Saddam Challenges Bush to Debate
- Thread starter Deuce
- Start date
Taylor-Made'90
I'm 'Citrix SSO' batch!!!
Re: uuum,,, TMade,,,
Kinda.....sorta....maybe..
I just think Bush loses either way, in a debate with Saddam, that's all. Bush won't get Saddam to admit anything, and Saddam will 'grand-stand' allday. He'll start shouting and pontificating, and if Bush can't match it or out-shout him, then Bush comes across as having been intimidated.
It's just not a situation I'd put him in, that's all. He had trouble debating Gore......
:argue:
Kinda.....sorta....maybe..
I just think Bush loses either way, in a debate with Saddam, that's all. Bush won't get Saddam to admit anything, and Saddam will 'grand-stand' allday. He'll start shouting and pontificating, and if Bush can't match it or out-shout him, then Bush comes across as having been intimidated.
It's just not a situation I'd put him in, that's all. He had trouble debating Gore......
:argue:
M
Makaho Bedrock
Guest
Re: Makaho Sanford?
Believe me....if a certain mofo hadn't bugged the isht out of me via PM I would have declined to engage in this drivel.
Captain Makaho deployed twice as a result of President Clintons global policy and put foot to foreign azz and had no problem with it. As a matter of fact, I applauded him for doing it. But when Bush wants to do the same thing.....he gets blasted by Clinton nutt swingers. So you tell me who is practicing paritsan political bullisht. I stopped giving a isht a while ago...I will never change your opinions, nor do I desire to.
I lived in Saudi Arabia, Korea, Japan, Germany, and Bahrain..yet I am told I don't know isht about world issues by mofos that have never traveled or lived outside the continental U.S.
I have been a Democrat, Independent, and now a Republican..have been on 6 campaign staffs, and was a G.O.T.V. coordinator for the N.A.A.C.P, yet, I am told by mofos here I don't know isht about politics.
Yeah, what do I know.......theory and perception is a much better teacher than experience and reality.
Believe me....if a certain mofo hadn't bugged the isht out of me via PM I would have declined to engage in this drivel.
Captain Makaho deployed twice as a result of President Clintons global policy and put foot to foreign azz and had no problem with it. As a matter of fact, I applauded him for doing it. But when Bush wants to do the same thing.....he gets blasted by Clinton nutt swingers. So you tell me who is practicing paritsan political bullisht. I stopped giving a isht a while ago...I will never change your opinions, nor do I desire to.
I lived in Saudi Arabia, Korea, Japan, Germany, and Bahrain..yet I am told I don't know isht about world issues by mofos that have never traveled or lived outside the continental U.S.
I have been a Democrat, Independent, and now a Republican..have been on 6 campaign staffs, and was a G.O.T.V. coordinator for the N.A.A.C.P, yet, I am told by mofos here I don't know isht about politics.
Yeah, what do I know.......theory and perception is a much better teacher than experience and reality.
Taylor-Made'90
I'm 'Citrix SSO' batch!!!
Re: Re: Makaho Sanford?
So what were they bugging you about coming on here and saying?
:dude:
So what were they bugging you about coming on here and saying?
:dude:
unknown
New Member
Hmm, that's odd....your beloved Secretary of State said otherwise in a press conference on CNN. He said they are known to have at LEAST 2 that can be placed in ballistic missiles and are capable of striking the US west coast. Now either the Department of Defense and the CIA is lying, or you've been to all of NK's nuclear facilities and checked to make sure they don't have any.
M
Makaho Bedrock
Guest
Aggggh!!! Can be placed is not the same as placed....developing a missle to reach the U.S. is not the same as having one....
If I am trying to help a woman develop childbirth, I have to at some point get her pregnant....right now, N. Korea is in the foreplay stage..we are trying to cockblock and keep the pregnacy from happening right now.
But what do I know.....a media spinned clip that you could find on the net is much more informative than actual experience and knowledge to you people.
M
Makaho Bedrock
Guest
Re: Re: Re: Makaho Sanford?
They were saying "Makaho, these dumb azz democrats are holding Sadaam's Nuttz and blastin the president again!!"
