The Bush Disaster [Archive]

LDawgg

07-08-2008, 10:32 PM

It is easy to point the blame, but hard to accept the blame as your own.
People should stop blaming Bush for their problems and take action towards what they want done. Blaming people gets you nowhere.
One of the main things people bring up is how many people died in our confrontation in the Middle East. GUESS WHAT? IT IS CALLED FUCKING WAR. PEOPLE DIE IN WAR YOU IDIOTS. JUST BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICAN DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE INVINCIBLE!
The number of casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom is the lowest out of any war America has been in (aside from the cold war o/c).
I hate it when people blame Bush. Because it just tells me that they are lazy and arrogant. They are too lazy to get something done themselves. They are too arrogant to understand the results of action.
Not to say everyone is like that, but the majority are.
/rant

i hope this isn't aimed at me, i just wanted to see what people thought of bushes presidency.:confused:

Tags: ... fake, news,... >> jst btw
Hm... not everything people do... is just bad.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070324115501AAj3KJt

Um, just pointing out, one of those guys couldn't come up with an awnser, and another sayed the economy is booming. that guy = IGNORANT

Biohazard

07-08-2008, 10:34 PM

Tags: comedy, satire, funny, fake, news, onion, george, w, bush, cheney

Onion? Is it cause he makes people cry?

PaiN

07-08-2008, 10:57 PM

onion is a fake news network. They make jokes on certain things and over exaggerate. You tube them, they can be very funny.

Protogod

07-09-2008, 12:13 AM

They also have a regular newspaper that they publish. Very worthwhile.

One of the main things people bring up is how many people died in our confrontation in the Middle East. GUESS WHAT? IT IS CALLED FUCKING WAR. PEOPLE DIE IN WAR YOU IDIOTS. JUST BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICAN DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE INVINCIBLE!
The number of casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom is the lowest out of any war America has been in (aside from the cold war o/c).
I hate it when people blame Bush.

I'd just like to point out:

That's comparable to saying I payed to have your mother/father killed, and then saying its not my fault.

Its a murder, of course someone is going to die! Don't blame me you idiot!

Really, war isnt a good thing. Just because its a war doesnt mean we shouldnt be appalled at the deaths in it. It's a senseless, illegal war that was waged under false pretenses. I'm ashamed for you to not be appalled. This was not necessary, and every death lies squarely on the shoulders of Bush and his administration.

U-238

07-09-2008, 12:16 AM

Yes. The newspaper was published long before the news videos were (80s). It is quite a good read. They do a very good job in the videos of telling absolutely bullshit news with a straight face. This (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important) is currently one of my favorites. :D

Anoiktos

07-09-2008, 12:59 AM

The number of casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom is the lowest out of any war America has been in (aside from the cold war o/c).
Except, see, it's also a 'war' (read: 'police action') that has no relevancy to the U.S. at all beyond oil interests and Israeli appeasement. There are no WMD, there have been more civilian casualties per year now than during the previous regime, and there's no end in sight. (i.e. no timetable for removing our troops and allowing the government to take over)

Afghanistan, sure. there's a ridiculously wartorn country that's definitely been harboring terrorists and demonstrably needs help recovering (go look up the history of the place if you don't know what I mean) Iraq? No. We helped put Saddam in power. We supported "his" interests because he was an "Anti-communist" force, and we cut him off and attacked him because - at first - he was threatening nonexistent WMDs, and then he was some horrible dictator that we magically hadn't previously had a problem with.

Just because we're not invincible doesn't mean we should accept losses. It doesn't mean people dying is good. It doesn't justify going into a war we had no real reason to enter.

Lo, lest we forget President Bush's Speech (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq) before entering Iraq.

Justification:
The attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al-Qaida's plans and designs. Today, in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined and whose consequences could be far more deadly.

By 2004, we knew this to be false (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435).

We've been in there for four more years, so far. Twice as long as we had been when that study was published. We've spent massive amounts more money, added even more troops, and made little progress towards the goals set out during the invasion.

I would agree that in war, people die. I would even agree that sometimes, war is necessary, though I wouldn't do so readily. I do not agree that people need to die for a 'war' that was begun due to (at the least) faulty intelligence, under false pretenses, without congressional approval.

Magmaniac

07-09-2008, 2:35 AM

blah blah blah fake president of a fake country full of fake people

I do not give a shit.

Vezer

07-09-2008, 2:41 AM

The one about the Supreme Court Ruling that the Death Sentance is Bad Assed is my fav right now.

WarInSerbia

07-09-2008, 7:11 AM

yup,you gota love Onion network :D

SilverCrusader

07-09-2008, 12:31 PM

That's comparable to saying I payed to have your mother/father killed, and then saying its not my fault.

Its a murder, of course someone is going to die! Don't blame me you idiot!

Really, war isnt a good thing. Just because its a war doesnt mean we shouldnt be appalled at the deaths in it. It's a senseless, illegal war that was waged under false pretenses. I'm ashamed for you to not be appalled. This was not necessary, and every death lies squarely on the shoulders of Bush and his administration.
Appalled at what? The imperialistic nature of the United States? I've been appalled at that for a long time.
War is bad and so are deaths. But we're America. We're the biggest, strongest, and think it is our job to police the world. And when someone steps out of line and we don't like what we are doing than we stop them. It is funny how a country that advocates democracy and is democratic tries to rule the world like a monarchy. I doubt that American imperialism will ever change.
One life is one too many. But we did help people take down a tyrant. It isn't our place to do so, but never the less I'm sure that people there were happy about it.

How would you sleep at night, knowing the deaths of thousands of soldiers is on your shoulders? The president has to deal with that every single day for the rest of his life. I'm not saying we shouldn't stop the war, I'm saying that blaming someone is stupid because it achieves nothing.

Nephi

07-09-2008, 12:40 PM

so if Bush is so hated what does that say about congress as they have an even lower approval rating than him (and actually the lowest approval rating of all time)

LDawgg

07-09-2008, 12:44 PM

Really, war isnt a good thing. Just because its a war doesnt mean we shouldnt be appalled at the deaths in it. It's a senseless, illegal war that was waged under false pretenses. I'm ashamed for you to not be appalled. This was not necessary, and every death lies squarely on the shoulders of Bush and his administration.
Amen. And we're still in there 'helping the people rebuild' when they don't want us in there. We're trying to build a democracy in a centuries year old tribal culture; no wonder things are not working out. And the fact that we're really there for oil doesn't help either.

Yes. This (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important) is currently one of my favorites. :D
i crapped my pants this was so funny

blah blah blah fake president of a fake country full of fake people

I do not give a shit.
Thank you for contributing.

btw my fav is the one about the mily cyrus crisus

SilverCrusader

07-09-2008, 12:45 PM

so if Bush is so hated what does that say about congress as they have an even lower approval rating than him (and actually the lowest approval rating of all time)
Because Bush is the figurehead of America. People view him as their leader, not all three branches. So they also put all the blame on him.
although I am more dissatisfied with congress than I am with the Bush administration.
Some law makers are just stupid, one purposed a bill that would ban anonymity online to stop cyber-bullying not so long ago.

The_Maker

07-09-2008, 3:33 PM

Except, see, it's also a 'war' (read: 'police action') that has no relevancy to the U.S. at all beyond oil interests and Israeli appeasement. There are no WMD, there have been more civilian casualties per year now than during the previous regime, and there's no end in sight. (i.e. no timetable for removing our troops and allowing the government to take over)

Afghanistan, sure. there's a ridiculously wartorn country that's definitely been harboring terrorists and demonstrably needs help recovering (go look up the history of the place if you don't know what I mean) Iraq? No. We helped put Saddam in power. We supported "his" interests because he was an "Anti-communist" force, and we cut him off and attacked him because - at first - he was threatening nonexistent WMDs, and then he was some horrible dictator that we magically hadn't previously had a problem with.

Just because we're not invincible doesn't mean we should accept losses. It doesn't mean people dying is good. It doesn't justify going into a war we had no real reason to enter.

Lo, lest we forget President Bush's Speech (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq) before entering Iraq.

Justification:

By 2004, we knew this to be false (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435).

We've been in there for four more years, so far. Twice as long as we had been when that study was published. We've spent massive amounts more money, added even more troops, and made little progress towards the goals set out during the invasion.

I would agree that in war, people die. I would even agree that sometimes, war is necessary, though I wouldn't do so readily. I do not agree that people need to die for a 'war' that was begun due to (at the least) faulty intelligence, under false pretenses, without congressional approval.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=5314609&page=1

Please continue acting like you know what you're talking about.

Anoiktos

07-09-2008, 3:48 PM

Please continue acting like you know what you're talking about.
Please read the sources you quote.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

Not powerful enough for a dirty bomb, i.e. nowhere near powerful enough for a nuclear bomb. Not even powerful enough to make a nuclear reactor. Saying "We found yellowcake, therefore WMD" is like saying "We found bat guano, therefore rifles." Except it's a lot easier to turn bat guano into gunpowder than it is yellowcake into a nuclear bomb.

so if Bush is so hated what does that say about congress as they have an even lower approval rating than him (and actually the lowest approval rating of all time)
Because congress continues not to attempt to oppose him because neither side has the votes required to get a bill past a presidential veto, so any controversial issues are brought up only by fringe politicians like Kucinich.

GenocideAlive

07-09-2008, 4:23 PM

While I'm not particularly pleased with any of the Presidencies in the past 20 years, I still find time to be particularly annoyed at the current criticisms. Probably because I am an imperialist and I do find that "Might Makes Right" is practiced around the world over and over under different contexts. Of course, when the strongest does it, everybody bawls. When the weaker countries do it (Oil for Food), it's quickly swept under the rug with a pseudo-altruism and a nailed smile.

That said, the argument via analogy of "bat guano, therefore rifles" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. If you were absolutely chained to horrible analogies as a method of arguing crippled points, you would be forced to say "gunpowder, therefore bullets". Yellowcake is not bat guano, it's a precursor to atomic weapons that can wipe out cities using the crudest and most basic missiles. Countries do not stockpile nuclear precursors for shits and grins. Fringe countries being run by lunatics that possess and regularly employ Sarin gas against civil unrest and in racist contexts do not strike me as reliable holders.

We knew Saddam didn't have the means to enrich his yellowcake and that he more than likely did not possess bombs. But he did possess yellowcake and he did possess chemical weapons that he employed on soldiers when they attacked. We found more in warheads and IEDs. Politicians are retconning their stances away from war declarations because the war has become costly and unpopular. By saying, "Oh we didn't have 100% of the information" they absolve themselves of responsibility. Then they pass the buck until it reaches Bush.

Bush on the other hand isn't helping anything with his hee-haw rhetoric that doesn't change. He also isn't winning any friends with his insistence of Guantanamo Bay even after initial paranoia has subsided. These people need trials or court, and keeping it there isn't doing anybody any good.

Is this any different than Bill Clinton getting a blowjob then lying to a Grand Jury? At least Bush was following principles. Meanwhile, on the stump for 2008 there's not much better.

And to the OP: find something to do with your life besides watch politically motivated TV on the Internet please.

Anoiktos

07-09-2008, 4:55 PM

If you were absolutely chained to horrible analogies as a method of arguing crippled points, you would be forced to say "gunpowder, therefore bullets". Yellowcake is not bat guano, it's a precursor to atomic weapons that can wipe out cities using the crudest and most basic missiles. Countries do not stockpile nuclear precursors for shits and grins.
I chose to use that analogy instead of gunpowder -> bullets as gunpowder has few if any uses outside of munitions, wheras yellowcake is used in nuclear reactors (as fuel), and must be enriched to be used in weapons. In a similar manner, bat guano can be used for fertilizer as well as as a source of saltpeter.

But seeing as you don't like analogies, I'll put it simply: Yellowcake is not the same thing as enriched uranium, which is not the same thing as a nuclear missile. It can be used in reactors with much less processing than is necessary for it to be enriched into weapons-grade material. As such, finding yellowcake is not evidence of the existence of nuclear weapons, nor is it solid evidence of intent to create nuclear weapons.

Not that the countries that currently have nuclear weapons are all responsible pillars of the community who have demonstrated keen diplomatic subtlety and sense. We've shown no willingness to reduce our nuclear arsenal, even faced with Russia's wishes.

In fact, Israel, whose arsenal we support extremely heavily, is one of the few sovereign states to not have signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty; Iraq has (though it was cited and sanctioned for breaking the treaty), and under its rules should be allowed to use even enriched uranium for "peaceful use of nuclear energy". As such, the existence of yellowcake in Iraq is entirely expected under that treaty.

So I agree: Countries do not stockpile nuclear precursors for shits and grins. They stockpile them for peaceful use, and while this may become nonpeaceful use, it is then, with clear evidence of this violation, that something should be done. There was no such evidence before the war began beyond the IAEA's reports of Iraq's purchasing aluminum tubes (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E1D81E3EF933A25752C0A9659C8B 63).

At the same time, however, these tubes were of the sort and dimensions for making centrifuges; both the CIA, the DIA, and the NSA noted this, but:
some officials in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department have questioned this analysis, saying that the tubes might be intended to make rockets.

So far, I have seen no evidence that Iraq was making WMD's, merely that it was following the non-proliferation treaty in its wish to provide nuclear energy.

find something to do with your life besides watch politically motivated TV on the Internet please.
As opposed to what? Trying to find non-politically-motivated news anywhere? Good luck with that.

GenocideAlive

07-09-2008, 5:14 PM

While I can appreciate the many uses of the nitrogen-rich guano, I still find the analogy overly doctored to accurately depict the scenario. A suitcase bomb doesn't take aluminum tubes, and it's fairly obvious that Iran has literally taken Iraq's plan and followed it to a tee. Again, you may claim that Iran isn't allowing the UN Inspectors into the plant for reasons of nuclear power frilly unmentionables. I, on the other hand, am not comfortable with sitting around waiting to get bombed. And neither is Israel. I heavily disagree with much of Israel and its policies, founding, etc. but there is absolutely no denying that this stupid fuck is threatening them with nuclear war.

And considering we invented, proliferated, and developed nuclear arms as a means to defend ourselves from Axis aggression, our coming into possession of them is entirely in defense. This is far different from Iraq living in a pseudo-military state and attempting to revolutionize their military power in a decade on the backs of starving citizens and racist ideals. Does this mean we should run over there and police them? No. Does it mean that if we do, we're evil? No. For as much as people cry about guards kicking the Quran and getting it wet and this and that bullshit, they're sawing off civilian's heads with Bowie knives. Don't give me the "poor, peaceful Iraqis don't wanna war" speech. They wanted war, and prepared for it.

And please, please stop with the stupid strawmen. I did not tell him to go find non-politically motivated news. I told him to stop watching it on the Internet (where production is so cheap anyone can do it) that panders to his close-minded beliefs (which are rarely verified in such long-winded pseudo-documentary pieces). At least look for a well-known source that would have hell to pay if it put up something as retarded and mindless as Bush in a devil pantsuit.

Anoiktos

07-09-2008, 5:42 PM

I've seen some awful stupid columns on the internet, but then I've seen some awful stupid ones on TV, too, and I've read some awful stupid ones in print. While I believe I understand where you're coming from (don't believe sources without credibility), the implicit allegation that because someone does not have enough money to report news in other media than through the internet their opinions are invalid is patently false.

That's an attempt at clarification, not an insult. People should follow news sources that have built up credibility instead of those coming from left field - regardless of the money involved. That is to say, people should analyze their sources as well as what those sources say, because context is both relevant and very important.

I'll assume we agree on this point unless you care to say otherwise. Strawman indeed.

As for 'Sitting around waiting to be bombed', I don't see us doing anything about North Korea. I don't see how invading a country and sitting on it (giving its citizens all the incentive in the world to fallback on terrorist or guerilla tactics) helps reduce terrorism. I don't see how ruining our economy and plunging us into even more massive debt is excusable by 'not waiting around to be bombed' when Iraq showed little to no intention of doing so.

9/11 showed us that Afghanistani and Saudi Arabian people were willing to send a symbolic message of hatred to our country. We've practically left Afghanistan and we've ignored Saudi Arabia. Why Iraq? North Korean tests have shown that even if a country has nuclear capability, this doesn't necessarily mean it has the capability to get those bombs to the mainland of other countries, especially those isolated by several other countries and an ocean on either side.

As for 'inventing nuclear weapons to defend ourselves from the Axis', I'm sure any and all countries in the middle east are feeling a little threatened by Israel, not to mention the United States at this point. Israel has shown that it has no serious interest in peace beyond surrender with Palestine, and the U.S. is already very blatantly threatening war with Iran. Would it not be appropriate, under the same rationale that we developed nuclear weapons, for them to do so as well?

Racist ideals? Starving citizens? After World War II, the women who had so diligently worked in the factories to produce weapons were, for the most part, fired. During World War II, even American-born people of Japanese descent were imprisoned, regardless of their political affiliations. Lest you somehow not forget, before World War II was the Great Depression.

The conditions in Iraq pre-invasion were more similar than you might think to those of pre-WWII United States, though the oppression came from different sources and for different reasons.

9/11, the World Trade Center, was an economic symbol. And where is our economy now?

Nephi

07-09-2008, 6:55 PM

While I'm not particularly pleased with any of the Presidencies in the past 20 years.

so since Reagan?

Darmago

07-09-2008, 9:05 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w

my favorite onion report.

GenocideAlive

07-10-2008, 12:48 PM

Since Johnson, really. Johnson did the whole "amnesty for any illegals" which was the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Nixon cheated in an almost ridiculous fashion, but he had some decent policy. Reagan's entire platform was on developing oil industry, and promoting "the American Way" as a form of abuse and overuse vs. his opponent who was trying to move away from it towards renewable energy and now we're paying for it. He also wasted billions on Star Wars, which was not really viable then (though it is now, imo).

As for the discussion, I again request that you stop forming strawmen, Anokitos. I never at any juncture stated all forms of media on the Internet are not credible. I also never said that accurate information required tons of money to be communicated. These are elaborate meanderings of yours that don't even involve the original context of political commentary, which is a far cry from "news sources". Either stop with the wild hyperboles and blatant strawmen or drop it.

As for North Korea, I'm absolutely stymied as to what you propose we do to or with North Korea. They are sitting right next to China and drawing heavily from if not blatantly copying Chinese technology for the Taep'odong-2C/3 missile[1] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-2.htm). They've tested missiles in the waters off the coast of Japan, and we've been closely following their missile program since the 90s. But again, that brings us right back to Iran / Iraq, because guess who has been in negotations with PyongYang since 2002 to buy ICBMs and set up a facility in Tehran?

Israel's founding wasn't the best of moves and I certainly don't feel any race "deserves" a country formed of others'. This decision has already been made, however. There will be no "undoing" it now. Control of Jerusalem is a huge contingency for all Islamic and Christian religious beliefs--fighting over it has stretched since the beginning of history. You aren't going to stop it, no matter what you do. As for "Israel has no interest beyond surrender with Palestine", I can only laugh myself hoarse. Are you suggesting that Palestine is a peace-loving, good natured country being victimized by evil Israel? Considering the US / Israeli presence is based on near daily threats from Iran to "wipe Israel off the map", "destroy the Zionists", etc. etc., I'm having a lot of trouble following how open threats from a military dictatorship equate defense by a democratic republic.

I'm at somewhat of a loss for your comparison to the US against Nazi Germany and Iraq. Racial profiling done to the Japanese during World War II was loudly and deeply admonished by all stages of government post. We were also doing so in a hyper paranoid effort to avoid spies, not of racial inferiority accusations. We also gave them a place to live and fed them, as opposed to, you know, gassing them and performing experiments similar to what they were performing on our soldiers[2] (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSPEK37053320070525)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Torture_of_POWs). That we even had members of Japan in our country is a massive indication of our advanced enlightenment, considering that an American during that same time would have been tortured, murdered, and then more than likely cannibalized.

