George Bush - the most popular president in US history

[Wicked Jester]

Yeah things are real clear in hindsight.
The Soviet Union was all but finished. And then they invaded Afghanistan. They waged proxy wars all over Asia and Africa. They sure looked weak then, boy.
No, they didnt have any spy networks in the US. They weren't using Cubans as proxies in Angola. They didn't have more tanks and more troops in Europe than we did, no siree.You are such a fucking tool it is beyond belief. You go back and re-invent history based on what we know now, rather than on what everyone knew at that time. Kind of like that Iraqi WMD, threat, eh? Easy to blame Bush when hindsight shows he (and every intelligence agency in the world) wasn't 100% correct.

HA HA HA HA...
Still buying into that Evil Empire crap...

Did you miss out on Desert Storm in 1991? It was in all the papers

See what happened to those Soviet Tanks? Target practice...complete target practice
Numbers of tanks mean nothing when you face superior equipment, technology, training and tactics.
The Soviet threat was a mere shell, even Gorbachev will tell you that. See the rust buckets that passed for a Navy? Soviets had inferior equipment, poorly trained and poorly fed troops, poor morale, no maintenance, broken supply chain and no money to fix it.

Why do you think Gorbachev was so eager for a peaceful solution?

Oh yea...I forgot....He was afraid of Mr Reagans "Mr Gorbachev...tear down this wall"

Hey Rabbi

Want to see how formidable those Soviet tanks were?

Tools of Violence: Guns, Tanks and ... - Google Books

During Desert Storm, an M1A1 Abrams tank became hopelessly stuck in the mud. While it was waiting for a recovery vehicle, 3 Iraqi Soviet made T-72s closed in for the kill. All three fired and scored direct hits on the Abrams, none of the shots could penetrate the Abrams armor. Unable to maneuver, the Abrams crew fired two shots taking out two of the T-72's the third maneuvered behind a sand dune for cover. The Abrams crew fired a sabot round through the sand dune and took out the remaining T-72.

This is the Soviet threat we faced at the end of the Cold War

Yeah, that's all fine and dandy.
Now, how about showing the effects of a Soviet, nuclear armed ICBM on that M1A1 Abrams tank!
LMAO!
Christ, liberals are friggin idiots!

 

[rightwinger]

HA HA HA HA...
Still buying into that Evil Empire crap...

Did you miss out on Desert Storm in 1991? It was in all the papers

See what happened to those Soviet Tanks? Target practice...complete target practice
Numbers of tanks mean nothing when you face superior equipment, technology, training and tactics.
The Soviet threat was a mere shell, even Gorbachev will tell you that. See the rust buckets that passed for a Navy? Soviets had inferior equipment, poorly trained and poorly fed troops, poor morale, no maintenance, broken supply chain and no money to fix it.

Why do you think Gorbachev was so eager for a peaceful solution?

Oh yea...I forgot....He was afraid of Mr Reagans "Mr Gorbachev...tear down this wall"

Hey Rabbi

Want to see how formidable those Soviet tanks were?

Tools of Violence: Guns, Tanks and ... - Google Books

During Desert Storm, an M1A1 Abrams tank became hopelessly stuck in the mud. While it was waiting for a recovery vehicle, 3 Iraqi Soviet made T-72s closed in for the kill. All three fired and scored direct hits on the Abrams, none of the shots could penetrate the Abrams armor. Unable to maneuver, the Abrams crew fired two shots taking out two of the T-72's the third maneuvered behind a sand dune for cover. The Abrams crew fired a sabot round through the sand dune and took out the remaining T-72.

This is the Soviet threat we faced at the end of the Cold War

Yeah, that's all fine and dandy.
Now, how about showing the effects of a Soviet, nuclear armed ICBM on that M1A1 Abrams tank!
LMAO!
Christ, liberals are friggin idiots!

What???

You mean to say that the Soviets had nukes? Who'da thunk it!

So I guess all that BS about Reagan threatening Gorbachev was just that

 

[Wicked Jester]

Hey Rabbi

Want to see how formidable those Soviet tanks were?

Tools of Violence: Guns, Tanks and ... - Google Books

During Desert Storm, an M1A1 Abrams tank became hopelessly stuck in the mud. While it was waiting for a recovery vehicle, 3 Iraqi Soviet made T-72s closed in for the kill. All three fired and scored direct hits on the Abrams, none of the shots could penetrate the Abrams armor. Unable to maneuver, the Abrams crew fired two shots taking out two of the T-72's the third maneuvered behind a sand dune for cover. The Abrams crew fired a sabot round through the sand dune and took out the remaining T-72.

