Is Bush a war mongering idiot?

[Vympel]

Where you intent to add an actual reply to that quote?

I'm sure I did ... my connections' been playing up- I think when I hit submit the second time the quote was there but my reply wasn't.

Anyways, my reply was that's exactly what both sides should have done (reduced conventional and gone for the nuclear deterrent).

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm sure I did ... my connections' been playing up- I think when I hit submit the second time the quote was there but my reply wasn't.

Anyways, my reply was that's exactly what both sides should have done (reduced conventional and gone for the nuclear deterrent).

Well luckily for the Soviets, Kennedy began cutting nuclear forces in favor of conventional troops around the same time they began radical cuts of there own bloated conventional forces in favor of strategic nuclear. The decade or so that followed saw a radical alteration to the balance of power.

[0.1]

Vmp,

Thanks for the clarification. As for the war being sold the way it was sold. I'd say that you have to consider the audience, and the message. The problem with a complicated message is that it always gets misinterpeted or distorted over time.

Different nation states have different motives, consider the French, they had their motives for opposition, one can be sure the real motive wasn't the need to follow the process laid out in UN, it just sounds very nice when someone puts it that way. Australia (govt) which supported the war, did it for a reason other than what John Howard likely gave out.

I'm guessing that the war was almost certainly not about oil, not about WMD, probably not as much about state sponsored terrorism, certainly, it's not focused on freeing the Iraqi people (that was a nice side effect). But I am guessing that people in different parts of the world got different messages. Consider this, what message do you think Chirac got out of this, compare to the message that say your ordinary American citizen got out of it, compare to the guys running NK, the people running Iran, and so forth.

The long term effects though will be interesting, and it's not at all clear that Bush Jr will do better than his dad. But it would be dangerous to underestimate someone like him, I doubt he is warmongering, and it's insane to think that he is an idiot. The worst thing about success is that it could blind people to the obvious, and it isn't the case here. Otherwise, Syria or Iran (or more likely both) would be on the receiving end already.

[Ted]

Finally, of course, he got us involved in 'nam to begin with.

The Americans first got into nam in the late 50's, Kenedy was elected in the 60's. It doesn't add up Duchess.

[Joe]

Finally, of course, he got us involved in 'nam to begin with.

The Americans first got into nam in the late 50's, Kenedy was elected in the 60's. It doesn't add up Duchess.

Ike only sent advisors and aid, as far as I know. Kennedy sent the first troops.

[Joe]

Kennedy was our worst President.

WHAT i thought Clinton was the worsthe had no taste in women,he scraped the bottom of the barrel,while Kennedy banged some hot looking chicks.

Bill Clinton is probably the worst man ever to be President, but definitely not the worse President.

[Stormbringer]

Kennedy was our worst President.

WHAT i thought Clinton was the worsthe had no taste in women,he scraped the bottom of the barrel,while Kennedy banged some hot looking chicks.

Bill Clinton is probably the worst man ever to be President, but definitely not the worse President.

I don't know. He managed to fuck up just about everything. A lot of the screw ups at in the three letter agencies that lead to September 11th are a result of his appointees and his people likewise helped fuck up the economy. Name one accomplishment that equals the absolute mess he made of the government not to mention his disgracing of the office and his numerous scandals/crimes.

[Joe]

WHAT i thought Clinton was the worsthe had no taste in women,he scraped the bottom of the barrel,while Kennedy banged some hot looking chicks.

Bill Clinton is probably the worst man ever to be President, but definitely not the worse President.

I don't know. He managed to fuck up just about everything. A lot of the screw ups at in the three letter agencies that lead to September 11th are a result of his appointees and his people likewise helped fuck up the economy. Name one accomplishment that equals the absolute mess he made of the government not to mention his disgracing of the office and his numerous scandals/crimes.

Watergate itself was pretty bad. I still hesitate to call him the worst, that title would be reserved for LBJ in my book.

As for 9/11, yeah, I think the blame at least partially falls on the shoulders of the Clinton administration, but I hesitate to blame Clinton (or anyone, really, except maybe Alan Greenspan) for our current economy. There was just more investment than the market could handle and it burst, it's foolish to point fingers and pretend that anyone outside of Alan Greenspan can really effectively guide the American economy as a whole.

My personal favorite would be William Henry Harrison, who keeled over before he could go about wrecking the country and/or American liberties like most other Presidents. Followed closely by Washington.

[Coyote]

I'm actually surprised that there are as many conservative or semi-conservatives here on the board, I expected more screaming leftists. but then when you think about it, it is the conservatives who have jobs and ergo, the money to afford computers and net hookups. Heeheehee.

But then, the leftists do tend to be rabid uber-leftists who's idea of 'political discourse' seems to be mirroring Molly Ivins's "Bush is a PooPoo Head" stance.

(stir the pot some more!)

I dislike Bush for many reasons, but he's nowhere near our worst president. He will be remembered for how he REacted to things, not to any PROactive things he did. Reagan was proactive in his dealings with the Cold War and the Sovies. Clinton will be remembered for gutting the military and then deploying to Yugoslavia and expecting miracles and for scandal; Carter will end up as a forgotten cypher, a footnote to history.

The aura of asskissing that follows in the wake of the Kennedy administration effectively makes him teflon coated to lots of deserved criticism. His tragic death seals the deal; he is safe from besmirching and Camelot will endure for that reason.

Johnson was a fucktard, so was Wilson. But for so many reasons beyond ideology and weenie-waxing I have to go with Clinton as the winner of the human colostomy sack award. And Leftists-- who care oh so much for the 'poor Iraqis'-- never remember how he bombed the shit out of that country for four days to cover the fact that he was testifying about perjury charges the same day. That man was willing to burn up countless lives-- American or Iraqi, whichever you care about most-- just to cover up his skirt-chasing.

Clinton was still in power when the economy started to go downhill-- that's why Gore wouldn't use the economy as a campaign platform, remember? One of Clinton's own lapdogs, Louis Freeh, says now that Billy's cutbacks of the FBI and CIA may well have been the reason al-Qaieda was able to carry out the 9/11 attacks. The Yugoslavia debacle-- a war with no exit strategy, no exact aim, and rules that tied the hands of the military-- what was it that Clinton disliked about Vietnam...?

Bush may be inarticulate but in the name of all that is even remotely sensible, image the reaction of "President Gore" to 9/11!? There are good arguments against Bush but the Left is stuck on the ad hominem attacks instead of real policy arguments.

[Darth Gojira]

War mongering idiot? More like "Mr Magoo: The Next Generation"
Here we go again.
One thing's for sure, though. He won't need daddy's money or bubba's VP as a rival to win. Too many people like him.

[NecronLord]

Who is the worst?

I remember Talen saying that the thought Wilson was the worst.

As in Woodrow Wilson? Why?

[Joe]

As in Woodrow Wilson? Why?

For getting us involved in WWI.

[jegs2]

For the reason why I opened this poll, please refer tohttp://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 348#526348

Warmongering? Perhaps. Idiot? Only to those who are fooled by his bumbling appearance...

[NecronLord]

As in Woodrow Wilson? Why?

For getting us involved in WWI.

Rather than let germany win (which they actucally were) and take over europe? Just like the reasons for the Iraq war, only a greater threat.

[Joe]

As in Woodrow Wilson? Why?

For getting us involved in WWI.

Rather than let germany win (which they actucally were) and take over europe? Just like the reasons for the Iraq war, only a greater threat.

It was a European territorial pissing contest that both sides were equally guilty of starting. America didn't make that huge of a difference, anyway, IIRC.

[Hamel]

oy, time to stir up some shit!
*goes ssj4874498*

I'm actually surprised that there are as many conservative or semi-conservatives here on the board, I expected more screaming leftists. but then when you think about it, it is the conservatives who have jobs and ergo, the money to afford computers and net hookups. Heeheehee.

nice flamebait

Don't forget you have the racists, the Heman "wimin" haters, the fundies, and nascar fans

My dad is very liberal, made more money in his 70hr/week job in the course of a few years than you ever will

But then, the leftists do tend to be rabid uber-leftists who's idea of 'political discourse' seems to be mirroring Molly Ivins's "Bush is a PooPoo Head" stance.

At least they had better things to do than to care more about Clinton's dick than national/international issues

Our pundits, whatever you think about them, aren't calling for deporting/killing/threatening/doing whatever you want to conservatives, unlike your beloved Coulter and Savage that do that shit to liberals

I dislike Bush for many reasons, but he's nowhere near our worst president. He will be remembered for how he REacted to things, not to any PROactive things he did. Reagan was proactive in his dealings with the Cold War and the Sovies.

I like how conservatives deify Reagan when his hands were dirty as fuck. I like how so many conservatives said Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick (with no evidence to back it up, not even mentioning how Juanita's family said she was a fucking liar) and consider it indisputable fact, but don't care about Reagan being accused of raping Selene Walters (which probably didn't have much credibility behind it either).

Clinton will be remembered for gutting the military and then deploying to Yugoslavia and expecting miracles and for scandal;

Okay, the deployments were stupid, but there's no need to cry over not getting all the toys the military wanted

The aura of asskissing that follows in the wake of the Kennedy administration effectively makes him teflon coated to lots of deserved criticism. His tragic death seals the deal; he is safe from besmirching and Camelot will endure for that reason.

Cuban Missle Crisis, though indeed he was shady

And Leftists-- who care oh so much for the 'poor Iraqis'

I don't think Clinton had any business in Iraq and deserves equal criticism

BTW, don't cut on liberals for their feelings toward the Iraqis when it is well known that you never give a shit about them in the first place

I love playing the illogical, chock fulla fallacies game you enjoy so much.

One of Clinton's own lapdogs, Louis Freeh, says now that Billy's cutbacks of the FBI and CIA may well have been the reason al-Qaieda was able to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

That's funny, I thought it was because Bush and his administration were fucking around in Afghanistan, threatening to bomb the country over a pipeline deal gone bad, and ignoring every warning of a coming attack.

The Yugoslavia debacle-- a war with no exit strategy, no exact aim, and rules that tied the hands of the military-- what was it that Clinton disliked about Vietnam...?

Probably~

Bush may be inarticulate but in the name of all that is even remotely sensible, image the reaction of "President Gore" to 9/11!? There are good arguments against Bush but the Left is stuck on the ad hominem attacks instead of real policy arguments.

I honestly don't think 9/11 would have happened had Gore been in the Whitehouse, and I'd like to take the time to laugh at the boring, overused "thank god it was bush and not gore" comments, seeing as how they don't make any sense at all. This is the conservative equivilent of the "no blood for oil" thing

[Perinquus]

oy, time to stir up some shit!
*goes ssj4874498*

My dad is very liberal, made more money in his 70hr/week job in the course of a few years than you ever will

My god! I think this is the first time I have ever seen a variation of "my daddy can beat up your daddy, so nyah!" on this board.

At least they had better things to do than to care more about Clinton's dick than national/international issues

Newsflash. We don't care that he was an adulterer, that by itself it reprehensible, but certainly not criminal, what we care about is that he lied about it to grand jury, which is perjury, which is a felony.

Our pundits, whatever you think about them, aren't calling for deporting/killing/threatening/doing whatever you want to conservatives, unlike your beloved Coulter and Savage that do that shit to liberals

Neither Savage nor Coulter is beloved of me or of many other conservatives, nice blanket generalization.

Okay, the deployments were stupid, but there's no need to cry over not getting all the toys the military wanted

Nice oversimplification. Clinton didn't just cut a few toys out of the military budget, he downsized the force by about half, while simultaneously increasing deployments and optempo around the world. Which in turn shot morale straight to hell and made it very much harder for the military to keep the trained and skilled personnel who weren't cut out by the downsizing. I remember this well, since I was an infantry squad leader during the Clinton years. This also took away our capability to deal with more than one significant military threat at a time, which is why during our confrontation with Iraq we were not also able to deal with the the renewed threat posed by North Korea, which is another problem partly of Clinton's making.