They were saying "Makaho, these dumb azz democrats are holding Sadaam's Nuttz and blastin the president again!!"
Blacknbengal
Well-Known Member
LOL@ all of you all!
JSU*Toi
New Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Makaho Sanford?
Thank you Makaho and whoever your scared azz friend is for letting me know that since I don't agree with the man running the country I am a dumb azz democrat.
Please believe that no matter when or where I will have my say and will not ask someone else to step in and speak for me
:bump: :goodbad:
Thank you Makaho and whoever your scared azz friend is for letting me know that since I don't agree with the man running the country I am a dumb azz democrat.
Please believe that no matter when or where I will have my say and will not ask someone else to step in and speak for me
:bump: :goodbad:
unknown
New Member
Ahhh.....your beloved secretary of defense was just on CNN. What did he have to say? And I quote..
"N. Korea has restarted one of their nuclear plants, and may be restarting the other within a few days. They have in their possession 8,000 rods which can be turned into nuclear weapons 4 months in the least, 6 at the most. N. Korea has at LEAST 2 Nukes already, THAT WE KNOW ABOUT."
So break this down for me good ol Makaho...why does the CIA & Department of Defense keep saying THE ALREADY have WMD? And we're in Iraq trying to find something that we don't know exist.
And for anyone that says this is about "Liberation" of Iraq, what about The Sudan, what about Egypt, what about so many of the other countries under leadership of a dictator? What about the REAL countries that pose a threat to us? What clowns.
unknown
New Member
If they were images of anywhere else in the world, the photographs would suggest something quite benign: columns of black smoke swirling harmlessly out of a tall chimney across a snowy landscape. But the shots taken earlier this month by U.S. spy satellites were of the Yongbyon nuclear facility, ground zero for the North Korean nuclear threat?and where there's smoke, there's fire. Analysts say the photos indicate North Korea has taken yet another step toward building multiple atomic weapons. The smoke is rising from a coal-fired steam plant. It produces energy for a reprocessing facility capable of turning 8,000 spent-fuel rods possessed by the North into bomb-ready fissile material. "Any reactivation of the reprocessing plant is very serious," says a South Korean defense analyst. "If they do reprocessing at full speed, it won't take them more than three months to produce plutonium."
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, lauded by his lackeys as a "military genius" and "Great General," appears to have concluded that his country can't win a war without the ultimate weapon. Purely from the viewpoint of a military strategist, that conclusion may be inescapable. With 1.1 million men under arms, North Korea boasts the world's fourth-largest military. It has a formidable conventional arsenal, short- and long-range missiles, chemical weapons and one of the biggest "special operations" forces trained to go behind enemy lines. Last week, Americans learned how big the North Korean threat has become when CIA chief George Tenet testified to Congress that Korea's latest missile could probably carry a nuclear warhead to California. Says Victor Cha, a Korea expert at Georgetown University in Washington: "North Korea is not just a peninsula-security problem for the U.S. anymore. It is a homeland-security issue."
Kim may be capable of terrorist-style strikes. But he needs an equalizer like the Bomb because his military almost certainly lacks the capacity to win a prolonged ground conflict involving conventional forces?the most likely scenario should a conflict erupt across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea, where 560,000 South Korean soldiers stand guard with the support of 37,000 U.S. troops. The North gets its military clout from sheer size?almost a third of its GDP goes into military spending. But the isolated, impoverished country equips its troops with outmoded hardware, some of it dating back to the cold war.
Pyongyang's inability to win a war may be comforting only to war-games theorists, however. The desperate nation?or at least its military ?lite?would probably fight to the death. Defense experts say North Korea's countryside is virtually a fortress, honeycombed with hardened bunkers and tunnel complexes shielding troops and supplies. Kim is known to admire the blitzkrieg tactics used by Nazi Germany in the early stages of World War II to swiftly overrun and overwhelm opponents. At the outset of a ground war, the North could blanket South Korea and U.S. troops with chemical weapons. It could use up to 300 artillery pieces that are within striking distance of Seoul to pound the capital's population. More than half of the North's soldiers are deployed within 150 kilometers of the DMZ, so generals can concentrate forces quickly and avoid long supply lines, mitigating U.S. air power. Scuds and longer-range Nodong missiles could be hurled toward U.S. bases in Japan. Even if the North would eventually be defeated, the U.S. estimates a North Korean attack on Seoul could result in up to 1 million casualties. Says a U.S. military official: any war with the North "is going to be bloody." All the more reason to seek a diplomatic solution for what the U.S. still insists is not a crisis.
=============================
Wasn't it Bush that said there will be no negotiating with those who pose a direct threat to the U.S. or our allies?
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, lauded by his lackeys as a "military genius" and "Great General," appears to have concluded that his country can't win a war without the ultimate weapon. Purely from the viewpoint of a military strategist, that conclusion may be inescapable. With 1.1 million men under arms, North Korea boasts the world's fourth-largest military. It has a formidable conventional arsenal, short- and long-range missiles, chemical weapons and one of the biggest "special operations" forces trained to go behind enemy lines. Last week, Americans learned how big the North Korean threat has become when CIA chief George Tenet testified to Congress that Korea's latest missile could probably carry a nuclear warhead to California. Says Victor Cha, a Korea expert at Georgetown University in Washington: "North Korea is not just a peninsula-security problem for the U.S. anymore. It is a homeland-security issue."
Kim may be capable of terrorist-style strikes. But he needs an equalizer like the Bomb because his military almost certainly lacks the capacity to win a prolonged ground conflict involving conventional forces?the most likely scenario should a conflict erupt across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea, where 560,000 South Korean soldiers stand guard with the support of 37,000 U.S. troops. The North gets its military clout from sheer size?almost a third of its GDP goes into military spending. But the isolated, impoverished country equips its troops with outmoded hardware, some of it dating back to the cold war.
Pyongyang's inability to win a war may be comforting only to war-games theorists, however. The desperate nation?or at least its military ?lite?would probably fight to the death. Defense experts say North Korea's countryside is virtually a fortress, honeycombed with hardened bunkers and tunnel complexes shielding troops and supplies. Kim is known to admire the blitzkrieg tactics used by Nazi Germany in the early stages of World War II to swiftly overrun and overwhelm opponents. At the outset of a ground war, the North could blanket South Korea and U.S. troops with chemical weapons. It could use up to 300 artillery pieces that are within striking distance of Seoul to pound the capital's population. More than half of the North's soldiers are deployed within 150 kilometers of the DMZ, so generals can concentrate forces quickly and avoid long supply lines, mitigating U.S. air power. Scuds and longer-range Nodong missiles could be hurled toward U.S. bases in Japan. Even if the North would eventually be defeated, the U.S. estimates a North Korean attack on Seoul could result in up to 1 million casualties. Says a U.S. military official: any war with the North "is going to be bloody." All the more reason to seek a diplomatic solution for what the U.S. still insists is not a crisis.
=============================
Wasn't it Bush that said there will be no negotiating with those who pose a direct threat to the U.S. or our allies?
Bartram
Brand HBCUbian
Re: Re: Makaho Sanford?
Let's take these 3 in order:
#1:
You are 100% correct. That the extreme left is whining and belly-aching now and, for the most part, didn't say jack-siht when Clinton ordered actions without UN approval is not consistant. However, as is true of both the extreme left and extreme right, the Reps were and still are blasting Clinton for "killing thousands of innocent christians". Back then when I saw the usually hawkish reps not going along with Clinton,, I was like,, "HUH??!! Are the reps the ones who shoot first and ask questions later?" It's all politics and depends on who's in office when it comes to zealot dems and reps.
#2 & 3:
Reguardless of experience and such, this is a country of opinions, plus this page thrives on smack, so that's to be expected. Even if you do have lots of experience in politics and such, people can still disagree with you phylosophically. Me for example, I can't see that no one side has all the right answers. I think the answer lie somewhere between the ideologies of the extremes, so I take things on a case-by-case basis and try to employ rationale, logic. Lastly, I think the extremes/zealots on both sides "oppose" the opposite side because they are the other side, not because of logic and reasoning. This is the American way; to draw sides, divide up into camps of "us against them" and compete. That's good, helped build our country, but many times you (or I) can see that both sides are simply stubborn and obstructionist if the other side is in power,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, for the most part,, there are people who have sincere objections/beliefs,,, but for the most part, all the party "groupies" are sheep to me.
