The W
Views: 99019192
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.9.07 2104
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Susan Sarandon is stupid
This thread has 17 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3(1986 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (49 total)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 713/2104
EXP: 6572566
For next: 78124

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#41 Posted on 30.10.02 1250.08
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1254.03
Iraq is not a huge supporter of Hamas. Hamas' gets the lion's share of it's money from Iran, which shares it's Shi'ite religion. I'm guessing you're referring to Saddam paying suicide bombers' families, some of which are Hamas members. Support, sure, but more symbolic and political than anything. It's not like Saddam is a major source of financing for anything other than his Palaces and Harams.

As for the strategy, you're not playing "Axis and Allies" here. Positions on a map and such are not what's going to win this war. Planning for 9-11 mostly took place in Germany. The attack was carried out in America. A lot of the financing went through Liberia. Al Qaida's biggest organization nowdays is in Indonesia. Getting classic military positioning in the Middle East might have worked for Rommel, but this is a whole different story.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 272/1759
EXP: 4910839
For next: 82031

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1281 days
Last activity: 47 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#42 Posted on 30.10.02 1328.13
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1329.03
Actually- I disagree. Terrorists have no real national affiliation, and are able to plan and carry out attacks on an international basis like that. We, are not. We still need access to where we want to go, and positioning is very important for that.
A good part of our strategy has to be to pressure nations with Al Quaida presence by using military force. Pakistan is being a great deal more cooperative with our forces in Afghanistan, for example. We basically tell these countries (one at a time) that if they do not handle their problem, we will come in and handle it for them. That is what we did in Apfghanistan. That is what we are demanding of Iraq, and certainly we will do the same in Iran. Position is very important!
El Duderino
Pinkelwurst
Level: 13

Posts: 15/26
EXP: 8750
For next: 1517

Since: 15.10.02
From: Looo-vuhl

Since last post: 4318 days
Last activity: 4306 days
#43 Posted on 30.10.02 1405.47
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1406.22

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    What idiot would come out and say "We plan to attack you, but our forces are dedicated elsewhere right now, so you will have to wait?" If any of our politicians had said something like that, They should be shot...



Um, isn't that exactly what we did with Iraq?

Yeah, I know that was a good ways back in this thread, but I'm just a-comin' to the party and couldn't resist.

Another point I'd like to bring up that hasn't really been discussed, and what I think is the real question in all of this: Let's say we defeat Iraq's fairly limited army, and kill Hussein. What then?

Do we allow Iraqis to select a government and leader of their choosing, and risk another tyrant coming to power? Do we install an America-sponsored government and risk revolt? Will either of these choices stabalize Iraq and make a better life for its citizens, or will we just create another country festering with Anti-American sentiment that spills over into more terrorist attacks?

Rather than "Saddam bad, America SMASH!" the leaders of this country need to be fully prepared to deal with the consequences before we attack and not after. If our leadership truly wants to end terror, and is not motivated by financial gains or personal vendettas as many have suggested; then there needs to be a clear, cogent, fully thought through plan to make Iraq a functioning member of the global community. And every action we take in that region needs to be another step in making that plan a reality, and nothing further. Until we truly have such a plan (and I certainly see no evidence thereof) I don't see how anyone can in good faith support this "war." Even stupid celebrities like Susan Sarandon.


Dude.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 275/1759
EXP: 4910839
For next: 82031

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1281 days
Last activity: 47 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#44 Posted on 30.10.02 1411.18
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1411.30
I agree that we do need to help establish a new government. But it is a little soon to be discussing what form that would take. I think following the template we set down in Afghanistan is a good thing. That government seems to be progressing nicely... and we seem to be keeping our promise not to pack up and go after we were done in the area...
As far as Iraq- We are telling them that if they do not do what we want, we will attack them. That is different than telling them that we WOULD attack them, but we are busy right now... there is a big difference...
jfkfc
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 148/1177
EXP: 2739863
For next: 129895

Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 64 days
Last activity: 1 day
#45 Posted on 30.10.02 1506.41
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1509.22

    Originally posted by Scott Summets
    Did anyone see her little speech yesterday, jeez is this woman an idiot. Not one of her comments made any sense at all or were valid. Whoever thought of putting her up there is a dumbass, and whoever agreed with her is one too. That had to have been the worst speech I've ever heard in my entire life.
I was just noticing that no one has disputed the fact that Susan Sarandon, in all probability, is stupid. I think it wouldn't be at all inappropriate to say that her speech made her sound like a drunk idiot. Was the point of this thread whether or not you agreed with her, or if she is friggin dumb as dirt? It's pretty much been three pages of posts since anyone has addressed this.
Fletch
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 77/89
EXP: 55988
For next: 2363

Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4332 days
Last activity: 4329 days
#46 Posted on 30.10.02 1520.34
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1526.26

    Originally posted by jfkfc
    It's pretty much been three pages of posts since anyone has addressed this.


Why dispute the obvious?

Well, maybe that's a little heavy handed...

Stupid or not, she certainly sounded stupid. But she's been doing well at that since coming out for Nader in '00.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 641/3025
EXP: 11193534
For next: 277911

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#47 Posted on 30.10.02 1529.51
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1530.08
I wouldn't go so far as to call Susan Sarandon stupid, but I really can't stand Nader supporters criticizing Dubya for anything. They could've kept him out of there, but instead decided to feel self-righteous for a few minutes walking out of the voting booth.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 279/1759
EXP: 4910839
For next: 82031

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1281 days
Last activity: 47 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#48 Posted on 30.10.02 1701.06
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1702.50

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    I wouldn't go so far as to call Susan Sarandon stupid, but I really can't stand Nader supporters criticizing Dubya for anything. They could've kept him out of there, but instead decided to feel self-righteous for a few minutes walking out of the voting booth.

Of course, because if you do not vote Democrat or Republican, you are wasting your vote...
Get serious! That mentality is elitist asshole garbage. Nadar supporters could just as easily say that DEMOCRATS should have voted for Nader, to keep out Bush. The Green Party has every right to a canditate- they followed all the rules and regulations of election law (Not like New Jersey *cOuGh*!)- Citizens have every right to vote for whoever they like... that is the POINT of voting. If there is more than 2 choices- great. The more the merrier.
And if you take a look at some of the elections around the country (Simon/Davis in California, for example) ... I wonder if third choices are not often preferable.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 644/3025
EXP: 11193534
For next: 277911

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#49 Posted on 31.10.02 1503.07
Reposted on: 31.10.09 1510.30
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy

      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      I wouldn't go so far as to call Susan Sarandon stupid, but I really can't stand Nader supporters criticizing Dubya for anything. They could've kept him out of there, but instead decided to feel self-righteous for a few minutes walking out of the voting booth.

    Of course, because if you do not vote Democrat or Republican, you are wasting your vote...
    Get serious! That mentality is elitist asshole garbage. Nadar supporters could just as easily say that DEMOCRATS should have voted for Nader, to keep out Bush. The Green Party has every right to a canditate- they followed all the rules and regulations of election law (Not like New Jersey *cOuGh*!)- Citizens have every right to vote for whoever they like... that is the POINT of voting. If there is more than 2 choices- great. The more the merrier.
    And if you take a look at some of the elections around the country (Simon/Davis in California, for example) ... I wonder if third choices are not often preferable.



If you do not vote Democrat or Republican, are you wasting your vote? The regrettable answer is "Yes". It's the two-party system. It's hardly the best in the world, but it's what we've got.

I could just as easily say that Bush, Gore, Nader and Buchanan all took votes away from Santa Claus, but that wouldn't give it any validity or truth.

Look, here's the fact of the matter. If you want to vote third party, fine, go ahead, but with an election as close as Bush/Gore was, to toss out a vote for a third party, completely ignoring how disasterous a Bush predicency would be for any kind of liberal agenda, is inherently foolish.

Besides, Ralph Nader was a registered Democrat until he decided to run as a Green. If he honestly wanted to make any sort of difference, he'd have ran as a Democrat in the primaries. He might've even won a few states. What he did helped no one but himself and George W. Bush.

EDIT: And, for the record, I know the overwhelming majority of liberals I enjoy voted and campaigned for Nader, including Aaron McGruder who wrote the cartoon in my sig. file, so I'm well aware of the hypocracy.

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 31.10.02 1604)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3Thread ahead: Wellstone Memorial Decried as Political Rally
Next thread: A Nightmare in the Senate
Previous thread: This forum
(1986 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Susan Sarandon is stupidRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.288 seconds.