Ah The Glory Days Of The Clinton Admin - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-24-2005, 11:19 AM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:34 PM
i think all countries were in agreement as to the available intelligence.

they did not all agree as to what action was appropriate in response to this intelligent.

i think it's safe to say that, while all mentioned countries could say, "yes, we believe, based upon the intelligence we have, that this is the situation." however, only ONE country thought a war was the correct response to this situation. only ONE country thought that SH and Iraq posed a clear and present danger (sorry, a "grave and gathering danger") to the US. only ONE country thought invasion was the solution to this country. and now, only ONE country has lost essentially all credibility.

the intelligence, in and of itself, is beside the point. it's what was done about the intelligence that matters.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-24-2005, 11:24 AM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i think all countries were in agreement as to the available intelligence.

they did not all agree as to what action was appropriate in response to this intelligent.

i think it's safe to say that, while all mentioned countries could say, "yes, we believe, based upon the intelligence we have, that this is the situation." however, only ONE country thought a war was the correct response to this situation. only ONE country thought that SH and Iraq posed a clear and present danger (sorry, a "grave and gathering danger") to the US. only ONE country thought invasion was the solution to this country. and now, only ONE country has lost essentially all credibility.
That's not true Melon. Several countries agreed, and that is evidenced by the fact that those countried attacked with us.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 11:28 AM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


That's not true Melon. Several countries agreed, and that is evidenced by the fact that those countried attacked with us.


firstly, i'm Irvine.

anyway, yes, this "coalition of the willing."

garbage. it is not evidence in any way, shape, or form that they agreed with us that the intelligence spelled out a "clear and present danger" to the USA (or London, or Paris, or wherever).

many went along with us because we were going to do it whether they liked it or not. we paid Turkey, what, $34B to let us keep troops they and they still refused? most sent an absolute bare minimum of troops, and many countries that supported the action (like, say, The Marshall Islands) were simply trying to curry favor with the Bush administration.

and let's compare this "coalition" (don't forget Poland!!!) to what Bush Sr and Jim Baker were able to assemble in 1991.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:03 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:34 PM
I want Clinton back. Seriously. I do.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:09 PM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i think all countries were in agreement as to the available intelligence.

they did not all agree as to what action was appropriate in response to this intelligent.

i think it's safe to say that, while all mentioned countries could say, "yes, we believe, based upon the intelligence we have, that this is the situation." however, only ONE country thought a war was the correct response to this situation. only ONE country thought that SH and Iraq posed a clear and present danger (sorry, a "grave and gathering danger") to the US. only ONE country thought invasion was the solution to this country. and now, only ONE country has lost essentially all credibility.

the intelligence, in and of itself, is beside the point. it's what was done about the intelligence that matters.
There was more than one country involved in the invasion.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:10 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


firstly, i'm Irvine.
I get you two confused all the time too. All you Gay men look alike online.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:19 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Is there a rule preventing a previous President from becoming vice-President?

Why does the President have a spokesperson come out every day and say what the President thinks and believes?

How come it seems that it is easier to get an audience with the Queen of England than the President? Our PM gets interviewed in the back of cars and hallways sometimes.

Just wondering, I'm an ignorant Canuck.

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:27 PM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


There was more than one country involved in the invasion.


and they all had different motivations.

agreeing with the US on whether or not the intelligence justified a pre-emptive strike was probably not much of a consideration for those few (by comparison to 1991, *very* few) countries that did send troops.

gaining favor with a new American administration at the very beginning of a potential 8 years in power was probably of much greater importance.

still, most of the deaths have been Americans.

i suppose we should feel good about that?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:28 PM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I get you two confused all the time too. All you Gay men look alike online.


i'm the Jude Law look-alike.

all i know about Melon is that he's tall and thin.

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:31 PM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




all i know about Melon is that he's tall and thin.

and cute
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:34 PM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Is there a rule preventing a previous President from becoming vice-President?

Why does the President have a spokesperson come out every day and say what the President thinks and believes?

How come it seems that it is easier to get an audience with the Queen of England than the President? Our PM gets interviewed in the back of cars and hallways sometimes.

Just wondering, I'm an ignorant Canuck.



1. no, i don't think so
2. all politicians have press secretaries -- from the most junior member of congress to the President. generally, the WH spokesman answers questions every single day, and it is generally accepted that the President is too busy to prepare for a press conference every single day. however, most Presidents do have press conferences, frequently, and take questions from reporters; Bush is a notable exception in that he rarely speaks to the press.
3. the president is different from a Prime Minister. my understanding is that, at least in the UK, the PM is the head of whichever political party is in power, and government is done mostly through coalition building. it's a slower process, but perhaps more thorough. by contrast, the President is in charge not of a political party but of the executive branch of the government (the others being the legislative and the judicial). he weilds greater power within the US than the PM does within the UK. i think there's a tradition of viewing the office of the Presidency as somewhat above the rest of Congress, and you'll notice that reporters usually stand when a President enters the room, and this is not true of the PM (from what i understand).

also, i think it's a mistake to view the President of the US as the equivalent of any other head of state. sorry if that sounds arrogant, but i do think it's true. no other man on earth wields the power he does, and this makes him a great target for assassination. i would imagine that no reporter could walk up to Bush and interview him (as you say they do with the Canadian PM) is because access to Bush is restricted due to safety concerns (we do have a history of presidential assassinations).



but i was just an english major. any political scientists want to add more?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:36 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i suppose we should feel good about that?
Please...tell me that I am not reading too much into that....

You are not implying that I feel good about that are you?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:37 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Past presidents who have served 8 years are not eligible. They have to be able to serve. Bush the father could. Ford could. Carter could.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:40 PM   #74
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Please...tell me that I am not reading too much into that....

You are not implying that I feel good about that are you?


i suppose what i meant was that at least non-Americans aren't being killed (in large numbers) because of mistakes made by the Bush administration. i am not implying that you feel good about Americans dying, but perhaps we should be greatful that we're reaping what we're sowing and not getting too many others (besides all those tens of thousands of Iraqis) killed?

that might be very callous of me. i'll have to think about it.

i think i was just reacting to the idea that because there was more than one country that was part of the invasion, that the invasion was therefore done by a coalition.

it wasn't a coalition in any sort of meaningful sense. this isn't to discount the sacrafices made by Italians, Poles, and Japanese soldiers; but it is to discount any notion that this was some sort of international effort akin to 1991.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:44 PM   #75
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Past presidents who have served 8 years are not eligible.
:: phew ::
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com