Why no one should consider voting for Jeb Bush.

[Doc Savage Fan]

You have some bad info there. Strikes in Yemen and Somalia also happened under Bush.

Here's what Politifact has to say on this subject.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...izza-says-obama-has-bombed-more-nations-bush/

Additionally, as we went over before, saying we caused what happened in Libya is a highly suspect statement.

Yes, we went over this before...Obama effectively won the civil war for the rebels with our air support and taking out Gaddafi's entire air force...this is fact, nothing highly suspect found. Obama owns the disastrous results of his actions. But hey, let's give him a pass...after all, he has our well-being in the forefront of his thoughts.

 

[rudeguy]

We should hold leaders responsible for their elective wars. For their decisions to park our soldiers on the ground to play police for nearly a decade. Bad decisions all around.

Do you at least recognize Iraq for the colossal mistake that it was, with dire consequences?

• We spent over $1 trillion.
• We lost 4,804 lives.
• We have 32,223 wounded.
• We trashed Iraq and caused them unending war and violence.
• We birthed ISIS, which causes genocide to this day.
• We royally pissed off Russia.
• We blew our momentum on Iraq, to pave the way for a nuclear Iran.

Why? For what purpose, to what benefit?
I hope you know you cannot, and should not defend this. The Bush legacy is Iraq... and what we did is one of the greatest mistakes America has ever made.

I see what you're saying.

I'm pissed at Bill Clinton and the Democrat Senate for Iraq too.

 

[cabri]

Additionally, as we went over before, saying we caused what happened in Libya is a highly suspect statement.

We supported the flipping of the government; as a result we should to accept the results of that action. Under-estimating the problems that would arise.

Seems familiar to what you complain about Iraq?

It was not Bush that supported the removal of Quadafi; he was contained and neutered.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you think that Jeb Bush will be better for the wellbeing of the US than Hillary? If so, why?

I don't know enough about Jeb Bush to opine on his integrity. But hey, since when did integrity matter to someone who will most likely support Hillary regardless of who is running against her?

 

[fskimospy]

Here's what Politifact has to say on this subject.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...izza-says-obama-has-bombed-more-nations-bush/

So you agree then that your list for Bush was a bit lacking.

Yes, we went over this before...Obama effectively won the civil war for the rebels with our air support and taking out Gaddafi's entire air force...this is fact, nothing highly suspect found. Obama owns the disastrous results of his actions. But hey, let's give him a pass...after all, he has our well-being in the forefront of his thoughts.

Who said anything about giving Obama a pass? I am simply reminding you that Libya was already a disaster before we did anything. To say that it would be okay there absent our intervention is a highly suspect statement.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know enough about Jeb Bush to opine on his integrity. But hey, since when did integrity matter to someone who will most likely support Hillary regardless of who is running against her?

I didn't say anything about integrity, I asked if you thought he would be better than Hillary.

I also wouldn't support Hillary regardless of who was running against her, but whoever was running against her would need to be better for the US than she would be. I haven't seen a Republican candidate that would do that, as most of them are endorsing further tax cuts for the rich, repealing the ACA, etc. Econ 101 says those are a bad idea.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you agree then that your list for Bush was a bit lacking.

Politifact's conclusion was TRUE despite a minor detail that you seem to want to hang your hat on.

Who said anything about giving Obama a pass? I am simply reminding you that Libya was already a disaster before we did anything. To say that it would be okay there absent our intervention is a highly suspect statement.

I NEVER said that Libya would be okay absent our intervention. Why are making things up?

 

[fskimospy]

Politifact's conclusion was TRUE despite a minor detail that you seem to want to hang your hat on.

The minor detail that Bush bombed a number of additional countries you didn't mention. The whole thing is stupid anyway, as had Bush only invaded Iraq he would have been counted as bombing only one country despite its consequences being more disastrous than all the others put together.

I NEVER said that Libya would be okay absent our intervention. Why are making things up?

You said Obama was responsible for the disaster in Libya. Implicit in that statement is that Libya would have been better off otherwise. That's a highly suspect statement.

 

[cabri]

So you agree then that your list for Bush was a bit lacking.

Who said anything about giving Obama a pass? I am simply reminding you that Libya was already a disaster before we did anything. To say that it would be okay there absent our intervention is a highly suspect statement.

You said Obama was responsible for the disaster in Libya. Implicit in that statement is that Libya would have been better off otherwise. That's a highly suspect statement.

Why was it a disaster? Qaddafi was contained/neutered. He had given up on his nuke ambitions. He was not threatening to invade another country.

The problem was he was not playing well with Europe on oil and may not have played well within his country. France wanted him gone so they could cut new deals.

Like Saddam; he was no threat to the US in any way.

 

[fskimospy]

Why was it a disaster? Qaddafi was contained/neutered. He had given up on his nuke ambitions. He was not threatening to invade another country.

The problem was he was not playing well with Europe on oil and may not have played well within his country. France wanted him gone so they could cut new deals.

Like Saddam; he was no threat to the US in any way.

Libya was in the middle of a civil war when we intervened.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The minor detail that Bush bombed a number of additional countries you didn't mention. The whole thing is stupid anyway, as had Bush only invaded Iraq he would have been counted as bombing only one country despite its consequences being more disastrous than all the others put together.

This is all covered in the Politifact link which concluded my statement was TRUE...I'm not going to waste my time arguing minutia with you which is covered by Politifact in detail.

You said Obama was responsible for the disaster in Libya. Implicit in that statement is that Libya would have been better off otherwise. That's a highly suspect statement.

Wow...if anything is highly suspect here, it's your logic skills. You should consider taking a course. The resulting disaster in Libya since the civil war may or may not have occurred without Obama's involvement...we don't know and never will. But we do know that we chose to side with the rebels and effectively overthrew Ghadafi's government with our air support, which directly resulted in the ensuing chaos and human suffering that exists in Libya to this day. Obama broke it, he owns it.

 

[DrPizza]

Besides, I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil. This time I'm writing in Satan and to Hell with his middle man.

Be careful. If we wind up with another hanging chuds situation, some smart Republican might argue that you meant Bush. Some smart Democrat might say, "uh, okay, we'll give you that one."

 

[fskimospy]

This is all covered in the Politifact link which concluded my statement was TRUE...I'm not going to waste my time arguing minutia with you which is covered by Politifact in detail.

I suggest you read the article more carefully, but regardless I agree that the number of countries bombed is basically entirely irrelevant.

Wow...if anything is highly suspect here, it's your logic skills. You should consider taking a course. The resulting disaster in Libya since the civil war may or may not have occurred without Obama's involvement...we don't know and never will. But we do know that we chose to side with the rebels and effectively overthrew Ghadafi's government with our air support, which directly resulted in the ensuing chaos and human suffering that exists in Libya to this day. Obama broke it, he owns it.

You may want to sign up for that logic course. Admitting that it's very possible that the exact same situation would have happened absent a certain action means you can't assign responsibility for that situation to that action with any degree of certainty. If you got your information from sites that weren't Russian propaganda that might be more clear.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I suggest you read the article more carefully, but regardless I agree that the number of countries bombed is basically entirely irrelevant.

Politifact ruled my statement as TRUE...deal with it.

You may want to sign up for that logic course. Admitting that it's very possible that the exact same situation would have happened absent a certain action means you can't assign responsibility for that situation to that action with any degree of certainty. If you got your information from sites that weren't Russian propaganda that might be more clear.

Known outcome with our involvement vs. possible outcome without our involvement...hmmmm...tough to tell the difference.

Anyway, what Russian propaganda site did I link?

 

[fskimospy]

Politifact ruled my statement as TRUE...deal with it.

Known outcome with our involvement vs. possible outcome without our involvement...hmmmm...tough to tell the difference.

Anyway, what Russian propaganda site did I link?

Remember in your previous attempt at Hillary bashing you linked to New Eastern Outlook? That's a Russian propaganda site.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Remember in your previous attempt at Hillary bashing you linked to New Eastern Outlook? That's a Russian propaganda site.

What was that...a month ago? And all this time I thought we were talking about Libya. I'm thinking that you and my wife would get along just fine...lol.

