cetacean

I saw this on another board and thought I'd share...



George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

sixate

Better get used to him cause he's not going anywhere anytime soon. Not to mention the Dems don't have anyone worth talking about that can take away his spot. I'll leave now so I don't say something that I shouldn't.

JoeyB

Someone could pick and choose enough negatives to fill a "resume for the last 5 presidents. (I think someone would find it very difficult to do it for Gerald Ford!!!!)

He has stepped up when needed. He's certainly not perfect and not my favorite commander in chief, but if you don't support and you think someone else can do better, I hope you're registered to vote and you know where your polling place is.

__________________
My mom is a Diamondbacks fan. She really likes the Big Unit

sixate

I did a little search and that's from a Canadian site. Why am I not surprised?

guthmund

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

boatin

I wish that it were a little better written. With the number of real issues on this list, they are discredited a little by the number of "stretches".

I don't like the guy, but this list is like the energizer bunny. Criminy.

Sixate, you talk much trash about the Clintons. And that is certainly your right. But I guess you're good at choosing what offends you, right? When someone is on your side, this stuff doesn't bother you?

On the other hand, I respect your willingness to even post on this thread. Where are all the other hawks?

boatin

Sure wish that I could see this kind of list for every president. Context would be good. I believe that there would be a list for everyone, but I don't believe it would look like this.

I would also love to see sources for a lot of this.

Freakasaurus

I didn't vote for the dipshit and will not next time. He has turned out to be the biggest joke to not only most of the US, but the rest of the world. He really does scare me. He seems a little too trigger happy when it is not needed. I mean really, did Iraq pose that big of an actual threat. Yes, Saddam is and will always be a lying asshole, but in reality he was contained. North Korea is more of an actual threat, but he would prefer to try the diplomatic route with them.

Iraq= fairly easy, short and clean war
North Korea= long, dirty war with many casualties

Which would you pick if you were trying to win a few more votes next time.

But i'm sure all of the presidents of this or any other country have plenty we could dig up. By no means am I defending the dumbass. Just being honest.

Phaenx

If you're so smart how come you aren't president? Bush isn't a moron, I'd rank his I.Q. around 110-125, average by my standards, but that doesn't matter as much as you think. He's a charismatic fellow, good public speaker, and strong leader. Those 3 traits far outweigh intelligence in the context that one has a brilliant council to consult with. I'd love half of the people bashing him to get in front of a crowd of hundreds of millions and not shit their pants, and I'd love to see them order something as earth shatteringly important as he has to deal with every day, again, without shitting their pants. I think they'd quit, or just fail.

Liberalism proves it's logical supremity every day. Why waste time with tedious diplomacy in North Korea while we use military force in Iraq? A place where we have troops stationed nearby that can tie up that loose end up to cover our asses in Korea, which is such an obviously larger threat? Well, now we have them taken care of, all while we've been dealing with North Korea. Who would have guessed we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time! Hooray for the United States.

Seriously though, I thought you guys were for diplomacy? Or is it that you just hate America? If they wanted much more than 12 years of diplomacy in Iraq, why do they want less than a few months in North Korea? There's no standardized logic there, everything America does, in most liberals eyes, is wrong. No matter what. War was wrong, and now diplomacy is wrong. Make up your mind.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

smooth

And just when I thought you couldn't twist the reality of a situation to match your perceptions any more than you already have...

The "liberals" have been criticizing the administration for *not* exorcising diplomacy for at least the past year. Where have you heard different? Try a google to refresh your memory. N.K. has been calling for "knee to knee" discussions for some time now--our administration consistently declined.

Luckily N.K. capitulated and agreed to multi-lateral talks because then the administration finally did what the "liberals" have been requesting they do--address the issues diplomatically *before* they get out of control (which they seem to be spiralling towards that direction regardless).

KillerYoda

Don't forget that even though his dad was Director of the CIA, Vice-President, and President, Georgie only visited a foreign country a total three times in his life before running for President. And it was Mexico all three times.

You gotta trust the foreign policy of a guy who left the country less times than my neighbor across the street.

__________________
"So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

smooth

With all fairness, I'm pretty sure Bush relies on his cabinet to construct the policies.

Phaenx

We have yet to go to war with North Korea, we have them talking now because we've successfully dealt with them in a non-violent manner in order to resolve issues as we deem most efficient; diplomacy. If we'll check our dictionary, we'll see that diplomacy is not limited to businessmen in suits traveling to other countries talking with people. This process we've taken over the past few months has all been a part of an effort to achieve a dialogue with the North Korean fellows to see what they want. So on top of everything else, I can tack on "They don't know what diplomacy is," to my list.

Even still, liberals, like Freakasaurus (using you as an example sir =) before us continue to bash the United States leaders regardless of the fact that we are doing what they supposedly wanted us to do in Iraq. This has been going on for months, constantly during Iraqi war discussions. Often during those conversations someone will try and point out some sort of double-standard the Bush administration uses towards North Korea. I observe most often one of either of these excuses:

A. There's no oil in North Korea.
-or-
B. Bush doesn't want to go there because North Korea is a greater threat, and potentially a greater risk of recieving much larger casualties. Insinuating either he's soft, or doesn't want to lose the upcoming election due to a poor descision.

Both are BS, and this also is not criticizing for failure to exercise diplomacy (which in itself is BS as well, like I have pointed out), it's raging non-sequitor put in a burlap bag and beaten with a baseball bat kind of talk.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Phaenx

If I called him on the phone and asked him random questions about the countries that he's visited respective governments and history, would he be able to correctly answer 5 out of 10? I went to Canada once, there was snow there, but I didn't learn crap about it until I read a book.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

smooth

My example specifically related to N.k.'s demand to meet "knee to knee". I didn't resort to argument A or B. So how does my example equate to liberals not knowing what diplomacy is?

To humor you I checked the definition of "Diplomacy" in my dictionary. According to that, diplomacy is the act of building relations. Now, the initial response to stonewall the N.K. administration obviously failed that test. Our current response to denigrate a proud leader doesn't seem to be matching that description either. Whether you think someone is irrational, blackmailing, or demanding is irrelevant to the point that the act of diplomacy includes tact.

I posit that there is a tactful way to rebuff someone and our president doesn't seem to believe he needs to interact with various countries in such a manner. I think his paradigm is dangerous but only future events will either confirm or deny that--history has, anyway.

Phaenx

You didn't resort to either A nor B, but you did say liberals were criticizing the government for not flexing a diplomatic muscle or two. My argument demonstrated that by not agreeing to North Koreas knee to knee deal in favor of an alternative means of confrence, we were in fact using diplomacy. This is what I am looking at as far as definition goes:

diplomacy

n 1: negotiation between nations [syn: diplomatic negotiations] 2: subtly skillful handling of a situation [syn: delicacy, discreetness, finesse] 3: wisdom in the management of public affairs [syn: statesmanship, statecraft]

Multi-Lateral is what we're getting, by assuming they will continue to seek dialogue with us (as they have) we have fulfilled the latter two over the past months, and will fulfill the first soon. There hasn't been, nor will be a lack of diplomacy.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

smooth

Well, now it seems you've twisted your argument so much that you've circled yourself.

What exactly are you claiming? Are liberals asking for diplomacy or not? First you claimed:

which indicates you are accusing liberals of *not* asking for diplomacy.

I responded with:
in support of my assertion that liberals have, in fact, been consistently been requesting diplomacy in *both* Iraq and N.K. Then I followed it with a question--where have you heard otherwise? Instead of answering, you instead accused the "liberals" of resorting to irrelevant points and non-sequitar (neither of which I did)--a situation I find ironic.

Then you accused liberals of being ignorant to the definition of diplomacy. I responded with a defintion of diplomacy (surprise, the definition I found in my dictionary off the bookcase is similar to the one here Now you assert that the liberals are accusing the government of not exorcising diplomacy. Actually, throughout the last year we have been voicing our opinion that stonewalling a dangerous threat does not seem to meet the stated goals of long-term domestic security. Obviously, the current talks do not invalidate our claim that *past* refusals to meet were not diplomatic!

To answer your point that the administration has been using diplomatic measures all along directly: I already stated that time will have to illustrate the accuracy of your position. My claim is that what we've gotten (btw, the meeting consisted of confirmation of nuclear weapons and the threat to demonstrate them--hardly fitting the definition of positive relations!) does not seem to indicate all the discussants feel respected. Forcing a foreign power to capitulate through threats or outright force is *not* diplomacy--regardless of the defintion you subscribe to. That does describe our current foreign policy, however. Ruling via threat, fear, or force is, ultimately, the most unstable form of authority. If you haven't learned that, you haven't been reading your history books.

Jadey

The resume was great, unfortunately sixate has a point. Too bad Dubya has used this war to brainwash the American people into believing he's a competent president truly interested in making this country a better place and not just intersted in lining the pockets of himself and his upper class cronies.

smooth

/smooth looks up

fuggit, "[ETYMOLOGY: 18th Century: from French diplomatie, from diplomatique diplomatic]"

what do they know anyway !

KillerYoda

You got a point. Like Bush always says,
"Reading is the basics for all learning."

But still, you'd kind of hope he would have been out of the country and made rounds with the foreign leaders before his political machine took off. The cabinet thing doesn't really matter much there, since I was referring to when he was running for President, to go with the whole resume thing. Whether the cabinet takes care of foreign matters or not, the least he could have done was visit a few places. It's obvious he hadn't been out much, we invaded Iraq, for fuck's sake! Have you seen Iraq? It's all sand. We already have an Arizona, if he knew anything about the world, he would have invaded a more tourist-friendly tropical country.

__________________
"So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

Sun Tzu

I thought twice about posting what I originally posted. I'm going to make every attempt with interaction I do in this area to post questions instead of making statements. If someone has knowledge I seek or knows where to find it; Im better off. Whos mind was I trying to change anyway; and why?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

sixate

Trust me. Nothing offends me. I just either agree or disagree with topics or people. That is my right isn't it? It's no different than what you do, right?

C'mon, do you think I'd shy away from anything?

The_Dude

hmmmm........ that makes it all false!





anyway, i had a field day reading this list, and am printing this off to show off.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

JoeyB

Wasn't there a similar "resume" on the old board for President Clinton? Some politicians are easier to pick apart than others.

I enjoy the debate and the different opinions, but why is everyone SOOO angry about it? Bush had some strings pulled for him--good for him. Most jobs I've had have been because I knew someone and they helped make the process go quicker. Of course, I'm not comparing any of my positions to the leader of the free world, but in the real world, influence matters. In the political world, it matters even more.

Perhaps Bush didn't have the ideal experience to be President. Rarely has anyone had the pedigree to step into the Oval Office. George Sr. had the experience as Gov./his work in the CIA/and as a veteran, yet his Presidency still came under fire.

Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and that hardly was a Golden Era for the state.

Reagan was an actor before serving as Governor of California. Did that make him ready for President?

As I said earlier, you could pick apart any politician for the same things. There is no perfect candidate.

I don't agree with President Bush's "gunslinger" attitude for international relations, but maybe it's time for a different approach. If politeness wasn't getting the job done, perhaps a more serious approach will be more successful. I don't like the idea of the U.S. having the image of the neighborhood bully, but why not give it a chance to succeed or fail?

If you don't like the man or his policies, I'll repeat: Vote

I respect your right to object--alternative views built this country and keep it strong....but why are you so angry? It obviously is a serious topic, but when someone yells, their vitriolic race often hides the logic and an otherwise brilliant position is missed.

__________________
My mom is a Diamondbacks fan. She really likes the Big Unit

Daval

The resume is quite funny and full of true facts about the man., Many of these reasons are precisely why I do not like GWB. But as others have said, a similar list could be made by just about anyone. I'd love to see one about Jean Cretin. Our prime minister.

I do think GWB will be re-elected, and easily at that. Its a shame, but there isnt any viable opposition that I see

boatin

Well, I don't want to get into a debate about semantics. Perhaps I meant something different by "offend" than you do. However, my 'question' remains the same:

The things that Clinton did bother/offend/insult/rile you - I have read many a denigrating thread about Clinton started by you. I'm suggesting that the things that Bush has done, to an objective observer, are similarly horrific. He went AWOL for christ sake! Isn't that breaking an oath/promise?

So, given that each has done naughty things, how do you choose one over the other? I'm not saying that you can't/shouldn't choose, I'm just saying you become partisan politics when you do. And maybe that's ok for you. But I don't see partisan politics moving us forward.

But no, I don't see you shying away. That's what we like about you!

The_Dude

what a smart move!

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

JoeyB

Don't forget, the Rangers got Fred Manrique in the deal!!!


(Sorry for the sports sidetrack....get back to the screaming)

__________________
My mom is a Diamondbacks fan. She really likes the Big Unit

hrdwareguy

Isn't it great how much stuff on that list gets blamed on Bush when he doesn't have any "real" control of it.

Things like: Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court

Not the first time a president has lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.

And what about this one: In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job

How many of those people were affected by policies of the previous administration.

It really hacks me off when something happens on a presidents watch and they get blamed for it even thought it was something that had been building since before they got in office.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

james t kirk

Well what is interesting is that of all the posts so far, none have said, "hey wait, that's not true."

So that's a little frightening.

Personally, I feel like the world has entered a sort of old man's dark ages under bush.

I don't know who the Democrats have, but keep in mind in 1991 no-one had heard of Bill Clinton and one year later he did the unthinkable.

I truly believe that W will go down in the next election and it will be the poor US economy and his lack of a domestic policy other than tax cuts for the rich, that do him in.

You watch.

reconmike

Iraq= a shit hole, GW had the balls to do what the UN was to weak to do.

North Korea= China's little whipping child, dialogue will work because the Chinese do not want a US friendly Korean peninsula.


As Slick Willie did running from the Vietnam draft?

Sorry Joeyb but half the Bush bashers here live in other ass backwards countries trying to tell the US how to run itself.


Anyway all you AMERICAN GW haters sit back and relax it is going to be along time untill 2008.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Phaenx

Not everyone is whining about a lack of diplomacy, which in the context of my definition that I gave you, is an innacurate assumption. Admittedly, I should have used a word refering to liberals that didn't sound like such a blanket statement. I'm sure some may have been asking for diplomacy for the past few months, these ones, like yourself, obviously have a different definition than I, and view the situation and reaction of the North Koreans differently as well.

Respectively, many who make the argument the person I was talking to end up doing, is insinuating they would have rather gone to war with North Korea instead of Iraq as it's such a big threat and has no oil and blah blah blah trying to say Bush is a greedy bully of some sort. I did answer your question, I heard otherwise on this very board, and abroad within non-sequitor arguments attempting to discredit the Iraqi war. Obviously they wouldn't know it at the time, but that's how they come across.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

JoeyB

Sometimes I forget about the international flavor of the board, although reminding people to vote is never a bad thing.

__________________
My mom is a Diamondbacks fan. She really likes the Big Unit

sixate

The things that Clinton did rile me. That would probably be the best description. I guess it just drives me nuts that the dude could flat out lie to all the American people, but even worse he betrayed the trust of his family. Maybe the reason that kind of stuff drives me insane is because my dad is a pile of shit.

About Bush, before the war started there wasn't a nice thing that you could ever find on TFP v3.0, but after the war started I liked the fact that he stuck to his guns and did what he said he was gonna do. If Clinton was in charge of the war I'd support him 100% also even though I hate him. I will never speak badly of the president and troops in time of war. After all this war crap is over I'll get back to pointing out the things I dislike about Bush..... Just give it time. OK? I'll be the first to admit there are things fucked up about Bush, but why is it that people won't admit the same about Clinton?

Phaenx

Let's have the straight dope about being AWOL from the national guard.

Bush didn't report to his guard unit for an extended period--17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility.

In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home.

In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months. In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months before his service was scheduled to end.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Liquor Dealer

I don't know what you are basing this assumption on. At the moment, N. Korea is more of a problem to their neighbors than they are to us. In fact, Cuba is actually a lot more of a problem than N. Korea. If N. Korea does something stupid, and that is what it is going to take for much to happen other than talk, it won't be a long war - it will be dirty on the ground, and there will be a ton of casualties. We probably won't get on the ground, and won't have many casualties. N. Korea is a self proclaimed nuclear power, in violation of every nuclear non-proliferation treaty ever conceived. You are talking about a pissant dictatorship with a huge army of foot soldiers that lack everything it takes to be an army but warm bodies - They have no transportation, no weapons delivery system that possesses any more accuracy than a German WW ll era V1 or V2 rocket. Think Iraq was short so far as wars go - don't miss the opening shot of this one or you might miss the whole thing. We spent several weeks moving equipment to deal with Iraq - there is more than enough in Japan at this moment than it will take to deal with N. Korea - and probably with everyone's blessing - If N. Korea does something stupid.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

The_Dude

you should judge the president by his ability to perform the job, not his personal matters.

i'm studying this in government now, the different sub-cultures.

there's induvudalistic, traditional, moralistic.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

sixate

You should take your own advice when it comes to Bush. Damn near all of this wack resume has nothing to do with how he performs as a prsident....... Don't you see the hypocricy in you own statement?

The_Dude

half the things on the resume are things he did as a president!
i cant judge him on that?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

sixate

You can, but why can't I judge Clinton?