Which President(s) Of The Last 50 Years Have Done The Most Damage To The Country ?

[SniperFire]

I already answered that in my above post

No, you didn't mention the lies by all of those Democrats, at all.

Did you just mean all the Democrat lies were 'hot air,' but not the rest?

 

[Lakhota]

I already answered that in my above post

No, you didn't mention the lies by all of those Democrats, at all.

Did you just mean all the Democrat lies were 'hot air,' but not the rest?

I know you're "challenged", but I did mention the intelligence community...

 

[USMCSergeant]

I didn't see you mention anything about the above quoted comments at all, unless the bag of hot air comment is saying that I made them up. To which I absolutely did not. All of you democrats after 9-11 supported the war on terror, well 90% I'm sure. You've lost your taste for it. Now you sit and blame a single person for going into Iraq, which is pure hyperbole. The liberal crutch.

My optimistic thoughts on the Iraq war...

After 9-11 tragically happened, President Bush declared a war on terror. A broad war agreed, but supported nontheless by republicans and most democrats. In a speech just after the attacks he said:


"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Iraq made their decision. They provided a safe haven for terrorists. Some very famous ones actually. The Senate voted 77-23 and the House 296-133 to authorize OIF. Also the Senate voted 98-0 and the House 420-1 to authorize the AMUF.

We've been after Sadam for quite a while, early 90's at least. We've tried coups, baiting the citizens to rebel on the radio, and other ways. Intelligence insisted Iraq had or was attempting to make WMD's, Sadam refused to let the UN inspectors in. Time and time again he refused. This leads one to believe you're hiding something. After the invasion we never found Nuclear weapons or nuclear WMD's, but we relieved a population of a cruel dictator. That's not enough? Well we've sent troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia for humanitarian reasons. Do you openly disagree with all of those? We also found thousands of tons of enriched uranium, and warheads filled with sarin gas.

Iraq became a terrorist breeding ground after the invasion and since then we've been killing terrorists in rapid fashion. More so in the beginning before the rediculous ROE's, and people in places other than on the ground making decisions that really put our troops in bad situations.

To put the cost into perspective.. while both wars were ongoing. We spent more per month on social programs (welfare, disability..etc) than on BOTH wars in Afghan and Iraq COMBINED. All in all, taking all of this into account. I truly believe we've prevented further terrorist attacks on US soil. Many attacks. Maybe another 9/11. To me that is worth the financil cost, saving innocent American lives.

 

[Lakhota]

I didn't see you mention anything about the above quoted comments at all, unless the bag of hot air comment is saying that I made them up. To which I absolutely did not. All of you democrats after 9-11 supported the war on terror, well 90% I'm sure. You've lost your taste for it. Now you sit and blame a single person for going into Iraq, which is pure hyperbole. The liberal crutch.

My optimistic thoughts on the Iraq war...

After 9-11 tragically happened, President Bush declared a war on terror. A broad war agreed, but supported nontheless by republicans and most democrats. In a speech just after the attacks he said:


"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Iraq made their decision. They provided a safe haven for terrorists. Some very famous ones actually. The Senate voted 77-23 and the House 296-133 to authorize OIF. Also the Senate voted 98-0 and the House 420-1 to authorize the AMUF.

We've been after Sadam for quite a while, early 90's at least. We've tried coups, baiting the citizens to rebel on the radio, and other ways. Intelligence insisted Iraq had or was attempting to make WMD's, Sadam refused to let the UN inspectors in. Time and time again he refused. This leads one to believe you're hiding something. After the invasion we never found Nuclear weapons or nuclear WMD's, but we relieved a population of a cruel dictator. That's not enough? Well we've sent troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia for humanitarian reasons. Do you openly disagree with all of those? We also found thousands of tons of enriched uranium, and warheads filled with sarin gas.

Iraq became a terrorist breeding ground after the invasion and since then we've been killing terrorists in rapid fashion. More so in the beginning before the rediculous ROE's, and people in places other than on the ground making decisions that really put our troops in bad situations.

To put the cost into perspective.. while both wars were ongoing. We spent more per month on social programs (welfare, disability..etc) than on BOTH wars in Afghan and Iraq COMBINED. All in all, taking all of this into account. I truly believe we've prevented further terrorist attacks on US soil. Many attacks. Maybe another 9/11. To me that is worth the financil cost, saving innocent American lives.

Too much wingnuttery for me. Sounds like you dislike social programs. I guess you'll probably vote for Romney...

Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11 - YouTube

 

[USMCSergeant]

Great reply, great way to get your views out there. This isn't wingnuttery, some of it is research, and some is personal experience.

I do not dislike social programs, I think too many Americans are on them, and that they are very abused.

I will vote for Romney as I sincerely believe 4 more years of Obama will be destructive to the country I have served, and love. You rabid, leftwing, self loathing liberals are doing everything you can to make us the next Greece.

 

[Lakhota]

Great reply, great way to get your views out there. This isn't wingnuttery, some of it is research, and some is personal experience.

I do not dislike social programs, I think too many Americans are on them, and that they are very abused.

I will vote for Romney as I sincerely believe 4 more years of Obama will be destructive to the country I have served, and love. You rabid, leftwing, self loathing liberals are doing everything you can to make us the next Greece.

Good for you...

Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[USMCSergeant]

Thanks for the link Lakhota, but I've been there, in person. You should check out those pics though.

 

[Lakhota]

Thanks for the link Lakhota, but I've been there, in person. You should check out those pics though.

Thanks for your service. You aren't the only veteran. Just because you were "there" doesn't mean you know it all. Many who were "there" see it very differently than you. Also, I guess you didn't get to meet any weapons inspectors - since Bush ordered them out prior to invading.

 

[USMCSergeant]

I realize I'm not the only veteran, but I think being there first hand gives veterans a unique viewpoint. Even if some of those viewpoints are opposite of mine, I do respect their opinions.

I respect yours as well, I do wish you would explain it more thoroughly. What are your feelings on all of those comments those democrats made that I posted earlier?

 

[Lakhota]

I realize I'm not the only veteran, but I think being there first hand gives veterans a unique viewpoint. Even if some of those viewpoints are opposite of mine, I do respect their opinions.

I respect yours as well, I do wish you would explain it more thoroughly. What are your feelings on all of those comments those democrats made that I posted earlier?

I'm not into long-winded dissertations about stuff that has already been beaten to death and reasonably proven one way or the other. Some on this board like that sort of thing, but not me. You have your political slant and I have mine.

 

[USMCSergeant]

Fair enough

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Synthaholic]

Right...And the 58,000+ American boys killed by LBJ on a pack of lies was so much chump change.

There you go, defending your boy Bush again.

Your claims to not be a BushBot are almost as big a joke as you are.

I ain't defending shit, chump.

But maybe you can come up with a good rationale for sending more than 58,000 American men to their deaths, over a total lie known as "Gulf of Tonkin Incident".

G'head...We're all waiting with baited breath.

The point is that, when a poster criticized Bush, you jumped in to defend him by pointing to someone who you believe is worse.

You're transparent, retard.

 

[JWBooth]

A legit case can be made that any of the sonsabitches whose term lasted longer than William Henry Harrison's is guilty as charged.

 

[Synthaholic]

Over 58,000 dead young men, and all you can say is BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Goddammit, are you an asshole.

Only Bush defenders use 'BOOOOSH!'


And how many of those 58,000 were under Nixon, retard?

 

[Artevelde]

Over 58,000 dead young men, and all you can say is BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Goddammit, are you an asshole.

Only Bush defenders use 'BOOOOSH!'


And how many of those 58,000 were under Nixon, retard?

About 20,000 I think (if memory serves me right).

 

[Artevelde]

It was Jimmy Carter until obama. It will take several generations to undo obama's damage if it can be done at all.

The poll is about long-term damage. There's no way Obama could have already committed long-term damage. If you think Carter has, then you can tell us what damage he committed.

You can hear a sigh of relief in plains Georgia, Jimmy Carter has been surpassed by obama as America worse president, of the 20TH century

obama had the distinction of being the first worst president of the 21ST century, and also the worse president of all time

It's too early to judge Obama's presidency against historical standards. But I doubt he can beat James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, and a few others who were really bad presidents.

 

[Bfgrn]

Carter.... 444 days that convinced Islamic fundamentalists that there were no repercussions for terrorism and ultimately led us to today.

Seriously?

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

The Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War, when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing.

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the American Marines barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.

Response

There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans, besides a few shellings. In December 1983, U.S. aircraft from the USS John F. Kennedy and USS Independence battle groups attacked Syrian targets in Lebanon, but this was ostensibly in response to Syrian missile attacks on American warplanes.

 

[Sallow]

There you go, defending your boy Bush again.

Your claims to not be a BushBot are almost as big a joke as you are.

I ain't defending shit, chump.

But maybe you can come up with a good rationale for sending more than 58,000 American men to their deaths, over a total lie known as "Gulf of Tonkin Incident".

G'head...We're all waiting with baited breath.

The point is that, when a poster criticized Bush, you jumped in to defend him by pointing to someone who you believe is worse.

You're transparent, retard.

Oddball is no fan of Bush and was against the Iraqi war.

And he has a point about LBJ..which is why I hold him as one of the 10 worst Presidents. Although domestically..he was pretty spot on..it's hard to overcome what he did in Vietnam. And at the end..he realized what a grave mistake he made.

 

[Sallow]

The poll is about long-term damage. There's no way Obama could have already committed long-term damage. If you think Carter has, then you can tell us what damage he committed.

You can hear a sigh of relief in plains Georgia, Jimmy Carter has been surpassed by obama as America worse president, of the 20TH century

obama had the distinction of being the first worst president of the 21ST century, and also the worse president of all time

It's too early to judge Obama's presidency against historical standards. But I doubt he can beat James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, and a few others who were really bad presidents.

Carter wasn't a bad president at all. What he was, was a terrible cheerleader. It's also funny that Ulysses Grant gets left out of the "worst presidents" meme most of the time. The man was terribly bigotted and an alcoholic.