Let's take these 3 in order:
#1:
You are 100% correct. That the extreme left is whining and belly-aching now and, for the most part, didn't say jack-siht when Clinton ordered actions without UN approval is not consistant. However, as is true of both the extreme left and extreme right, the Reps were and still are blasting Clinton for "killing thousands of innocent christians". Back then when I saw the usually hawkish reps not going along with Clinton,, I was like,, "HUH??!! Are the reps the ones who shoot first and ask questions later?" It's all politics and depends on who's in office when it comes to zealot dems and reps.
#2 & 3:
Reguardless of experience and such, this is a country of opinions, plus this page thrives on smack, so that's to be expected. Even if you do have lots of experience in politics and such, people can still disagree with you phylosophically. Me for example, I can't see that no one side has all the right answers. I think the answer lie somewhere between the ideologies of the extremes, so I take things on a case-by-case basis and try to employ rationale, logic. Lastly, I think the extremes/zealots on both sides "oppose" the opposite side because they are the other side, not because of logic and reasoning. This is the American way; to draw sides, divide up into camps of "us against them" and compete. That's good, helped build our country, but many times you (or I) can see that both sides are simply stubborn and obstructionist if the other side is in power,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, for the most part,, there are people who have sincere objections/beliefs,,, but for the most part, all the party "groupies" are sheep to me.
AAMU Alum
Active Member
Couldn't have said it better myself! Even his closest advisors know that to allow Bushy to debate with ANYONE else on such an international scale, would reveal him as more of an "intellectual lightweight" than he's already been.
To allow Saddam to "rip him apart" in a debate would mean political suicide. There are many leaders throughout the world who feel that Bush is "inept" when it comes to his ability (or lack thereof) of any kind of intellectual exchange. Why do anything to allow those numbers to grow?
Get Ready
Well-Known Member
This has to be the most evil act the US is going to commit publically since Vietnam. We have no business invading a soveriegn nation for their oil.
How many excuses are we going to use for invading Iraq? The latest excuse is that we want to liberate the Iraqi people. So when we get thru with Iraq, why dont we just mosey on over to China and liberate those people since thats our "new thing."
Anybody that says that this is about anything but Oil is a raving fool. If it werent about oil, why are we concerned that Saddam will blow up the refineries? That wouldnt even phase us if we were only interested in "liberating the people."
This makes me sick to my stomach. We are about to invade a country because they have weapons of mass destruction that we cant find. Huh? We are bout to invade a country cause they have missles that go 93 miles. Oops wait, Saddam said that he will destroy those missle (which is all that they have found) but Bush says, we are going to invade anyway.
The bottom line is that this is evil and rotten to the core. We will pay for this evil act on American soil again.
How many excuses are we going to use for invading Iraq? The latest excuse is that we want to liberate the Iraqi people. So when we get thru with Iraq, why dont we just mosey on over to China and liberate those people since thats our "new thing."
Anybody that says that this is about anything but Oil is a raving fool. If it werent about oil, why are we concerned that Saddam will blow up the refineries? That wouldnt even phase us if we were only interested in "liberating the people."
This makes me sick to my stomach. We are about to invade a country because they have weapons of mass destruction that we cant find. Huh? We are bout to invade a country cause they have missles that go 93 miles. Oops wait, Saddam said that he will destroy those missle (which is all that they have found) but Bush says, we are going to invade anyway.
The bottom line is that this is evil and rotten to the core. We will pay for this evil act on American soil again.
HBCUs
Deep in Tha Heart of...
I can't even watch the news nowadays without getting the same feeling. The feeling is somewhere between sick and angry (more on the angry side, though.)
And I won't even mention the digustingly slanted news coverage by our right-wing azz 'liberal' media (FOXNews and CNN in particular should be ashamed). But hey, if the people who don't have the guts to think independently want to buy their bull****, let them go right ahead.
Wrong is wrong, and America will pay dearly for it's shameless imperialism sooner or later. Ya'll better pray it's later. :uhoh: