Support NeoGAF

[dcdobson]

lol fuck this guy

 

[Enron]

That always works out swell for the U.S.

Well, I did say that there was virtually no chance of that happening.

Neither of those choices did or will work. How about going at it a different way instead of repeating failure after failure while enduring untold amounts of human suffering.

I didn't say any of them were good, or successful, or whatever. Just that those are pretty much the only options.

What I mentioned are really the only other possible outcomes, and none of them are especially good. Despite that, you folks seem to want to keep cramming words in my mouth. I'll take my leave from this thread.

 

[unsightly]

The people "swayed" by Bush were never going to vote any other way. There's a reason he's been in hiding for the past 6 years. Dude wasn't even mentioned in the 2012 Republican convention and Jeb only refers to him as "my brother" and he's done even that very sparingly.

Dude's been in "hiding" because he earned it after spending 8 years doing his investors' bidding. He might have had the lowest approval rate in history, but you wouldn't know it from talking to your average voter..

I'll agree that people were never going to vote any other way, for the most part. You forget that a TON of fresh 18 year old voters don't know anything about Bush. If they manage to wrangle support from those teens..

 

[BertramCooper]

Well, I did say that there was virtually no chance of that happening.

You referred to it as a "best hope" for dismantling Iran's nuclear program. Even if you temper that statement by calling it a lousy option, you're still saying that's ultimately our best option. Which isn't true.

 

[Sijil]

Well as a guy in the Middle East in a country that suffered several suicide car bombs last 2 years alone from the so called freedom fighters in Syria, screw both of Bush and Obama, one for fucking up Iraq the other one for Syria.

Spreading democracy my ass when I start seeing US Middle East policy call for democracy in Saudi Arabia and support the Bahraini uprising then I'll start believing them a bit, until now it's just a pretext for regime change.

 

[boiled goose]

Does the deal make it more or less likely that Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
Less.

I don't understand what conservatives want instead? Bomb Iran?

 

[BertramCooper]

Does the deal make it more or less likely that Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
Less.

I don't understand what conservatives want instead? Bomb Iran?

This is precisely what they want.

 

[Link]

Does the deal make it more or less likely that Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
Less.

I don't understand what conservatives want instead? Bomb Iran?

Yes.

 

[FiggyCal]

I said those were really the only two other choices.

Oh, and I suppose you are a middle eastern scholar, then.

I didn't say that was a good idea. I said that's about the best chance for Iran to give up nuclear weapon ambitions.

You also said that 59% of the public does not believe that Iran will abide by the deal. That doesn't tell us anything about what Iran wants or doesn't want to do. I'm sure many Americans believe in whacky things about the Middle East. Why is it that you don't think the deal will work? How do we know that this is not the best chance we'll get for Iran to give up their nuclear weapon ambitions?

 

[mreddie]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again.

 

[gutter_trash]

I hope W continues to come out and say his opinion and support his brother Jeb.

Americans needs to be reminded of W's presidency and that voting for Jeb would be a return to W style neo-conservative foreign policy that failed.

The shit happening today is directly linked to the disaster of the the Iraq war under W in the first place.

Lol Bush being bankrolled by a Casino Boss, how quaint

 

[SteveWinwood]

Does the deal make it more or less likely that Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
Less.

I don't understand what conservatives want instead? Bomb Iran?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

from 2007

 

[Sijil]

Does the deal make it more or less likely that Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
Less.

I don't understand what conservatives want instead? Bomb Iran?

They want a subservient Iran, like in the days of the Shah, basically a US puppet. The Saudi regime is probably most responsible for spreading the ideologies that most terrorist groups rely on yet they get a free pass for being US allies despite them being the most backwards regime on earth.

 

[Blader]

Well, I did say that there was virtually no chance of that happening.



I didn't say any of them were good, or successful, or whatever. Just that those are pretty much the only options.

So the only options are the bad, unsuccessful ones? Why are these options on the table then?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[geardo]

Does the deal make it more or less likely that Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
Less.

I don't understand what conservatives want instead? Bomb Iran?

They don't actually care - they aren't the ones that will be asked to die in a war with Iran. They just want to keep that donor money flowing.

 

[soleil]

Most important part of the article (the part that actually gives clues on context and purpose of the words) were not bolded:

"In a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors..."

The article can't have it both ways... was it in a closed-door meeting or was it public? Exact opposites. And since he was saying it to Jewish donors, it's pretty obvious he has a reason to say these things even if he doesn't feel that way. Not that a person isn't responsible for their own words regardless, but saying things behind closed-doors to donors that you know the donors want to hear, versus sounding off in public? Worlds apart in terms of how we should interpret the situation. Exact opposite, I would say.

 

[Sijil]

They don't actually care - they aren't the ones that will be asked to die in a war with Iran. They just want to keep that donor money flowing.

Which is pretty ridiculous considering lifting sanctions could open up Iranian markets and oil fields and generate more money.

 

[Thursday War]

"this guy is really bad at fixing my mistakes"

pretty much

 

[eissan]

I said those were really the only two other choices.



Oh, and I suppose you are a middle eastern scholar, then.

I didn't say that was a good idea. I said that's about the best chance for Iran to give up nuclear weapon ambitions.

What fucking Ambition?! No proof of this besides Bibi crying wolf over and over again!
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917 (old but pretty to the point)

Get that hog wash outta here!

 

[geardo]

Which is pretty ridiculous considering lifting sanctions could open up Iranian markets and oil fields and generate more money.

It wouldn't the first case of conservatives being shortsighted.

 

[Blader]

Oh, and I suppose you are a middle eastern scholar, then.

Or he just took a high school history class. You don't need to be a scholar in Middle Eastern politics to know that there's a long history of government coups in the region that backfire on us in the worst way.

I mean, Jesus Christ, just look at Afghanistan and Iraq! These things just happened!

 

[AntoneM]

Most important part of the article (the part that actually gives clues on context and purpose of the words) were not bolded:

"In a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors..."

The article can't have it both ways... was it in a closed-door meeting or was it public? Exact opposites. And since he was saying it to Jewish donors, it's pretty obvious he has a reason to say these things even if he doesn't feel that way. Not that a person isn't responsible for their own words regardless, but saying things behind closed-doors to donors that you know the donors want to hear, versus sounding off in public? Worlds apart in terms of how we should interpret the situation. Exact opposite, I would say.

What are you trying to say?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Bush said he views the rise of the Islamic State as al-Qaeda’s "second act” and that they may have changed the name but that murdering innocents is still the favored tactic. He defended his own administration’s handling of terrorism, noting that the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was captured on his watch: “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they're doing it on TV.”

And who got Al-Awlaki and Osama?

 

[Dabanton]

Most important part of the article (the part that actually gives clues on context and purpose of the words) were not bolded:

"In a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors..."

The article can't have it both ways... was it in a closed-door meeting or was it public? Exact opposites. And since he was saying it to Jewish donors, it's pretty obvious he has a reason to say these things even if he doesn't feel that way. Not that a person isn't responsible for their own words regardless, but saying things behind closed-doors to donors that you know the donors want to hear, versus sounding off in public? Worlds apart in terms of how we should interpret the situation. Exact opposite, I would say.

Does this make it better or worse?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Does the deal make it more or less likely that Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
Less.

I don't understand what conservatives want instead? Bomb Iran?

Yes, they want to use military power to eliminate Iran hegemony and protect SA/Israel's until Iran decides that it's sorry for not being buddy buddy with neo-cons in the US

 

[dabig2]

Well, I did say that there was virtually no chance of that happening.



I didn't say any of them were good, or successful, or whatever. Just that those are pretty much the only options.

What I mentioned are really the only other possible outcomes, and none of them are especially good. Despite that, you folks seem to want to keep cramming words in my mouth. I'll take my leave from this thread.

Nope nope nope. You don't get to come in here and play the "woe is me" victim. What you mentioned are not the only other possible outcomes for one, and two, no one is cramming words in your mouth. You're the one who came up with these 2 options and people debated about these options being any better than diplomacy. That's it.

 

[The Real Abed]

God I miss this show. To think it was before 9/11. It was classic. The neighbor was the best. Just a hilarious show. Matt and Trey were so ahead of their time. It's like they knew how the next 7 years were going to go from the start.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

Fuck G W Bush.... Also it goes without saying Fuck Jeb Bush too

 

[Master Yoshi]

Title should be: Founder of ISIS, George W. Bush, criticizes President Obama on Middle East

This is the harshest burn I've ever witnessed. God. Damn.

I salute you!

 

[Enron]

Nope nope nope. You don't get to come in here and play the "woe is me" victim. What you mentioned are not the only other possible outcomes for one, and two, no one is cramming words in your mouth. You're the one who came up with these 2 options and people debated about these options being any better than diplomacy. That's it.

Ok, fine. I'll come back just for you. Because the bolded part is a lie.

Where exactly did I say that?

I said those were really the only other options. And none of them are guaranteed to work.

"no one is cramming words in your mouth"? This post is exhibit A of that exact thing happening. Just like this

Yes, let's start a war with Iran because that would be brilliant.

or the couple of posters who decided I was advocating for a US-supported coup.

Now I'm done. Have fun arguing.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

This guy. lol.

What did he have to say for all the "intel" he had regarding the WMDs?

I hope to god that his brother is not elected.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Oh good, we need Bush to start speaking up. This country forgets way too easily. Thanks for reminding us how terrible you were as President, W.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Which is pretty ridiculous considering lifting sanctions could open up Iranian markets and oil fields and generate more money.

And ironically having the rich have their taxes raised to spend more on the middle class would make THEM richer.

For a bunch of assholes who care about making money, they sure don't support policies that would make them money AND keep the public docile.

I've always held the belief that most of the rich aren't greedy, they're just stupid and shortsighted.

If they were genuinely greedy, they'd be bending over backwards to help the middle class, because when they're not living paycheck-to-paycheck they'd be spending more on the products from the companies the rich own/shareholders are, which again fills their pocket back up!

 

[soleil]

What are you trying to say?

What I'm trying to say is:

Most important part of the article (the part that actually gives clues on context and purpose of the words) were not bolded:

"In a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors..."

The article can't have it both ways... was it in a closed-door meeting or was it public? Exact opposites. And since he was saying it to Jewish donors, it's pretty obvious he has a reason to say these things even if he doesn't feel that way. Not that a person isn't responsible for their own words regardless, but saying things behind closed-doors to donors that you know the donors want to hear, versus sounding off in public? Worlds apart in terms of how we should interpret the situation. Exact opposite, I would say.

Does this make it better or worse?

Are you kidding? It's clearly, better. He clearly didn't mean for those remarks to be public, and the fact that he was talking to Jewish donors makes it obvious why he said it, so now it's no indication that he actually holds those beliefs.

Imagine two scenarios:

1. You're Obama and you hear Bush is speaking in public, criticizing you. No possible motive other than because he actually feels you're naive. Very damaging to your relations with him and any possible future humanitarian efforts you might want to make with him post-presidency.

2. You're Obama and you hear that Bush was sucking up to Jewish donors in a private meeting behind closed doors, and in the process he criticized you and called you naive. You understand he said it to get money from donors, something people do on both sides of the aisle, yourself included. No reason for you to think he meant it. You don't respond to it and after the presidency, you can continue relations with the Bush family for whatever endeavors you might engage in during your retirement.

 

[geardo]

The best hope for an abandonment of an Iranian nuclear weapons program is for the regime to be toppled and replaced with a more moderate one

/Thread

 

[Blader]

Ok, fine. I'll come back just for you. Because the bolded part is a lie.

Where exactly did I say that?

I said those were really the only other options. And none of them are guaranteed to work.

"no one is cramming words in your mouth"? This post is exhibit A of that exact thing happening. Just like this



or the couple of posters who decided I was advocating for a US-supported coup.

Now I'm done. Have fun arguing.

But they aren't the only options. There's a third option playing out in real life right now.

I don't think you actually understand the options you're putting forth, let alone that they aren't the only possible choices available.

 

[Enron]

But they aren't the only options. There's a third option playing out in real life right now.

Ok, one last time. Then i'm done!

That was in response to Theonik, who asked "well, what ELSE can you do" (other than the diplomatic option).

See what I mean?

 

[googleplex]

What I'm trying to say is:

Most important part of the article (the part that actually gives clues on context and purpose of the words) were not bolded:

"In a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors..."

