quote: Chad, you are a stubborn bigot and you make me embarassed for conservatives. In fact, maybe you are an interference person planted by the left. Have you ever posted under the name StarGate?
Pooka, you're out of line. Your comments are out of line.
Keep your comments attacking other posters to yourself.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is, indeed, an excellent question. Has Bush answered this question to your satisfaction?
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that the $200 billion will ever be repaid, but that's just me.
Do you think there is MORE of a chance of it being repaid if only American contractors are used in Iraq, or do you think more of it will be repaid if Iraq is paying other countries besides the United States?
Under the Bush plan, Iraq's oil economy is to subsidize their rebuilding. This has been the plan all along. It was very clear when we invaded that other than Oil, they have no exports to make money with.
If you don't have contracts with Iraq for the repayment of that, but Iraq has them with France instead, or Germany, you get $0.
Again, just my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come'on guys -- he's apologized several times. And I think you've all shown him evidence of your arguments -- can we get on with it now?
(and personally I read his mimicking of the "stop it now" phrase as a joke -- like said with a smile in a tease). I figure if we ever meet Chad in person, he has a great "straight-man" sense of humor.
posted
By the way -- the $200 Billion figure is erroneous. They have pointed that out many times over and over on the news today. Nowhere near that much.
quote:By the way -- the $200 Billion figure is erroneous. They have pointed that out many times over and over on the news today. Nowhere near that much.
posted
Farmgirl, I'm not primarily attacking Chad. I'm trying to give him advice. Right not, I don't have much respect for his maturity or his integrity. I doubt many other people do either. (I'd be suprised if even you did.) I'm offerring advice on how he could go about regaining people's respect. He can accept it or not, but, even if other people don't seem to follow my policy of more or less tuning out people they don't respect, the level of respect a person has earned seriously influences how people react to him here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread isn't about me or giving advice. If I want your advice, I'll ask for it, in the meantime, keep your nasty poster attacking comments to yourself.
Talk about the issues, but keep to yourself your negative opinons of other posters.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It'll be at least 200 billion by time the occupation is all said and done though. No?
Well, maybe.
The spending for next year (which is what he used to make the amount 200 billion) has not yet been requested by Administration, and Congress has not yet approved it.
quote:Yeah -- 120 Billion, 200 billion --what's a few billion between friends?
A few billion and growing. The difference between Kerry's and Bush's approaches are one wants to cut some of the cost by having other nations bear more of the bill, while the other wants to handle it practically alone and pay all but the last 10% of the bill.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, The thing that I'm trying to get across to you is that people's opinions of you are more important than whatever immeadiate issues are being discussed. You have a real opportunity to raise people's opinions of you here, to act like an adult, but you are not taking it. This is going to have longer lasting consequences than what you say on an issue, especially when that "issue" is as absurd as your "Germans are wussies." comment.
I, along with what appears to be many, many other people here, have a pretty negative view of you. That's not going to change unless you do something about it. While this impression remains, it's going to have serious effects on your interactions here. I honestly think it's important for you and probably for the community as a whole if you acted more maturely.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all fairness, Chad, I'd like to make one request of you: will you concede that you were factually incorrect about Germany's peacekeeping roles?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't really notice it last night, mostly because I was enjoying the fact that the candidates had finally gotten around to dealing with some actual issues, but was anyone suprised/disappointed by the questions ?
Foreign policy debate:
Little/no talk about Mexico - border relations could sneak into domestic policy
No attention paid to Pakistan or China except as the relate to North Korea and Afghanistan
No mention of policy with regards to Europe, excepting talkk of Europe and Iraq
NO MENTION of the Middle East ?? Hard to imagine international foreign policy being debated without Israel/Palestine being brought up.
I only noticed after reading some foreign perspectives on the debate. Sorry non-terror related countries, maybe we'll get around to you in 4 years Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said I was about their financial givings. I was totally off. I said so. More than once. In fact this is the third time.
As to their troop deployments, I was wrong on some of the places where they had mininmal troop deployments (emphasis on minimal).
I was wrong in stating they had done nothing, because although they had done little comparatively (militarily speaking) they had done something.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I was wrong on some of the places where they had mininmal troop deployments (emphasis on minimal)."
You're more wrong than you think. Germany's foreign deployments are in fact rather LARGE, compared to all countries but the U.S. and Britain.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Only ONE mention of Israel by both candidates as well. Nothing about Palestine or the conflict over there.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You consider 8000 troops committed worldwide to be a major contribution. I'm sorry. I do not.
Also they are third financially behind Japan and the US and based on ONLY Militarily, I don't know where they fall.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't Germany pretty wimpy when it comes to military forces to begin with? I mean -- they really don't have much of anything TO contribute? I didn't think they had enough trained me to even defend themselves, if something happened and they needed to.
posted
Well, I wasn't meaning it so much as an actual slam on Germany -- I just mean -- I don't think they would be much help.
And I don't have much in the way of facts to back up what I said -- this is just an offshoot of a converation I had with our German foreign exchange student last year, and what he told me about his country's military and his personal opinion of it, and of their readiness.
But then again, I don't know that world forces have allowed Germany to ever build up much of an army since WWII.
posted
AS I was going to say before the server crashed...
"You consider 8000 troops committed worldwide to be a major contribution. I'm sorry. I do not."
Can you name all the nations in the world, other then the US and Britain, with more then 8000 troops deployed worldwide? Is every nation not on that list "wussy?"
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other countries had a vested interest in curbing German agreession after two world wars.
quote: Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression) Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/german.htm The winners of WWII made the Germans renounce war of aggression, and it's in their Basic Law or Constituition. The Nipponese have similar restraints on their military.
Regarding opinions which are statements of fact about the world:
It is a matter of acting in good faith. If you make a statement of fact about the world which you either know to be untrue, or (if it is a substantial claim) have no good reason to believe is true, then you are acting in bad faith.
I take lying and bearing false witness seriously, despite the fact that I do not have faith in supernatural powers. I do this because I take my responsibility to my community seriously, and I care about my friends and my own character enough to not make statements of fact about the world which are untrue.
This is, like, why we are all here -- to make a community. Acting in bad faith marks one as someone who is using the people and the community for some private reason, such as scoring points, to the detriment of others.
Using people is bad. Acting in bad faith is bad. It is a clarion call to others to view one as untrustworthy.
I have a sore edge regarding the current US administration's penchant for saying untrue things in a loud voice and repeatedly, as if it were just as good as those things being true. It isn't. It is manipulative and condescending.
That's all I'll say about it, but it isn't the sort of thing one forgets quickly, not if someone takes community and responsibility seriously. "Forgive and remember" is one of the better mottos.
I wish earlier I'd been more diplomatic. Chad, my offer to change anything I've said that you find personally offensive still holds. Just tell me what you would prefer it say instead. Otherwise, I'll leave it as is.
[ October 01, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't need Germany to have very strong military forces. In fact, its not so much the German military we need as German industry. You know, that of one of the strongest economies in the world?
Furthermore, as a good chunk of what we're putting into action consists of part time soldiers, while Germany's military, relatively small though it may be, has plenty of full time soldiers (due to mandatory military service), I think they'd do a pretty comparable job. We don't need conquering ability in Iraq just soldiers with basic skills.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Chad, my offer to change anything I've said that you find personally offensive still holds. Just tell me what you would prefer it say instead. Otherwise, I'll leave it as is.
I'll let you decide what you say. It's not up to me. If you feel comfortable with your statements/sentiment, then so be it. If you believe something should be changed, then change it.
My opinion of whether it is appropriate or not is just my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but your feelings count, too, and you shouldn't have to feel run over the rail just because you hit on a couple of my sore spots.
I want so much for you to stay. I want to hear you as a strong and authentic voice for a different perspective than mine. I want to rely on you to push me when I've been engaging in sloppy thinking, or blinded by bias, what have you.
More importantly, though, I want you to feel cool about coming here and welcome for all the great reasons.
Perhaps, instead, I should share some of my own less than stellar moments in the other thread ("Forgive and Remember")? I've been more than a jackass at times, having let down multiple people, broken solemn vows, and taken delight in harmless people's misery.
Uh, maybe you don't want to know. How depressed are you ready to be?
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good. I'll do this, then. Let me think about it for awhile and find something which really hurts. (No pain, no gain.)
I've spoken a lot here about bad things I've done in my outside life, but there are things about my behavior on Hatrack (apart from my shining moment of telling Kwea to "**** off") which I haven't faced up to yet.
I'll do it for you and for that sweet sting of coruscating fire that comes with baring the soul. So like having one's eyebrows waxed, I've found.
(I am missing a patch of skin under my right eyebrow, from the waxing. It is all puffy and makes me look quite rakish.)
[ October 01, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was some sort of soothing cool gel so gently applied by the little blonde French miss. Probably would have been much worse without. (little strip looks like a first degree burn)
I put menthol and lidocaine on it last night. Then, after I retracted my fingernails out of the ceiling tiles, I climbed back down and swore like bloody blazes.
Who knew such soft, slim hands could deliver such fiery pain?
She offered to wax my bikini area, the sadistic minx.
I'm free tomorrow morning, but I'm not that strong of a woman. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to fugu: my point about Germany's laws is that any attempt to deploy German troops [even in more straight-forward humanitarian cases] leads to endless hand-wringing in the German press, legal challenges, protests, etc.
A significent Iraq deployment by German troops is very unlikely no matter who is US pres next year.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
However, I disagree. If German companies get in on the rebuilding, German troops will follow, likely in similar numbers to what we see in Afghanistan.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "i won't hold it against him that he went to Yale" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Bush went to Harvard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:Like his father, Bush was educated at Phillips Academy (Andover) (September 1961–June 1964) and Yale University (September 1964–May 1968). While at Yale he joined Delta Kappa Epsilon (where he was president from October 1965 until graduation), and the Skull and Bones society. He played baseball during his freshman year and rugby during his freshman and senior years. He received a bachelor's degree in history in 1968.
...
Bush entered Harvard Business School in 1973. He was awarded a Master of Business Administration (MBA) in 1975, making him the first U.S. president to hold an MBA degree.
So you're both right. He went to Yale AND Harvard. HA!
quote:The only thing I really want to add is that I find all the "Ha ha, Bush made a slip of the tongue" stuff to be incredibly petty. We already knew he's no Demosthenes. What's that got to do with anything? He seemed unprepared when compared to Kerry, yes. He repeated himself a little too often, yes. Those are legitimate complaints. "He's such a buffoon, he mispronounced 'mixed messages'!" is not.
These are legitimate complaints when you realize that he is our representative to other countries. I think what image our leading statesman presents is extremely important. Being such a "buffoon" should not be part of that image.
quote:On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry’s proposal to have direct talks with that country would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well. Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.
But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process — and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly with North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer.
Look how large I can post to get the thread back on track... *struts*
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: These are legitimate complaints when you realize that he is our representative to other countries. I think what image our leading statesman presents is extremely important. Being such a "buffoon" should not be part of that image.
True, but the same could be said of Bill Clinton, etc.
No one is perfect. If a stutterer ran for President and was the best candidate. I would vote for him regardless of his stutter. Same if the person was an amputee or blind, or deaf.
We know he's not stupid by every score he's taken and where he was educated, etc.
He's not a very good speaker. And he's not a very good oral attacker.
Kerry won the debates on the "image" issue quite well.
I think one large definition I get from Bush and Kerry is that Bush will do what he thinks is best for America, world be damned. Kerry will do what he thinks is best for America, but tempered with what the world thinks is best for America and them as well.
For me, you are 1st President of the United States and that is your main priority is this country. 2nd is to represent your country to the world.
I hope the debates have more "debating" and less repetition.
It looks like the election is going to be super close again.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the idea that one can consider what is best for this country without considering the rest of the world suspect.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think one large definition I get from Bush and Kerry is that Bush will do what he thinks is best for America, world be damned. Kerry will do what he thinks is best for America, but tempered with what the world thinks is best for America and them as well.
quote:These are legitimate complaints when you realize that he is our representative to other countries. I think what image our leading statesman presents is extremely important. Being such a "buffoon" should not be part of that image.
I completely disagree. The only reason people think of Bush as a buffoon is because he stammers. First of all, it's irredeemably bigoted to judge a man's intelligence and ability to govern based on a speech impediment. What if Lincoln had stuttered? What if Roosevelt had had a lisp? Should they have been denied the presidency because they would be too buffoonish to be our "representative to other countries"?
Secondly, even if it isn't a true "speech impediment" in the technical sense of the term, I submit that even the most intelligent people in the world have slips of the tongue, some of them quite frequently. I defy anyone to name me one person in history with the power of speech who never slipped. You can question the man's ability to be president on many grounds, but I reject his stammering as one of them.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
