The Bush Legacy

[The Dude]

Yes; far better to have done nothing and pretended Saddam was not a threat to our allies or to peace in the region and pretend the sanctions were hurting him and not the Iraqi people.

While we are pretending; let's also pretend that Europe had nothing to do with the mess the US was handed in the region and pretend that the former Soviet Union didn't arm despots like Saddam to the teeth.

I'm amused by the revisionist history that also pretends 9-11 didn't occur and the equally dense premise that it cannot happen again.

While we are pretending, we might as well pretend we are no longer the leader of the free world and hand the reigns over to Putin and the useless United Nations. Then we can all pretend there will be peace and that dictators, terrorists and despots will lay down the megalomaniacal desires and pursue peaceful coexistence.

Let's all have a collective global hug now.

Bush's real legacy is that he was a real leader who meant what he said and who after getting overwhelming support for overdue action, actually backed up his rhetoric with action only to be abandon by political apparatchiks and the fickle clueless American sheeple.

Armchair generals are the best

 

[ralfy]

That's not False Flags. It's lying to be sure, but not a False Flags.

A false flag is based on deceit.

 

[/MSG/]

A false flag is based on deceit.

So is a bluff, or a ruse. Neither of those are Flase Flags either.

 

[Dantès]

Yes; far better to have done nothing and pretended Saddam was not a threat to our allies or to peace in the region and pretend the sanctions were hurting him and not the Iraqi people.

While we are pretending; let's also pretend that Europe had nothing to do with the mess the US was handed in the region and pretend that the former Soviet Union didn't arm despots like Saddam to the teeth.

I'm amused by the revisionist history that also pretends 9-11 didn't occur and the equally dense premise that it cannot happen again.

While we are pretending, we might as well pretend we are no longer the leader of the free world and hand the reigns over to Putin and the useless United Nations. Then we can all pretend there will be peace and that dictators, terrorists and despots will lay down the megalomaniacal desires and pursue peaceful coexistence.

Let's all have a collective global hug now.

Bush's real legacy is that he was a real leader who meant what he said and who after getting overwhelming support for overdue action, actually backed up his rhetoric with action only to be abandon by political apparatchiks and the fickle clueless American sheeple.

This from the man who tries to claim that a State Supreme Court decision upholding a guilty verdict means the person was acquitted and continues to call others here stupid after that performance!

 

[Dantès]

Dear dunce; we went into Iraq to enforce resolutions he defied for over a decade. My reference to 9-11 was not one of association you dullard, it was one of REALITY; something that apparently escapes you in your desperate bid to remain globally naive and historically ignorant.

Like I said, I'll deal with your repugnant nonsense later. I have much better things to do today than to argue with a retard with a lot of time on his hands.

In other words: "After getting my ass kicked by liberals all over this site today, I am going to take some time for myself because I have been shown to be a stupid fuck who doesn't know the difference between a State Supreme Court decision upholding a guilty verdict and an acquittal. That was embarrassing because I continue to be reminded it all over here. So I'd rather take a nap!"

 

[ralfy]

So is a bluff, or a ruse. Neither of those are Flase Flags either.

A false flag can also be a bluff or a ruse.

False flag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Examples

See the fifth bullet point.

 

[Truth Detector]

It worked great in WWI till we got involved. And because we got invovled we had WWII and the Cold War and so on and so on. That you are too ignorant to see that is no ones fault but your own.

Dear dunce; the only reason we got involved was because we were attacked.

Damn you libertarians are dunces some times.

 

[Truth Detector]

There is a persistent myth of the US installing Shah Reza Pahlavi in power in Iran and the subsequent hatred for the US by the Iranian people. It is a vast revisionist lie and an effort to bash America as this big mythical imperialistic creature and justify the brutality of a religious fundamentalist regime that super-exceeding the brutality of the Pahlavi regime.

The modern problems of the Middle East can be directly attributed to the European colonial powers that saw a vast oil wealth they could exploit. Britain, France, Russia and the Dutch were intimately involved in the politics and exploitation of resources in the region to the detriment of the Arab people.

The US did not initially support Britain’s colonial efforts in the ME and saw them as manipulators.

The Shah of Iran was not installed by a CIA backed coup; that is false. The Pahlavi dynasty came about in a coup in 1921 in the aftermath of a power vacuum under a British mandate from the post WWI era.

Mohammed Mosaddeq was not democratically elected; that is false. He was installed by the Majlis and due to his popularity, appointed Premier by Shah Reza Pahlavi.

The subsequent coup to unseat Mosaddeq was plotted and planned by the British, as a result of his nationalization of British oil interests in the region, and assisted by the CIA who by then decided that efforts by Russian Communists in the region were a greater threat than Britain’s colonial empire building.

Now if one wishes to pretend that the Soviet Union did not have expansionist desires in the region as part of the cold war and that nations in the ME were not a product of European interventionism and colonial empire building, then yes, the history of the ME begins in the 1950's. But that is the history for dunces and dimwits.

One has to look back at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and European colonialism and empire building that resulted in the modern borders of nations created in the aftermath like Jordan, Iraq and Syria.

Collapse of the Ottoman Empire, 1918-1920

The armistice of 31 October 1918 ended the fighting between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies but did not bring stability or peace to the region. The British were in control of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq), and British, French and Greek forces stood ready to march across the Bulgarian border and occupy Ottoman Thrace and Constantinople. The Sultan, Mehmed VI, feared he would be deposed. The Allies, however, knew he was a figurehead and hoped that his retention would help ensure post-war stability.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/ottoman-empire/collapse

The Middle East and the West: Carving Up the Region
….
Still, by the early 20th century much of the Middle East and Africa — which had previously been under control of the Ottoman Empire — was ruled by the Europeans.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3859631

 

[Truth Detector]

Did the US assist in Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in Iraq?

That too is a lie and one that seems to be persistent with the revisionist history of dunces.

There is NO credible evidence to support the myth that America had anything to do with the creation of the State of Iraq or with Saddam’s subsequent brutal rise to power.

1950s
During the 1950s and 1960s the Ba'ath Party is a small, underground Arab nationalist group that supports the creation of a pan-Arab state -- a popular idea to Middle East Arabs. At age 20, Saddam Hussein joins the party.

1959
Saddam is selected by the Ba'ath Party to be part of seven-man hit squad to assassinate Iraqi leader Gen. Abdel Karim Kassem. The plot fails. Although Saddam later portrays himself as the leader of the team, in reality he has a small role. He is slightly wounded in the incident and escapes the next morning in a daring swim across the Tigris River. Saddam flees to Cairo and becomes caught up in Egypt's own revolution under the charismatic Gamel Abdel Nasser, whose pan-Arabism Saddam finds appealing. Saddam also becomes a leader of the Ba'ath Party's student cell in Cairo and reportedly regularly visits the U.S. embassy to meet with CIA agents interested in sparking Gen. Kassem's overthrow.

1963
In February, Kassem is assassinated by members of the Ba'ath Party and the CIA helps the Ba'athists by providing lists of suspected communists for the party's hit squads, who kill an estimated 800 people. Saddam returns home and rejoins the party as an interrogator, torturer and killer. Nine months later, the army overthrows the Ba'ath Party and Saddam is jailed. He is said to have studied the political tactics of Hitler and Stalin while in prison.

The bolded part is a myth and cannot be ascertained by any factual evidence. But it does not make the CIA complicit in Saddam’s brutal rise to power or suggest that American funds were involved; the ba'ath revolution was already under way and the US had zero involvement or influence in it.

July 1968
Again, the Ba'ath Party seizes power in Iraq, this time under Ahmad Hassan Al Bakr, Saddam's cousin. Bakr entrusts his 31-year-old relative with the most important job of all: running the state security apparatus to extinguish dissent both inside and outside the party. Within a year and a half, Saddam emerges as Bakr's right hand man.

As Saddam's power and influence grows in the 1970s, it is clear that he has designs on the presidency himself. But he also knows that Bakr has powerful support from the army. Saddam begins to plot against the military establishment and to systematically remove Bakr's closest colleagues.

July 1979
Saddam stages a palace coup and President Bakr resigns for health reasons. Among Saddam's first actions after assuming the presidency is purging the Ba'ath Party of any potential enemies.

Several weeks into his presidency, Saddam calls a meeting of the Ba'ath Party leadership and insists it be videotaped. He announces there are traitors in their midst and reads out their names. One by one, the individuals are led out, never to be seen again. Tapes of the meeting are sent throughout the country, allowing Saddam to send a message to the Iraqi elite.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/cron.html

Who armed the Saddam regime?

During the Iran–Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, the Soviet Union (USSR) sold or gave more military equipment and supplies to Iraq than did any other country,[1] as well as providing military advisers.[citation needed] The public position of the Soviet Union was officially neutral, especially early in the war. They clandestinely provided a smaller amount of support to Iran. Later in the war they more visibly supported Iraq, but still maintained official neutrality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

Soviet arms transfers to Iraq started in 1959 when, after Colonel Abd al Karim Qasim overthrew the pro-Western monarchy, Iraq withdrew from the Baghdad Pact. These arms transfers continued during the 1960s and increased after the signing of the Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1972. The Soviet Union increased arms shipments to support Iraq's counterinsurgency efforts against the Kurds (whom the Soviets had earlier supported). Iraqi relations with the Soviet Union became strained in the late 1970s after discovery of an Iraqi communist party plot to overthrow the leadership and because the Soviet Union was backing Ethiopian attempts to suppress the Iraqi-supported Eritrean insurgency. Nevertheless, the Iraqi policy of acquiring Soviet arms and military equipment in exchange for oil was continued by Saddam Husayn, who succeeded to the presidency of Iraq in 1979.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12686.html

Again; if you want to pretend that the history of Iraq began in the 1980s and that the Soviet Union and European empires did not have a profound influence in the political map of the ME, then you would fall for dunce like myths of this type.

 

[Truth Detector]

The United States is also not complicit in the creation of Israel or initially arming her; that falls again to the British Empire and French along with the collective guilt of the League of Nations and subsequent collapse of the British Palestine mandate.

The US was initially against the creation of a Jewish State at the time and our biggest ally in the region was Saudi Arabia.

Again, the revisionists would have everyone believe that the US is at fault for the mess in the Middle East; but that lies at the feet of European imperialism and colonialism. A mess the US was asked to mediate as the world’s leading power for freedom and liberty.

Now for the revisionist dimwits who think that the US should not take a leadership role in the world and be the global police; I would suggest that you re-read your history books to see where isolationism gets nation states and the FACT that despots, dictators and terrorists don't give a rats behind what you revisionist dimwits think. As long as there are enemies of liberty and freedom who wish to subjugate allies of the US or member nations of the UN, there will be a need for US leadership. Without it, we regress back to the naive and myopic administrations of the Democratic Party and events like Pearl Harbor and 9-11.

Carry on.

 

[ralfy]

"Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984"

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

"U.S. Propaganda in the Middle East - The Early Cold War Version"

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB78/essay.htm

"CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup"

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/

Also,

"CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup"

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/18/cia_admits_it_was_behind_irans_coup

"Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran"

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

 

[Truth Detector]

But isn’t it the devoted conservative that knows NOW, that communism fails by its own preposterous ideology?

Wrong again dunce; Communism did not fail by its own ideology. Again your history is a little rusty and outdated; if not for the efforts of Reagan in the 1980’s and pervious administrations during the cold war to outspend and confront Soviet expansionism, communism would not have imploded on them.

How has Communism failed the Chinese?

Dunce.

Does the true conservative still believe that communism can survive by its dignity and economic genius?

No dunce; it survives through ignorance, neglect and complacency.

Does the truest of conservatives believe in this day and age that it was necessary to kill off, maim and mentally destroy thousands and thousands of young Americans in unnecessary, undeclared, unconstitutional wars simply to prevent an economic ideology so self-destructive as communism?

Wrong again dunce; the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were not unconstitutional any more than they were not bi-partisan. But then when it comes to paranoid historically ignorant dunces like you, you have to make up your own version of reality to remain incredibly ignorant.
But you are welcome to show how Congressional authorization for the president to enforce UN resolutions in Iraq was unconstitutional. I won’t expect anything rational from you; but instead the typical vulgar repugnant ignorance you appear famous for on this forum.

And again I must ask you, “who the fuck died and made America the protector of the world and decider of what manner of government other nations must have for themselves?”

It is a stupid question that only paranoid dunces like you can ask. No one made America Protector of the world you dunce, we took on that role in the aftermath of WWII because we were the ONLY power that could counter the despotic efforts of the Soviet Union.
But you’re a history dunce who is paranoid and lack the intelligence to comprehend facts and reality.

Again I’ll ask you what part Iraq played in 911 that necessitated the carnage of a brutal undeclared, unconstitutional war instituted by a moron American President taking orders from Dickhead Cheney?

You can ask that dimwitted question until you die; the answer will be the same: No one claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 you ignorant dunce.

“We know where Saddam’s WMD is and we will destroy it” (Dickhead Cheney)

The same thing Democrats and leaders of other nations believed.

“Iraq’s Oil will pay for this war.”(Dickhead Cheney)

Do you have any evidence this is not occurring?

“It’s not torture it’s simply enhanced interrogation.” (Dickhead Cheney)

It wasn’t torture; but then you are probably a dunce who thinks that terrorists trying to murder as many of our citizens as they can, can be handled with hugs and kindness.

DUH!!! “OTAY Richard if you say so!!!!(The Bushwhacker)

The facts say so; your rant is that of a naïve uninformed Dunce.

 

[Truth Detector]

"Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984"

The US never “tilted” towards Iraq; we were perfectly happy as long as Iranians and Iraqi’s were killing each other and neither side achieved advantage.

But alas, the OBVIOUS is always too much for the AmeriKa hating dunces.

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.

"U.S. Propaganda in the Middle East - The Early Cold War Version"

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB78/essay.htm

Ahhh yes; the dunce’s naïve view that other nations do not propagandize and promote their ideologies; but it doesn’t make dunce case that America supported rogue regimes.

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.

"CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup"
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/

It was a MINOR role in a British planned coup; a coup re-installing the Shah in power over a communist leaning leftist.
But then, coups were not unusual in this part of the world unless you are an illiterate dunce wallowing in historical ignorance.

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.

Also,
"CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/18/cia_admits_it_was_behind_irans_coup

What was controversial about this coup? That it was the ouster of a leftist instead of a right leaning dictator? That it was quite common in the region? What is controversial other than the naïve dunce like views of anti-AmeriKa dimwits?

It was a MINOR role in a BRITISH plan to regain their lost oil assets.

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.

"Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

The US didn’t “help” Iraq; we were content that Iraq did not gain the upper hand any more than Iran would; why is it leftist dunces need to promote lies based on nothing more substantive than hyperbole and hearsay?

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.

 

[ralfy]

The US never “tilted” towards Iraq; we were perfectly happy as long as Iranians and Iraqi’s were killing each other and neither side achieved advantage.

But alas, the OBVIOUS is always too much for the AmeriKa hating dunces.

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.



Ahhh yes; the dunce’s naïve view that other nations do not propagandize and promote their ideologies; but it doesn’t make dunce case that America supported rogue regimes.

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.



It was a MINOR role in a British planned coup; a coup re-installing the Shah in power over a communist leaning leftist.
But then, coups were not unusual in this part of the world unless you are an illiterate dunce wallowing in historical ignorance.

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.



What was controversial about this coup? That it was the ouster of a leftist instead of a right leaning dictator? That it was quite common in the region? What is controversial other than the naïve dunce like views of anti-AmeriKa dimwits?

It was a MINOR role in a BRITISH plan to regain their lost oil assets.

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.



The US didn’t “help” Iraq; we were content that Iraq did not gain the upper hand any more than Iran would; why is it leftist dunces need to promote lies based on nothing more substantive than hyperbole and hearsay?

What does this have to do with Bush? Oh that's right...NOTHING.

All of the evidence presented to you comes straight from the horse's mouth, i.e., declassified government documents. If we consider what was redacted and still classified, then I think we're looking at the tip of an iceberg.

