Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:14:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2014 23:13:29 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 16, 2014 10:50:19 GMT -5
the only real question remaining is whether we can learn from our failures, or whether we need to keep repeating them in order to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:14:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 18:40:36 GMT -5
the only real question remaining is whether we can learn from our failures, or whether we need to keep repeating them in order to do so. Since Obama won a second term... I'll go with choice "B: We need to keep repeating them" |
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 16, 2014 18:51:54 GMT -5
the only real question remaining is whether we can learn from our failures, or whether we need to keep repeating them in order to do so.
Um, yeah - big time.
Anybody here remember this tiny little Country that the French gave up on? I think they called it - "Vietnam." 
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 16, 2014 19:34:39 GMT -5
the only real question remaining is whether we can learn from our failures, or whether we need to keep repeating them in order to do so.
Um, yeah - big time.
Anybody here remember this tiny little Country that the French gave up on? I think they called it - "Vietnam."
the Russians called it Afghanistan. so, yeah. you're right. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:14:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 20:13:10 GMT -5
Unless we are going to actually keep the territory we "free" (make it a new US Territory/protectorate)... we really shouldn't be invading anyone, anywhere.
If need be, I can understand retaliation bombing... as a deterrent ("If any country harbors any group that does us or our allies harm, we WILL nuke/carpet-bomb your ass back to the stone age... so you'd better think about what groups you allow to be active in your borders!")... but actual invasion and occupation... THEN go home and hope it stays stable? That has "FAILURE is our mission, and Mission Accomplished" written all over it.
ETA: And no... I am not saying we NEED to expand our borders. I am just saying giving it back never works out well anymore.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 16, 2014 22:54:26 GMT -5
taking it puts us in the company of tyrants.
you can draw your own conclusions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:14:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 1:41:55 GMT -5
taking it puts us in the company of tyrants. you can draw your own conclusions. You are aware how the United States came to have it's current borders/lands... right? Had you said "taking it unjustifiably"... I might have agreed with you. But if we are attacked FIRST, and the tyrant that's attacking us just WILL NOT BACK DOWN... "leaving him/her alone" just isn't an option. |
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 17, 2014 1:59:15 GMT -5
Unless we are going to actually keep the territory we "free" (make it a new US Territory/protectorate)... we really shouldn't be invading anyone, anywhere. If need be, I can understand retaliation bombing... as a deterrent ("If any country harbors any group that does us or our allies harm, we WILL nuke/carpet-bomb your ass back to the stone age... so you'd better think about what groups you allow to be active in your borders!")... but actual invasion and occupation... THEN go home and hope it stays stable? That has "FAILURE is our mission, and Mission Accomplished" written all over it. ETA: And no... I am not saying we NEED to expand our borders. I am just saying giving it back never works out well anymore. Not meaning to jump on you in particular but your suggestion of a retalitory action against some one by " will nuke "..and others have used the same type phrase , your not alone...but to suggest the use of a nuclear response to anything in the world ..unless one was attacked by such a weapon and then one , IMO, would have to identify who used such a device , 100% sure ....Nucs are not like any other weapons...and to suggest their use as a retaliatory run of the mill response just shows ignorance of the weapon and does little to take discussions to a higher level...besides the poisonouse fall out and contamination for years and more ..besides the total destructive power of and indiscriminate casualties that would happen..plus property damage that can't be even contemplated Nucs are different....It is why with just two actually primitive ones compared to todays types , a nation quit the battle field and sued for peace who up to that time seemed to be ready to fight to the end...
I find the tossing around of phrases of "we should just Nuc em kind "of idiotic..
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 17, 2014 11:33:05 GMT -5
taking it puts us in the company of tyrants. you can draw your own conclusions. You are aware how the United States came to have it's current borders/lands... right? 200 years ago. different world. let's stick with the last 100 years, if you don't mind.Had you said "taking it unjustifiably"... I might have agreed with you. But if we are attacked FIRST, and the tyrant that's attacking us just WILL NOT BACK DOWN... "leaving him/her alone" just isn't an option. what tyrant? |
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,108
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jun 17, 2014 11:59:08 GMT -5
The US waned to keep a garrison in Iraq but Malicki asked them to leave.
He then set about playing "King" favouring his own Shias over everyone else. (In contravention to US wishes)
The reason the insurgents have been able to get so far is that the Sunni tribes in the North do not want to be treated as second lass citizens
and they actually want the insurgents to get rid of the army.
Malicki now wants US support....not Europe's because we can't/won't do anything.
Obama is sending in specialists to "protect the US embassy" and now the Middle East will be thinking that the US is allied to the Shias.
They have been killing each other for the past 1400 years and it isn't going to stop any time soon.
Quite why a western country picks sides is beyond me.
Agree with the throwaway nuke comment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:14:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 19:14:06 GMT -5
You are aware how the United States came to have it's current borders/lands... right? 200 years ago. different world. let's stick with the last 100 years, if you don't mind.Had you said "taking it unjustifiably"... I might have agreed with you. But if we are attacked FIRST, and the tyrant that's attacking us just WILL NOT BACK DOWN... "leaving him/her alone" just isn't an option. what tyrant? Missed the "if" I see... I am not advocating us STARTING any wars... ever. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 17, 2014 20:47:30 GMT -5
Missed the "if" I see... I am not advocating us STARTING any wars... ever. i totally did miss the IF. but to be perfectly clear, i always check if something is unclear to me.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 19, 2014 10:37:53 GMT -5
10 years late to the party, but glad he could join us:
Wednesday, Jun 18, 2014 5:11 PM UTC
Glenn Beck admits liberals were right about invading Iraq
The right-wing pundit says that, unlike himself, most liberals understood the Iraq War was a terrible idea.
Elias Isquith
Speaking on his radio show on Tuesday, conservative commentator Glenn Beck delivered a rare admission, saying that the latest disorder in Iraq is yet more proof that liberals who opposed the invasion in 2003 were right all along.
“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck, who initially supported the Iraq War, reminded his listeners. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right; we shouldn’t have.”
DUH!!!
jesus, some conservatives are thick.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 19, 2014 10:55:29 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 19, 2014 21:25:07 GMT -5
 They say as population becomes disillusioned, leaders often resort to telling lies of greater and greater magnitude in an attempt to suppress the truth. The basis for this tactic is that as human beings, we expect others to lie a little. While nearly all people will stretch the truth to varying degrees, relatively few people are sociopathic liars who will determinedly commit to blatant lies (one of the reasons police interrogations are so successful). As a result, we expect that what we're being told is only a limited departure from the truth. This expectation is powerful and thus can be exploited. In particular, the Baghdad Bobs and Baghdad Bobamas (and Baghdad Bushes too) spin exceptionally rosy narratives hoping and expecting listeners will conclude that while reality may not exactly be rosy, it's not too far off. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 19, 2014 21:42:37 GMT -5
half of that statement is either true or not. the other half could be debated until he is blue in the face.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 19, 2014 23:06:24 GMT -5
Well Cheney and his crazy daughter explained quite clearly how this is all the fault of Obama- took out an ad and started an anti-Obama bunch as well
What a shock!
What was really funny is what Obama's spokesperson had to say:
"Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many," Cheney wrote in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.
After a reporter quoted that exact line to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, he pretended to be uncertain about whether Cheney was addressing Obama or President George W. Bush, under whom Cheney served.
"Which president was he talking about?" the outgoing Carney deadpanned during his final White House briefing Wednesday afternoon — drawing laughter from the press corps.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 20, 2014 1:36:48 GMT -5
Well Cheney and his crazy daughter explained quite clearly how this is all the fault of Obama- took out an ad and started an anti-Obama bunch as well
What a shock!
What was really funny is what Obama's spokesperson had to say:
"Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many," Cheney wrote in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.
After a reporter quoted that exact line to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, he pretended to be uncertain about whether Cheney was addressing Obama or President George W. Bush, under whom Cheney served.
"Which president was he talking about?" the outgoing Carney deadpanned during his final White House briefing Wednesday afternoon — drawing laughter from the press corps.
here is the problem: Cheney will never, ever see the irony. he will never hear how utterly ridiculous he sounds. he will continue to think that he and W did the right thing. the best we can do is just stop listening to him. he has no authority to speak on this subject. he had the chance to make a difference in this world, and he f*&ked everything up royally. he is a disgrace. and ANY news agency that treats him with anything other than wry ridicule or contempt at this point is doing a disservice not only to themselves, but to this great nation, which Cheney and Co so maligned. if Cheney ever gets around to trading his hubrus in on some humility, i will start listening. but so long as he repeats the same old failed messages, i will never be convinced again that he has anything right or meaningful to add to the conversation. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:14:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 7:31:23 GMT -5
Cheney is evil. I'll give you that.
But, when it comes to Obama, he's still right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 20, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -5
Cheney is evil. I'll give you that. But, when it comes to Obama, he's still right. right about what? edit: if you are referring to his quote, he really isn't. it is not rare at all, and Bush was worse. FAR worse. over 7,000 Americans died due to Bush's incompetence through 2008. arguably more after that. an economy was crashed under Bush. it would be true that it is rare that people have suffered so much for the mistakes of an American president as they did under Bush. you probably have to go back to Nixon. but it is not true at all for Obama. but don't worry. most of us won't forget that, when Jeb runs.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 20, 2014 11:45:59 GMT -5
I remember telling people what a F up bush was during the first election, folks on these boards literally tried to run me off, remember I lived in Texas and we knew first hand. Also about cheney, we heard about him first hand in the area we were in because of Halliburton and people we knew that worked there. The guy was absolutely hated and employees were thrilled to see him go even if he took with him a quarter of the profits of the company for 1 year.
They were and are worthless air breathers. How folks got suckered in is beyond me. . it was done in a careful and methodical way. if you really want to understand HOW it was done, rent/buy "weapons of mass deception". it was done exactly the same way that you sell beer or cigarettes. it was a carefully constructed PR campaign, by people who really know their s*&t in this department: the best in the business. and it was an awesome spectacle to witness (and a horrible one). |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:14:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 18:11:07 GMT -5
Cheney is evil. I'll give you that. But, when it comes to Obama, he's still right. right about what? edit: if you are referring to his quote, he really isn't. it is not rare at all, and Bush was worse. FAR worse. over 7,000 Americans died due to Bush's incompetence through 2008. arguably more after that. an economy was crashed under Bush. it would be true that it is rare that people have suffered so much for the mistakes of an American president as they did under Bush. you probably have to go back to Nixon. but it is not true at all for Obama. but don't worry. most of us won't forget that, when Jeb runs. Right about everything he's said about Obama. Don't get me wrong, Dubya was pretty bad, But Emperor Obama is ten times worse (as Presidents go) MAYBE some of his ineffectiveness for the first year or two could be blamed on Bush... but the rest is 100% all his. He's the first President in history to preside over a drop in the country's Credit Rating... and he presided over TWO drops of it. The nightmare that is Obamacare has no one to blame BUT Obama. Benghazi is all his. The treasonous swap of Berghdal, also 100% his. Bypassing of Congress, illegally, several times, all his. I wonder if anyone has complied a COMPLETE list of Emperor Obama's Presidential failures... I think I shall have to see if I can find one. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2014 12:57:45 GMT -5
right about what? edit: if you are referring to his quote, he really isn't. it is not rare at all, and Bush was worse. FAR worse. over 7,000 Americans died due to Bush's incompetence through 2008. arguably more after that. an economy was crashed under Bush. it would be true that it is rare that people have suffered so much for the mistakes of an American president as they did under Bush. you probably have to go back to Nixon. but it is not true at all for Obama. but don't worry. most of us won't forget that, when Jeb runs. Right about everything he's said about Obama.. like what? this: "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many," that is totally wrong, Richard. it is not rare AT ALL. no, Cheney is wrong about everything, as far as i can tell. if you think otherwise, post what he is right about. i would be interested in seeing that. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2014 13:00:26 GMT -5
I wonder if anyone has complied a COMPLETE list of Emperor Obama's Presidential failures... I think I shall have to see if I can find one. be my guest. i will post a list of Emperor Nixon's Failures, of Emperor Reagan's Failures, of Emperor Harding's Failures, and of Emperor Bush's Failures, and we can compare those lists. maybe then, we can FINALLY have some perspective. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:14:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 17:53:18 GMT -5
Right about everything he's said about Obama.. like what? this: "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many," that is totally wrong, Richard. it is not rare AT ALL. no, Cheney is wrong about everything, as far as i can tell. if you think otherwise, post what he is right about. i would be interested in seeing that. It's not rare for a President to be wrong. That I agree with. Presidents are human and as such fallible. However, His Highness Obama brought "wrongness" to a whole new level. He created an art-form of it. And his wrongness has hurt more people that all other presidents combined (granted, part of that is due to there being more people now than, say, during Harding's administration... but still more people is more people). And, don't forget the statement includes the word "rarely". It doesn't exclude all others, it just limits them. ETA: as far as comparing Cheney's wrongs to His Holiness Obama's wrongs... remind me... when was Cheney President? I don't remember us ever having a "President Cheney". |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 21, 2014 18:00:40 GMT -5
Who has he hurt exactly? And more than all other presidents combined . Where is captain hyperbole? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2014 18:13:01 GMT -5
like what? this: "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many," that is totally wrong, Richard. it is not rare AT ALL. no, Cheney is wrong about everything, as far as i can tell. if you think otherwise, post what he is right about. i would be interested in seeing that. It's not rare for a President to be wrong. That I agree with. Presidents are human and as such fallible. However, His Highness Obama brought "wrongness" to a whole new level. He created an art-form of it. And his wrongness has hurt more people that all other presidents combined (granted, part of that is due to there being more people now than, say, during Harding's administration... but still more people is more people). by what measure? And, don't forget the statement includes the word "rarely". It doesn't exclude all others, it just limits them. i think Obama is sort of "average". let's use Buchanan, Hoover, and Nixon as three examples.
Buchanan's inept leadership and handling of race and slavery issues during his tenure lead to the secession of the South, and drove us into a war that killed off 7% of our population. for the math impaired, that would be the equivalent of having 22 MILLION die today.
Hoover's insane monetary policies and overconfidence in the face of collapse exacerbated what was to follow: the loss of half of all US equity, and 1/4 of all jobs.
Nixon's handling of the war makes Bush's handling of the war seem pretty tame by comparison.
ETA: as far as comparing Cheney's wrongs to His Holiness Obama's wrongs... remind me... when was Cheney President? I don't remember us ever having a "President Cheney". if you are unaware that Cheney was perhaps the most consequential VP in American history, let me be the first to point it out to you. but in addition, his recent emergence as some kind of "expert" on Iraq is why i bring him up. apparently, he is not the only one who has forgotten his mistakes. also, this part of this discussion is based on a Cheney quote. perhaps you can remember that? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2014 18:21:04 GMT -5
conclusion: i think that Buchanan's mistakes lead to more suffering than all other presidents combined. i don't think anyone else comes close.
explain to me why i am wrong. try to use numbers, if possible.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 21, 2014 18:58:18 GMT -5
You are a much better historian than I- but I was just thinking back to my lifetime. I was born at the end of Vietnam- but pretty hard to argue Obama did so much worse than our leadership did back then. He was trying to end the Iraq fuck-up- and unlike Hilary was not in support of it in the first place- which was the correct position to take. Meanwhile back at the GOP ranch- war is ever on their minds. Maybe they would be wise to figure out that the younger voters- AKA the new electorate- is sick of this bullshit. Even some in the party have realized this- ands that is where the split is going to be- the old school hawks and gay hating Bible thumpers vs. the Libertarian faction that thinks live and let live, and stay the fuck out of these places. I would love to see a new Republican party that casts out these Neanderthals and gives me a choice again on which party I vote for.
|
|
