Journal Philip K Dickhead's Journal: Any American Who Thought Gore 24
Would have been a good President, deserved to get Bush.
NWO crap, served hot or cold? You fucking idiots.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Any American Who Thought Gore
Heisenberg may have slept here...
To Give The Devil His Due.... (Score:2)
However, had we elected a non-idiot president we might not have invaded a sovereign nation who had nothing to do with 9/11. And if we had not gone on that idiot's invasion, over 3,000 additional Americans who have died over there might well still be alive. And that is to say nothing of the unknown (and unknowable)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Iraq was NOT a sovereign nation, they were a CONQUERED nation and subject to surrender conditions (inspections) which they did not cooperate on. Yes, it was handled badly and could have been done in a much quicker fashion and with less loss of life, but that is the fault of Bush Sr. and Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Iraq was NOT a sovereign nation, they were a CONQUERED nation
Perhaps we differ on our definition of sovereign. Iraq had their own government prior to our invasion. To me that makes them a sovereign nation.
subject to surrender conditions (inspections) which they did not cooperate on
Aren't we trying to push for inspections on Iran? I don't know of anyone who considers them to be a conquered nation...
Yes, it was handled badly and could have been done in a much quicker fashion and with less loss of life, but that is the fault of Bush Sr. and Clinton
I don't know what either of them could have done to prevent an idiot from launching a unilateral invasion. And being as we never found any WMDs in Iraq, it pretty much negates the main stated purpose of the invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what either of them could have done to prevent an idiot from launching a unilateral invasion.
Oooo- I do. At least from the standpoint of chill. Bush Sr. or Clinton could have pushed harder against Hussein to begin with, including gasp, a unilateral invasion.
Then Bush the Younger wouldn't have had to do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Clinton is a war criminal, too. Kosovo/Serbia. That was a conflict precipitated by covert actions of "Western" states.
Re: (Score:2)
No, incorrect.
After Gulf War I Iraq was already occupied and no further invasion was necessary. The mandated inspections had the problem of arranging inspection locations in advance and ASKING for permission on any "personal property" of Saddam, such as his palaces. All 100+ of them.
The answer at the time was simple. Surprise inspections backed by an armed escort. No "May we please go there tomorrow?" More like "Surprise! We're here, inspectors and the 1st Armored Division. Please get out of our way
Re: (Score:2)
The answer at the time was simple. Surprise inspections backed by an armed escort. No "May we please go there tomorrow?" More like "Surprise! We're here, inspectors and the 1st Armored Division. Please get out of our way and we'll be done shortly."
Bush I and Clinton played the whole "well, these are off limits" for YEARS when all it took was for existing troops to accompany inspectors and not take "no" for an answer. We'd've been done in a couple years and Saddam could have gone back to machine-gunning Kurds in short order.
Although had that been done, there is ample evidence to suggest that Bush Junior's administration would have just leaned more heavily on and of the other lies that they used for selling us this war:
So even if we had inspected more aggressively, and still found nothing, there is good reason to believe that Bush Jr. still would have invade
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Or maybe most of our troops would have been gone before Bush, Jr. got into the office. Clinton did server 2 full terms, you know. Bush, Jr. was 10 years after the end of the first war.
My *PERSONAL* opinion is that convenience -- having 100,000+ troops sitting next door -- played a large part in the decision to invade Iraq. If we weren't "ready to go", the threshold for actually pulling the trigger would have been much higher.
And, no, I'm not disputing you on any of those disproven events. I'm we
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, Bush, Jr. was a LOT more laid back until 9/11
I generally agree with that statement. My opinion is that GWB was OK with the idea of being irrelevant - which he would have pretty well been - up until the gift of 9/11 landed in his lap. I think it was Dennis Miller (the pre-9/11 Dennis Miller, that is) who said "GWB isn't very smart, hence he surrounds himself with smart people the same way that a hole surrounds itself with a donut"; which was a pretty accurate description of GWB's first 8 months - he was just trying to stay quiet and collect a check
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my scenario was based on doing all this shit 15+ years ago. Now...we're probably fucked from an opinion-of-the-US standpoint for a generation or so.
Re: (Score:2)
There might be some confusion here. Do you not consider the first Gulf War, with Iraq's annexation of Kuwait being a legitimate cause for retaliation and invasion? That is the one I'm talking about.
If you do, then Iraq was defeated in that war and signed terms of surrender. Their government was left in place to operate, but under the conditions that the signed terms were agreed upon. Hell, we even let them continue suppressing Kurds and other dissidents using helicopter gunships!
By that -- being under c
Re: (Score:1)
Gore would have ENABLED 9/11 - as surely as Bush^H^H^H^H Cheney.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he would have told the air force to stand down.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem completely unaware of Leiberman's role in this little game. He is much more hawkish on Middle East affairs than Cheney could dream about.. To the point of giving Saudi Arabia a dirty look every now and then. Under him the war would be much more wide spread. Cheney is downright benign in comparison.
Re: (Score:1)
Leiberman is the State Senator from Israel - and Obama's mentor/handler.
Re: (Score:1)
Leiberman is the State Senator from Israel...
That would be his evil twin [ynetnews.com]
You still have to make a choice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Choice based on ignorance is not choice. It's even an enabler of ignorance.
At a conference I was at this week, Daniel Ellsberg recounted a time in 1969 when he explained to Henry Kissinger what would happen after he was given the dozen or so clearances above Top Secret (the existence of which is also classified, of course). What happens first is you feel like a fool. You've published books that you now discover were filled with stuff that was wrong. You have believed you understood how things worked for your entire professional life, but you now find out you were completely wrong, that the real world is entirely different from what you have been told. The books you've written, the lectures you've given are based on a false understanding of the world.
But this stage only lasts a few weeks. After you have been reading this material hitherto unavailable to you for a while, you begin to see everybody else as fools. Only with people with these top level clearances know the truth. People whom you previously regarded as experts become ignoramuses, doubly so because they don't realize that they actually know nothing.
And so your conversations with them become telling them what you want them to think.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/02/clearances.html [eschatonblog.com]
This is a supporting view for the Chris Hedges assertion that "democratic process and voter participation" are the TOOLS of "inverted fascism". Buy McDonald's or Burger King - it's all ADM and the military-enforced use of petro-chemicals to produce mis-nourishment, at the expense of life and health around the world. The Bush/Gore or McCain/Obama choices were Coke/Pepsi.
Re: (Score:2)
Not what I was talking about. I'm talking about choices with full knowledge about how shitty they are, and nothing short of armed insurrection in order to change that choice.
So your real choice becomes vote for the slightly lesser of two evils or die in a fireball upon impacting an IRS building.
You know full well you and I see eye to eye on pretty much everything, but the real world still makes it demands. I'll fight the incremental fight, thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
By whom? The same idiots who can't/won't vote their way out of a paper bag? The collective has made its choice and has decided to accept what is being spoon fed to them. Do not blame those doing the feeding. The plebes are just going to have to wise up. Nice girls don't swallow.
Armed insurrection... yeah that definitely is gonna work... this time for sure... Maybe that old saying is true. People aren't happy unless they're miserable.
Re: (Score:1)
Your choice is between the 2 possible colognes, worn by your violent rapist.
Or, you vote for McKinney.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, and this bears repeating, you need to do better than Nader or Mckinney. Much better. I'm one of those who wish it weren't so, but it is.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the choice we had in the Massachusetts Senate race? [commondreams.org]
IMO, the smart thing for Progressives to do here would have been to field a candidate apart from the Democrats (even a word of mouth campaign to do write-ins would have been preferable). Voting for Brown and that Kennedy joker was not a smart way to protest and played into the hands of a far-right fringe group who garnered credit from the corporate media for the upset.
But... if there's one thing you learn about voting in this country its that