Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 73
Thanks Tree60Thanks

Thread: Bush or Obama, which was worse?

  1. #61
    NWO Toilet Cleaner Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,624
    Thanks
    2327

    From
    An NWO Toilet
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    I realize you are speaking generally, but Could you elaborate, please?
    Just on the corner they painted themselves in, thanks...
    I took it metaphorically, in that the supporters have nowhere to go, i.e. defending the indefensible.

  2. #62
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    11,703
    Thanks
    9703

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    But Obama did NOT fund Isis, that is a myth. Do people still swallow that CT? Some groups that were funded to some extent in the war against Assad defected to ISIS after the fact. Even so, how does that eclipse the fuckup Bush created re: the OP? Come on, the invasion of Iraq was stupid.
    Exactly! There were many forces opposing Assad......Not all of them were Jihadist insurgents.....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rian_Civil_War


    There is an OBVIOUS reason that "support" (which can be defined in many ways and to many degrees and levels) in Syria become a challenge based on determining what would happen if Assad was overthrown, the same way Mubarak, Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi had been. On the other hand, there was the slaughter of Syrian people by Assad and his allies.

    The problem with Syria for Mr. Obama or anyone else is that no matter what side of the civil war anyone chose to be on, they would be joining, by proxy, they would be supporting not just moderate factions, but radical Jihadist factions. The civil war in Syria began with the "Arab Spring" movement and that began with the notion that despotic rulers in the Middle East could be tossed off and possibly with the help of the United States and western allies, however, at least two countries that are known for either their human rights violations (Trump seems to think we're "killers" too) and/or spawning of or state support of terrorism, seem to get free passes from our military involvement in removing their heads of "state" like we did the others. The U.S. has entangled itself in the Middle East with oil, cultural and religious heritage concerns by working both sides. We helped Israel become a national home for those of a heritage religious grouping, in the midst of another religious/heritage grouping and the two did not mix well, in part because of ancient differences (in spite of what they also shared) and in part because of religious differences and either differences or similarities with regard to some behaviors, such as a culture of revenge when harmed, disrespected, mistreated. Our participation in that and continued participation in playing both sides of the Arab Israeli coin, supplying Israel with billions of dollars in defense aid while selling Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of arms. Reagan sold arms to Iran, in spite of an arms sale ban at the time, but some Americans seem to think it is OKAY to ignore the laws and rules they make when convenient for them. When it comes to the Middle East, we entangled ourselves, long before GW Bush and Obama came along.

    While there seems to be some sense in invading Afghanistan to bring the 9/11/01 mastermind down because we thought he was there, we did NOT hold any of the nations the hijackers were actually from, accountable for being their origin nations, instead we remain as friendly as ever while some Americans suggest Islam is out to take over the world. Saudi Arabia is also the home of Islam and one of the most, if not the most strict of all Muslim nations when it comes to application of their interpretation of Muslim theocracy as their law. Logic would suggest that Saudi Arabia should be invaded and its monarchical theocracy be dissolved or at the very least, there should be an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia until they quit being a monarchy, ruled by ruthless interpretation of Islamic law. Where Iran is concerned we should either s*it or get off the pot and either stop calling the largest state supporter of terrorism in the world (while attacking everyone BUT them (and Saudi Arabia) and encourage them when they move away from strict adherence to fundamentalist Islam to something closer to what the people want, many of the older Iranians having had a taste of pre-revolutionary Iran. During the Green Revolution in Iran, the number of Iranians that oppose strict fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law became apparent, although quite a few people, especially Americans that lived in Iran (as members of military or diplomat families), already knew that many Iranians like the better side of America. Invasions of nations in the Middle East by U.S. troops, while perhaps justified in Afghanistan as a mission to bring the mastermind behind 9/11 to justice, did not endear the U.S. to other nations in the region that were left wondering if we might invade them, next because we didn't like their leaders or their politics. Iraq only gave rise, resolve and recruitment tools to fundamentalist Jihadists who used it as proof the west or U.S. specifically was out to destroy Islam, if not it's culture in the area. Instead of vanquishing terrorism, the invasion of Iraq helped spawn MORE Islamic terrorism and that in turn spurred on Islamaphobia, here and an ESCALATION, not a quelling of animosity and further fueling the fires of animosity.
    Thanks from Blues63

  3. #63
    NWO Toilet Cleaner Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,624
    Thanks
    2327

    From
    An NWO Toilet
    @KnotaFrayed

    Well presented!
    Thanks from KnotaFrayed

  4. #64
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    11,703
    Thanks
    9703

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    @KnotaFrayed

    Well presented!
    Thanks Blues, but you do a better job than I do, at presentation and articulating your position. We're not going to change the minds of anyone we are responding to here, but perhaps those who look in, but do not post will see there is not just one side and perhaps give them something to weigh, when considering their own positions.
    Thanks from Blues63

  5. #65
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,691
    Thanks
    1914

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    Not sure why the OP did not also ask people why they chose who they chose. Who can't simply pick any and all who agree with their politics without having to provide any reasoning for doing so? It's done pretty much daily here by some, while some others offer reasons and back up for their choices.

    Lining up along political lines and forgetting, not thinking about or ignoring any reasons for doing anything we do, seems more robotic and brainless than human and intelligent.
    Very good points.

    Although, the op asked "which one was worse? And why?" The op also noted the likelihood would be that most would stick to party lines.

    So, yes, it seems an overwhelming majority don't really put much thought beyond blue or red... Which is sad. There are shockingly few who both opposed the war in Iraq (above and beyond the afghan war) and then also opposed the militarism of Obama (betraying his peace prize).

    Just like there are very few who opposed bombing 5 of 7 nations but support trump trying to stop refugees from those countries.

    In my observation over the years it would be less than 10% of people I've seen who stand by principles over parties, although, that hardly is a representative sample.

  6. #66
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,691
    Thanks
    1914

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    I didn't think you'd be helpful. Where the does this document support your claim? I can't see it. Why can't you ever answer a question? There's nothing to support your claim on pages 1,2,3,4,5,6 or 7, and it's a seven page document.

    Is this going to be like Rockefeller's essay on global economics that you were sure was a plan for Zionist domination?

    If you remember correctly, the CIA recommended that the administration support the FSA (Free Syrian Army). There was nothing wrong with that, but later, some groups defected to ISIS (e.g. the Salafis). THIS was what people were complaining about, and rightly so, but it doesn't mean Obama's administration 'supported' Al-Qaeda. That is a distortion of the reality.

    Are you sure you posted the correct document because this is merely an assessment of the situation at the time of the report.
    So, the authors of that document were distorting reality... That's a new one.

    (Btw, 1 insult and 3 other veiled insults went ignored this time)

  7. #67
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,691
    Thanks
    1914

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    I took it metaphorically, in that the supporters have nowhere to go, i.e. defending the indefensible.
    What is indefensible? I'm curious.

  8. #68
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,691
    Thanks
    1914

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    Exactly! There were many forces opposing Assad......Not all of them were Jihadist insurgents.....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rian_Civil_War


    There is an OBVIOUS reason that "support" (which can be defined in many ways and to many degrees and levels) in Syria become a challenge based on determining what would happen if Assad was overthrown, the same way Mubarak, Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi had been. On the other hand, there was the slaughter of Syrian people by Assad and his allies.

    The problem with Syria for Mr. Obama or anyone else is that no matter what side of the civil war anyone chose to be on, they would be joining, by proxy, they would be supporting not just moderate factions, but radical Jihadist factions. The civil war in Syria began with the "Arab Spring" movement and that began with the notion that despotic rulers in the Middle East could be tossed off and possibly with the help of the United States and western allies, however, at least two countries that are known for either their human rights violations (Trump seems to think we're "killers" too) and/or spawning of or state support of terrorism, seem to get free passes from our military involvement in removing their heads of "state" like we did the others. The U.S. has entangled itself in the Middle East with oil, cultural and religious heritage concerns by working both sides. We helped Israel become a national home for those of a heritage religious grouping, in the midst of another religious/heritage grouping and the two did not mix well, in part because of ancient differences (in spite of what they also shared) and in part because of religious differences and either differences or similarities with regard to some behaviors, such as a culture of revenge when harmed, disrespected, mistreated. Our participation in that and continued participation in playing both sides of the Arab Israeli coin, supplying Israel with billions of dollars in defense aid while selling Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of arms. Reagan sold arms to Iran, in spite of an arms sale ban at the time, but some Americans seem to think it is OKAY to ignore the laws and rules they make when convenient for them. When it comes to the Middle East, we entangled ourselves, long before GW Bush and Obama came along.
    Thanks for countering a position that blues has tried to defend more times than he will remember...

    Although, I would note that the Machiavellian attitude is a big part of what created the mess in the Middle East (aside from the 1000+ year history to that point).

    While there seems to be some sense in invading Afghanistan to bring the 9/11/01 mastermind down because we thought he was there, we did NOT hold any of the nations the hijackers were actually from, accountable for being their origin nations, instead we remain as friendly as ever while some Americans suggest Islam is out to take over the world. Saudi Arabia is also the home of Islam and one of the most, if not the most strict of all Muslim nations when it comes to application of their interpretation of Muslim theocracy as their law. Logic would suggest that Saudi Arabia should be invaded and its monarchical theocracy be dissolved or at the very least, there should be an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia until they quit being a monarchy, ruled by ruthless interpretation of Islamic law. Where Iran is concerned we should either s*it or get off the pot and either stop calling the largest state supporter of terrorism in the world (while attacking everyone BUT them (and Saudi Arabia) and encourage them when they move away from strict adherence to fundamentalist Islam to something closer to what the people want, many of the older Iranians having had a taste of pre-revolutionary Iran. During the Green Revolution in Iran, the number of Iranians that oppose strict fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law became apparent, although quite a few people, especially Americans that lived in Iran (as members of military or diplomat families), already knew that many Iranians like the better side of America. Invasions of nations in the Middle East by U.S. troops, while perhaps justified in Afghanistan as a mission to bring the mastermind behind 9/11 to justice, did not endear the U.S. to other nations in the region that were left wondering if we might invade them, next because we didn't like their leaders or their politics. Iraq only gave rise, resolve and recruitment tools to fundamentalist Jihadists who used it as proof the west or U.S. specifically was out to destroy Islam, if not it's culture in the area. Instead of vanquishing terrorism, the invasion of Iraq helped spawn MORE Islamic terrorism and that in turn spurred on Islamaphobia, here and an ESCALATION, not a quelling of animosity and further fueling the fires of animosity.
    well said.... There's a few points of disagreement I could make here, but it feels like nit picking.

  9. #69
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,850
    Thanks
    7299

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    Exactly! There were many forces opposing Assad......Not all of them were Jihadist insurgents.....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rian_Civil_War


    There is an OBVIOUS reason that "support" (which can be defined in many ways and to many degrees and levels) in Syria become a challenge based on determining what would happen if Assad was overthrown, the same way Mubarak, Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi had been. On the other hand, there was the slaughter of Syrian people by Assad and his allies.

    The problem with Syria for Mr. Obama or anyone else is that no matter what side of the civil war anyone chose to be on, they would be joining, by proxy, they would be supporting not just moderate factions, but radical Jihadist factions. The civil war in Syria began with the "Arab Spring" movement and that began with the notion that despotic rulers in the Middle East could be tossed off and possibly with the help of the United States and western allies, however, at least two countries that are known for either their human rights violations (Trump seems to think we're "killers" too) and/or spawning of or state support of terrorism, seem to get free passes from our military involvement in removing their heads of "state" like we did the others. The U.S. has entangled itself in the Middle East with oil, cultural and religious heritage concerns by working both sides. We helped Israel become a national home for those of a heritage religious grouping, in the midst of another religious/heritage grouping and the two did not mix well, in part because of ancient differences (in spite of what they also shared) and in part because of religious differences and either differences or similarities with regard to some behaviors, such as a culture of revenge when harmed, disrespected, mistreated. Our participation in that and continued participation in playing both sides of the Arab Israeli coin, supplying Israel with billions of dollars in defense aid while selling Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of arms. Reagan sold arms to Iran, in spite of an arms sale ban at the time, but some Americans seem to think it is OKAY to ignore the laws and rules they make when convenient for them. When it comes to the Middle East, we entangled ourselves, long before GW Bush and Obama came along.

    While there seems to be some sense in invading Afghanistan to bring the 9/11/01 mastermind down because we thought he was there, we did NOT hold any of the nations the hijackers were actually from, accountable for being their origin nations, instead we remain as friendly as ever while some Americans suggest Islam is out to take over the world. Saudi Arabia is also the home of Islam and one of the most, if not the most strict of all Muslim nations when it comes to application of their interpretation of Muslim theocracy as their law. Logic would suggest that Saudi Arabia should be invaded and its monarchical theocracy be dissolved or at the very least, there should be an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia until they quit being a monarchy, ruled by ruthless interpretation of Islamic law. Where Iran is concerned we should either s*it or get off the pot and either stop calling the largest state supporter of terrorism in the world (while attacking everyone BUT them (and Saudi Arabia) and encourage them when they move away from strict adherence to fundamentalist Islam to something closer to what the people want, many of the older Iranians having had a taste of pre-revolutionary Iran. During the Green Revolution in Iran, the number of Iranians that oppose strict fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law became apparent, although quite a few people, especially Americans that lived in Iran (as members of military or diplomat families), already knew that many Iranians like the better side of America. Invasions of nations in the Middle East by U.S. troops, while perhaps justified in Afghanistan as a mission to bring the mastermind behind 9/11 to justice, did not endear the U.S. to other nations in the region that were left wondering if we might invade them, next because we didn't like their leaders or their politics. Iraq only gave rise, resolve and recruitment tools to fundamentalist Jihadists who used it as proof the west or U.S. specifically was out to destroy Islam, if not it's culture in the area. Instead of vanquishing terrorism, the invasion of Iraq helped spawn MORE Islamic terrorism and that in turn spurred on Islamaphobia, here and an ESCALATION, not a quelling of animosity and further fueling the fires of animosity.
    And there was a major Force Supporting Assad

    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  10. #70
    Junior Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,501
    Thanks
    726

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    There's no real history yet...it's still current events.

    Obama was the worst President this nation has ever endured. Bush was the first to stand up to terrorism and say enough!, country first...even if that was political suicide, no way no how a liberal President would place principles above politics. Obama proved that with every stinking move he made.
    Yet another one to add to the list. Once I figure out how to easily block posters, you will be number two or is it three now? I no longer feel compelled or desire to acknowledge, interact or engage with people that believe in this type of nonsense. We all make choices in life, I make choices about whom I will meet in person or online. Once I know where you stand, you are either in or out with me. CYA>

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ISIS is clearly a racist organization: Obama worse than Bush?
    By mrmike in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 24th September 2014, 03:20 AM
  2. Obama’s Budget: Spending Too High, But Bush Was Worse
    By labrea in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 21st October 2013, 06:55 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9th April 2009, 06:09 PM
  4. Why McCain Would be Worse Than Bush
    By Defensor in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 25th January 2008, 05:51 PM
  5. Giuliani: Worse Than Bush
    By ViolaLee in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 17th August 2007, 09:21 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed