Guest Bullshiterica Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 To play devil's advocate, he is a human being, and does (or ought to) have to live with the fact that his stubbornness and corrupt business dealings caused the deaths of over four thousand Americans. That's a burden, in some sense, and I really don't think his retirement is going to be pleasant at all. I think he'll die an early death.
Atticus Chaos Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 To play devil's advocate, he is a human being, and does (or ought to) have to live with the fact that his stubbornness and corrupt business dealings caused the deaths of over four thousand Americans. That's a burden, in some sense, and I really don't think his retirement is going to be pleasant at all. I think he'll die an early death. I'd love to think he has a lifetime of guilt ahead of him (and he'd still be getting off easy even then), but, I doubt it. He still seems to be under the impression that while he's hated now, history will be kinder to him.
EricMM Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 Then by god I hope he lives to be 112, and hated every day of it...
Red Baron Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 To play devil's advocate, he is a human being, and does (or ought to) have to live with the fact that his stubbornness and corrupt business dealings caused the deaths of over four thousand Americans. That's a burden, in some sense, and I really don't think his retirement is going to be pleasant at all. I think he'll die an early death. I'd love to think he has a lifetime of guilt ahead of him (and he'd still be getting off easy even then), but, I doubt it. He still seems to be under the impression that while he's hated now, history will be kinder to him. Or compair him to Stalin and Hitler.
SuperJerk Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 To play devil's advocate, he is a human being, and does (or ought to) have to live with the fact that his stubbornness and corrupt business dealings caused the deaths of over four thousand Americans. That's a burden, in some sense, and I really don't think his retirement is going to be pleasant at all. I think he'll die an early death. Wouldn't be the first time.
snuffbox Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 That fatass should've died in the Senate.
EricMM Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 Well we got this too... I swear, why do we stay in Iraq if all we're doing is funding people like this? They are not supportive of any sort of democracy that we'd support...
Edwin MacPhisto Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 Zobaie sums it up pretty nicely with "No democracy in Iraq. Ever." We accelerated a civil war in another country without even understanding that country, and we're now trying to win a civil war. Another country's civil war. Fucking retarded.
Kinetic Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 What Zobaie wants is for the U.S. military to hand over full control of Fallujah. He believes Iraq's current leaders are not strong enough. Asked whether democracy could ever bloom here, he replied: "No democracy in Iraq. Ever." "When the Americans leave the city," he said, "I'll be tougher with the people." I see this ending well.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 I know this a couple days old but still: I'm just saying that its far less efficent to fly somewhere than it is to drive somewhere. It takes more energy to keep a plane moving at the speed of flight than it takes to keep a car moving 65 mph... A fully loaded 747 (416 passengers) can go 5,300 miles on 48,445 gallons of fuel (.11 mpg) which isn't a big number is it? But, if you factor it out to passenger miles per gallon (miles x total passengers/total fuel) it comes out to 45pmpg. The average car on the road today gets 17 mpg. With 1 person in the car it only gets 17pmpg, so youd need 3 people in it to get better pmpg than a 747. How many cars on the road have 3 or more people in them? this is the same reason why public transportation is encouraged despite those huge buses getting really awful fuel mileage. Also, just since 2000, Passanger airlines have increased fuel mileage efficiency 36% while car fuel efficiency has declined from 26 mpg in 1980 to that 17mpg average today.
EricMM Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 That goes down if the plane is not full, however. And smaller planes have worse efficency.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 That goes down if the plane is not full, however. And smaller planes have worse efficency. the tipping point I think is 50% for a 747 (I know at 75% capacity a 747 still gets 30 pmpg which is better than the 1 person in the car).
Dobbs 3K Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 ...we're now trying to win a civil war. Another country's civil war. Fucking retarded. There's the crux of it right there. I mean, when in history has this kind of intervensionism ever really worked? This president used to always love talking about "the lessons of September 11th" ad nauseum. How about the lessons of Vietnam, which was another civil war that backfired for the US? Oh wait, he wasn't there.
NoCalMike Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 It really makes you question whether the real objective in Iraq is even what this administration claims it to be. I mean, either they are really stupid and know nothing about the dynamics of foreign countries or they just don't care and have other objectives they want to execute and the hell with anything that gets in their way.
snuffbox Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 If the spending and making of cash were a/the prime objective of this war, mission accomplished.
Atticus Chaos Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 I wouldn't even compare LBJ to Bush. At least Johnson had civil rights. Nixon may have left in disgrace, but even his harshest critic has to admit he did some good things during his term and a half. Bush's presidancy however, has had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Timmy8271 Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 It really makes you question whether the real objective in Iraq is even what this administration claims it to be. I mean, either they are really stupid and know nothing about the dynamics of foreign countries or they just don't care and have other objectives they want to execute and the hell with anything that gets in their way. The real objective was to do what Bush's daddy couldn't, Kill Saddam by any means necessary. Well I guess Bush accomplished that.
Atticus Chaos Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 Did they really have to start a war to do that? There weren't other ways of killing the guy?
At Home Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 I wouldn't even compare LBJ to Bush. At least Johnson had civil rights. Nixon may have left in disgrace, but even his harshest critic has to admit he did some good things during his term and a half. Bush's presidancy however, has had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Free trade? Keeping Turkey out of Iraq?
cbacon Posted March 25, 2008 Report Posted March 25, 2008 Did they really have to start a war to do that? There weren't other ways of killing the guy? There were opportunities to help the rebellion from within to oust Saddam.
godthedog Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 I wouldn't even compare LBJ to Bush. At least Johnson had civil rights. Nixon may have left in disgrace, but even his harshest critic has to admit he did some good things during his term and a half. Bush's presidancy however, has had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his malaria initiative in africa, by all accounts i've seen, has gone quite well--pretty much a textbook case of how foreign aid is supposed to go. it's simple, it has clearly-defined goals, and there's no short-term gain whatsoever to be had from it. it's really too bad that he hasn't gotten more credit for this.
Edwin MacPhisto Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 Saw this on Glenn Greenwald's blog today, and it caught my interest because I've occasionally corresponded at work with one of the Iraqis Charlie Rose interviews in the clip. More harsh realities on how badly this whole affair has been bungled, and the cost to the people who, you know, actually live there: "We have a country where the government is not functioning after 5 years."
Dobbs 3K Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 I wouldn't even compare LBJ to Bush. At least Johnson had civil rights. Nixon may have left in disgrace, but even his harshest critic has to admit he did some good things during his term and a half. Bush's presidancy however, has had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his malaria initiative in africa, by all accounts i've seen, has gone quite well--pretty much a textbook case of how foreign aid is supposed to go. it's simple, it has clearly-defined goals, and there's no short-term gain whatsoever to be had from it. it's really too bad that he hasn't gotten more credit for this. Yep, Bush actually has done some good in Africa. I was thinking of that the other day when the topic of his administration and legacy came up. Personally, I don't care for our government spending so much of our money in other countries when we are hemorrhaging a national debt here, but that's how foreign aid goes, I guess. I could see Bush becoming some sort of Jimmy Carter-like figure after he leaves office, as an advocate for Africa. I doubt it will happen, but it would be one way he could polish up his legacy, even slightly.
godthedog Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 that would be nice, and i'd be happy to change much of my opinion on him if he did that. i'm all for the emerging trend of high profile ex-president philanthropy.
Atticus Chaos Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 Look at Bill Clinton though: he had a great legacy (Lewinsky aside) before and after his presidancy and has now blown it with his behaviour in the last few months. Needless to say, the days of him being considered the first black president are long gone. I remember reading Jimmy Carter got involved in the Genarlow Wilson controversy and Nixon and Ford went on to become the sole voices of sanity in the republican party. Maybe it is best if Bush goes to Africa for a while. I don't care if he's cosying up to him now, John Mccain will want nothing to do with him if he does get elected and I can't think the rest of the party have much love for him either.
godthedog Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 clinton's done work in the past few years raising money for the world AIDS crisis, and a weird hodgepodge of other issues. i would also half-include gore, as it's basically the same idea of relying on that national recognition & stature to further a particular cause.
Kinetic Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 Actually, I seem to recall Clinton and the elder Bush doing something charitable together a few years ago. I don't think it was a golf tournament. It might have involved Africans.
Atticus Chaos Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 Despite his good work, I think Bill's race baiting tactics in this election have been appalling and he's really went down in my estimation. It's not that I think Bill is racist. But I think him and Hillary know other people are and they've been willing to exploit that and use it against Obama. And that's actually way worse. He's completly screwed up his elder statesman position in the democratics as well, in my opinion.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now