This is the Soviet threat we faced at the end of the Cold War

Yeah, that's all fine and dandy.
Now, how about showing the effects of a Soviet, nuclear armed ICBM on that M1A1 Abrams tank!
LMAO!
Christ, liberals are friggin idiots!

What???

You mean to say that the Soviets had nukes? Who'da thunk it!

So I guess all that BS about Reagan threatening Gorbachev was just that

Hey dumbass, you're the one running around here claiming that all the soviets had were T-72 tanks.
Do yourself a favor. Educate yourself before spewing your loony far left liberal bullshit. You might want to try researching EVERYTHING Gorbachev said about Reagan.
Christ, libs are friggin' idiots!

 

[rightwinger]

Countering more revisionist history from our right wing

Gorbachev: 'We All Lost Cold War' (washingtonpost.com)

But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."

Did Reagan's success in his first term, and the huge build-up of military power that he persuaded Congress to finance, affect the decision of the Soviet Politburo to choose a young and vigorous new leader in 1985 -- someone who could, in effect, stand up to Reagan? "No, I think there was really no connection," he replied, chuckling. He said he was chosen for purely internal reasons that had nothing to do with the United States.

"All that talk that somehow Reagan's arms race forced Gorbachev to look for some arms reductions, etc., that's not serious. The Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race. The Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because the weapons we had were more than enough."

 

[Wicked Jester]

Countering more revisionist history from our right wing

Gorbachev: 'We All Lost Cold War' (washingtonpost.com)

But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."

Did Reagan's success in his first term, and the huge build-up of military power that he persuaded Congress to finance, affect the decision of the Soviet Politburo to choose a young and vigorous new leader in 1985 -- someone who could, in effect, stand up to Reagan? "No, I think there was really no connection," he replied, chuckling. He said he was chosen for purely internal reasons that had nothing to do with the United States.

"All that talk that somehow Reagan's arms race forced Gorbachev to look for some arms reductions, etc., that's not serious. The Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race. The Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because the weapons we had were more than enough."

CNN.com - Gorbachev praises 'great president' - Jun 6, 2004

 

[Vast LWC]

So, after going through this whole thread, I think we have our answer, don't we?

If the United States is attacked again, Right-wingers would rather back the terrorists than a president who they disagree with politically.

As we can see by this thread, they'll have plenty of rationalizations as to why they side with the terrorists when the time comes, like "Well they insulted the guy we voted for!". But in the end, they'll be a bunch of traitors.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, after going through this whole thread, I think we have our answer, don't we?

If the United States is attacked again, Right-wingers would rather back the terrorists than a president who they disagree with politically.

As we can see by this thread, they'll have plenty of rationalizations as to why they side with the terrorists when the time comes, like "Well they insulted the guy we voted for!". But in the end, they'll be a bunch of traitors.

You mean like the liberal traitor, William Ayers, who's home the great messiah launched his political career in?
Or, like the liberal traitor, Jeff Jones, who helped advise on the stimulus bill?
Or how about the self avowed communist that Obama kept just an arms length away from him?
Gee, two of those traitors tried to kill our fellow americans. That doesn't seem to faze the great messiah one bit.
Doesn't seem to faze you Obamabots either. It's quite easy to tell who the REAL traitors are!
Look in the mirror!

 

[Vast LWC]

You mean like the liberal traitor, William Ayers, who's home the great messiah launched his political career in?
Or, like the liberal traitor, Jeff Jones, who helped advise on the stimulus bill?
Or how about the self avowed communist that Obama kept just an arms length away from him?
Gee, two of those traitors tried to kill our fellow americans. That doesn't seem to faze the great messiah one bit.
Doesn't seem to faze you Obamabots either. It's quite easy to tell who the REAL traitors are!
Look in the mirror!

So, you'll throw in your lot with William Ayers, because you don't like the president?

Nice.

Oh, and Jeff Jones had no proven personal input at all on Stimulus Bill and is certainly not in any way connected to the President, as we discussed at length in another thread,....

And what does the fact that one of Obama's advisors is a Communist have to do with terrorism, attacks on the United States, or being a traitor?

 

[Vast LWC]

Is it somehow against the law now to have different political views than the norm, like Communism?

Do we have an enemy at the moment that is a Communist nation that you have proof Van Jones is an agent of?

 

[Vast LWC]

But again, that post is just another attempt at rationalizing the fact that many right-wingers will just be a bunch of traitors if our country is attacked again.

I won't say all of course, because there are some rational people among you, but certainly most of the right-wing posters on this board have indicated that they won't support President Obama in such a circumstance.

 

[Wicked Jester]

You mean like the liberal traitor, William Ayers, who's home the great messiah launched his political career in?
Or, like the liberal traitor, Jeff Jones, who helped advise on the stimulus bill?
Or how about the self avowed communist that Obama kept just an arms length away from him?
Gee, two of those traitors tried to kill our fellow americans. That doesn't seem to faze the great messiah one bit.
Doesn't seem to faze you Obamabots either. It's quite easy to tell who the REAL traitors are!
Look in the mirror!

So, you'll throw in your lot with William Ayers, because you don't like the president?

Nice.

Oh, and Jeff Jones had no proven personal input at all on Stimulus Bill and is certainly not in any way connected to the President, as we discussed at length in another thread,....

And what does the fact that one of Obama's advisors is a Communist have to do with terrorism, attacks on the United States, or being a traitor?

What does Van Jones have to do with being a traitor?
Why should we ALL be concerned that our president didn't have a second thought about appointing that scumbag to his administration?
Go ask all those who have shed blood fighting the oppresive scurge that is communism. Go ask those who have lost loved ones who fought the oppresive scurge that is communism. Including me, who lost my oldest brother in Vietnam.
Come on Vast, pull your head out of your ass.
If we are attacked, and this president decides to do something about it, i'll back him. But that backing has more to do with this country and my fellow citizens, then it does him!

Knock off the far left liberal drivel, and deal with reality!

 

[Vast LWC]

What does Van Jones have to do with being a traitor?
Why should we ALL be concerned that our president didn't have a second thought about appointing that scumbag to his administration?
Go ask all those who have shed blood fighting the oppresive scurge that is communism. Go ask those who have lost loved ones who fought the oppresive scurge that is communism. Including me, who lost my oldest brother in Vietnam.

I happen to disagree. I think that spending 5 decades in a useless war over a political ideaology was a fantastic waste of America's people and resources. Especially Vietnam.

The USSR had to be stopped because they were an aggressive Totalitarian state, not because of some communist ideology.

Communism is not what drove the USSR to invade other countries, World War II Era nationalism and Stalin drove the USSR to invade other countries.

China, a communist nation, is now one of our chief allies and trading partners.

I don't happen to think that Communism is a good or effective system, but that doesn't make it some sort of evil "scourge".

Come on Vast, pull your head out of your ass.
If we are attacked, and this president decides to do something about it, i'll back him. But that backing has more to do with this country and my fellow citizens, then it does him!

Knock off the far left liberal drivel, and deal with reality!

This thread was specifically about supporting the president if this country was attacked like it was on 9/11, and the right-wingers have spent the past dozen pages talking about how they won't support Obama because people maligned Bush. What do you expect me to draw from that?

 

[Wicked Jester]

What does Van Jones have to do with being a traitor?
Why should we ALL be concerned that our president didn't have a second thought about appointing that scumbag to his administration?
Go ask all those who have shed blood fighting the oppresive scurge that is communism. Go ask those who have lost loved ones who fought the oppresive scurge that is communism. Including me, who lost my oldest brother in Vietnam.

I happen to disagree. I think that spending 5 decades in a useless war over a political ideaology was a fantastic waste of America's people and resources. Especially Vietnam.

The USSR had to be stopped because they were an aggressive Totalitarian state, not because of some communist ideology.

Communism is not what drove the USSR to invade other countries, World War II Era nationalism and Stalin drove the USSR to invade other countries.

China, a communist nation, is now one of our chief allies and trading partners.

I don't happen to think that Communism is a good or effective system, but that doesn't make it some sort of evil "scourge".

Come on Vast, pull your head out of your ass.
If we are attacked, and this president decides to do something about it, i'll back him. But that backing has more to do with this country and my fellow citizens, then it does him!

Knock off the far left liberal drivel, and deal with reality!

This thread was specifically about supporting the president if this country was attacked like it was on 9/11, and the right-wingers have spent the past dozen pages talking about how they won't support Obama because people maligned Bush. What do you expect me to draw from that?

China an allie?
Yeah.......uh........OK!
You don't think communism is an oppresive scurge?
Go ask those who have been forced to live under it.
Go ask those who continue to jump on small rickety rafts for the chance to escape it.
You can draw what you want. Don't lump all into the same category.

 

[Vast LWC]

China an allie?
Yeah.......uh........OK!
You don't think communism is an oppresive scurge?
Go ask those who have been forced to live under it.
Go ask those who continue to jump on small rickety rafts for the chance to escape it.
You can draw what you want. Don't lump all into the same category.

We will never know what Communism would have been like in the places you refer to, had such a large portion of the world not seen it as a threat and fought a war to eradicate it.

Cuba especially has been a victim of this effect, since most of it's potential trading partners have embargoed it for quite a long time. It's largest potential trading partner, the US, is still embargoing Cuba.

Be that as it may, while I personally do not believe that Communism is an effective economic system, due to several factors, I'm not going to ostracize a fellow American, and attempt to bar him from holding a federal job, just because the man happens to believe differently.

As far as I know, Van Jones only "crime" was that he was a Communist. I have not seen any evidence of him being a, what was it you called him? A "scumbag"?

Simply being a Communist is certainly not "Traitorous" behavior. If you have some evidence that he betrayed his country in some way, then that would in fact be traitorous, but believing in Communism is not.

 

[The Rabbi]

Seriously Rabbi...and I do mean seriously

Do you still cling to the Joe McCarthy view of the evil Soviet Empire poised to overrun Main Street USA?
Did you totally miss out on the collapse of the USSR? All the records and interviews with leaders showing what a paper tiger they were? The right wing fear mongers screamed about the Soviet menace right up to the collapse of the Wall.

Once again....The Right Wing is on the wrong side of history

And what do Right Wingers do when they are proven to be on the wrong side of history??
They rewrite history

Yeah things are real clear in hindsight.
The Soviet Union was all but finished. And then they invaded Afghanistan. They waged proxy wars all over Asia and Africa. They sure looked weak then, boy.
No, they didnt have any spy networks in the US. They weren't using Cubans as proxies in Angola. They didn't have more tanks and more troops in Europe than we did, no siree.
You are such a fucking tool it is beyond belief. You go back and re-invent history based on what we know now, rather than on what everyone knew at that time. Kind of like that Iraqi WMD, threat, eh? Easy to blame Bush when hindsight shows he (and every intelligence agency in the world) wasn't 100% correct.

HA HA HA HA...
Still buying into that Evil Empire crap...

Did you miss out on Desert Storm in 1991? It was in all the papers

See what happened to those Soviet Tanks? Target practice...complete target practice
Numbers of tanks mean nothing when you face superior equipment, technology, training and tactics.
The Soviet threat was a mere shell, even Gorbachev will tell you that. See the rust buckets that passed for a Navy? Soviets had inferior equipment, poorly trained and poorly fed troops, poor morale, no maintenance, broken supply chain and no money to fix it.

Why do you think Gorbachev was so eager for a peaceful solution?

Oh yea...I forgot....He was afraid of Mr Reagans "Mr Gorbachev...tear down this wall"

Wow. I had no idea that Desert Storm pitted the Soviet Union against the US. Here I had always thought that we were facing ill-trained Iraqis with inadequately maintained weapons lacking airpower, or even effective radar.
I learn something new from you every day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rabbi on the Run and Wicked are funny! Everytime I read their rants I laugh out loud.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow. I had no idea that Desert Storm pitted the Soviet Union against the US. Here I had always thought that we were facing ill-trained Iraqis with inadequately maintained weapons lacking airpower, or even effective radar.
I learn something new from you every day.

I would agree with Rabbi, on this particular point at least. Iraq's Russian weapons in Desert Storm were in fact antiquated and crappy compared to the American weapons used.

Plus our intelligence and communication networks were far superior to the Iraqis, and the USSR excelled in both these fields.

 

[Vast LWC]

"Crappy" of course being a very scientific term used in evaluation of military equipment and tactics. LOL.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow. I had no idea that Desert Storm pitted the Soviet Union against the US. Here I had always thought that we were facing ill-trained Iraqis with inadequately maintained weapons lacking airpower, or even effective radar.
I learn something new from you every day.

I would agree with Rabbi, on this particular point at least. Iraq's Russian weapons in Desert Storm were in fact antiquated and crappy compared to the American weapons used.

Plus our intelligence and communication networks were far superior to the Iraqis, and the USSR excelled in both these fields.

Not to mention US air support, specifically helicopter tank killers, and far better communications and radar.

 

[Vast LWC]

True, true.

My remarks tend toward intelligence as I have an obvious bias toward it though, due to my MOS during Desert Storm.