Jump to content

Anyone else get the sense that Bush is irrelevant?


Recommended Posts

Realistically, if there's a strike on Iranian nuke facilities, it will be through American proxy forces in Israel. This will inevitably lead to retaliation by Iranian forces (if they're smart, they won't challenge the U.S or Israel directly, but use proxies such as Lebanese Hezbollah guerrilla forces or Iraqi Shia insurgents.)

I disagree, since any Israel involvement would most likely end the Palestianain peace talks.......nah, this will be all America.......unless israel was attacked first.

The "Shock and Awe" scenario is more shuck and jive, as there's no way airpower or special forces alone could topple a government like Iran. If the U.S. wants regime change in Iran, they'll need to do it themselves, which would risk igniting the whole region in a conflict that would make Iraq lookk like Grenada.

What makes you so sure? Can the Iranian government rule from spider holes, with all their infrustruce knocked out?

With that said, after the nuke facilties are knocked out, IMHO, I'd think the Iranian government would back down with it's tail between it's legs......

I honestly don't think the Americans/Israels will allow Iran to aquire nukes in the end....I guess we will have to wait and see......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What makes you so sure? Can the Iranian government rule from spider holes, with all their infrustruce knocked out?

Sure. I expect they are planning for just such an eventuality. I don't doubt they've been watching Iraq very closely and have been taking notes.

Frankly I find your scenario to be extremely rosy, which is reminiscint of the heady days in spring 2003 when shock and awe would bring the Iraqi government to its knees and lead to a quick and nearly bloodless resolution. We saw how that worked out.

With that said, after the nuke facilties are knocked out, IMHO, I'd think the Iranian government would back down with it's tail between it's legs......

Or they'd start seriously working to f**k the U.S.'s s**t up in Iraq.

I honestly don't think the Americans/Israels will allow Iran to aquire nukes in the end....I guess we will have to wait and see......

This much we can agree on. Israeli-American nuclear supremacy is important to the U.S. strategic plans for the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I expect they are planning for just such an eventuality. I don't doubt they've been watching Iraq very closely and have been taking notes.

Frankly I find your scenario to be extremely rosy, which is reminiscint of the heady days in spring 2003 when shock and awe would bring the Iraqi government to its knees and lead to a quick and nearly bloodless resolution. We saw how that worked out.

But the Iraqi government did fall rather fast.......it's the various insurgent groups and personnal miltias the Americans have been fighting for the majority of their time in Iraq.

The end goal for the Americans (no Iranian nukes) is a rather realistic one to achieve.......the part of toppling the Iranain government is just speculation on my part, as being the next logical step.

Or they'd start seriously working to f**k the U.S.'s s**t up in Iraq.

Who's to say they (and Syria) are not already?

This much we can agree on. Israeli-American nuclear supremacy is important to the U.S. strategic plans for the region.

Exactly.

But to get back on topic, do you think that GWB/POTUS/the United States is irrelevant to the region? to the World?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's to say they (and Syria) are not already?

I'm sur ethey are, just not to the same degree that they could be involved. Right now, they have to be cautions and not be seen to be too closely involved. If the U.S. hits first, then Iran would surely step up efforts to mobilize Shia partisans in Iraq to try to turn the Iraqi south into an extension of the insurgency in the Sunni triangle.

But to get back on topic, do you think that GWB/POTUS/the United States is irrelevant to the region? to the World?

Increasingly so. They've isolated themselves from their allies. Certainly nobody in Europe wants to be seen as cozying up to Bush given his rampant unpoularity there. Even "friends" like Putin are shaking hands, smiling and then ignoring him.

A good summary:

Why Europe ignores Bush.

All over the world, new bonds of trade and strategic cooperation are being forged around the U.S. China has not only begun to displace the U.S. as the dominant player in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation organization (APEC), it is fast emerging as the major trading partner to some of Latin America's largest economies. The European decision to lift its arms embargo may reflect an awareness of the strategic significance of Beijing's emergence as an economic power — a dynamic that will dwarf the U.S. war with al-Qaeda in terms of its impact on the global strategic balance. And as China emerges alongside other new players such as India and Brazil, the U.S. will find itself forced to engage with a growing share of the international community that no longer deems it necessary to subordinate their own interests to Washington's, nor to assume that the two are one and the same. French foreign policy think tanks have long promoted the goal of “multipolarity” in a post-Cold War world, i.e. the preference for many different, competing power centers rather than the “unipolarity” of the U.S. as a single hyper-power. Multipolarity is no longer simply a strategic goal. It is an emerging reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sur ethey are, just not to the same degree that they could be involved. Right now, they have to be cautions and not be seen to be too closely involved. If the U.S. hits first, then Iran would surely step up efforts to mobilize Shia partisans in Iraq to try to turn the Iraqi south into an extension of the insurgency in the Sunni triangle.

Why would "Shia partisans in Iraq" need to be moblized? They make-up the majority in the government.........

Increasingly so. They've isolated themselves from their allies. Certainly nobody in Europe wants to be seen as cozying up to Bush given his rampant unpoularity there. Even "friends" like Putin are shaking hands, smiling and then ignoring him.

So, if you are an Iranian, facing the possablity of being attacked by the United States, you feel that America is irrelevant to your person?

In the end, it goes comes back (in the great scheme of things) to which nation/camp/allience, right or wrong, is most relevant to the world?

Do pay more attention to the nation that makes be threats/statements and doesn't follow through on them, or the person that makes big threats/statements and does follow through on them?

You said yourself, the only difference between the United States and France/Russia/China is that the United States has the ablity to carry out it's objectives and others don't........Who to fear? Who is more relevant to the World?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would "Shia partisans in Iraq" need to be moblized? They make-up the majority in the government.........

The moderates currently run the show and the extremists will stand idle as long as it appears the new Iraq will be dominated by the Shiite elements. that could change if the United States starts bombing the hell out of thier Iranian bretheren.

In the end, it goes comes back (in the great scheme of things) to which nation/camp/allience, right or wrong, is most relevant to the world?

Define "relevant". Clearly, the U.S is the most powerful today, but if we're talking about what country is on everybody's radar, the answer would be China.

The China Card.

China's central bank has been lending the United States the lion's share of the money we need to keep living beyond our means. If China stopped lending us all this money, the dollar would fall even further and faster. There might even be a run on the dollar. But how long will the Chinese keep buying drinks for the drunken American sailor? At some point, the Chinese central bank is going to decide it's just too dangerous.

Got it? It's a three-way game of economic chess. Europe needs China to keep lending money to the United States as a way of coping with America's devil-may-care economic policies. Europe also needs China as a huge potential market for European exports. So Europe is courting China these days. This explains why, despite the President's clear objections, Europe is on the way to lifting the arms embargo imposed on China in 1989 after Tiananmen Square.

So don't pay too much attention to the sweet talk this week between Washington and Europe. The real issues are economic, and they necessarily involve the world's third great economic power -- the People's Republic of China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define "relevant". Clearly, the U.S is the most powerful today, but if we're talking about what country is on everybody's radar, the answer would be China.

The dictionary defination:

relevant

Main Entry: rel·e·vant

Pronunciation: 're-l&-v&nt

Function: adjective

Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up -- more at RELIEVE

1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance

and my defination in context with this thread are one in the same......IIRC the point of this thread was to label Bush irrelevant on the world stage.

I've stated how GWB, because of his job title, is very much relevant to the worlds population. I don't claim GWB to be popular, loved, liked, and admired, but to say a man that has the power vested into him to destroy life on this planet five or six times over is irrelevant, is idoicy to an extreme.

Even when GWB leaves office, his actions, both at home and abroad (right or wrong) will have touched many, many people and because of that, GWB will be remembered by his haters and supporters alike, as being an extremly relevant person for the beginning of the 21st century........I've no doubt in my mind that GWB's mark will be lasting on the world for many decades to come.

WRT China becoming a future threat/advirsay, I don't discount your point, but if it will (or should) surpase the United States is another debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I gave you my answer, which is I beleive the same as GWB.

Save me time, tell me something you don't support him on!

Or is it always "ditto George!"??

If you want to know my personnal prediction, I'd say after the European diplomatic efforts fail (which I'm sure they will)

I agree with you on this. I think the USA will do everything it can to see them fail. That seems to be the pattern so far.

then when the deadline passes (which it will) you will see "Shock and Awe two", which will succede in taking out the Iranian nuke sites.

It's really sick, but I almost wished for this prediction as I read your post. I think it's a little sickness I've gotten from trolling rightwing sites like Freerepublic.com where rightwingers shout constantly for the nuking/bombing/invasion of various nations.

That, coupled with the knowledge that an attack on Iran would make the death and suffering witnessed in Iraq multiply 20-fold, gives me a sense of "I told you so you dumb rightwing f@#ks!"

I don't want to have to say I told ya so though.

My only response to the rest of your post is that you're unclear about what's been demonstrated and evidenced regarding Iran and nuclear weapons. Keep informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save me time, tell me something you don't support him on!

Or is it always "ditto George!"??

Guilty as charged!!!..........I'm a 100% GWB cheerleader......I'm an even bigger fan of Dick Cheney.... :lol: It's funny, during the first gulf war, Pro Set put out "Operation desert storm" trading cards. Each card had either a country that was taking part in the war, a piece of militray equpiment or a person of significance to the war. (IIRC, the most popular cards were the Tomohawk crusie missile and Saddam)

To make a long story short, my most favorite Card was the Sec Defence Dick Cheney card. I don't know why. later on, as I got older and learned more and more about Dick's past, the more I grew to admire him, based on his very humble beginnings in Wyoming and his ability to overcome adversity (much of which was self-inflicted). I guess I feel that I can relate to his "youthful" (teens to mid twenties) years and can only hope to emulate his more mature years in both the public and private sector.

So yeah, I'm a fan..........whats your point?

It's really sick, but I almost wished for this prediction as I read your post. I think it's a little sickness I've gotten from trolling rightwing sites like Freerepublic.com where rightwingers shout constantly for the nuking/bombing/invasion of various nations.

That, coupled with the knowledge that an attack on Iran would make the death and suffering witnessed in Iraq multiply 20-fold, gives me a sense of "I told you so you dumb rightwing f@#ks!"

I don't want to have to say I told ya so though.

Give it a rest.........how many deaths occured as a result of the Israeli attack on Osirak? :rolleyes:

When you make your tin-foil hat, do you ensure that the reflective side is facing out, so as to prevent the evil GOP mind control rays from controling your thoughts? Also, when you make your Kool-Aid, do you stir the jug counter-clockwise to achieve all the essential effects? :rolleyes:

My only response to the rest of your post is that you're unclear about what's been demonstrated and evidenced regarding Iran and nuclear weapons. Keep informed.

That sounds like a cop-out :lol: Point out where I've gone wrong.......all wise and knowing one :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ft. Niagra,

Stoker is right.  I think you are taking the bait of the trolls.  This is exactly what they want, to spew their irrational vitriol and get you all fired up.  Most of these anti-Bush trolling threads are easy to spot.  Responding to the insanity only perpetuates the thread and encourages them.  There are a couple of posters on the forum who use slander as their primary debating tool.

I agree, Stoker seems to be doing a good job defending GWB. I think that anticlimates seems to make it his job to 'troll' the internet with his antiBush sentiment. I guess there is thread after thread of it from Mr. anticlimates.

The only additonal comment I would have is many times there is some reason or logic to a username. Many times they are not apparent to anyone but the user. With 'anticlimates' I have no clue. Perhaps he is against climate change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty as charged!!!..........I'm a 100% GWB cheerleader......I'm an even bigger fan of Dick Cheney....
Mr. Cheney opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, is an anti-abortion advocate, and supports prayer in school. While serving in Congress, he was one of 21 members opposing the sale ban of armor-piercing bullets; was one of only four to oppose the ban on guns that can get through metal detectors; opposed sanctions against the apartheid-era South Africa in the mid-1980s along with voting against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela; voted for a constitutional amendment to ban school busing; voted against Head Start; and voted against extending the Clean Water Act in 1987.

Mr. Cheney is still drawing a $1,000,000 per year paycheck from Halliburton while serving as the Vice President

I guess I feel that I can relate to his "youthful" (teens to mid twenties) years and can only hope to emulate his more mature years in both the public and private sector.

You want to line your pockets with the public's money too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Cheney opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, is an anti-abortion advocate, and supports prayer in school.

I'd consider myself an "anti-abortion advocate", I'd have no problem with pray in schools (but I don't think it's a major issue) as for the equal rights amendment, to be honest, I don't know if opposed the wording of the amendment itself, women's rights or organized labour...

From what I understand, some aspects of the ERA included laws on aboration......perhaps that was what Cheney opposed?

While serving in Congress, he was one of 21 members opposing the sale ban of armor-piercing bullets; was one of only four to oppose the ban on guns that can get through metal detectors;

I agree with him in princple with these points.......Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Fix the problem with the person first, before banning the tool.

opposed sanctions against the apartheid-era South Africa in the mid-1980s along with voting against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela; voted for a constitutional amendment to ban school busing; voted against Head Start; and voted against extending the Clean Water Act in 1987

As with the ERA, I don't know in which context he opposed the above examples........

Mr. Cheney is still drawing a $1,000,000 per year paycheck from Halliburton while serving as the Vice President

Cheney is no longer an employee of Halliburton, thus doesn't recieve any "paycheck"......any money that he does still recieve, I would assume to be in the form of a pension and/or severance pay.

You want to line your pockets with the public's money too?

Thats rather weak..........most doctors make more money then the POTUS, and I can only assume that the VPOTUS make less then the boss........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians .......are cowards by nature.

The way you worded this, ie "Canadians", rather than "Canada" shows you are speaking of the Canadian people, not Canada's government or policies.

I'm wondering what you base this enlightened bit of trivial on???? <_<

It comes from simple observation. The majority of the people elect a government. Canada has a secure socialist antiAmerican government. The whole English speaking world supported the US in Iraq, EXCEPT Canada. In Afghanistan Canada did participate and while there experienced an unfortunate accident. Why was there an accident? Was there an accident because the soldiers were shooting at the enemy, no, they were shooting at TARGETS at night. While I realize that not all Canadians are cowards, my impression is the Canadian military is inept, and almost nonexistant. The government is probably afraid to deploy them. Further, my impression is some of this holier than thou BS expressed on this board is based more on fear than on responsable action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save me time, tell me something you don't support him on!

Or is it always "ditto George!"??

Guilty as charged!!!..........I'm a 100% GWB cheerleader......I'm an even bigger fan of Dick Cheney....(seveal paragraphs detailing why poster loves Cheney removed)....So yeah, I'm a fan..........whats your point?

Well, I think you've made my point. You are unable to objectively judge the actions of Bush/Cheney because of your "fan" status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think you've made my point. You are unable to objectively judge the actions of Bush/Cheney because of your "fan" status.

I never once claimed to be objectively judging the "actions" of GWB or Dick Cheney.......I fully admit that I'm a very partisan person........With that said, I do have some reservations on some actions done by the Right...

Do you claim to be objective? If yes, start answering my above questions in your next responce instead of "trolling" and wasting my time.

Even if you don't claim to be objective, at least start replying in an adult manner by debating the issue and not spewing empty rhetoric. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let me add, I don't think common sense is always a partisan issue (though you will find more on the right side of the fence)........I fail to see how debating over if Bush is irrelevant can even be made into a partisan issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians .......are cowards by nature....<partial flip flop--->  ...While I realize that not all Canadians are cowards, my impression is the Canadian military is inept

Canadians are pretty much the same as Americans, except perhaps we're more exposed to world issues and events by our media.

As for the "inept" impression of our military you have, I will just quote a little recent news for you:

Scolari also said the shootout took place 700 meters from the airport, after they had already passed other road blocks. At a press conference he said: "Giuliana and the other people who were there told me that the American attack was completely unjustified. They had alerted the whole chain of command, the Italian troops were awaiting them at the airport. And yet, they fired 300, 400 rounds. Why?"

Questions Grow Over Shooting Incident as Italian Reporter Returns Home

Why indeed. Is it because they're inept, or because the chain of command is inept. Or does it go right to the top...is Bush himself the inept one? Aw gee, there I go critisizing Bush again......that's being anti-American, right?

The whole English speaking world supported the US in Iraq

I could point out some facts to you here. They would show the ridiculousness of this statement....but why bother you with facts? Keep the divorced from reality world of the farrightwing intact.

In Afghanistan Canada did participate and while there experienced an unfortunate accident. Why was there an accident? Was there an accident because the soldiers were shooting at the enemy, no, they were shooting at TARGETS at night.

Yes, an accident caused by the negligence of American pilots involved. This has been established.

What the Canadians were shooting at is irrelevant. Like Bush!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let me add, I don't think common sense is always a partisan issue (though you will find more on the right side of the fence)........I fail to see how debating over if Bush is irrelevant can even be made into a partisan issue.

I agree, common sense isn't a partisan issue.

And calling Bush irrelevant in the context I have here is in line with common sense.

The problem some are having is they want to redefine what I'm saying. They're sticking upon the word "irrelevant" and claiming Bush is not irrelevant IN THIER OWN CONTEXT.

Nobody is irrelevant ultimately, under those conditions.

Bush has become irrelevant on the world stage. Not completely, of course. The USA has to much money and exposure for the president to ever be completely irrelevant.

The point is that RELAVIVE to the relevance he held in his first term and the relavance of other Presidents, he is very irrelevant now.

Nations are turning away from his wishes. In the space of a couple weeks Russia first rejects Bushs wish to not give nuclear material to Iran, and now they announce they're developing a missile that no defensive system will stop.

This is a close ally....a supposed close "friend" of Bushs?

Taiwan better lay low. I doubt China will worry about a weakened Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the "inept" impression of our military you have, I will just quote a little recent news for you:

QUOTE 

Scolari also said the shootout took place 700 meters from the airport, after they had already passed other road blocks. At a press conference he said: "Giuliana and the other people who were there told me that the American attack was completely unjustified. They had alerted the whole chain of command, the Italian troops were awaiting them at the airport. And yet, they fired 300, 400 rounds. Why?"

Questions Grow Over Shooting Incident as Italian Reporter Returns Home

Why indeed. Is it because they're inept, or because the chain of command is inept. Or does it go right to the top...is Bush himself the inept one? Aw gee, there I go critisizing Bush again......that's being anti-American, right?

How does that disprove ft.niagara's statement that our miltary is inept?

I could point out some facts to you here. They would show the ridiculousness of this statement....but why bother you with facts? Keep the divorced from reality world of the farrightwing intact.

Point them out then, it would be a first.......I count Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand as the other english speaking nations, all if which, had troops or still have troops invloved in Iraq........Are you know going to claim that these nations aled by fascist right-wingers?

I agree, common sense isn't a partisan issue.

And calling Bush irrelevant in the context I have here is in line with common sense.

I already proved why it wasn't common sense and you have yet to refute my claims.

The problem some are having is they want to redefine what I'm saying. They're sticking upon the word "irrelevant" and claiming Bush is not irrelevant IN THIER OWN CONTEXT.

Nobody is irrelevant ultimately, under those conditions.

irrelevant

One entry found for irrelevant.

Main Entry: ir·rel·e·vant

Pronunciation: -v&nt

Function: adjective

: not relevant : INAPPLICABLE <that statement is irrelevant to your argument>

- ir·rel·e·vant·ly adverb

relevant

Main Entry: rel·e·vant

Pronunciation: 're-l&-v&nt

Function: adjective

Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up -- more at RELIEVE

1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance

With the mater at hand being the Earth and the Human Race.........Who's changeing the context of the word irrelevant?

Bush has become irrelevant on the world stage. Not completely, of course. The USA has to much money and exposure for the president to ever be completely irrelevant.

Is that like "kinda pregnant"? :rolleyes:

The point is that RELAVIVE to the relevance he held in his first term and the relavance of other Presidents, he is very irrelevant now.

:huh: Popular maybe.........didn't we already go over this?

Nations are turning away from his wishes. In the space of a couple weeks Russia first rejects Bushs wish to not give nuclear material to Iran, and now they announce they're developing a missile that no defensive system will stop.

This is a close ally....a supposed close "friend" of Bushs?

Again, didn't we already go over this?

Taiwan better lay low. I doubt China will worry about a weakened Bush

Thats absurd, the only reason China has not taken over Taiwan is because of the United States..... :rolleyes:

Do you wish to contiune? If you do, answer my past question.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does that disprove ft.niagara's statement that our miltary is inept?

I didn't realize I had to "disprove" anything ft.niagra spews.

It is mearly a matter of irony that he accuses our military of being inept in light of current events.

ft.niagra more often than not is engaged in insult and offense for the sake of it. You seem confused about forum protocal, I don't have to disprove things like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize I had to "disprove" anything ft.niagra spews.

That seems to be your theme......I guess why change horses in mid-stream :lol:

It is mearly a matter of irony that he accuses our military of being inept in light of current events.

So you agree with him that our army is inept?

ft.niagra more often than not is engaged in insult and offense for the sake of it. You seem confused about forum protocal, I don't have to disprove things like that.

Rules and Guidelines

No Trolling/Flaming 

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the forum or endorsing or refuting a previous item with legitimacy, then do not say anything at all

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In forum circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

As for the "inept" impression of our military you have, I will just quote a little recent news for you:

You bring up our military, then go onto a tanget about the Americans..... :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anticlimates Posted on Mar 5 2005, 11:08 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE (Stoker @ Mar 5 2005, 03:32 PM)

So you agree with him that our army is inept?

Apparently you do.

Why do you hate Canada? 

Whats your favorite type of Soup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...