4PackGirl
15 years ago
one assumption - i let it go. multiple assumptions - i'm p'd off.
i'm just sayin... 😉
Rockmolder
15 years ago



Yah, it's going to suck being a bad president after an extremely successful campaign against terrorism. Of course, there is the possibility that some people repeat lies often enough to sway people from the truth. Wouldn't be the first time in history that ever happened, either. Just ask Dan Rather what the truth is.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Extremely successful campaign against terrorism eh...

Yikes.. Carry on.

Even if you can muddle enough points to carry that argument, there are many other points within government than just terrorism.

I'll carry my opinion of his presidency much differently than you.. no sense arguing the point to a bloody end.

*edited* No point debating the facts.. we just view them differently.

"vegOmatic" wrote:



Yes, Iraq was a disaster. The country has fallen into civil war and the conflict has carried over into surrounding countries.

Just what do you call a failure? A nation that is becoming stable, able to self-rule, and no longer carries out a policy to absorb its neighbors? Al-Quaeda is vastly weakened and barely able to throw water balloons at a target. Or was it supposed to all be over in 6 weeks?

I hope our next war is this type of a disaster. Yeah, it's obvious going over the facts isn't going to go anywhere.

"pack93z" wrote:


Plus the FACT that we as a nation have not been attacked again since 9/11.
Thats because our leadership took immediate action. Had Bush not done so, do you think we would not have been attacked again and again?

And it STILL makes me laugh when so many people say Saddam didn't have any weapons. Hell, he used them against his OWN people! Then, when the UN wanted to send inspectors in, Saddam would make them wait at certain buildings for days before he would let them in. Tell me......does anyone REALLY believe he wasn't hiding anything??? The UN SHOULD have just said "No, we are NOT going to wait, we are going in NOW!"
But the UN is useless. A Lion with no teeth. It can roar, but EVERYONE knows it has NO bite.

"vegOmatic" wrote:



He did use those weapons quite some times before though, yet, no one undertook actions at that point. I mean, the Gulf War just got rid of the Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait, but Saddam could've been taken at that point aswell.

I can't deny that there haven't been any big terrorist attacks on America since then... there have been alot on Americans though. Combined with the fact that there have been numerous people arrested because of tightend security. In years before, they would've gotten through. I guess he deserves a pet on the back for tightening security if you look at it like that....

Now I'm not going as far as to think that Bush staged the attacks on America himself, that's to far fetched for me, but I don't agree that this was a great war or something.

Getting back to my main post though, I'd like to ask you something. DO you really think we will one day look back at Bush and think he is on one line with Lincoln? I saw the piece where he said this about himself aswell, he seems to be somewhat delusional and oblivious.
Cheesey
15 years ago
Rock......i don't think many, if ANY presidents would compare with Lincoln.
But what i DO think is that when people look back in the future, they just might realize that Bush wasn't the idiot the liberals say he was.
NO president is perfect, and mistakes are made.
Look at Vietnam.......had we gone in with all of our forces, we could have won and ended that war in a few weeks.

And those that say Bush set up the attack on America are 100% idiots. That just shows how they let there blind hatred control them, and allow them not to use any of their God given brains.
UserPostedImage
Formo
15 years ago


Getting back to my main post though, I'd like to ask you something. DO you really think we will one day look back at Bush and think he is on one line with Lincoln? I saw the piece where he said this about himself aswell, he seems to be somewhat delusional and oblivious.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



In all honesty, that's a really tough question to answer.

But I would say since Bush's entire presidency happened to start with 9-11, I think 200 years from now people will look back and praise Bush's resiliency on the war against terror, even in the face of opposition.

Much like people look at Truman as a tough leader because of the ultimate decision he had to make during WWII, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
zombieslayer
15 years ago

Rock......i don't think many, if ANY presidents would compare with Lincoln.
But what i DO think is that when people look back in the future, they just might realize that Bush wasn't the idiot the liberals say he was.
NO president is perfect, and mistakes are made.
Look at Vietnam.......had we gone in with all of our forces, we could have won and ended that war in a few weeks.

And those that say Bush set up the attack on America are 100% idiots. That just shows how they let there blind hatred control them, and allow them not to use any of their God given brains.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Cheesey - I think he's an idiot but from a Right-wing perspective.

1) Spending went through the roof with Bush. Sure you can blame Congress all you want but Bush rarely vetoed ANYTHING, and historically, it's rare vetoes get overturned. So we spent so much that we end up having a multi-trillion dollar deficit, and keep in mind Bush inherited a surplus. Scariest part of it all is we now owe almost a trillion to China alone, a country that has nuclear warheads pointed at us and hates us.

2) More on economics - he failed to enforce the illegal immigration laws. Illegals undercut family farmers and the working classes, but Bush seemed to love those illegal aliens. Illegals are also really hurting the border states. They're completely ruining a lot of once nice areas of California and our schools have gone to **** because of them. We're having to cut good classes like shop, art, music, gifted/talented, etc., all in favor of ESL (English as a Second Language). Thanks Bush.

3) Maintaining Most Favored Nation status with China, a country as I've said that has nukes pointed as us. Granted, so did Clinton and so did Bush's father, who if I'm not mistaken was the one who granted them that status in the first place. This has been an economic disaster for America. I've been saying this for years and finally people are realizing I was right all along.

It just amazes me how people used to fear the Soviet Union and call them the "Evil Empire" when they were saints compared to today's China. Saints. Yes, they did horrible, horrible things, but China does them on a whole new level. The Soviets never killed "enemies of the state" and ATE them. Yes, this happened during the Cultural Revolution. The Soviets also killed less people than the Chinese. Stalin, one of the most evil people in history, killed between 19-27 million people. Mao killed 55 million. The Chinese also murder political dissidents and sell their organs on the black market. Now, the Soviets did horrible things, but I don't remember them doing that. People disappearing at night? Happened all the time in the Soviet Union but in China, they grab them right in front of your eyes and nobody can do a G/D thing about it.

As for the whole terrorism thing, the whole 9/11 really pisses me off. It's SECURITY that caused 9/11 in the first place. The only security in this world is you, and Bush is part of the "government will keep you secure" mentality which is a poison to Freedom and Privacy. An absolute poison. When the children of today are wondering what it used to be like back in the days when people were Free in America, you can point them to the Bush Administration.

I strongly believe Bush will go down in history as a horrible President and he doesn't belong in the same sentence as Abe.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
vegOmatic
15 years ago

i'm sick of the cutting remarks, veg. i feel i've mostly been a respectful poster here so i don't understand the hostility.

"4PackGirl" wrote:



No hostility, you think I'm a mean old man and I think you're a naive little girl.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
Anyone who thinks the United States has stabilized Iraq has absolutely no understanding of Middle East tribal culture. When the United States finally pulls out of Iraq, that country will dissolve into its three main tribal fiefdoms (Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shi'astan), and thank God for that! Iraq in its current configuration is an "artificial nation" whose national boundaries were imposed by Great Britain around 1918 and is INTRINSICALLY unstable because Arabs are tribally oriented and have no sense of the nation-state, nor do they want to. There's a reason why Saddam Hussein was a brutal, secular dictator: it was the only way to keep the nation together. As soon as we removed that stabilizing force, the nation predictably dissolved into civil war (as a massive 1999 US military war-game predicted would happen, even were we to occupy the nation with 500,000 troops). Hussein may have been an evil man, but he was undeniably the right man for the job -- assuming it's a good thing to keep Iraq together at all, which I personally don't believe.

The only reason why the Sunnis had favored continued American occupation was they were were terrified they'd be cut off from oil supplies should the nation be split into three states (the Kurdish north and Shi'a south have oil, but until recently, the Sunni central region had none). Now that a potentially lucrative oil field has been discovered in central Iraq, look for Sunni support of nationhood to dissolve steadily.

From the beginning of the occupation, the national government has been largely a figurehead, with most of the power residing in the provincial governments. Twenty years from now, look for "Iraq" (if the name exists at all) to be at most a nominally federal entity -- the Confederation of Iraqi States, if you will. But the real power will reside within the tribal units.
UserPostedImage
vegOmatic
15 years ago

Anyone who thinks the United States has stabilized Iraq has absolutely no understanding of Middle East tribal culture.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Iraq would have imploded long ago if not for the success that has been achieved to date. There is a reason why Obama chose who he chose for secretary of Defense (those who say otherwise are in denial).

A big deal was made out of Saddam Hussein using poison gas on the Kurds; the reality is many of the governments in the region have attacked their own people in the last 30-plus years. I'm also booked for a trip to Egypt later this year and have been doing some homework and have been enlightened with some of the issues.

So... I'm pretty sure your comments are to everyone and not just me, but you're not the only one who is aware of the dynamics of the separate factions within Iraq and the Middle East.

Regardless, it will not be the fault of the United States when they eventually pull out and Iraq reverts. At least, not for now. Either way, I'm sure we'll have another silly thread like this because we'll all know where the blame lies. 😛
blank
4PackGirl
15 years ago

i'm sick of the cutting remarks, veg. i feel i've mostly been a respectful poster here so i don't understand the hostility.

"vegOmatic" wrote:



No hostility, you think I'm a mean old man and I think you're a naive little girl.

"4PackGirl" wrote:



keep assuming, veg. it's enjoyable.
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

Regardless, it will not be the fault of the United States when they eventually pull out and Iraq reverts.

"vegOmatic" wrote:



No, it won't be our fault -- it will be the natural course of tribal devolution, and it will be a good thing. Right now all we're doing is delaying the inevitable, unfortunately.

In a way, I'm so glad I got to spend time over there. It opened my eyes to things I had never understood before.
UserPostedImage
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (1h) : End of a Degu-era
    dhazer (1h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
    Zero2Cool (4h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
    Zero2Cool (5h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (15h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (22h) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (23h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
    beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.