Trump: Bush "Worst President Ever" [Archive]

pancakeman

17-03-2007, 16:54

Linky --> (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/trump_bush_the_.html)

Click the hyperlink of the transcript, gives a .pdf of the whole thing.

TRUMP: Look, everything in Washington has been a lie: weapons of
mass destruction -- that was a total lie. It was a way of attacking
Iraq, which he thought was going to be easy and it turned out to be the
exact opposite of easy. He reads 60 books a year, he reads a book a
week -- that's -- do you think that's -- do you think the president
reads a book a week? I don't think so. He doesn't watch television.
Now, one thing I know is that, when I'm on television, I watch, or I
try. Because you do -- your own ego says, you know, Let's watch, let's
see, whether it's good or bad, you want to watch, right? He doesn't
watch television. So he's on television, being interviewed by you or
somebody else, he doesn't watch. Does anybody really believe that?
Now they're doing this whole scandal with the U.S. attorneys. Now
they're finding e-mails, and it's proven to be a lie. Everything's a
lie. It's all a big lie.

Is Trump aware of what he is saying? Many people may not like Bush, but to call him the worst president we have ever had is just ignorance.
What about James Buchanan? He sat idly by while the South prepared to wage civil war.
What about Warren Harding? He made a mockery of the office, with his poker parties with friends, his scandals, his entire presidency.
If these names were presented to The Donald, would he even know who they were?

I don't think the Donald, a crappy businessman, is qualified to criticize the most demanding political position in the country, possibly the world. And on what basis? That he doesn't read books like he says? That he doesn't watch every appearance on TV like the narcissitic egotist that Trump is?

Thoughts?

Jigga-Scrooge

17-03-2007, 17:01

why do i care what some ******* says?

Intolerance

17-03-2007, 17:15

Do I care about a) what he said or b) the fact that he said it?

Answer: Neither.

Besides, there have been at least two presidents who were worse than him. Maybe three.

llad12

17-03-2007, 17:25

why do i care what some ******* says?

Opinions are like *******s, everybody has one.

WildBerry

17-03-2007, 17:34

why do i care what some ******* says?

Because whatever he says is going to be huuuuuuuuuuuge?

[/bad impersonation]

Besides, there have been at least two presidents who were worse than him. Maybe three.

Out of curiosity, is your list the same as pancakeman's?

pancakeman

17-03-2007, 17:51

Wild, don't take that as my list. I have many more on it, and most are worse than George. I just thought of two of the worst we've had, and put them down.

Intolerance

17-03-2007, 17:55

Out of curiosity, is your list the same as pancakeman's?

I was just being goofy more than anything. While I can list the presidents in order, I definitely don't know enough about each president's policies, decisions, actions, and terms in general to fairly determine which was worse/better than another.

I really do think that it's hard to get a good handle on a president's "goodness" without having lived during his term. Historical persepctives are often incomplete.

WildBerry

17-03-2007, 18:05

Wild, don't take that as my list. I have many more on it, and most are worse than George. I just thought of two of the worst we've had, and put them down.

Ok, your non-exhaustive, off-the-top-of-your head, quick-list then? :smiley:

I was just being goofy more than anything. While I can list the presidents in order, I definitely don't know enough about each president's policies, decisions, actions, and terms in general to fairly determine which was worse/better than another.

I really do think that it's hard to get a good handle on a president's "goodness" without having lived during his term. Historical persepctives are often incomplete.

Fair enough. Though not enlightening yours truly of the institution that is the group of American presidents of past, it was an enlighted comment in itself.

Dii Legend

17-03-2007, 18:06

Opinions are like *******s, everybody has one.Haha, I was thinking the same thing. :laugh:

Kevin William Cox

17-03-2007, 18:50

Linky --> (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/trump_bush_the_.html)

Click the hyperlink of the transcript, gives a .pdf of the whole thing.

Is Trump aware of what he is saying? Many people may not like Bush, but to call him the worst president we have ever had is just ignorance.
What about James Buchanan? He sat idly by while the South prepared to wage civil war.
What about Warren Harding? He made a mockery of the office, with his poker parties with friends, his scandals, his entire presidency.
If these names were presented to The Donald, would he even know who they were?

