|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jun 22, 2009 15:17:26 GMT -5
I'd say Obama's getting a nasty crash course in it right now.
So, what about Iran? If GWB were still President (and, according to all you buttwipes, the worst one ever) and he was sitting back doing nothing (as Obama is exactly doing right now) and all those protesters were dying (which they are right now), all of you would be in an uproar.
"Gawd, why isn't he doing anything, he's the worst President ever..."
"I can't believe he hasn't done something about that situation, he's the WORST PRESIDENT EVER!"
Well, now it's my turn...
GAWD, PEOPLE ARE DYING OVER THERE AND HE ISN'T DOING A DAMN THING!!!!! HE'S THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!!!
Ah...so refreshing....
|
|
|
|
Post by blob on Jun 22, 2009 16:43:57 GMT -5
I'd say Obama's getting a nasty crash course in it right now. So, what about Iran? If GWB were still President (and, according to all you buttwipes, the worst one ever) and he was sitting back doing nothing (as Obama is exactly doing right now) and all those protesters were dying (which they are right now), all of you would be in an uproar. "Gawd, why isn't he doing anything, he's the worst President ever..." "I can't believe he hasn't done something about that situation, he's the WORST PRESIDENT EVER!" Well, now it's my turn... GAWD, PEOPLE ARE DYING OVER THERE AND HE ISN'T DOING A DAMN THING!!!!! HE'S THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!!!Ah...so refreshing.... No, we should just charge in like Bush and tear up another country.LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 22, 2009 16:50:43 GMT -5
What do you mean he's not doing anything? Didn't you watch this? |
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 22, 2009 18:20:19 GMT -5
Hillary to the rescue...
giggle ,giggle..
I TOLD YOU SO.....
BAAAA..
|
|
|
|
Post by FUBAR on Jun 23, 2009 0:41:49 GMT -5
I'd say Obama's getting a nasty crash course in it right now. So, what about Iran? If GWB were still President (and, according to all you buttwipes, the worst one ever) and he was sitting back doing nothing (as Obama is exactly doing right now) and all those protesters were dying (which they are right now), all of you would be in an uproar. "Gawd, why isn't he doing anything, he's the worst President ever..." "I can't believe he hasn't done something about that situation, he's the WORST PRESIDENT EVER!" Well, now it's my turn... GAWD, PEOPLE ARE DYING OVER THERE AND HE ISN'T DOING A DAMN THING!!!!! HE'S THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!!!Ah...so refreshing.... See this is where you "conservatives" just don't get it... If Bush had been handling this crisis (or the ones he actually did have to handle) like Obama is, we would have been overjoyed with our president. All we wanted was a person in the office who would handle each crisis as an individual, and put careful thought into how to proceed. The most effective course of action isn't always the one Reagan took in a situation that looks similar at first glance. In fact, when studied deeper, the situations are almost always very different. The most effective course of action isn't always the bully course. It is a tool worth having, but using it almost always creates other problems, so in "our" (at least "my") opinion it should be used sparingly. We had a problem with the previous admin because it seemed that the bully tool was the first choice. Is that how you influence the people in your everyday life? |
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jun 23, 2009 1:08:11 GMT -5
I'd say Obama's getting a nasty crash course in it right now. So, what about Iran? If GWB were still President (and, according to all you buttwipes, the worst one ever) and he was sitting back doing nothing (as Obama is exactly doing right now) and all those protesters were dying (which they are right now), all of you would be in an uproar. "Gawd, why isn't he doing anything, he's the worst President ever..." "I can't believe he hasn't done something about that situation, he's the WORST PRESIDENT EVER!" Well, now it's my turn... GAWD, PEOPLE ARE DYING OVER THERE AND HE ISN'T DOING A DAMN THING!!!!! HE'S THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!!!Ah...so refreshing.... See this is where you "conservatives" just don't get it... If Bush had been handling this crisis (or the ones he actually did have to handle) like Obama is, we would have been overjoyed with our president. All we wanted was a person in the office who would handle each crisis as an individual, and put careful thought into how to proceed. The most effective course of action isn't always the one Reagan took in a situation that looks similar at first glance. In fact, when studied deeper, the situations are almost always very different. The most effective course of action isn't always the bully course. It is a tool worth having, but using it almost always creates other problems, so in "our" (at least "my") opinion it should be used sparingly. We had a problem with the previous admin because it seemed that the bully tool was the first choice. Is that how you influence the people in your everyday life? North Korea. Chechnya. Tell me, was the bully tool used there as well? See? Your argument holds no water. Bush did look at every situation individually, and chose courses of action that were unique and different in each instance. Hey Clinton bombed Libya on the eve of the start of his impeachment trial. That's pretty bully right there, bomb a country out of the blue for no reason. Why aren't you whining about that? |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jun 23, 2009 9:51:49 GMT -5
I'd say Obama's getting a nasty crash course in it right now. So, what about Iran? If GWB were still President (and, according to all you buttwipes, the worst one ever) and he was sitting back doing nothing (as Obama is exactly doing right now) and all those protesters were dying (which they are right now), all of you would be in an uproar. "Gawd, why isn't he doing anything, he's the worst President ever..." "I can't believe he hasn't done something about that situation, he's the WORST PRESIDENT EVER!" Well, now it's my turn... GAWD, PEOPLE ARE DYING OVER THERE AND HE ISN'T DOING A DAMN THING!!!!! HE'S THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!!! Ah...so refreshing.... All I'm hearing is that on this issue Obama has been a better Republican than George Bush was. After GWB became president I thought to myself, "We'll have to spend the next four years fighting the social agenda of all the political televangelists, but they're on the losing side of cultural evolution, so any damage they do will be undone in 10-15 years anyway. But, thank god, at least we can be glad that we won't have any meddlesome foreign 'humanitarian adventures'." I was only mildly anti-Bush until the drums of the Iraq war started beating. |
|
|
|
Post by FUBAR on Jun 23, 2009 14:03:59 GMT -5
North Korea. Chechnya. Tell me, was the bully tool used there as well? See? Your argument holds no water. Bush did look at every situation individually, and chose courses of action that were unique and different in each instance. Hey Clinton bombed Libya on the eve of the start of his impeachment trial. That's pretty bully right there, bomb a country out of the blue for no reason. Why aren't you whining about that? Well, let's see: One of the first things Bush did in office is destroy the "Sunshine Policy" of reconciliation talks between North and South Korea which were going very nicely at the time. He then torpedoed North Korea's peaceful nuclear energy program which the USA was actually a part of (contributing $500 million and keeping a close hand in). Then he made the "Axis of Evil" speech which went over oh so well in Asia (among other places). Not to long later came this: "Some 11 months ago, Bush included North Korea in an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq in his 2002 State of the Union speech. And on a visit to South Korea, he visited the 38th Parallel demilitarized zone and in a deliberate echo of President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, he called on the North's leaders to "tear down this DMZ." So far, Kim Jong Il has not complied with his demand. [Martin Sieff, "Deadly Adversary Kim Jong II," UPI, December 27, 2002" I don't recall a huge Democratic outcry over Bush's handling of Chechnya (which was basically "it's Russia's internal affair."). No one liked the way Putin was handling the situation, but I don't think that anyone thought that Bush was to blame for Chechnya. As far as Libya bombing - it was actually in the Sudan, but who can tell the difference right? The bombing was in response to the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania two weeks earlier by some guy named Bin Laden. At the same time Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against training camps in some place called Afghanistan. The attack in the Sudan turns out to have been a mistake, based on faulty intelligence (hmm...). The attack on the aspirin factory in the Sudan was clearly a bad mistake. I however don't mind that he was going after Bin Laden and his apparatus, just as I didn't mind when Bush initially went into Afghanistan. Neither Clinton nor Bush did the proper job (destroy Bin Laden and his infrastructure) well, though. |
|
|
|
Post by FUBAR on Jun 23, 2009 14:27:22 GMT -5
And by the way, my original comment in this thread was not about Bush at all. You made it about Bush. My comment referred to the "conservatives" that I'm reading and seeing on TV who are calling Obama "soft" for not handling Iran the way Reagan handled Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jun 23, 2009 23:01:23 GMT -5
And by the way, my original comment in this thread was not about Bush at all. You made it about Bush. My comment referred to the "conservatives" that I'm reading and seeing on TV who are calling Obama "soft" for not handling Iran the way Reagan handled Germany. Hmm...let's see, the 12th word of your original post was "Bush" and you also used "previous admin", but the thread wasn't about Bush and how badly in your opinion he handled foreign policy. Ohhhhhhh-kaaaaaaay. Whatever. And you still haven't refuted anything I said. There is ample evidence that the "previous admin" (I don't wanna mention the person in charge of that administration since, in your words, I seemed to be the one to make it about that person-whose-last-name-I-won't-mention-here) did display a flexible approach to foreign policy, which refutes what you and the other yahoos want to say about this "previous admin". Same old crap. What's-his-name (notice I didn't actually SAY the name) is the worst President ever for invading Iraq, and that by itself means that nothing else matters. Blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yadda. Oh, and your Clinton excuse? Doesn't work either. All you stated was why he ordered it, you never refuted that it wasn't a bully tactic. 250 Marines in 1983 lost their lives in a bombing in Beirut, and Reagan didn't go bully on that by taking over the country. But, according to you, everything that Reagan did was a bully tactic as well. |
|
