Bush is a hero

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181045 Aug 7, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>List of countries John McCain has advocated for military intervention:
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan
Libya
Kosovo
Iraq (he has a special woodie for Iraq)
Nigeria
Bosnia
North Korea
Iran
Georgia
Russia
Sudan
Mali
Those are just the ones I can find in news archives in a couple minutes. In America we've completely given up on statesmanship and diplomacy.
Oh so now it's "military intervention" instead of flat out bombing, or going to war. Interesting how your choice of wording has softened up a bit.

Course you only LISTED the countries McCain allegedly wanted to "intervene militarily".
It's not a huge surprise you failed to include the reasoning for them, presuming your list is accurate.

War is a last resort, genius. By that time, successful diplomacy is a sad wallflower. But you keep drinkin' the Kool Aid anyway. It may at least keep you outta the sun.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181046 Aug 7, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>This President gave the order that captured and killed the perpetrator of the biggest mass murder in US history. Haters jumped immediately to downplay the effort and deflect the import of the event, for fear it would cast a favorable light on the President. How did liberals respond? They just kind of demurred that yes, these things are long in preparation.
Another diaper load!

America came together albeit briefly, to celebrate the death of the brutal al Qaeda leader, AND congratulate Obama. Oh yes, it happened on Obama's watch. But ya don't hear too much about all the leg-work from the Bush Admin that led up to, and finally allowed Obama to green-light ST-6, now do ya!

If yer gonna be out in the damn sun, at least wear a big straw hat.
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#181048 Aug 8, 2014
UiDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>Take it easy, CHOCOLATE FACE, we would want you to shoot up a buch of merchant seamen over your khat induced psychosis, dumb Somali pirate. <|-o
I'm not a Chocholate face khat Chewer , And i don't believe in Wars and violence as beget more wars and human toll, as wars doesn't solve humanity problems.
Yo Cowboy the war mongering/mercenary , you War bullies stop using other screens , have you moms ever you taught empathy and Sanctity of life is not to be touched, and about peace, social skills , and moral and ethical conduct in society, no wonder you failing , and many will see you in jail for war crimes agiasnt humanity....You do know the International War Crimes Tribunal had tried Bush jr And Co, Blair and Co., for war crimes against humanity, you next US mercenary! As over 90% Americans want no more wars, seem like you in Minority, you next! One For Humanity ! Bahahhaaaa
HipGnozizzz

Dahinda, IL

#181049 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Like HELL it is, Wilton. I just said Obama will likely hafta call for air strikes to protect aid flights heading for northern Iraq. This just in:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/barack-obama-aut...
If the answer is no, then you got no case unless you think the sovereignty of the Iraqis is subject to the discretion of the President of the United States.
I mean, seriously - do you really think the United States should get involved in the sectarian
fighting in Iraq (again) AND get sucked into the Syrian civil war?
<quoted text>
I say yer both pathetic because you refuse to believe the drastic actions of a Putin or of an al Qaeda army like ISIS is none of our business and should be handled by the locals.
Neither Khrushchev nor Brezhnev had the high-tech military capabilities that Putin does today. ISIS is more dangerous because they robbed millions from Iraqi banks AND hijacked
US military equipment left for the Iraqis to help defend themselves. Do you think ISIS is too stupid to know how to use that stuff?
Nobody said, "It's none of our business and should be handled by the locals."

In terms of annihilation ability, there is no meaningful difference between Krushchev's capabilities, and Putin's. Dead is dead, in all centuries, in all languages.
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>I'm ranting about your freakin' savior Obama because he's the current President and the CURRENT FREAKIN' C-I-C.

Reagan, Bush Sr or Jr, and probably Romney would NEVER have let Syria cross the red line, would've stopped Putin from stealing Crimea, and would've already decimated ISIS from the air several months ago, instead of playin golf, attending fund raisers, and sitting around
"studying the situation" now.
Your alternative history reminds me of the John Belushi SNL routine, "What if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo?"

It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion when one party gets to make up any "facts" they like for rebuttal. A drunken ramble - oh, yeah, been there done that. "What if Lee had Stuart's cavalry at Gettysburg one day earlier?," or "What if the filling in Twinkies is actually made by aliens to fatten us up for the kill?" Good stuff, there's nowhere you can't go. As Dr. Seuss wrote, "Oh, The Thinks You Can Think."

But it has nothing to do with what really happened on such and such day in history. What President X might have done is pure mental masturbation, which is basically a one-man show. You go ahead, but please spread a tarp or something.
Clearwater

United States

#181050 Aug 8, 2014
So predictable. The rare double hurricanes hitting Hawaii is because of climate change or whatever. I love how when it suites the purpose of hacks climate is weather and at other times its not.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#181051 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Like HELL it is, Wilton. I just said Obama will likely hafta call for air strikes to protect aid flights heading for northern Iraq. This just in:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/barack-obama-aut...
If the answer is no, then you got no case unless you think the sovereignty of the Iraqis is subject to the discretion of the President of the United States.
I mean, seriously - do you really think the United States should get involved in the sectarian
fighting in Iraq (again) AND get sucked into the Syrian civil war?
<quoted text>
I say yer both pathetic because you refuse to believe the drastic actions of a Putin or of an al Qaeda army like ISIS is none of our business and should be handled by the locals.
Neither Khrushchev nor Brezhnev had the high-tech military capabilities that Putin does today. ISIS is more dangerous because they robbed millions from Iraqi banks AND hijacked
US military equipment left for the Iraqis to help defend themselves. Do you think ISIS is too stupid to know how to use that stuff?
I'm ranting about your freakin' savior Obama because he's the current President and the CURRENT FREAKIN' C-I-C.
Reagan, Bush Sr or Jr, and probably Romney would NEVER have let Syria cross the red line, would've stopped Putin from stealing Crimea, and would've already decimated ISIS from the air several months ago, instead of playin golf, attending fund raisers, and sitting around
"studying the situation" now.
bobby, bobby, bobby.

No matter how hard to try, no matter how loud you yell it, no matter how much you wish it so - who sits in the White House isn't the reason for the opinions I'm offering.

Geography (proximity) and economic interdependence place severe restrictions on the options the US has regarding Putin and Russia. It's a known fact that Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson and Bush couldn't stop previous Russian violations of the sovereignty of other nations - for one or both of the same damn reasons. It's an exaggeration of the Afghan war was unconstitutional proportions to say Putin is a greater threat now than the Soviet Union was.

Air strikes can accomplish certain things, including the current mission(s) undertaken. That said, they alone cannot defeat, and probably couldn't even severely restrict, the ability of ISIS to continue to attack the Iraqi government. I'm not stupid enough to think we could EVER have a conversation about how Iraq got to the point that it was vulnerable to an ISIS (if not them, it would have been somebody else), because you're so focused on Obama you barely acknowledge that the Iraqi government exists at all.

Either you misunderstood what I'm saying, or you are deliberately twisting my words, but I never said the situations in Ukraine or Iraq/Syria had to be handled by the locals. I have talked about the sovereignty of the nations involved, but that's not the same thing.

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#181052 Aug 8, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't regret my choices either.
You dont have to tell us. We know how you feel about that effin liberal War Monger.........

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181053 Aug 8, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said, "It's none of our business and should be handled by the locals."
The comment was based on W's statement: "I mean, seriously - do you really think the United States should get involved in the sectarian fighting in Iraq (again) AND get sucked into the Syrian civil war?"
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
In terms of annihilation ability, there is no meaningful difference between Krushchev's capabilities, and Putin's. Dead is dead, in all centuries, in all languages.
Point was,(and still is), those past leaders would've had to go NUCLEAR to accomplish their evil agenda, a huge drastic step, deadly to the entire world. Putin can accomplish his with just his military capabilities. Example: He was able to shoot down a civilian passenger jet from 32K feet, when that option was never available to him b4.
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Your alternative history reminds me of the John Belushi SNL routine, "What if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo?"
Alternative history??
Reagan told Mr Gorbechev "Tear Down This Wall". Shortly thereafter the wall came down.
Obama: "Mr Putin, remove your troops from Ukraine." The Kremlin would likely erupt into uncontrollable laughter.

GHW Bush said: "This will not stand!" Shortly thereafter Hussein was ejected from Kuwait.
Obama draws a red line in Syria, and turns into a shrinking violet when Assad calls his bluff.

GW Bush's history is still recent enough to forego the need to revisit. But he took action.
Obama sits on his......hands....and is "analyizing the situation(s)."

The only leg you had to stand on was Romney, because he had no WH track record. But I'll still speculate he would NOT be standing around with his thumb up his a$$, while world thugs are throwing the globe into "destabilization"
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion when one party gets to make up any "facts" they like for rebuttal. A drunken ramble - oh, yeah, been there done that. "What if Lee had Stuart's cavalry at Gettysburg one day earlier?," or "What if the filling in Twinkies is actually made by aliens to fatten us up for the kill?" Good stuff, there's nowhere you can't go. As Dr. Seuss wrote, "Oh, The Thinks You Can Think."
But it has nothing to do with what really happened on such and such day in history. What President X might have done is pure mental masturbation, which is basically a one-man show. You go ahead, but please spread a tarp or something.
Yada yada yada. I gave up trying to have a "meaningful discussion" with you ages ago, when you decided it was much more important for you to beat other posters over the head, knock 'em to the ground, and then kick 'em until they're seconds from death, all in your endless effort to highlight your formal debating skills, your elevated vocabulary, and your self-anointed position as "Misinformation Czar.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181054 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>bobby, bobby, bobby.
No matter how hard to try, no matter how loud you yell it, no matter how much you wish it so - who sits in the White House isn't the reason for the opinions I'm offering.
Never said it was YOUR reason. But it was YOU that told ME it didn't matter who sat in the WH. And it was ME that told YOU, I believe it does matter.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
Geography (proximity) and economic interdependence place severe restrictions on the options the US has regarding Putin and Russia. It's a known fact that Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson and Bush couldn't stop previous Russian violations of the sovereignty of other nations - for one or both of the same damn reasons. It's an exaggeration of the Afghan war was unconstitutional proportions to say Putin is a greater threat now than the Soviet Union was.
I'll agree Putin will pay an enormous price for crossing over into eastern Ukraine. But Putin is threatening and Obama throws cotton balls at him. Putin is obsessed with restoring the power of the former USSR. He's already clearly stated that. Left unchecked, Putin has
NO deterrent to keep him from slowly regaining that power.

And what's the UN doing? Issuing paper condemnations! So what if Ukraine isn't a NATO country. NATO has acted b4 on behalf of non-NATO countries.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
Air strikes can accomplish certain things, including the current mission(s) undertaken. That said, they alone cannot defeat, and probably couldn't even severely restrict, the ability of ISIS to continue to attack the Iraqi government. I'm not stupid enough to think we could EVER have a conversation about how Iraq got to the point that it was vulnerable to an ISIS (if not them, it would have been somebody else), because you're so focused on Obama you barely acknowledge that the Iraqi government exists at all.
Hogwash. Airstrikes would've been MUCH more "productive" several months ago when ISIS was streaming across the OPEN desert in western Iraq. But where was Obama when all this was happening? Studying the situation?

I'm quite aware of the Malaki, majority Shi'ia government in Iraq. The Mullahs in Iran are the ones jerking Malaki's strings most likely, and Iran favors the ISIS army destabilizing the region. If nothing else, it takes the focus off of Iran's Nuclear ambitions.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
Either you misunderstood what I'm saying, or you are deliberately twisting my words, but I never said the situations in Ukraine or Iraq/Syria had to be handled by the locals. I have talked about the sovereignty of the nations involved, but that's not the same thing.
As I just posted for your cyber-pal, my comments were based on your previous statement:

WWW wrote: "I mean, seriously - do you really think the United States should get involved in the sectarian fighting in Iraq (again) AND get sucked into the Syrian civil war?"

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181055 Aug 8, 2014
Other than the occasional deployment of NATO forces, the United Nations is a useless entity (IMO)and is in DIRE need of reformation.

A legitimate, viable body for heading off world crises, or solving them once they've already started, CANNOT have human rights violators or despots in leadership positions, or SC chairmen, or chairmen of ANY other UN department, simply because their name was next in the rotation. That's RIDICULOUS!

These "diplomats" constantly break the law, tho mostly (but not ALL) are traffic laws, then are able to declare immunity. Most of them also constantly bad-mouth the US, even while the same country they represent are receiving BILLIONS of US tax dollars in foreign aid.

Well, I believe it's LONG past time to send the UN packing. I want them completely out of the US permanently! They can move to the Netherlands and occupy a building near the Hague. Or they can just go straight to HELL!(IMO)

:-(

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#181056 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
Other than the occasional deployment of NATO forces, the United Nations is a useless entity (IMO)and is in DIRE need of reformation.
A legitimate, viable body for heading off world crises, or solving them once they've already started, CANNOT have human rights violators or despots in leadership positions, or SC chairmen, or chairmen of ANY other UN department, simply because their name was next in the rotation. That's RIDICULOUS!
These "diplomats" constantly break the law, tho mostly (but not ALL) are traffic laws, then are able to declare immunity. Most of them also constantly bad-mouth the US, even while the same country they represent are receiving BILLIONS of US tax dollars in foreign aid.
Well, I believe it's LONG past time to send the UN packing. I want them completely out of the US permanently! They can move to the Netherlands and occupy a building near the Hague. Or they can just go straight to HELL!(IMO)
:-(
Good post Bob. Especially the part where the UN bad mouths us. If we left the UN they would be a guard dog without teeth and what we get in return is disrespect.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181057 Aug 8, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post Bob. Especially the part where the UN bad mouths us. If we left the UN they would be a guard dog without teeth and what we get in return is disrespect.
Thanks S&H. How're ya doin' this fine Friday?

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#181058 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks S&H. How're ya doin' this fine Friday?
I'm doing good thanks and I hope you are as well.

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#181059 Aug 8, 2014
Hip and Willie dont think they made a mistake by voting for Obama. Of course they will never really know that for sure, its purely speculation.

There are many people that think Obama will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history, of course there are those who believe GW will also. Only time will tell, but I'm confident GW wont be in consideration.

Many liberals including WWW and Hip believe the R's were working against Obama, maybe they were, but its my belief that if Obama would have gotten his way, there is no doubt he would go down as the worst POTUS in our history. He should be thankful they stopped him and slowed him down. JMO..........

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#181060 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Alternative history??
Reagan told Mr Gorbechev "Tear Down This Wall". Shortly thereafter the wall came down.
Obama: "Mr Putin, remove your troops from Ukraine." The Kremlin would likely erupt into uncontrollable laughter.
GHW Bush said: "This will not stand!" Shortly thereafter Hussein was ejected from Kuwait.
Obama draws a red line in Syria, and turns into a shrinking violet when Assad calls his bluff.
GW Bush's history is still recent enough to forego the need to revisit. But he took action.
Obama sits on his......hands....and is "analyizing the situation(s)."
The only leg you had to stand on was Romney, because he had no WH track record. But I'll still speculate he would NOT be standing around with his thumb up his a$$, while world thugs are throwing the globe into "destabilization"
You do know that Ronald Reagan was aware, even when he gave the speech at the Wall, that Gorbachev couldn't tear it down if he'd wanted to, right?

The Berlin Wall didn't even belong to Mikhail - it belonged to Erich - and Erich had far greater reasons to want to keep it than Gorby had to tear it down. Reagan's speech played a role in the wall toppling by inspiring the people contained by it, to be sure, but there isn't near the quid pro quid you're describing above. He wasn't Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho.