As for the women getting fired and the US economy slumping, I'm not following these points at all. If you have something you'd like to say, I'm all ears. But if you're going to stand around and shoot in the air with unpointed rhetorical questions, I'll have to cede for purposes of not wasting my time.

SilverCrusader

07-10-2008, 12:53 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w

my favorite onion report.
Lol, "researchers say they have found a cure for awakeness"

Anoiktos

07-10-2008, 3:20 PM

I say that Israel has no interest in peace with Palestine because the many times that the two countries have attempted a peace deal, Israel tends to ignore whatever conditions they've agreed to, and Palestine then retaliates, followed by retaliation from Israel, etc, etc. It's a child's game with added corpses, not a political peace process.

I say that the rationalization for developing nuclear weapons in WWII could be applied to the same in Iran at the moment because Iran, too, is subject to a blatant threat from another nation. You rationalized U.S. development of a nuclear weapon as 'defense against axis aggression', and so I rationalized it for Iran as 'defense against American aggression'. Iraq doesn't even come into the equation, because there's no evidence that they were trying to make nuclear weapons with their resources.

Israel has been abusing its power as our protegé, acting with ridiculous clout knowing that whatever happens, we will support them. I feel that if indeed it is necessary for Israel to remain under our protection, it should at least make an effort to not be openly hostile towards everyone in the region. Yes, many of the countries in the region hate Israel and war actively with them, but it doesn't help that they actively threaten every country in the region with the superior weaponry and funding gifted them by the United States. If there is to be no 'undoing' of Israel, then have we committed ourselves to supporting an infinite continuation of war? Why must we continue to support stupid, harmful, and expensive ideas simply because the choice has already been made?

Consider the perspective of other countries in the region, having their states cut out by lines that seldom have much to do with cultural differences, and then having a highly religious factional state plopped into their territory with the support of a huge nation halfway across the world. Do they not have a right to feel threatened, or to attempt to defend themselves from an aggressor? What gives us the right to change the balance of power in that area and expect everyone to get over it?

GenocideAlive

07-10-2008, 5:33 PM

First, I'd like you to clarify, in no uncertain terms, how the U.S. is directly and solely responsible for the formation of Israel. It keeps sounding like you're claiming that the U.S. went over there by its own accord and made that decision at the chagrin of the international community. I'd like to hear exactly what you think happened and why the U.S. is solely to blame for Israel's existence.

Next, I'd like to ask you how you are coming to the conclusion that every time Israel and Palestine come to a cease fire, Israel is the likely party to blame for breaking it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Lebanon_War). I am especially interested in this point, because not only are you absolutely, entirely wrong in that statement, it seems to support my developing impression that you are spouting angry demagoguery and literally are living in a fantasy world where the facts are irrelevant to your beliefs.

Falling in line with this impression, you claim that Israel is responsible for all this aggressive warring in the Middle East, while entirely ignoring that as soon as Israel was formed, the Arab League declared war upon it. The Arab League declared war upon Israel. It was a UN mandate followed upon a British initiative, and had nothing to do with the U.S.

And to reiterate, Germany started World War II by violated the terms of the Versailles Treaty (which most agreed were too harsh), "reclaiming" land lost in WWI, and then by occupying the Sutenland / Invading Poland. We stayed out of the war, if you recall. And it wasn't until the sinking of American vessels, the Zimmerman telegram, and Pearl Harbor that the U.S. decided to break its foot off in Germany's ass. Then we started development of a nuclear weapon under the understanding that Germany was doing the same and we needed to do so in an arms race. Once we got the weapon, Russia obtained it shortly thereafter via spies. Queue another arms race regarding Communism vs. Democracy. At every point we were attempting to match a direct aggressor's arms. Iran/Iraq is not matching an aggressor's arms, they were largely unaffected by the Israel landgrab. They attacked Israel, were turned away, and are now escalating to continue firestarting on equal terms. These are not comparable unless you ignore facts in favor of lame analogies.

Otherwise, I am absolutely open to your solutions, Anokitos. Please, tell me, tell the world what we should do to resolve the Israeli conflicts. Otherwise, please quit your bitching about how the system is broken. Everybody can see the system is broken, we don't need a town crier. It has been broken for over 60 years when the British decided these fucks were never going to get along and left.

Anoiktos

07-10-2008, 6:07 PM

What I am trying to say is not that the system is broken - in any case where war exists, this is painfully obvious. What I am trying to say is that the way in which this country continues to worsen the situation is lamentable - by, for example, invading Iraq - and indicates that we have somehow not learned from the lesson that you so delicately describe the British learning. As such, I do not have a solution beyond radical ones that create more problems than they solve (like nuking Jerusalem or leaving and trying to let them sort it out in a way that would ensure genocide - neither of which will likely solve the deeper problem and both of which will create larger problems)

The U.S. alone did not create the problem in Western Asia; far from it - Its problems started with the factionalism in the Ottoman Empire. We did, however, use it (and many other areas of the globe) as a political battleground with the U.S.S.R., and as a resource to be controlled for its oil. France, Great Britan, Russia - almost every country on the globe has contributed to its problems at this point because of the resources it commands and its location near the center of eurasia, between the eastern and western civilization groups of that continent.

Israel is not the only aggressor near it; I specifically stated that "many of the countries in the region hate Israel and war actively with them", and I did not mean to imply that they are the sole aggressors in this context, merely that they have done little to encourage peace. Indeed, Palestine's initial view towards Israel was a hostile one: Someone's gone and given half our country to someone else - let's get it back.

Unfortunately, it is exactly that view that I see as not entirely unreasonable; is it reasonable to expect that any country would accept a massive separation of one state from another? In most countries, this would be called a civil war, and we wouldn't think much more about it; in Israel/Palestine, we actively seek to ensure that the two states remain separate.

One of the problems I see, one of the reasons that other countries in Western Asia are hostile towards Israel, is precisely the reason that they are still a state: That we're supporting them. From the perspective of a leader in that area, having a U.S.-sponsored state in your backyard means you suddenly not only have to worry about the state itself, but whatever agenda the U.S. seeks to propagate from it.

And no, Iran/Iraq are not attempting to 'match an aggressor's arms' - they're trying to catch up. The aggressor in this case is the U.S.A.

Before the war in Iraq, yes; I can agree that any arms they were building were most likely to end up as material for firestarting. Now that the U.S. has shown its hand (through Bush, Clinton, and Bush, of late), however, they have quite a bit of reason to attempt to fight back.

The solution? To have not attacked them until we were able to convince the U.N. that its weapons inspectors were being neutralized or ignored, and gotten their support - and preferably to have used this support to get them to stop making weapons, instead of invading.

Now? Now we're in a mess; we've destroyed our credibility, spent far more money than we have supporting something we shouldn't have, and managed to anger or scare most of the other countries in the U.N.. Backing out could prove disastrous unless we tried something pavlovian, like backing out (citing the recent call to ceasefire between militants) and then rushing back in whenever the ceasefire ends until they get the point - but even that could result in disaster, or just plain not work.

NightElfking

07-10-2008, 6:50 PM

Except, see, it's also a 'war' (read: 'police action') that has no relevancy to the U.S. at all beyond oil interests and Israeli appeasement. There are no WMD, there have been more civilian casualties per year now than during the previous regime, and there's no end in sight. (i.e. no timetable for removing our troops and allowing the government to take over)

Afghanistan, sure. there's a ridiculously wartorn country that's definitely been harboring terrorists and demonstrably needs help recovering (go look up the history of the place if you don't know what I mean) Iraq? No. We helped put Saddam in power. We supported "his" interests because he was an "Anti-communist" force, and we cut him off and attacked him because - at first - he was threatening nonexistent WMDs, and then he was some horrible dictator that we magically hadn't previously had a problem with.

Just because we're not invincible doesn't mean we should accept losses. It doesn't mean people dying is good. It doesn't justify going into a war we had no real reason to enter.

Lo, lest we forget President Bush's Speech (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq) before entering Iraq.

Justification:

By 2004, we knew this to be false (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435).

We've been in there for four more years, so far. Twice as long as we had been when that study was published. We've spent massive amounts more money, added even more troops, and made little progress towards the goals set out during the invasion.

I would agree that in war, people die. I would even agree that sometimes, war is necessary, though I wouldn't do so readily. I do not agree that people need to die for a 'war' that was begun due to (at the least) faulty intelligence, under false pretenses, without congressional approval.
To sum this up for certain users who don't like long posts (myself included) we kind of screwed ourselves up.

GenocideAlive

07-11-2008, 10:53 AM

Thank you, NEK, for that absolutely worthless and moronic summary.

Anokitos, I'm still at odds with your definitions of the entire scenario. There is more than one country with a vested interest in Israel. It's especially notable that the U.K. had occupied it long before the U.S. was a superpower. However, it would seem that in some people's opinion, the U.S. is the only country that matters. And despite the implications that you are dropping, the Israeli government is not a puppet organization. We do not use Israel as a springboard for U.S. policies--it has simply come to symbolize Western culture.

Several factors which have kindly been left out of your scenarios is that the Middle Eastern countries are extremely bigoted. They hang homosexuals. They treat women like cattle. Their colleges are high-minded churches. They practice religious xenophobia. They are culturally hundreds of years behind modern civilizations in both technology and culture. They still believe in black magic, and they believe in Satanic forces acting in world politics.

Israel is modern. Israeli women are permitted to walk the streets in dresses revealing their ankles (scandalous!), even legs (asking to get raped!). Israeli queers can have commonlaw marriages, can adopt, and are protected by anti-discrimination laws[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel). Their colleges rank in some of the top of the world, and they have distinctions between seminaries and colleges. They permit people of all religions to roam freely. Sounds like a good thing to me, I'd rather spend money on Israel than an country that will take our money for food and aid and in turn spend it on a military to commit genocide then turn around and say the white man invented HIV.

Otherwise, you are not seeing the bigger picture--the U.S. needs to have a military presence in Iraq in the event of a conflict. If they cut off the oil supplies to us, we're boned. So we've got a base there to ensure that we can keep the oil flowing to our machines. The sad fact is, our presence there has more to do with a military occupation to ensure vital supplies than any relief efforts. We want to maintain our status as a superpower, and the only way we're going to do that is with oil. That's my opinion.

Anoiktos

07-11-2008, 3:55 PM

Genocide, I agree with most of what you've just said - No, Israel is not a U.S.-only interest, and yes, it is much more modern (and humane) in terms of civil liberties than its surrounding nations. My brother went to work there for about half a year recently, and he had little to say about it beyond good things; I work in a predominately Israeli company, and have found them to be generally good people - certainly more polite and reasonable than most U.S. citizens I meet.

I have been ignoring the differences in cultures because, frankly, I feel as though I am by nature biased against religiously-dominated countries, and while Israel might appear religiously-dominated, it is much less so than its surrounding countries, in my experience. I feel that any culture that harms others, excusing this harm by religious ideals, should be annihilated (the culture, not the people). Yet this is not a reasonable position to take. (how would I change centuries of ridiculously biased thought?)

And yet it is because of these differences, primarily - differences in analysis and interpretation of scripture, differences in prophets or gods - that these political inequalities are rationalized - sometimes, they are even the primary cause.

At the same time, I don't really feel it's fair of me to base my political decisions and ideals off the idea that my personal ideals are universally correct; (primarily that people should have an equal chance in life) I may feel they're correct, but others may not feel so, and frankly I find it difficult enough to live by my ideals that I feel hypocritical acting as though others should be trying to do so, too.

I have mixed feelings about your last two paragraphs; I'm not sure we should be spending money on another country's military to the extent that we have been, and more importantly I'm very much in disagreement with the idea that our control of that area can be rationalized by 'trying to stay in power by keeping oil reserves available' when that has a negative effect on the prosperity of that nation and the ability of its citizens to pursue their lives as they will - not, mind you, that the previous administration allowed them to do so particularly well, either.

I see the rising gas prices around here, and read about the way OPEC is saying the prices are too high (publicity stunt or truth? I have no way of knowing), and can come to one of two conclusions: either that our occupation is not succeeding at maintaining our control over oil reserves, or that corrupt corporations/entities are abusing our presence there to make a profit off our people at our expense, which I find unacceptable.

I feel as though if we are going to attempt to occupy a country to ensure continued supply of resource, we should also be trying to find a way to make that resource obsolete, because using such expensive means to acquire a resource indicates that reliance on that resource is flawed.

Of course, I dislike the idea of occupying another country period, but I feel that if we're going to do so, we should a) be doing so for a good reason (i.e. making the lives of the people better) and b) not destroying our economy by doing so to the point where any gain we get from having gone there is heavily overbalanced by the amount of debt we now owe.

mranderson

07-11-2008, 8:44 PM

9/11 showed us that Afghanistani and Saudi Arabian people were willing to send a symbolic message of hatred to our country. We've practically left Afghanistan and we've ignored Saudi Arabia. Why Iraq? North Korean tests have shown that even if a country has nuclear capability, this doesn't necessarily mean it has the capability to get those bombs to the mainland of other countries, especially those isolated by several other countries and an ocean on either side.

Note that it was not the "Afghanistani" people lumped together that hate the US. It was Al-Qaida. Also, we left because it is stable now compared to Iraq. And oddly enough the Saudi Arabian government gets along well with us (i.e. we don't screw with them because they give us oil. If you want another example look at Clinton declaring lands in Utah as a national park when there was possibly oil there. I wonder why he did that? Campaign contributions anyone?)

Also, the founding of Israel I will expound upon. In 1917 the British signed a document called the "Balfour Declaration of 1917" because of the Zionist movement (people in favor of establishing a Jewish state). They did not in fact, create a Jewish state, but supported immigration there. Jews immigated to the area of Palestine, and some of these came because of anti-semitism from Russia, and then later with the persecution pre wwII. Britian became dissuaded with the idea of Israel, and than suffered greivances from jews, and handed it to the UN who created the jewish part of Israel. Note that Israel defended itself from Arab aggression to date, and has not only succeeded in winning these wars, but in getting more land from these wars. Also, I would rather pay Israel a million dollars instead of sending one soldier over there to defend their borders.

Also, what have we done about North Korea? Well, US soldiers, and South Korean soldiers are holding the 38th parallel (ha ha, get it, parallel?) , and are still negotiating with them through peace talks.

You can read the more detailed infromation here from wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181

And the whole middle east was not supported by the US to stop the USSR. Not to mention that we supported Iran in the twin pillar policy until they shifted governments, and took American hostages.

Also, the people in Iraq are better off than they were. If you didn't know the Kurds (an ethnic group comprising a large percent of Iraqi "citizens") were subjected to chemical weapon tests. Under Saddam, the Sunnis (correct me if I'm wrong) were basically the upper class of Iraq, and were treated as such by ethnicity, and the majority of the population (the shiites) was essentailly hosed. Not to mention having acid dripped on you while you are chained in place.

I would spend more time looking over your points, and countering them, but it's the ML, and I don't feel like it right now.

Of course you seem to think that corporations haven't been taking advantage of people since the beginning of the corporation's birth. A corporation's first interest above all is to make money.

Anoikitos, you seem to be ignoring the world's, and US history (Look at Africa, how Hawaii became a state, and how the US claimed its Western States beyond the original thirteen), and are now making an arguement to sway other's viewpoints to your own. Hence GA saying you and your demagoguery earlier. Now you are attempting to sway people's opinions with the rising gas prices instead of using your earlier methods.

The national debt is increasing, but no worries. Social security, and other foreign countries are buying up our national debt. I think China is one of the top holders now...

Might makes right because in the end the victor writes the history.

Over the Bush presidency though. It seems as if the Left wing has taken advantage of Bush's incompetency and has placed all of the blame on him.

Anoiktos

07-12-2008, 4:05 AM

Note that it was not the "Afghanistani" people lumped together that hate the US. It was Al-Qaida. Also, we left because it is stable now compared to Iraq. And oddly enough the Saudi Arabian government gets along well with us (i.e. we don't screw with them because they give us oil. If you want another example look at Clinton declaring lands in Utah as a national park when there was possibly oil there. I wonder why he did that? Campaign contributions anyone?)
The 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. At no point did I mention the Afghanistani people as a whole. The situation in Afghanistan is, well, far from being stabilized (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20702&Cr=afghan&Cr1=&Kw1=failed+state&Kw2=&Kw3=).

They did not in fact, create a Jewish state, but supported immigration there.
Go look up the word "Israel". (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Israel) It's had a meaning since far before the state was created.

Also, the people in Iraq are better off than they were. If you didn't know the Kurds (an ethnic group comprising a large percent of Iraqi "citizens") were subjected to chemical weapon tests. Under Saddam, the Sunnis (correct me if I'm wrong) were basically the upper class of Iraq, and were treated as such by ethnicity, and the majority of the population (the shiites) was essentailly hosed. Not to mention having acid dripped on you while you are chained in place.

'Better off' is a relative term when you're comparing it to living in an active warzone, and civilian death tallies are at best similar to those during Saddam's reign. I've never said that Saddam's reign was nice or pleasant, though we also helped put him where he is...

Of course you seem to think that corporations haven't been taking advantage of people since the beginning of the corporation's birth. A corporation's first interest above all is to make money.
And you see nothing wrong with this?

Anoikitos, you seem to be ignoring the world's, and US history (Look at Africa, how Hawaii became a state, and how the US claimed its Western States beyond the original thirteen)And you see nothing wrong with these histories? With the enslavement of Africa by slave traders, Leopold, and later the French, and by the U.S.'s obsession with manifest destiny no matter the costs to the indigenous people? Are you saying that you believe because these horrible things have happened, it makes what is happening now acceptable?

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here...

Now you are attempting to sway people's opinions with the rising gas prices instead of using your earlier methods.
GA brought up the topic of oil through the argument that it is one of the reasons for our occupation in Iraq. As such, it is a valid and pertinent topic, and your comment makes little sense in that context.

mranderson

07-12-2008, 12:01 PM

Why thankyou for QQPing my post up.

Also, your source is over two years old on Afghanistan. And yes I did misread your post earlier, but still most people in Saudi Arabia hate the US (not to mention every other Arab in the middle east). To bad they don't live in a democracy, huh?

Israel has had a meaning earlier, but if I'm not mistaken the earlier Israel was taken over by outside forces, and than the population was dispersed. We are talking about modern day Israel unless you want to go into the olden day Israel politics...

And yes, the US did place Saddamn in power. I'm not going to even wiki it, but we placed him there so he would fight against Iran, since they didn't like us, and we didn't like them since the American hostage situation, and their installment of a new government. They did this to stalemate those two countries. And they are not in a warzone, it is most similar to a civil war with the Kurds staying out of it. Do you have a source for your civilian casualties statistic?

My earlier comments about history show that humans have always taken advantage of others. I do see something wrong ethically, and pathologically but it has been happening.

And your comments on oil brought in corporations, and economy. I am sure the economy plunged because the oil in Iraq somehow dropped housing prices across the US. And they are doing something about solving the energy crisis if I am not mistaken. They are creating windfall taxes where taxes on oil corporations profits would be less if they invested in new sources of energy... anyone else see something wrong with this? Oddly enough it was the government that started this policy (perhaps influenced by the lobby).

You seem to be now taking the moral high ground, and are making generalized statements about things that are best left, well not generalized. You are attempting to shock the American warboards community, and get your message out and vote with similar ideals to yours.

Anoiktos

07-12-2008, 1:20 PM

I honestly apologize for QQPing; I usually try to stay away from that form of discussion, but when I tried to compose a less QQP-y rebuttal, it ended up being really difficult to read.

