DescentBB

http://ft.trillian.im/37d415a475cffd877 ... bMtlnB.jpg

If it were 1941, I wouldn't be burdened with the ravings of the neighborhood crank from the other side of the country!

very solid point, Vander. Don't you love it when the post picture(I thought we weren't supposed to be posting images anymore?) starts with 'I think this would have been what happened'.........You just know you are dealing with whacko opinions from that point on.

He posted it in the cafe and then it got moved here because it didn't belong there.

Ferno made a suggestion that instead of punishing everyone by disabling images in E&C, we should instead just prevent specific users from being able to post images. I'm beginning to warm up to the idea.

No…leave them off for everyone, if someone uses another forum so they can post images that would normally be posted here, just delete them (the thread) and give a ban warning.

Don’t move the thread here with the image intact, that only provides a workaround.

Spidey wrote:No…leave them off for everyone, if someone uses another forum so they can post images that would normally be posted here, just delete them (the thread) and give a ban warning.

Don’t move the thread here with the image intact, that only provides a workaround.

Agreed. For now, I've replaced the image with a link, but in the future I won't be so accommodating.

I'm reminded yet again that political cartoonists are comprised of those who managed to flunk out of both journalism and art schools.

and we see that there's people who still try to abuse the privilege.

So something posted in light hearted humor is condemned as some sort of egregious affront to the BB?

Some people here have serious stick up their rear problems.

Nightshade wrote:So something posted in light hearted humor is condemned as some sort of egregious affront to the BB?

Some people here have serious stick up their rear problems.

nooooo, more like you got butthurt over the fact you couldn't do it in EnC and decided to do it in cafe.

I guess that NS is forgetting that is was a liberal president, FDR, who declared war on Japan and Germany and a liberal, Harry Truman, who finished that war. Unlike good ol' Republican Dubya, who left the whole Iraq disaster he created for the next president clean up, Obama, and now conservatives complain about how Obama's dealing with the whole mess. Typical.

Kind of like how rowdy kids trash a place during a house party and then blame the owner for letting them come, huh?

tunnelcat wrote:I guess that NS is forgetting that is was a liberal president, FDR, who declared war on Japan and Germany and a liberal, Harry Truman, who finished that war. Unlike good ol' Republican Dubya, who left the whole Iraq disaster he created for the next president clean up, Obama, and now conservatives complain about how Obama's dealing with the whole mess. Typical.

And just how could Bush have finished the job considering the term limits?

You've obviously forgotten his premature "Mission Accomplished" banner plastered on the top of the command structure of an aircraft carrier and his little pathetic speech while standing underneath saying we'd won days after his pathetic bombing compaign. He didn't have Saddam in handcuffs and Iraqis were still shooting at our troops or blowing them up with IED's while he stood there like a proud papa. After that, he dropped the ball and lost all interest in really finishing what he'd started because it became a quagmire he couldn't get out of cleanly and quickly. Did he finish the job? No. Should he have even started that war in the first place, NO!

There's some nuance with the Mission Accomplished banner. It was targeted at the ship itself, whose mission was actually accomplished. (they were returning from deployment)

I’m not forgetting anything, I’m simply pointing out the fact that our system by default leaves incoming presidents with the messes or accomplishments of their predecessors.

.........

And I will say this for the umpteenth time…

Nobody puts a gun to the head of anybody and forces them to clean up the mess left by a president…He asked for the job!

And people need to quit blaming Obama for a mess that was impossible to clean up in the first place. Bush didn't just scribble on the house walls with crayons, he set the whole house on fire with napalm. Bush couldn't even finish it during his term and he was a Republican warhawk with years left in his 2 terms, with seasoned military advisors at hand and plenty of time to complete the task, if he'd bothered to put the effort in it, which he didn't, so conservatives need to quit their damn whining about Obama's war when they couldn't win the thing either. Also, don't forget that the American people had become sick of the war by the time Obama took office and they wanted Obama to pull our troops out, which he did as promised.

Vander, during that speech, Bush stated that "this was the end of major combat operations in Iraq". Yeah, suuuuure. After that speech, the Iraqi insurgency that arose was responsible for the vast majority of combat and civilian casualties to date. In 2008, Bush said he regretted having that banner up in the first place. Too little, too late Dubya.

Spidey wrote:
Nobody puts a gun to the head of anybody and forces them to clean up the mess left by a president…He asked for the job!

and you guys gave it to him.

Bush declared that the war in Iraq was over, but I don’t recall him ever saying the war against terror was over. And even though I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq, it did give us one tactical advantage…that being, keeping the front line over there, and the idea of keeping troops and bases over there would have kept that front line over there, now we have to deal with a two front war, one over there, and the other over here.

There's where you're wrong and every Republican is wrong and every Dem that agrees with their nationalistic policing ideals is wrong. We shouldn't even BE over there meddling around in those countries, at all. They're sovereign nations. They have a right to their own autonomy. They don't want us there. That's why WE'RE the target of terrorists. They're striking back. We've been invading their lands for centuries. We've been trying to convert Muslims to Christianity for centuries over there without thought to whether they might take exception. We've been taking and running their oil reserves like we own them. Don't you think they have the right to now be just a little pissed off at us? Wouldn't you be in their shoes? Have you ever played the game "Homefront" Spidey? It's about what would happen if a foreign country, North Korea in this case, invaded the U.S. and took over as foreign oppressors. So what do we as American players actually do in that game? Why, we run the guerrilla insurgency naturally. What goes around comes around.

tunnelcat wrote:Vander, during that speech, Bush stated that "this was the end of major combat operations in Iraq". Yeah, suuuuure. After that speech, the Iraqi insurgency that arose was responsible for the vast majority of combat and civilian casualties to date. In 2008, Bush said he regretted having that banner up in the first place. Too little, too late Dubya.

Yeah, I know. I'm just talking about the banner itself. I find it strangely interesting that it's come to signify a lot of things from that moment, but in reality it was just a nod to those specific sailors.

You’re not really a very good study of history, I’m sure you are referring to the infamous “crusades” that you keep mentioning like they happened in a vacuum.* And I don’t know if you are aware but most Middle East countries nationalized their oil production decades ago.

*Try studying up on the history that led up to them.

tunnelcat wrote:And people need to quit blaming Obama for a mess that was impossible to clean up in the first place. Bush didn't just scribble on the house walls with crayons, he set the whole house on fire with napalm. Bush couldn't even finish it during his term and he was a Republican warhawk with years left in his 2 terms, with seasoned military advisors at hand and plenty of time to complete the task, if he'd bothered to put the effort in it, which he didn't, so conservatives need to quit their damn whining about Obama's war when they couldn't win the thing either. Also, don't forget that the American people had become sick of the war by the time Obama took office and they wanted Obama to pull our troops out, which he did as promised.

Iraq was, for all intensive purposes...won when Bush left office. This is why Obama was quick to pull all troops out. The Rookie in Chief, so knowing and smart about foreign affairs, didn't even sign a status of forces agreement with Irag. If he had we wouldn't see ISIS ballooning like they have.

woodchip wrote: Iraq was, for all intensive purposes...won when Bush left office.

sorry but no, it wasn't. It was a papered-over disaster waiting to happen. Bush had, knowing that, agreed to withdraw and all Obama did was no reconsider a status agreement that was cooked up by the Iraqis that would have left our people criminally liable in Iraq for civilian deaths.

Spidey wrote:You’re not really a very good study of history, I’m sure you are referring to the infamous “crusades” that you keep mentioning like they happened in a vacuum.* And I don’t know if you are aware but most Middle East countries nationalized their oil production decades ago.

*Try studying up on the history that led up to them.

Perhaps I'm no scholar concerning the Crusades, I'll admit it. But from what I've read bout them, Chrisitianity and Islam have been attacking each other since the inception of both religions, so today's agression between the 2 religions is not new. I do know that the Crusades were a response to Muslim agressions against Christians, or so their side of history telling says, but that old bitterness is obviously still raw, or else we wouldn't still see violence, terrorism and constant attempts to convert people over from each other's religions like it's a contest. I find all this fighting over who's religion is the proper religion nothing but an idiotic and counterproductive groupthink that only starts pointless wars.

But the real meat of the hatred towards the U.S. and Europe can be directly traced to our claim on their oil. Nationalization made not one wit of difference on who got to control, pump and sell that oil either.

http://m.jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote: Iraq was, for all intensive purposes...won when Bush left office.

sorry but no, it wasn't. It was a papered-over disaster waiting to happen. Bush had, knowing that, agreed to withdraw and all Obama did was no reconsider a status agreement that was cooked up by the Iraqis that would have left our people criminally liable in Iraq for civilian deaths.

So what you are saying is Obama was too inept to be able to negotiate out the criminal liability.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote: Iraq was, for all intensive purposes...won when Bush left office.

sorry but no, it wasn't. It was a papered-over disaster waiting to happen. Bush had, knowing that, agreed to withdraw and all Obama did was no reconsider a status agreement that was cooked up by the Iraqis that would have left our people criminally liable in Iraq for civilian deaths.

So what you are saying is Obama was too inept to be able to negotiate out the criminal liability.

no, I'm saying a sovereign nation refused to budge. Don't read much, do you?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote: Iraq was, for all intensive purposes...won when Bush left office.

sorry but no, it wasn't. It was a papered-over disaster waiting to happen. Bush had, knowing that, agreed to withdraw and all Obama did was no reconsider a status agreement that was cooked up by the Iraqis that would have left our people criminally liable in Iraq for civilian deaths.

So what you are saying is Obama was too inept to be able to negotiate out the criminal liability.

no, I'm saying a sovereign nation refused to budge. Don't read much, do you?

Actually it was 2 sovereign nations that refused to budge. Too bad Obama lacked the negotiation skills that might of changed things. I suspect Trump would of done a much better job.

I suspect you are a fool, if you think Donald Trump could accomplish anything beyond the destruction of the US from within. Let's look at those business chops again. He got 200 million inherited, and turned it into $2.3 Billion, according to Forbes. It's been discussed here already how merely leaving that stake in a stock index would have him worth about 7 billion today. However, further analysis of potential leaders gets us to Paris Hilton. She was given around $2 million, and is worth close to $1 billion. I suppose this means that Paris Hilton could have REALLY gotten us a great deal and it is HER that the GOP needs to nominate as Leader of the Free World. Would help shore up the women's vote a wee bit, too.

I love how you use entirely useless extrapolations. As to destroying America, Obama has already started the process and Hillary Clinton will finish it.

woodchip wrote:I love how you use entirely useless extrapolations. As to destroying America, Obama has already started the process and Hillary Clinton will finish it.

says the guy who cheerleads for a fascist. I guess you hit, though, upon the core issue for your side. Everything in current Republican politics is predicated upon 'America is broken, and being destroyed'. Yet, while we have some terrorism issues, nothing compared to Europe during Obama's tenure, and nothing as dire as what happened on the watches of Clinton or Bush. Our economy is slowly rebounding, and employment along with it. Wages are starting to rise, oil prices have fallen. The stock market is nearly triple the value it was when Obama took office. We are far less involved in foreign wars with our troops. Millions of Americans now have and USE access to medical care who didn't. One can go on for a while, but the bottom line is this: America is not 'lost', America is not 'broken', America in not some sort of disaster needing radical fixes. If the GOP thinks they can marshall enough scared little wimps willing to buy into that fear-based narrative they are selling, I would be alarmed. I am still confident that reality will prevail, and see no numbers to indicate that it won't. Too bad the Republicans cannot put forth a positive voice for IMPROVEMENT, not a fear-based retreat.

What "process" has Obama started?

Vander wrote:What "process" has Obama started?

can't you see, man? The process of taking the nation from 'us', dammit, and we all have to be very, very scared!!!

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote: Iraq was, for all intensive purposes...won when Bush left office.

sorry but no, it wasn't. It was a papered-over disaster waiting to happen. Bush had, knowing that, agreed to withdraw and all Obama did was no reconsider a status agreement that was cooked up by the Iraqis that would have left our people criminally liable in Iraq for civilian deaths.

So what you are saying is Obama was too inept to be able to negotiate out the criminal liability.

no, I'm saying a sovereign nation refused to budge. Don't read much, do you?

Actually it was 2 sovereign nations that refused to budge. Too bad Obama lacked the negotiation skills that might of changed things. I suspect Trump would of done a much better job.

There's a difference between business negotiations and state negotiations. With business negotiations, both sides are interested in making a deal on somewhat friendly terms and at least getting it done for profit's sake. With state negotiations, neither side wants to give any ground or relinquish any territory and typically both sides hate each others guts anyway and want nothing to do with each other in the first place. Trump would probably lose his temper, let his xenophobia take over, throw up his hands and restart 2 wars on a larger scale because his ego would be frustrated that nothing was being accomplished under his watch and thereby besmirching his gold-plated name.