Brett said:
Well, I can't say I have ever seen Bush wear such shoes, and if you say they aren't SH's, then they must be yours.
Are they comfortable?
🙂
Jeff R said:
No, they're not mine. I try never to wear shoes.
I'm not sure they're not Saddam's either, but the site where I got the pic, did <i>suggest</i> they were first seen on a spy satellite photo of one of his Presidential Palaces. If things go badly for him, then perhaps he'll wear them as part of his disguise, to blend in with with the Yanks as they leave, and get a free trip to the US, so he can buy the ranch next door to Osama in Texas.
Brett said:
Hm, it happens that I occasionally watch the TV series "the X
files" (or whatever it is called, the one with FBI agents Mulder
and Scully). Once a security guy from NSA or CIA or whatever
told Mulder: "Don't tell me you believe in Saddam Husssein too.
Don't you know we invented him to have somebody to blame
things on. He's an actor we found in a small town in Texas".
In your scenario, he might actually come back home again. 🙂
Before you say anything, I am sure he said Saddam Hussein,
not George Bush depsite finding him in Texas. 🙂
Well, the US does have some pretty loose borders and we do let all kinds of riff raff in. Heck, they let my ancestors in (though I am part native American Indian, so I have a small right to complain!).
And Texas would not be good place for either of those bozo's to visit. Too many guns in Texas and some red neck hero would take them both out, for sure, and no jury there would convict him. Maybe Boston would take them, or Berkely. Yeah, move them next door to some of the professors there. Ha!
🙂
PS I like how this thread is moving!
And Texas would not be good place for either of those bozo's to visit. Too many guns in Texas and some red neck hero would take them both out, for sure, and no jury there would convict him. Maybe Boston would take them, or Berkely. Yeah, move them next door to some of the professors there. Ha!
🙂
PS I like how this thread is moving!
Christer said:
Damn that was funny.
{Scene} SH walking down deserted highway in Texas. Camera pans in to see his T shirt which reads 'Don't Look At Me, I didn't Shoot JR'.
A cavalcade of black cars rolls in from the distance. As they approach SH they slow, and the Limo in the centre pulls to a halt beside the now stopped SH. Passenger side rear door of Limo opens, and a man in a suit, with a permanent perplexed hounddog look on his face steps out onto the road. He walks up to SH and embraces him in a warm hug.
SH says "Hello Uncle George. Got that ten million I lent you last week?"
Jeff R said:
Nah, I bet they'd fit right in, with a bit of cosmetic surgery. (like adding an extra toe to each foot). Yer average redneck might not find it so easy though. After all I doubt they'll have much trouble getting ammo for their AK47s.
Besides Texas would probably be perfect. Just like 'the old country': hot, sandy, oily, lots of armaments and ugly neighbours. Add some camels and a couple of burnt out tanks and some days I'm sure they'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
Brett said:
LOL!
You have a good point! But, there are some pretty hot ladies in Texas, so be careful with the ugly comment.
I am sure they would feel right at home in west Texas. But I think the camels would tip the locals off. And if they go out to eat and ask for dates and figs and goats milk rather than a rare Black Angus steak and a beer, they would be gonners.
Funny.
A lot of emotion in this thread, and unfortaunately a great deal of ignorance. We all hate war, no one wishes to see young men and women die. This may get to war, hopefully it will not, however sometimes it is inevitable. If the anti-war crowd in the 40's had
gotten their way, most of us would not be alive today. Oil!? Bah. The U.S. imports very little Iraqi oil. The biggest importers of Iraqi oil are France and Germany. Interesting point considering their stand on the issue. The U.S. is the only reason Europe is not under Nazi rule today. Keep bashing the U.S., we're used to it.
gotten their way, most of us would not be alive today. Oil!? Bah. The U.S. imports very little Iraqi oil. The biggest importers of Iraqi oil are France and Germany. Interesting point considering their stand on the issue. The U.S. is the only reason Europe is not under Nazi rule today. Keep bashing the U.S., we're used to it.
slydwz ,
thank you for your input, but please reread the thread before posting the same nonsense the homeland security propaganda guys tell you for the xth time.
thank you for your input, but please reread the thread before posting the same nonsense the homeland security propaganda guys tell you for the xth time.
slydwz said:
Well, to be fair, if France and Germany got their oil from somewhere else, and Iraq was unable to sell any, there would be less for us and prices would be even higher. The solution for the West is to reduce dependency on oil. I can argue that if we spent the money we think we may have to spend to defend Turkey were instead spent on alternative fuel research, huge leaps of progress could be made. If we don't need their oil so much, we won't be beholden to them and feel we have to support undemocratic regimes due to our endless thrist for oil.
I, myself, have tried to avoid the "if it weren't for the US" statement (maybe not with 100% success), as it only raises tensions. The past is history. Let's learn from the lessons of Hitler, as I have been saying for days now, but we can't expect support for our policies just because we saved them 60 years ago.
While France and Germany are undoubtedly worried about loss of oil and what that loss will do their own economies and standard of living, can we fault them for that? Will we stop dealing with Saudi Arabia because of their support for terrorism and because they are undemocratic?
I support war in Iraq if Bush says it is necessary, but we need to acknowledge the fears and concerns of what our action can impose on the world.
slydwz said:
Since this oil issue keeps popping up. A lot of people here in
Europe and elsewhere suspect it is about the oil and most
certainly the propaganda apparatus in Iraq and many other
muslim countries has spread that message. However, most
expert commentators I have heard on TV here in Sweden
do not think it is about the oil, at least not in a short term
perspective. Only 25% of the whole US oil import is from the
Gulf area as a whole. On the other hand, many think the
reason may very well be to ensure oil supply from the region
in the future, since Iraq and Saudi Arabia have some of the
biggest oil reserves.
