“… I haven’t heard him chastize the SecDef over that lunacy.”
I probably should have written “scold” because I know how to spell that.
“I suppose my comparison to [Bush’s] running an entire state versus Gore’s being in charge of nothing lends zero credibility to who was the better candidate.”
Well maybe not, zero, but will you settle for .00098? I mean that would imply that any time that the governor of a large state runs against a former senator of a mid-size state, and sitting Vice President, that we must conclude that the governor is the better candidate simply, one can only presume, because in your view senators and Vice Presidents of the US are “in charge of nothing.”
On second thought, I’ll stay with zero. At least you got that one right ;).
read articles 5-8 of the Roman Statute
Or this blurb from Geneva Convention IV
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva convention defines war crimes as: “Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including . . . wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, . . . taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”
With all the real dictators in the world, i don’t see why the ICC would single out Bush.
The point I was attempting to convey was that Although you cannot get through a Master’s in any higher institution and be ‘dumb’, that doesn’t mean that you should automatically be revered as brilliant either. Bush fits both of these descriptions, he isn’t brilliant, but he definitely isn’t dumb. Note that when you cannot refute my statement, you attack my ‘perceived’ self-contradiction.
You are saying that the sympathy for the thousands of lost lives on 11 September is:
1.)gone
2.)All the result of the actions of any one man?
You are suggesting that these countries are no longer sympathetic to our loss? And if so that remarks and actions on his part are entirely to blame? It seems to me that if the World Trade Center had been destroyed during Reagan’s era or during Roosevelt’s era that you would at this very moment be referring to ‘that whole place’ as a smoldering crater. Do you think that Reagan or Roosevelt would much give a damn about opposition from the likes of France? Can’t you imagine that their reply to the opposition of France would have gone something like, “Go make some f*cking sauce, boys, we’re running a big country over here.”? Does this make these men dumb as well? I think GW has shown enormous reserve, all things considered. Had I been in charge that whole region would have been in deeper shit than a midget cleaning a Port O’ Potty at a bran muffin factory in Mexico, and I am reasonably sure that I am not ‘stupid’.
Sure it can be argued that he isn’t one of our great thinking presidents, but he his intelligence is vastly superior to Clinton’s moral turpitude. And there are arguments abound that Bush surrounds himself with intelligent people like a hole surrounds itself with a doughnut, but his intelligence far outweighs Gore’s ability to tell the truth.
The fact of the matter is that GW understands something you probably have forgotten. The United States of America doesn’t NEED to shakes its fist at anyone, and then worry about her appearance for wagging a finger after the fact. Do you honestly think that there is a nation in the world that is delusional in thinking that the American Military isn’t the most awesome force in the world? Roosevelt’s maxim was correct in the context of that time. America wasn’t a superpower when he made that remark. America was not known as the most powerful and potentially devastating country in the world to screw around with. We can shake our fists, then wag our fingers, then whisper. At the end of the day, when push comes to shove (to use the parlance of our times) when we start kicking ass, everyone else gets the hell out of the way. To use every ounce of your reserve when your heart screams at you to use your might to destroy is not the action of a week mind. Revenge is a dish best served cold.
As a nation that depends on national security to function, that is submerged in a modern day media that will betray that security faster than the bitch slap of a hummingbird to be the first to get the story out to everyone (including the enemy), I personally wouldn’t leak any of it. You show proof of weapons of mass destruction, you show your enemy that you know where it is and how much of it is there. They have the opportunity to destroy, dismantle, or hide it from you. It seems difficult, to me at least, to neutralize these weapons in war when you have told your enemy that you know where they are and that you are coming to get them. It seems to me that this is common sense. You do not give your enemy your play book. That would be the apotheosis of unintelligent thinking.
I won’t comment on an indirect quote, but I will submit to you that this country was attacked and many people lost their lives. The reality is that most of us are angered. The fact is that I would like their help, but I also realize that we do not need it. My opinion tends to coincide with the one above, give or take a word or a meaning here and there.
I think you lost me here, are you saying that you did not post the following:
“And who is defending Gore and Ted Kennedy? Do you carry a supply of red herrings for every occasion?”
If so, then I direct you to look at the last line 7 posts up.
Elsewhere? Gee, thanks! I guess that means a scavenger hunt!
I doubt they’d know where to find it.
Bush was given a ‘blank check’? Dare I say it… CITE!
I submit that if they did, it wouldn’t be impressive for long.
You are mistaken; that was not my intention.
My man? Cohorts? Alec, is that you?
You are insinuating that my comments classify me as a Fox news subscriber? What was I before Fox news was available to me? The truth of the matter is I do not watch television, save the occasional surf through History Channel, but thank you for the recommendation, I’ll check them out.
A weak, foul, and obviously foolish attempt to twist my words. I never said that the fact that a governor of a state is running against someone who never was head of anything should AUTOMATICALLY be given the nod. I made the statement to point out that the comments stating Bush’s lack of experience simply didn’t fly. Then I compared his experience to his competition so as to demonstrate that if you were looking for the more experienced candidate, Bush has more credibility and so did my statement. How about actually reading what I post, rather than just skimming through it as fast as you can just so you can get to the bottom and post something of your own.
Actually, your words twisted themselves. Instead of saying that Gore was was in charge of “nothing,” all you had to say was that Bush, like Gore, also was the holder of an important government office. The English language is wonderful that way: we really do have the tools to say precisely what we mean, rather than to say self-neutralizing crap b/c, perhaps, we want to march into a message board and throw our wits around–such as they are.
My advice to you: start all over the again with a new name or, at the very least, a new attitude. Do not accuse other posters in this forum of “weak, foul, and obviously foolish” conduct when it is you who needs to get a grip, and when that kind of hostility isn’t welcome or respected here.
Back to the content of this thread–or really this hijack–I don’t actually think that Bush is dumb, though he is, perhaps, comparatively dumb when likened to some other presidents of the US. My guess would be that his intelligence is average (as someone else said above). What he most certainly is, IMO, is a) ignorant (poorly read, provincial, and under-educated) and b) inarticulate (possibly b/c he is suffers from some kind of neurological problem that affects his ability to read and/or process language).
Text of Congress’ Iraq resolution, Public Law 102-1.
Quotes from the above: "SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate …[bolding added]
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution[bolding added]"
By which standard, Churchill was an idiot in the 1930s, and Neville Chamberlain a genius.
And of course, I will have to request a cite that shows that the populations of China, any country in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Israel, Kuwait, Syria, etc., are opposed to Bush’s handling of Iraq.
Don’t bother arguing that a majority in the US oppose it - the latest NY Times poll shows 55% of the US populace supports war against Iraq even if the UN doesn’t authorize it. Need a cite?
Regards,
Shodan
I would suggest putting this in your sig. or put a link to this post in your sig.
If I had a dime for every time I wanted to just hit a hot key for a paragraph like that one…
Serious answer to the OP:
Bush issues Executive Order #123Fake:
To all US Commanders: ignore the relevant international conventions and treaties regarding warfare and bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age. Pay particular attention to hospitals and orphanages. Thank you, that is all. Oh, except take no prisoners.
War crime(s).
Well, this is 2003 not the 1930’s and history doesn’t really repeat.
LA Times article on world opinion Well, “most countries” might be open to dispute, but there seems to be no lack of public opposition.
But since that isn’t what I was attempting to convey, I wouldn’t have put it that way to begin with. Your version seems to assume that Gore and Bush held comparitively important govornment offices, which I do not agree with. I stand by what I said.
I’m certain that I am quite aware of how to use the tools of the English language, thank you very much. If you were somehow offended by something I posted, My apologies, but honestly I do not see how that could be the case. But thank you for the tongue lashing, at any rate.
Hostility? That’s your version of hostility? I ask other articipants in this thread, have I really come across as hostile?
???
err, participants…
Latro- I don’t think any Germans were executed just for starting a “war of agression”. They had some other “crimes against humanity” charges. Even those who were just imprisoned had some such crimes, altho poor Doenitz & Raeder were accused of “war crimes” that weren’t much more serious that things the Allies did.
And dudes? Look- I am no fan of GWB. I think his economic & internal policies stink. IMHO he is at least an indirect cause of the minor economic depression we’re going through. But he handled 9-11 very well. So far (knock on wood) he has even handled the Iraq issue well- after all: no real threat of invasion- no inspections. If & when we actually invade, then I’ll have something different to say- but so far, it seems like all he is doing is making sure the threat is real enough so that SH complies.
And sure- he is no rocket scientist or Nobel Laureate. I’d say that Dole was WAY more intelligent, and several other recent Presidents, also. But GWB is no moron, in fact I am sure he is above average in smarts. Fumble mouthed- yes. So PLEASE stop trying to portray the man as some moron. You don’t win any coverts with such clearly biased mis-information.
So you don’t like what he has to say, so you think he should create a sock puppet and hide behind it?
“So you don’t like what he has to say, so you think he should create a sock puppet and hide behind it?”
Course not, demise. No, I think he (she?) should consider the kind of decorum that is respected in Great Debates. If it were me I might actually consider starting from scratch (which is not the same thing as hiding behind a sock puppet–indeed, how can an anonymous poster with a record of fewer than 10 posts “hide” from anything when he or she is hardly known in the first place?!). But a change in attitude would probably be just as effective. Which is not to say that Model-Shipwright has done anything terrible, or is in line to be banned; only that s/he seems to want to be taken seriously. Or do you really think the value of Great Debates is improved when posters reply by regurgitating pejoratives whenever their views are challenged?
If so, let me heartily thank you for your puerile, odious, and patently pea-brained attempt to conflate a sock puppet with a change of style ;).
You’re quite welcome. 
Well, there’s definitely something wrong as it appears obvious to me that your post did not ‘challenge’. You mistook what I said, which I believe is laid out quite clearly (other than the misspellings–wish I could edit my posts). I did not imply that the governor of a state should automatically be given the nod over someone that has never been the CEO of anything. I DID want to imply that it is foolish to think that GW Bush was anything but inexperienced.
I believe I made that point.
Maybe I’m just strong out of the gate. I’m certain that my attitude will probably die out after the second lap. [:D]
He