Pages:
Author

Topic: Jeb Bush blames Obama for ISIS...(but we all know stupid runs in the family) (Read 1179 times)

legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
..... Dick received 5 draft deferments. That is what you get when you're rich and drafted. Rush couldn't fight because of an ingrown hair on his ass. WTF? Even GW Bush literally went AWOL and would have been court-marshaled if not for Daddy's money.
Now these guys want to lead from the rear? Screw that. It's time to bring back the draft. A fair draft ....




But there's a way your draft scheme could work, draft them all and put them on the southern border facing the Mexican Cartels. 
The cartels are a valuable commodity that keep the drugs coming and help illegals get smuggled in to allow the deterioration of the country to continue. The military personnel are merely pawns to be used to protect corporate interests here and abroad.

A valuable commodity?  LOL, try living somewhere close to where they are influential and see how "Valuable" they are when people start telling you about those they know, or those members of their families, who have been murdered.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
..... Dick received 5 draft deferments. That is what you get when you're rich and drafted. Rush couldn't fight because of an ingrown hair on his ass. WTF? Even GW Bush literally went AWOL and would have been court-marshaled if not for Daddy's money.
Now these guys want to lead from the rear? Screw that. It's time to bring back the draft. A fair draft ....


But there's a way your draft scheme could work, draft them all and put them on the southern border facing the Mexican Cartels. 
The cartels are a valuable commodity that keep the drugs coming and help illegals get smuggled in to allow the deterioration of the country to continue. The military personnel are merely pawns to be used to protect corporate interests here and abroad.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
..... Dick received 5 draft deferments. That is what you get when you're rich and drafted. Rush couldn't fight because of an ingrown hair on his ass. WTF? Even GW Bush literally went AWOL and would have been court-marshaled if not for Daddy's money.
Now these guys want to lead from the rear? Screw that. It's time to bring back the draft. A fair draft ....

Ah, I think that "Bush AWOL" fantasy was pretty well disproven.

As for the bolded part I don't think that's realistic - not disagreeing with your sentiment, just commenting on the way committee decision processes work, by the time some legislation comes out of them, it's going to have loopholes like it was shot up by a hundred marksmen.

Anyway, the modern army (at least the US version) is older and somewhat technical.  The days of pulling 18 year old kids in and putting them on front lines in 3 or 6 months is yesterday's army.

But there's a way your draft scheme could work, draft them all and put them on the southern border facing the Mexican Cartels. 
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
My bad, got them mixed up -_- yes, you're right, the Suuni's were attacking the shiites.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
Fact is, George Bush killed Saddam Hussein, Saddam was violently surpressing the Suuni's who are now ISIS and after his death they were able to build a power base and start taking control of the region, this was happening far before Obama and it's something that both sides have helped perpertrate pretending Republicans aren't reponsible and only Democrats are is completely disingenious.

It was the opposite.

Saddam was favoring the Sunni Arabs, while discriminating against the Shiite Arabs and the Kurds. After he was overthrown, the Americans installed a government in which the Sunnis had hardly any influence. The central government undertook many measures, either directly or indirectly discriminating the Sunnis. The Sunnis became disgruntled, and they joined the ISIS.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1145
The revolution will be monetized!
The thing that pisses off my friends in the military is that the rich old white guys who talk big would never themselves go and fight. When they say "we" are going to get the terrorists, they mean they are going to send the poor. Nothing brave about sending someone else to die, yet they talk like they are some kind of fearless general with a plan. In reality they don't know a damn thing about war, terrorism, or the troops.
Take for example super hawk blowhards like Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh. Dick received 5 draft deferments. That is what you get when you're rich and drafted. Rush couldn't fight because of an ingrown hair on his ass. WTF? Even GW Bush literally went AWOL and would have been court-marshaled if not for Daddy's money.
Now these guys want to lead from the rear? Screw that. It's time to bring back the draft. A fair draft with no loopholes. I don't care if your elbow is sore or your knee hurts. Get your ass in the helicopter! I bet if these guys had a chance of being sent themselves we would not hear a peep about going to war. For them this is a chess game over brandy and cigars. For the troops it's a lifetime of hard work, fear, PTS, and family instability.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
First of all, it was the warmonger George W Bush (Jeb's older brother), who toppled the secular Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussain in Iraq and created the power vacuum in Iraq, which ultimately led to the creation of the ISIS. He is the one who is primarily responsible. Jeb Bush is just a clone of GW. He will be even worse than GW.
Bah.  GB did not create a "power vacuum" because he put and maintained troops on the ground in Iraq.  The power vacuum was created directly and 100% by Obama removing those troops and presence.

Let's at least get the facts and attribution of cause and effect right.

Oh come on, are you really going to excuse the actions of previous presidents purely due to your own partisanship? Ron Paul who many Republicans treat as the second coming of jesus wanted America out of Iraq entirely, I am sick to death of people defending people on 'their' side no matter how badly they fuck up or how blatantly wrong they are.

Fact is, George Bush killed Saddam Hussein, Saddam was violently surpressing the Suuni's who are now ISIS and after his death they were able to build a power base and start taking control of the region, this was happening far before Obama and it's something that both sides have helped perpertrate pretending Republicans aren't reponsible and only Democrats are is completely disingenious.

But knowing bullshit maintream politics, you're either going to accuse me of being a Democrat or you're going to ignore my post entirely and rant about Obama some more.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
First of all, it was the warmonger George W Bush (Jeb's older brother), who toppled the secular Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussain in Iraq and created the power vacuum in Iraq, which ultimately led to the creation of the ISIS. He is the one who is primarily responsible. Jeb Bush is just a clone of GW. He will be even worse than GW.
Bah.  GB did not create a "power vacuum" because he put and maintained troops on the ground in Iraq.  The power vacuum was created directly and 100% by Obama removing those troops and presence.

Let's at least get the facts and attribution of cause and effect right.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
First of all, it was the warmonger George W Bush (Jeb's older brother), who toppled the secular Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussain in Iraq and created the power vacuum in Iraq, which ultimately led to the creation of the ISIS. He is the one who is primarily responsible. Jeb Bush is just a clone of GW. He will be even worse than GW.
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
Of Course Jeb Bush Would Have Invaded Iraq! He Signed On To PNAC Six Years Before!

By Brandon Turbeville

When Jeb Bush (Jon Ellis Bush – J.E.B.) announced that, like his dimwitted and bloodthirsty brother, he too would have invaded Iraq had he been president at the time, ire was drawn in virtually all corners of the American populace with the exception, of course, of the typical warmongering Neo-Con segments.

After all, how could anyone suggest that he would have also invaded Iraq despite the fact that there were never any weapons of mass destruction (a term that itself was created by Western governments and their media mouthpieces), that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda, and that the weakened country posed absolutely no threat to the US? How could anyone suggest that the Iraq invasion was legitimate 12 years on with American forces still involved and the situation on the ground millions of times worse?

The answer is simple – Jeb Bush had always wanted to invade Iraq. A staunch and longstanding member of the Neo-Con network, Jeb had taken his stand in favor of American imperialism when he signed on to the Project For A New American Century’s Statement of Principles in 1997.

Although the Statement of Principles did not specifically advocate for an attack on Iraq, it did argue against the perceived “cuts,” “inattention,” and bad “leadership” of the previous administration despite the fact that Bill Clinton acted as a complete tool of the very same network that encompasses the PNAC. This statement did, however, clearly state that America must “challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values,” a position that would become realized in an even more obvious and direct manner in the years following its publication.

Perhaps most notably, however, is the PNAC document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” a piece published by the organization in 1999 expressing the desire to destroy regimes in the Middle East that were hostile toward America’s ambitions abroad. The document was also seen as more-than-coincidentally prophetic of 9/11, a “new Pearl Harbor” style event that was alluded to in the document.

Rebuilding America’s Defenses reads,

Quote
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century 51 policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Notably, in this document, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea are listed as the most important targets of the “transformed” US military. It is no coincidence that four of these listed countries were also listed by General Wesley Clark as slated for destruction per classified information he received on a visit to the Pentagon.

In 1996, a policy document prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was written by Richard Perle and entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” In this document Perle, a notorious Neo-Con and fellow member of PNAC with Jeb Bush, described the strategic importance of removing Saddam Hussein from power as well as the necessity to weaken Syria.

Perle wrote that “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”

PNAC also sent an open letter to President Bill Clinton after a Clinton administration and Western media propaganda campaign presenting Hussein as uncooperative in weapons inspections, calling for Hussein’s removal from power.

Soon after the 9/11 attacks, PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush demanding an immediate attack on Iraq, regardless of whether or not there was any evidence linking Hussein to the attacks or al-Qaeda. The letter stated that,

Quote
We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

With Jeb Bush’s ties to PNAC and with his public signature on the organization’s “Statement of Principles,” there can be no doubt that Bush would have invaded Iraq had he been president at the time. There is also no doubt that he is part of the same Neo-Con network that brought us that war, the war in Afghanistan, 9/11, destabilizations, a crippled economy, and a shredded Constitution. A Jeb Bush presidency will no doubt bring about a continuation of those policies witnessed under his brother and those subsequently built upon by Barack Obama.


Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.  

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/05/of-course-jeb-bush-would-have-invaded.html
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
.....That said, the surge could only remain successful if you were gonna keeps a stable number of troops there long into the future or forever. Our troops should never have been over there to begin with and certainly not any longer than they should be after this thing was over.
That was my exact point, there isn't anything wrong with maintaining a troop presence.   Particularly in an unstable region.  As for your point which I bolded, that's one on which Ron Paul is every bit as wrong as he is on bitcoin.

At any moment in any situation, there's are right, wrong, and "don't care" actions.

The wrong and the "don't care" actions have consequences.

The summary is OBAMA OWNS THE IRAQ PROBLEM, period.  No way it can be shoved off on Bush-baby.  He's had seven years to majestically work his foreign policy.

Oh, wait, I forgot.

He's a complete idiotic cunt at foreign policy.







A new survey finds that more Americans view former President George W. Bush favorably than President Obama.

The CNN/ORC poll reveals that 52 percent of Americans see Bush positively, while 43 percent do not.

In contrast, U.S. voters are split on their views of Obama.

The new poll finds that 49 percent view Obama favorably, while 49 percent do not.

Those ratings for Obama are down from a similar poll in March. During that sampling, 52 percent of Americans viewed him positively, while another 46 percent did not.

Bush’s numbers, meanwhile, mark a major shift for the former president since he departed office in early 2009, CNN said.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/243858-george-w-bush-tops-obama-on-favorability-in-new-poll


 Cool



legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
.....That said, the surge could only remain successful if you were gonna keeps a stable number of troops there long into the future or forever. Our troops should never have been over there to begin with and certainly not any longer than they should be after this thing was over.
That was my exact point, there isn't anything wrong with maintaining a troop presence.   Particularly in an unstable region.  As for your point which I bolded, that's one on which Ron Paul is every bit as wrong as he is on bitcoin.

At any moment in any situation, there's are right, wrong, and "don't care" actions.

The wrong and the "don't care" actions have consequences.

The summary is OBAMA OWNS THE IRAQ PROBLEM, period.  No way it can be shoved off on Bush-baby.  

Obama's had seven years to majestically work his foreign policy.

Oh, wait, I forgot.

He's a complete idiotic cunt at foreign policy.
legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
The Bush's family business is being president of that country? It's getting ridiculous...

Plus:

legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1145
The revolution will be monetized!
As much as I'd like to dump this all on G.W. Bush, it was the American people who let it happen. The support for going to war was overwhelming in 2003, something like 80+%. The time to talk about all this was then, not now. Now we are going to be at war for decades.

Quote from: Niccolò Machiavelli 1513
Wars begin when you will, but do not end when you please.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
These neocons are hell bent on showing off the "Iraq Surge" as the policy that made the Iraq war worthwhile and beneficial. They got no other PR for this shit-show than this surge. I'm sick of it and hope generic republicans don't fall for it.
If careful analysis of war and battle plans showed that a "surge" would stabilize a region, and that policy was executed, and it worked, that's the way it is. 

If simply abandoning a region creates a "power vacuum" that encourages local evil to flourish, that's also just the way it is.

It'd be nice to be able to argue something like "Obama is aligned with Ron Paul's outlook" but Obama has no outlook on many subjects.  None whatsoever.  Neither is or was he in any fashion aligned with Ron Paul's outlook.

In a general sense, historically, going way, way back.... garrisoning troops in far away lands has been and is obviously something that promotes peace, because the threat of force is present.  I would think this was particularly true with areas that have splintered and warring factions, in such a case the results of abandonment would be obvious.  Should it perhaps be some UN or multi lateral force, instead of the US?  That could be argued, certainly.
I'm not saying that Obama is doing anything well w/ Iraq but the war there, started by his brother and their neocon policy advisers, is what toppled Saddam in the first place and set this whole thing on a crash course that inevitably played out the way it did. Point is, they're using the supposed success of the surge as a way to cover the complete failure of the entire policy that started the conflict to begin with. At least Bush Sr. realized that toppling Saddam was going too far which is why he stopped his conflict short. That said, the surge could only remain successful if you were gonna keeps a stable number of troops there long into the future or forever. Our troops should never have been over there to begin with and certainly not any longer than they should be after this thing was over.
sr. member
Activity: 269
Merit: 250
Pretty sad to think that this idiot or the equally insane Hillary will most likely be the next "president" of the former USA.
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
...any resemblance of critical thinking...

Only total retards or deviants that like psychopaths are going to vote for the THIRD Bush fruitcake so why would critical thinking have anything to do with it.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1014
the monkey king cane be blamed for a great many things but not this
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
These neocons are hell bent on showing off the "Iraq Surge" as the policy that made the Iraq war worthwhile and beneficial. They got no other PR for this shit-show than this surge. I'm sick of it and hope generic republicans don't fall for it.
If careful analysis of war and battle plans showed that a "surge" would stabilize a region, and that policy was executed, and it worked, that's the way it is. 

If simply abandoning a region creates a "power vacuum" that encourages local evil to flourish, that's also just the way it is.

It'd be nice to be able to argue something like "Obama is aligned with Ron Paul's outlook" but Obama has no outlook on many subjects.  None whatsoever.  Neither is or was he in any fashion aligned with Ron Paul's outlook.

In a general sense, historically, going way, way back.... garrisoning troops in far away lands has been and is obviously something that promotes peace, because the threat of force is present.  I would think this was particularly true with areas that have splintered and warring factions, in such a case the results of abandonment would be obvious.  Should it perhaps be some UN or multi lateral force, instead of the US?  That could be argued, certainly.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
These neocons are hell bent on showing off the "Iraq Surge" as the policy that made the Iraq war worthwhile and beneficial. They got no other PR for this shit-show than this surge. I'm sick of it and hope generic republicans don't fall for it.
Pages:
Jump to: