Birdy Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 but i am with this one. Mostly because there has to come a time when the US starts to step back. soon.I'm surprised so many Democrats find this a 'security' issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Interesting - thanks, Birdy. I love the picture that comes with the story; you don't often see him looking so disgruntled. I know you're no Michael Moore fan (! I love understatement , but one thing he did point out in F9/11 was how much the US is at the mercy, economically, of the Arabian peninsula, who own such a huge chunk of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted March 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 . Now you've got me thinking of Fat Bastard from Austin Powers. Still, there is this problem with the US being so indebted to the Saudis. Looking at the thing as a functionalist (which I'm not, strictly speaking), the War on (i.e. of) Terror fits perfectly well as the replacement for the Cold War. The administrations and contractors have changed a bit, as have the people caught in the middle, who are doing the real suffering, but it does serve the interests of a few people to keep things as they are - perpetual war, where all you need to do is throw the odd log on the fire. Which is just dizzyingly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted March 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 agreed.i just wonder, from a financial standpoint, how long it can all go on for? and really, really what end point can be reached? makes me shudder. terror is NOT an entity in itself that can be defeated.i had a glimmer of hope when i first heard of the transfer of power to the Dubai companies that the US was starting to back out. even though i'm sure my glimmer of hope was a far cry from the right wing, republican glimmer of bling, bling. but irregardless of motive, it was still an out.leave it to bush to find a way to make a profit when by all accounts he's faced with the exact opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 For the love of dog, please stop using the non-word "irregardless". Just plain ol' "regardless" will do.Thank you. Carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 anywho... (that's the most annoying non-word that i can think of, but at the same time, fits.) really and honestly, until now i had no idea irregardless was a 'non-word'. sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 I think it's a viable word, as any word can be, but it's the double-negative that's the catch. I think there are more flags around it these days for it being a Bush-ism :blush:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 i ain't usin' no double negtivs! now, back to this guy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 That's funny! Tonight, too, was the first time (believe it or not) I'd ever heard the name "Furious George". "Incurious George", though, has always been perfectly fitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 That's funny! Tonight, too, was the first time (believe it or not) I'd ever heard the name "Furious George". "Incurious George", though, has always been perfectly fitting.or spurious george.this really shows what a "lame duck" president can really be. it's pretty telling that republicans voted this down in huge numbers, something like 62-2. the administration kept banging on about the democrats trying to out-homeland security" them by grabbibg this issue and running with it as a security issue. really it's just an international business issue...the irony is that DP World, the new owner of P&O and therefore the port contracts, has offered to sell the US port division to a yet unnamed company that will operate independently from DP World.Can anyone say Halliburton? It'll be interesting to see who finally takes over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 is that supposed to be a bomb or a butt plug he's holding in his hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts