42 public posts in this discussion.
Just a thought, and I'm sure that it could have been worse back when, but compared to the norm of the day, Bush Jnr hasn't had a very good run... Lets review.
Barely won the election
Sept 11th
Public and world loss of confidence in him over iraq
Space Shuttle crash
A face that looks like a monkey in so many ways
There's probably more, but they come to mind off the bat. ~_~
Seriously though, I almost feel sorry for him.
Lost the election actually :)
The media proved it.
Handy having your brother in charge of florida :)
BRING BACK BILL
he is a ledgend :P
Quote from Hitokiri Kensuke:
Barely won the election
Sept 11th
Public and world loss of confidence in him over iraq
Space Shuttle crash
A face that looks like a monkey in so many ways
Nih, I have highlighted the ones that were not Bush's fault.
Those things could have happened to Clinton too, his response may have differed but the original events would still have happened.
Hard to see the future is
Thank you Yoda :)
What about Reagan and Bush Snr? Oh and JFK? he got assassinated how much worse can it get
I think they messed things up more than Bush jnr has so far.
EDIT: Although Bush Jnr seems to have had the worst luck of all the Presidents
If someone tried to kill your Dad I think you'd take it personally.
2 assassination attempt against Bush Snr
From Iraq
No wonder little bush has a hard on...
Umm that sounds weird :)
yeha i know arvi
but i still think bring Bill back
liek he was cool
he was naughty but he made fun and shit
i liek Bill
a player as a presedent lol how cool
martin sheen!
ahhaha
i wanna be the 1st president of australia
that would be cool
but u dont get too much free time and peopel will wanna shoot u than
personally i think the little idiot has a chip on his shoulder.... some kids teased him at school so now he has to be the biggest baddest president....
he isnt thinking propperly, i bet he thinks that he will be president forever if he kills saddam.... he wont, americans hate him, hell, americans hate him as much as iraq folk hate suddam..... same story, different country. why isnt anyone searching the US, Uk or, hell, even OZ for nuculear weapons? were all as likley to be able to have them.
I beleive its because there isn't a treaty forbidding us to have them.
Whereas there is a treaty forbidding Iraq to have such weapons, which requires them to allow UN inspections to make sure they don't have them.
Of course, they are forbidding the inspectors from entering, or at least forbidding the American ones (heh, either the others won't find what they're hiding or they expect the Americans plan to plant stuff... or numerous other possible reasons).
Of course, I'll end this post by pointing out the one big thing that has always disgusted me about war.
The people who start it are never the ones who have to fight it.
who cares about america??????? anyone?????
personally i would hate to be a pressedent full stop i dont have any problems with bush and i'm happy that we have an allience with the usa atleast if we are attacked we have some back up :D but the thing is no one can tell the future so we will have to wait and see what happens :?
Skinny: Yes, I believe as an Australian it is important that we keep the US on-side as an ally in case we come under attack from hostile forces. Britain has shown before they won't help us if we need it - so without the US, we're on our own, in a very big and very unfriendly world. We need allies. Badly.
But, we don't need to be ass-kissing to the most powerful country in the world, when it's picking fights with every other country it can. In my opinion, Howard is being an ass for so vocally supporting the US, and thus attracting the attention of countries who could quite easily crush us in battle. Why am I reminded of that cartoon with the big bulldog and the little dog - the little dog fawning over the big one?
We live just south of the largest, most heavily armed Muslim nation in the world. And we've already pissed them off once. Which country is this? Indonesia. We really don't need to be making enemies on the world stage - we need to be making friends.
Darkwolf.
Quote from Metallica_matt:
who cares about america??????? anyone?????
I do cos Intel and NVIDIA are American :)
Quote from Darkwolf:
Britain has shown before they won't help us if we need it
When did they do that?
Quote from Sa' Martok:
[quote:ac891eda3e="Metallica_matt"]who cares about america??????? anyone?????
I do cos Intel and NVIDIA are American :)
Quote from Darkwolf:
Britain has shown before they won't help us if we need it
When did they do that?[/quote:ac891eda3e]
Vietnam. And East Timor.
Darkwolf.
I remember seeing (on TV) some fundamentalist say that Australia is now also a possible target for them ONLY because of our such hard support for America. It's making more enemies then friends.
They all bastards what you worried about it, you think J Howard its better?
ViVa La Anarchy
ViVa La Freedom
Just in case people didn't quite catch my drift. I wasn't particularly blaming him for the current spate of bad luck.
On "the worst president", the list of contenders is long and troublesome: LBJ springs immediately to mind, as does (some of you may be surprised at this inclusion) Lincoln.
On why nobody is searching Australia for nukes, it's possibly because we're signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iraq is too). But also because we don't have a history of invading our neighbours, or because we don't have a cruel dictator (John Howard/Bush Jnr jokes need not apply).
On "Gore Won": the US TV networks paid for a private recount, however the US Supreme Court, which has legal authority over all Constitutional disputes in the USA, ruled that time was up. Note I said legal authority, not "We've got excellent ratings and lots of money and we hate Bush!" authority.
You may not like the outcome - frankly it was a loser's race either way - but the USA is a country ruled by law, not TV networks. At least that's what its Constitution says.
Quote:
so without the US, we're on our own
You honestly think the US will help us unconditionally? They won't budge if it is not in their best interests or convenient to do so. And if we went to war with, say, someone who provided them with a big export income, or raw materials for weapons, whatever, then I believe they would let us rot.
Quote:
but the USA is a country ruled by law, not TV networks
the problem with this is that increasingly it is the media conglomerates that define the law (see DMCA, et al) thanks to the despicable corruptibility of the senators.
[quote=Darkwolf]Britain has shown before they won't help us if we need it[/quote]
When did they do that?[/quote]
Vietnam. And East Timor.
Darkwolf.[/quote]
... and World War II? We sent troops over to England and Africa, then when Australia was threatened Churchhill wouldn't even let them come home to defend their own country...
[quote=Metallica_matt]who cares about america??????? anyone?????[/quote]
Uh, last time I checked, I was eligible for American citizenship. That makes me care, sorry.
Quote from Wolfspirit:
... and World War II? We sent troops over to England and Africa, then when Australia was threatened Churchhill wouldn't even let them come home to defend their own country...
Maybe thats becuase they were having enough trouble trying to defend themselves and the rest of europe from the Germans :idea:
Quote from Darkwolf:
Skinny: Yes, I believe as an Australian it is important that we keep the US on-side as an ally in case we come under attack from hostile forces. Britain has shown before they won't help us if we need it - so without the US, we're on our own, in a very big and very unfriendly world. We need allies. Badly.
Not entirely relating to war, but remember those elite fire crews we sent over to America to help with their bush fires?
*COUGH COUGH*
Some of our worst ever and where are the yanks?! I was expecting them here the next day after canberra was burnt.
Their either over here now or on their way. Most times our firefighters go there it isnt straight away anyways.
Ok I remember over about hmmm maybe 2-4 months ago on the forums there was a thread about the youth of Australia and if we would go to war to save our country, looks like we might have too :cry:
tonight at the dinner table I realised how much knight knows about what a war can do, he thinks if we go to war it will be basically like when we went to east Timor to help out now that was helping here were talking about a war :cry:
also I pray that a nuclear was doesn't take place it's the worst that can ever happen basically, just coming out of 2 terms learning about nuclear weps and there effects is scary. If all the nuclear weps in the world are used then 1/4 of the world can be destroyed think about that 1/4 that a bloody lot. Also if nuclear weps are used then we in aus can be badly effected but thick smoke which can cause a nuclear winter and that’s not good for the climax that we have :oops:
So yeah atm I am worried and I hope bush gets it into his head the damage that can happen not what he can do to help the world
Anyway most of the stuff I said are only a possibility that could happen hasn't been proven but it’s a possibility that it could
Only destroy 1/4 of the world? I think you're being optimistic. Even if you only obliterate 1/4 of the world the long term effects of nuclear weapons on that scale are far reaching indeed.
Consider, those outside the immediately effected blast zone who haven't yet succumbed to fall-out will evacuate. Where to? Does anyone really think the world's economy can survive 500 million refugees (assume 5 billion people, ~1.25 is a quarter - most die in blast)? Not to mention the infrastructure and world supporting industry that will be destroyed.. drop nuclear bombs on iraq and wipe out a very substantial chunk of the world's oil supply (not just iraq effected remember, but most of the middle east will have to be evacuated or face gradual death or illness from cancers and genetic deformity cause by the residual radiation). Ignore the effect of making a car too expensive to run and consider the impact on the price of plastics which will sky rocket. Then imagine all the things that rely on plastic that you can't have any more. Scared yet? And that's not all that depends on oil.
A nuclear war will destroy life as we know it. Don't kid yourself about only effecting 1/4 of the planet. Any kind of destruction, conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear on that kind of scale will have astonishing consequences.
yes what u said is very true a nuclear strike would cause people to fleed their countrys most likly so that means they would probley come to aus as we are the lucky ones we are sitting away from the major areas ie america and england so they would most likly fleed here bringing deasises carried but humans food animals and plants all this will just totaly puck up our country :cry:
Don't forget about nuclear winters, fallout and genetic mutations. If 1/4 of the world is destroyed (physically) the fallout from those nuclear events would reach Australia, and everyone around the world would get nuclear poisoning and either die or the offspring would be mutated freaks.
Also us being away from most of the world doesnt mean anything, we support the UN, US, UK and are a civilised nation. We are therefore a major target, all it would take is one nuke to be set off in Australia and we're all fucked.
Quote from BlueMania:
Not entirely relating to war, but remember those elite fire crews we sent over to America to help with their bush fires?
*COUGH COUGH*
Some of our worst ever and where are the yanks?! I was expecting them here the next day after canberra was burnt.
Problem there is, Australian firefighters are widely renowned as being the best in the world. The yanks couldn't really help us - hell, when the Everglades nearly burned down a few years ago (because of introduced eucalypts burning), the Yanks couldn't handle it and needed our boys to go in and put it out.
Aussie firefighters have to deal with trees that are basically filled with flammable, sticky liquid. And have a tendency to explode. Not to mention we have one of the driest climates in the world, and high winds to boot. The Aussie bush breeds some damn tough firefighters.
Darkwolf.
Umm. I hate to tell you, but there are enough nuclear weapons on the planet at this point in time to totally obliterate the Earth several times over.
It would take just seven cobalt bombs to exterminate all life on the planet (yes, and this includes cockroaches).
A 20-megaton Pegasus II warhead has a kill radius of close to 20 miles (from memory). This is direct kill radius - ie, everything blown to smithereens, human shadows left on the walls and so forth. Everything within a 10 mile radius of the hit is turned into glass. That's just one warhead. A Pegasus II missile carries seven of them per missile. And America alone has hundreds of the bastards. As well as loads of other ICBM warheads mounted in submarines god-knows-where.
Fortunately, Iraq doesn't have the capability to launch nuclear warheads out of the Middle Eastern theatre. So he won't be whacking us directly, though we might cop the fallout. "0 says he'll go for Israel first.
If a worldwide nuclear conflagration started, nobody would walk away. Scratch that. Nothing would walk, slither, scuttle, swim, or fly away.
START overview
NRDC Nuclear overview
Description of a nuclear explosion
Dictionary description of an H-Bomb and a cobalt bomb
Darkwolf.
I think we need to understand that we wouldn't oblitterate the Earth with primitive weapons based on nuclear technology. We probably destroy the cliamate an much of the crust, but earth would still go on.
Seriously though, you need a massive amount of the weapons to make an impact even from the centre of the earth. I don't think anybody has drilled that far yet. ^_^'
In fact, There's actually a point where it would get so hot that the casing for the bomb would melt and cause it to fail. That's long before it would reach the halfway point to the centre.
Another problem is that people consider a 1/4 of the world as like a slice of cake. Need I remind people that 70% of the earths surface is water coated. A nuclear strike on the surface of earth land could be repeated many MANY fold. And chances are that if each bomb was used in the most efficient way possible for maximum effect, you'd have a bomb for probably every 40KM's squared, well within the maximum damage zone.
But then I don't know for sure, and I'm just guestimating. But needless to say a nuclear fall out involving the world would be an extinction event for anything on the surface or up to 20-50K's below.
He meant about obliterating everything on the surface. That's what people usually mean when they say 'obliterate the earth'.
There's not much point saying the earth will go on if we obliterate it with nuclear weapons, because pretty much - we won't be on it anymore.
I'd say a planet devoid of life counts as obliteration. But if it happened, then the earth could just be repopulated by the people on the secret installation on the far side of the moon :)
Oh and then there is all those military installations in the US which could withstand nuclear events and sustain life for years. Pity the earth would be repopulated by Americans but at least that way there would probably be unity and we could form a Federation and fullfill the Star Trek prophecy :lol:
I have been listening to the Parliament debate this morning on the Iraq situation.
I think I have a position on this now.
A. War should definitely not go ahead without UN Sanction. While this does not make war morally right, it shows that the Global community sees that this is a justifiable act of war.
B. I need more evidence to be convinced that this is a justifiable war. I do believe that Saddam Hussein is a malicious dictator of Iraq and lots of pain and injustice can be laid at his feet. There are many men like Saddam Hussein in this world, why are we only attacking one?
C. Not enough debate on how the effect to the Iraq people - Before and after war. It will be the people of Iraq who will be injured and killed in this war. Already they live in third world country conditions, why must we make them suffer more?
D. The oil issue makes me look at the United States motives suspiciously as well as it has been stated by the UN that they have not run out of peaceful options. If this is true why is America rushing off to War? The cynic in me can only say Revenge.
E. The UN should have the extra time needed to run the inspections. America's timetable should not push the Global Community.
F. What about North Korea declaration of plans to research and develop weapons of mass destruction? Why are we not worried about them first?
In a week or something there will be a peaceful protest to bring the troops back to Australia, I might find out more about it and join in. I do not believe that they should have been sent.
While I do agree that our alliance with America is a good thing - this does not mean that Australia should be America's lap dog. We are allies not underlings.
Just random thoughts in of the World issues.
lani.trying to understand politics
sorry guys!! I`m with Bush on this one, stalin killed 50 million russians (his own ppl) Amin did it the baltic presidents did it, the congo and most Africian presidents did it and some ate them. Iraq did it his son killed his own cousins the presdient used gas to kill 250,000 of HIS ppl. if you live in a country you are considered people of the said country.
It may be oil driven or trying to save the world what ever but remember that guy who everyone laughed at 1932 when he won the democratic elections in Germany ( the little Corperal).
unfortunately media give air time to minority groups such as logging -save the east africian fethered butterfly. and people that want to go to iraq as a protest go man go!!! :lol: when your eyes water and the throat starts to get tense and you cant keep food down,,, hey!!! np its just little tastes of biological and chemical dinner... opps am i going on ..
Well after the Un inspectors found the 17th chemical weapon (minus the nerve gas) in Iraq its pretty obvious hes been hiding weapons. Hopefully the UN will get it through their thick skulls that something must be done and they stop Satan from pulling the wool over their eyes by taking action against him.
mike moore is god :P
is it true he's appearing at the trades hotel in meb sometime soon?
Its Obvious what george bush is doing. He has a responsibility to protect the citizens within his own country. I think the United states is terrified of al quida getting hold of weapons of mass destruction and using them on america.
Iraq has been a thorn in the united states side since the end of the gulf war, It was a major error by george bush snr no to finish the job that he started in 1991. Just think if they invaded iraq in 1991 and disposed of saddam this would not be happening right now.
The united states cannot control the oil in that region because it is controlled by opec. They dertermine how much oil get produced from that area not 1 single country like Iraq.
More than likely it will be like the gulf war, bomb the shit out of them for a month solid and then invade, Most of the iraqi soliders if there is any left will just surrender like they did in 1991. Problem is that if saddam did not have such a tight control over his people maybe there would be a uprising but i guess everyone is scared shitless of being shot. So the only way to liberate iraq is to invade.
Advantages of Liberation of iraq.
1. Stable region.
2. Lifting of Un sanctions on iraq.
3. Destruction of weapons of mass destruction.
4. Weapons of mass destruction not falling into terrorists hands
5. A free democratic society for the people of iraq.
6. The united state government will finally shut up about saddam.
Disadvantages of liberation of iraq.
Soldiers will Die.
Sullivillians will Die.
Peoples homes will get blown up.
Saddam will probably torch the oil wells again.
He will build a nuke.
He will probably use a nuke if pushed.
Israel will not be very happy if he builds a nuke.
Israel fires nuke at iraq, Iraq fires nuke at israel every one else in the region gets trigger happy. Oil prices skyrocket, Major enconimies fail.
Welcome to ww3.