I seriously doubt anything I say can really shock this community. This is the internet, for the sakes of . Yes; my source is over two years old in Afghanistan, but the source is also the U.N., and was after the call of 'mission accomplished'. If, however, you truly desire further sources,
I (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7460556.stm) shall (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ApachesstrikeABlowAtTalibanLeadership.htm) provide (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/06/13/5871311-ap.html). (each a separate link)

I've no doubt we had reasons for putting Saddam in power, though I'll note that the idea of putting someone in power because you know they're going to continue a war is a little suspect, but I think that if Saddam is as bad as he was, we probably should have done a little background work first, to the tune of [i]politely asking him hypothetical questions about whether he'd torture people who disagreed with him if he were put in power.

Of course, the other thing to note is that despite the evil he did, he also did quite a bit of good, to the tune of a massive infastructure reform (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/saddam_hussein.html):

From 1969 to 1979 Saddam Hussein was the vice-president of Iraq and had a profound effect on his country. He nationalized the oil industry. He instituted a nation-wide literacy project, non-attendance punishable by three years in jail. Hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqi men, women and children learned to read.

He advocated the building of schools, roads, public housing and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. UNESCO gave him an award.[/quote]

The body count is fairly simple:
This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm) is a somewhat dated (2004) article on the matter, as is this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/27/iraq.peterbeaumont) (2005). An opinion piece (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/01/05/stories/2007010501781100.htm) by a former prisoner of Saddam's reign said much the same thing in 2007. Surveys on the matter differ widely, as noted here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003), but ~90,000 (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) seems to be a reasonable middle ground (considering ibc.org considers this throughout the occupation, and the others for a smaller subsection.) 90,000 divided by 5 (the war started in 2003) equals 18,000 deaths per year. The White House's own statistics (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html) (i.e. likely highly biased) state that over more than 20 years, 30,000 + ~75,000 + 250,000 + 4,000 + 3,000 + 2,500 + ~500, or 364,500 people were killed, or less than 18,225 per year. (less than because the article states 'over more than'.)

18,225 vs 18,000 (when both figures are pretty approximate) is rather close.

As for economy, I'm actually sorry - I meant that our national debt (because of the war) is at a point now where even if our economy were doing well, we'd have difficulty paying it off during my lifetime, not that the war had trashed our economy directly. The current economic crisis, I believe, was primarily created by stupid loansharks deciding to have the government pay for their gamble. (and the government stupidly deciding to do so. Perhaps a good economic decision, but a very bad moral one.)

The current price of oil I have mixed feelings about. I take public transport as a matter of principle, and bike when I can't do so, (it might help that I don't really feel I make enough money to afford a car or insurance) so I'm probably biased in this way, but I quite like that the high prices are making it more profitable to seek alternative energy sources. The government may have started the policy of windfall taxes, but I'd sort of expect them to - it is, after all, money in their pocket and can be pushed as a popular decision. On the other hand, I'm not happy in principle that the American people are getting sucked dry by what is essentially a monopoly. (either OPEC or a collection of the gas companies here - I don't know which.)

Yes - humans have always taken advantage of others. I do not think, in this case, that precedent excuses current action; we should seek to better ourselves, not excuse atrocities by pointing to the past.

mranderson

07-12-2008, 3:38 PM

The number of 'asymmetric' attacks against Afghan and NATO security forces has increased in recent months, as the Taliban has been put on the back foot by NATO efforts and increasingly forced to rely on suicide and roadside bombs rather than conventional attacks.

That is from one of your own sources oddly enough. And I wonder who said, "mission accomplished." Wasn't that Bush, the man who had no idea what was going on and just kept smiling? Also, your sources about the civilian deaths I stopped reading the one after they started citing that the US government executed Saddam, raided academic offices, and threatened the lives of professors, killed civilians, etc etc. I am not sure but wasn't it the Iraqi government who held the trial of Saddam and had him executed?

Now looking at your white house sources.
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds
That was in two years, deaths the result of direct action by Saddam's government.

If I am not mistaken though, this http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ says that in five years the Iraqi deaths are around 90k. So it would be safe to say the people in Iraq were worse off under Saddam.

Another one of your sources says "The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing"..

Biased information much? I asked civilian Iraqis compared to civilian Iraqis...

It seems to me as if you are portraying Saddam as a good guy. Take a look at your white house source again and read it. Kurds being gassed, shiites being oppressed, etc. etc. And honestly, you can't really Q&A someone when you need a "puppet" to be placed in power backed by a political party to stop Iran from gaining more territory in the region.

I'll clarify my windfall tax comment, because I misconstrued it. I googled it and apparently the idea was blocked by republicans... but the idea behind it basically was the oil companies would be taxed or they could choose to invest some of their profits in renewable energy. This would cause them to become a leading investor, and holder in renewable energy, which would essentially solve nothing as big oil would then control newer methods of renewable energy. Of course the bill that was blocked says differently, and would have allowed some control over oil prices through various methods, but now it really doesn't matter seeing as how it was killed.

And our national debt is there because of a trade deficit that has been going on for decades. I see you calling the people of the company loansharks when I believe (off the top of my head) it was Bear Sterns was bought out by another company which essentially made the US government back them if anything bad happened to the bought company...

And to your last paragraph don't you think they tried to stop it? Yet we still elect people in power that choose such decisions. Look at the incumbent that was re-elected with cash bribes being found in his freezer. Something beyond lip service must be done to change the system. I am not excusing past acts, but pointing out that it has not changed in human history. I am pointing to the current events and future.

Anoiktos

07-12-2008, 4:13 PM

...Your choice to cherry-pick two of the most deadly years in Saddam's reign invalidates your claim that people were worse off under Saddam. I chose to look over the entire reign of Saddam, as I have looked over the entire U.S. occupation. The fact that the taleban are using different methods does not meant that the situation is "stable now compared to Iraq", as you claimed.

I included three sources, from the U.K. and Canada, because all sources are likely to be biased, and ones from the U.K and Canada are least likely to be biased due to those countries' relative ambivalence towards the war (compared to, say, France or the United States). As for the statement that you stopped reading when the article mentioned that "the US government executed Saddam, raided academic offices, and threatened the lives of professors, killed civilians, etc etc."

...Why? Is Saddam alive and hiding in your backyard or something? Have U.S. forces somehow magically avoided killing civilians, according to you?

And I'm not portraying Saddam as a good guy, I'm just portraying him how he is - someone who did quite a bit to help his country recover, and also did horrible things. The premise is that Saddam did horrible things - how are you getting that I'm somehow portraying him as a good guy by pointing out some non-horrible things his reign brought up?

My reference to 'loan shark' was because much of the problem with the housing bubble was that so much of the property involved was bought on credit, and credit so freely given, that it didn't make any sense. Lending without any risk on your side is like gambling in a system where if you lose, you get paid anyway - all of this at the expense of the loanees and the American public's tax dollars.

As for 'world history', first you accused me of ignoring it, but you still haven't explained why the subjects you brought up are relevant in any way to this discussion. As I said, yes, bad things happen, and I am pointing out that not only are these past acts inexcusable, they do not excuse present and future acts of evil.

Gunmonk

07-12-2008, 6:08 PM

That's comparable to saying I payed to have your mother/father killed, and then saying its not my fault.

Not quite your fault.... its just conspiracy.

Now with that being said, allow me to revert back to the topic.

I don't really think we have an accurate handle on what President Bush's presidency is until five or ten years from now. Allot of the problems that began with the Clinton regime carried over into Bush's regime.

Economists were talking about the economy tanking in the nineties, and they're now finally realizing the same thing has finally come true. In short you really don't see a president's true track record as president until five or six years from now. As with all presidents, I am sure that mistakes were made and pretzels were choked on, but for what had happened, I don't think anyone (democrat, communist, fascist, republican, or anarchist) could have done any worse... or any better.

LDawgg

07-12-2008, 9:27 PM

I don't think anyone (democrat, communist, fascist, republican, or anarchist) could have done any worse... or any better.

What the-

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Enlighten me if I missinterpreted this but, are you saying that no matter who we elected he would have acted exactly same? You don't think that this presidency could be handled any better, or god forbid, worse? If so, that is very nieve thinking.

Gunmonk

07-12-2008, 10:19 PM

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Enlighten me if I missinterpreted this but, are you saying that no matter who we elected he would have acted exactly same? You don't think that this presidency could be handled any better, or god forbid, worse? If so, that is very nieve thinking.

Aside from several blatant sentence structural errors and misspelled words, I will attempt to answer your attempted rebuttal. Now, as I have said before, I find it hard to believe that John Kerry would have done a better job, all he did was whine, and all he could do was whine, he never made a set time table to pull troops out of Iraq, fuck... he even wanted to drive up taxes.

Now allow me to pin some blame on a few other presidents. Largely I pin allot of the shit we are in now on Clinton. From dropping our tariffs with a communist country (China) to letting Osama Bin Laden go, to finally firing 93 U.S. Attorneys. At least Bush didn't get caught fucking a white house intern and using cigar for dildos...

So yes, you can say Bush had a bad presidency, but before you start randomly stating "OMG liek B|_|SH is liek the w0rst presidentz evorz!!!11one one" I would like to direct your nose to the Presidencies of both Carter and Clinton and rub it in it a bit as one would with their dog.

Anoiktos

07-12-2008, 11:30 PM

Clinton basically spent all his time trying to convince people he wasn't 'against' anyone or anything. Carter didn't manage to do much, period. If any president is to blame for their actions, I'd pin it on Gerald Ford for this piece of tripe (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/740061.htm), as it set precedent for evasion of accountability from any and all crimes committed in office.

At least Bush didn't get caught fucking a white house intern and using cigar for dildos...
I don't like Clinton (mainly because he was a moderate and a sweet-talker without morals beyond getting reelected), but those actions have nothing to do with being president of the United States. If they did, Harding, Roosevelt, and Kennedy would all have been impeached long ago for their far more flagrant actions. If you seriously believe that 'fucking an intern' is worse than the list of lies, abuse of signing statements, blatant warmongering, and willful ignorance of the current administration, I can only say that I am in awe of the extent to which your priorities are skewed.

LDawgg

07-13-2008, 1:41 AM

Because bush did set a time to pull troops out of Iraq. Right. Again, isn’t starting a war based on lies, a war which cost American lives, worse than ‘Fucking an intern?’

Gunmonk

07-13-2008, 5:10 PM

Because bush did set a time to pull troops out of Iraq. Right. Again, isn’t starting a war based on lies, a war which cost American lives, worse than ‘Fucking an intern?’

Red herring FTW....

I might agree with you if you'd put a bit more thought into your posts other than the occasional one liner. And since you brought up the discussion of American lives being lost... not only did Clinton get caught fucking a White House intern, he also let Bin Laden go link (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm) which inadvertently caused the 9/11 tragedies.

Tell me what's worse? 4,116 military fatalities of men and women that volunteered to go and serve (knowing that death was possible), or almost 3000 innocent lives lost some even children... Yeah, I'm sure Bush is the one to blame for such blatantly horrible deaths...

EDIT: Also, does anyone here realize that the original poster used a clip from the onion? That is all.

Anoiktos

07-14-2008, 2:11 AM

he also let Bin Laden go link which inadvertently caused the 9/11 tragedies.

I have some presidents I'd like you to meet who 'inadvertently caused tragedies' by not doing things - All of them. You could count, say, all of the presidents before the end of the civil rights movement, or all of the presidents since then for not prioritizing schooling or medical systems. If we're going to blame people for not being able to see the future, even if it seems as though it should have been blindingly obvious, there's a whole lot of blame that's ripe for shoving around.

Tell me what's worse? 4,116 military fatalities of men and women that volunteered to go and serve (knowing that death was possible), or almost 3000 innocent lives lost some even children... Yeah, I'm sure Bush is the one to blame for such blatantly horrible deaths...

Tell me what's worse: almost 3,000 innocent lives lost, some even children, or almost 90,000 innocent lives lost, some even children, and 4,116 military fatalities of men and women that volunteered to go serve.

IrishDutchman

07-14-2008, 7:10 AM

Yeah, I'm sure Bush is the one to blame for such blatantly horrible deaths...

You use the word 'blatant' a lot. Maybe you'd like to know what it means.

Blatant:
1. brazenly obvious; flagrant: a blatant error in simple addition; a blatant lie.
2. offensively noisy or loud; clamorous: blatant radios.
3. tastelessly conspicuous: the blatant colors of the dress.

So there's no such thing as a blatantly horrible death.

GenocideAlive

07-14-2008, 10:01 AM

Can we seriously get off of the fucking piling corpses bit? It's a little macabre to see people wontonly using someone else's death to further their own political ideals. Let soldiers and civilians rest in peace without fear of some dude on the Internet who's run out of substantial points to start politicizing their death and annexing their opinions.

Suffice it to say that war causes deaths, and after 9/11 there was a definite moment where everyone in every major city was concerned about the terrorists and their capabilities. War was approved by all major bodies of government, and if you want to call it Bush's war just because he's the President then you're dumber than you look.

I'm going to avoid wading into the shitstorm any further than to say that Clinton's major faux pas was not that he couldn't keep his dick in his pants. It was that he lied to a grand jury, which is a felony and would have gotten him years in prison if he weren't the prez. If he hadn't been riding the computer boom of the 1990s the motions to impeach him probably would have succeeded, instead of resulting in a censure.