POLL: Who's next?

Remove all ads!

Darkwolf -- Because I'm not really a democrat. But I posted here because I think Shrub will start another war as soon as this one is over for the reasons I stated above. By the way, I don't recall the stock market being at 8100 when Clinton left office. Nor do I recall the unemployment rate being at 5.8 percent. Nor do I remember the mounting federal deficit that we now are faced with as a result of the biggest expansion of the federal government since Ronald Reagan was Prez. I guess I don't get your logic either, Darkwolf.

[ April 12, 2003, 20:38: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Sir Belisarius -

That makes WAY too much sense. The Middle Eastern Leaders will not agree with it!

But honestly, Palenstein should have been in the poll. If one nation support terrorism and evil - that is Palenstein.

 

This might not be popular, but with regards to the economy debate above - I don't think any President is in charge of the economy and therefore deserves the blame or credit. Or maybe it is better said that there are about 6 billion people in charge of the economy. The government trys to poke and prod the economy in the right direction but there are a million factors. The President can do things which impact the economy, like invade Iraq, but he doesn't control the economy. He doesn't pass the budget. He has a prod and is something of a steer wrangler but there are millions of steer wranglers, you are a steer wrangler too and prod the economy every time you buy something.

See, Congress has the ability to tell the Pres to go f himself with regards to fiscal policy so to heap all the responsibility on any one Pres is just too much. Also, there is a lag time with any fiscal policy of, what, 18 months for even the quickest impact policies? The only fiscal policies I know of in that time frame were some tax cuts. Do you think that those policies are responsible for the current anemic growth? If so, how? Now, some are scared about interest rates because of deficit increase but those haven't gone up yet.

I'm not exactly a Bush supporter, I recently stated I'd vote in the next election for whoever has the best chance of ousting him if the state is in play, but IMO, can't blame any one Pres. Nor can you credit any one Pres.

 

Chandos,

I hope you don't mind, but we are getting off topic, and I don't want to risk Tal's wrath so I quoted your response and question above, and responded here:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=000252#000011

 

Ragusa, you forgot to put the moon on your poll. I guess you saw that atricle recently showing how it poses a threat in that it might crash into the earth. It's one big WMD.

 

It's a conspiracy anytime a boat leaves harbor. The engineer has to consipire with the navigator and harbor pilot. The quartermaster has to conspire with the chef and longshoremen.

It's a conspiracy to fly a plane. Or drive a car. Or work at a company.

So, I do not quite understand why people find the connotation of a conpiracy so negative. When everything is a conspiracy, why are people so shocked when another one is added to the list?

That said, there are some that are better than others. And what I really like are the people who truely do believe in the conpiracies; they aren't just the other people who actually just like arguing, and will argue that the sky is green just for the sake of attention whoring.

Anyways.

So, the Mexicans and Cubans routinely swim for the US shores. Koreans would head to China, if China didn't shoot them on sight. It's not going to be a problem with Iraq for 10 or 15 years. But word will get out about a democracy, run by Muslims. Mind you, Turkey is a democracy like Cuba is a democracy. It is, but only if you squeeze your testicles really, really hard, and squint.

Iraq will either have to turn people away at the borders, or Iran and Syria will either attack, or start killing their own people. I think the latter. Saudi and Syria and Iran and Turkey will be just like East Berlin.

East Berlin seriously rocked. There was this little 15 foot tall platform across the moat from the wall, and I could see the guard towers. And a bombed out church just a block or so away, with pock marks from all the 1945 bullet impacts.

It's going to get nasty. But just not today. Like pasta on a stove, it needs to simmer for a while to absorb all the hate.

And there's the Kurd thing. It's unlikely, very, very unlikely. But it's possible that enough Kurds could pull enough sway in Iraq, to setup their own Kurdistan. It'll get nasty like that, too.

The Middle East is a rough town. Where wimps eat flaming plasma death. It's not for those dependant of spirit.

 

First, we change Syria, then we change Saudi-Arabia.

EJSmith wrote:

Ahm, Turkey is a NATO-member. The British, Canadians, French and Germans have sworn to defend it versus any enemy that attacks it.

[ April 12, 2003, 16:33: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Are we talking about who will be pre-empted next, who the US will pre-empt next, or who should be pre-empted next?*

India would like to see Pakistan get its butt kicked, now that a precedent for pre-emptive attacks has been set, and I will be interested to see what form the argument against it will take. In fact, I'd pay good money to see Dr. Rice deliver a lecture on the subject.

Does the US take requests?

I voted France. Americans seem to believe that we're just kidding about being a nuclear power, and that really, we'd surrender to a single Marine if he looked at us the wrong way. There would be 99.9% approval ratings for an attack on France, and it would assure Bush's re-election. Oh, who am I kidding? I just want to wear a black beret and a trenchcoat and be Michelle de la Resistance.

Saudi Arabia, which is not on the list, should have been first in the "war on terrorism". It seems to me that al-Quaeda has been far more demonstrably linked to the Saudis than to either Afghanistan or Iraq.

*Yes. I realise "empt" is not a verb.

 

Though I really can't say who might be next, I think we should realize that there likely would be a next one. After all, what about the rest of the Axis of Evil? After Iraq, will containment be an option?

Also,

Correct. It is a second world country, just like Cuba, China and the former USSR, etc.

 

Interesting article on this threads subject:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7588