I don't think the Donald, a crappy businessman, is qualified to criticize the most demanding political position in the country, possibly the world. And on what basis? That he doesn't read books like he says? That he doesn't watch every appearance on TV like the narcissitic egotist that Trump is?

Thoughts?

So, Donald isn't qualified to judge the president? Because he is a crappy businessman? And that being in your opinion. Basis... How about the right to vote? How about being an American citizen? Do you forget who put Mr. Bush into office? Any person, who can vote, has the right to judge the president. Even you. So Donny can say Bush is the worst Prez in history, that's his opinion. But don't say he isn't qualified to judge, anybody who voted, is qualified to judge.

Kev

pancakeman

17-03-2007, 19:19

Kevin, I am fully aware of how the American political system functions. I am pointing out that he is not judging George Bush based on his policies, but because he believes that the president does not read 60 books a year, or that George must be lying when he says he does not watch himself on TV.
If Donald was to say "I think George Bush is the worst president we have had because his _____ policy was ____", then I would take him seriously.

Dii Legend

17-03-2007, 19:21

If Donald was to say "I think George Bush is the worst president we have had because his _____ policy was ____", then I would take him seriously.This comment here is why I don't take him seriously. If he had said something to that effect, then what he says would mean something different and get a different response from people.

Lazer LXXVII

17-03-2007, 20:05

Trump, and anyone else who thinks Bush is such a bad president that is ruining the nation, should just...move to another country.

Intolerance

18-03-2007, 00:47

Trump, and anyone else who thinks Bush is such a bad president that is ruining the nation, should just...move to another country.

Death to dissenters!

bladesyz

18-03-2007, 01:07

I wouldn't take anything Trump says seriously. The guy is a male version of Paris Hilton.

publius

18-03-2007, 01:17

Because he's really rich, and owns a hotel, and is blonde? Other than that, I don't see any similarities.

llad12

18-03-2007, 01:23

Trump, and anyone else who thinks Bush is such a bad president that is ruining the nation, should just...move to another country.

Spoken like a true South Carolinian.

Strom Thurmond, may he RIP, would have been so proud of you. :prop:

publius

18-03-2007, 01:27

I thought the American way would be, "Trump, and anyone else who thinks Bush is such a bad president that is ruining the nation should just not vote for him in the next election"?

bladesyz

18-03-2007, 01:29

Because he's really rich, and owns a hotel, and is blonde? Other than that, I don't see any similarities.

How about the fact that they're both famous just for being famous?

publius

18-03-2007, 01:40

How about the fact that they're both famous just for being famous?

No one is ever famous "just for being famous." In this case one is famous for being a daughter of a really rich guy and for having sex on the internet and partying a lot, while the other is famous for being a self-made billionaire, while also participating in a reality TV show.

maccool

18-03-2007, 02:10

America: Trump "Worst hair ever."

while the other is famous for being a self-made billionaire, while also participating in a reality TV show.

Self-made? An interesting and spectacularly ignorant opinion. Explain more please.

WildBerry

18-03-2007, 07:17

No one is ever famous "just for being famous." In this case one is famous for being a daughter of a really rich guy and for having sex on the internet and partying a lot, while the other is famous for being a self-made billionaire, while also participating in a reality TV show.

That's not a separating but a uniting trait for these said individuals.

I don't understand the original comparison any more than you do, but by bringing that up, you kinda shot yourself in the leg. The Apprentice has no higher quality as entertainment than The Simple Life.

publius

18-03-2007, 08:16

I guess I don't watch TV that much these days. I had to look up "A Simple Life." So, Paris Hilton also took part in a crappy reality TV show? Thats interesting....

WildBerry

18-03-2007, 09:24

I guess I don't watch TV that much these days. I had to look up "A Simple Life." So, Paris Hilton also took part in a crappy reality TV show? Thats interesting....

In fact, it's not :wink3:

You haven't lost anything by missing Paris' and Nicole's series, rest assured.

I just found it amusing that you count The Apprentice among Donald's redeeming qualities. I think his success in the art of making money is a much more convincing argument than his TV-show which is rather easily summed up in the words "you're fired".

publius

18-03-2007, 09:45

Nah, I wasn't counting it as one of his "redeeming qualities", but rather one of the reasons for which he is widely known. From what I gather, he's gotten a much wider exposure to the general public from appearing on that show. I guess rereading it this one thing does look pretty out of place.

Dondrei

18-03-2007, 11:22

Trump's an idiot, obviously. And everything after the second sentence was unintelligible gibberish.

Worst President ever? I haven't been around for all of them, I wouldn't know. He's certainly the worst in my lifetime.

None of the others come off as quite as big an idiot either, but then I haven't heard all of them speak.

Trump, and anyone else who thinks Bush is such a bad president that is ruining the nation, should just...move to another country.

Or maybe vote to give the Democrats a majority in Congress.

I wouldn't take anything Trump says seriously. The guy is a male version of Paris Hilton.

Funny, that's pretty much the way I think of Bush.

Self-made? An interesting and spectacularly ignorant opinion. Explain more please.

Oh, they're all self-made billionaires. They took their billions of dollars, invested it and along came more billions of dollars!

Yossarian

18-03-2007, 11:35

I'll give him worst president in the last 100 years maybe. But ever? Not yet. He'd need to try invading Canada and losing there too, or something like that, for that title.

Trump comes from a very rich family and is hardly self-made. What did daddy do you ask? He was in N.Y. realestate.

Trump is a fairly bright rich kid who has run is businesses both well and poorly. Commenting on Bush is just part of his quite recent shift in attitude to keep his name in the headlines every couple of weeks and to always try and go with the majority flow with those comments. People don't like Martha (attack Martha). People don't like Rossi (hammer Rossi) people don't like Bush (nail Bush) it's as simple as that.

Dondrei

18-03-2007, 11:54

He's a bit late on bashing Bush if he's trying to follow current trends.

buttershug

19-03-2007, 21:09

Isn't The Donald the only person that ever existed that lost money building a casino?

Bortaz

19-03-2007, 23:11

Worst President ever? I haven't been around for all of them, I wouldn't know. He's certainly the worst in my lifetime.

How many have there been in your lifetime? 3? Bush and Clinton and Bush? Sample too small.

CaptnSparrow

19-03-2007, 23:36

I thought the American way would be, "Trump, and anyone else who thinks Bush is such a bad president that is ruining the nation should just not vote for him in the next election"?

We tried that, but he's still here. :(

What bugs me about the entire Bush situation isn't so much the fault of Bush and his groupies... but just American government in general. It has grown far too powerful for its own good, and the citizens of America are becoming numb to the effects. They've begun to just accept the unfair decisions being churned out and haven't disputed at all. And those who do dispute are being treated like "Oh, you don't like Bush? Here's a 5 minute segment on CNN so you can talk and never get considered again. Thanks, bye."

I read a section from an essay called Salvador in my English class which was about the terrorism that was victimizing the citizens of the country. In the conclusion, the author described a scene in which a man was teaching his wife to drive right next to a large "body dump." The point was that these people had become so familiar with the terror activities that occurred every day that they just stopped resisting it and accepted it as part of their world. Americans have begun this process as well, although instead of mass murdering (which some could argue IS occurring...), the government is peeling away freedoms.

Yeah wow sorry for the rant. Just saying that my view isn't so much Bush that's killing us (although he certainly doesn't help), it's just a bad system growing to an unbearable point.

buttershug

20-03-2007, 00:05

I'll give him worst president in the last 100 years maybe. But ever? Not yet. He'd need to try invading Canada and losing there too, or something like that, for that title.
.

Who was President and tried to invade Upper Canada and failed in the war of 1812?

publius

20-03-2007, 00:13

I'm curious that no one has elaborated on "worst president ever." Worst in what way?

For me personally, while he has plenty of competition for worst in terms of dishonesty or blatant disregard for the constitution or for foreign policy blunders, I think he definitely stands out as one of the most incompetent for his handling of the Iraqi postwar occupation.

Cheesehed

20-03-2007, 00:44

Trump is just pissed because Bush isnt using supply side economics and giving him huge tax cuts

Dii Legend

20-03-2007, 03:09

Trump is just pissed because Bush isnt using supply side economics and giving him huge tax cutsHaha, you're probably right. :laugh:

Dondrei

20-03-2007, 07:42

How many have there been in your lifetime? 3? Bush and Clinton and Bush? Sample too small.

And Reagan, but I was too young then.

Who was President and tried to invade Upper Canada and failed in the war of 1812?

James Madison? I don't think he's a candidate for worst President.

Trump is just pissed because Bush isnt using supply side economics and giving him huge tax cuts

So are a lot of Republicans.

PlagueBearer

20-03-2007, 15:44

Worst President ever? I haven't been around for all of them, I wouldn't know. He's certainly the worst in my lifetime.

Carter? Just saying.

Edit: just read above, nm

llad12

20-03-2007, 16:20

I think he definitely stands out as one of the most incompetent for his handling of the Iraqi postwar occupation.

No argument from me. If one really wants to review just how incompetent the Iraqi postwar occupation was handled by this administration, then I would suggest reading: Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone (http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400044870). It's a real eye-opener. :shocked:

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

20-03-2007, 16:48

Mr. Trump, you're a hell of a business man. STFU and just make money. It's what you do best. Don't be a political jackass, we have enough of them already.

Dondrei

21-03-2007, 07:11

Carter? Just saying.

Edit: just read above, nm

Must've asked this ten times, but I still don't know what it is everyone hates about Carter.

Bortaz

21-03-2007, 07:28

He was an ineffective, bumbling doofus. Do your research! (It's mostly economy and the Iran hostage crisis).

llad12

21-03-2007, 14:20

He was an ineffective, bumbling doofus. Do your research! (It's mostly economy and the Iran hostage crisis).

Yah ... that's it. Blame Carter for the economy and the overthrow of the Shah. Gonna blame him for the high inflation of the era and a desert sandstorm as well?

themachine

21-03-2007, 14:23

http://www.thousandreasons.net/reasons.php

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

21-03-2007, 16:03

Yah ... that's it. Blame Carter for the economy and the overthrow of the Shah. Gonna blame him for the high inflation of the era and a desert sandstorm as well?

He gets a pass on the sandstorm.

llad12

22-03-2007, 07:57

From the Gulf Daily News (http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=173694&Sn=WORL&IssueID=29002)

BAGHDAD: Hundreds of militants stormed a jail in a pre-dawn raid to free inmates yesterday in the Sunni heartland north of Baghdad, triggering the deadliest firefight this year, which left 20 police and 10 insurgents dead.Authorities said all 33 prisoners in the lockup were freed.

Meanwhile, US President George W Bush predicted more tough fighting ahead in Iraq, but said he was convinced the country has avoided civil war.

Avoided civil war ??? :shocked:

Although I'm not convinced Bush is the worst president in US history ,,, he may very well be the most delusional one.

Cheesehed

22-03-2007, 11:13

Yah ... that's it. Blame Carter for the economy and the overthrow of the Shah. Gonna blame him for the high inflation of the era and a desert sandstorm as well?

he sounds like a damn regime changing imperialist

Dondrei

22-03-2007, 11:46

He was an ineffective, bumbling doofus. Do your research! (It's mostly economy and the Iran hostage crisis).

Well, I looked it up for a bit and I'm still unenlightened. There's not much a President can do about the economy, despite the way some of them like to take credit for it when it's doing well, and in any case stagflation as far as I know was unprecedented so you can't really blame him for being unable to magically solve it. It always seems pretty irrational to blame Presidents for the economy, to me.

And pretty much the same for the Iran hostage crisis, can't really see what more he could've done.

He just seems like an unremarkable President to me. Probably why I'd hardly even heard of him before coming on here.

llad12

22-03-2007, 12:43

He just seems like an unremarkable President to me. Probably why I'd hardly even heard of him before coming on here.

Carter did admit in a Playboy interview that he lusted after women ... in his mind. IIRC, it created quite a stir with prudish conservatives. :azn:

pancakeman

22-03-2007, 14:40

There's not much a President can do about the economy
Could you say that again? A bit louder? To all the Democrats and Republicans alike who swear that George has taken this country to an economic low, and only the Democrat majority saved us?

I guess life wasn't bad under Carter, as long as you weren't a hostage in Iran or any kind of military man who didn't want to be on food stamps.

Bortaz

22-03-2007, 14:48

Or the driver of a gas powered vehicle. Or someone who wanted a decent job.

EDIT: Or an investor in the Panama Canal area.

EDIT: llad12, I do agree with you that Iraq is currently in a civil war, and can't understand why the president doesn't just admit it.

llad12

22-03-2007, 15:13

I guess life wasn't bad under Carter, as long as you weren't a hostage in Iran or any kind of military man who didn't want to be on food stamps.

Yessire, I guess the 300 billion dollars/year (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/dod_budge_1950-2007_real.jpg)(in equivalent 2002 dollars) that was spent on national defense during the Carter era just wasn't enough to pay our soldiers. :rolleyes:

Try again ...

pancakeman

22-03-2007, 15:38

llad12

22-03-2007, 17:05

Well, I guess you were in Korea during the Carter administration, and you would know this from experience. Were you, by any chance?

I must say I am impressed by your chart, which shows everyone's favorite peanut farmer was on par with Bill Clinton for defense spending, and we know ol' Billy Jeff was very generous.:rolleyes:

Thanks for the source! :thumbsup:

My pleasure Centurion (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/centurion.htm).

$300,000,000,000/year not enough for ya?? If you want to blame someone, look no farther than your rotten-to-the-core, military-industrial complex. A complex that is not President Carter's fault.

Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

Cheesehed

22-03-2007, 17:32

llad12

22-03-2007, 17:46

because the dems plan is to hit abort, and Bush wants to finish what he started

Yep ... Jr. needs to get those oil production-sharing agreements in place. Then he can ride off into the sunset knowing that he was responsible for finding more oil than daddy.

YeeHaw is not a foreign policy

pancakeman

22-03-2007, 17:58

My pleasure Centurion.

$300,000,000,000/year not enough for ya?? If you want to blame someone, look no farther than your rotten-to-the-core, military-industrial complex.
I never said I was in the military, that is your mistake. However, personal accounts can be quite revealing. And before you ask, I cannnot cite these accounts on the Intartubez. Some of us don't have a link for everything.

And no, I don't believe that is enough.
There were 771,000 active-duty soldiers under the US Army in 1978.
There are 480,000 now.

However, $481 billion is on the budget for 2008 by President Bush, which is more than 150% Carter's total budget for defense.
I'm not even mentioning the 141 billion in additional funds to support the War on Terror.

Somehow, 300 billion doesn't seem like that much anymore.

Source:
http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2004/fy2004_greenbook.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/defense.html

Bortaz

22-03-2007, 19:14

because the dems plan is to hit abort, and Bush wants to finish what he started

Admitting they are in a civil war does not neglect our opportunity or responsibility to finish what we started. It just shows an unhealthy habit of denying the obvious.

Cheesehed

22-03-2007, 23:52

Yep ... Jr. needs to get those oil production-sharing agreements in place. Then he can ride off into the sunset knowing that he was responsible for finding more oil than daddy.

YeeHaw is not a foreign policy

and Yeehaw+dems pulling out in a country that is in a civil war=power vacuum and probably a worse off Iraq is good foreign policy to you. You can sit there and ***** about the decision to go to Iraq with whatever crazy dirty hippy theories you have, but that doesnt change the fact that we are there now and pulling out would be the worst way to go. *****ing about the past doesnt help anyone at all, especially not the Iraqis that you claim to care about so much.

llad12

23-03-2007, 06:17

no, I don't believe that is enough.
There were 771,000 active-duty soldiers under the US Army in 1978.
There are 480,000 now.

The salaries are just a drop in the bucket of a 300 billion defense budget.

However, $481 billion is on the budget for 2008 by President Bush, which is more than 150% Carter's total budget for defense.
I'm not even mentioning the 141 billion in additional funds to support the War on Terror.

Somehow, 300 billion doesn't seem like that much anymore.

Yessire ... fiscal responsibility is out and militarism is in.

Welcome to the new and improved Republican party!

-------------

and Yeehaw+dems pulling out in a country that is in a civil war=power vacuum and probably a worse off Iraq is good foreign policy to you. You can sit there and ***** about the decision to go to Iraq with whatever crazy dirty hippy theories you have, but that doesnt change the fact that we are there now and pulling out would be the worst way to go. *****ing about the past doesnt help anyone at all, especially not the Iraqis that you claim to care about so much.

I see ... Well, I figure 30-50 years of bloody American occupation should just about do it for skimming off the Iraqi oil reserves. After that, who cares ... right?

Dondrei

23-03-2007, 07:55

Could you say that again? A bit louder? To all the Democrats and Republicans alike who swear that George has taken this country to an economic low, and only the Democrat majority saved us?

Sure, and to the Republicans praising Bush because of the American economy's recent recovery too.

I guess life wasn't bad under Carter, as long as you weren't a hostage in Iran or any kind of military man who didn't want to be on food stamps.

Weren't all the hostages eventually freed anyway?

Or the driver of a gas powered vehicle. Or someone who wanted a decent job.

Presidents control the price of petrol and the economy now? How about blaming them for the weather too?

EDIT: Or an investor in the Panama Canal area.

What happened there?

and Yeehaw+dems pulling out in a country that is in a civil war=power vacuum and probably a worse off Iraq is good foreign policy to you.

News flash: there already is a power vacuum, that's why there's a civil war.

jmervyn

23-03-2007, 12:50

News flash: there already is a power vacuum, that's why there's a civil war.Yuppers, that's why the "surge" is doomed to failure before it's barely started too. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu. htm?page=0) [/sarcasm]

Dondrei

23-03-2007, 13:35

Heh, how long has the surge been in effect? A month or two? And we're already going around saying it's working? You should hang up a big banner that says "Mission Accomplished".

Cheesehed

23-03-2007, 14:40

The salaries are just a drop in the bucket of a 300 billion defense budget.

Yessire ... fiscal responsibility is out and militarism is in.

Welcome to the new and improved Republican party!

-------------

I see ... Well, I figure 30-50 years of bloody American occupation should just about do it for skimming off the Iraqi oil reserves. After that, who cares ... right?
Way to completely avoid the point, you seem rather good at that though. Whats the next thing you're going to tell me, I'm wrong because you are older? You claim to care about us stealing Iraqi oil and yet your solution is to remove the only stability in that country. Im afraid you dont give a damn about the Iraqi's at all.

Cheesehed

23-03-2007, 14:41

Sure, and to the Republicans praising Bush because of the American economy's recent recovery too.

Weren't all the hostages eventually freed anyway?

Presidents control the price of petrol and the economy now? How about blaming them for the weather too?

What happened there?

News flash: there already is a power vacuum, that's why there's a civil war.

News flash thats why we shouldnt leave

pancakeman

23-03-2007, 15:59

Weren't all the hostages eventually freed anyway?
That isn't what I was talking about, but yes they were. By Reagan.

llad12

23-03-2007, 17:39

Way to completely avoid the point, you seem rather good at that though. Whats the next thing you're going to tell me, I'm wrong because you are older? You claim to care about us stealing Iraqi oil and yet your solution is to remove the only stability in that country. Im afraid you dont give a damn about the Iraqi's at all.

What a bunch of malarky. Our soldiers aren't over there to stop a civil war. That civil war is happening as we speak and there is nothing we can do about it. No sir, our young men and women are being sacrificed in Iraqi to insure our way of life ... not theirs.

America has never given a rat's *** about the plight of the Iraqis and using that flimsy excuse to continue this bloody war of aggression is nothing but imperialist tripe for the ignorant.

Cheesehed

23-03-2007, 17:45

What a bunch of malarky. Our soldiers aren't over there to stop a civil war. That civil war is happening as we speak and there is nothing we can do about it. No sir, our young men and women are being sacrificed in Iraqi to insure our way of life ... not theirs.

America has never given a rat's *** about the plight of the Iraqis and using that flimsy excuse to continue this bloody war of aggression is nothing but imperialist tripe for the ignorant.

theres no point in arguing, you avoid every question with imperial conspiracy theory, Im afraid theres no point in me continuing this argument

good day

llad12

23-03-2007, 17:58

theres no point in arguing, you avoid every question with imperial conspiracy theory, Im afraid theres no point in me continuing this argument

good day

There's no theory about it. Cheney & his NeoCon cabal have boldly stated what their aims were in the Middle East and their actions speak louder than words.

But don't concern yourself with facts ...

Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

Bortaz

23-03-2007, 18:05

This is great. I love this type of argument. :)

Cheesehed

23-03-2007, 18:58

There's no theory about it. Cheney & his NeoCon cabal have boldly stated what their aims were in the Middle East and their actions speak louder than words.

But don't concern yourself with facts ...

Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

Well your facts are moot to the point I was making, for the sake of this argument let me just agree that bush and cheney went into Iraq only for oil and our great empire. Do you deny that Iraq would be in more trouble if we left right now, regardless of our motives.

But thats just logic

Have a nice day:thumbsup:

Dondrei

23-03-2007, 23:32

Do you deny that Iraq would be in more trouble if we left right now, regardless of our motives.

About as much as it'll be in whenever we leave.

llad12

23-03-2007, 23:50

Well your facts are moot to the point I was making, for the sake of this argument let me just agree that bush and cheney went into Iraq only for oil and our great empire. Do you deny that Iraq would be in more trouble if we left right now, regardless of our motives.

Sure it will be worse initially before it gets better. But our occupation is no solution. Their disagreement is over 1300 years old. Civil war is going to happen. Hell, it is happening. We can't stop it. It is an Iraqi problem and theirs to fix. Staying there will only put more of our soldier's lives at risk for a war we cannot stop.

In essence, I find your reasoning disingenuous at best.

We had no business invading Iraq. We have no business being there now. The Iraqis don't want us there. The American people want us out.

It's time to get out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17750825/). It's way past time ...

arcticknight

24-03-2007, 02:35

Dondrei- the hostages were only let free after Carter failed to get re elected and Reagan took office. Reagan had been conducting private meetings with the Iranians and they released the hostages right away after Reagan took office.

Trump is a business man. He should keep his head out of the government and let the experts criticize instead of making a fool of himself. Who really cares what Trump has to say? I care about his opinions just as much as any other person, why should he get attention just because he can get his opinions on the entertainment news?

Dondrei

24-03-2007, 02:58

Cheesehed

24-03-2007, 15:50

Sure it will be worse initially before it gets better. But our occupation is no solution. Their disagreement is over 1300 years old. Civil war is going to happen. Hell, it is happening. We can't stop it. It is an Iraqi problem and theirs to fix. Staying there will only put more of our soldier's lives at risk for a war we cannot stop.

In essence, I find your reasoning disingenuous at best.

We had no business invading Iraq. We have no business being there now. The Iraqis don't want us there. The American people want us out.

It's time to get out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17750825/). It's way past time ...
218-212, and the american people want us out.....that seems broad at best. Im sure a lot of Iraqis like the Americans too, you know not having to get worried about your kids dieing by some the opposing radical group. Im surprised too ll, for a liberal id expect you to be more optimistic about peace, I still hope it can happen.

llad12

24-03-2007, 19:58

218-212, and the american people want us out.....that seems broad at best.

Political partisanship does not necessarily reflect the views of the American people.

To wit:

Polling Report (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

Im sure a lot of Iraqis like the Americans too, you know not having to get worried about your kids dieing by some the opposing radical group. Im surprised too ll, for a liberal id expect you to be more optimistic about peace, I still hope it can happen.

Peace? I and many others vehemently opposed this war from the outset. Our voices, however, were drowned out by the beat of war drums, call to arms, and taste of revenge for something the Iraqi people had nothing to do with.

No, my friend, you reap what you sow. We are the catalyst of this strife and their is nothing we can do now that will change it. Our participation in this bloody conflict will go on ... until the American people finally elect a president that will stop it.

May God have mercy upon our souls. :cry:

Cheesehed

24-03-2007, 20:29

Political partisanship does not necessarily reflect the views of the American people.

To wit:

Polling Report (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

Peace? I and many others vehemently opposed this war from the outset. Our voices, however, were drowned out by the beat of war drums, call to arms, and taste of revenge for something the Iraqi people had nothing to do with.

No, my friend, you reap what you sow. We are the catalyst of this strife and their is nothing we can do now that will change it. Our participation in this bloody conflict will go on ... until the American people finally elect a president that will stop it.

May God have mercy upon our souls. :cry:
I agree that politicians views dont necessarily reflect the public, but that was the premise of the article you linked. So peace to you is letting people suffer under a cruel dictator? Or is that part just shaded out by the "beating war drums"?

Kevin William Cox

24-03-2007, 20:38

I agree that politicians views dont necessarily reflect the public, but that was the premise of the article you linked. So peace to you is letting people suffer under a cruel dictator? Or is that part just shaded out by the "beating war drums"?

And North Korea, who actually has WMD's? We do nothing to help those people under a cruel dictator? Oh... wait... no OIL. My bad.

Kev

pancakeman

24-03-2007, 21:32

I am sure that that has been the motivation behind every conflict of the past century, Kev.
Except there is no oil in Bosnia.
Or in Vietnam.
Or in Germany, France, Belgium, Japan, Italy,....

llad12

24-03-2007, 21:52

So peace to you is letting people suffer under a cruel dictator? Or is that part just shaded out by the "beating war drums"?

Heh ... you need to learn a little history.

Who (http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/usa/images/us-government.jpg) do you think helped put the Baath party in power? Who (http://www.librarything.com/pics/blog/cia.gif) hired Saddam as an assassin? Who was Saddam hired to kill (http://photobucket.com/albums/f53/midtowng/qassim.jpg)and why?

Follow the money ... and you may find the answers.

If you think anything is different today, then you are simply naive.

The truth shall set you free. (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

WildBerry

25-03-2007, 07:20

Or in Germany, France, Belgium, Japan, Italy,....

If you want to be really asinine, listing all those as one means WWII is counted as one conflict, and there sure as hell was oil in Baku in the Soviet Republic of Azerbaidzhan.

But that is a moot point, since aside from that you're right. All wars are fought for power, but not always does that power equal to horsepowers granted by oil.

Kevin William Cox

25-03-2007, 09:17

Bortaz

25-03-2007, 09:33

Those other places aren't assumed to be willing to supply WMD to terrorists, afaik.

Dondrei

25-03-2007, 10:49

I'm sure many of them are willing.

Bortaz

25-03-2007, 10:57

True. I should have said likely.

Dondrei

25-03-2007, 11:02

Personally I don't think any of them are very likely.

buttershug

25-03-2007, 11:57

I never said oil was the reason for all U.S. conflicts, nor did I imply it. But for this one in Iraq, I believe it is. They never found the WMD that were supposed to be there, then changed their song to freedom for the Iraq people and taking out a cruel dictator. There are plenty of other places with cruel dictators and WMD, but we don't do anything about them.

Kev

The States might not have sold WMD to the other ones you are talking about like they did with Sadam.
The States sold lots of stuff to Sadam and he used WMD, don't you think that would be reason to believe he still had some?

And even the people who decry the States doing stuff for oil wouldn't live without it.