Public scolding of the Worst President Ever

[Jason Baane]

I don't recall saying I gave a shit about anything at all.  That would be you placing your own expectations on me.  Welcome to the world of fail.

Your entire argument is based on 'giving a shit.' Below is an example;

Right now there are thousands of OUR TROOPS dead, not to even mention civillian costs, because Bush had some Oedipal need to finish Daddy's fuckup.

At least you admitted that you don't actually give a shit and are just speaking out of your ass, though. I give you credit for that much. You are truly an honest liberal.

I didn['t say we should go after North Korea, either.

You suggested, twice, that you would rather have us there than Iraq. But of course you would - since you admitted that you don't give a shit about the Coalition casualties which you used as an excuse to Bush-bash, you wouldn't care about the extreme casualties that would be brought about on both sides of such a conflict.

At the cost of over 150.000 civilians? Lovely price that is.
And, I'm not saying it isn't a good thing, but you gotta weight the price of his removal.

I suppose you would have liked to see Adolf Hitler remain in power, then, because the civilian casualties in Germany alone were so high?

Concerning your whole "hurrdurr we can't fight terrorists" thing: We rebuilt Japan as a nation in the wake of WWII. Japan. I won't go to length to explain to you what kind of enemy they were; you can look it up. We were able to avoid such a thing as what's happening now in Iraq by not being nice. If we encountered an insurgency, it was smashed without pause or hesitation in the most straight-forward way possible. We're not allowed to do that any more, however. Mostly because people like you would just use it as bitch-fuel in any case.

[Cattie]

You suggested, twice, that you would rather have us there than Iraq.

In yet another astounding example of your patent inability (or unwillingness, perhaps?) to read anything that might force you to admit that *gasp* you're wrong, not only did I not suggest TWICE that I'd rather have us there, I didn't suggest it ONCE.

Now, I know you're all hot to suck Bush's ladyberries, but perhaps you might not want to let the truth stand in your way.

Faaail fail fail. Being insulting won't change the facts, dear heart.

And again, at no point did I ever say I give a shit about the troops.  I respect them as humans, but I question their sanity in allowing a false war lead them to death.  Personally, I wouldn't run off like a sheep to slaughter just because there might possibly be something somewhere that could at some point maybe be used to harm us.

If they had enough money to make bombs

Or the bases/planes to launch them from

Or a well-trained enough army to use them in the first place.

I'm not a liberal.

I'm not a conservative.

I side with common sense, which this lacks in entirety, thank you.

[Cattie]

. If we encountered an insurgency, it was smashed without pause or hesitation in the most straight-forward way possible. We're not allowed to do that any more, however. Mostly because people like you would just use it as bitch-fuel in any case.

Kinda like we failed in Korea?

Or like we failed in Vietnam?

Is that smashing?

'Cause those were definitely insurgencies....

[Jason Baane]

Kinda like we failed in Korea?

Or like we failed in Vietnam?

Is that smashing?

'Cause those were definitely insurgencies....

Korea was not an insurgency. By Vietnam, said anti-insurgency tactics were seen as unacceptable. And, to be honest, we were winning Vietnam - in Vietnam. We lost it at home. And when we did, all the hippies cheered that 'peace won out in the end."

But peace didn't win out in the end.

In truth, we spent years at the negotiation table. We didn't invade the North on the ground, we didn't attack their capital city, and we just sat trying to keep them from crossing the imaginary line.

Then Operation Linebacker II came. We fucking bombed the shit out of their capital and guess what? The North Vietnamese come crying to the negotiation table and we get a peace treaty within a short time and Henry Kissinger and the hippies claim all the credit.

Then 1 1/2 years later after we pull all our troops out except for the embassy personnel, the North Vietnamese invade AGAIN. Our government watches and eventually cuts off support to the South Vietnam and they fall, their last broadcasts lamenting the abandonment by their ally.

According to UN numbers, over a million South Vietnamese are forced into prison camps and their land confiscated, the region and cities devolve into a humanitarian crisis zone and the average lifespan drops to 30 years in some areas. Meaning most of the veterans from the Vietnam War on the Vietnamese side or have suffered in those camps are long dead now.

And the media ignored it and touts that peace won when it was the North Vietnamese military that crushed the south.

We see what happens when we pull out. The enemy attacks and takes control. It's why pulling out of Iraq in the first gulf war didn't fucking work. It's why South Korea is a bustling economy while the North is a shithole.

It's why we still have bases in Germany, Japan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and across the globe instead of pulling out.

[Web~Janitor]

This thread would be so much better if it just contained Bo'C's posts.


Therefore, I'm giving him two free banhammers.

[Acacia]

Is no one else just plain disgusted?

[Lore'lai]

Then Operation Linebacker II came. We fucking bombed the shit out of their capital and guess what? The North Vietnamese come crying to the negotiation table and we get a peace treaty within a short time and Henry Kissinger and the hippies claim all the credit.

You know, I really hope that none of the enemies of the US take heart to your tactics of bombing the shit out of cities. Because I happen to love my lovely state of NY, and I'd really like it if Iran didn't pull one of our moves and blew it to pieces. Yeah, I said Iran, not Iraq. Though I guess I should be saying N. Korea, huh?

And as for Bush being the worst president ever...Who cares? It's not like we're lining up histories presidents and trying to give out awards for dumb fuckery.

Right now, is Bush a bad president? Yes. Doesn't matter if he's the worst, just matters how he's doing during his tenure. You don't get that low of an approval rating by being great. And seeing as how he somehow won a second presidency, I wouldn't chalk up bad ratings to liberals being the nations majority and thus giving him such a bad score, either. And considering the headways democrats and liberals made in the senate and house this past election, I would imagine some republicans and conservatives had to switch sides, because I doubt that they all just stopped voting. When your own people aren't approving of what you're doing, maybe you should take note.

And as for the video...Right or wrong, that guy only fubbed his dialogue once that I could see, so regardless, that man is a fantastic speaker if nothing else.

[Furr]

Jason.
Sit the fuck down.
And shut the fuck up.

Please.
And to the rest of you; you're derailing the thread. Switch course, or watch it explode in fire and death.

(yeah, I'm taking some blame for the derailing too. My bad. .. can't promise it won't happen again.)

[Sideus]

oh wow war sucks who woulda thunk

[Soja]

Ivan, I hope you don't take it personally if I never speak to you again.

I think you're wrong in saying that we had no reason to attack Iraq, but eh. It's war, war is hell, etc. Regardless, I don't take politics too personally nowadays. You know who I'm going steady with.

As for the civilian toll in Iraq, that's mostly the Iraqi insurgency's doing. Maybe 1/20th of that can be given over to collateral caused by bomb runs and bad intel. We probably lose just as many people each year over here in the United States due to violence and criminality.

I'm not saying it's acceptable. I'm just saying.

[Alec]

Collateral damage is such a safe phrase to use. In current wars, collateral damage is a pretty name given to damage of which you can't be sure who caused it. Maybe it was the shrapnel from our shells that killed those civilians, or maybe it was a round from an insurgent's rifle. This is merely exemplified by the fact that either side will pin the blame for those damages on the other. The true blame for those damages lies with people who set out to wage war without proper intel, and the instigators of this war are the United States. Whoever lands the killing blow, the US is not excempt from blame.

[Cattie]

OK, Sid, I want you to write this on the calendar:

I'm done with this thread.  Jason Baane's head is so far crammed up Bush and co's ass that no amount of sense will permeate his brain.  He will, eventually, (while obviously not volunteering his own precious life to serve) find *some* reason to think that this is a *good* thing.

So fuckit.  Let him, and those like him, eventually be the reason that non-Americans be the reason the rest of the world gangs up and kicks the shit out of the America.  We need it, it'd be good for the spirit.

[Aran]

I think that, like, sometimes the government has things they can't tell us and that we should, like, just accept that.

[Soja]

Collateral damage is such a safe phrase to use. In current wars, collateral damage is a pretty name given to damage of which you can't be sure who caused it. Maybe it was the shrapnel from our shells that killed those civilians, or maybe it was a round from an insurgent's rifle. This is merely exemplified by the fact that either side will pin the blame for those damages on the other. The true blame for those damages lies with people who set out to wage war without proper intel, and the instigators of this war are the United States. Whoever lands the killing blow, the US is not excempt from blame.

Um.

Collateral damage is exactly what it sounds like--damage caused to one subject as a result of attacking a different subject without intending on causing it, be it by crossfire, shrapnel, etc. It's not really meant to be used as an ambiguous phrase as you say it is.

You can't really exempt the U.S. from blame anyway. We destabilized the region. That is the usual result of an overthrow. The challenge for the last several years has been reorganizing it in a self-sustaining fashion.

I also do not think that the U.S. can be fully blamed for civilian casualties, either. Some, certainly. For helping create the atmosphere, certainly. But the opposition doesn't hesitate to kill innocents to make either the U.S. or the Iraqi government look bad nowadays. I suppose they can't be blamed because we started this war, right? Our presence is forcing them to kill civilians to make a point, right?

Yeah. High horse, off.

As for secret information, Aran... Troop movements, etc., should stay secret, for obvious reasons. I don't think motivations fall under that category of secrecy, though.

All things come to light eventually.

[Sideus]

I think that, like, sometimes the government has things they can't tell us and that we should, like, just accept that.

i, too, love family guy

[Ripraf]

i, too, also love it

But anyways. Think about this. The crap with Iraq happened in 2001, but we've been at war with them far longer, in general. We TRIED to invade in 2001-2002, and we failed, and are continuing to fail. Why are we failing? Because we have not accomplished ANY of our objectives over there. Osama still lives and terrorizes, he still controls/hires armymen/kamikazemen, and they still kill Americans every day. What have we done? We killed a few Iraqies, we enslaved a few POW's for questioning, we sent out threats and blew the shit out of some dirt hills with bombs.

So, my question is, and is debatable, NOT arguable, for those who want to take insult on the internet to anything I have said, please reply sanely; why are we still in Iraq? Why did we not leave when we slaughtered all those people, and failed to kill Osama?

What the Military has failed to do, we have special forces like the FBI or CIA to track him down and assassinate him, but we try to brute our way through their front lines, which... Well, they're scattered, so we're running around with their pants at their ankles, screaming before their backpackbomb blows up.

We are and have failed over there, yet Bush still tries to waste money and destroy America's economy by keeping them, and everyone else, over there.

So... Why? Discuss, I'd like to hear your views.

[Dalton]

FRONT DECK DAMAGE

imo

[Soja]

FRONT DECK DAMAGE

imo

thread over

iQuit

[Rosery]

I may regret this, but on that whole war in Iraq. Saddam had to be removed, thats my opinion, but right now, were fighting a losing battle. Someone in this thread said you cant fight terrorism. I agree to an extent, you cannot fight it like you fight an enemy army, because terrorists do not fight like an enemy army, they use children, women with children,men who by all accounts just like our fathers and brothers. How do you fight what you can't see untill the very last minute of your life in most cases? We are making progress over there, I don't think we need the army anymore over there. Okay I don't think you guys and us need it, im in Canada but our army is over there too anyway,I think a small force to continue training Iraq's police and army to better handle there own country would be better suited. It might also cut down on the number of there own innocents kill by sucidie bombers. Im not saying anyones view in this thread is right,wrong or otherwise, I am only stating what I personally think.

As far as Bush goes, I have no strong opinion on the man. I had to deal with Jean Cretchin as a prime minister, far as im concerned anyone is better than that frog sounding prick.

[Targan]

I suppose you would have liked to see Adolf Hitler remain in power, then, because the civilian casualties in Germany alone were so high?

Jason, in the past I have supported what you have said in a number of threads but dude? Not his time. The USA didn't enter WWII to stop civilian casualties in Europe. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad that the USA entered the war and really swung the tide in favour of the allies, but lets not kid ourselves that US military involvement in any wars has been for the good of humanity.

Doesn't it concern you in the slightest that the US invades one country with a bastard dictator but not dozens of other countries with bastard dictators, based on the US' own self interest (like where the oil is at)? What about Burma? The Sudan? Any number of other countries where the rulers are slaughtering their own people? Where is the USA for those people?

Bush is a halfwit. That's just the way it is. He and his cronies don't seem to give a flying fuck about what the rest of the world thinks about the USA. That kind of arrogance is not in America's best interests in the long term. America has the power to be an enormous force for good in the world, a nation truly worthy of admiration and respect. Someone like Bush comes along and hundreds of years of goodness and admiration for America gets flushed down the toilet.

The abandonment of the rule of law for all those taken in Afghanistan and Iraq just stuns me. Throwing out the Geneva Conventions? Insanity! What moral high ground will the US have in the future. It has opened itself right up for nations at war with it in the future to declare that American soldiers don't have the right to be treated under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Sure, some of those prisoners in Gitmo are very, very bad people. But hundreds of them are not. They were handed over by the Northern Alliance or the Iraqis for cash bounties, with no credible evidence that they ever did anything wrong. Utterly mind blowing.

[Aran]

Not to argue with what you're saying here, but I'm fairly certain that the rest of the world thought we were arrogant pricks before Bush took office. Not that he helped or anything...

[Targan]

I can't speak for the whole of the rest of the world but Australians think pretty highly of the USA, we have looked up to you guys since before our Federation. I mean, we followed America into the Vietnam War and more than held our own in that small geographical portion of the conflict we were assigned. We were in that one with America for the long haul. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq with America, mainly because the US Government asked their close friends the UK and Australia and we'll always back up the USA, always. I really fear that the current US Administration has squandered some of that deep trust it had with some of its closest allies. Because there are some very deep concerns here in Australia now about

- WTF the Iraq War was for (especially the appalling civilian body count which I freely admit is for the most part not directly attributable to Coalition forces but certainly indirectly) and
- That crazy military tribunal shit for everybody slung into Gitmo.

Among other things.

I am not American-bashing here. I've really enjoyed the company of every American I've ever physically met. But those truly shitty, appalling, unforgivable events on 9/11 seem to have so traumatised parts of American culture that attitudes have changed on what sort of conduct is acceptable when dealing with perceived threats. I really hope that the USA doesn't ever reach a point where it is prepared to alienate even its closest allies and no longer gives a shit about whether that happens or not. Do you see where I'm coming from?

[Cattie]

itt

[size=10]FRONT DECK DAMAGE [/size]

imo

Doesn't it concern you in the slightest that the US invades one country with a bastard dictator but not dozens of other countries with bastard dictators, based on the US' own self interest (like where the oil is at)? What about Burma? The Sudan? Any number of other countries where the rulers are slaughtering their own people? Where is the USA for those people?

Never mind that we didn't GO there, the slaughter in Darfur didn't even rate NEWS COVERAGE.  

Hell, half of America didn't know what Rwanda even WAS until Don Cheadle told them...

Also, i <3 u, targan

[Sideus]

OK, Sid, I want you to write this on the calendar:

I'm done with this thread.  Jason Baane's head is so far crammed up Bush and co's ass that no amount of sense will permeate his brain.  He will, eventually, (while obviously not volunteering his own precious life to serve) find *some* reason to think that this is a *good* thing.

So fuckit.  Let him, and those like him, eventually be the reason that non-Americans be the reason the rest of the world gangs up and kicks the shit out of the America.  We need it, it'd be good for the spirit.

hey cool

Never mind that we didn't GO there, the slaughter in Darfur didn't even rate NEWS COVERAGE.

Hell, half of America didn't know what Rwanda even WAS until Don Cheadle told them...

Also, i <3 u, targan

welp