Worst president of all time? Worse than bush the lesser even??

Thing1 said:
None of the losing countries in WWII ever became relevant militarily again. The nuke had nothing to do w/ it.

If you want to keep up an antagonistic relationship w/ that region, we'll get what we've been getting. How is THAT working out for you?

Remember...we were there to "liberate Iraqis." At least I'm sure that's what you were saying in '03. You're whole "it was worth it to take out Saddam" is spoken like someone who didn't know a single soldier who had to put themselves in harm's way for such a folly.
Click to expand...

Actually if I had my way we wouldn't have a soldier in any country including the Middle East. I would deal with them monetarily by crushing their ability to make money on oil. I would tap every oil reserve in this country and crush them economically

Don't pretend to know my beliefs you arrogant fuck. I don't ever want to send our troops into harms way but when we do they should go in to kill people and break things to the greatest extent possible.

You want to meddle in other countries business but don't want to be messy.

By the way have you described this immediate threat that would lead you to war yet? Or were they just words meant to sound good but signifying nothjng
 
I Love America said:
Actually if I had my way we wouldn't have a soldier in any country including the Middle East. I would deal with them monetarily by crushing their ability to make money on oil. I would tap every oil reserve in this country and crush them economically

Don't pretend to know my beliefs you arrogant fuck. I don't ever want to send our troops into harms way but when we do they should go in to kill people and break things to the greatest extent possible.

You want to meddle in other countries business but don't want to be messy.

By the way have you described this immediate threat that would lead you to war yet? Or were they just words meant to sound good but signifying nothjng
Click to expand...

The 2 bolded statements are truly wonderful "instant irony."

An immediate threat is just that - a clear & present danger to the homeland. No compelling case for that w/ Iraq in 2003, even if they DID have WMD's. They had no way to deliver them.

But don't take my word for it. Read the NIE's prior to the war.
 
Bill said:
Thoughts??

I recall many ppl declaring bush the lesser the worst or all time. That still hold true?
Click to expand...

Carter was far worse than Bush. Obama was worse than Bush. Trump is still too early to tell, but he is doing his best to be worse as well.
 
Superfreak said:
Carter was far worse than Bush. Obama was worse than Bush. Trump is still too early to tell, but he is doing his best to be worse as well.
Click to expand...

Sort of laughable. In 20 years, I doubt any historian will have Obama ranked below Bush.

It's a partisan take. Obama will go down somewhere in the middle - he wasn't great, but he wasn't in the "bad" category that Bush is in.
 
Thing1 said:
If connies can't admit they were wrong about Iraq, it's pretty official - they'll never admit that they're wrong about anything.
Click to expand...

You are the one that can't admit you were wrong. While the strategy implemented left a lot to be desired, removing Saddam was the right call (our lack of exit strategy and filling the power vaccum is where Bush erred). Our 'contain him in a box forever' strategy you favored is what was driving groups like Osama's Al Queda to attack the US. Our presence in the mid east, especially near holy sites was seen as an 'offense' by the radical elements of Islam.
 
Thing1 said:
Sort of laughable. In 20 years, I doubt any historian will have Obama ranked below Bush.

It's a partisan take. Obama will go down somewhere in the middle - he wasn't great, but he wasn't in the "bad" category that Bush is in.
Click to expand...

Not really. Obama massive increase to the debt, the mass failure that Obama care has become will solidify him in a far worse position than Bush. His ineptitude is on par with Carter.
 
Superfreak said:
You are the one that can't admit you were wrong. While the strategy implemented left a lot to be desired, removing Saddam was the right call (our lack of exit strategy and filling the power vaccum is where Bush erred). Our 'contain him in a box forever' strategy you favored is what was driving groups like Osama's Al Queda to attack the US. Our presence in the mid east, especially near holy sites was seen as an 'offense' by the radical elements of Islam.
Click to expand...

Who were you going to put in power to fill that vacuum??
 
Bill said:
Who were you going to put in power to fill that vacuum??
Click to expand...

I wasn't there, so no one. I am saying that they didn't think through the power vacuum. They didn't have an exit strategy in place when they went in. That doesn't make going in a bad idea, it just means they didn't plan correctly all the way through.
 
Superfreak said:
I wasn't there, so no one. I am saying that they didn't think through the power vacuum. They didn't have an exit strategy in place when they went in. That doesn't make going in a bad idea, it just means they didn't plan correctly all the way through.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it makes it a very, very bad idea as you have noted: Those seem like some pretty damn good reasons to me... Two half-wit frat boys that avoided going to Nam can't get benladen so they go after our old friend & bad man in Iraq destabilizing the ME.....
 
Bill said:
Wrong, it makes it a very, very bad idea as you have noted: Those seem like some pretty damn good reasons to me... Two half-wit frat boys that avoided going to Nam can't get benladen so they go after our old friend & bad man in Iraq destabilizing the ME.....
Click to expand...

That is quite ridiculous. The mid east has been unstable for decades. Long before Bush's father was in office. Pretty much since the time the European leaders decided to just 'give' European Jews land in what is now Israel. But that particular area has been in turmoil for almost as long as Islam, Christianity have been around.

Again, the removal of Saddam was the right call. The poor planning doesn't change that fact.
 
Superfreak said:
Not really. Obama massive increase to the debt, the mass failure that Obama care has become will solidify him in a far worse position than Bush. His ineptitude is on par with Carter.
Click to expand...

What President since Reagan hasn't has a "massive increase to the debt"? Do you really think Trump won't, or his successor? Sorry - that won't be much of a measure.

Obamacare was hardly a perfect plan, and I actually opposed it, but you're likely wrong about his legacy there. At some point, Americans WILL have universal healthcare - and Obama will go down in history as the leader who paved the way. We can differ on how positive that is, but most Americans will probably see that as a good thing.
 
Superfreak said:
You are the one that can't admit you were wrong. While the strategy implemented left a lot to be desired, removing Saddam was the right call (our lack of exit strategy and filling the power vaccum is where Bush erred). Our 'contain him in a box forever' strategy you favored is what was driving groups like Osama's Al Queda to attack the US. Our presence in the mid east, especially near holy sites was seen as an 'offense' by the radical elements of Islam.
Click to expand...

Iraq was a mistake. Period.
 
Thing1 said:
Saddam wasn't even a threat to his direct neighbors - there was never a compelling case that he was a direct threat to U.S. security. And yeah - we had other options to verify WMD's. They were called "inspections," and they were working.

Are you trying to argue that invasion was justified - a 10-year war just to "confirm" that there were NO WMD's? That's actually sort of crazy. What a careless attitude toward our military.
Click to expand...

That ^^ could be the most clueless statement ever uttered.

YOU sir are hereby disqualified from any further conversation on the Iraq war, it's merits, cause or reasoning to both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top