Worst President Ever!!! Approval Rating Drops!!!

[RightinNYC]

You are very welcome.

Awwww, now after that, how are we supposed to go back to yelling at each other?

On a side note, I had a very nice conversation with another Gunnery Sergeant the other day, very friendly fellow.

 

[MSgt]

Awwww, now after that, how are we supposed to go back to yelling at each other?

On a side note, I had a very nice conversation with another Gunnery Sergeant the other day, very friendly fellow.

Yeah, we're known to drop our guard from time to time. In such occasions we normally follow up by a self thrashing of discipline.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
By attacking Iraq, we have dispensed with a corrupt sham sustained by our "Old European" critics and the general American: the notion that a dictator, no matter how cruel and illegitimate, is untouchable behind his "sovereign" borders. What you have suggested enough times is that as long as Saddam practiced, through his written laws, abuse and tyranny upon his own people without exporting them beyond his borders as he did with Kuwait and as he did through Palestinian martyrs, then he was "protected."

Tsk..tsk. If only Hitler knew the rules

Spare me the "Sadaam was a bad guy so thats why we went in" speech because that is total bullshit. Not that he wasn't bad, because he was, but that's not the reason we went there in the first place. You can say this a thousand times and it still won't be the reason. What this shows is that we are a country that has no respect for the law. When we joined the United Nations we agreed to respect the authority of sovereign nations no matter what was their inner termoil. And we don't care about those people he abused. C'mon, its obvious we don't. Here's proof. Every time I bring up certain atrocities that we are alleged to have made, your first reaction is to blow it off and say its nothing but bullshit. Anyone who cares about Iraqis would want an investigation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the truth or innocence of the ones involved. But there's none of that coming out of you. The only thing coming out of you is "bomb there asses", "this is war", "war is hell", "destroy the evil islam" and that's not caring about right or wrong or the concept of justice. I guess being a soldier you really can't afford to think in terms of morality. I'm not, so I do.

 

[MSgt]

Spare me the "Sadaam was a bad guy so thats why we went in" speech because that is total bullshit. Not that he wasn't bad, because he was, but that's not the reason we went there in the first place. You can say this a thousand times and it still won't be the reason. What this shows is that we are a country that has no respect for the law. When we joined the United Nations we agreed to respect the authority of sovereign nations no matter what was their inner termoil. And we don't care about those people he abused. C'mon, its obvious we don't. Here's proof. Every time I bring up certain atrocities that we are alleged to have made, your first reaction is to blow it off and say its nothing but bullshit. Anyone who cares about Iraqis would want an investigation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the truth or innocence of the ones involved. But there's none of that coming out of you. The only thing coming out of you is "bomb there asses", "this is war", "war is hell", "destroy the evil islam" and that's not caring about right or wrong or the concept of justice. I guess being a soldier you really can't afford to think in terms of morality. I'm not, so I do.

Oh yes....the neverending "we went to Iraq for ONE reason and ONE reason only.":roll:

You morality would be to leave the Iraqis to the misery of Saddam. Save that argument for someone you can fool.

My stance is that for every solution, there will be blood spilt and crying about it while holding dearly to the mundane details that every war brings will not sustain you to a victory. But then again, it really isn't your victory or loss is it? You prefer to criticize and boo any attempt. In the decades to come as Iran, Iraq, and Syria take on a new face, you can tell your children's children that you supported this grand effort by criticizing and bitching the whole way. I'm sure they'll be proud.:ind:

 

[RightinNYC]

Yeah, we're known to drop our guard from time to time. In such occasions we normally follow up by a self thrashing of discipline.

He was very nice and everything while handing me all my forms. Of course, he followed it up with "Now get these back to me in 14 days or I'll come to your apartment and beat your ass"...

 

[Paul]

The only thing coming out of you is "bomb there asses",

Since you paid no attention to the point I was trying to make but focused on a typo, I just wanted to let you know you used the wrong form of "there" I found an article that you might find helpful for future reference.

"There" indicates a place as in, "I live here not there." It is the opposite of "here." "Their" is the possessive of "they", as in "They live there but is isn't their house." Here you want to indicate that the house belongs to them. "They're" is a contraction of "they are", so that to say, "They're over there in their new house" means "They are over at that place in the new house that belongs to them."

http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/english_grammar_style/difference_between_their_there.html

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Oh yes....the neverending "we went to Iraq for ONE reason and ONE reason only."

What are you talking about? I didn't say this and it wasn't my point. My point was this notion of going in there to oust Saddam for the liberation of the Iraqi people is total bullshit and a complete joke. It's not the reason. And you f_ckin' know its not.

Originally posted by GySgt:
You morality would be to leave the Iraqis to the misery of Saddam. Save that argument for someone you can fool.

You don't know anything about my morality. In fact, I doubt if your even capable of knowing anything outside of your own skin. You can't for the life of you put the shoe on the other foot and see the world as others see it. How can you possibly learn anything new when you know everything already? Did you know listening is 75% of a conversation?

Originally posted by GySgt:
My stance is that for every solution, there will be blood spilt and crying about it while holding dearly to the mundane details that every war brings will not sustain you to a victory. But then again, it really isn't your victory or loss is it? You prefer to criticize and boo any attempt. In the decades to come as Iran, Iraq, and Syria take on a new face, you can tell your children's children that you supported this grand effort by criticizing and bitching the whole way. I'm sure they'll be proud.

When this country does things right, I'm its biggest supporter. When it does something wrong, I'm going to take my elected officials to task on that. Let me ask you a question. If you see your government doing something wrong, what would you do to address the issue?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Paul:
Since you paid no attention to the point I was trying to make but focused on a typo, I just wanted to let you know you used the wrong form of "there" I found an article that you might find helpful for future reference.

"There" indicates a place as in, "I live here not there." It is the opposite of "here." "Their" is the possessive of "they", as in "They live there but is isn't their house." Here you want to indicate that the house belongs to them. "They're" is a contraction of "they are", so that to say, "They're over there in their new house" means "They are over at that place in the new house that belongs to them."

Why thank you Paul. I'll make a note of that and try not to make the same mistake again. Your comments are always welcome.

 

[MSgt]

What are you talking about? I didn't say this and it wasn't my point. My point was this notion of going in there to oust Saddam for the liberation of the Iraqi people is total bullshit and a complete joke. It's not the reason. And you f_ckin' know its not.

Again, you are suggesting that there was "one" reason.

You don't know anything about my morality. In fact, I doubt if your even capable of knowing anything outside of your own skin. You can't for the life of you put the shoe on the other foot and see the world as others see it. How can you possibly learn anything new when you know everything already? Did you know listening is 75% of a conversation?

Of course it is..75% of the conversation is the other guy listening to me.

When this country does things right, I'm its biggest supporter. When it does something wrong, I'm going to take my elected officials to task on that. Let me ask you a question. If you see your government doing something wrong, what would you do to address the issue?

That's easy. I say what 'sucks' and write it quite eloquently for all to see. Should I write my Congressmen? No. Wouldn't matter. You have obviously shown dissent on this war in Iraq, but what have you achieved? Are we out? Has the Middle Eastern civilization begun building world class universities and libraries? Have they begun to use their people's oil money to create a wider infrastructure for water and power? Have you changed anything? I have my say when I vote, but keep in mind that I don't get wrapped around the axle when I don't agree with something the government does. I couldn't stand Clinton, but I knew he would only be around for a while and then he would be gone and there was nothing I could do to change anything outside of the voters booth. While I protect freedom, I don't have the luxury of fully enjoying it. Therefore, I don't see the big deal with things like the "Patriot Act." I also have the benefit of seeing the tactical side of military excursions through study, intel, and planning. I've never been much of a complainer.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
That's easy. I say what 'sucks' and write it quite eloquently for all to see. Should I write my Congressmen? No. Wouldn't matter. You have obviously shown dissent on this war in Iraq, but what have you achieved? Are we out? Has the Middle Eastern civilization begun building world class universities and libraries? Have they begun to use their people's oil money to create a wider infrastructure for water and power? Have you changed anything? I have my say when I vote, but keep in mind that I don't get wrapped around the axle when I don't agree with something the government does. I couldn't stand Clinton, but I knew he would only be around for a while and then he would be gone and there was nothing I could do to change anything outside of the voters booth. While I protect freedom, I don't have the luxury of fully enjoying it. Therefore, I don't see the big deal with things like the "Patriot Act." I also have the benefit of seeing the tactical side of military excursions through study, intel, and planning. I've never been much of a complainer.

It's not about what I have personally achieved or changed. It's simply my duty to my country to voice my opinion and take part in the political process with my vote. How you felt about Clinton is how I feel about Bush. For now, he's my President. In a couple years from now, we'll see what happens. You and I, don't see eye to eye. But I respect people who actively participate than the more apethetic of our tribe. Even if their activities is not what I would prefer. It's still better than not doing anything.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Name this horrible, awful, terrible president.

-He dragged the US into a war that they had no reason to be in.
-The nations we attacked had not attacked us, or in any way forced us to take action against them.
-It was largely thought that the president entered the war to secure US economic interests, although he claimed that he entered the war to "spread democracy in an area that was oppressed."
-The war cost the United States over 200 billion dollars.
-It started off involving some 25 nations, but most of them dropped out, leaving the US and one or two allies to handle it on their own.
-Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed.
-The public outrage against the president was enormous, and he was deeply hated throughout the US.
-The president claimed that he was not trying to occupy the countries, and as soon as was able, passed soverignity back to the countries that were invaded.

Okay, go ahead and guess.

Ready?


If you guessed Woodrow Wilson, good job.


Differences between the situation faced by Woodrow Wilson and George W Bush:

-We entered World War I with little to NO provocation, whereas in this War, we were attacked first.
-Both countries that were attacked in this war had fought wars with the US before, whereas in WWI, this was not the case.
-World War 1 cost far, far more.
-The number of US casualties was 137,000. Compare that to just over 2000 now. Less than 1.5 percent.
-100 times as many civilians were killed in WWI.
-George Bush was reelected, whereas Woodrow Wilson left office hated.

Think of this:

The country was so angry about Wilsons decision to involve the US in the war that as he left office in 1920, they elected numerous new Senators who pledged to pull out our forces and return to isolation. As a result, his plan for World Peace, the 14 Point Plan, was voted down by Congress, dooming the League of Nations to failure, and dooming the World to another, much more deadly war just a generation later. Thankfully, we have made the right decision where the people of 1920 did not. We have signified that we will NOT allow this war to be fought half-assedly. I wholeheartedly believe that abandoning Iraq right now would cause an international mess that would come back to bite us later on. Although it may be difficult, we MUST stay the course and see it through. If this is World War III, I hope not to see WW4.

How many people look back now and think about how awful World War I was, and how horrible of a president Woodrow Wilson was? The vast majority of the country HATED Wilson back then, and if you had told them that that war would go down in history as a necessary step toward democracy in Europe, they would have laughed in your face.

Think about that when people complain about how George Bush is the worst president in history.

The democrats practice ''amnesia" when it best suits them, & their agenda!
Actually...this is not news, ..nor is their love affair with people like Brittain's Neville Chamberlain in where they never met a man who didn't "mean well" in intent, ..that they didn't like to surrender to the evil that permeats the world so that "THEY" could say that THEY really stood for peace, ..in spite of the millions who were murdered by doing NOTHING at all.

To democrats & liberals "intention" is everything, ..but to hell with results, as long as they see THEMSELVES as more honorable & more desirious for peace than the common person who IS willing to help by actually fighting to destroy the evil.

Liberal appeasers & pacifists think themselves smarter than the rest of society, ..& of course they think they KNOW what is best for the rest of the world as well, AND of course only that same liberal would point out what few innocents dies tragically by collateral damage as they do in all great conflicts, ..but that same liberal would carefully fail to mention the hundreds of millions who died by doing what they think best, ..which is to simply ignore, & learn to co-exist with that evil., because afteral, ..liberals are for peace, & mean well, ..& what is so wrong about liberals pointing out the evils of America, ..because to the liberal appeasing pacifist they refuse to differenciate between the forces of good, & the forces of evil!

Exactly where we are here today!

 

[MSgt]

The democrats practice ''amnesia" when it best suits them, & their agenda!
Actually...this is not news, ..nor is their love affair with people like Brittain's Neville Chamberlain in where they never met a man who didn't "mean well" in intent, ..that they didn't like to surrender to the evil that permeats the world so that "THEY" could say that THEY really stood for peace, ..in spite of the millions who were murdered by doing NOTHING at all.

To democrats & liberals "intention" is everything, ..but to hell with results, as long as they see THEMSELVES as more honorable & more desirious for peace than the common person who IS willing to help by actually fighting to destroy the evil.

Liberal appeasers & pacifists think themselves smarter than the rest of society, ..& of course they think they KNOW what is best for the rest of the world as well, AND of course only that same liberal would point out what few innocents dies tragically by collateral damage as they do in all great conflicts, ..but that same liberal would carefully fail to mention the hundreds of millions who died by doing what they think best, ..which is to simply ignore, & learn to co-exist with that evil., because afteral, ..liberals are for peace, & mean well, ..& what is so wrong about liberals pointing out the evils of America, ..because to the liberal appeasing pacifist they refuse to differenciate between the forces of good, & the forces of evil!

Exactly where we are here today!

I have a WEALTH of negativity to speak of the global left, however, I shall refrain. I will simply say...

That for 50 years, the American left complained that we supported dictators instead of backing human rights and democracy. In September, the lefties got yet another dose of what they used to demand: Free elections in Afghanistan, long the victim of tyranny. The left's reaction? Ignore the success of the balloting and explain away its importance by bending the truth until it's as twisted as an arrow designed by a liberal-arts faculty. Why? Because Afghan democracy was enabled by the U.S. military — and by that devil incarnate, George W. Bush.

Welcome to the liberals world where even they are confused by what they believe in from day to day.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

I have a WEALTH of negativity to speak of the global left, however, I shall refrain. I will simply say...

That for 50 years, the American left complained that we supported dictators instead of backing human rights and democracy. In September, the lefties got yet another dose of what they used to demand: Free elections in Afghanistan, long the victim of tyranny. The left's reaction? Ignore the success of the balloting and explain away its importance by bending the truth until it's as twisted as an arrow designed by a liberal-arts faculty. Why? Because Afghan democracy was enabled by the U.S. military — and by that devil incarnate, George W. Bush.

Welcome to the liberals world where even they are confused by what they believe in from day to day.

Exactly right, & very well said. Modern Liberalsm is in conflict with its own ideology base, ..but do not tell them that, ..they are confused enough!:smile: