NationStates Jolt Archive

Time magazine once again named George W. Bush as their "Person of the Year." Bush joins other notable's from Time's past such as Adolf Hitler ('38), Joseph Stalin ('39, '42), Richard Nixon ('71), Saudi Arabia's King Faisal ('74), and Iran's Ayatullah Khomeini ('79).

Time magazine once again named George W. Bush as its Person of the Year. Bush joins other notable's from Time's past such as Adolf Hitler ('38), Joseph Stalin ('39, '42), Richard Nixon ('71), and Iran's Ayatullah Khomeini ('79).
Yes, and Mahatma Ghandhi, Dag Hamarskjold, and Franklin D. Rooseveldt ( who was the only person ever so honored three times ). And your point is?

I think you understand my point quite well.

Time magazine once again named George W. Bush as their "Person of the Year." Bush joins other notable's from Time's past such as Adolf Hitler ('38), Joseph Stalin ('39, '42), Richard Nixon ('71), Saudi Arabia's King Faisal ('74), and Iran's Ayatullah Khomeini ('79).


Bush and Hitler with the same award..who would have thought? :rolleyes:

I think you understand my point quite well.
I would have if you'd had one. :D

Fortunately, one of the courses I took in college was Abnormal Psychology.

I lost respect for "person of the year" after that nonsense about the "US American soldier."

I lost respect for "person of the year" after that nonsense about the "US American soldier."
That's ok. We don't have any respect for you either. :D

Time who?

Oh...

Are they still printing that mag independently of the White House?

I didn't think so.

Time who?

Time who?

Oh...

Are they still printing that mag independently of the White House?

I didn't think so.

Time who?
Comeon, man! That's WAY lame for your usual posts. I KNOW you can do better! :D

Person of the Year doesn't have anything to do with whether it's a good or bad person. Like it or not (I don't), Bush is probably the single most influential and powerful man in the world right now.

They lost my respect after they chickened out and refused to make Osama Bin Laden the person of the year for 2001. The criteria is that the winner be the person who was the biggest newsmaker or who affected the world in the greatest way, whether for good or evil. Bin Laden overwhelmingly fit that description, but Time looked at their subscription base and decided they couldn't handle the PR flack they would catch. So much for independent news coverage, I guess.

Actually i lost respect for the man of the year thing after rudy giuliani got it instead of bin laden.

Then again, americans probably wouldnt understand that making bin laden man of the year isnt necessarily a good thing.

As for army soldiers, they deserve our sympathy, and rather than our congratulations we owe them an apology.

Person of the Year doesn't have anything to do with whether it's a good or bad person. Like it or not (I don't), Bush is probably the single most influential and powerful man in the world right now.
isn't it supposed to be the one who's in the most?

Actually i lost respect for the man of the year thing after rudy giuliani got it instead of bin laden.

Then again, americans probably wouldnt understand that making bin laden man of the year isnt necessarily a good thing.

As for army soldiers, they deserve our sympathy, and rather than our congratulations we owe them an apology.
I'm a Vietnam veteran. Do you owe me an apology? It's for damned sure I don't want your sympathy. :)

I'm a Vietnam veteran. Do you owe me an apology? It's for damned sure I don't want your sympathy. :)


Well, i wasnt around just yet during vietnam, so i suppose *i* dont owe you an apology.

And it was very obvious that I was referring to the poor men and women stuck over in iraq for xmas on account of some crooks in washington and riyadh.

Time magazine once again named George W. Bush as their "Person of the Year." Bush joins other notable's from Time's past such as Adolf Hitler ('38), Joseph Stalin ('39, '42), Richard Nixon ('71), Saudi Arabia's King Faisal ('74), and Iran's Ayatullah Khomeini ('79).
and The American Soldier


but you made your point clear


I think Kerry deserved the award. He could've saved us all!


It's like that Halo 2 slogan I saw in a commericial...it went something like "We don't need a hero, we need a savior"

I'm a Vietnam veteran. Do you owe me an apology? It's for damned sure I don't want your sympathy. :)

Okay. You won't get any.

Here's an apology, though:

I'm really very sorry that you aren't angry as Hell that yet another generation of young Americans are being made to fight and die, for reasons even poorer than the ones that saw you endure Vietnam.

Yeah Bush as man of the year.. vomit.


As for army soldiers, they deserve our sympathy, and rather than our congratulations we owe them an apology.

I agree. This war is making my husband (in Iraq) insane.

I lost respect for "person of the year" after that nonsense about the "US American soldier."
What about when they named the PC?

Yeah Bush as man of the year.. vomit.

I don't think you quite understand. It's not about the man who's done the most good, it's who's made the most impact (ie. Hitler, Stalin).

It wasn't so much that they gave the title to Bush that made me think 'what the fuck' but the fact he was labelled [American Revolutionary]

So much for independent news coverage, I guess.
Independent news coverage dissapeared years and years ago, if it ever existed.

haha I know what it means but just hearing the words together tends to make me nauseated.

Yes, and Mahatma Ghandhi, Dag Hamarskjold, and Franklin D. Rooseveldt ( who was the only person ever so honored three times ). And your point is?
He also forgot Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson (twice), and Bill Clinton (twice).

Independent news coverage dissapeared years and years ago, if it ever existed.

Time magazine is part of the conservative media cartel that keeps us fully entertained and permanently half-informed :

AOL Time Warner (owners of Time mag)
Disney
Rupert Murdock's News Corporation
Viacom
Bertelsmann

These five companies (with General Electric's NBC a close sixth) own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States. These media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country.

...from The Media Monopoly
by Ben H. Bagdikian

"Almost all of the media leaders, possibly excepting Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting, are political conservatives, a factor in the drastic shift in the entire spectrum of national politics to a brand of conservatism once thought of as 'extreme.'"

"... most conservatives consider news bias to be any news that departs from the promotion of conservatism and corporate values."

"Of the 1,500 daily newspapers in the country, 99 percent are the only daily in their cities. Of the 11,800 cable systems, all but a handful are monopolies in their cities. Of the 11,000 commercial radio stations, six or eight formats (all-talk, all-news, variations of rock music, rap, adult contemporary, etc.), with an all but uniform content within each format, dominate programming in every city. The four commercial television networks and their local affiliates carry programs of essentially the same type, with only the meagerly financed public stations offering a genuine alternative."

I think he deserved man of the year because hes done a good job leading. Someone wants him to stay in the white house if he won he election.

Is there any reason why we should really care?

I think he deserved man of the year because hes done a good job leading. Someone wants him to stay in the white house if he won he election.
Most certainly ;)

Is there any reason why we should really care?
Its supposed to get you to go Bush = Hitler / Stalin / Nixon etc..., I think. Of course, it really just wasted bandwith to do so. There were some "omissions" from the original post. (accidental, I'm sure :rolleyes: )

Okay. You won't get any.

Here's an apology, though:

I'm really very sorry that you aren't angry as Hell that yet another generation of young Americans are being made to fight and die, for reasons even poorer than the ones that saw you endure Vietnam.


Very well put.

I think he deserved man of the year because hes done a good job leading. Someone wants him to stay in the white house if he won he election.



Who? Karl Rove? Bob Jones? Rush Limbaugh?

Speaking of Karl Rove, he's probably the one who deserved the award this year. He managed to take the most useless excuse for a president in a century and get a win out of him. If that's not an impact, I don't know what is.

Since no one's posted it yet:
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/stories/

BTW, you also missed:
1994 - Pope John Paul II
1981 - Lech Walesa
1970 - Willy Brandt...

IMHO, about half the people on this list weren't the best choice for the year.

Excuse me.

It is TIME's policy that every US President (after the election) is made TIME's Man of the Year.

Which is why I was able to bet mum that it wouldn't be someone like say, Christopher Reeve, because I knew Bush Jr was going to get it, because he was elected the President.

Conversely, if Kerry had won, Kerry would now be TIME's Man of the Year.

Bush and Hitler with the same award..who would have thought? :rolleyes:

lol

Okay. You won't get any.

Here's an apology, though:

I'm really very sorry that you aren't angry as Hell that yet another generation of young Americans are being made to fight and die, for reasons even poorer than the ones that saw you endure Vietnam.
Oh? Who's making them?

I think Kerry deserved the award. He could've saved us all!

If Kerry was our savior, I think I'd prefer not to be saved.

If Kerry was our savior, I think I'd prefer not to be saved.
I heartily second that motion!

Very well put.
If you think that sarcastic put-down was "well put" then you're not 1/2 the person I was beginning to think you are.

Oh? Who's making them?

I can plainly see that this is one of those posts in which it is basically said that, "These people signed on to fight and die, so they don't deserve our sympathy."

I however, am of the opinion that there has always been an unspoken agreement between the military and the government that the government only send their soldiers to fight and die for good (keyword) reasons. Reasons that this war is sorely lacking. I believe that I can feel sympathy for them, as these people did sign up of their own accord, but not to be fighting against what amounts to be armed civilians trying to liberate their country after a foreign military came crashing down on them under false pretenses.

Time magazine is part of the conservative media cartel that keeps us fully entertained and permanently half-informed :

AOL Time Warner (owners of Time mag)
Disney
Rupert Murdock's News Corporation
Viacom
Bertelsmann

These five companies (with General Electric's NBC a close sixth) own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States. These media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country.

...from The Media Monopoly
by Ben H. Bagdikian

"Almost all of the media leaders, possibly excepting Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting, are political conservatives, a factor in the drastic shift in the entire spectrum of national politics to a brand of conservatism once thought of as 'extreme.'"

"... most conservatives consider news bias to be any news that departs from the promotion of conservatism and corporate values."

"Of the 1,500 daily newspapers in the country, 99 percent are the only daily in their cities. Of the 11,800 cable systems, all but a handful are monopolies in their cities. Of the 11,000 commercial radio stations, six or eight formats (all-talk, all-news, variations of rock music, rap, adult contemporary, etc.), with an all but uniform content within each format, dominate programming in every city. The four commercial television networks and their local affiliates carry programs of essentially the same type, with only the meagerly financed public stations offering a genuine alternative."


Viacom, conservative....what have you been drinking man....if they were conservative by your basis (fundies) they wouldn't have had that special on nickelodion with homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle.....if they are all conservative, they wouldn't have let that "wardrobe malfunction" happen at the superbowl.....get off the drugs man....

I heartily second that motion!

i third it

I can plainly see that this is one of those posts in which it is basically said that, "These people signed on to fight and die, so they don't deserve our sympathy."

I however, am of the opinion that there has always been an unspoken agreement between the military and the government that the government only send their soldiers to fight and die for good (keyword) reasons. Reasons that this war is sorely lacking. I believe that I can feel sympathy for them, as these people did sign up of their own accord, but not to be fighting against what amounts to be armed civilians trying to liberate their country after a foreign military came crashing down on them under false pretenses.
Well, I spent 19 years and one month in the Army in one fashion or another, and two of those in Vietnam, all of which I volunteered for, and I think you seriously underestimate the professionalism of the men and women currently fighting in Iraq. I don't think they need our "sympathy" but rather our support, concern, admiration and respect ... none of which were granted to us during Vietnam. I know a number of them and have had brief contact with many, many more, and I have yet to hear one of them complain about the job they are being asked to do. What I HAVE heard them ask is why the press seems to be discussing a totally different war than the one they're fighting, the same question we had in Vietnam.

If this war in Iraq is lost, it will be lost by the media's constant drumbeat of "we're losing in Iraq," "too many are being killed in Iraq," "things are horrible in Iraq." On and on ad naseum.

Oh? Who's making them?

You're unaware that in the military, people have to follow orders?

If you think that sarcastic put-down was "well put" then you're not 1/2 the person I was beginning to think you are.


What i've learned, growing up with a vietnam veteran father is that the government lies to start wars for the benefit of elites, and soldiers who *did not* sign up to die in wars started by liars to make money and political capital are the people who pay the price.

People who served in vietnam and lived as young men and women in the vietnam era are expected to know this sort of thing.

Another generation should not be made to suffer for the same sort of thieves and crooks that killed 30,000 americans in vietnam.

Iraq is not a war of national defense.

I'm a Vietnam veteran. Do you owe me an apology? It's for damned sure I don't want your sympathy. :)

No, I but I owe you my thanks. :)

What i've learned, growing up with a vietnam veteran father is that the government lies to start wars for the benefit of elites, and soldiers who *did not* sign up to die in wars started by liars to make money and political capital are the people who pay the price.

People who served in vietnam and lived as young men and women in the vietnam era are expected to know this sort of thing.

Another generation should not be made to suffer for the same sort of thieves and crooks that killed 30,000 americans in vietnam.

Iraq is not a war of national defense.

Likewise, well put.

It should be noted (if it hasn't already) that Person of the Year isn't an award. It's just a person who made the big headlines in a year. Usama was a major contender for Person of the Year in 2001.

Viacom, conservative....what have you been drinking man....if they were conservative by your basis (fundies) they wouldn't have had that special on nickelodion with homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle.....if they are all conservative, they wouldn't have let that "wardrobe malfunction" happen at the superbowl.....get off the drugs man....
No, Viacom is corporate, which right now means they're de facto Republican. The CEO of Viacom, Sumner Redstone said during this election season that he was personally supporting Bush regardless of what his personal feelings were simply because he was voting the interests of his company. Here's the article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669) and here's the exact quote: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."Still think we're on the drugs, bub?

No, I but I owe you my thanks. :)

I'm curious. Why? No disrespect to Vietnam era vets, but how exactly is your life better because of that war or their service?

Viacom, conservative....what have you been drinking man....if they were conservative by your basis (fundies) they wouldn't have had that special on nickelodion with homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle.....if they are all conservative, they wouldn't have let that "wardrobe malfunction" happen at the superbowl.....get off the drugs man....

We are not talking social conservative or the religious right's agenda for a new American theocracy. Think traditional economic conservative. Think corporate control of government and big business getting its legislative agenda through Congress. Corporatations don't give a rat's ass what Americans do socially. In fact Rupert Murdoch has adequately demonstrated that traditional corporate conservatism has no problem peddling whatever sleaze the American people want.

I have often wondered how the religious right remains allied to the corporate conservatives within the Republican Party.

Comeon, man! That's WAY lame for your usual posts. I KNOW you can do better! :D

I think you are a self-centered cocky ass, and that you derive far too much please from merely refuting any opposing opinion that is presented. People are different from you, and you could be wrong. You'll get over it someday.

Who? Karl Rove? Bob Jones? Rush Limbaugh?
Actually, a MAJORITY of the nation voted for Bush, so stop being such a sore loser.
And if you even mention Al Gore and 2000, remeber that the Electoral College is what decides the President in this country, and if you dont like it then you can leave.

I'm curious. Why? No disrespect to Vietnam era vets, but how exactly is your life better because of that war or their service?
I for one am not self centered and do not need wars to improve my way of life. The soldiers of Vietnam were trying to help the south Vietnamese, who wanted our help. They were trying to make the lives of the vietnamese better, and sadly they could not win that war.

Eutrusca has my respect. ;)

We have the strongest military in the world. The only way we can lose a war such as Iraq is by pulling out due to media portrayal and a leader who carries out policy to pull out and send in United Nations "troops."

Let it be noted for future record that Insurgi is an asshole

Actually, a MAJORITY of the nation voted for Bush, so stop being such a sore loser.
And if you even mention Al Gore and 2000, remeber that the Electoral College is what decides the President in this country, and if you dont like it then you can leave.

Indeed, america is not a representative democracy.

If it were, the leadership would be picked by the consent of the governed and not without regard thereto, as it was in 2000.

Eutrusca has my respect. ;)

We have the strongest military in the world. The only way we can lose a war such as Iraq is by pulling out due to media portrayal and a leader who carries out policy to pull out and send in United Nations "troops."

Let it be noted for future record that Insurgi is an asshole



The only way we can lose in iraq is by setting reasonable or sensible goals for 'winning.'

Reasonable goals? Due continue... :confused:
Which of our goals so far has been unreasonable or farfetched?

I don't trust the UN to secure a country when they pull out after their headquarters suffer a car side bomb

Reasonable goals? Due continue... :confused:
which of our goals so far has been unreasonable or farfetched?

How about Rumsfeld's assumption that the war could be won with a military-lite?

How about the assumption that no one, other than the American troops, would have to sacrifice to win the war?

How about the assumption that democracy can be imposed at the end of the barrel of a gun?

Reasonable goals? Due continue... :confused:
Which of our goals so far has been unreasonable or farfetched?

I don't trust the UN to secure a country when they pull out after their headquarters suffer a car side bomb


UN Economic Sanctions secured iraq, or at least that was the conclusion of the duelfer report.

You can read it online at the Central Intelligence Agency's website.

cia.gov

Comeon, man! That's WAY lame for your usual posts. I KNOW you can do better! :D

Stop insulting people. Its not funny.

Eutrusca has my respect. ;)

We have the strongest military in the world. The only way we can lose a war such as Iraq is by pulling out due to media portrayal and a leader who carries out policy to pull out and send in United Nations "troops."

Let it be noted for future record that Insurgi is an asshole
We have the most technologically advanced military in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make it the strongest. We can certainly "win" any war we get into simply because we have the largest nuclear arsenal around, but that will be a phyrric victory at best.

Face it--we got our asses handed to us in Vietnam, and we were the strongest then, and we're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq for the same reason. We're not willing to be ruthless enough to win in Iraq, because to win, we'd have to be willing to get Roman, to wipe out the people who live there and replace them with our own or with other conquered peoples. In my eyes, that's a good thing, but in the end it means we're hampered by our own sense of nobility and this ridiculous belief that everyone else in the world wants to be just like us in terms of government.

I said goals not assumptions. Have you been reading like this :headbang:

I said goals not assumptions. Have you been reading like this :headbang:

We can only go on the assumptions since the Bush Administration has been making up the "goals" as they go along.

We can only go on the assumptions since the Bush Administration has been making up the "goals" as they go along.

Haven't you ever gone into the grocery store for milk and bread and come out with some Doritos and maybe a jar of almond butter, too?

Haven't you ever gone into the grocery store for milk and bread and come out with some Doritos and maybe a jar of almond butter, too?

Sure, when making decisions as frivolous as buying groceries. I expect a tad bit more forethought when the leader of the nation is asking men and women to die on the battle field.

But, hey, that is just me.

Bush and Hitler with the same award..who would have thought? :rolleyes:
Bush and Roosevelt win the same award..who would have thought? :rolleyes:

Sure, when making decisions as frivolous as buying groceries. I expect a tad bit more forethought when the leader of the nation is asking men and women to die on the battle field.

But, hey, that is just me.

Practically no leader has ever worried about that, why should this one? :(

Practically no leader has ever worried about that, why should this one? :(
I think George H. W. Bush did, at least as far as Iraq is concerned. Not so much in Somalia. Guess Junior took the wrong example.

I think George H. W. Bush did, at least as far as Iraq is concerned. Not so much in Somalia. Guess Junior took the wrong example.

US involvement in Somalia occurred under Clinton's Presidency.

May I remind you that Time's person of the year is just a reference to the person that attracted more attention around the world due to his actions, be them positive or negative?

Otherwise, this fascist wouldn't be there.

US involvement in Somalia occurred under Clinton's Presidency.
Get your facts straight--the Somaila action started under President George H. W. Bush. Clinton had to clean up the mess afterwards, and while he didn't do the best job of it, it wasn't a mess of his making.

Here's a link to a timeline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html) put together by the news program Frontline.

Get your facts straight--the Somaila action started under President George H. W. Bush. Clinton had to clean up the mess afterwards, and while he didn't do the best job of it, it wasn't a mess of his making.

Here's a link to a timeline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html) put together by the news program Frontline.

My, aren't we feeling a little snitty? ;)

You're right. I'd forgotten about that since it was so close to The Great Adulterer's swearing in.

True. Presidents usually leave messes for their successors. :(

ok now... if any1 says 1 more bad thing about bush you will feel the wrath of ElTrains army... Bush deserved the award and i am greatful he did.

-james

Well, I spent 19 years and one month in the Army in one fashion or another, and two of those in Vietnam, all of which I volunteered for, and I think you seriously underestimate the professionalism of the men and women currently fighting in Iraq. I don't think they need our "sympathy" but rather our support, concern, admiration and respect ... none of which were granted to us during Vietnam. I know a number of them and have had brief contact with many, many more, and I have yet to hear one of them complain about the job they are being asked to do. What I HAVE heard them ask is why the press seems to be discussing a totally different war than the one they're fighting, the same question we had in Vietnam.

If this war in Iraq is lost, it will be lost by the media's constant drumbeat of "we're losing in Iraq," "too many are being killed in Iraq," "things are horrible in Iraq." On and on ad naseum.

Want me to put you in touch with my brother? He's driving ammo trucks from Tallil to Baghdad today until the 26th, but after that I can get you in contact with him so you can hear one of them complain about the job he's being asked to do. You can listen to him complain about having to be in the godforsaken sandbox of Eye Rack and how he hates that he's doing a mission that was broadcast on Iraqi public radio over Christmas. You can listen to him complain that he was pulled out of college, transferred by himself into a new unit to replace a guy that got to go home, and shipped out to Aye Rak. You can listen to him complain about how the Army lost all his gear and he had to wear the same pair of underwear for a week while they got him new clothes, or how they lost his gun and he had no firearm for a week. You can hear him complain about how he misses his girlfriend. You haven't heard a soldier complain? Then you must not be talking to them.

ok now... if any1 says 1 more bad thing about bush you will feel the wrath of ElTrains army... Bush deserved the award and i am greatful he did.

-james

Bush sucks.

Bring it, n00b..

The antichrist is TIME's person of the year. The end is near...

Face it--we got our asses handed to us in Vietnam

Pardon my language, that is total bullshit.

Pardon my language, that is total bullshit.

The U.S. could have won the war in Vietnam in six weeks or less, had they done the following:

1.Invaded the North
2.Closed the port of Haiphong
3.Invaded Laos and Cambodia and destroyed the enemies' sanctuaries there
4.Bombed the transportation links to China
5.Mined Haiphong harbor
6.Permitted pilots to destroy SAM sites while they were under construction, instead of waiting until they were operational
7.Allowing our troops to blow up dams, factories, power plants, etc.
8.Ceased trade with the USSR and its satellites, upon whom the North Vietnamese were entirely dependent to maintain their war effort
9.Bombed strategic cities such as Haiphong and Hanoi
10.Allowed our pilots to bomb trucks that had wandered more than 204 feet off the Ho Chi Minh Trail
11.Fully supplied our pilots and troops (there were often ammunition and bomb shortages)
12.Restored Bao Dai as Emperor of Vietnam, thereby restoring Vietnamese unity among all non-communists
13.Appointed Nguyen ton Hoan as Prime Minister (he was a militant anticommunist and pro-Westerner who was popular among Vietnamese but hated and feared by the communists)
14.Put Le Van Vien in charge of ARVN (he was a former pirate who was a military genius and was highly efficient at killing communists and beating them at their own game)
15.Provided ARVN with the latest in weapons and technology (rather than obsolete crap that was almost worthless)
16.Repealed the absurd rules that prohibited troops from firing at the enemy unless and until fired upon (provided the enemy missed)
17.Allowed our pilots to attack ships which were bringing supplies to the enemy
18.Mobilized the reserves
19.Allowed allies such as Rhodesia and Taiwan (who had offered to send troops but were turned down) to contribute troops, and beseech South Africa, Nicaragua, Iran, Portugal, Spain, Malaysia, Paraguay, and other anticommunist countries to do the same, if necessary
20.Put military men in charge with the war rather than politicians
21.Fired Robert McNamara, who gutted the hell out of our military
22.Heavily censored our pro-communist media to keep public morale high

They were going to make Bin-Laden the Person of the year of 2001. But they were pussies and thought it might encourage him to do something else (and who knows how much the govt. influenced that logic :rolleyes: ) So instead they put mayor Rudy Guilianni. Who is a fucking scumball with no life and possibly the only New Yorker who supports Bush, and why the FUCK New York doesnt re-call him is beyond me.

They were going to make Bin-Laden the Person of the year of 2001. But they were pussies and thought it might encourage him to do something else (and who knows how much the govt. influenced that logic :rolleyes: ) So instead they put mayor Rudy Guilianni. Who is a fucking scumball with no life and possibly the only New Yorker who supports Bush, and why the FUCK New York doesnt re-call him is beyond me.

Probably because Rudy hasn't been the mayor of New York City for years, professor McTard.

Want me to put you in touch with my brother? He's driving ammo trucks from Tallil to Baghdad today until the 26th, but after that I can get you in contact with him so you can hear one of them complain about the job he's being asked to do. You can listen to him complain about having to be in the godforsaken sandbox of Eye Rack and how he hates that he's doing a mission that was broadcast on Iraqi public radio over Christmas. You can listen to him complain that he was pulled out of college, transferred by himself into a new unit to replace a guy that got to go home, and shipped out to Aye Rak. You can listen to him complain about how the Army lost all his gear and he had to wear the same pair of underwear for a week while they got him new clothes, or how they lost his gun and he had no firearm for a week. You can hear him complain about how he misses his girlfriend. You haven't heard a soldier complain? Then you must not be talking to them.

I had an airline lose my luggage once.

Tell your brother that he deserves all of our respect and admiration but that I'd like to offer him a word or two of advice. If you don't want to fight for our country in the military, don't join the military.

I had an airline lose my luggage once.

Tell your brother that he deserves all of our respect and admiration but that I'd like to offer him a word or two of advice. If you don't want to fight for our country in the military, don't join the military.

Shut the fuck up.

Shut the fuck up.

Clean, simple, mature response I would expect from someone like you.

and we're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq

I know it makes you feel smarter, but don't believe everything NBC and Michael Moore tell you.

Clean, simple, mature response I would expect from someone like you.

"Someone like me"? How wonderfully patronizing of you. Listen, moron, just because the soldiers have chosen to serve their country in a way you don't possibly have the courage to do yourself, doesn't mean they want to be off dying in a foriegn country, or that they enjoy it. There's a difference between wanting to be there and being their because it's their duty. Learn the difference.

"Someone like me"? How wonderfully patronizing of you. Listen, moron, just because the soldiers have chosen to serve their country in a way you don't possibly have the courage to do yourself, doesn't mean they want to be off dying in a foriegn country, or that they enjoy it. There's a difference between wanting to be there and being their because it's their duty. Learn the difference.

:rolleyes: Out of curiosity, where are you serving and how many years do you have under your belt, friend? Try not utilizing lingo and terms you picked up from talking to your brother when you make this story up.

I didn't say anything about someone enjoying warfare, moron. I'm saying that there is a group of people in this country that fight when our country goes to war. And if you don't want any part of that war, don't join that group. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying he 'likes' it guy, give me a break.

I know it makes you feel smarter, but don't believe everything NBC and Michael Moore tell you.

Actually we're beating the living daylights out of the Iraqis, but they're like ants....you destroy one ant hill and another one pops up in its place. Even though this is a war I strongly do not believe in, I support our troops to the fullest. It's not their fault their leader is a tyrant.

A man that goes to my church is training in Fort Stewart, Georgia, and will ship off to Iraq in a few weeks. Do you think he wants to go? He's got a loving wife and an 11 year old daughter at home. How do you think they're taking it? I can tell you one thing...if you heard how this girl reacted when she got the news, you wouldn't be badmouthing our troops.

The U.S. could have won the war in Vietnam in six weeks or less, had they done the following:
Your own words show that you agreed with my assessment--we got our asses handed to us in Vietnam. If you doubt me, then ask yourself who's in charge in Vietnam as compared to who we wanted to be in charge. My prediction is that the same thing is going to happen in Iraq. It's already happened to a certain extent--we wanted Chalabi, and we've got Allawi as the figurehead. Learn your history, my friend, and then learn from it.

:rolleyes: Out of curiosity, where are you serving and how many years do you have under your belt, friend? Try not utilizing lingo and terms you picked up from talking to your brother when you make this story up.

I didn't say anything about someone enjoying warfare, moron. I'm saying that there is a group of people in this country that fight when our country goes to war. And if you don't want any part of that war, don't join that group. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying he 'likes' it guy, give me a break.

Lingo? What "lingo" did I use? I wasn't aware words like "courage" and "duty" and "the" were exclusive to the military. I'll be sure to take that under advisement in the future.

And just because my brother has chosen to serve in the Army doesn't mean he's forfeited his right to complain. He can bitch and moan about hating it over all day long if he wants.

Your own words show that you agreed with my assessment--we got our asses handed to us in Vietnam. If you doubt me, then ask yourself who's in charge in Vietnam as compared to who we wanted to be in charge. My prediction is that the same thing is going to happen in Iraq. It's already happened to a certain extent--we wanted Chalabi, and we've got Allawi as the figurehead. Learn your history, my friend, and then learn from it.

My point, though, is that we could have won had we gone all out.

A man that goes to my church is training in Fort Stewart, Georgia, and will ship off to Iraq in a few weeks. Do you think he wants to go? He's got a loving wife and an 11 year old daughter at home. How do you think they're taking it? I can tell you one thing...if you heard how this girl reacted when she got the news, you wouldn't be badmouthing our troops.

How am I badmouthing our troops? All I'm saying is that I'm sure this girl did not react positively, but considering her husband is in the military...wasn't it a posibility that they might need him?

I know it makes you feel smarter, but don't believe everything NBC and Michael Moore tell you.
Read my response to Roach-Busters, you pompous git, and when you're ready to have a reasonable conversation, we can talk.

My point, though, is that we could have won had we gone all out.
Go back and read the post you originally replied to--especially the part where I say we weren't willing to get Roman on them--and then tell me where we disagree.

Go back and read the post you originally replied to--especially the part where I say we weren't willing to get Roman on them--and then tell me where we disagree.

"Get Roman". I like it.

Lingo? What "lingo" did I use? I wasn't aware words like "courage" and "duty" and "the" were exclusive to the military. I'll be sure to take that under advisement in the future.

I was just asking if you had served and if so, where. If not, then you can stick that "soldiers have chosen to serve their country in a way you don't possibly have the courage to do yourself" crap and shove it right up your ass.


And just because my brother has chosen to serve in the Army doesn't mean he's forfeited his right to complain. He can bitch and moan about hating it over all day long if he wants.

No one said he doesn't have the right to. Doesn't mean you should use him as a tool to promote your anti-war diatribes, either.

I heartily second that motion!
I'm posting just so Eutrusca doesn't have to post this again. See my signature.

No one said he doesn't have the right to. Doesn't mean you should use him as a tool to promote your anti-war diatribes, either.

Well, if you want to know, he doesn't support the war either. But that's not the point. Eutrusca said he's never heard a soldier complain about the war, and I have.

Go back and read the post you originally replied to--especially the part where I say we weren't willing to get Roman on them--and then tell me where we disagree.

That part I agree with completely.

Read my response to Roach-Busters, you pompous git, and when you're ready to have a reasonable conversation, we can talk.

What if I don't have any interest to talk to you, you disgraceful lickspittle.

I would have if you'd had one. :D

Fortunately, one of the courses I took in college was Abnormal Psychology.

That's a hard course to get into.

I think so many people try to take it in hopes it'll explain what is wrong with them. :D

They were going to make Bin-Laden the Person of the year of 2001. But they were pussies and thought it might encourage him to do something else (and who knows how much the govt. influenced that logic :rolleyes: ) So instead they put mayor Rudy Guilianni. Who is a fucking scumball with no life and possibly the only New Yorker who supports Bush, and why the FUCK New York doesnt re-call him is beyond me.
Let me get this

*you think Rudy shouldn't have been man of the year due to the fact that he's a scumball

Bin Laden did many worse things than Guiliani has ever done, would you disagree? I am very anti-Bush, but I don't think that supporting him is the moral equivalent of genocide.

What if I don't have any interest to talk to you, you disgraceful lickspittle.
Simple--don't reply to my posts accusing me of being a mindless robot who only mouths what NBC and Michael Moore (curious combination, by the way) have to say.

Well, if you want to know, he doesn't support the war either. But that's not the point. Eutrusca said he's never heard a soldier complain about the war, and I have.

That's not what he said. He said the soldiers he's talked to thus far haven't complained about the jobs they are ordered to do. This has nothing to do with how the army orginizes shipments of clothing, or the war itself. Who can't complain about a war, anyway?

Simple--don't reply to my posts accusing me of being a mindless robot who only mouths what NBC and Michael Moore (curious combination, by the way) have to say.

Well you voiced that you seem to think our troops, who are related to a few people on this board it seems, are getting their 'asses handed to them' in Iraq right now. I would like to know how you gathered this information if you aren't a mindless robot that watched the news.

But for the record, I didn't call you a mindless robot. That was your own interpretation.

Comeon, man! That's WAY lame for your usual posts. I KNOW you can do better! :D

Sadly, these one-liners of you attacking the poster and not the comment ARE your usual posts.

Well you voiced that you seem to think our troops, who are related to a few people on this board it seems, are getting their 'asses handed to them' in Iraq right now. I would like to know how you gathered this information if you aren't a mindless robot that watched the news.

But for the record, I didn't call you a mindless robot. That was your own interpretation.
Gee--let's see. We have little control over anything as far as security either for our troops or for the Iraqi citizenry is concerned. Insurgents are able to move freely and strike at will. Companies are cancelling contracts in Iraq because neither the coalition forces nor their own personal security can guarantee their safety, and the costs are getting to be too high to make a profit at it. How exactly are we not getting our asses handed to us in the larger sense? How exactly are we winning? Because we may have a farce of an election there in just over a month? Give me a fucking break.

I think he deserved man of the year because hes done a good job leading. Someone wants him to stay in the white house if he won he election.

Actually he won because he ran the better campaign and certainly not on any merits from is record as president.

Kerry had a laughable campaign and he still almost got 50% of the vote.

Only by blitzing the ignorant with misinformation during the campaign did he get the majority he needed.

How am I badmouthing our troops? All I'm saying is that I'm sure this girl did not react positively, but considering her husband is in the military...wasn't it a posibility that they might need him?

I'm sure they do need him. That's the problem. They shouldn't be fighting this war in the first place. It's Vietnam all over again.

Also, I think you misinterpreted my post. I was referring to the 11 year old girl who's daddy is off to fight in a place he shouldn't have to fight in, especially considering he's in the Reserves.

They were going to make Bin-Laden the Person of the year of 2001. But they were pussies and thought it might encourage him to do something else (and who knows how much the govt. influenced that logic :rolleyes: ) So instead they put mayor Rudy Guilianni. Who is a fucking scumball with no life and possibly the only New Yorker who supports Bush, and why the FUCK New York doesnt re-call him is beyond me.

1) I know many New Yorkers that support Bush... and I work in Manhattan.

2) Giuliani made NYC a real city again after that sad joke called the Dinkins administration. I was amazed how in 4 years he could ruin so much of what Koch had done in 12.

3) Recall Giuliani? For what? The man's been out of office since 1 January 2002, and was certainly more liked than disliked.

BTW- I'd stay away from recalls. Not only are they a bad idea, but (as a certain Governator shows), they're bad for Democrats.

The U.S. could have won the war in Vietnam in six weeks or less, had they done the following:

1.Invaded the North
2.Closed the port of Haiphong
3.Invaded Laos and Cambodia and destroyed the enemies' sanctuaries there
4.Bombed the transportation links to China
5.Mined Haiphong harbor
6.Permitted pilots to destroy SAM sites while they were under construction, instead of waiting until they were operational
7.Allowing our troops to blow up dams, factories, power plants, etc.
8.Ceased trade with the USSR and its satellites, upon whom the North Vietnamese were entirely dependent to maintain their war effort
9.Bombed strategic cities such as Haiphong and Hanoi
10.Allowed our pilots to bomb trucks that had wandered more than 204 feet off the Ho Chi Minh Trail
11.Fully supplied our pilots and troops (there were often ammunition and bomb shortages)
12.Restored Bao Dai as Emperor of Vietnam, thereby restoring Vietnamese unity among all non-communists
13.Appointed Nguyen ton Hoan as Prime Minister (he was a militant anticommunist and pro-Westerner who was popular among Vietnamese but hated and feared by the communists)
14.Put Le Van Vien in charge of ARVN (he was a former pirate who was a military genius and was highly efficient at killing communists and beating them at their own game)
15.Provided ARVN with the latest in weapons and technology (rather than obsolete crap that was almost worthless)
16.Repealed the absurd rules that prohibited troops from firing at the enemy unless and until fired upon (provided the enemy missed)
17.Allowed our pilots to attack ships which were bringing supplies to the enemy
18.Mobilized the reserves
19.Allowed allies such as Rhodesia and Taiwan (who had offered to send troops but were turned down) to contribute troops, and beseech South Africa, Nicaragua, Iran, Portugal, Spain, Malaysia, Paraguay, and other anticommunist countries to do the same, if necessary
20.Put military men in charge with the war rather than politicians
21.Fired Robert McNamara, who gutted the hell out of our military
22.Heavily censored our pro-communist media to keep public morale high


Likely true. However, it's not just what you have but how you use it that determines a military's true strength. The US was beaten for that reason. They didn't use it correctly.

Sorry, but Vietnam was a loss. Being a Monday-Night Quarterback won't net you a win.

Besides, doing all this stuff would have only caused trouble in Vietnam in other fashions, much as our destruction of Iraq's infrastructure is causing us problems now and will continue to do so in the future.

Did you hear about the possibility of a 'Iraqi Hitler' springing up from this mess?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/13/iraq.president/

I'm a Vietnam veteran. Do you owe me an apology? It's for damned sure I don't want your sympathy. :)
Well, sir, I won't give you an apology, but I will give you a hearty thanks.

As a Non-American please allow me to write some sentences:
Every democratic nation would understand a war regarding safety and defense of the OWN country.

Every nation understood while USA, not Bush, attacked Afghanistan.
For the war against terrorism all nations should sta together.

But with all my respect Eutrusca, if you want to say me, this Iraq war is for defending the USA, then you as an American are sitting on a empty boat worldwide with the english politicians.

The first time ever in history the United States are leading a war by the "demand" of another nation.
For real intelligent people i dont have to write down the name of the nation, but for some pro-Bush delegates:
Saudi Arabia, in correct case, the King Fahd dynasty.
WHat we see is not related with safety or nation security, its all up for oil.

How can a nation abuse his fine, respected and honorable soldiers for a small tribute like oil in our days?
Every day YOUR soldiers are dying for nothing, and it hurts me aswell. Every day innocent people are dying beneath terrorists for nothing.

You say Saddam was dangerous? Of course he was, he was dangerous to his OWN nation, what we have now? A horde of barbarians seeking american soldiers for slaughtering them. And why? THIS soldiers rescued them from Saddam in truth, but no one shows respect, cause of head of the USA. They sent the army not for freedom then for oil in sake of madcow King Fahd.

Two wars:
Afghanistan was right, the world stand behind USA.
Iraq was for own advantage, USA stands alone.

I love the United States for their war against terrorism and as head of world, but this way they acting they will isolate themselves. Not today, but tomorrow.

Best regards
Thrawn

PS: Sorry for my english, still lot of grammatical failures inside.

It got posted a few times on this link ....
Influence.

Anyhoo, i'm gonna post a few post #'s .... far into it so i could see noone caring but i felt a response was merited ....

#37 - You obviously aren't paying attention to who is making who do what. The enlisting isn't the hard part here obviously, think a little harder and come to terms with the fact of involuntary tour extensions and then keep that smarm up.
#44 - What're you smoking? This is a tired and puppeted argument that my opinion is of any significance to anyone who has ANY EXPERIENCE CURRENTLY IN SUCH FIELD. The generals and hierarchy aren't interested in your opinion on jack and you're welcome to talk to ANYONE OTHER THAN PR to find that out. If so many people had so many good opinions about what the right thing to do is then why is it so little public opinion actually affects anyone who's in power? They have to GET CAUGHT for a change, or at least during an election year be found with a criticality. Obviously for some time now the public opinion has run very little other than sales and insipid TV series. It seems the weak-minded and quick to judge w/out conscious interpretation are to blame for multi-million and -billion dollar choice being made without consent, within that model of thinking. Think about it.
#97 - Well, did you? The question was a pointed one and you dodged it. Don't armchair like a pontiff when you're merely a whelp. That was the point.
#101 - There is an ignore feature, you might not have been around here long enough to find out. If you don't like it don't respond, in the stead of your current tactic of responding. Sheesh.
#107 - Indeed.
#109 - Amen.

Best regards
Thrawn



As in, Grand Admiral Thrawn?
So do you think Lucas will keep Zahn's ideas for episode 7 on?
I think they could do something with Dooku instead of the superficial relationship they have now ....

As a Non-American please allow me to write some sentences:
Every democratic nation would understand a war regarding safety and defense of the OWN country.

Every nation understood while USA, not Bush, attacked Afghanistan.
For the war against terrorism all nations should sta together.

But with all my respect Eutrusca, if you want to say me, this Iraq war is for defending the USA, then you as an American are sitting on a empty boat worldwide with the english politicians.

The first time ever in history the United States are leading a war by the "demand" of another nation.
For real intelligent people i dont have to write down the name of the nation, but for some pro-Bush delegates:
Saudi Arabia, in correct case, the King Fahd dynasty.
WHat we see is not related with safety or nation security, its all up for oil.

How can a nation abuse his fine, respected and honorable soldiers for a small tribute like oil in our days?
Every day YOUR soldiers are dying for nothing, and it hurts me aswell. Every day innocent people are dying beneath terrorists for nothing.

You say Saddam was dangerous? Of course he was, he was dangerous to his OWN nation, what we have now? A horde of barbarians seeking american soldiers for slaughtering them. And why? THIS soldiers rescued them from Saddam in truth, but no one shows respect, cause of head of the USA. They sent the army not for freedom then for oil in sake of madcow King Fahd.

Two wars:
Afghanistan was right, the world stand behind USA.
Iraq was for own advantage, USA stands alone.

I love the United States for their war against terrorism and as head of world, but this way they acting they will isolate themselves. Not today, but tomorrow.

Best regards
Thrawn

PS: Sorry for my english, still lot of grammatical failures inside.
The reason we felt we needed to invade Iraq was that Saddam was a dangerous man who sponsors terrorism and was working to develop WMD's. (Don't scream at me saying "THERE ARE NO WMDS", since I know that. Key word is: developing.) It had nothing to do with oil, so back off. It's ridiculous to think America went to Iraq for oil, since all oil profits go to reconstructing Iraq. You can question if the choice to go to war was the right one, but questioning our motivations is foolish.

I don't know whats the point of this thread

Lyndon Johnson, Harry Trumen, and Bill Clinton were also men of the year

I guess their dictators too

Im one of the 2003 men of the year

The reason we felt we needed to invade Iraq was that Saddam was a dangerous man who sponsors terrorism and was working to develop WMD's. .....Bush is a dangerous man who sponsors terrorism and is working to develop more WMD's...

...
Im one of the 2003 men of the yearand TimeWarnerInc sux

and TimeWarnerInc sux

Umm...it does...dude. ;)

Bush is a dangerous man who sponsors terrorism and is working to develop more WMD's...

Yep. And Michael Moore eats babies on Melba Toast, while getting a blowjob from Kofi Annan.


Interesting!! Both my statement and yours have the same truth quotient!! :)

Let me get this

*you think Rudy shouldn't have been man of the year due to the fact that he's a scumball

Bin Laden did many worse things than Guiliani has ever done, would you disagree? I am very anti-Bush, but I don't think that supporting him is the moral equivalent of genocide.


The problem is that man of the year is supposed to be the most influential person or the biggest newsmaker of the year.

That was unequivocally bin laden.

What is alarming is that the american people probably wouldnt have understood something like this, and would have had fits.

Making giuliani man of the year just sold more magazines, and time is afterall in the magazine business.

bush person of the year oh wow i needed more toilette paper i didn't even know they considered chimpanzees as humans i guess time magazine is as worth wile as that last months TV guide found under the sofa coated in cheese wiz :rolleyes:

As for army soldiers, they deserve our sympathy, and rather than our congratulations we owe them an apology.

Bull Shit.

The reason we felt we needed to invade Iraq was that Saddam was a dangerous man who sponsors terrorism and was working to develop WMD's. (Don't scream at me saying "THERE ARE NO WMDS", since I know that. Key word is: developing.) It had nothing to do with oil, so back off. It's ridiculous to think America went to Iraq for oil, since all oil profits go to reconstructing Iraq. You can question if the choice to go to war was the right one, but questioning our motivations is foolish.

Sorry Armandian Cheese, you are one of the guys who would believe everything what his government says.
Fact is Saudi Arabia sponsored Terorism, not Saddam.
"Developing" ? Dont make yourself a clown. Still today i can remember the sentences of Bush:
He has Mass Destruction weapons....he can be ready in 45 Minutes..Saddam is ready for..blabla...Saddam visits every night my wife..blabla...

Only Kids would believe him after this great lies. He knew it lot better.

Best regards and end of my replies
Thrawn

Gotta agree with Turkish Battleforce on that one. Can't decide if Armandian Cheese is merely Naive and Foolish, or if it's more sinister than that.

Interesting!! Both my statement and yours have the same truth quotient!! :)You would like that to be true...

too bad for you...we do not have the same quotient...and neither our statements...

Gotta agree with Turkish Battleforce on that one. Can't decide if Armandian Cheese is merely Naive and Foolish, or if it's more sinister than that.
It's very possible that he's just misinformed. I saw a study last week that showed something like 41% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with planning the 9/11 attacks. Anyone want to guess who they get most of their news from? It sure ain't NPR.

I'd like to see a media study done which examines peoples' misconceptions of factual events and see how many of them get the majority of their information from "news analysts" instead of actual news sources. I'll hypothesize right here and now that the more ridiculous the misconception, the more likely they are to get news exclusively from analysts--no matter their political leanings.

You would like that to be true...

too bad for you...we do not have the same quotient...and neither our statements...

You post an absurd statement. I post an absurd reply. There's no difference.

"and neither our statements"? Huh?

Now, if you reject the "absurdity" POV:

Actually, you're right. Since Moore is the poster child for the Democrats (and they favor abortion), it's not impossible he does eat babies on melba toast. Since Bush is President, he cannot sponsor terrorism -- his tax records are open to all and we have the proof. Further, he is not developing WMDs, as he lives in the White House and is closely monitored. As opposed to say, Osama bin Laden. :p

...Since Bush is President, he cannot sponsor terrorism -- LOL "Presidents cannot sponsor terrorism"...
..."they say at CNN/FOX so it must be true"

:headbang:

LOL "Presidents cannot sponsor terrorism"...
..."they say at CNN/FOX so it must be true"

:headbang:

You misintrepret me: Bush doesn't sponsor terrorism. That is a fact. Now, if you think the US Gov't does, that's your issue. But to say Bush does himself is inaccurate. :D


BTW, I don't watch CNN or Fox... I don't have a television.

Let's assume that Bush doesn't sponsor terrorism.

But the terrorist attacks sure do suit him a lot. They give him an excuse. And a weapon. He used the attacks as an excuse for the invasions on the middle east and he uses the fear of people as a mean to stay in power and to control the people that put him in power.

If you have half a brain, you can figure this out by yourself.

God damn, this isnt about what you people have morphed it into, it's about time magazine, and if you agree with the decision.



we DONT need another Republican vs Democrat fight.,

does anyone really win?

Let's assume that Bush doesn't sponsor terrorism.


That's a good assumption, since he clearly does not.


But the terrorist attacks sure do suit him a lot. They give him an excuse. And a weapon. He used the attacks as an excuse for the invasions on the middle east

Right. Because these people are trying to kill us. The USS Cole, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the destruction of the WTC, the attack on the Pentagon, the US Embassy bombings in Africa, the Achillie Laurel, Flight TWA 800, the Berlin nightclub bombing, the Lebannon Barracks bombing... (and so on!) if you look back since the Iranian Revolution, there are DOZENS of militant islamic attacks against the US. We're coming into this fight VERY late.


and he uses the fear of people as a mean to stay in power and to control the people that put him in power.

He's in power because the Dems ran a guy who was marginally more likeable than Michael Dukakis. Give it a rest, Bush won. Now, if he suspends elections in 2008 and declares himself Caesar, then you have an arguement. But not before.


If you have half a brain, you can figure this out by yourself.

If you had half a brain, you'd not accuse others whom do not share your point of view to have half a brain.
Oh, I'm sorry: People whom dislike Bush have the right of dissent, but those that like him don't. I forgot. :p