GHWB was able to assemble a coalition to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, but that was because the threat Hussein represented to the world economy was clear cut enough to enable him to build that coalition. There is no such consensus among the other countries in the world today regarding either ISIS or Crimea, and if you think it's because Obama's not a leader you've been fooled or you're fooling yourself. GHWB couldn't even bring about a consensus on what to do about Hussein after he was driven out of Kuwait, much to Stormin' Norman's chagrin.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#181061 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You do know that Ronald Reagan was aware, even when he gave the speech at the Wall, that Gorbachev couldn't tear it down if he'd wanted to, right?
The Berlin Wall didn't even belong to Mikhail - it belonged to Erich - and Erich had far greater reasons to want to keep it than Gorby had to tear it down. Reagan's speech played a role in the wall toppling by inspiring the people contained by it, to be sure, but there isn't near the quid pro quid you're describing above. He wasn't Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho.
GHWB was able to assemble a coalition to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, but that was because the threat Hussein represented to the world economy was clear cut enough to enable him to build that coalition. There is no such consensus among the other countries in the world today regarding either ISIS or Crimea, and if you think it's because Obama's not a leader you've been fooled or you're fooling yourself. GHWB couldn't even bring about a consensus on what to do about Hussein after he was driven out of Kuwait, much to Stormin' Norman's chagrin.
Who the heck is Erich?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#181062 Aug 8, 2014
If you mean Honaker he was forced to resign by Gorbechev before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181063 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You do know that Ronald Reagan was aware, even when he gave the speech at the Wall, that Gorbachev couldn't tear it down if he'd wanted to, right?
The Berlin Wall didn't even belong to Mikhail - it belonged to Erich - and Erich had far greater reasons to want to keep it than Gorby had to tear it down. Reagan's speech played a role in the wall toppling by inspiring the people contained by it, to be sure, but there isn't near the quid pro quid you're describing above. He wasn't Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho.
Apparently you feel the NEED to be PC, when my comments were only brief descriptions in response to HG's "alternate history" spiel.

Fine! <standing ovation> <Uproarious applause in correcting bad bob's generalization of Reagan's call for the destruction of the Berlin Wall>.

Honecker was a puppet of the USSR, and Reagan symbolically called on Gorbechev to tear down the wall. EXCUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSEE me for not being 1000% PC according to Weird Willie.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
GHWB was able to assemble a coalition to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, but that was because the threat Hussein represented to the world economy was clear cut enough to enable him to build that coalition. There is no such consensus among the other countries in the world today regarding either ISIS or Crimea, and if you think it's because Obama's not a leader you've been fooled or you're fooling yourself. GHWB couldn't even bring about a consensus on what to do about Hussein after he was driven out of Kuwait, much to Stormin' Norman's chagrin.
The world is wearrrrrrrrry of war, Winston. It's gonna take a Nagasaki attack b4 people wake up to what's happening in the ME & Ukraine.

FPS, It took 40K Yazidi refugees stranded atop the mtns near Arbil(?) b4 Obama finally pulled his head out to order (limited) air strikes. Reid & Pelosi are fawning over Obama's
decision for (limited) air strikes. Imagine the OUTRAGE from these same two leading Democrats if GW Bush was the one ordering (limited) air strikes.

And Wilson, you can tell yourself every day, all day, 24/7 that Obama's lack of leadership is not a factor. But I can PROMISE you right here on this thread, you will NEVER convince me of it, so you can just put that idea in your back pocket and take it home with ya.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#181064 Aug 8, 2014
lisw wrote:
If you mean Honaker he was forced to resign by Gorbechev before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Source?

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181065 Aug 8, 2014
lisw wrote:
If you mean Honaker he was forced to resign by Gorbechev before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Yeah Erich Honecker.

As I just wrote, WWW is down to correcting PC now for the record. Geeeeeze, the guy reads a "couple of books", and suddenly becomes the head librarian for the DNC.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min RiversideRedneck 118,784
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min New Age Spiritual... 678,718
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 4 min RiversideRedneck 2,261
"....I don't want to call them 'monsters'...bec... 15 min Doctor REALITY 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 27 min curtjester1 46,209
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Buck Crick 445,831
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 hr May2017 NewsGlobal 982,133
More from around the web