Our President
POSTED BY: howdyrockerbaby1
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:36
VIEWED: 49385
PAGE 19 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Does America need its allies any more?
Yes. England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Thailand, Spain, Australia, Bulgaria (glad their President wasn't hurt today), Albania, The Dominican Republic, etc, etc.
No. France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Canada, the UN, and any other country that allows its foriegn policy to be dictated by those who were skimming billions from Iraq's Oil for Food Program or selling them weapons in violation of international sanctions, or who President was Saddam's best friend in the '70s and '80s. Really just France. To the liberals the whole world is French.
I am shocked by the nastiness that has been thrown Canada's way since we decided to stay out of the war. I blame Fox News. :)
For decades Canada has been a loyal ally and good friend of the US. We fought together in wars. We supported the US in NATO and were a partner in Norad. After Sept. 11 thousands of american airline passengers were stranded in Canadian cities, and were shown great hospitality. We joined along with the rest of the world in fighting terrorism and increasing security. We sent troops to Afghanistan, who are still there, and didn't complain about the fact that more of our troops have been killed by american friendly-fire than by the enemy. You are our biggest trading partner, and we are yours (bet you didn't know that). Our cultures, while not identical are very similar.
So it pisses me off to no end that when we make a rational, informed decision to stay out of the war in Iraq we become the great satan (or as Pat Buchannan called us, Soviet Canuckistan) to a huge number of people in the States. I don't care whether you supported the war or not - how about a little respect for a fellow democracy, a country that has the right to make its own damn decisions.
I have great respect for the States and many Americans. I have to keep reminding myself that the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush... To those of you who are hoping for a change in Presidents this fall, good luck.
Hans
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM, O the joy! Someone actually knows how to use the phrase, "begs the question." That is extraordinarily rare, in my experience, and I congratulate you.
Without yet having read the responses to your detailed exposé of the bozos in office, I'd bet a sawbuck none of the dummies bother to verify them, nor will it change their so-called opinions.
Maugwai, It seems to me it matters not if oddball sources like those you named lead someone who is an ardent seeker after knowledge to draw accurate conclusions. The bottom line is the validity of the conclusion reached after filtering bits of information from numerous sources. SignyM WAS able to reach accurate conclusions. Hence my statement the source is immaterial. There are zillions of sources on the internet. Those who seek answers with an open mind, as must be done during serious "brainstorming," will keep that mind open until the information gleaned from (sometimes) years of study point to the clear-cut answers. IMPORTANT: the mind must be kept open after conclusions are reached. There may be other conclusions that can be drawn, given more evidence. A few posters here exhibit drastically shut-and-locked minds, which tend only to cloud issues. They have provided exactly NO evidence to support their conclusions, other than to make repeated and empty claims that those of us who look for alternate answers simply must be wrong.
JasonZZZ, why specifically do you think those who disagree with you are wrong? All I get from your postings is a sort of hope that we're wrong and you're right. Specifically why do you think some of the things discussed here are conspiracies? I don't believe you've made this adequately clear. Rather than wasting space here calling posters names, which is really all you've done, give us some facts that support your position. Real hard facts, backed by links to world-wide news services, preferrably, or with direct quotes from your beloved administration. Something concrete, please.
SignyM, I've gotten rid of a few so-called friends over the past years taking a position similar to yours. I tried hard, the year preceding the Iraq invasion, to try to get folks to take an interest in what was going on. Most said they had enough trouble trying to live their own lives without getting interested in politics, or taking time to learn some basic facts. The murder of Rachel Corrie by an IDF bulldozer hit me particularly hard, and I weeded out a few more supposed friends as a result. To date nothing has been done by our government to prosecute the IDF killer, except to send more money to the IDF.
You asked, What's going to happen next? The Bush and Blair administrations will be kept out of the limelight concerning the ongoing torture investigations, despite the fact that Bush tried to keep the photos of molested Iraqis out of the media, and despite the fact that a general was canned for the supposed transgressions of six people. Yet per Hirsch's lengthy and well-linked article, military intelligence and the CIA were behind the torture mandates, and that implies the current administration was also complicit. Let's see how fast someone here proclaims their ignorance by calling me loco, when all the evidence is easily found today. All they'll be doing is once again showing us how incredibly blind they are to available facts.
Iraqis will continue to kill the terrorists who have invaded their country, though our media will cover little of it. The Iraqi situation will persist for at least five more years. Very possibly, a "terror attack" of some sort will occur in this country just in time to save Bush's arse in the November elections from a very-pissed-off electorate. However, Diebold's machines are still capable of altering the will of some of the voters, so I dunno if we'll see more Bush, or Kerry. Sorry, no prediction there.
Sharon has already stated he will not step down. Big surprise. So US dollars will still go to the IDF whenever that bum demands them. Blackmail, of course.
Enough for now.
......Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought I'd tell you all about something important related to WMDs and Iraq.
For a good while, Military planes would fly in from Iraq to the Atlanta Air Force base in the middle of the night, and then large convoys would leave there, escorted by Army Rangers and Delta Force, to another more secure government facility.
These convoys consisted of large cargo trucks...
Anyone wondering what was in them? :)
That ain't no shepard...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahhh... Mike... any chance of you producing evidence for this???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoops, double post...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To get back to something discussed beforehand:
I googled after the Kyoto protocol, here it is:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf
Hero discussing the Kyoto protocoll:
Quote:
Because the so called protocol only applied to the USA.
I can't claim to have read the protocol, because quite frankly it's too bloody long and complicatedly written, however, I did search through the pdf and found a list of how the emission limits should be set. The US of A scores 93% of "the base year" (Although I can't positively confirm this, I'm guessing 1990 not that it really matters). Note that Germany receives 92%, France 92%, Japan 94%, Russia 100%, Luxembourg 92%, Monaco 92% and about 30 others around the same range, check out Annex B. Point of interest: Iceland got 110% and thereby the highest rating.
The US emits 36.1% of the CO2 emissions emitted by the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol (remember the US did actually sign it). Russia comes in second at 17.4, Japan third at 8.5%, Germany fourth at 7.4%.
Here from the European Union's summary of the Kyoto protocol:
Quote:
The developed countries commit themselves to reducing their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases by at least 5%. This group target will be achieved through cuts of 8% by Switzerland, most Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will meet its target by distributing different rates among its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%. The six gases are to be combined in a "basket", with reductions in individual gases translated into "CO2 equivalents" that are then added up to produce a single figure.
http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=1420
I think this should sufficiently prove that the US was not in any way specifically targetted or singled out in the protocol. Neither did it set unrealistic or impossible goals since some countries have nearly fullfilled the conditions set forth in the protocol. A quote from the website of the reputed public German TV-news program Tagesschau's website:
Quote:
Im europäischen Vergleich liegt Deutschland mit seinen Klimaschutzzielen weit vorne. Mit der Einsparung von rund 240 Millionen Tonnen Treibhausgasen hat die Bundesrepublik etwa doppelt so viel reduziert, wie die gesamte Europäische Union. Im Klimaschutzabkommen von Kyoto hatte sich Deutschland verpflichtet, seinen CO2-Ausstoß bis 2010 um 21 Prozent zu reduzieren. Bis 2002 wurden davon immerhin schon 19,4 Prozent erreicht. Es fehlen also nur noch 1,6 Prozent, die man durch den 2005 beginnenden Emissionshandel zu erreichen hofft.
Problem is you probably don't speak German, basically it says that out of the 21% emissions that Germany was supposed to reduce till 2010 they have already reduced emissions by 19,4%.
Now I don't claim the Kyoto protocol was perfect (I haven't read it), but from all the evidence I could find it seems to me it was at least a step in the right direction: to counter the very real threat of global warming (maybe we should have a "War on Global Warming" to make it more sellable, eh?). If you do not believe in global warming I suggest you read chwyatt's post on an imbd message board, because he just said it a lot more eloquently than I ever could. Find it at:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/board/nest/8116319
Or you could just look it up in science journals, on the Internet, or ask just about any reputable scientist anywhere.
Now thanks to George W. Bush the Kyoto protocol is worth basically zilch because the World's biggest (or should that be ... greatest?) polluter is not playing along. Global warming is not a conspiracy theory, it is not speculation, it is happening everywhere around us.
(P.S. The movie "the day after tomorrow" from what I've seen seems to grossly exaggerate the problem)
Coward
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"None of the above makes sense if you think that Republicans Presidents, and THIS President and his... administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams) lay awake at night worrying about us and the future of the USA."
I just want to stand and be counted here; I happen to believe that most of the current administration, including the president, do lay awake at night worrying about the United States and about her citizens. I firmly believe they are good people doing a hard job. Perhaps that's why I have such a problem with some of the above. :O)
I find it offensive to have anyone suggest that I'm am not capable of independant thought. I am not a conservative because it is the easy road or because Rush Limbaugh told me to be one. I do think about things and and form my own opinions. I am not a moderate, independant, undecided, wishy washy, person.
If for instance, someone wanted to convince me of a conspiracy where Bush was responsible for flying airliners with missles attached to them into US buildings killing 1000's of people - First,they would have to have a recorded confession of someone involved in the alegied conspiracy that confirmed this is what happened. Second, there would have to be physical evidence on par with court admissable evidence to show the event occured.. (note: the very blury pictures I've already seen will not work) Third, there would have to be a very good motive for such an action laid out.. and a pattern of behavior shown that would explain why someone like Bush would choose such a strange action. Fourth, there would have to be someone who could place the president at a meeting or location where he overheard Bush as he planned or ordered such an action.
If these elements were available I would revisit this issue and form a new, perhaps different, perhaps the same, opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just like to chime in here.
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/04/04232000/cancuts_12173.asp
"Greenhouse gas emissions in Canada can be curbed by 50 percent by 2030 using current technology, according to a report issued this week by The David Suzuki Foundation."
So, if Canada can do this, why can't other nations (Yes I know, some are 
). I truly think that people don't see that while some industries will fall others will be created. Sure there will be a period of economic flux, but, IMHO, it's damn well worth it.
Oh my, why won't somebody think of the children
EDIT FOR CLARITY:
Currently Canada isn't really implementing this. I'm just stating that it is possible, so, why deny it.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG-- you would hope the next thing he said was, "Wait a minute-- ooops...". You hope that it was just a momentary mistake that anybody could make, but you have to wonder...and if Bush didn't say anything, would the officers have had the guts to point out his little mistake?
Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME