

Nah, I actually think he did something right, and that it wasn't actually his fault that our relationship with Iran had been deteriorating. I was naturally suspicious because of how an invasion of Iran is in the original PNAC documents, written up by now VP Cheney, not a conspiracy theory, but an established fact. To some extent, therefore, Cheney is to blame, because that certainly made the Iranians nervous. One thing I've noticed about Iran in reading their press. These guys are sharp. I mean like tacks. They're a step apart from many of their neighbor states, they're real shrewd people. They miss nothing. The Afghans and the Iraqis and even Al Jazeera sometimes misunderstands Americans and their motives, the Iranians never seem to, they always know what's up, and while they are occassionally wrong, they're not off in left field thinking that The US president has been picked by Israel and stuff like that.

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, March 20, 2006 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nah, I actually think he did something right, and that it wasn't actually his fault that our relationship with Iran had been deteriorating. I was naturally suspicious because of how an invasion of Iran is in the original PNAC documents, written up by now VP Cheney, not a conspiracy theory, but an established fact. To some extent, therefore, Cheney is to blame, because that certainly made the Iranians nervous. One thing I've noticed about Iran in reading their press. These guys are sharp. I mean like tacks. They're a step apart from many of their neighbor states, they're real shrewd people. They miss nothing. The Afghans and the Iraqis and even Al Jazeera sometimes misunderstands Americans and their motives, the Iranians never seem to, they always know what's up, and while they are occassionally wrong, they're not off in left field thinking that The US president has been picked by Israel and stuff like that.

Back in 1956 the Iranians had an elected government overthrown by the US for oil amongst overthings, and the Shah installed who ran the place largely to his own benefit and came down hard on anyone who disagreed......

The Hostage crisis back in 1979 was about two things.... keeping the US from stepping in again, and demanding the Shah be handed over for trial. Now, the trial would likely have been about the same as Saddam is getting now, but lacking the ICC
they should have been able to do that...

And then of course the support and help the US gave Iraq when they decided to attack Iran.....

Reality has kicked them in the head repeatedly already, Iran has many reasons to be nervous....

If they don't have nukes yet, they will soon... and with a hostile superpower who says one thing and does another..... I would want nukes

Hell, I'm Canadian and I am saying we should have nukes ( If we don't already )

" sometimes misunderstands Americans and their motives "

Does anyone really understand ?

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 20, 2006 4:06 PM

I think they're serious about the nuclear power. They want to stop consuming their own oil so they can sell it overseas.

But for defense, I wouldn't want nukes. I think a missile defense system would be a much better idea. It would have to be one which not only could shoot down a nuke, but capture it unharmed, or redirect it.

I remember in videogames as a kid, you never wanted to pull out your big spells against anything that had a reflection power, the same logic applies here. If someone had a defense system so good that lobbing a nuke at them would be giving them a nuke, or lobbing a nuke at yourself, that would be discouraging enough.

Then maybe we could segue out of this escalating armageddon.

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 20, 2006 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Same Dull Lifeless Look

Same Drool

Both follow a power mad tyrannt

Who do I sue here?

I hurt myself when I fell off my chair from laughing so hard...

Chrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think they're serious about the nuclear power. They want to stop consuming their own oil so they can sell it overseas.

But for defense, I wouldn't want nukes. I think a missile defense system would be a much better idea. It would have to be one which not only could shoot down a nuke, but capture it unharmed, or redirect it.

I remember in videogames as a kid, you never wanted to pull out your big spells against anything that had a reflection power, the same logic applies here. If someone had a defense system so good that lobbing a nuke at them would be giving them a nuke, or lobbing a nuke at yourself, that would be discouraging enough.

Then maybe we could segue out of this escalating armageddon.

If you were fighting the US a defensive missile system is useless....

All you can do is give up, raise the pot high enough to make you fold... or go all in, and let someone else pick up the pieces.

And giving up isn't likely

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE