Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on October 06, 2004, 09:50:51 PM
-
Those that think the war in Iraq was a mistake are going to go down in history being viewed as short-sighted in my opinon.
The war is a watershed event in the Middle East. The war will be won, peace will be achieved and other nations in the region will begin to consider their stances on supporting dictators and terrorists.
I just want to go on record for the ages and state that I stand behind this war and believe it was the right thing to do. We will see it through until the end.
Another example of the sacrifices Americans are willing to endure in order to do the right thing. Bush is a great leader and I thank God that he has the guts and honesty to make the difficult, unpopular decisions necessary for someone in his position.
Way to go America, Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain, and ALL of our other allies. We did the right thing.
-
I predict that 50 years from now, Iraq will be torn apart by civil wars and Bush will be remembered as the architect of this mess.
;)
-
I probably won't be around then, but I don't believe that at all.
-
Look at the bright side... while they're busily killing each other, we'll be safe. :aok
-
I believe we've discussed this before.
While I'm sympathetic to the idea that establishing a true democracy (or two) in the Middle East would indeed be a good thing for the world, I'm totally unsympathetic to the idea that the US can invade a sovereign nation and remove its government without having a reason that is valid under Just War theory.
Had they found WMD, I think that could be construed as such a reason.
I admit I was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on their WMD claims and I did support the invasion at that time.
However, at that time I also stated that WMD would have to be found at some point in order for me to continue to support the administration's sending our sons and daughters to war. I also stated that if WMD's were not found, the President would have to be held accountable for invading a sovereign nation without just cause.
I have written my Congressional Representatives about this and I will not vote for Bush.
I won't vote for Kerry either. So, I'm Libertarian this time around.
Like Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I predict that 50 years from now, Iraq will be torn apart by civil wars and Bush will be remembered as the architect of this mess.
;)
George Bush will be remembered as far more than an architect.
He will go down (and I'm certain that I'll live to see it), as the worst President that the United States has ever had.
-
Heh...yeah, I bet he will. I mean after all, there won't be any more after he gets out of office, right? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Nash
George Bush will be remembered as far more than an architect.
He will go down (and I'm certain that I'll live to see it), as the worst President that the United States has ever had.
Damn Nash, I used to think you had brains. Making a statement like that based on the (relatively) small time-frame of a 4 years in US history seems retarded actualy.
Makes me wonder what you think of Kennedy or Johnson.
Man, you need to open your mind just a little.
-
The measure of the man is that he really doesn't give a rat's bellybutton about his "legacy". He will do what he thinks is right. If that differs from your opinon, that is fine, vote.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
The measure of the man is that he really doesn't give a rat's bellybutton about his "legacy". He will do what he thinks is right. If that differs from your opinon, that is fine, vote.
amen. Bush did the right thing.
-
Fine...
But thinking or not thinking about legacy is beside the point.
Legacy happens regardless.
Bush's will be one of national shame.
-
Some people say that we should have national shame for dropping the Atomic Bomb. I beg to differ with them, about that, and with you, about Iraq.
-
How luscious for you Lizking.
-
Bush will eventually be remembered as a man with vision. The rest won't, be remembered that is.
-
I am a luscious kind of guy.
-
So, when peace is restored - the majority there will be Americans, yes? Yes.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Lizking
The measure of the man is that he really doesn't give a rat's bellybutton about his "legacy". He will do what he thinks is right. If that differs from your opinon, that is fine, vote.
World History 101 - Germany
Wanna pick another ideology?
-
Originally posted by rpm
World History 101 - Germany
Wanna pick another ideology?
good point
The US was attacked by Japan, yet we then went after Germany even though there were no Japanse in Germany.
-
You may be on to something there SW. It's been a while since we added a state to our union, why not Iraq? We could build a few fake towns complete with cafés, school buses, and populated with mannequins. Then the terrorists could attack the USofA and no one gets hurt, win/win. :aok
-
McDonalds, don't forget McDonalds!
-SW
-
Yeah... that's the true indication of friendship.
We've never attacked a country that has a McDonalds.
-
(http://www.gilbertv.com/images/arbys_start_fire.jpg)
-
That Golly-geen Arby's oven mit terrorist!
WE MUST INVADE ARBY'S!!!!!!!!!!
-SW
-
So Nash, where does LBJ rank in your view?
His war killied millions of vietnamese and some 60,000 americans. Not to mention that it devided the nation far more than Iraq...
-
I rank LBJ in the same category as I rank Ford....
Almost, like, President by way of happenstance...
Not like they weren't important in their own way, but history will go way lighter on them... A different thing. It doesn't really even count.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I rank LBJ in the same category as I rank Ford....
Almost, like, President by way of happenstance...
LBJ didn't just take over the presidency. He also won "re-election" in one of the largest electoral landslides ever in 1964. That election likewise filled Congress with an overwhelming Democratic majority and fit the truest definition of a presidential "mandate" that you'll find anywhere. There's just no comparing him to Ford.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Nash
I rank LBJ in the same category as I rank Ford....
Almost, like, President by way of happenstance...
Not like they weren't important in their own way, but history will go way lighter on them... A different thing. It doesn't really even count.
So you rank Bush as the most terrible President in US history, yet Johnson was okay?
"History" in your view is shallow. You do not seem to grasp the big picture about anything.
If you would have been around during Vietnam, you would have probably said that it was the worst war in the history of man....and you would have been wrong AGAIN.
Nash, please go to bed and get some rest. I hate to see you looking so much like a retard.
-
LBJ wins re-election a mere year after a beloved president gets killed. To you, there is no happenstance involved. People were jazzed about LBJ all along.
I think history will record it differently. LBJ, like Ford, were presidents that.... fit in-between things....
Of the two, LBJ had quite an impact.... however....
You can't equate LBJ to Bush in almost any way. Certainly history will record them differently. LBJ *inherited*. Presidents after Bush will *inherit*.
-
Nice troll again...
Originally posted by NUKE
Bush is a great leader and I thank God that he has the guts and honesty to make the difficult, unpopular decisions necessary for someone in his position.
Heil Hitler... Allah akbar... Crusade... do I need to say more?
-
Pretty fast retraction there, my Arizonian friend. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
LBJ wins re-election a mere year after a beloved president gets killed. To you, there is no happenstance involved. People were jazzed about LBJ all along.
I think history will record it differently. LBJ, like Ford, were presidents that.... fit in-between things....
Of the two, LBJ had quite an impact.... however....
You can't equate LBJ to Bush in almost any way. Certainly history will record them differently. LBJ *inherited*. Presidents after Bush will *inherit*.
wtf does that have to do with LBJ and his war in Vietnam? Nixon pulled out of Vietnam.
Nash, isn't LBJ the worst President in US history?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, please go to bed and get some rest. I hate to see you looking so much like a retard.
Take my advice Nuke...
The sooner you drop this "I Win!" thing, and instead make your points *within* threads and not *about* threads, the more happily separated you will be from the "nutbar" category.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Pretty fast retraction there, my Arizonian friend. ;)
hey , you got me!!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Take my advice Nuke...
The sooner you drop this "I Win!" thing, and instead make your points *within* threads and not *about* threads, the more happily separated you will be from the "nutbar" category.
Did "I win" something?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, isn't LBJ the worst President in US history?
No - Bush Jr. is...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
hey , you got me!!
On that note... I'm out...
Nash... Nuke... good night.
-
Nash, you said Bush was the worst President in history. Can you explain that in your own words?
I'm interested in hearing the straight info from such an informed guy.
-
I predict another "go to bed Nash" moment. ( but will give him a few to google his anwser)
-
Well... it was a hefty exaggeration to be sure...
But hefty exaggerations are like, my thing, man...
The last 100 years.
But to put that into my own words seems way futile.
You have gotten the chance to see the guy in action almost every day now, and not only do you think he is anything but a nightmare, you actually think the guy has game.
What could I possibly say to that?
-
Originally posted by Nash
George Bush will be remembered as far more than an architect.
He will go down (and I'm certain that I'll live to see it), as the worst President that the United States has ever had.
Well if he wins this November, I'll be stuck with "Bush is the best President, EVAR!" (I lost a bet w/Nuke) in my sig line for the next 4 years.
-
Originally posted by Nash
LBJ wins re-election a mere year after a beloved president gets killed. To you, there is no happenstance involved. People were jazzed about LBJ all along.
[/b]
LBJ did not run on Kennedy's record or on his memory. He ran on his own very successful year in office. If anything, voters and members of Congress especially grew tired by mid-1964 of Johnson using Kennedy as a lever for pushing through major legislative initiatives. As one member of Congress famously mused six months after Kennedy's death, it was time for Johnson to bury the former president and run on his own name.
And so he did. Along the way Republicans aided Johnson in his reelection bid by nominating the least electable person possible.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Nash Nash Nash.....
Fugg me...I dig you....but christ, you have no freakin logic it seems.
Like I said..you remind me of the best friend I ever had. :)
-
DMF - Pretend you have a crystal ball (I do it all the time)....
In one sentence, how will history mark Bush Jr.?
-
Originally posted by Nash
DMF - Pretend you have a crystal ball (I do it all the time)....
In one sentence, how will history mark Bush Jr.?
you already said that your view on Bush was huge exaggeration.
-
In that he might not go down as the biggest failure of a President ever.
Only one of the biggest....
But... He may indeed turn out to be the biggest afterall...
Who knows... but picking one of the two outcomes as certainty was an exaggeration.
-
Originally posted by Nash
DMF - Pretend you have a crystal ball (I do it all the time)....
In one sentence, how will history mark Bush Jr.?
If Bush loses in November, his presidency will probably be seen by most historians as below average. I wouldn't put him together with such presidential failures as Buchanan or Grant though. If he wins, who knows.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
If he loses, his Presidency will probably be seen by historians as below average.
Well, mkay fair 'nuff.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If he loses, his Presidency will probably be seen by historians as below average.
Well, mkay fair 'nuff.
cop out.
"If" he loses? What if he wins? How does the outcome of this election affect your view that Bush will go down as the worst of all Presidents? Doesn't make sense.
-
The outcome of this election isn't even a question.
Nuke... As a friend, I implore you to start to go through the five grieving stages now. You will be ahead of the game.
Bush is going to get scorched in the historical record. The only question is one of degrees.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The US was attacked by Japan, yet we then went after Germany even though there were no Japanse in Germany.
Do you really not know that Germany declared war on the US first?
-
LBJ did ride Kennedy's coattails, but he was also an extreemely popular politician beforehand. I think his sweeping social reforms under "The Great Society" offset Vietnam to a certain degree. That is something this administration is missing.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Do you really not know that Germany declared war on the US first?
Did you know that AL Qaeda declared war on the US before we attacked Afghanistan?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
cop out.
"If" he loses? What if he wins? How does the outcome of this election affect your view that Bush will go down as the worst of all Presidents? Doesn't make sense.
Is this directed to Nash or to me?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Nash
The outcome of this election isn't even a question.
Nuke... As a friend, I implore you to start to go through the five grieving stages now. You will be ahead of the game.
Bush is going to get scorched in the historical record. The only question is one of degrees.
Hey Nash, I honesly do like ya....but you are so far wrong that you you seem insane.
-
To me, I think...
Answer: If Bush won... that would be mitigating as far as the historical record goes, of course...
But not by very much....
-
What about Johnson? He WAS Vietnam.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Is this directed to Nash or to me?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Nash..who the hell are you? :)
-
I am....
.......going to bed. :)
Take care.
-
Me too...
night Nash.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
LBJ did not run on Kennedy's record or on his memory. He ran on his own very successful year in office. If anything, voters and members of Congress especially grew tired by mid-1964 of Johnson using Kennedy as a lever for pushing through major legislative initiatives. As one member of Congress famously mused six months after Kennedy's death, it was time for Johnson to bury the former president and run on his own name.
And so he did. Along the way Republicans aided Johnson in his reelection bid by nominating the least electable person possible.
-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]
I well remember the line "JFK proposed many things, LBJ accomplished them all." Don't you turkeys forget LBJ was prez during the removal of the US school segration shame.
Goldwater was probably the last honest conservative presidential candidate. I didn't agree with any of his issues, but he was honest.
curly
-
Originally posted by NUKE
good point
The US was attacked by Japan, yet we then went after Germany even though there were no Japanse in Germany.
Not right, Germany declared war , you didn't went on Germany.
December 11, 1941
The President's Message
To the Congress of the United States:
On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.
I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Did you know that AL Qaeda declared war on the US before we attacked Afghanistan?
Did you know the US 'won' in Afganistan, but Al Qaeda still operates rather well?
Did you know the US & allies won in Germany and the leftover nazis became unable to operate well?
-
Nuke,.
Bush's invasion of Iraq will go down as the worst foreign policy blunder in American history.
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, during the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Me too...
night Nash.
Why don't you just get it over with and ask him on a date?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Did you know the US 'won' in Afganistan, but Al Qaeda still operates rather well?
Did you know the US & allies won in Germany and the leftover nazis became unable to operate well?
I'd love to see your sources for that.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'd love to see your sources for that.
I'm sure Al Qaeda will show the sources sometime in the future... in the USA.
They just don't tend to strike every half a decade.
It's been already proven several times.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I'm sure Al Qaeda will show the sources sometime in the future... in the USA.
They just don't tend to strike every half a decade.
It's been already proven several times.
Ahhh, you mean you made it up.
You know your point sucks when you have to make up facts to support it. Do you work for cBS?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, you mean you made it up.
You know your point sucks when you have to make up facts to support it. Do you work for cBS?
What.. did you really think Al Qaeda ceased to exist when their camps in Afganistan were rolled over?
Isn't there already enough obvious sources in regular news... I thought you did watch the news... or do you watch the channel which is solely for Bush propaganda?
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Do you really not know that Germany declared war on the US first?
Do you really not know that Iraq failed to up hold the end of hostilities agreement and that GW1 was never formally terminated.
So in essence the Iraq war was just the reengagement of action due to non-compliance with the truce agreements from the first war as approved by the UN.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
What.. did you really think Al Qaeda ceased to exist when their camps in Afganistan were rolled over?
Isn't there already enough obvious sources in regular news... I thought you did watch the news... or do you watch the channel which is solely for Bush propaganda?
If there are so many of those examples, please provide me with a few.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
11 March 2004 stands out as the most obvious example.
1 Bombing = "runs very well"?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Why don't you just get it over with and ask him on a date?
You seem to have this homo fantasy. What's your deal...trying to hook guys up over the internet?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You seem to have this homo fantasy. What's your deal...trying to hook guys up over the internet?
Nah, you're doing pretty well on your own. You don't need my help.
-
Nuke you do have some strange bbs relationship with Nash.
Just look how you jumped all over me the other day when I brought up Nash's inability to explain his support of Kerry as an example...
Im certainly not saying it's queer but it sure is odd...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke you do have some strange bbs relationship with Nash.
Just look how you jumped all over me the other day when I brought up Nash's inability to explain his support of Kerry as an example...
Im certainly not saying it's queer but it sure is odd...
Exactly my point.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke you do have some strange bbs relationship with Nash.
Just look how you jumped all over me the other day when I brought up Nash's inability to explain his support of Kerry as an example...
Im certainly not saying it's queer but it sure is odd...
Well, that was pretty gay, I admit.
Basically I think Nash is pretty funny and I have come to enjoy reading his outlook on things. Some people attack him or take jabs at him for what seem to be personal reasons. I argue with him almost every day here.
The guy is okay in my book and, since I argue with him so often, I guess I have felt the need to express to him that it's not personal.....just being friendy.
Sometimes people take things to personally around here.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If there are so many of those examples, please provide me with a few.
Are you really that stupid or just acting stupid to best fit your cause?
I'd guess the latter... which makes me wonder why should I get repeative and tell you what you already know?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Are you really that stupid or just acting stupid to best fit your cause?
Stupid? I'd label a person who makes a claim but can't support it as stupid.
Still waiting.......
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Stupid? I'd label a person who makes a claim but can't support it as stupid.
Still waiting.......
:rolleyes:
Let's get back to it when you get some decency.
For now, you can just google the terrorist attacks..
Spain, Bali.. etc.
Remembering the Bush's terms for 'links to al qaeda', then about 99.9% of the muslim terrorist attacks could be classified to be commited by al qaeda.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
:rolleyes:
Let's get back to it when you get some decency.
For now, you can just google the terrorist attacks..
Spain, Bali.. etc.
Remembering the Bush's terms for 'links to al qaeda', then about 99.9% of the muslim terrorist attacks could be classified to be commited by al qaeda.
Translated: "You're right. I made it up. Please allow me to bow out of this discussion and save a little face"
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Translated: "You're right. I made it up. Please allow me to bow out of this discussion and save a little face"
Reading problems?
Spain, bali.. etc.. + google for more.
However it seems like you already are very aware the cases, since you couldn't come up with anything better.
Otherwise you would've put up something a little smarter.
Get some decency, you ain't getting any better by acting an idiot.
I refuse to simply 'argue' with people who purposely act idiots, when they don't know a better way to 'argue'.
It works both ways you know.. I just have the decency not to downgrade myself into it.
Ignorance is a bless I guess... at least to those who thinks they win something that way.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Reading problems?
Spain, bali.. etc.. + google for more.
However it seems like you already are very aware the cases, since you couldn't come up with anything better.
Otherwise you would've put up something a little smarter.
Get some decency, you ain't getting any better by acting an idiot.
I refuse to simply 'argue' with people who purposely act idiots, when they don't know a better way to 'argue'.
It works both ways you know.. I just have the decency not to downgrade myself into it.
You definitively stated that Al Qaeda was operating rather well. I asked for your data. You have yet to provide it. You have no argument. You made up that statement, and it's completely false. Are you going to back it up or just keep yapping?
Now you are whining about decency? Where have I been "indecent"?
If you are trying to get yourself out of an indefensible position, just say "I was wrong" and leave.
-
..and I told you to google.
Now for the third time.
I don't feel it necessary to provide sources for every tidbit, just because the other person doesn't know any better argument.
You're getting rather repeative at it, therefore I don't even bother with providing sources to you... it simply isn't worth the time it takes to get every tidbit to you.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
..and I told you to google.
Now for the third time.
I don't feel it necessary to provide sources for every tidbit, just because the other person doesn't know any better argument.
You're getting rather repeative at it, therefore I don't even bother with providing sources to you... it simply isn't worth the time it takes to get every tidbit to you.
Translated as:
"I lied. You caught me. I have no facts. I made it up. Stop pointing that out."
You still haven't addressed the whole "decency" issue. If you can't be bothered to back up your own assertions, how about addressing that issue?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Fine...
But thinking or not thinking about legacy is beside the point.
Legacy happens regardless.
Bush's will be one of national shame.
You seem as absolutely convinced of that as you did the CBS documents.
Hmmmm.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by rpm
LBJ did ride Kennedy's coattails, but he was also an extreemely popular politician beforehand. I think his sweeping social reforms under "The Great Society" offset Vietnam to a certain degree. That is something this administration is missing.
so it's ok to lie about a war "tonkin bay" have 60,000 US soliders die and 100's of thousand VM die . As long has you start social welfare intitlement programs?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, Martlet switched from playing stupid to making personal attacks to avoid the issue. Typical.
Really? Point out to me where that switch was made, please.
-
"Stupid? I'd label a person who makes a claim but can't support it as stupid.
Still waiting....... "
Even a person does support a claim you don't give it any creedence. You are without a doubt, the most cognitively dissonnant, tunnel visioned lunitic I have ever come across.
You certainly make a great example.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Stupid? I'd label a person who makes a claim but can't support it as stupid.
Still waiting....... "
Care to enlighten the rest of the class as to what that was a response to?
OOOPS! What's that in your mouth, Thrawn? Why, it looks like a foot.
Originally posted by Thrawn
Even a person does support a claim you don't give it any creedence. You are without a doubt, the most cognitively dissonnant, tunnel visioned lunitic I have ever come across.
You certainly make a great example.
Pot, meet kettle....