Rabid anti-Obama moron

[Chimpy]

I quite liked Tony Blair, quite possibly one of the best leaders we've had if you consider his period as PM in totality.

[galactica]

Unless you count the most important part of his time, a disastrous war or two at the behest of the lunatics in the White House.

 

"Thanks for our Vietnam, Tony!"

[GnGArmament]

Gir I think you need to read up on this

 

 

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet...ent-techniques/

 

Even though you already implemented most of these techniques

[Stealthbomber]

Not really sure why so many people are down on Tony Blair.

I suspect David Cameron is relying on the support of voters who're took young to recall the 1970s and 1980s.

Do we really think a right wing government would have been any less keen to jump into a war alongside Bushes America?

[Chimpy]

Unless you count the most important part of his time, a disastrous war or two at the behest of the lunatics in the White House.

 

"Thanks for our Vietnam, Tony!"

 

Err... well in totality would imply including the war in Iraq.

 

Regardless of how poorly handled it's hardly a British Vietnam!

[galactica]

Not really sure why so many people are down on Tony Blair.

I suspect David Cameron is relying on the support of voters who're took young to recall the 1970s and 1980s.

Do we really think a right wing government would have been any less keen to jump into a war alongside Bushes America?

 

I'm down on them all, really. I don't think we really have a great choice. I have no doubt the tories would have done the same.

 

Except for Vince Cable, he is a fairly useful bloke, in a useless position.

[galactica]

Err... well in totality would imply including the war in Iraq.

 

Regardless of how poorly handled it's hardly a British Vietnam!

 

that remains to be seen, I would say!

[Chimpy]

We've all but left Iraq now so I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen.

[galactica]

well obviously I mean Afghanistan we've been "over there" (both iraq and afghan) for what, nearly 8 years now?

[Chimpy]

Afghanistan is somewhat different as we've been over there as part of the ISAF for most of the time which makes the comparison with Vietnam even more spurious.

[galactica]

i'm probably comparing in a much less specific way than you, Chimpy. "war in somewhere we will never prevail and we oughtn't to have been in the first place" is how i'm comparing it.

[Chimpy]

I'd argue that you could more readily make that case for Iraq than Afghanistan.

 

I have to say in amongst all the Gir pointlessness this has been a really a interesting thread.

[Seraphim989]

I agree. I've been following it really closely. As for Afghanistan, I think its possible to be successful there. We just have to find the way. Iraq, I don't think so

[Gir]

Look, the point behind me bringing up Tony Blair, was because he was close to Bush's views (IMO). We went into Iraq and Afghanistan together, and we're leaving it (close) together. British troops have left Iraq, and American's should soon follow/shift views to Afghanistan.

 

Theres ways to be successful in both countrys, but people turn on the news and see death and destruction. But no offense, thats what i see in the left winged views. I see "More soldiers killed today, more civilians killed today". This is not a world war (well, it kinda is, but its not declared as one), the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, he doesn't follow the rules. He hides, and preys on the innocent, so our ROE is either violated, or followed (and they escape). They only uniform they wear, is the Iraqi National Guard, and even then, its a disguise, to kill people. Theres ways to stop this, through informing the people of the two countrys, what we want, what we intend to do, and what guidelines must be met for us to leave. If people see "Oh yeah, that guy (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or other terrorist organization) killed my brother/mother/father/sister/etc, we need to bring him to justice". I've seen far to many stories where you have the citizens of these two country's cowering in fear, telling US troops where the bad guys are, because they fear death from them (terrorists). Its like gangs in the states (i'll always compare it to that too, gangs are the terrorists groups of the US). People are scared to work with police, to solve a murder, because they'll be killed if the "snitch" on their fellow gang members. Thats living in fear, and no justice for those slain.

 

I'm not saying everyone should conform to one religion, one race, one anything. Differences are what makes this world great. Its what makes people travel to foreign country's to embrace their culture, and their way of life. It would be a bland world if we were all the same, but theres no reason to kill innocent people, and no reason to hide behind the innocent when you make your attacks (in most cases literally).

 

Sit here all you want, and talk about how great world peace is, but know that not everyone in this world, wants that. THAT is why it will never work. THAT is why sometimes you have to lay the leather down on that *albatross*.

[Seraphim989]

No one has been saying we shouldn't fight wars. You're just exaggerating to make everyone else look silly, a common occurrence in debates. They're talking about these wars. I don't think a world without wars will ever happen.

[Punkypink]

Theres ways to be successful in both countrys, but people turn on the news and see death and destruction. But no offense, thats what i see in the left winged views. I see "More soldiers killed today, more civilians killed today". This is not a world war (well, it kinda is, but its not declared as one), the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, he doesn't follow the rules.

Look, I do agree with you on this. You gotta remember that the whole "Oh noes more soldiers killed blah blah" is often tabloids. You gotta make a distinction between being liberal and being a left wing extremist. A lot of people here are angry about soldiers being killed, but for the reason that they think the British government is not doing enough to support the troops on the ground, not giving them the manpower and equipment they need. It's not "WITHDRAW NOW!!!" a lot of us feel about the war you know. What we feel about the war has 2 distinct areas. One concerns the reasons for the war, the other concerns what sort of support the boys on the ground are getting.

 

But hey, the problem with this war's reason is that IF Bush and Blair HAD said something along the lines of "Saddam is a jerk, we're going in to get rid of them" and MEANT it, most people would happily support it. The problem is, Bush did NOT go in for that reason. He saw a profit in it for his buddies and he picked the excuse being that "OH NOES Saddam has WMDs and is going to attack USA soon!" Which to be fair, is patently untrue, and is now coming out to public knowledge that Blair had known all along that there wasn't any WMD and it was being used as a superficial excuse to wage war.

 

I've never been anti-war. However I AM anti war-for-the-wrong-reasons. To me, that is dishonest. Similiarly, I'm also anti people who debate in a dishonest manner. It's taken how many pages? 4? 5? Before I see one post from you without the whole smart-a**ness, without the attitude-showing "Bra"s and the needless, pointless remarks. How much better if, 4 pages ago you could have the courage to admit that yes, you were trying to be a smarta** and it backfired, and that when you made your hitler comment you simply had not given Jag's ernest question enough consideration. We wouldn't have needed to drag through 4 pages of you doing a Kevin would we? The end result would still the same, someone would name other criminals in rebuttal and then you could have not needed to pretend that you already had an opinion about them all along when giving your little "Hitler" remark. Instead now that you are wording your point of view in a sensible manner, it becomes so much easier to engage in a discussion.

 

Back onto the video, I hope next time Kevin decides to talk about appeasement, he can actually answer to the point, instead of persistantly coming in at a tangent in an attempt to cover up his ignorance, or any mistake he might have made in failing to consider a point put to him. The problem with conservative people is all too often the reason they are conservative is simply because they are afraid of change and new ideas. Since humans are constantly evolving, this can only mean they're ultimately on the losing end, swept out as change happens. And as the reality ever-so-slowly moves towards one that gets further and further from what they were used to, they can only get more and more embittered, and engage ever more so in an increasingly belligerent manner akin to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and singing loudly. In Kevin's case, that was what he was doing. He saw his "idol" Bush mention something that seemed intelligent and he latched onto tighter than a baby grips onto a pacifier, without actually quite knowing what it was about pacificsm that Chamberlain was so disparaged over, and he got called out for it, like it or not.

 

With regards to the whole pacificsm issue, perhaps it is the conservatives who need to take a deeper look. Personally, Bush's approach was simply giving the Taliban a common enemy to unite against. Obama's approach, on the other hand, seems more like a very cunning strategy of divide and conquer, by talking to certain factions only and splintering them. You're not gonna tell me as a soldier that you don't want a weakened enemy are you? What Obama is doing is not comparable to Chamberlain's strategy, which was to give in to Germany at any cost to avoid war.

[Gir]

The whole reason i even looked at this topic was because of,

 

Rabid anti-Obama moron

 

I don't really agree with what he's doing. I'm not saying i could run this country any better, but the other candidate sure would've. That man knows about sacrifice, and spent 8 years of his life living in constant agony. I find it funny how people think he's gonna keel over and die in office, but those 8 years in Vietnam, he pulled through.

 

But anyways...

 

But hey, the problem with this war's reason is that IF Bush and Blair HAD said something along the lines of "Saddam is a jerk, we're going in to get rid of them" and MEANT it, most people would happily support it. The problem is, Bush did NOT go in for that reason. He saw a profit in it for his buddies and he picked the excuse being that "OH NOES Saddam has WMDs and is going to attack USA soon!" Which to be fair, is patently untrue, and is now coming out to public knowledge that Blair had known all along that there wasn't any WMD and it was being used as a superficial excuse to wage war.

 

I don't think the UN would've supported an opinionated war "Hussein in a jerk" won't fly too far, because some may not think that way. When you have a textbook reason (violation of Geneva Conventions), you are clears to attack. Him having WMDs was a green light (again, they did find WMDs *Mustard Gas*, look it up, find the CIA report).

 

I've never been anti-war. However I AM anti war-for-the-wrong-reasons. To me, that is dishonest. Similiarly, I'm also anti people who debate in a dishonest manner. It's taken how many pages? 4? 5? Before I see one post from you without the whole smart-a**ness, without the attitude-showing "Bra"s and the needless, pointless remarks. How much better if, 4 pages ago you could have the courage to admit that yes, you were trying to be a smarta** and it backfired, and that when you made your hitler comment you simply had not given Jag's ernest question enough consideration. We wouldn't have needed to drag through 4 pages of you doing a Kevin would we? The end result would still the same, someone would name other criminals in rebuttal and then you could have not needed to pretend that you already had an opinion about them all along when giving your little "Hitler" remark. Instead now that you are wording your point of view in a sensible manner, it becomes so much easier to engage in a discussion.

 

Rabid anti-Obama moron

 

Who started what?

 

You're not gonna tell me as a soldier that you don't want a weakened enemy are you?

 

Yes, but to only deliver their righteous sentence they deserve. Just like how we got Saddam, and how we dealt with Saddam.

Back onto the video, I hope next time Kevin decides to talk about appeasement, he can actually answer to the point, instead of persistantly coming in at a tangent in an attempt to cover up his ignorance, or any mistake he might have made in failing to consider a point put to him. The problem with conservative people is all too often the reason they are conservative is simply because they are afraid of change and new ideas. Since humans are constantly evolving, this can only mean they're ultimately on the losing end, swept out as change happens. And as the reality ever-so-slowly moves towards one that gets further and further from what they were used to, they can only get more and more embittered, and engage ever more so in an increasingly belligerent manner akin to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and singing loudly. In Kevin's case, that was what he was doing. He saw his "idol" Bush mention something that seemed intelligent and he latched onto tighter than a baby grips onto a pacifier, without actually quite knowing what it was about pacificsm that Chamberlain was so disparaged over, and he got called out for it, like it or not.

 

Ok, your right, humans evolve. So with that, warfare evolves right? We're not using spears and bows like we used to. So why stop the advancement in our weapons, and weapon systems? Obama did! So that would contradict your statement wouldn't it? I'm not afraid of change, i'm the one that was behind the war the second it started, and enlisted the second i could when i was 17. War is a HUGE change for two countries, the one your fighting, and the aggressor. So how do i not adapt to change? I gave up my freedoms, and my very rights, to serve this fine country. I've given up 9+ months, in the last two years, for the military, and soon to be 14 months next year. SO in four years, almost half of those were spent away from home. I'd call that a change in life. So explain to me, how am i afraid of change?

 

Ultimately, this WHOLLEEEE argument comes down to, I'm sick of seeing people bash George Bush for the small things. Response time to Katrina, that was refusing federal aid. Invasions of two countries to free its citizens, AND put a stop to terrorism. It gets damn annoying hearing everywhere i go. "George Bush did it!"

[Seraphim989]

If they had found WMDs, why would they not make a HUGE deal of it? That was the entire reason for going to war and would have been a huge boost to the presidents popularity.

[Punkypink]

Like it or not, Kevin WAS a moron. The gist of him being a moron was the fact that he couldn't or refused, to answer to a simple question, to the point. People like him do more to harm the conservative stand you support than any liberal or left-wingers ever could. Besides, this is the what section of Arnies? Jokes and Humor. The joke being that Kevin is a moron. But since you wanted to engage in a serious discourse, then hey, you started it with the attitude. If it was a political discussion in a serious political section right from the start, the title would have been different.

 

If someone is gonna come up to me and start going on about how communism was the best system in the world, and when I asked him to quantify it all he did was run rings, I'm going to call him a left wing moron. Trust me, I had to spend a week with a left-wing moron recently. To him, everything was "capitalism's fault" with no justification whatsoever, and he obviously had no idea what he was talking about. Latched onto one keyword and then sounded like a broken record, just like Kevin. The politics have nothing to do with it, the way one debates one's corner does.

[Stealthbomber]

I don't think the UN would've supported an opinionated war "Hussein in a jerk" won't fly too far, because some may not think that way. When you have a textbook reason (violation of Geneva Conventions), you are clears to attack. Him having WMDs was a green light (again, they did find WMDs *Mustard Gas*, look it up, find the CIA report).

 

The UN did refuse to grant a new UN resolution granting the US power to attack Iraq on the grounds that they were funding terrorism.

 

Once that happened the CIA went away and "found" all the stuff about WMDs and used them to demonstrate that Iraq was already in breach of the UN resolution (1284) set up at the end of the first Gulf war which prohibited Iraq from possessing any weapon capable of carrying out an international strike.

 

On the basis of this (and, frankly, on the basis of several "look, we're doing this with you or without you so we'd prefer to have your support" conversations I suspect) the UN granted a new UN resolution (1441) which insisted on Iraqs compliance with their disarmament obligations.

 

Thing was (and this bit is REALLY machiavelian IMO), Iraq told quite a few fibs about how many weapons they had.

In order to appear more powerful in the eyes of their allies they'd kinda exxagerated the number of SCUD missiles they had in their arsenal etc.

 

So, when the time came to audit Iraqs disarmament, records showed that they had a stockpile of, say, 1000 missiles when in reality they might've only had 50.

Of course, it's kinda hard to prove you have destroyed 1000 missiles when you actually only have 50 that you can destroy.

 

THIS was the damning evidence that the CIA used to "prove" that Iraq hadn't disarmed and, subsequently, led to the invasion in 2003.

 

Now, I'm not gonna get into the whole argument about whether it was right or wrong to invade Iraq while leaving guys like Robert Mugabe alone to chop up his detractors with a machete and set them on fire but I just wanted to clarify the "textbook reason" Bush had for initiating the UN resolution which led to the invasion.

 

Basically, they used technicalities to start the war and then started feeding the public the story about WMDs, along with vague mutterings about the WTC attacks.

Hell, it's no accident that a significant proportion of the american population STILL thinks the war in Iraq was in reprisal for the 9/11 attacks.

It's a piece of disinformation which was spread at every opportunity and left to gain its own momentum without anybody officially ever trying to set things straight.

 

 

Beyond that, it always kinda worried me when Dubyah used to kick off with the whole "You're either with us or you're against us" nonsense.

When a leader starts to use stuff like that to defend the foreign policy of a global superpower it's very dodgy.

 

Funny thing is, a lot of americans (much like Gir) seem to have bought it hook, line and sinker.

They have been told that their country is right and supporting it is the patriotic thing to do.

Now that, alone, is almost forgivable. Almost.

What's unforgivable is the way the political right seems to be suggesting that anybody with an opposing view is a leftie and, because they don't agree with policies which've already been dubbed "patriotic", they're somehow not a patriotic american.

That IS unforgivable IMO.

 

 

Anyway, the only point is that I think there's way too little thought goes into a lot of political thinking.

Liberals think of conservatives as "nazis" who, in turn, think of liberals as "pinkos" or "traitors to the flag" etc.

What's needed is for people to set aside their political affiliations and acknowledge issues on merit.

Bush was probably an appropriate leader for the time.

So was Winston Churchill and look what happened to him.

 

I'll end with a simple question to Gir (and any other conservatives out there) which I'd really like a straight answer to.

Setting aside your hatred for the pinko TV station that was obviously determined to discredit the guy in that video, do you REALLY think that guy did anything positive for the cause of conservatism in the USA or do you think that, by throwing words like "appeasement" around without knowing what they mean, he had a negative effect?

 

That's really all this thread is about.

[Punkypink]

I'm willing to go as far as to admit that they probably picked Kevin precisely because he is a moron, to make the conservatives look like cacks. Doesn't change the fact that Kev IS a moron. He wouldn't have been picked otherwise.

[Stealthbomber]

I suppose it's vaguely possible that he didn't want to answer the question because he'd realised where it was leading.

I doubt it though.

 

Thing is, if he DID understand where the debate was going, you'd think he'd realise that answering the question wouldn't make things any worse.

It would, however, make him look smart and also give him a few seconds to form a response to the inevitable follow-up question about what Obama and his buddies were actually planning on giving to the baddies.

If it was me I would have answered that one by saying "recognition and credibility" but, hey, it's always easier when you're not under pressure.

[Punkypink]

Personally I doubt Kevin was planning that far ahead. I think he just simply had no idea.

[Gir]

I'm willing to go as far as to admit that they probably picked Kevin precisely because he is a moron, to make the conservatives look like cacks. Doesn't change the fact that Kev IS a moron. He wouldn't have been picked otherwise.

 

And Fox will pick moron Democrats to talk, and shoot them down left and right. Its media. CNN won't dare call Rush Limbaugh, and FOX wont dare call the left sided equivalent. Just as much as both sides will use scare tactics to make the country run around in fear (the scare that Bush would lock down the 2008 elections and run the country under a dictatorship, and the "Obama gun ban" scare).

 

Stealth,

 

I think Bush did an exceptional job in his term in the white house. I think he made America the safe place it is today. No one president is perfect. When you vote you vote for the better of two evils, IMO. Bush handled everything he was thrown at him like a President should.

[Punkypink]

And Fox will pick moron Democrats to talk, and shoot them down left and right. Its media. CNN won't dare call Rush Limbaugh, and FOX wont dare call the left sided equivalent. Just as much as both sides will use scare tactics to make the country run around in fear (the scare that Bush would lock down the 2008 elections and run the country under a dictatorship, and the "Obama gun ban" scare).

Cuz they will, which is why, this topic was about one such moron! We're supposed to LAUGH at him for being a moron, not go into what his views are. This is the humor and jokes section.