COL Gene COL Gene

Bush is an Embarrassment

▼

Bush is an Embarrassment

from JoeUser Forums
The reception President Bush received today in Canada is a true embarrassment to the United States of America. We have a president who was despised by our closest neighbor and by the people of most of the European nations.

I cannot remember a time when the world had so little regard for our nation. The story is the same no matter were you turn with very few exceptions -- the United States is not trusted and our president is looked upon as an arrogant go it alone leader. It is hard to see how the next four years will benefit the people of our country or mend the huge rifts that exist between the United States and much of the rest of the world.
politics
36,421 views 145 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top
When Bush gets done with our budget deficit, trade deficit and the loss in jobs, we will be jealous not the other way arround!
Right on, brother!
Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top
Did anyone actually read the quote? The 'ability' to destroy something ..., not 'destroying' something. That is exactly what existed during the cold war.

There is an assumption being made that someone who has the ability to destroy something is prone to do so. Think of yourselves for a moment. You have the ability to destroy many things. Are 'you' prone to do so?


A threat without action is no threat at all. Think about it. Would you be likely to take any notice of something who threatened to kill you and yet never did? If the threat is never carried out then there is no threat. The reason deterrence was effective in the Cold War relied on the fact that the US had already used nuclear weapons, and thus could be trusted to do it again.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #131 By: cactoblasta - 12/5/2004 2:01:04 AM
Did anyone actually read the quote? The 'ability' to destroy something ..., not 'destroying' something. That is exactly what existed during the cold war.

There is an assumption being made that someone who has the ability to destroy something is prone to do so. Think of yourselves for a moment. You have the ability to destroy many things. Are 'you' prone to do so?


A threat without action is no threat at all. Think about it. Would you be likely to take any notice of something who threatened to kill you and yet never did? If the threat is never carried out then there is no threat. The reason deterrence was effective in the Cold War relied on the fact that the US had already used nuclear weapons, and thus could be trusted to do it again.


No *you* think about it. No threat was made. Pictoratus is correct. I said "ability" not going to.
Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiller

I thought we went into Iraq to free them. How would your suggestion of destroying that country fit the Bush objective?
Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler, you still haven't come up with the source of your glorious quote. I can't wait to see what it is.
Reply #131 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Would you be likely to take any notice of something who threatened to kill you and yet never did?


Another assumption. There is no threat implied in the quote. Only a known ability. As an example directed toward your statement, I am a hunter and have been familiar with many if not all of the creatures in the woods, dangerous or otherwise. Now I have never been bitten by a venomous snake, but I am well aware their 'ability' to do me harm and, as such, I take appropriate precautions. I don't have to be threatened or harmed by a coral snake to know they are deadly. They are a known danger, not a 'threat'.
Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top

They are a known danger, not a 'threat'


ill bet you take equal notice of a scarlet king snake...for at least as long as it takes you to determine if the pattern is red black yellow or red yellow black?  (just outta curiosity, when was the last time you saw a coral snake on the loose?)

Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top
"jealousy is the main ingrediant of this..."

This conclusion is about as silly as "they hate us because we love freedom."
Reply #134 from PolMach Forums Top
The reason deterrence was effective in the Cold War relied on the fact that the US had already used nuclear weapons, and thus could be trusted to do it again.


That's a bunch of crap. The whole world knew that the Americans starting a nuclear war would cause the extinction of the human race. The US and Russia had enough arms in that period to kill every person on the planet not just dozens of times, but hundreds and even thousands of times. The Russians had never used nuclear weapons, but everyone know that push come to shove, they would. The deterrent was that the possibility was there for humanity to end and that either side could use nuclear weapons.

I can show this is true by the number of tanks in Europe. The Russians needed tanks to control the territories they occupied so they had alot. The US did not have to subjugate the populace and they needed only sufficient tanks to hold the territory until their superior air force could bring forth the nuclear deterrent.
Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you destroy something no one controlls it. It no longer exists. War is the final step in diplomacy and when you go to War, diplomacy has failed!
Reply #136 from WinCustomize Forums Top
(just outta curiosity, when was the last time you saw a coral snake on the loose?)


Several years ago when walking on the tract I hunted on. We were getting ready for hunting season about the end of August, I walked up on one about 18" long just lying in the path, which was unusual since they are normally nocturnal. It was the first one I had seen in the wild, but I can't begin to count the number of copperheads and cottonmouths I've seen.
Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #134 By: dabe - 12/5/2004 9:49:57 AM
drmiler, you still haven't come up with the source of your glorious quote. I can't wait to see what it is.


I'm not going to either! Not for *you* anyway.
Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top
I smell a cop out!

If you cant provide a source, well....Then the quote has no credibility!
Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm trying to remember a time when I was doing the right thing made me the most popular.

Being a Colonel, there were most likely many times you made decisions that weren't popular. I'm also fairly sure you made decisions that your subordinant leaders felt stupid passing along to the NCOs. I know, as an NCO (now retired), even the leaders I liked made me wonder what the heck they were thinking, I know I did things that left my troops wondering the same thing.

I bet, when in that situation, you did not look around to see if your orders were popular, especially among people in the other services or other commands. You considered the situation, consulted the policies and SOPs put in place by higher echelons, (if appropriate for the situation) you probably even listened to suggestions from your subordinant leaders, staff members or trusted friends. In the end though, you made decisions, issued orders and expected your subordinant Officers to implement them, the NCOs to carry them out and the troops to make it happen.

As you know, true leadership is not done by common consensus. With all due respect, sir... I'm not sure why you are expecting it to be different for Prs. Bush.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Common Consenses: Farting in a crowd, and having to look around at others' reactions to know if it stank.
Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #143 By: ParaTed2k - 12/11/2004 5:35:43 PM
I'm trying to remember a time when I was doing the right thing made me the most popular.

Being a Colonel, there were most likely many times you made decisions that weren't popular. I'm also fairly sure you made decisions that your subordinant leaders felt stupid passing along to the NCOs. I know, as an NCO (now retired), even the leaders I liked made me wonder what the heck they were thinking, I know I did things that left my troops wondering the same thing.

I bet, when in that situation, you did not look around to see if your orders were popular, especially among people in the other services or other commands. You considered the situation, consulted the policies and SOPs put in place by higher echelons, (if appropriate for the situation) you probably even listened to suggestions from your subordinant leaders, staff members or trusted friends. In the end though, you made decisions, issued orders and expected your subordinant Officers to implement them, the NCOs to carry them out and the troops to make it happen.

As you know, true leadership is not done by common consensus. With all due respect, sir... I'm not sure why you are expecting it to be different for Prs. Bush.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Common Consenses: Farting in a crowd, and having to look around at others' reactions to know if it stank.


Well put.
Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top

Several years ago when walking on the tract I hunted on. We were getting ready for hunting season about the end of August, I walked up on one about 18" long just lying in the path, which was unusual since they are normally nocturnal


musta been pretty cool; wonder what was goin on in it's head?    hope you didnt kill it (unless it was unavoidable)--especially if it was the rarer western subspecies.