More Bush/Blair bizarre wonderfulness

Perhaps Bush should enact the strategy outline in the movie “Canadian Bacon.”

Great movie!

Those Canadians are all massing around the US border. I think they ARE going to attack!

I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron.

He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out

Of course, that one doesn't really work, because most of the US thinks he's a moron too. Hell, the media points it out all the time, and I think it's half of the source of the Daily Show's material

I don't think he's a moron. And if you look at the polls, the majority of americans don't think he's a moron.

the media points it out all the time

That's because the majority of the media and the majority of Hollywood thinks he's a moron.

http://www.opendebate.com/msg?topic=20&q=385

http://www.ocanada.ca/news/polls/

http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=3740887664

http://www.mondotimes.com/poll/archive/smartgeorgebush.html

http://www.planethalflife.com/features/poll/poll021128.shtml

Yeah and those polls are answered by a biased audience. One of the questions on the third link is "Bush or Gore?", and 78% chose Gore and 22% chose Bush. Do you think that is a good representation of the american population?

That may be a fair question.

I googled for 'Bush moron poll', which was a biased search. I then used the first 5 search results that linked to a graphical poll result, ie ignoring those 'polls' that were really 'online discussions'. I even discounted a few Canadian based polls (that concurred incidentally), simply because Canadian polls figured heavily in the search results.

And that's still only looking at polls based on the North American continent. If you want to look further afield, the results look even worse.

However, when I google for 'Bush genius poll' or 'Bush clever poll', I tend to find the same kind of results, with the exception that apparantly the Israelis think that he's a genius. Probably because he continues to send $3.4B of US taxpayers money to Israel, whilst completely ignoring Israel's continued and blatent Palestinian land 'occupation' (grab).

Somehow I have a problem believing that google is biased in which polls it registers in it's database.

Co-incidentally, Dubya has just likened Peace Protesters to the Free Trade Protesters. The man is clearly a moron.

One of the questions on the third link is "Bush or Gore?", and 78% chose Gore and 22% chose Bush. Do you think that is a good representation of the american population?

Apparantly 52% of the voting population voting for Gore wasn't a good representation of the American population...but what would I know?

That's because anyone who doesn't have their heads up their arses knows he's a moron. I mean, you have to be breathing some pretty thin air if you believe even a shred of any of the garbage spilling from Bush's mouth. He's a slow-speaking half-wit. And that says nothing about his incompetance as a president and the leader of a country that tends to pride itself as a model for others. Right.

Don't mind me though. I'm watching your monkey speak on TV right now. He's intrupting Survivor and a repeat of Friends for what? To slap up another layer of bullsh*t.

When there are lives of innocent people to be saved... When there are grave injustices and genocide goinf on in the world... When someone needs help the most... The US leader will humm along ignoring the situation.

When thre is money to be made... When the possibility of Patriotic PR comes about... When the president wants to show that he has a bit more than a couple of shrivled raisen-balls... Well then it's time to threaten war. And then usually time to jump in, tossing aside the lives of a number of expendable US soldiers and killing countless of unnamed others.

Time to go back to Korea next, right? TIme to go make sure the Chinese no longer have access to Nuclear technology. Oh oh, beter take a closer look at what's going down in Pakistan.. Then of course there's India. Hmm, where should Mr. Bush start? Well, it won't ever be China. Too much US $$ at stake. Won't be India... Iraq and its poeple are expendable. A big 0% of the oil used in the US comes from Iraq. It's a worthless shithole that won't be much different once leveled. Right?

And of course, the arrogance and stupidity of your feable-minded president and his other monkeys is now affecting Canadians at the border. this comes in the form of customs officials with enormous chips on their shoulders. Not fit to wipe the floors where I work, they sit in their high chairs and by the colour of your skin and their own daily mood, decide whether or not you enter the US. Enter today or over the next six months to a year! A good friend was just denied entry last week. He was going down to pick up his wife and two kids who had been visitng her parents. He had been thre just one week prior when he dropped them off. Now he's barred from entering the US for a period of SIX MONTHS. Because the customs person at the airport didn't "think" he should. Nice. Real nice. Oh, of course it has nothing to do with his skin being brown.

I've now gone off ona tangent, but I just had to post somewhere insulting Bush and the imbeciles at the borders. I mean, they must be pissed off to be n Canada where it's so cold right now. When the could be down in California or Texas shooting Mexicans. After all, they're brown too, right?