BTW, if the US had not actively joined the war in Europe (you
were passively involved since Germany declared war on you)
we would most likely not have spoken german, but maybe
russian. I do think many americans underestimate the strong
turn the war took on the eastern front when Soviet finally
got their new weapons factories beyond the Ural ready for
mass production. On the other hand, if the germans had
managed to occupy all of Europe, I seriously doubt the third
reich would have lasted very long. There was no coherent
Nazi ideology to follow for those to take over after Hitler.
No doubt they would have managed to cause a lot more
damage and bloodshed before the collapse, though.
till said:
I don't think our homeland security dept. puts out much propaganda, certainly nothing related to WW 2. We get some terrorist alerts, but they say nothing about what slydwz speaks of.
Sly, I riled them when I mentioned that we feel a bit betrayed by France, and I understand their being upset and I stopped saying anything. There is no point to it and no good will come of it. We need to stick to the topic and see what we think the best solution today is. We are where we are and we can't change the past. Let's see what we can do from this day on to reduce tensions and accomplish what needs to be accomplished. Some feel war is needed, others don't, or that it needs to be delayed or whatever. We have both pointed out the history lessons of Hitler, but some can argue his case is not applicable today(though I think it is). Certainly, a despotic nation that possesses nuclear weapons needs to be treated differently than one that doesn't, and my fear that SH will get those weapons and threaten their use scares me no end. To me, that alone is worth fighting him for. Had we taken care of North Korea in the 50's, there might now be a united, and relatively democratic, or at least peaceful, nation of Korea. Now, they are threatening us with a pre-emptive strike. Yes, the UN is reponsible for this as they wouldn't let the US do anything more than defend South Korea during the war there. So, yes, I do feel the UN is largely irrelevent and often gets the big things wrong as it would rather pussy foot around than take strong, needed action against despots. Still, what we as a nation does affects other nations and they have the right to give their input and we have an obligation to listen. I just hope they - and us - can see all the facts and look for the long term, unlike was done with Korea, Viet Nam, and Iraq the last time, to name a few.
Christer said:
Speaking earlier of the history lessons from Hitler, some in the US at the time felt that after Hitler, we should have taken on the Russians. Had we done so, how much different would the world today be? Did we do right or wrong by not invading? I know, that is another thread, but one has to wonder.
Maybe there would never have been a moon race. But, again, maybe there would not have been an arms race.
UN Focus on Iraq
Saddam Hussein has killed thousands of his own countrymen. Isn't that enough reason to warrant his removal? His removal from power by peaceful means is unrealistic, in my opinion. That said, the mere removal of one man will not make an incredible amount of difference. One man cannot run a country on his own, after all.
Recent reports (I will try to dig them up) suggest that Iraq will require a de-Baath-ification of a greater magnitude of the deNazification Germany submitted to at the end of WWII.
I believe that the focus of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction is also incorrect. The UN should instead be focusing on human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein and his Baath party.
Saddam Hussein has killed thousands of his own countrymen. Isn't that enough reason to warrant his removal? His removal from power by peaceful means is unrealistic, in my opinion. That said, the mere removal of one man will not make an incredible amount of difference. One man cannot run a country on his own, after all.
Recent reports (I will try to dig them up) suggest that Iraq will require a de-Baath-ification of a greater magnitude of the deNazification Germany submitted to at the end of WWII.
I believe that the focus of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction is also incorrect. The UN should instead be focusing on human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein and his Baath party.
Christer said:
When the US occuppies Iraq they will install a puppet government. Will the US countenance this regime to maintain membership in OPEC? If not, you can say good-bye to artificially high oil prices. Although, Canada & Mexico are not members of OPEC and this doesn't stop them from charging OPEC prices for their oil. Who knows?
Secondly, the US is now, or will be shortly in the business of exporting democracy. Establishing a stable regime in the heart of the Middle East they feel will not only be an impetus to other peoples in the region but also a destabilizing factor to despots in the area. And, by extension the "Arab-Israeli" problem will be solved once and for all. Wolfwitz and Perle, two of the most influential people in the present US administration have been pushing this since they were junior advisors in the Reagan administration, senior advisors in Papa Bush's administration and now. This was also proposed by these individuals (and Rumsfeld) to Clinton. Although he was not against this stance, there was a complete lack of interest from the rest of the world. Under cover of anti-terror manoeuvering their age old plan will see the light of day. Any day now.....
Weapons of mass destruction and export of terrorism is a subterfuge; pap being fed to the unwashed masses. Propaganda. Regime change is what it's all about.
Christer said:
It took many years before the displaced factories became productive. The Soviets won the war on the Eastern front with tanks and airplanes supplied by the US. Both Britain and the Soviet Union took advantage of the "lend-lease" program. A debt that the Soviets had never repaid. I think the Brits were forgiven a large part of that loan.
The "lend-lease" program was a way the FDR administration got around the congress's (and US citizens') opposition to entering the war against the AXIS.
pf
ppfred said:
I did read a russian book that stated that the russians actually fought the war for the US, with russian boys dying in US tanks instead of US soldiers. A debt the US never repaid. Goes to show how different your view can be from the other side.
Jan Didden
It is still my opinion that most politicians lie whenever they open their mouth. To them he average citizen is just someting he can manipulate.
I just wonder why Bush is bashing SH, who kept quiet for approx 10 years, while North Korea was actively threatening with the use of nuclear weapons ???
I still think Mr. Bush needs some scapegoat in order to be able to play the strong man.
Regards
Charles
I just wonder why Bush is bashing SH, who kept quiet for approx 10 years, while North Korea was actively threatening with the use of nuclear weapons ???
I still think Mr. Bush needs some scapegoat in order to be able to play the strong man.
Regards
Charles
- Status
- Not open for further replies.