The legacy of President George W. Bush - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-09-2010, 08:26 PM   #421
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,934
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
i miss him like lance armstrong misses cancer.
__________________

coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 08:54 PM   #422
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Daddy didn't have a long-standing feud with Osama.
Who knew taking out your Daddy issues on an entire nation could have such terrible consequences? Not W.
__________________

U2isthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 03:18 PM   #423
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
here's something we can blame on Bush:

Got a little news for ya, 1. even if Bin Ladin had been captured or killed at Tora Bora in 2001, Al Quada would still exist today, the taliban would still be fighting in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

2. No amount of troops or reinforcements would have guaranteed the killing or capture of Bin Ladin in 2001. The area had difficult terain, and many caves and tunnels which could easily allow an individual or small group of individuals to escape. Even with todays much larger deployment of troops and resources, small groups of Taliban fighters still go back and forth across the border undetected.

3. Once again, lets try to remember that Bin Ladin and Al Quada existed prior to Bush coming into office. Clinton had years and several opportunities to kill or capture Bin Ladin and failed to. Clinton had the option for a far more aggressive stance towards Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet both were still well in place years after they had bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing hundreds of American citizens and Kenyan and Tanzanian citizens.


The fact is, when Clinton left office, the Taliban were still in power in Afghanistan, and Saddam was still in power in Iraq. Bush removed both of these threats from power.

Oh and by the way, claiming that Bush lost the war in Afghanistan as well as the war in Iraq is probably the most absurd thing you have ever said in this forum. The original goal of each war was to remove the ruling regime in each country, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Saddam regime in Iraq. Both regimes were removed within weeks of Bush ordering the military to do so.

With both regimes removed the long process of nation building in both countries was started. There have been set backs and huge accomplishments in this process in both countries. But this is a process that has historically taken 10+ years or even decades to complete.

Iraq today has a standard of living better than a country like Morocco and violence is down to levels as low as the United States based on the number of people murdered per month and compared to the USA on a per capita basis. The Iraqi military has made great strides over the past 6 years in developing into a force that can handle security on its own in Iraq. Economic growth continues and companies from around the world are coming in to develop Iraq's oil fields which in the coming years will generate enormous wealth for the country. Politically, while there has been much trouble, things are being handled through discussions and negotiotions instead of violence. The difference between today and just before the Surge in January 2007 is basically night and day. Even Obama, who opposed the Surge has admitted that it worked. There has been total continuity between both administrations on Iraq. Bush's policies in Iraq were so successful that Obama chose to continue those same policies when he came into office.

The setbacks in Afghanistan have been unfortunate, but do not change the fact that much has been accomplished there since 2001. While the Taliban have become resurgent thanks to their sancturaies in Pakistan, they have not been able to take or hold any major towns in Afghanistan. The Surge in Afghanistan will work, just as it did in Iraq. Afghanistan is a larger and much less developed country than Iraq, which is part of the reason why the efforts there are running into more problems. But provided the US and other countries do not abandon the effort, it will eventually succeed in helping Afghanistan develop into a country that can handle its own internal security problems without the need for significant numbers of foreign troops.


By the way, are you still supporting Biden's old plan to carve up Iraq into different countries?
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 03:41 PM   #424
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 09:32 PM
Indy, did you do this????

The mystery billboard | News Cut | Minnesota Public Radio
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 04:42 PM   #425
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Got a little news for ya, 1. even if Bin Ladin had been captured or killed at Tora Bora in 2001, Al Quada would still exist today, the taliban would still be fighting in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

2. No amount of troops or reinforcements would have guaranteed the killing or capture of Bin Ladin in 2001. The area had difficult terain, and many caves and tunnels which could easily allow an individual or small group of individuals to escape. Even with todays much larger deployment of troops and resources, small groups of Taliban fighters still go back and forth across the border undetected.

3. Once again, lets try to remember that Bin Ladin and Al Quada existed prior to Bush coming into office. Clinton had years and several opportunities to kill or capture Bin Ladin and failed to. Clinton had the option for a far more aggressive stance towards Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet both were still well in place years after they had bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing hundreds of American citizens and Kenyan and Tanzanian citizens.


The fact is, when Clinton left office, the Taliban were still in power in Afghanistan, and Saddam was still in power in Iraq. Bush removed both of these threats from power.

Oh and by the way, claiming that Bush lost the war in Afghanistan as well as the war in Iraq is probably the most absurd thing you have ever said in this forum. The original goal of each war was to remove the ruling regime in each country, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Saddam regime in Iraq. Both regimes were removed within weeks of Bush ordering the military to do so.

With both regimes removed the long process of nation building in both countries was started. There have been set backs and huge accomplishments in this process in both countries. But this is a process that has historically taken 10+ years or even decades to complete.

Iraq today has a standard of living better than a country like Morocco and violence is down to levels as low as the United States based on the number of people murdered per month and compared to the USA on a per capita basis. The Iraqi military has made great strides over the past 6 years in developing into a force that can handle security on its own in Iraq. Economic growth continues and companies from around the world are coming in to develop Iraq's oil fields which in the coming years will generate enormous wealth for the country. Politically, while there has been much trouble, things are being handled through discussions and negotiotions instead of violence. The difference between today and just before the Surge in January 2007 is basically night and day. Even Obama, who opposed the Surge has admitted that it worked. There has been total continuity between both administrations on Iraq. Bush's policies in Iraq were so successful that Obama chose to continue those same policies when he came into office.

The setbacks in Afghanistan have been unfortunate, but do not change the fact that much has been accomplished there since 2001. While the Taliban have become resurgent thanks to their sancturaies in Pakistan, they have not been able to take or hold any major towns in Afghanistan. The Surge in Afghanistan will work, just as it did in Iraq. Afghanistan is a larger and much less developed country than Iraq, which is part of the reason why the efforts there are running into more problems. But provided the US and other countries do not abandon the effort, it will eventually succeed in helping Afghanistan develop into a country that can handle its own internal security problems without the need for significant numbers of foreign troops.


By the way, are you still supporting Biden's old plan to carve up Iraq into different countries?



Strongbow: you are on my ignore list. please respect that and stop trolling my posts.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 05:29 PM   #426
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
No, if I was gonna shell out the dough for a huge billboard you can be assured that it would somehow involve boobies.

And yes, I aware that many of you consider GWB a big boob.
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 05:33 PM   #427
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,934
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And yes, I aware that many of you consider GWB a big boob.
ah damn it i wanted to point that out.
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 07:28 PM   #428
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Strongbow: you are on my ignore list. please respect that and stop trolling my posts.

Wow!? Guess what, responding to another persons post is NOT considered to be trolling!

If I was indeed on your ignore list, you wouldn't be able to quote me. LOL
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 07:59 PM   #429
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,733
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

If I was indeed on your ignore list, you wouldn't be able to quote me. LOL
Incorrect.
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 08:12 PM   #430
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,622
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Wow!? Guess what, responding to another persons post is NOT considered to be trolling!
Then you'll just have to be ok with the fact that replying to Irvine's posts won't produce any replies from him. So if you're lining up a 10 page response to really show him, consider that you won't get any reply from him on it.

Quote:
If I was indeed on your ignore list, you wouldn't be able to quote me. LOL
Incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Incorrect.
Correct.
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 08:14 PM   #431
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,934
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Correct.



i don't know why
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 12:56 AM   #432
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Then you'll just have to be ok with the fact that replying to Irvine's posts won't produce any replies from him. So if you're lining up a 10 page response to really show him, consider that you won't get any reply from him on it.
Well, I just got a reply from him even though I'm supposedly on his ignore list. Its not the first time thats happened either.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 01:00 AM   #433
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Incorrect.
Ok. I don't really know because I have never put anyone in here on an "ignore list".
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 08:57 AM   #434
The Fly
 
TonyH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 71
Local Time: 09:32 PM

All I know is that if Obama and Reid and Pelosi had had their way in Iraq, Saddam and his sons would still be raping women, gassing the Kurds, and proliferating weapons to our enemies.
TonyH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 09:17 AM   #435
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Wow!? Guess what, responding to another persons post is NOT considered to be trolling!


wow, guess what, you go through threads and pull up posts of mine from weeks ago and cut-and-paste your usual antagonistic bullshit. it isn't intended to start any sort of debate or discussion, it's intended to try and get a rise out of me.

perhaps you feel the need to try and score some make-up points because i used to take the time to dismantle and destroy your "arguments" over the years. no longer. i added you to my Ignore List -- the only person, ever -- well over a year ago, and i have almost never respond to in any direct way for well over a year, and on the rare occasion that i do, it's because i've had a slip in judgment and given in to your antagonism.

you can obviously do what you like, and this is a public message board, but i am asking you to please leave me alone.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 12:40 PM   #436
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
wow, guess what, you go through threads and pull up posts of mine from weeks ago and cut-and-paste your usual antagonistic bullshit. .
LOL, I entered this one thread on the legacy of George W. Bush and responded TO ONE POST! There was nothing ataganoistic about what I said. Just discussing the issues. Unfortunately, you can't seem to discuss issues without making false, inaccurate, and absurd comments about other forum members which have NOTHING to do with the issues.

Quote:
it isn't intended to start any sort of debate or discussion, it's intended to try and get a rise out of me.
Again, what I discuss are the issues. What you like to discuss are the alleged posting habbits of other people as your most recent post once again proves.


Quote:
perhaps you feel the need to try and score some make-up points because i used to take the time to dismantle and destroy your "arguments" over the years.
LOL, usually what would happen is that after failing to do just that, you would turn your focus on the poster with tons of labling, name calling, and comments about the poster rather than the issue being discussed, just as you are doing here.

I can bring up plenty of examples if you like.


Quote:
i added you to my Ignore List -- the only person, ever -- well over a year ago, and i have almost never respond to in any direct way for well over a year, and on the rare occasion that i do, it's because i've had a slip in judgment and given in to your antagonism.
This post by you is an example of antagonism. Discussing issues in this forum is not considered to be antaganistic. Discussing posters and their alleged posting habbits as you like to do, as well as labling them, is antaganistic behavior.

Quote:
you can obviously do what you like, and this is a public message board, but i am asking you to please leave me alone.
Well, if I'm really on your ignore list, I don't see how this is an issue.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 01:13 PM   #437
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Strongbow, it's extremely dishonest of you to say that you're not antagonistic. You post lies as fact to get a rise out of people.
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 01:21 PM   #438
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Strongbow, it's extremely dishonest of you to say that you're not antagonistic. You post lies as fact to get a rise out of people.
I don't post lies, I post facts and opinions. I focus on the issues. Thats not antagonistic. Focusing on other people and making irrelevant and unnecessary comments about other people is antagonistic.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 01:39 PM   #439
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 12:32 AM
I consider your posts a personal attack on my intelligence. Personal attacks are against the rules, so I suggest you look in your own backyard.

I'm probably going to join Irvine in putting you on my Ignore List.
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 03:26 PM   #440
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,622
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
LOL, I entered this one thread on the legacy of George W. Bush and responded TO ONE POST! There was nothing ataganoistic about what I said. Just discussing the issues. Unfortunately, you can't seem to discuss issues without making false, inaccurate, and absurd comments about other forum members which have NOTHING to do with the issues.



Again, what I discuss are the issues. What you like to discuss are the alleged posting habbits of other people as your most recent post once again proves.




LOL, usually what would happen is that after failing to do just that, you would turn your focus on the poster with tons of labling, name calling, and comments about the poster rather than the issue being discussed, just as you are doing here.

I can bring up plenty of examples if you like.




This post by you is an example of antagonism. Discussing issues in this forum is not considered to be antaganistic. Discussing posters and their alleged posting habbits as you like to do, as well as labling them, is antaganistic behavior.



Well, if I'm really on your ignore list, I don't see how this is an issue.
Jesus, Sting. Drop it already. It's ok to relent and let an issue drop without having said your piece. Irvine has asked you to leave him alone. It would be great if you could honor that request.

And for the record:

Quote:
Discussing issues in this forum is not considered to be antaganistic.
It most certainly can be, depending of course on how you're discussing the issues.
__________________

Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×