To anyone who is not naive about how the world has been working since the nineteenth century, then such information should not be surprising. Realpolitik, not morality, is what governs foreign policies and military intervention, and they apply to all military powers.

Your tidy little world (Bush's view that you are either with us or with the terrorists) is now upset by such realities, and it shows in your responses: A problem is minor, has nothing to do with Bush, is justifiable and therefore controversial, or did not take place. It never occurs to you that those who acted to counter the U.S. using similar tactics are giving the same points.

In the end, we have to realize that the "Bush legacy" is no different from those of other U.S. government leaders or their opponents: use the military, covert activities, or foreign policies to gain advantages over others.

 

[Anti-Party]

The Bush Legacy is right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_W._Bush_legislation_and_programs

The small brains are still blaming Obama for everything Bush signed when statistics show that Obama is the smallest growth spender since what, 1950's?.

The Right is the spending horse and they don't care to recognize it. They always spend more than they tax which is driving up our national debt.

The Left tends to pay their bill, even when some people don't want to pay that taxation (but generally want everything included in that taxation)

The National Debt is on the small brains hands.

 

[Anti-Party]

Big debt/gov. control comes from RED states. Christian policies come from BLUE states.

A twisted America

 

[ralfy]

Increased borrowing and spending across the board from 1981 onward, as shown in the chart featured in this article:

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/30/krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt/

Caused by a a reserve-currency economy:

http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=Triffin-dilemma

with a military used to prop up the petro-dollar to keep that heavy borrowing and spending going:

 

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Classic Liberal
But isn’t it the devoted conservative that knows NOW, that communism fails by its own preposterous ideology?

How has Communism failed the Chinese?

Well if we look closely at China and America economically, it’s become pretty hard to distinguish the economic capitalistic difference, except maybe China’s capitalistic system seems to work even better than Americas at present.





Originally Posted by Classic Liberal
Does the true conservative still believe that communism can survive by its dignity and economic genius?

No dunce; it survives through ignorance, neglect and complacency.

Actually it only survives at all if you care to call it “survival” by the point of a gun in the backs of its population in closed societies. Economically it’s a total failure and China is the proof positive of that with their capitalistic transformation.

 

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Classic Liberal
Does the truest of conservatives believe in this day and age that it was necessary to kill off, maim and mentally destroy thousands and thousands of young Americans in unnecessary, undeclared, unconstitutional wars simply to prevent an economic ideology so self-destructive as communism?

Wrong again dunce; the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were not unconstitutional any more than they were not bi-partisan. But then when it comes to paranoid historically ignorant dunces like you, you have to make up your own version of reality to remain incredibly ignorant.
But you are welcome to show how Congressional authorization for the president to enforce UN resolutions in Iraq was unconstitutional. I won’t expect anything rational from you; but instead the typical vulgar repugnant ignorance you appear famous for on this forum.

Oh but surely my vulgar, repugnant fame is severely challenged by your top-notch talents therewith, huh Goober?

I’ll challenge you to find in our Constitution any article or amendment that confirms any power of Congress to present a proxy resolution to a President that in effect gives a cowardly Congressional proxy that allows the Congress to shirk its sworn duty and sole authority to declare all wars and bestows that Power on a President to declare war where and when he/she so chooses. Constitutionally, only the Congress can DECLARE war and a resolution of proxy is not a declaration of war Goober.

 

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Classic Liberal
And again I must ask you, “who the fuck died and made America the protector of the world and decider of what manner of government other nations must have for themselves?”

It is a stupid question that only paranoid dunces like you can ask. No one made America Protector of the world you dunce, we took on that role in the aftermath of WWII because we were the ONLY power that could counter the despotic efforts of the Soviet Union.
But you’re a history dunce who is paranoid and lack the intelligence to comprehend facts and reality.

Oh! So then you admit and promote American Imperialism? America should just TAKE whatever international powers it desires, right Goober? How does America do that without being a BIG fucking government Goober? Explain why so-called conservatives claim they promote limited government yet it seems y’all truly promote BIG fucking Imperialistic government. Can ya do that Goober?

Are you a fucking hypocrite Goober?