Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I see you're conceding on the ignorant part. I guess we are making progress.

And I think the main point of contention on the "slut" point is the question of being a woman.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, Ok, if you say so.

My recommendation is to start using a cheat-sheet for personal attributes, next to those for the password(s). Helps keep those nagging details straight.

Gattigap

I was embellishing for humorous effect in my prior post.

Although, it does depend on your definition of large. To some people, a C is large. It seemed huge to me at first. When you change your body over night like that, it is a very wierd experience. It takes some time to get used to. Now, I don't even notice them, except for that they feel very heavy if I don't wear a bra. Can't say I am happy about that.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
And I think the main point of contention on the "slut" point is the question of being a woman.

So are you saying that men cannot be sluts?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

More on the non-pussy-related factors in Spain's election:

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Checa, what is your reading of what was the number one thing behind the outcome? In other words, was it Aznar's support for the war against Bush or those people, or was it this public perception that he was trying to withhold information about who was behind the bombing?

NICOLAS CHECA: Margaret, I really think what the key issue here is the handling or mishandling of public information in the 48 hours after the tragic events of last Thursday. I think it bears mentioning that the election was a statistical dead heat, according to public polls the morning of the tragedy on Thursday morning well within the margin of error, one or two points. And it was really not until Saturday evening, as Keith in your set-up shared with us, that the government decided to come forward with information as to the arrest of these five suspects linked to al-Qaida.

As an example, it took a personal call from Prime Minister Elect Zapatero to the interior minister, the Spanish homeland security secretary, informing him that the Socialist Party was aware of the arrest and that he was prepared to move forward with that information. It took that kind of information to get the current government to come forward and announce to the country at large that in fact it was not the ETA lead that would generate success down the road in the investigation, but rather the al-Qaida route.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying it more than just a public suspicion that they were withholding information, in fact the Zapatero campaign had to essentially pressure the government to release this information?

NICOLAS CHECA: Precisely. Yet there was a report earlier in the afternoon on Saturday coming out of Spanish intelligence agency saying that they were 99 percent confident that ETA was not responsible for the attacks and that all the avenues of the investigation pointed into al-Qaida.

In the early afternoon after the arrests had already been made, the director of the Spanish CIA denied those reports and it was after that that the campaign manager for the Zapatero campaign had to come forward and basically inform public opinion that there was information that was not being shared with the population.

Checa is affiliated with the Socialist campaign so of course you shouldn't take what he says as gospel (no offense, God). This is just FYI. The rest of the discussion is pretty good too:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/inter...drid_3-15.html

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Next, where's the support for them in their loss? It is their loss, not ours, and we should respect their response. Not every country will react militarily, especially those who do not have our throw-weight. Referring to an entire country as a bunch of pussies at this point in time is deeply objectionable.

Where are you getting this idea that there wasn't an outpouring of support?

The actions of the Spanish people post-3/11 have endangered all of us. As sad as I am for those who died and were injured and their families, I cannot excuse the foolish mistake made by the voters of Spain. I feel sympathy for them for their loss, but feel sympathy for the future victims that will die at least in part because of the victory the Spanish have handed to AQ. There is no doubt in my mind that AQ will be able to recruit more terrorists and that these terrorists will be more motivated to kill because of the effect that they have had in Spain. This will undoubtedly lead to even more deaths in the future.

My reaction is entirely appropriate.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
So are you saying that men cannot be sluts?

I thought this was YOUR point.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Where are you getting this idea that there wasn't an outpouring of support?

The actions of the Spanish people post-3/11 have endangered all of us. As sad as I am for those who died and were injured and their families, I cannot excuse the foolish mistake made by the voters of Spain. I feel sympathy for them for their loss, but feel sympathy for the future victims that will die at least in part because of the victory the Spanish have handed to AQ. There is no doubt in my mind that AQ will be able to recruit more terrorists and that these terrorists will be more motivated to kill because of the effect that they have had in Spain. This will undoubtedly lead to even more deaths in the future.

My reaction is entirely appropriate.

Reactions like this will drive others from supporting us as well. The perception out there in the world is that we are looking for geopolitical gain and refusing to consider any interests or concerns of our allies.

But, hell, I can understand why you couldn't care less if the government lied to the people about terrorism for its own advantage. After all, you're pretty inured to this, aren't you?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
do you not see the similarities between the appeasement of Hitler and the appeasement of AQ?

Someone found evidence of actual links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? It's as evident that Iraq was behind 9/11 as it is that Hitler was behind the invasion of Czechoslovakia?

Please, do tell.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
when Russian agents in one of our best Middle Eastern allies use a car bomb to kill someone with (alleged) links to Al Qaeda, who are we supposed to invade?

Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The perception out there in the world is that we are looking for geopolitical gain and refusing to consider any interests or concerns of our allies.

Well they are wrong. So what should we do when our allies have misperceptions about our goals? Fight the war on terror in the way they think it should be fought or fight the war on terror in the way that we think it should be fought to protect ourselves?

I hope no US president would cater so much to our allies that he or she would act in a way that would endanger the American people. You happen to agree with some of our allies.

GWB and many Americans believed pre-invasion and still believe that invading Iraq will help to stop terrorism. If our allies don't believe that, the president shouldn't do what the allies want over what his administration and the people of America believe is necessary to defend this country against terrorists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Prior to our invasion, the whole fucking world (even the god damn French) thought SH had WMD. In all likelihood, he did and they are in Syria or were destroyed shortly before the war. If the latter, then it was only the certainty of the coming invasion that caused him to get rid of them.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. If you listen to Hans Blix, you might learn something, but of course our Administration was more intent on trashing him than on hearing what he said.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The perception out there in the world is that we are .... refusing to consider any interests or concerns of our allies.

Originally posted by Not Me
Well they are wrong.

I just love this response. Thanks, Not Me, very entertaining. You ignorant whatever.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This David Ignatius column is worth reading just because of the story it tells -- Russian agents used a carbomb to kill a Chechen separatist in Qatar, which caught the agents and is now preparing to try them. It also suggests how fuzzy this idea of a "war on terrorism" is -- when Russian agents in one of our best Middle Eastern allies use a car bomb to kill someone with (alleged) links to Al Qaeda, who are we supposed to invade?

North Korea.

Seriously, though, the Russians shouldn't do that kind of stuff unless they have the capability of doing it without getting caught. Or at least the diplomatic ties to get their people out if they do get caught.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
North Korea.

Seriously, though, the Russians shouldn't do that kind of stuff unless they have the capability of doing it without getting caught. Or at least the diplomatic ties to get their people out if they do get caught.

Seems like pre-emptive engagement doctrine applies and the Russians are within their rights according to the Bush administration. Or are we the only one's permitted to apply that doctrine?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. If you listen to Hans Blix, you might learn something, but of course our Administration was more intent on trashing him than on hearing what he said.

Ty, unless you can answer this now, please don't ever challenge the statement about the world believing Sadaam had WMD.

Why did the UN impose, and continue sanctions that were starving the Iraqui people if the member countries* did not believe he had the WMD's?

*I mean beyond the rulers of the French and Russian gov'ts who were receiving huge kickbacks from the "oil for food" programs.