BTW, don't cut on liberals for their feelings toward the Iraqis when it is well known that you never give a shit about them in the first place

Do not be so arrogant as to presume to know what I and all others of my political persuasion do or do not give a shit about. And in any case conservatives have never made any secret of the fact that the war against Iraq was, first and foremost, a war to protect American interests (which is rightly the first concern of any administration). The freeing of the Iraqis was a beneficial secondary consequence.

One of Clinton's own lapdogs, Louis Freeh, says now that Billy's cutbacks of the FBI and CIA may well have been the reason al-Qaieda was able to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

That's funny, I thought it was because Bush and his administration were fucking around in Afghanistan, threatening to bomb the country over a pipeline deal gone bad, and ignoring every warning of a coming attack.

Since the planning for the 9/11 operation took about two years, and Osama and Al Quaeda were already attacking American targets prior to this, the genesis of the 9/11 operation extends back in time into the period before Bush was even president.

I honestly don't think 9/11 would have happened had Gore been in the Whitehouse, and I'd like to take the time to laugh at the boring, overused "thank god it was bush and not gore" comments, seeing as how they don't make any sense at all. This is the conservative equivilent of the "no blood for oil" thing

I repeat, Al Quaeda was planning 9/11 before Bush was even president. They are not closet democrats, and would not have called it off just because Gore was in the White House. Sorry to pop your balloon, but Gore was not a potential savior here.

[Vympel]

Newsflash. We don't care that he was an adulterer, that by itself it reprehensible, but certainly not criminal, what we care about is that he lied about it to grand jury, which is perjury, which is a felony.

You may not have, but you'll find many rightwingnuts denouncing him as a rapist. Why was he put in front of a grand jury for adultery anyway?

Nice oversimplification. Clinton didn't just cut a few toys out of the military budget,

Which ones? Cheney during Bush 41s administration killed the F-14D program for one, and also the V-22 program (which Clinton resurrected) IIRC. I can't think of any program Clinton speciifcally cancelled, but then I'm not an expert on that period.

[0.1]

I honestly don't think 9/11 would have happened had Gore been in the Whitehouse, and I'd like to take the time to laugh at the boring, overused "thank god it was bush and not gore" comments, seeing as how they don't make any sense at all. This is the conservative equivilent of the "no blood for oil" thing

heh heh, you mean like all the people who thought Bush was incompetent, Al Qaeda decided based on the media reports that Bush was in fact incapable of doing anything serious in response. So they attacked because they figured like Clinton, Bush won't do all that much to them, a few cruise missiles, and that's that. Sure, I guess that make sense, all the way up till the point when the first JDAM dropped on somebody's head.

And by the way, your daddy makes a ton of money, that's good, but what have you done lately other than living off of daddy.

[Hamel]

My god! I think this is the first time I have ever seen a variation of "my daddy can beat up your daddy, so nyah!" on this board.

I'm attacking his bullshit regarding liberals, and how he always implies they don't have money, or work, etc. I'll seriously debate him when he stops his bullshit. He's like Chrostas x10000

Newsflash. We don't care that he was an adulterer, that by itself it reprehensible, but certainly not criminal, what we care about is that he lied about it to grand jury, which is perjury, which is a felony.

Over what? Getting his dick sucked, and legally he didn't commit perjury.

Neither Savage nor Coulter is beloved of me or of many other conservatives, nice blanket generalization.

Big fucking deal. I was fling Coyote's shit right back at him.

Nice oversimplification. Clinton didn't just cut a few toys out of the military budget, he downsized the force by about half, while simultaneously increasing deployments and optempo around the world. Which in turn shot morale straight to hell and made it very much harder for the military to keep the trained and skilled personnel who weren't cut out by the downsizing. I remember this well, since I was an infantry squad leader during the Clinton years. This also took away our capability to deal with more than one significant military threat at a time, which is why during our confrontation with Iraq we were not also able to deal with the the renewed threat posed by North Korea, which is another problem partly of Clinton's making.

Increased deployment was a mistake, then. Cutting military budget, even by a significant amount, doesn't bother me that much. Clinton, in some ways, was no better than Bush is.

Do not be so arrogant as to presume to know what I and all others of my political persuasion do or do not give a shit about. And in any case conservatives have never made any secret of the fact that the war against Iraq was, first and foremost, a war to protect American interests (which is rightly the first concern of any administration). The freeing of the Iraqis was a beneficial secondary consequence.

I'm deploying similar fallacies and irrational strategies that Coyote used against liberals. It's his own shit shot back at him.

Anyways, Iraq was no threat to our security. We asked for evidence of weaponry that would violate resolutions, we didn't get it. Instead, we get forged documents, lies, appeals to emotion about liberation, more of the 'with us or against us' garbage. We get a billion different reasons for going there. Now the people are even worse off than they were before.

Since the planning for the 9/11 operation took about two years, and Osama and Al Quaeda were already attacking American targets prior to this, the genesis of the 9/11 operation extends back in time into the period before Bush was even president.

Evidence of the 9/11 plan set in to motion before BushII?

I repeat, Al Quaeda was planning 9/11 before Bush was even president. They are not closet democrats, and would not have called it off just because Gore was in the White House. Sorry to pop your balloon, but Gore was not a potential savior here.

I wouldn't see Gore as a potential "savior". He wouldn't be meddling with terrorists over oil deals, and pulling the same bullshit that the Bush and Reagan administrations did regarding the middle east.

[Hamel]

heh heh, you mean like all the people who thought Bush was incompetent, Al Qaeda decided based on the media reports that Bush was in fact incapable of doing anything serious in response. So they attacked because they figured like Clinton, Bush won't do all that much to them, a few cruise missiles, and that's that. Sure, I guess that make sense, all the way up till the point when the first JDAM dropped on somebody's head.

Ahh, more "Bush can take action, unlike Clinton" baloney. That rhetoric is 2 years old.

And by the way, your daddy makes a ton of money, that's good, but what have you done lately other than living off of daddy.

Fuck off you little cunt. I make my own fucking money and I don't live with my father anymore. Evidently you don't understand that the whole point of me saying that is to counter his bullshit about liberals not working and having money.

[0.1]

Ahh, more "Bush can take action, unlike Clinton" baloney. That rhetoric is 2 years old.

You said it, not me. But then, you didn't exactly see Clinton sending troops into Afghanistan and taking out Al Qaeda when Tanzania and Kenya happened the first time. Don't try to be a mind reader here, you're not doing a good job.

Fuck off you little cunt. I make my own fucking money and I don't live with my father anymore. Evidently you don't understand that the whole point of me saying that is to counter his bullshit about liberals not working and having money.

Awww, I think I made you mad, time to go cry to daddy and ask him for money, it might soften the blow. Hey, get him to buy you a porche, tell him that it'll make up for the other inadequecies. ha ha.

[Hamel]

You said it, not me. But then, you didn't exactly see Clinton sending troops into Afghanistan and taking out Al Qaeda when Tanzania and Kenya happened the first time. Don't try to be a mind reader here, you're not doing a good job.

No mind reading here. He bagged quite a few terrorists after the attacks, IIRC.

Awww, I think I made you mad, time to go cry to daddy and ask him for money, it might soften the blow. Hey, get him to buy you a porche, tell him that it'll make up for the other inadequecies. ha ha.

Ok, now you seem desperate for attention, even if that involves a good, solid flaming.

[phongn]

Increased deployment was a mistake, then. Cutting military budget, even by a significant amount, doesn't bother me that much. Clinton, in some ways, was no better than Bush is.

Cutting the military budget was the correct thing to do, but the drastic cuts in maintenance, for example, should have been avoided.

[Axis Kast]

Cutting the military budget was the correct thing to do, but the drastic cuts in maintenance, for example, should have been avoided.

Reluctantly agreed. Desert Storm was uncharactaristically "easy" because George Bush, Sr. was still operating with the ~2 million-man force of the Reagan era. Clinton's overall decision to reduce force size was absolutely necessary. His particular selection of which sectors of the budget to reduce was however ultimately flawed.