By the way, weren't you banned under your reversed name on this forum?

Bruno

Some people will never be happy...

Come on, stop holding back Bruno, tell us how you really feel?

Personally, I think a lot of the moronness of Bush is show. Yes, he is a moron, but he acts like even more of a moron on purpose (does anyone really thinks he doesn't know how to say "nucular" correctly). It's part of his down-home image, a calculated ploy that helps him appear harmless as he destroys this country and the rest of the world with his ultra-right-wing-religious-warmongering policies. The more Jay Leno makes "Bush is dumb" jokes, the more he can get away with.

Good point.
If we thought he was competent and knew what he was doing, and he still was going ahead with his current plans, I think I would be even more scared.

That's just it. Bush *is* a moron, but that, in itself, is not the scary part. Being a moron makes it easy for his advisors to influence him, and it's *them* you need to be scared of. I mean... he's listening to the advice from a guy that: 1) ruined peace talks during the Vietnam war, 2) conducted an illegal war in Cambodia, 3) sponsored the coup of a democratically elected head of state that ended up putting Pinochet in power in Chile, 4) okayed (and thanked) a Bangladesh general for slaughtering half a million citizens in a coup using US arms. And that's just *one* guy.

At least your head of State is an independant puppet. Ours is desparately trying to get into dubya's pants. Reminds me of a poster I saw at a peace rally (gay threesome with dubya, blair and howard)

Whether Bush is a dumbass or not - the fact that so many of us can speak so disparagingly about this country is frightening to me. How are we supposed to prosper as a country if we can't take ourselves seriously - or even care to.

How are we supposed to prosper as a country if we can't take ourselves seriously

How are you supposed to prosper as a country if you can't poke fun at yourselves?

When there is money to be made... When the possibility of Patriotic PR comes about... When the president wants to show that he has a bit more than a couple of shrivled raisen-balls...

When there's a real danger that OPEC will repeg the price of oil to the much stronger euro instead of the dollar, causing the US economy to behave like any other economy with that trade balance and debt load would, i.e. crash in hyperinflation?

Peter

Personally, I think a lot of the moronness of Bush is show.

I think it's at least true that he'd rather be underestimated by his enemies than try to dispel the idea that he is a moron.

ultra-right-wing-religious-warmongering

I’ll leave the 'warmongering' alone because I understand (though don't necessarily agree with) the viewpoint; however the "ultra-right-wing-religious" I don't think is very accurate. Bush IS religious and right wing, but "ultra" is a bit strong. If the “ultra” people got the type of person they wanted into office, he or she would make Bush look like a liberal.

- the fact that so many of us can speak so disparagingly about this country is frightening to me.

Actually it should be encouraging. Freedom of speech is one of the principles on which this country was founded.

I do understand what you mean on one level, however, and that's that it's at least a little disturbing how people seem to speak negatively about the U.S. almost as if it were understood that this country is evil. Unchecked patriotism can lead to very unhealthy attitudes, but I still believe the U.S. is a great nation in spite of its misdeeds.

Still, at least we bash the President in the media, in our homes, and on the Internet rather than feeling we have to pick up weapons and overthrow the government. This is a testimony to how well our government actually works: those who are dissatisfied believe that that there is an avenue by which they might see the problems rectified.

Just to play devils advocate here, does anyone here honestly believe that if Saddam Hussein had the resources to build Nuclear weapons he wouldn't use them or give them to someone who would? Don't get me wrong, I voted for Gore and I was downright pissed when he got suckered out of the presidency but September 11th hit real close to home for me. I was only 20 miles away from the pentagon when all the [censored] hit the fan, the guy has had 12 frickin years to get his [censored] together... and its not gonna happen... Why is the US the badguy in this scenario? Are we supposed to sit here and let another bunch of dicks kill us? Sitting here 20 miles from DC makes the thought of Nuclear weapons real scary. They KNOW he's trying to build them, they KNOW he sponsors terrorism... and I honestly don't care if alterior motives are being served. I personally don't relish the thought of glowing.

but thats just me....

"ultra-right-wing-religious" I don't think is very accurate

Look at conservative politicians from thirty years ago. They make today's Democrats seem fairly conservative. There has been a huge shift to the right across the whole political board that seems to have gone unnoticed. There are very few people left to represent many of us who really are liberal.

Bearing that in mind, I don't think that it's much of a stretch to think that the reasonably far right wing of today, of which I think we'd all agree Bush is a part, is ``ultra''. Anyone you'd consider ``ultra'' I think the rest of us would call ``fascist''.

How are you supposed to prosper as a country if you can't poke fun at yourselves?

Well, as a country theres poking fun at ourselves, and then theres poking holes in ourselves.
And right now our country appears to be full of holes.

Anyone you'd consider ``ultra'' I think the rest of us would call ``fascist''

Fair enough. I was thinking of "ultra" as meaning "as far as you could possibly imagine". However, since Bush’s worldview and my own tend to line up, that means I must be "ultra" myself, and I'd never really thought of myself that way. I suppose no one ever does.

The real kicker is, we... uh... kinda helped him (saddam that is).
Way back when W's daddy was running the CIA. We sold him helicopters, planes, guns, and... uh... triggers for nuclear weapons among other things.

Well yeah... hell we trained Osama... doesn't really make it OK though. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe we wouldn't be in this mess if we didn't have such screwed up foreign policy. And I don't think Bush is going to clean things up in that department, which well, kinda sucks.

Agreed on all counts.

devils advocate

Remember, one part spawn of Satan, three parts egg nog...

September 11th hit real close to home for me. I was only 20 miles away from the pentagon when all the [censored] hit the fan, the guy has had 12 frickin years to get his [censored] together

Which guy? The guy behind the September 11th attacks, or the guy in Iraq? Invading sovereign country X because a citizen of country Y is suspected of organising a terrorist attack doesn't sound to me like a good way of causing lasting peace for anyone concerned, and if you believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden must be co-conspirators just because both of them independently happening to hate the United States would be too much of a coincidence, you need to get out more .

Why is the US the badguy in this scenario?

Because they are contemplating starting a war even if they do not receive UN Security Council approval. The whole reason for the existence of the UN is to try and prevent nations starting wars without what might be called "the approval of humankind". Humankind, of course, is a pretty wishy-washy notion -- but currently the nearest thing to a planetary democracy we have, is the security council of the United Nations. When President Bush says that whether the UN approve his war or not is "their last chance for relevance", it's pretty clear he's not concerned about being regarded as the global badguy.

Are we supposed to sit here and let another bunch of dicks kill us?

Do you believe that using military force to install a puppet government in Iraq will reduce the number of dicks wanting to kill you?

Peter

and if you believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden must be co-conspirators just because both of them independently happening to hate the United States would be too much of a coincidence, you need to get out more .

Did ya read the second link? Intelligence kinda proves that Iraq and Al Queda have a little more in common then a frickin distaste for the US.... And as far as getting out more? Well my social life is just fine thank you.

Do you believe that using military force to install a puppet government in Iraq will reduce the number of dicks wanting to kill you?
Seems to be working great in Afghanistan

As far as UN resolution, I think it'd be great to have support but not necessary...

Intelligence kinda proves that Iraq and Al Queda have a little more in common then a frickin distaste for the US...

Honestly, I don't believe anything the Bush administration tells me. His obvious equivocation about domestic policy, combined with the policy itself makes me trust him about as far as I can throw him.

I'd be more inclined, actually, to say that bin Laden might be holed up some Kurds in nothern Iraq, as they share more of the same dogma, and Hussein hates the Kurds.

Did ya read the second link?

I did. And I don't trust Bush to tell the truth. I just don't believe him. Unless he (or someone I consider unbiased) actually presents some evidence of these meetings, then I'll continue to disbelieve him.

And as far as getting out more? Well my social life is just fine thank you.

Sorry, I didn't mean that as a personal attack, hence the smiley... I just meant it as an oblique way of saying that anyone who believed that relatively few people in the middle-east dislike the US, would need to "get out of" the US more and hear more of the world's opinions. No offence intended...

Peter

I didn't take offense... sorry if I was snippy

I don't like Bush... I think he's an idiot, but I don't disagree totally with what he's planning for Iraq, and as far as trusting what Bush says... I don't... But when it comes to things like intelligence, especially stuff that detailed they have to have something to go on there. I don't believe they make stuff like that up outta the thin air. Granted I realize it's been done before but I look at a guy like Saddam and I honestly don't think they have to do much looking to get dirt on him. He's not a nice guy. C'mon guys, why does everyone in Iraq that gets interviewed have to wear a wire tap? Everyone heard the intercepted transmissions in Iraq... we can argue the whole should we bomb iraq or not. But it's kind of a no brainer that the guy is covering things up.

But it's kind of a no brainer that the guy is covering things up.

I think even the dissenting members of the U.N. council know he's covering things up, and that he has the weapons in question -- they just don't want to join us in war yet. I would hope that they're not planning on just letting Saddam string this process out forever, though. I am not in favor of war at this very minute, but it must at least be known that there is a finite deadline for action, and he must know the consequences of not complying with resolution 1441, which was unanimously approved. That resolution states that "serious consequences" will occur if Iraq doesn't comply, and everyone knows that compliance hasn't happened. This can't be a constant "I dare you to step across this line" type of exchange -- there must be an end game.

Agreed, you also have to wonder what 12 years of playing games like this does for the UN's credibility as a peacekeeper.

The UN started off with little credibility. It's first two tasks were to help peace in the Middle Easy between the newly-formed Israel and everyone else and to help peace between India and Pakistan. We can see how well those worked out.

At the same time, it's better for something to be there than nothing, but it's well down the path of the League of Nations.

Well, as a country theres poking fun at ourselves, and then theres poking holes in ourselves.
And right now our country appears to be full of holes.

Agreed.

council know he's covering things up, and that he has the weapons in question

When is it ok, then, for another country to maintain weapons of mass destruction (I hate that media coined term)? We (the US) have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone, and we're not too concerned about disarming ourselves. We're no too worried about disarming lots of other countries, either. Is it because of the regime associated with the weapons? If so, then if Bush's supposed "regime change" for Iraq goes through - are we still going to be concerned with disarmament? Also, I'm not the biggest History buff, but I think it's fairly safe to say that on the issue of regime changes over the last 100 years, the US is pretty much batting 0. So, where's the evidence that this regime change is finally going to work? I can't say if I'm for or against the war - all I can say is that I'm very confused about it.

- trs

Agreed, you also have to wonder what 12 years of playing games like this does for the UN's credibility as a peacekeeper.

Also agreed. That is one of the few arguments FOR the war that I can say I'm in complete agreement with.

All things being equal, I believe in the War Games philosophy that "the only winning move is not to play." But, now that the cat is out of the bag, and nuclear weapons exist, I realize that the world will never completely disarm. With that knowledge, I think it's important to control who's got the weapons, and it's in the world's best interest to monitor who has them.

So I think it's okay for the U.S. and certain other nations to have these weapons because we've earned the right to have them, through our judicious "last resort" use of them. We don't use chemical or biological weapons, and have used nuclear weapons twice, when it was the last option. Saddam has routinely used chemical and biological weapons, and there's no telling what he would do if he got his hands on a nuke. I think the world understands that the U.S. isn't going to be dropping nukes on anyone anytime soon.

As for questionable countries like China and North Korea, diplomatic solutions are underway to control their nuclear weapons programs. In Iraq's case, diplomatic avenues are a dead end.

Agreed, you also have to wonder what 12 years of playing games like this does for the UN's credibility as a peacekeeper.

12 years of there not being a war, you mean? Sounds like good peacekeeping to me. Long may it continue.

Peter

As for questionable countries like China and North Korea, diplomatic solutions are underway to control their nuclear weapons programs. In Iraq's case, diplomatic avenues are a dead end.

Ultimately, I think you're right about this - assuming everything we've been told through the media and other sources is true about Saddam. I certainly hope we continue to pursue things diplomatically with N. Korea and China, because I'd be much more concerned about a war with them than I would be about a war with Iraq at this point.

We... have used nuclear weapons twice, when it was the last option.

I think there are a lot of people out there that would disagree with the "last option" part of that statement - including the fair majority of the scientists actually involved in the development of the atomic bomb.

- trs

12 years of there not being a war, you mean?

So if I had a rash that started on my arm then I let it go for 12 years without seeing a doctor I could say "hey I haven't been to the doctor in 12 years" but I'm guessing at some point I'd be a huge mess and either die or scratch all the flesh off of my body. But if I'd gone to the doctor and had it cleared up when it started.....

I think there are a lot of people out there that would disagree with the "last option" part of that statement - including the fair majority of the scientists actually involved in the development of the atomic bomb.

Difficult one. Yet a third view is that the US used a nuclear weapon once when it was the last option, and then again a few days later rather gratuitously. But I'm not sure which I agree with: it's fairly clear that the two bombs killed fewer Japanese people, let alone fewer people altogether, than would have died in a land invasion of Japan -- but, without knowing what the Emperor himself thought, it's impossible to know whether one bomb would have caused the surrender just as effectively. Another rumour is that the generals wanted to fight on even after the second bomb, and that the Emperor rather surprised them by surrendering. At this distance in time it's impossible to know for sure.

Peter

I think there are a lot of people out there that would disagree with the "last option" part of that statement - including the fair majority of the scientists actually involved in the development of the atomic bomb.

I did an extensive report on the Manhattan Project in college, and I came to an opposite conclusion. There was some apprehension, some regret, and some dissention amongst the scientists, but from my research, it looked like when the final decision was made, most of those involved realized the need for the action that was taken.

I completely agree.
You really should get that rash checked out.

So if I had a rash that started on my arm then I let it go for 12 years without seeing a doctor I could say "hey I haven't been to the doctor in 12 years" but I'm guessing at some point I'd be a huge mess and either die or scratch all the flesh off of my body. But if I'd gone to the doctor and had it cleared up when it started...

It depends how much you trust your doctor. If your doctor has in the past treated these problems by slashing the arm off live on CNN in the cheery supposition that some sort of well-functioning arm will grow back without any form of outside help, and if he further appears to believe that even if it doesn't, hey, it's not his arm anyway, then frankly I'd keep the rash...

Peter

Yeah it's really starting to effect my dating life.

then frankly I'd keep the rash...

I'd seek out a better doctor, myself.

- trs

I think the world understands that the U.S. isn't going to be dropping nukes on anyone anytime soon.

Since the administration hasn't given any reassurances on that, and have in fact, when asked, stated that *all* military options including nuclear options are available in any war in Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised to hear otherwise.

One thing that concerns me is the fact that the President is acting as a Dictator. He is not allowed to declare war. It takes an Act of Congress to do so.

How can anyone expect to believe in democracy and fairness when the self-stating leader of democracy and fairness isn't following it's own rules.

When you have a sizable portion of your population peacefully protesting against a war, and the President on live television likens them to a anti-capitalist group known to act violently and illegally, in effect using such an analogy to discount their protests, you have a major problem.

When you have a Congress that is considering withdrawing funding from the military because it is the only way that they can see to try and stop the President waging an un-sanctioned war, and the President still doesn't care, you have a major problem.

When you have an economy that has been in freefall ever since the President took office, and he doesn't appear to care, you have a major problem.

When he then, despite a looming half trillion dollar deficit, elects to boost military spending by $40B a year, and then gets his friend Donald to ask for another $10B to fight the War on Terror, you have a problem.

Oh, and by the way, that little unsanctioned 'Showdown with Saddam' thing we're going to do...that'll be another $100B. We'll just go ahead and spend it, and send you the bill later.

Oh, and we'll cut taxes while we're at it.

The President has only just gotten his 2002 budget approved. It's not exactly worth the effort and expense of preparing and approving when you're going to just spend the cash anyway. Why bother with the 2003 budget? Whatever money he wants to spend will be long spent by the time that gets rubber stamped.

Houston, we have a problem.

I saw a news story a week or so back. At some college girls' basketball game - on of the players turned her back on the US flag during the Pledge of Allegiance as an act of protest. She was booed by many of the spectators, who later accused her of being unpatriotic, both for her actions that night, and her stance on war.

Personally I found her action to be completely misguided, and in that sense unpatriotic. I say this because she has obviously decided that the flag represents the current administration and it's actions, and not The People.
I find this to be a sad reflection on the state of the US today. Too many people feel disenfranchised from the decision making processes, and by association, from the democracy, liberty and justice that the flag represents.

[Edit - A couple of grammatical clarifications.]

- the fact that so many of us can speak so disparagingly about this country is frightening to me.

Actually it should be encouraging. Freedom of speech is one of the principles on which this country was founded.

But unfortunatly freedom of speech is being put on the back burner. Wearing a peace t-shirt is aparently a crime now.

the fact that so many of us can speak so disparagingly about this country is frightening to me.

Actually it should be encouraging. Freedom of speech is one of the principles on which this country was founded.

I think what he meant was that it's frightening that there's so much material that can be so widely spoken about disparagingly, not the fact that people are doing so. That's certainly my opinion.

Ah, I misunderstood the word "can", my mistake.

I saw a news story a week or so back. At some college girls' basketball game - on of the players turned her back on the US flag during the Pledge of Allegiance as an act of protest.

I saw the same story, and I found the crowd's reaction to be a sad reflection on the state of the US today. There's a world of difference between a patriotic position that says "I pledge allegiance to the United States, whatever it may choose to do", and a patriotic position that says "I support the principles of liberty, equality, and justice, and insofar as the United States does too, I'm right behind it, but otherwise I'm not".

Certainly to me as an outsider, flag-olatry looks more like the first kind of patriotism than the second kind. But I'm prepare to believe that US citizens view the whole flag thing differently. For instance, I can't imagine anyone anywhere on the political spectrum in Britain advocating a law against burning Union Jacks. (Er, except maybe Ian Paisley.)

Peter

As someone pointed out in an article I recently read, the US and the Phillippines, copying the US, are the only two countries in the word that have a flag pledge. I think the idolatry that accompanies the flag to be a little disturbing, too. I think that people forget what the words mean, that it's using the flag as a symbol, not an icon.

I always like to point out, though, that the proper way to dispose of a worn US flag is to burn it.

I don’t think the crowd’s reaction was out of line. The statement the girl was making is “The United States sucks” loudly and clearly. I’m sure this offended many of the people in the crowd for several reasons. It isn’t illegal, however, to offend someone (not yet anyway), nor is it necessarily unethical, depending on the circumstances. Still, it is not unethical for the crowd to by hurt by someone putting something down something that is very close to its heart.

As far as flag worship goes, I’ve never considered the flag to be an object of devotion but a symbol people rally behind. It gives physical form to an idea, but that’s as far as it goes. It’s one thing to be offended by a person’s public statement; it’s another to restrict a person’s freedom over an object.

that the proper way to dispose of a worn US flag is to burn it

Yeah, rather odd, isn't it? Although - officially a flag is supposed to be disposed of in some sort of ceremony by a "Patriotic Organization" such as the Boy Scouts of America, or The American Legion. But as long as some sort of "patriotic" song is sung while the flag is burning I suppose the Government shouldn't care who burns it.

I don’t think the crowd’s reaction was out of line.

The crowd, according to the writeup on plastic.com, started chanting "Leave our country". If they think that that is her only option apart from supporting George W Bush and his oil-fired adventurism, then they're more disenfranchised than she is.

Peter

Er, except maybe Ian Paisley.

Kinda funny that you mention the only member of Parliament I'm familiar with. He used to come speak at the college I went to (Bob Jones University.) He's certainly a powerful speaker.

I guess it would make sense that (who I assume to be) the most radical conservative member of Parliament would speak at arguably the most radical conservative university in the US.

yeah...it was a radical party dude!

EDIT:
arguably the most radical conservative university in the US

Certainly one of the two or three largest "radical" conservative Christian Universities...and the one that gets the most publicity for their outspokenness.

It's funny how each person defines radical relative to their position. They would term you to be radically liberal.

Er, except maybe Ian Paisley.

Kinda funny that you mention the only member of Parliament I'm familiar with. He used to come speak at the college I went to (Bob Jones University.) He's certainly a powerful speaker.

That's for sure. Fortunately, the other 649 members of Parliament aren't like that -- otherwise you'd probably be able to hear most debates all the way from Bob Jones University without needing amplification...

I think it was the Mary Whitehouse Experience that had a great sketch in which Ian Paisley wanders round the supermarket reading out his shopping list... they got the cadences of his firebrand speeches just right as well as the accent, and the sketch culminated with him hollering at the vein-popping top of his voice, thumping his palm at each syllable, "Two! Tins! Of! Tomatoes!"

Peter

All right, I’ll confess to not having read the story (no link provided and I was being lazy) so I shouldn’t really defend the crowd. I will say I would take a person’s protest against the flag to be meant against the United States, not against the policies of whoever was president at the time. The U.S. flag represents our country, not a person or party, or even current actions in which it’s engaging. I’m understanding (though I still haven’t read the article) that this girl’s purpose was to denounce the current actions of the U.S., not to say that the U.S. as an institution is bad. However, it is at least reasonable to see how someone sitting in the crowd would take her actions to be protesting the country that has provided her a great deal of freedom and thus think of her as ungrateful.

(who I assume to be) the most radical conservative member of Parliament

Yes, I guess, although Northern Ireland politics is so utterly polarised by the Northern Ireland question itself that those parties seem to be seldom plotted on the same axis as the right/centre/left of mainland politics. That was a slightly throwaway joke about Paisley and Union Jacks, although like other hardline Unionists in Northern Ireland his enthusiasm for Britain is colossally greater than Britain's enthusiasm for itself, and you'll see more Union Jacks on display in any one loyalist street in Belfast than you will in the whole of London. Plus royaliste que le roi, je pense.

Peter

At school for some reason I had no teaching at all with regards to the Northern Ireland conflict which until last week left me pretty much clueless to who/what the basic people were and what they stood for! OK, I know who's who and what they want but I didn't know *why* or, for instance, that the Potato Famine was a key point in the history.

I spent a morning reading up and found some good sites with good "potted" histories:

http://wwwvms.utexas.edu/~jdana/irehist.html
http://members.tripod.com/~JerryDesmond/index-2.html

Gareth

I found it very disturbing when I discovered that Dr Paisley holds two of the top three slots at http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currsection=topstuff

We (the US) have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone, and we're not too concerned about disarming ourselves. We're no too worried about disarming lots of other countries, either

There was something signed by every country years ago (including Iraq) - I think it was called the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty or something. It basically said that every country already with nukes could keep them, but countries without them couldn't get them.

Wearing a peace t-shirt is aparently a crime now.

I think the crime was trespassing. If someone is on your property and you tell them to leave for whatever reason, they have to.

If someone is on your property and you tell them to leave for whatever reason, they have to.

In Texas, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone if they are trespassing. That could definitely stain someone's peace t-shirt. - trs

I think it was called the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty or something

The treaty on the non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was put into effect in the 70's. That treaty also calls for the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons. But, since we re-initiated the process of manufacturing plutonium pits in 1997, and have been assembling new batches of nuclear weapons since 1998, it's pretty apparent that we don't hold much regard for the ideas outlined in that treaty.

One thing that concerns me is the fact that the President is acting as a Dictator. He is not allowed to declare war. It takes an Act of Congress to do so.

Congress have already given him carte blanche to wage war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2318785.stm

>We don't use chemical or biological weapons,
>and have used nuclear weapons twice, when it was the last option.

Eh? Which revision of history did I miss there?

Oh, right, just when the Japanese navy was reduced to a couple of floating bathtubs and being faced down by a mere dozen or so USA carriers..Facing imminent death from two Sushi chefs with chopsticks, the brave USAians decided their last option was to level two large cities in Japan.. ?

Mmmm...

USAians?

Well, until the USA comes up with a geopolitically accurate name for it's inhabitants, USAians is the only term I know of to use. Yankees is really an Eastern USA term, isn't it?

Cheers

Yankees is really an Eastern USA term, isn't it?

Well sort of.
Being a Yankee New Englander myself, for me it would not be an innacurate label.
But it has been used by other countries to label us as a whole in the past. Yankee go home, yanquis go home, etc. etc.
The "yankee go home" phrase did originate after the northerners defeated the south during the civil war, but its been used in vietnam, south america, the phillipines, etc.
I know for instance there were banners in Japan with that slogan during the US occupation in the fifties, and I dont think they were referring to just us New Englanders.
I think if you were to refer to americans as yankees we would get the gist if it.
The southerners might not like it, but they dont really count anyway.
.
..
...
heh, just kidding you guys.

Within the US, Yankees would refer to northeasterners (basically New England plus New York, New Jersey, and maybe Pennsylvania. Outside the US, Yankee seems to be able to refer to any US citizen (``Yankee go home'', etc.).

Just to round out the post, the term comes from the fact that the northeastern US used to be home to a lot of Dutch immigrants, and they were referred to indefinitely as Janke, a common Dutch first name. This degraded into Yankee and expanded from there to incorporate anyone from that general area.

the brave USAians decided their last option was to level two large cities in Japan.. ?

There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity. The immediate psychological impact of the atomic bombs crippled the Japanese in a way that no amount of fire-bombing or land attacks could have. The Japanese Navy was indeed out of the picture, but Japan was not ready to surrender, and the loss of Japanese life from the two A-bombs was nowhere near what it would have been with continued firebombing.

I'm curious as to what your ideal end to the fighting in the Pacific Theater would have been... More loss of life from firebombing? A Japanese victory?

Mark - however, to all the men who fought hard & saw plenty of comrades killed in fierce battles like Iwo-Jima, it may not have been as clear as you put it. If the Japanese soldiers fought that hard for some distant rock, how hard would they have fought on their own soil? I don't disagree that both sides can be argued, but I think your comment doesn't really reflect view the decision makers saw at the time. The Japanese fought VERY hard.

-Zeke

Many, many more men on both sides would have died in an invasion of Japan. Dropping the bombs actually spared life.

The number people who died as a direct result of the bomb was approximately 200,000. Do you think 200,000 people would have died as the result of an invasion?

- trs

The number people who died as a direct result of the bomb was approximately 200,000. Do you think 200,000 people would have died as the result of an invasion?

Three times that many French people were killed in the war, admittedly by two invasions, one in each direction, but this in a much less populous and much less well-defended country than Japan. And that doesn't count the soldiers of other nations who died in France. Large-scale land invasions against determined resistance are pretty frickin' messy affairs.

Peter

Do you think 200,000 people would have died as the result of an invasion?

Yes. Some claim that as many as 3.5million Japanese (soldiers and civilians) and 500,000 US soldiers would have died in an attempt to take the Japanese home islands.

Some sources:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/181.html
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1995/September/ERsept.18/9_18_95nuclear.bomb.html

Admittedly, some of these sites are attempting to justify dropping nukes on Japan. 200,000 seems low (to me) for any WW2-era invasion, Japan or otherwise.

The number people who died as a direct result of the bomb was approximately 200,000. Do you think 200,000 people would have died as the result of an invasion?

Conservative casualty figures for just the battle for Okinawa exceeded 150,000. To invade mainland Japan and force a Japanese surrender? Easily half a million.

Yikes!

I wonder - out of curiosity - about the per-capita civilian casualty rate in either of the two scenarios.

I wonder - out of curiosity - about the per-capita civilian casualty rate in either of the two scenarios.

Well, the numbers I quoted counted both military and civilian casualties. Some of Roger's links above will probably give you a more detailed breakdown on the Japanese side. It's important to note that the distinction between civilians and soldiers is a bit tough to make when talking about the country being invaded, because if you come to invade my land, I'm going to grab a gun and sign up with the nearest military division. This is all a bit before my time, but my understanding of the Japanese fighting force is that there were a lot of conscripts who weren't really soldiers, but would have fought against any American invasion of Japan. Would you count them as civilians or soldiers?

Anyway as I mentioned above, the civilian death rate due to firebombing in places like Tokyo was just as high as that of the nuclear attacks. The only difference was the psychological impact of a brand new weapon with such massive power.

Yes - all very good points.

By the way there, Tony, um... yeah... I heard there was a problem with your TPS reports. Umm... yeah... you're gonna want to go ahead and file that new coversheet along with the report. Yeah...

Yeah, I got the memo.

looks like someone's got a case of "the Mondays"

Tony, I heard you were having problems with your TPS reports.

Did you get the memo? 'Cause you're supposed to have a header on the TPS reports now.

(Greatest. Movie. Ever.) (Okay, maybe not.)

looks like someone's got a case of "the Mondays"

"Naw man, shit, naw... I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin somethin like that."

"Two! Tins! Of! Tomatoes!"

Totally off topic... but that reminds me a joke.

An American is being visited by his cousin from England. In showing the Englishman around, they vist a large factory where they are canning vegetables, and the Englishman is quite impressed by all the machinery. The foreman of the plant tells him, "Well, you know how it goes -- we eat what we can, and what we can't eat, we can."

The Englishman is delighted by this, and exclaims, "Oh, I must remember that for the blokes back home."

The moment he's off the plane at Heathrow, he tells his friends, [imagine the English accent] "I heard the cleverest anecdote over in America. It seems they eat what they can, and what they can't eat they put up in tins."

tanstaafl.