Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/21/10 08:57 AM, Ericho wrote:

Okay, I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant to say was when was the last time he started a war like that. Yes, I know he has done poorly with Afghanistan, but he withdrew the combat troops from Iraq which is infinitley better than anything Bush could ever dream of.

Really?

So even though he pledged to get out of Iraq (immediately... then 60 days... then 12 months... then 16 months... then 19 months - which was the plan Bush signed with the Iraqi Government in December before Obama took office), it's magically "ok" to continue it by replacing any troops there with Contractors (many of whom are American) and cost 4 times that of a soldier?

At 10/20/10 11:11 AM, Ericho wrote: When was the last time Obama lead us into a war with no evidence the people there were a threat to us, or for that matter, any war at all? He certainly did more to end the Iraq War than Bush ever did.

1) Sorry, but we had every indication that Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMDs. We have found precursors to Bio, Chem and Nuke weapons. The problem is we found chem next to artillery shells instead of inside them. Our allies have been hesitant to say "we found 'em!" because they want to raise concerns about "reasonable doubt". Yeah that Sarin just happened to be chillin' next to artillery shells.

1a) You have to understand the geopolitical realities of Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. The world's fourth largest army had been decimated. Iraq's Air Force was destroyed. And yet they had a neighbor that still had hard feelings from a 10 year war they fought w/Iraq in the 1980s. (I'm talking about Iran.) Now, in order to stave off invasion from Tehran Baghdad had to appear strong; IE: "We have nukes, VX and anthrax." For over ten years the Hussein regime did everything they could to make it appear that they had a robust WMD program.

How good or established or product the program was can be debated. That it existed to some extent and was subtley touted as very active...sorry but that just doesn't pass the giggle test.

2) It was under Bush's watch that Gen Petraus was allowed to develop a plan that brought enough stability to start pulling out combat forces. Furthermore, the draw down plans were drafted under Bush. All Obama had to do was take the Oath of Office and stay out of the way (which he has)...in the end he has done little to nothing to pull troops out of Iraq.

At 10/19/10 09:19 PM, BigLundi wrote: Ok. So I officially got pissed today when one of my co workers informed me that George Bush was FAR better in his presidency than Obama is. I asked how this was, and they said that he accomplished far more in his first term than Obama currently is.

Here are facts. Non biased facts about George vs. Obama.

Actually your facts are heavily biased. You point to policies that you feel are beneficial. On the other hand, I think Obama's efforts to push through healthcare and climate change policies are misguided and not where he needs to be paying attention. I don't really want to get into a ideological debate...(but that would destroy your argument that you claim is based on non-biased facts.)

On the other hand, when you look at how the Obama administration is able to get its legislative agenda through congress (no matter if you or I think it is good or bad) vs the Bush administration's ability in this regard (for good or bad)...Bush was able to get more done with less.

Look at the healthcare bill. Obama spent all of his political capital to get it passed...which is messed up when you realize that the Democrats had TOTAL control over the House and Senate. Yes the Republicans got a repuation of being the party of "NO"...but there was a Super Majority of Dems in the Senate which meant the Republicans could not filibuster. Secondly, there was enough Dems in the House where the Dems did not need any Republican/bipartisan support.

And yet he had to spend all of his political capital...and about 60% of the electorate are very unhappy with the bill.

On the other hand, Bush had less majorities in the House and Senate and was able to get his legislative agendas passed. In fact he was not told "NO" until he tackled Social Security reform in his second term. Furthermore, he did not have a veto override until 2006...very late for a president.

Finally, Bush did not suffer big losses in a mid-term until 2006 which is normal for a president. On the other hand, Obama will most likely loose his legislative majorities in only two years. If he doesn't learn from this like Clinton did in 1995/6 then he'll probably be remembered as a failure a la Jimmy Carter.

At 10/29/10 06:39 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually your facts are heavily biased. You point to policies that you feel are beneficial. On the other hand, I think Obama's efforts to push through healthcare and climate change policies are misguided and not where he needs to be paying attention. I don't really want to get into a ideological debate...(but that would destroy your argument that you claim is based on non-biased facts.)

Actually I only pointed to policies that I know of. All I'm doing is letting numbers do the talking, it's your choice to figure out which seem more beneficial. My anger didn't stem from saying Bush was better, my anger stes from the constant, "Obama's done nothing" mentality. He has. People need to stop saying he hasn't.

On the other hand, when you look at how the Obama administration is able to get its legislative agenda through congress (no matter if you or I think it is good or bad) vs the Bush administration's ability in this regard (for good or bad)...Bush was able to get more done with less.

And what constitutes as more? Again, Obama has done a lot of things, and has only been in office for two years.

Look at the healthcare bill. Obama spent all of his political capital to get it passed...which is messed up when you realize that the Democrats had TOTAL control over the House and Senate. Yes the Republicans got a repuation of being the party of "NO"...but there was a Super Majority of Dems in the Senate which meant the Republicans could not filibuster. Secondly, there was enough Dems in the House where the Dems did not need any Republican/bipartisan support.

No, I question why they wou;dn't just bull rush their policies through. The common argument is that they are pussies, which is a possibility. I, for one, like to believe that they just don't like the idea of taking away the voice of the republicans just because they have the majority.

And yet he had to spend all of his political capital...and about 60% of the electorate are very unhappy with the bill.

I ask which of the 60% have read the bill, and the fact that the bill passes on many of the things he promised these same Electorates. So what? They vote for him because he promises things, and when he delivers, they don't like it? Strange.

On the other hand, Bush had less majorities in the House and Senate and was able to get his legislative agendas passed. In fact he was not told "NO" until he tackled Social Security reform in his second term. Furthermore, he did not have a veto override until 2006...very late for a president.

Again, popular response to this is that liberals are pussies. It is, actually possible, that the republicans have a distinct ability to simply stick to their issues and bills long enough and strongly enough that they get passed regardless. Remember, just because one doesn't have the majority doesn't mean they have no power.

Finally, Bush did not suffer big losses in a mid-term until 2006 which is normal for a president. On the other hand, Obama will most likely loose his legislative majorities in only two years. If he doesn't learn from this like Clinton did in 1995/6 then he'll probably be remembered as a failure a la Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter is a well respected former president, I, for one, don't consider him a failure. As far as being a failure goes? I consider a president that follows through on his promises more than he breaks them a success, and Obama has succeeded thus far. If, by the end of his term, he has outnumbered his kept promises with broken ones, then yes, he is a failure.

Again, I'm just explaining that Obama is not as lame duck as some are accusing him, in fact, he went on the Daily Show to explain just that. I will be the first to criticize his failures, and the first to make fun of him for stupid shit-What president bows to a foreign delegate?-But I will also be the first to praise him for his accomplishments, of which he has many. Meanwhile, as far as accomplishments go, Bush is far more disputed, to the best of my knowledge, both as a speaker and as a leader.

At 10/30/10 03:33 PM, BigLundi wrote:

At 10/29/10 06:39 PM, TheMason wrote:

Actually I only pointed to policies that I know of. All I'm doing is letting numbers do the talking, it's your choice to figure out which seem more beneficial. My anger didn't stem from saying Bush was better, my anger stes from the constant, "Obama's done nothing" mentality. He has. People need to stop saying he hasn't.

1) I'm not one to say "Obama has done nothing." In fact I think he's been a very activist president who has advocated for many policies.
2) Anytime you talk about policies as to whether a president is a success or failure is a slippery slope towards a biased argument. You have to look at two things: a) the president's ability to deal with the legislature to get his policies passed and b) how effective those policies are.

On point 2a Obama has stumbled and has shown that his staff and advisors, while very smart in the academic world, don't know what they are doing when it comes time to actually govern. For example, a lot of Democratic congressmen have complained that while Obama has pushed for some policies he has not really given them administrative support in writing the bills. Now I know you're about to object: the president cannot introduce bills into the House and/or Senate. However, his staff can write them and then a friendly congressman or senator can introduce the president's bill.

Secondly, in the Healthcare debate he pushed it through not despite the objections of the Repubs...but members of his own party. He and Pelosi were pretty ruthless when it came to the treatment of more centrist or conservative Democrats. Now we see those same ppl running from the president on the campaign trail. This is a sign that the president's administration is fairly incompetent when it comes to dealing with Congress. Furthermore, it is a rather exceptional short-coming on his part when you consider just how big of a majority he had in the legislature.

On point 2b; the president promised that his policies would cap unemployment at 8%. It went above 10% and currently hovers around 9.6%. This is the promise that most Americans care about, not healthcare. His pursuit of healthcare and energy policy actually makes him appear disengaged from the economy. Furthermore, he surrounds himself with academics who are hostile to business interests. There is few ppl (if any) in his administration who have had real success in the private sector. Which is one reason he's not delivering on his economic promises...the reason he was elected.

And what constitutes as more? Again, Obama has done a lot of things, and has only been in office for two years.

Time in office is irrelevent. Bush did not have much political capital in 2000 due to the fight over the electoral college and his legitimacy. But he spent it wisely and had good relationships with members of Congress. He even reached out to Sen Ted Kennedy to pass his "No Child Left Behind" initiative. So while he wasn't as good in front of a teleprompter as Obama, his ability to deal with the legislature was much better than Obama's.

The common argument is that they are pussies, which is a possibility. I, for one, like to believe that they just don't like the idea of taking away the voice of the republicans just because they have the majority.

1) I'm not making the "liberals are pussies" argument. LBJ was pretty fierce...
2) The Dems wasn't magnanimous about "letting repubs keep their voice". Rahm Emmanuel is not known for being bipartisan. "We won...they lost so fuck 'em" is his philosophy. Where the fight came in was not with repubs...but within the Democratic party. They could not come to a compromise within the party and balance out Dems in libertarian/conservative districts with those from very liberal/progressive districts. The Left of the party carried the day. Even Speaker Pelosi was over there saying the party could afford to loose a few DINOs (Dems In Name Only).

They vote for him because he promises things, and when he delivers, they don't like it? Strange.

Ppl voted for him because he wasn't Bush or Bush's party. (This is actually one of Bush's failures as president.)

Independents also voted for him because they thought in office he'd be more centrist and govern from the center. He promised an end to bipartisanship. That didn't happen; yes the Repubs entrenched themselves but the Dems couldn't solve ideological issues within the party enough to even approach bipartisanship. His election promised to be "post-racial". However the dropping of the Black Panther voter intimidation case by his AG, his inept handling of the Yale prof being arrested and his administration's Keystone Cop reaction to the Sherrod tape/firing just made race relations a little worse.

But the biggest thing they wanted: economic recovery and jobs. Now it looks like Wall Street is recovering. But the housing market remains depressed. Credit is still tight. Unemployment is at 9.6%. The deficit has ballooned; so we've paid BIG bucks...for an itty bitty bang.

This is why indepents are defecting from him.

Remember, just because one doesn't have the majority doesn't mean they have no power.

In terms of stopping an Obama administration who had unified the Democratic party...no the Repubs definitely did not have that power. But, the ability to win in the PR areana against a party in disarray with a president who has stumbled when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road...they had that power.

Bush took a huge dump and Obama has to clean it up.
And everyone thinks it's Obama's own dump.

Yea, i completely agree with you.

At 11/1/10 02:56 PM, f-izzle wrote: Bush took a huge dump and Obama has to clean it up.
And everyone thinks it's Obama's own dump.

Actually Bush responded to a financial crisis that was the result of a policy change Bill Clinton approved for FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC which allowed "subprime mortgages" in the final year of his presidency.

Secondly: Obama's policies vis a vie the stimulus and throwing money at the problem (which was fundamentally different than previous recessions in which stimulus has some degree of success) were the same policies that the Bush administration pursued in September '08. In many ways Obama's first term is an extension of Bush's administration.

Oh and @ the OP:
Another objective measure of presidential success is the midterm elections. Most presidents be they D or R tend to lose seats during the midterms. However, and despite his 2000 legitimacy issues...Bush managed to buck historical trends and actually widened the number of Republicans who won their congressional races.

We'll see how Obama does tomorrow.

At 11/1/10 07:03 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/1/10 02:56 PM, f-izzle wrote: Bush took a huge dump and Obama has to clean it up.
And everyone thinks it's Obama's own dump.

Actually Bush responded to a financial crisis that was the result of a policy change Bill Clinton approved for FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC which allowed "subprime mortgages" in the final year of his presidency.

Secondly: Obama's policies vis a vie the stimulus and throwing money at the problem (which was fundamentally different than previous recessions in which stimulus has some degree of success) were the same policies that the Bush administration pursued in September '08. In many ways Obama's first term is an extension of Bush's administration.

Yah, it annoys me when Republicans blame the debt and the economy on the Democrats, here in California its solely blamed on the Democrats..... Even though Republican Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger was responsible with his George Bush approved budget plan he passed a while ago. So much for "Democrat policies"

Thats not even to mention the fact that while people like the TEA party are complaining about taxes, reports show that taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, lower then the Republican god Ronald Reagan who also, like both Bush's, raised the debt to record levels.

At 10/20/10 08:43 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

You mean as a residual force, right?

Maybe if the Soviets gave up. If the Soviets stopped funded the Vietcong, then we could have easily crushed them.

given that the USSR fell apart.. we would have won like 30 years later... that is, if the russians didn't step in personally. However, that might have actually hastened the demise of russia, since war is very expensive.

At 11/2/10 06:47 PM, Warforger wrote: Yah, it annoys me when Republicans blame the debt and the economy on the Democrats, here in California its solely blamed on the Democrats..... Even though Republican Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger was responsible with his George Bush approved budget plan he passed a while ago. So much for "Democrat policies"

Thats not even to mention the fact that while people like the TEA party are complaining about taxes, reports show that taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, lower then the Republican god Ronald Reagan who also, like both Bush's, raised the debt to record levels.

One thing about some Tea Partiers...it's not about voting for Republicans. I see them as part of the problem as much as Dems. Since the New Deal Republicans have been just as much about throwing money at problems and cronies rather than fiscal responsibility and what is sustainable.

If the Republicans don't get things under control...then 2012 will not go easy for them either.

Bush 2002: managed to pick up Republican seats in the mid-term despite serious legitimacy concerns rising from not winning the popular vote...just the Electoral College.

Obama 2010: managed to allow the Republicans to pick up 60 or more House seats and close the gap in the Gap in the Senate despite coming into office with atmosphericly high approval ratings.

This is one measure by which history judges presidents. It appears Bush has beat Obama in this category.

At 11/2/10 06:47 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/1/10 07:03 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/1/10 02:56 PM, f-izzle wrote: Bush took a huge dump and Obama has to clean it up.
And everyone thinks it's Obama's own dump.

Actually Bush responded to a financial crisis that was the result of a policy change Bill Clinton approved for FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC which allowed "subprime mortgages" in the final year of his presidency.

Secondly: Obama's policies vis a vie the stimulus and throwing money at the problem (which was fundamentally different than previous recessions in which stimulus has some degree of success) were the same policies that the Bush administration pursued in September '08. In many ways Obama's first term is an extension of Bush's administration.

Yah, it annoys me when Republicans blame the debt and the economy on the Democrats, here in California its solely blamed on the Democrats..... Even though Republican Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger was responsible with his George Bush approved budget plan he passed a while ago. So much for "Democrat policies"

Thats not even to mention the fact that while people like the TEA party are complaining about taxes, reports show that taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, lower then the Republican god Ronald Reagan who also, like both Bush's, raised the debt to record levels.

I like what you are saying, but be careful when generalizing. To many people in the Tea Party, everyone (Republicrats) is guilty of only adding to the debt. And the main argument isn't always necessarily about taxes, but the ever-overreaching arm of the federal government (indisputably growing). All the presidents in recent memory have done nothing but add to the federal deficit.

Assuredly,some of the people in the Tea Party will have the stance you stated- but there really is not much consensus outside of the issue of government intervention.

Why does everyone jump the bandwagon and say Obama is a shitty president? Or is it just Republican supporters being retarded and doing that?

At 11/11/10 02:26 AM, Soviet wrote: Why does everyone jump the bandwagon and say Obama is a shitty president? Or is it just Republican supporters being retarded and doing that?

Because he is the least qualified person to ever hold that office. What has he ever done or produced that would make anyone think he was the most qualified person who ran in either party's primary.

He is a movement leader rather than statesman/government leader. He knows how to campaign, community organize and win about half of the elections he runs for. But once in office...he has no idea how to get things done.

He surrounded himself with academics and labor leaders while shunning ppl with business experience. In other words he has hired ppl who do not have any experience creating jobs...and ostracizied those private citizens who actually have created jobs.

In US politics a person has to run to their parties base (Left for Dems, Right for Repubs) to win the nomination. However, once that is done they have to move to (and if they win: govern from) the Center. Furthermore, the US is Center-right country which means independents tend to lean conservative over liberal. Obama must have skipped Poly Sci 101 when this was covered because he has governed from just left of center-left. Thus he has spent his political capital on pursuing unpopular legislation (ie: healthcare reform). In fact he spent it so unwisely that he led his party to the most crushing defeat in fifty to sixty years.

In many ways he's probably a lame duck president. While things can change in 2 years (look at what has happened since '08)...there are few signs that Obama is going to do anything different. He's driving the ship of state towards that iceberg known as gridlock.

He may even face a strong primary challenger *cough* Hillary *cough*, and even if he were to win re-nomination...he faces an uphill battle for re-election.

He may go down as great a failure as Carter.

At 11/11/10 02:41 AM, TheMason wrote: He may go down as great a failure as Carter.

*Cough* Nobel Peace Prize *Cough* Cough*

At 11/11/10 09:40 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote:

At 11/11/10 02:41 AM, TheMason wrote: He may go down as great a failure as Carter.

*Cough* Nobel Peace Prize *Cough* Cough*

You know, Obama got the Peace Prize too... yet he hasn't changed jack shit about the wars he's continuing.

ie. Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing.

The fact that obama got the peace prize is a major WTF. Seriously.

At 10/20/10 04:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Nevermind it actually brought Al Qaieda to Iraq or caused a massive civil war that many people still think is just lulling till we pull out. That to me is the real test. What happens with these factions that still hate each other when we're not there with the weaponry to threaten them into playing nice.

Um, Iraqis were slaughtering each other before too.

But hey, facts are pesky....

At 10/20/10 05:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I haven't either. Wars tend to be fought between governments or factions that can be considered as a government (even if only de facto). We aren't "at war" in Iraq because the government of Iraq is the government we installed. Right now we're just trying to clean up the mess we created and make sure the people support the system we installed. So nice of us to go in and tell them how to govern themselves.

We didn't create the mess in Iraq. But hey, that's irrelevant too! Death is more personal when we're involved. Even if the death count is much much smaller.

We've also ended quite a few as well. That's all I'd like to point out. Lives have been saved, tremendous amounts of lives have been lost, and lost over an invasion that needn't have happened. That's my issue.

That's...moronic. There's no nice way to say that. Have lives been saved as a result of the war? Reading your comments, it doesn't seem to matter. Even if less people died after the fact, the invasion is awful because it was "unnecessary". Idiotic.

Ends justify the means...nice. Nevermind there's still massive violence and we've allowed terrorists to get a foothold. Saddam was scum, but he kept things mostly orderly...unless you were a Kurd of course.

Terrorists had a foothold before. Oops. And the violence has dropped. But hey, now it's on my TV! AWFULS!

I thought we pulled out of Vietnam because we were beaten out? We didn't get beat here...at least not yet. We'll see what happens when troop numbers withdrawal down to the aforementioned residual force.

We never lost a single battle in Vietnam. But hey. Whatevers. You've already proven life isn't you're main concern. We're the bad guys no matter what.

At 10/20/10 08:43 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: The Vietcong was a much larger group than Al-Qaeda. I'll be damned if there are more than 20,000 Al-Qaeda members worldwide, whereas there were the Vietcong had a fighting force of +80,000 (and that's in a single attack raid) and a support basis of more than 300,000.
Source.

Al Queda has hundreds of affiliations with other groups. One such affiliation is the EIJ which boasts over 5000 members. With individual cells it is impossible to tell how big or small AQ is. And the fact that they have killed more poeple with (in your words) less than 1/4th of the men...shows they are much more dangerous than the Viet Cong.

No. I think you fail to understand that a proxy war between to First World Countries will either escalate or withdraw, sometimes both. We would never have been able to get out of Vietnam because the North Vietnamese had the support of Mother Russia, they armed enemy combatants and ensured that they would be able to combat a developed nation.

That completely ignores the actual Vietnam War, where EVERY battle, without a single exception, was won by us, and where the NVA were desperate for ANY propeganda win they could get. We won Vietnam pure and simple. And had we not abandoned the country to the heathens...Vietnam would never had become the killing fields it did.

You mean as a residual force, right?

Maybe if the Soviets gave up. If the Soviets stopped funded the Vietcong, then we could have easily crushed them.

We easily crushed them even with Soviet backing. But whatever.

At 10/20/10 11:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Wasn't Saddam a dictator? See, this is my problem. Nobody is arguing Saddam was good. Saddam was shit. But there are many other dictators in the world and shitty rulers, but we DO NOTHING about them. We plan and intend to do nothing about them. This war was launched because the Bush administration saw some benefit to them in it politically, strategically, or whatever. The welfare of the Iraqi people was far far down the list if it was even on the list at all. Let's not act like idiots here and pretend that really mattered all that much.

Iraq threatened our allies, tried to kill a former President, etc. They violated MULTIPLE UN resolutions and we're in violation of our ceasefire. Bush had legal grounds to attack Iraq, and no one else.

Also my point was where do we have the right to be telling Iraq that they MUST be a Democracy, other then from the, again, set up of we want a friendly government in there. We didn't fight that war to give that country back to it's people, we fought it to get an ally so again. The whole "it's for the people" argument is nonsense on the face of it.

Um, your argument kills itself?

1. most people ARE living better lives under us than they did under Saddam.

For now.

That's all that matters.

2. if we leave, Al-Qaeda will start a massacre.

And if they did, it will be because we destabilized the region in the FIRST place and let them in. They were not there when Saddam was there. Hell, they've done a decent job of it with us there anyway.

No. Massacres were common under Saddam. Logic fail.

Al-Qaeda wouldn't even be in Iraq if it didn't interest them in some way.

And if we hadn't give them the in.

They were there before we ever entered. Fail.

Who assumed they were only interested in Afghanistan? They're interested in spreading their influence wherever they can. They'll spread it right here in the west if they can. Also it's been pretty demonstrably proven they weren't in Iraq until we invaded, destabilized the region, and they snuck in with the rest of the insurgency.

The CIA disagrees, as does every world wide agency. Given that Saddam was directl tied to Zawahiri, you have no point.

You can...and since we don't go after every evil dictator, the whole "look at the benefit" does nothing to mitigate the fact that it was an unnecessary invasion and purely a political and personal war waged by the Bush Administration. I do hope it leads to a better life for all Iraqi's. But history in when it comes to the US and these sorts of things isn't on their side.

Except we have consistently gone after EVERY dictator without a single exception.

Also this idea of "protecting" them from the horror of Communism was really purely based on the overall American strategy of "anything is better then Communism" which led to some pretty shitty democracies that were actually overthrown in POPULAR Communist revolutions (see China for instance)

All of which were worse than what the US was offering. But whatever....

At 10/21/10 07:48 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I'm sure that Afghanistan, part of Pakistan, possibly Iran, and some people in Iraq outweigh Mother Russia and her legion of countries.

And 25% of US Muslims, 35% of Britain Muslims, 65% of French Muslims, not to mention the rest of the world who supports al Queda, shatters your smartass comment.

Who won between Afghanistan and Russia again....oh right. Shut up imbecile.

That's kind of funny. Because it notably failed horrendously. Also, Vietnamization was an effort to prop up the South Vietnamese forces so we could get the fuck out of there.

Which worked til we pulled out our forces. But hey. Who cares about facts?

...You do know less world have been killed if we had just stayed out of it right?

Um, no. But hey, the fact that communist purges that killed millions (that happened everywhere else regardless of our involvement) still occurred is irrelevant right? You aren't much for history or anyrhing.

At 11/2/10 06:47 PM, Warforger wrote:

Yah, it annoys me when Republicans blame the debt and the economy on the Democrats, here in California its solely blamed on the Democrats..... Even though Republican Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger was responsible with his George Bush approved budget plan he passed a while ago. So much for "Democrat policies"

Bush didn't write the California plan. Good try though.

Thats not even to mention the fact that while people like the TEA party are complaining about taxes, reports show that taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, lower then the Republican god Ronald Reagan who also, like both Bush's, raised the debt to record levels.

Wow. you're clueless.

At 11/2/10 08:13 PM, TheMason wrote: If the Republicans don't get things under control...then 2012 will not go easy for them either.

I think most tea partiers voted for Rs as the lesser of two evils. If the tea party movement can become sustainable (and it wont), maybe we'll have something.

At 11/12/10 04:40 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Um, Iraqis were slaughtering each other before too.
But hey, facts are pesky....

They really are. So how's about you bring them to the table on this issue.

We didn't create the mess in Iraq. But hey, that's irrelevant too! Death is more personal when we're involved. Even if the death count is much much smaller.

We could go two fold on this one.

First off, Iraq was extremely stable under Saddam. Sure, the man was a crazy nutball and the people were oppressed, but their lives were not filled with danger, and prior to the embargoes, Iraq was one of the most developed, if not the most developed, country in the Middle East.

Second, if you're trying to say Saddam was an unstable force, I will give you a little on that one. Then again, look at how Saddam got into power...

That's...moronic. There's no nice way to say that. Have lives been saved as a result of the war? Reading your comments, it doesn't seem to matter. Even if less people died after the fact, the invasion is awful because it was "unnecessary". Idiotic.

Unecessary killing in any form is bad. We have saved a few, while at the same time, subjecting a many more to harm that did not exist before. Iraq, now, is a net loss from what it was in 1988, or even 1996, or even 2002.

Terrorists had a foothold before. Oops. And the violence has dropped. But hey, now it's on my TV! AWFULS!

When is this "before". If by before you mean under Saddam, you are wrong. if by before you mean earlier on in the invasion, you fail to fight AVA's point. We let the terrorists into Iraq. Nobody can rationally argue that.

We never lost a single battle in Vietnam. But hey. Whatevers. You've already proven life isn't you're main concern. We're the bad guys no matter what.

You don't have to lose a physical battle to lose a war. We lost everything needed to fight. We did not win quickly enough, while we sent tens of thousands of our young men to die, for ZERO gain, and finally we lost support of the homefront. Vietnam outlasted us in a battle of wills, and we lost that battle.

That completely ignores the actual Vietnam War, where EVERY battle, without a single exception, was won by us, and where the NVA were desperate for ANY propeganda win they could get. We won Vietnam pure and simple. And had we not abandoned the country to the heathens...Vietnam would never had become the killing fields it did.

Any military strategist will tell you that winning battles in only one of many things needed to win wars. Sure, we may have won the skirmishes, but do you know what we could not do? We could not subdue their military. They were quicker, faster, smarter, and most of all much more willing than we were. They could have fought us off at the cost of 10,000,000 vietnamese lives and still we would not have had control. Like I said before, they went toe to toe with us in the battle of wills and they routed us. Without the will, no measure of military victory can win a war.

We easily crushed them even with Soviet backing. But whatever.

Crushed them, but they won... Hmmm.

At 11/11/10 09:40 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote:

At 11/11/10 02:41 AM, TheMason wrote: He may go down as great a failure as Carter.

*Cough* Nobel Peace Prize *Cough* Cough*

So? What exactly does that do for his ability to govern? Is it like Dungeons & Dragons where he gets +5 governing powers everytime he rolls the dice?

At 11/12/10 12:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote: They really are. So how's about you bring them to the table on this issue.

I did. Millions died during Saddams term. I listed some of the nicities above.

First off, Iraq was extremely stable under Saddam. Sure, the man was a crazy nutball and the people were oppressed, but their lives were not filled with danger, and prior to the embargoes, Iraq was one of the most developed, if not the most developed, country in the Middle East.

I'm sorry, that's insane.

Sure the man was a genocidal dictator who slaughtered his own people for fun...but if you ignore THAT, it wasn't so bad! Saddam and his son's committed horrible attrocities that make some of Hitler's handiwork look tame. A bullet to the back of the head looks preferable to being put through a paper shredder.

Moreover, the sanctions were because Saddam refused to stop being belligerent. He chose to let his own people die. Even after we started "oil for food", he squandered the money, and let his people starve. NO ONE but Saddam is to blame for his people's plight.

Unecessary killing in any form is bad. We have saved a few, while at the same time, subjecting a many more to harm that did not exist before. Iraq, now, is a net loss from what it was in 1988, or even 1996, or even 2002.

If by few you mean hundreds of thousands...then yes. Less people have died during the entire war than starved to death every year under his regime. That's a massive number. Not "a few". Less people die now than at any time under Saddam. Had we killed him under Bush Sr., over a million lives would've been saved. What a shame.

When is this "before". If by before you mean under Saddam, you are wrong. if by before you mean earlier on in the invasion, you fail to fight AVA's point. We let the terrorists into Iraq. Nobody can rationally argue that.

Uh, yes they can/ Saddam was an open supporter of terrorism. He was an allyu to Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) which is Zawahiri's terrorist group. He funded suicide bombers in Israel. He praised Osama for the 9/11 attacks and housed the original WTC bomber. Saddam had more terror connections than any other country except Iran.

You don't have to lose a physical battle to lose a war. We lost everything needed to fight. We did not win quickly enough, while we sent tens of thousands of our young men to die, for ZERO gain, and finally we lost support of the homefront. Vietnam outlasted us in a battle of wills, and we lost that battle.

You don't have to lose to lose. ....That makes soooooo many comments above make sense.

We outnumbered the NVA 25 to 1. We slaughtered them in every battle. There is no possible way to lose unless you actually lose battles. Good God man. Have a little brainpower....

Any military strategist will tell you that winning battles in only one of many things needed to win wars. Sure, we may have won the skirmishes, but do you know what we could not do? We could not subdue their military. They were quicker, faster, smarter, and most of all much more willing than we were. They could have fought us off at the cost of 10,000,000 vietnamese lives and still we would not have had control. Like I said before, they went toe to toe with us in the battle of wills and they routed us. Without the will, no measure of military victory can win a war.

I'm sorry, but there's not a single person who's every been a military strategist who will tell you that killing the enemy is not the main key to victory. If you are beating the enemy in every encounter, there is no possible way for them to win.

We easily crushed them even with Soviet backing. But whatever.

Crushed them, but they won... Hmmm.

Um, they didn't win. We slaughtered their military. We won EVERY battle. Then we decided to go home and after we left they violated the peace treaty and killed the South Vietnamese. That's not a military victory.

But hey, you've proven today you don't know anything about history, military tactics, terrorism, or even how to tie your own shoes.

So hey, good luck there sport.

At 11/12/10 04:59 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/2/10 06:47 PM, Warforger wrote:

Yah, it annoys me when Republicans blame the debt and the economy on the Democrats, here in California its solely blamed on the Democrats..... Even though Republican Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger was responsible with his George Bush approved budget plan he passed a while ago. So much for "Democrat policies"

Bush didn't write the California plan. Good try though.

Your right, he approved it, and we all know how great Bush managed his budget......

At 11/12/10 04:59 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Thats not even to mention the fact that while people like the TEA party are complaining about taxes, reports show that taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, lower then the Republican god Ronald Reagan who also, like both Bush's, raised the debt to record levels.

Wow. you're clueless.

Ugh ok let's see.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxe s/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

That seems pretty clear that Reagan had higher taxes. Reagan also drove the debt to record levels just like both Bush's and Obama. What a "Conservative" he was.

At 11/12/10 04:53 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Iraq threatened our allies, tried to kill a former President, etc. They violated MULTIPLE UN resolutions and we're in violation of our ceasefire. Bush had legal grounds to attack Iraq, and no one else.

Just like say North Korea, Iran or Venezuela? The only difference here is that Iraq mostly ousted all its potential allies and it itself was weak making it ripe for the takeover and another threat gone. Funny how all the Veterans are told they protected our freedoms, while the reasons were for international security.

For now.

That's all that matters.

So what your saying is that we should stay there forever?

No. Massacres were common under Saddam. Logic fail.

What makes you think Al-Queda has that much influence in Iraq? Sure its there, but the one in Iraq has few members, little support from anyone else, they're one insurgent group, but they're not the major one. Hell, most of their members are foreigners!

They were there before we ever entered. Fail.

The one in Iraq was not established by Bin Laden or anyone he knew, it was established by a Jordanian terrorist who pledged allegiance to him, which you will find is very common among so called Al-Qaeda groups outside of Afghanistan.

Who assumed they were only interested in Afghanistan? They're interested in spreading their influence wherever they can. They'll spread it right here in the west if they can. Also it's been pretty demonstrably proven they weren't in Iraq until we invaded, destabilized the region, and they snuck in with the rest of the insurgency.

The CIA disagrees, as does every world wide agency. Given that Saddam was directl tied to Zawahiri, you have no point.

....And did Zawahiri have any relation to Bin Laden?

You can...and since we don't go after every evil dictator, the whole "look at the benefit" does nothing to mitigate the fact that it was an unnecessary invasion and purely a political and personal war waged by the Bush Administration. I do hope it leads to a better life for all Iraqi's. But history in when it comes to the US and these sorts of things isn't on their side.

Except we have consistently gone after EVERY dictator without a single exception.

........Ok then let's start a list
Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Morocco
Yemen
Iran
China
Vietnam
Libya

I think thats enough. Now let's start out invasions! oh wait......

All of which were worse than what the US was offering. But whatever....

So your saying we should go to war because "we care"?

At 10/21/10 07:48 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I'm sure that Afghanistan, part of Pakistan, possibly Iran, and some people in Iraq outweigh Mother Russia and her legion of countries.

And 25% of US Muslims, 35% of Britain Muslims, 65% of French Muslims, not to mention the rest of the world who supports al Queda, shatters your smartass comment.

Except these people are a minority and hold little power.....

Who won between Afghanistan and Russia again....oh right. Shut up imbecile.

Whose winning the war between America and Afghanistan again? Oh right.

Which worked til we pulled out our forces. But hey. Who cares about facts?

Oh right, another "if" situation, you'd think after say the entire Vietnam war we could've defeated the Vietcong and North Vietnamese, but nope they were even able to make it to the capital to massacre people while we were still there...... The South Vietnamese army even if properly trained, was cowardly and turned on its own government in the end......

At 11/13/10 10:56 AM, Warforger wrote:

That seems pretty clear that Reagan had higher taxes. Reagan also drove the debt to record levels just like both Bush's and Obama. What a "Conservative" he was.

Do I really have to put up this more accurate graph again?

At 11/13/10 10:56 AM, Warforger wrote: Your right, he approved it, and we all know how great Bush managed his budget......

Presidents don't approve state budgets. You're clueless.

That seems pretty clear that Reagan had higher taxes. Reagan also drove the debt to record levels just like both Bush's and Obama. What a "Conservative" he was.

Reagan lowered taxes like crazy. The biggest cuts in history. But again, who cares about facts? And he had a Democrat congress (who writes the budget). Man this is going poorly for you.

At 11/13/10 11:21 AM, Warforger wrote: Just like say North Korea, Iran or Venezuela? The only difference here is that Iraq mostly ousted all its potential allies and it itself was weak making it ripe for the takeover and another threat gone. Funny how all the Veterans are told they protected our freedoms, while the reasons were for international security.

Um, make the case for any of those. Venezuela never sent people to kill a former President. Nor did any of those countries violate a ceasefire. You are ignorant of history.

What makes you think Al-Queda has that much influence in Iraq? Sure its there, but the one in Iraq has few members, little support from anyone else, they're one insurgent group, but they're not the major one. Hell, most of their members are foreigners!

Yea, AQI's not worldwide with dozens of affiliates or anything...

The one in Iraq was not established by Bin Laden or anyone he knew, it was established by a Jordanian terrorist who pledged allegiance to him, which you will find is very common among so called Al-Qaeda groups outside of Afghanistan.

Um, that ignores everything I said above. You're dishonest or stupid. We're done here.

At 11/14/10 04:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/13/10 11:21 AM, Warforger wrote: Just like say North Korea, Iran or Venezuela? The only difference here is that Iraq mostly ousted all its potential allies and it itself was weak making it ripe for the takeover and another threat gone. Funny how all the Veterans are told they protected our freedoms, while the reasons were for international security.

Um, make the case for any of those. Venezuela never sent people to kill a former President. Nor did any of those countries violate a ceasefire. You are ignorant of history.

On the other hand North Korea has......Along with the rest of those threatening nations and openly saying they want the destruction of America

Again you said America went after every Dictator, which is funny because the CIA installed Saddam into power and helped him oppress and kill his people. Its funny since Iran North Korea and Venezuala all oppress their people while the US just sits back and and uses their oil they bought from them.

What makes you think Al-Queda has that much influence in Iraq? Sure its there, but the one in Iraq has few members, little support from anyone else, they're one insurgent group, but they're not the major one. Hell, most of their members are foreigners!

Yea, AQI's not worldwide with dozens of affiliates or anything...

Yes, affiliates, but do they actually have anything to do with Bin Laden beyond say "I like Bin Laden!".

The one in Iraq was not established by Bin Laden or anyone he knew, it was established by a Jordanian terrorist who pledged allegiance to him, which you will find is very common among so called Al-Qaeda groups outside of Afghanistan.

Um, that ignores everything I said above. You're dishonest or stupid. We're done here.

*sigh* pathetic.

At 11/14/10 04:18 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/13/10 10:56 AM, Warforger wrote: Your right, he approved it, and we all know how great Bush managed his budget......

Presidents don't approve state budgets. You're clueless.

Wow.....I meant approve as supporting it.....

That seems pretty clear that Reagan had higher taxes. Reagan also drove the debt to record levels just like both Bush's and Obama. What a "Conservative" he was.

Reagan lowered taxes like crazy. The biggest cuts in history. But again, who cares about facts? And he had a Democrat congress (who writes the budget). Man this is going poorly for you.

Unfortunately, I have actual news articles and actual evidence while you have crap.