The Worst President in History?

Dookiestix and others,

...

You are charged with negotiating with Iran,to try and get them to stop their nuke production.

mysteryman wrote:

Dookiestix and others,

...

You are charged with negotiating with Iran,to try and get them to stop their nuke production.

With all due respect, MM, this is part and parcel of the ignorance that causes these problems in the first place. Remember how flawed the intelligence was on Iraq.

Why are you starting with what may well be a faulty premise? Have you ever heard of "once bitten, twice shy"? Really, how many lies is an honest person able to stomach before they say, "enough"?

Secondly, why aren't you asking the same question with respect to Israel's illegal nuclear weapons and other WMDs?

Thirdly, why aren't you directing your questions to the idiots who don't have a clue as to what diplomacy is. They're the ones that have caused all the trouble.

It isn't Dookiestix job to figure these problems out. But at least he's honest enough to call those who job it is to task instead of simply running interference for them.

Dookiestix and others,

Lets see what you would do...

You are charged with negotiating with Iran,to try and get them to stop their nuke production.

Since you dont like how it is being done now,what would you say to Iran to get them to stop?
What would you offer them?
What carrot would you offer?

How would you get them to stop making nukes,and ensure they kept their promise?

What should the consequences be if they didnt?

You are the negotiator,so tell us all what you would do.

I find the phrase "axis of evil" to be a very fitting description of the 3 countries listed. They really are run by evil regimes and should be terminated. The fact that the rest of the world would rather appease these regimes rather then deal with them is hardly America's problem. We will deal with them as we choose and not allow any other country dictate our foriegn policy.

I find the phrase "axis of evil" to be a very fitting description of the 3 countries listed. They really are run by evil regimes and should be terminated. The fact that the rest of the world would rather appease these regimes rather then deal with them is hardly America's problem. We will deal with them as we choose and not allow any other country dictate our foriegn policy.

McGentrix wrote:

I find the phrase "axis of evil" to be a very fitting description of the 3 countries listed. They really are run by evil regimes and should be terminated. The fact that the rest of the world would rather appease these regimes rather then deal with them is hardly America's problem. We will deal with them as we choose and not allow any other country dictate our foriegn policy.

Spoken like a true Fox News fanatic.

So, Iraq is still run by an evil regime, eh? :wink:

Did you mean: asinine?

Translation: You have no idea what might be a more effective way to deal with Iran. Even were everything you said true, MM still asked you a valid question, which you clearly don't want to answer.

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush attacked a country run by a terrible dictator, which had some bioweapons, and plans to develop nukes and more bioweapons. Iraq had promised to verifiably destroy and dismantle such weapons and programs, but instead had lied and stalled for a dozen years. Had they furnished proof that they had destroyed such weapons and programs, sanctions would have been lifted.

Oohhhhh, a country was run by a terrible dictator. Well, so have many other countries. For some reason, they escaped attack.

I did not say that being a dictator justified attack. As usual, you find it convenient to rebut positions I haven't advocated. My point was that it's not a good thing for bad people, e.g. terrible dictators, to possess or try to possess WMD.

Neither did I. As usual, you too, are finding it convenient to defend a position that you are unable to defend. The discussion was about a terrible dictator that had weapons. I asked why other countries in the same situation were not attacked. You failed to provide an answer... only a defence.

Intrepid wrote:

Oohhhh, they had som bioweapons and plans to make nukes and even more bioweapons. At the same time they were promising to destroy and dismantle the weapons and stalled for a dozen years. For some reason over those years, they escaped attack.

The reason should be obvious. We kept trying to make sanctions and inspections work, but finally used military force. Big mystery.

Why was the U.S.A. charged with this worldly responsibility?

Intrepid wrote:

Oohhhh, sanctions would have been lifted. For some reason, sanctions were ignored and they did not escape attack.

They didn't escape attack because we felt that 12 years was long enough to try to get them to comply with their written promise to provide proof that the WMD had been destroyed and the programs dismantled. Had Iraq been continuing the WMD programs in hiding, those programs would have at some point reached fruition, and once that happened, Saddam Hussein's power would have been hugely increased, and the WMD might even have been used in population centers.

MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED? So, you agree that this war was over speculation, not facts.

Intrepid wrote:

Suspicion of having something, in no way, condones attacking a country. Nothing was proved and an act of aggression was administered by the Bush administration.

Yup, you have all the proof you need.

When a terrible dictator signs a treaty promising to provide proof that he has destroyed doomsday weapons and development programs, and after 12 years of lies and obfuscations has not, invasion is certainly justified. Had a WMD gone off in a city someday and killed hundreds of thousands of people, or perhaps several WMDs and a million people, you would have faulted the government for sleeping while Saddam Hussein perfected the weapons.

dyslexia wrote:

Did you mean: asinine?

Could be.

mysteryman wrote:

Dookiestix and others,

Lets see what you would do...

You are charged with negotiating with Iran,to try and get them to stop their nuke production.

Since you dont like how it is being done now,what would you say to Iran to get them to stop?
What would you offer them?
What carrot would you offer?

How would you get them to stop making nukes,and ensure they kept their promise?

What should the consequences be if they didnt?

You are the negotiator,so tell us all what you would do.

What would I do? For starters, what WOULDN'T I do?

I wouldn't invade a sovereign country that never threatened us...
I wouldn't have p*ssed off the world by invading a sovereign country that never threatened us
I wouldn't have squandered the unity this country, and the world experienced after 9/11
I wouldn't have used the local tribesman in Afghanistan in trying to hunt down bin Laden
I wouldn't have used ridiculous terms like "crusade," and "bring 'em on," or "Axis of Evil" in demonization these nations and compelling them to start building up their nuclear capabilities
I wouldn't have rewarded Bush administration incompetence with Medals of Freedom
I would have fired the planners of this failed war in Iraq

Oh, the list just goes on and on. Unfortunately, until Bush is out of the White House and we have some semblance of checks and balances in Washington (as well as something that resembles competency), I don't see much happening at all right now in regards to dealing with both N.K. and Iran. America has lost so much credibility in the world as we destabilize the Middle East and alienate our neighbors that we are becoming more and more isolated. China holds much of our debt, Americans are in more debt than ever, the housing market is cooling significantly, gas prices are on the rise, inflation is threatening as well as a possible recession, and we are spending BILLIONS on a failed war that has so far cost the lives of over 2,600 American troops, and countless innocent Iraqi lives.

This is the enormous 800 pound monkey on our shoulders and Bush is holding the leash. Until we remove the incompetence of our foreign policy leaders, we will merely see more of the same.

Until America makes good with her allies and gets the world back on our side, there ain't much we CAN do right now. But of course, the rightwingers have already suggested the usual knee jerk solutions; bombs, bombs, and more bombs.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Translation: You have no idea what might be a more effective way to deal with Iran. Even were everything you said true, MM still asked you a valid question, which you clearly don't want to answer.

A non-issue, Brandon. Just another silly tangent trying to lead the discussion away from the singlemost incompetent "leader" the world has had the misfortune of encountering.

You wingnuts simply have to get your talking points straight. Here we have Lash and McG giving folks a hard time about staying on thread and then you come out with this.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush attacked a country run by a terrible dictator, which had some bioweapons, and plans to develop nukes and more bioweapons. Iraq had promised to verifiably destroy and dismantle such weapons and programs, but instead had lied and stalled for a dozen years. Had they furnished proof that they had destroyed such weapons and programs, sanctions would have been lifted.

Oohhhhh, a country was run by a terrible dictator. Well, so have many other countries. For some reason, they escaped attack.

I did not say that being a dictator justified attack. As usual, you find it convenient to rebut positions I haven't advocated. My point was that it's not a good thing for bad people, e.g. terrible dictators, to possess or try to possess WMD.

Neither did I. As usual, you too, are finding it convenient to defend a position that you are unable to defend. The discussion was about a terrible dictator that had weapons. I asked why other countries in the same situation were not attacked. You failed to provide an answer... only a defence.

Oohhhh, they had som bioweapons and plans to make nukes and even more bioweapons. At the same time they were promising to destroy and dismantle the weapons and stalled for a dozen years. For some reason over those years, they escaped attack.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The reason should be obvious. We kept trying to make sanctions and inspections work, but finally used military force. Big mystery.

Why was the U.S.A. charged with this worldly responsibility?

Oohhhh, sanctions would have been lifted. For some reason, sanctions were ignored and they did not escape attack.

Brandon9000 wrote:

They didn't escape attack because we felt that 12 years was long enough to try to get them to comply with their written promise to provide proof that the WMD had been destroyed and the programs dismantled. Had Iraq been continuing the WMD programs in hiding, those programs would have at some point reached fruition, and once that happened, Saddam Hussein's power would have been hugely increased, and the WMD might even have been used in population centers.

MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED? So, you agree that this war was over speculation, not facts.