The 2016 Olympics

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:23 am

sonofccn wrote:A few things. (1) I'm slightly curious how he "knew" Rio, the only South American city up for selection IIRC, was in the lead. All I heard state side was that Chicago was a shoe in.
I had heard that, yes. I had also heard that, as South America had never hosted, the politics of it was in their favor. I also read that the IOC had expressed concerns about Chicago's infrastructure and financial backing for the event. Chicago was only underwritten for about $750 million. China spent 40 billion dollars on their games. Athens spent about 13 billion. Rio's bid is fully federally funded by Brazil's government. Add to that the toxic soup of broadcasting and revenue sharing rights that always crops up between the IOC and the USOC, and Chicago's bid looks weaker. In light of all that, I can't really see this as a rejection of him personally. It's always about money, and Chicago just didn't have it.
sonofccn wrote:(2) how does this alter that he's been made a fool of on the international scene before our friends and enemies?
See, that's the thing. He got "burned," I guess, and thats all anyone can really say. You want to snicker about that, be my guest. But it isn't going to affect his ability to govern, it isn't going to affect international relations, and Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks don't give a crap whether we host or not. They are going to continue their activities Olympics or no Olympics. This event is a disappointment, but it isn't a game-changer in any way.
sonofccn wrote:Since you are not talking to Michael Savage, as far as I know, and considering that 2046 stated that he indeed found Savage a bit alarming hardly qualifies you to spout an inane line like that.
I find his being alarmed by him while simultaneously, however unintentionally, parroting him extremely ironic. But I'll grant you the carpet-nuking comment was an over the top response to said irony.

But as far as Iran goes, I've always advocated for a stronger intelligence network in the region. If it's weapons they're after, I can think of no better way to screw Iran than by intercepting a weapon they try to send out of the country. They deny it, we show the whole world the incontrovertible evidence. China and Russia have no grounds on which to obstruct us then, no viable reason to object to an undeniably appropriate use of force.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by sonofccn » Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:58 pm

Cocytus wrote:I had heard that, yes. I had also heard that, as South America had never hosted, the politics of it was in their favor. I also read that the IOC had expressed concerns about Chicago's infrastructure and financial backing for the event. Chicago was only underwritten for about $750 million. China spent 40 billion dollars on their games. Athens spent about 13 billion. Rio's bid is fully federally funded by Brazil's government. Add to that the toxic soup of broadcasting and revenue sharing rights that always crops up between the IOC and the USOC, and Chicago's bid looks weaker. In light of all that, I can't really see this as a rejection of him personally. It's always about money, and Chicago just didn't have it.
I agree the above is possible through hindsight is 20/20. Regardless it doesn't look good on him if he realized this and went or if he did not realize this and went leading back to naivety or hubris affecting his ability to lead.
See, that's the thing. He got "burned," I guess, and thats all anyone can really say. You want to snicker about that, be my guest.
I plan to. If he's going to go to this much trouble to provide comedy I shouldn't turn it down.
But it isn't going to affect his ability to govern, it isn't going to affect international relations, and Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks don't give a crap whether we host or not. They are going to continue their activities Olympics or no Olympics. This event is a disappointment, but it isn't a game-changer in any way.
This I guess is another area where we disagree. If the president is made to look foolish, naive etc it is not good in my view. It makes the various bad forces think they can get away with stuff, hardly what you want today with the world already coming apart at the seams.
But as far as Iran goes, I've always advocated for a stronger intelligence network in the region. If it's weapons they're after, I can think of no better way to screw Iran than by intercepting a weapon they try to send out of the country. They deny it, we show the whole world the incontrovertible evidence. China and Russia have no grounds on which to obstruct us then, no viable reason to object to an undeniably appropriate use of force.
I'd prefer an airstrike at the production facility, maybe wiping out their top level officials, than waiting for them to ship a nuke out and hoping we intercept it. Russia and China both have their own reasons for supporting who they support. All the evidence in the world wouldn't change that. They would do their best to throw a monkey wrench into the works.

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by The Dude » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:55 am

sonofccn wrote:This I guess is another area where we disagree. If the president is made to look foolish, naive etc it is not good in my view. It makes the various bad forces think they can get away with stuff, hardly what you want today with the world already coming apart at the seams.
I'm pretty sure that America's enemies are not stupid enough to base their strategies on whether or not your President looks like a jackass. They already know where your weak and where your strong (why do you think their attacking your forces in Afghanistan and Iraq?).

I'd prefer an airstrike at the production facility, maybe wiping out their top level officials, than waiting for them to ship a nuke out and hoping we intercept it. Russia and China both have their own reasons for supporting who they support. All the evidence in the world wouldn't change that. They would do their best to throw a monkey wrench into the works.
Right, and you guys know where they all are? Where they've dug things in? Where they are hiding key components?

And Iran is no more going to smuggle a weapon out then Russia is going to ask to join the EU. Nuclear states don't willingly surrender weapons to outside agencies to use or even let them out of their control. They want them for security, cause, surprise, surprise the US has been mucking about in the Middle East for decades and pissing in their sandbox. If they have them then the US has to deal with them on more equal terms.

No doubt they also want them as leverage to use against the other states in the Gulf.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by sonofccn » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:38 pm

The Dude wrote:I'm pretty sure that America's enemies are not stupid enough to base their strategies on whether or not your President looks like a jackass.
If he looks like a doddering idiot they will treat him like one. The last time we had an all style no substance president we were hit hard.
Right, and you guys know where they all are? Where they've dug things in? Where they are hiding key components?
Beats sitting on our hands and hoping to catch them transporting the finished product.
The Dude wrote:And Iran is no more going to smuggle a weapon out then Russia is going to ask to join the EU. Nuclear states don't willingly surrender weapons to outside agencies to use or even let them out of their control. They want them for security, cause, surprise, surprise the US has been mucking about in the Middle East for decades and pissing in their sandbox. If they have them then the US has to deal with them on more equal terms.
Yes, hence why I favor air strikes to disable or retard their nuclear program. Granted it's a stop gap measure until we solve the Iran problem but I fail to see any other practical alternative.

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by The Dude » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:02 pm

sonofccn wrote: If he looks like a doddering idiot they will treat him like one. The last time we had an all style no substance president we were hit hard.
What, you think they cooked up that plan because Bush looked like a retard? An operation like that would have been years in the planning and training stage.
Beats sitting on our hands and hoping to catch them transporting the finished product.
Why?
Yes, hence why I favor air strikes to disable or retard their nuclear program. Granted it's a stop gap measure until we solve the Iran problem but I fail to see any other practical alternative.
Yes it's a stopgap measure, yet no one has provided a reason other then "bad" for why Iran should not be allowed to have them.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:02 pm

sonofccn wrote: If he looks like a doddering idiot they will treat him like one. The last time we had an all style no substance president we were hit hard.
Which president are you referring to specifically?

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by sonofccn » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:30 pm

Bill Clinton. Who else would I, a proud nutjob of the right, place blame on? :)

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by sonofccn » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:36 pm

What, you think they cooked up that plan because Bush looked like a retard? An operation like that would have been years in the planning and training stage.
Not Bush, Clinton.
Why?
The low probability we'll find it before it goes off obviously.

Yes it's a stopgap measure, yet no one has provided a reason other then "bad" for why Iran should not be allowed to have them.
Them being "Bad" is a valid reason to me but I find it likely we do not see eye to eye. Just something we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine.

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by The Dude » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:50 pm

sonofccn wrote:Not Bush, Clinton.
lol ITT we learn that Yanks have no comprehension of the grievances the Muslim world has with them.
The low probability we'll find it before it goes off obviously.
Yeah and are you ever going to address why they wouldn't be smuggling a bomb out?

Them being "Bad" is a valid reason to me but I find it likely we do not see eye to eye. Just something we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine.
What a load of moose muffins. You want to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, one that has the capability to rain chemical weapons all over your facilities in the Gulf and sink your oil tankers, and shove the economy into even more of an outhouse then it is (thanks to the US) because their "bad"?

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by sonofccn » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:41 pm

The Dude wrote:lol ITT we learn that Yanks have no comprehension of the grievances the Muslim world has with them.
How praytell does having grievances change the fact that Clinton not only had a spat of terrorists attacks during his term which he dealt with poorly but 9-11 was plan and prepared for during his time of office? That save for 9-11 there has been no domestic attack? That if thier plan was to punish us for peeing in thier backyard it backfired badly?
Yeah and are you ever going to address why they wouldn't be smuggling a bomb out?
Who said smuggle? They are going to use them once they build them yes, likely with those rockets they keep playing with. That isn't smuggling things through the border.
What a load of moose muffins. You want to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, one that has the capability to rain chemical weapons all over your facilities in the Gulf and sink your oil tankers, and shove the economy into even more of an outhouse then it is (thanks to the US) because their "bad"?
They are a tryanical regime that murder thier own people, wishes nothing but ill will towards a close ally and our selfs and are morally bankrupt. They are bad, just like Nazi Germany was bad, just like the USSR was bad just like every tin plated dictator is bad. They have to be contained and rendered inert at some point. I would prefer an internal revolution into an actual democracy opposed to doing anything but the odds of that at the moment seem low.

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by The Dude » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:50 am

sonofccn wrote: How praytell does having grievances change the fact that Clinton not only had a spat of terrorists attacks during his term which he dealt with poorly but 9-11 was plan and prepared for during his time of office? That save for 9-11 there has been no domestic attack? That if thier plan was to punish us for peeing in thier backyard it backfired badly?
Really, do you have any evidence at all that it was because Clinton was a clown that you got attacked? Here's a hint, practically every President since WWII has been regarded by the rest of the world as a clown.

And why would they need to attack you at home? You've given them two quagmires that they can use to attack you with less effort. Iran would give them a third.

FFS man, do you even know how your own government works? It would be far more beneficial for your enemies to look at Congress and the Senate for clues on what to do. The President is limited in his powers.
Who said smuggle? They are going to use them once they build them yes, likely with those rockets they keep playing with. That isn't smuggling things through the border.
Why would they use them? What possible reason could Iran have for wanting to turn their country into a glass parking lot?
They are a tryanical regime that murder thier own people, wishes nothing but ill will towards a close ally and our selfs and are morally bankrupt. They are bad, just like Nazi Germany was bad, just like the USSR was bad just like every tin plated dictator is bad. They have to be contained and rendered inert at some point. I would prefer an internal revolution into an actual democracy opposed to doing anything but the odds of that at the moment seem low.
Good lord, are Americans incapable of seeing anything but in black and white?

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by Cocytus » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:10 am

sonofccn wrote:Bill Clinton. Who else would I, a proud nutjob of the right, place blame on? :)
Ahh, yes, that eternal bane of conservatives, budget deficits and nubile young women ;) I thought in the context of Iran you meant Carter. But you don't strike me as a nutjob. 2046 is the one I can't stand.

But while were on the topic, yes, there were a number of terrorist attacks during Clinton's term. The WTC in 93, the Murrah Building in 95, the Khobar bombing in 96, the Embassies in 98, and the Cole in 2000, all of which combined don't equal the toll of 9/11. And while the event was indeed planned during Clinton's time in office, several hijackers, notably Atta himself, left and reentered the US after Bush was inaugurated. We've been hit hard under presidents of both colors, and an attack whose planning spans administrations must be laid upon both of them.
sonofccn wrote:That save for 9-11 there has been no domestic attack?
There were the anthrax attacks and the DC sniper shootings. There were, of course, thousands of attacks on our armed forces, but you said domestic, and those are the main domestic attacks I can think of.

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by The Dude » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:16 am

Cocytus wrote:
There were the anthrax attacks and the DC sniper shootings. There were, of course, thousands of attacks on our armed forces, but you said domestic, and those are the main domestic attacks I can think of.
Silly Cocytus, terrorism is something committed by those dirty Muslims. The anthrax and DC Sniper were just good ole fashioned criminals.

And yeah, that was sarcasm.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: The 2016 Olympics

Post by sonofccn » Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:49 am

The Dude wrote:Really, do you have any evidence at all that it was because Clinton was a clown that you got attacked? Here's a hint, practically every President since WWII has been regarded by the rest of the world as a clown.
(1)Clinton as I said reacted poorly to the attacks. He wanted bloodless, riskless victory and became fairly comical in his responses. The bombing of an asprin factory when only the cleaning staff I think would be the standard bearer of what he did. If you do not see that acting like you won't defend yourself won't entice your enemies well there would be nothing I could say that could change your mind. (2) every president, a clown? I think your confusing disagreeing with policy with being comical.
And why would they need to attack you at home? You've given them two quagmires that they can use to attack you with less effort. Iran would give them a third.
Please. Iraq is not a quagmire and even at it's worst was nothing compared to vietnam. Afghanistan...well it is the noble war so maybe Obama will fully support it instead of wafting. Regardless saying us being there makes it easier to attack is like saying D-day made it easier for the Nazi's to attack us.
FFS man, do you even know how your own government works? It would be far more beneficial for your enemies to look at Congress and the Senate for clues on what to do. The President is limited in his powers.
Yes I know how my goverment works. The president repersents his country as the highest elected office in the land. If he looks weak, more concerned with polls and refusing to retailiate unless absoletly assured of a painless victory it reflects on the entire nation. Now is it the only signal? No but I never said it was. It is just the single most visible, it is far easier to get a bearing on the president than say the whole of congress, one.
Why would they use them? What possible reason could Iran have for wanting to turn their country into a glass parking lot?
Thier goverment is more or less run by religious fanatics, thier current president has talked about a world without the Great Satan among other cheerful topics, and your relying on MAD to keep them from firing.
Good lord, are Americans incapable of seeing anything but in black and white?
sonofccn wrote: How praytell does having grievances change the fact that Clinton not only had a spat of terrorists attacks during his term which he dealt with poorly but 9-11 was plan and prepared for during his time of office? That save for 9-11 there has been no domestic attack? That if thier plan was to punish us for peeing in thier backyard it backfired badly?
Really, do you have any evidence at all that it was because Clinton was a clown that you got attacked? Here's a hint, practically every President since WWII has been regarded by the rest of the world as a clown.

And why would they need to attack you at home? You've given them two quagmires that they can use to attack you with less effort. Iran would give them a third.

FFS man, do you even know how your own government works? It would be far more beneficial for your enemies to look at Congress and the Senate for clues on what to do. The President is limited in his powers.
Who said smuggle? They are going to use them once they build them yes, likely with those rockets they keep playing with. That isn't smuggling things through the border.
Why would they use them? What possible reason could Iran have for wanting to turn their country into a glass parking lot?
They are a tryanical regime that murder thier own people, wishes nothing but ill will towards a close ally and our selfs and are morally bankrupt. They are bad, just like Nazi Germany was bad, just like the USSR was bad just like every tin plated dictator is bad. They have to be contained and rendered inert at some point. I would prefer an internal revolution into an actual democracy opposed to doing anything but the odds of that at the moment seem low.
Good lord, are Americans incapable of seeing anything but in black and white?
Yes we have the capability. Now that we are past the expected "cultured" response let's be realistic here. I would guess you enjoy your liberties and rights afforded to you by your nation and presented with a magic sceptor to turn Iran into a replica would likely do it. You may detest the shedding of needless blood but please do not pretend that there is some grand enlightenment in refusing to acknolwedge tyranny. We both want the same for this world, we simply disagree on who to achieve it.

Cocytus wrote:Ahh, yes, that eternal bane of conservatives, budget deficits and nubile young women ;) I thought in the context of Iran you meant Carter.
Well you know my opinion on him :). Just for the record on Clinton in my personal opinion besides being way too soft on international issues, save when he was trying to distract and became comical in his air raids, I don't have too much issue with him. I even have a little grudging respect on the way he could weather things that could kill most normal people's presidencies.
But while were on the topic, yes, there were a number of terrorist attacks during Clinton's term. The WTC in 93, the Murrah Building in 95, the Khobar bombing in 96, the Embassies in 98, and the Cole in 2000, all of which combined don't equal the toll of 9/11. And while the event was indeed planned during Clinton's time in office, several hijackers, notably Atta himself, left and reentered the US after Bush was inaugurated. We've been hit hard under presidents of both colors, and an attack whose planning spans administrations must be laid upon both of them.
I personally think everyone has a hand in the blame. We have been all to happy to ignore the middle east as it boiled decade after decade administration after administration through of course with the Soviets dead and buried( crosses fingers) and hindsight being what it is of course I say that. The holes those scumbags slipped in and out of were a long time forming and no single admin can be solely blamed.
There were the anthrax attacks and the DC sniper shootings. There were, of course, thousands of attacks on our armed forces, but you said domestic, and those are the main domestic attacks I can think of.
Those also were homegrown low level I believe not like the well planned well funded 9-11. There of course have also been a smattering of would be attacks which were niched, thank God, through small potatoes compared to what they could have done.

Post Reply