 

[fskimospy]

What was that...a month ago? And all this time I thought we were talking about Libya. I'm thinking that you and my wife would get along just fine...lol.

It was in relation to foreign policy. Just saying you're not exactly renowned for consulting good sources when it comes to this sort of thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It was in relation to foreign policy. Just saying you're not exactly renowned for consulting good sources when it comes to this sort of thing.

You brought up something completely random from a month ago as if you've somehow made a significant point relevant to our current discussion. A few too many drinks during lunch again?

 

[fskimospy]

You brought up something completely random from a month ago as if you've somehow made a significant point relevant to our current discussion. A few too many drinks at lunchtime again?

I think the fact that you uncritically accept articles on foreign policy from known propaganda sites directly relates to your argument here as it shows you seek out information based on confirming your own already held opinions. I can't spell it out any more clearly.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think the fact that you uncritically accept articles on foreign policy from known propaganda sites directly relates to your argument here as it shows you seek out information based on confirming your own already held opinions. I can't spell it out any more clearly.

So...let me get this straight as I'm really confused now...what source did I use in our current discussion that you consider to be a propaganda site. Politifact?

 

[werepossum]

We should hold leaders responsible for their elective wars. For their decisions to park our soldiers on the ground to play police for nearly a decade. Bad decisions all around.

Do you at least recognize Iraq for the colossal mistake that it was, with dire consequences?

• We spent over $1 trillion.
• We lost 4,804 lives.
• We have 32,223 wounded.
• We trashed Iraq and caused them unending war and violence.
• We birthed ISIS, which causes genocide to this day.
• We royally pissed off Russia.
• We blew our momentum on Iraq, to pave the way for a nuclear Iran.

Why? For what purpose, to what benefit?
I hope you know you cannot, and should not defend this. The Bush legacy is Iraq... and what we did is one of the greatest mistakes America has ever made.

ISIS is merely the latest head of the hydra unleashed when the Shah collapsed. Nuclear Iran was going to happen anyway, and Obama's lifting sanctions is helping them far more than did us toppling Hussein. (Ditto with Iranian-backed terrorism and Islamic fundamentalist groups.) And Iraq was a Russian wet dream compared to us going into Syria and attempting to topple its government.

Be careful. If we wind up with another hanging chuds situation, some smart Republican might argue that you meant Bush. Some smart Democrat might say, "uh, okay, we'll give you that one."

My wife's a cryptozoologist and even she can't find a smart Democrat.

 

[blankslate]

It just goes to show that if you sell a war with the right amount of jingoism people will lap it up.


Also @rudeguy comparing death tolls in various wars only works if they were all fought for similarly sound reasons... which only happens in the bizarro-land that warmongers inhabit.


....

 

[Jaskalas]

What momentum on Iraq?

After September 11th we could have driven our war machine anywhere. Bush chose Iraq and spent all our energy, capital, and investment there instead of on Iran. In a choice of destroy one or the other we chose Iraq because the Bush family had an axe to grind against Saddam.

 

[blankslate]

ISIS is merely the latest head of the hydra unleashed when the Shah collapsed. Nuclear Iran was going to happen anyway, and Obama's lifting sanctions is helping them far more than did us toppling Hussein.

Toppling Saddam Hussein helped them more than you give it credit for but our heavy involvement in that region dates back to FDR meeting with the Saudi King... probably because WWII really drained our oil reserves.


....

My wife's a cryptozoologist and even she can't find a smart Democrat.

Probably confirmation bias prevents her from doing so... either that or the really smart people don't ascribe to either party but just vote for the lesser of the two evils atm. Also obligatory observation about street smarts, book smarts, and common sense and the extreme rarity of people with all three.


....

 

[fskimospy]

So...let me get this straight as I'm really confused now...what source did I use in our current discussion that you consider to be a propaganda site. Politifact?

Huh? I'm not sure what to say. (Although I still suggest you read that politifact article more closely)

What is so confusing here? I'm saying that you generally read sites based on them telling you what you want to hear, which likely contributes to what you've been saying here.