ShadowTemplar Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast I stand corrected on the oil from Alaska. But not much oil is being taken out there so... Your point is still standing. And I'll repeat that I'm not quite sure if I'm right here. That kind of news aren't really the most common in european newspapers. Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Ah I see you left out my grin face (which implies a joke) when you quoted me in saying... Now it is my turn to stand corrected: I didn't realise that you were joking (many people use ":)" even when dead serious). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais And which "wars" would this be? Enlighten me here. The Chinese army has gotten involved in both the Korea and Vietnam wars. It's the reason why we lost both wars. Both wars started with the US kicking some ass until they pushed the enemy up to the Chinese border. At that point, the Chinese ended up pouring over the border on the oppostion's side. Basically, fear the Chinese army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Confused by the Bush policy towards Iraq and N Korea? In my opinion Bush does not care if they N Koreans loose it and kill millions in Asia. On the other hand if Iraq were to go postal, they would take it out on Israel. The right wing element of this country that controls everything does not want this to happen. Not out of any great love for the Jewish people ( the US has an abismal anti-semite history ). But because they are the only ally we have left who would nuke our shared enimies without any compunctions. There was a time many of our allies would support the US unconditionaly, but not anymore. Most of the world powers are becoming more responsible, but not the US or Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 Strange on how foreign countries and their leaders can make one's country turn on their own leader. Sad thing is, this has happened in the past way too many times. Something wrong in the world, and its OUR president's fault. During the end of the 2nd WW, Harry S. Truman was immediately blamed for the problems and the recession that followed World War II. People need to realize that the president can only do so much, and with being the President of America, everyone expects him to run EVERY country. Sorry to break it to ya people, but Bush can only do so much within his power. If Saddam had been removed from power back when there was the chance, this crisis may have been avoided. And going back to the North Korean War, talk about a massacre. Here the U.S. thought that N. Korea was weak, and then all of a sudden, they launch a counter-attack against S Korea. Nuff said. If intelligence would actually do their job, North Korea wouldn't be having the chance to run a Nuclear Power Plant, nor would Saddam still be in power. The president only goes off what he is informed about, so false or misleading/inaccurate information is what brought about these crisis matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais Why not just admit that he's using the UN for his corporation's interests You know why: It would be a bad move, diplomatically. I think that he should just say: "S. Hussein is threatening one or more of our allies," which would be less false, since Hussein is threatening Israel. His current course of action, however, is so transparent that he would be better off admitting that he is using the UN as a pawn, IMO... On the other hand if Iraq were to go postal, they would take it out on Israel. But... Israel is causing the US to loose steadily more face and influence in the UN (insofar the only superpower in the world can ever loose influence)... So from a strategic point of veiw the US would seem to be better off if Hussein nuked Tel Aviv. Mind that "strategic point of veiw", before you start shooting flak in my general direction. The president only goes off what he is informed about El Presidenté only goofs off what he is informed about (just a little harmless fun at el Presidenté's expence). Let's face it: G. W. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 The UN is a pawn. It's never had any true power to start with. And the Israel is more complicated than that. There are a lot of jewish voters in the US. Sides, stategically, the US doesn't need anyone/anyplace other than North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Andy, wasn't it the Chinese joining the war that allowed North Korea to strike back. Also, people mentioned how Bush got into power. Isn't it if you don't vote for Bush you are being unpatriotic? Thats the feeling I get whenever I see him in the media. But I think you guys should give him a break. It's been a very long time since the US was attacked on home soil. Anyone here recall the Cuban Missile Crisis and how your relationship with Cuba has been since then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 But the point is that the so-called intelligence reported that N Korea was SEVERELY outnumbered, and the war in North Korea would have been over in days after running into N. Korea's borders and storming the capital to remove the Communist leaders. Least, that's what I can remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 But the point is that the so-called intelligence reported that N Korea was SEVERELY outnumbered, and the war in North Korea would have been over in days after running into N. Korea's borders and storming the capital to remove the Communist leaders. Least, that's what I can remember. I believe that was true, until the Chinese arrived. Then came the retreat of the allies. I was watching a documentary about this and a Seargent Major of the US was saying how seventy Australians held back wave after wave of 10,000 Chinese over night. The US and Canada assumed them dead but that was not the case. I just added that in because I think that is one of the greatest feats our countrymen has made in battle. But every country has them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Let's face it: G. W. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Neither was Bill Clinton whom I heard that you like. He was causght with his "pants down with another woman" figurativly speaking. Bush is not all powerful and he really is trying his best to fix this up. People may say otherwise but... like FuClwon said, it has been a long time since America was attacked on our own soil. The last time it happen, we went off, destroyed Japan, thought we had everything back and then look what happened. See nothing ever turns out the way everyone in this country wants it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Neither was Bill Clinton whom I heard that you like. He was causght with his "pants down with another woman" figurativly speaking. Bush has a reported IQ of 92 Clinton had an IQ of around 140. Major difference. I don't care what he did in his spare time, as long as he was a good president. He could practice S/M sex for all I cared. Heck, he could dress up in a clown costume and dance naked in a pentagram - as long as he kept his ability as a good president, I wouldn't think bad of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 But you do realize Cjais is that Clinton was making these booty calls with Monica during phone calls with foreign leaders and White House officials, which one could argue that his extracurricular activities were distracting him and causing him not to be 100% focused on the issues at hand... err mind. So he wasn't doing his job properly. And what then do you think Clinton would have done differently in the time of September 11? Bush had only been officially sworn in 7.5 months before. Also, this whole Middle East issue was going on with Clinton in office, and what was he doing then? Trying to settle the lesser of the major disputes. And what about the first attack on the World Trade Centers, which Osama claimed as his doing. And then there was Kosovo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Did Clinton make "booty calls" (phone calls?) during other phone calls with officials? Can you source that? It sounds a little far off from what I've heard... What was the lesser of the major disputes? "Then there was Kosovo" - what do you mean? I don't know half of the things you're talking about, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Yeah, read the 50 zillion page "Starr Report" or/and the impeciment records. It's all in there. I think both statements are refering to Kosovo and the fact that Clinton obviously lied (or was really stupid, your pick) about how long we were going to stay. And finally, the report of an Bush IQ of 92, is false. I believe this issue is addressed on snopes.com. Sides, one's IQ has nothing anything to do with your ability to be a good president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by razorace Sides, one's IQ has nothing anything to do with your ability to be a good president. Your intelligence has a lot to do with being a president. Notice how nearly all the former presidents had very high IQ's. While Bush may not exactly have one of 92, it's certainly Joe Average compared to the earlier boys. I can't really comment on the Clinton scandal until I've read the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 your IQ doesn't equal your intellegence level. And frankly, you don't have to be "smart" to be president. The president surrounds himself with people that specialize in their particular field. They do most of the "thinking" for him. It's just the way it is. There's too much to do for just one man to handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by razorace your IQ doesn't equal your intellegence level. Not exactly, of course, but it's pretty damn close. No point in arguing this - a guy with an IQ of 140 is obviously smarter than the average person with 100. And frankly, you don't have to be "smart" to be president. No...... but it helps a lot. You're in charge of things, and you make the final decision. If there's something you don't understand, or if you lose the overview on things, your country might mess up real bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 If he doesn't understand that why he has hundreds of people ready to explain things down to how to make his own bed. Originally posted by Cjais Notice how nearly all the former presidents had very high IQ's. While Bush may not exactly have one of 92, it's certainly Joe Average compared to the earlier boys. I can't really comment on the Clinton scandal until I've read the report. And notice that a few of them have been impeached (including Clinton). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Two presidents have been impeached. Johnson and Clinton. Neither of them were actually removed from office though. Nixon would have been impeached but he resigned.......i'm not really sure what your point is about them getting impeached though. I believe that was true, until the Chinese arrived. Then came the retreat of the allies. Well, after N. Korea rolled in the troops into south Korea they initally pushed everyone WAY south into south korea, and then General MacArthur launched a clever counter-attack that pushed North Korea way up north, and then they bombed some bridges linking them to China so they couldn't continue the retreat, and China decided that was not nice so they rolled in with thousands and thousands and thousands of troops. Then MacArthur called the president to be allowed to take the war into China.....but Truman would not allow it, and then MacArthur criticized the president on national TV and was fired. that's most of what i know about the Korean War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by ET Warrior Two presidents have been impeached. Johnson and Clinton. Neither of them were actually removed from office though. Nixon would have been impeached but he resigned.......i'm not really sure what your point is about them getting impeached though. I was trying to help out the person that stated that your IQ level doen't state your intelligence. So what if Clinton had a higher IQ... He was still STUPID in many ways until the point where peopl wanted him kicked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Clinton made ah mistake to get him impeached. He didn't make any mistakes that actually affected the country.....but people FREAKED out because he had an affair. well so what? People have affairs ALL THE TIME. I dont condone them, but they happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast So what if Clinton had a higher IQ... He was still STUPID in many ways until the point where peopl wanted him kicked out. Being stupid with regards to your private life has nothing to do with you being stupid on matters concerning the country. Many geniuses are very lacking on the emotional and social front of intelligence (which isn't measured at all in an IQ test). But they're very adept at viewing things logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 But his social life and the outcry affected his way he ran the country. Take that time set and everything happening with Clinton and make him President now, he wouldn't be doing half as good as Bush is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais Being stupid with regards to your private life has nothing to do with you being stupid on matters concerning the country. Clinton wasn't impeached for the affair. He was impeached for lying about it, trying to cover up many unethical/illegal activates, and do such activates. Only God knows what will come out about his behavior in the future.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Being stupid with regards to your private life has nothing to do with you being stupid on matters concerning the country. I'm sure if Saddum Hussain did silly things like cheat on his wife(if he has one) and so forth the United States would use that against him. BTW I also think IQ tests are meaningless. They can't judge success. Also, the more tests you do the better you become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.