The article can't have it both ways... was it in a closed-door meeting or was it public? Exact opposites. And since he was saying it to Jewish donors, it's pretty obvious he has a reason to say these things even if he doesn't feel that way. Not that a person isn't responsible for their own words regardless, but saying things behind closed-doors to donors that you know the donors want to hear, versus sounding off in public? Worlds apart in terms of how we should interpret the situation. Exact opposite, I would say.



Are you kidding? It's clearly, better. He clearly didn't mean for those remarks to be public, and the fact that he was talking to Jewish donors makes it obvious why he said it, so now it's no indication that he actually holds those beliefs.

Imagine two scenarios:

1. You're Obama and you hear Bush is speaking in public, criticizing you. No possible motive other than because he actually feels you're naive. Very damaging to your relations with him and any possible future humanitarian efforts you might want to make with him post-presidency.

2. You're Obama and you hear that Bush was sucking up to Jewish donors in a private meeting behind closed doors, and in the process he criticized you and called you naive. You understand he said it to get money from donors, something people do on both sides of the aisle, yourself included. No reason for you to think he meant it. You don't respond to it and after the presidency, you can continue relations with the Bush family for whatever endeavors you might engage in during your retirement.

This is the most ridiculous backwards ass logic I have ever heard. The shit that said behind closed doors is how you really know who and what a person is. Should we not judge Mitt Romney for its 47% comments because they were made behind closed doors and not meant to be seen?

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I'm not really sure why anyone is listening to GWB on Middle East issues

 

[soleil]

This is the most ridiculous backwards ass logic I have ever heard. The shit that said behind closed doors is how you really know who and what a person is. Should we not judge Mitt Romney for its 47% comments because they were made behind closed doors and not meant to be seen?

Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to donors, you're saying what the donors want to hear, not what you actually believe. The most ridiculous ass backwards logic I have ever heard is the think that people open up true feelings when they are begging for money. Considering relations between Obama and Israel right now, you think Bush is going to able to get Jewish donors to give money without criticizing Obama? And when he does, you think it's because it's his true feelings, not just because he wanted the donations? LMAO. Now you're the naive one.

 

[Theonik]

Oh, and I suppose you are a middle eastern scholar, then.

I didn't say that was a good idea. I said that's about the best chance for Iran to give up nuclear weapon ambitions.

I wouldn't use the word scholar, but I am much more familiar with this matter than you..

And no it does not guarantee Iran abandoning nuclear ambitions at all, in all likelihood it destabilizes Iran and gives even crazier people access to nukes which might eventually also include ISIS.

In fact out of all these options it is the most likely to cause many more problems than it solves in the short term, yet, you presented it as the best option? On the premise that Iran won't honour their word?

Do you honestly don't see the massive push such politics gives to whatever new government takes control of Iran to continue the nuclear efforts, and if a moderate government gets put in power them being also deposed by a now more extremist local population?

It shouldn't even be on the table at this point.

 

[googleplex]

Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to donors, you're saying what the donors want to hear, not what you actually believe. The most ridiculous ass backwards logic I have ever heard is the think that people open up true feelings when they are begging for money. Considering relations between Obama and Israel right now, you think Bush is going to able to get Jewish donors to give money without criticizing Obama? And when he does, you think it's because it's his true feelings, not just because he wanted the donations? LMAO. Now you're the naive one.

If you don't believe that Bush doesn't believe ever fucking line of that speach you're the one being naive. Closed door or not. Fund raster or not. It came out of his fat mouth so we can to right to judge him by his words.

"Hey guys I'm making a speach to a gathering of KKK. I'll be telling them what they want to hear. But I'm just raising money. I'm not really racist! "

 

[wildfire]

Also all George Bush did for Iran is pass sanctions and push them into a corner. It did absolutely nothing to deter them from pursuing uranium enrichment programs, since such technology would, whether used for civilian energy programs (as Iran claims) or weapons programs (as Bush's wonderful intelligence community claimed), give Iran extra bargaining power and leverage on the international stage.

It did deter them in the sense they couldn't afford to keep funneling money into the program as easily as they would want to. Obama's method is about convincing them on developing so far and stopping at an agreed upon point.

 

[soleil]

If you don't believe that Bush doesn't believe ever fucking line of that speach you're the one being naive. Closed door or not. Fund raster or not. It came out of his fat mouth so we can to right to judge him by his words.

"Hey guys I'm making a speach to a gathering of KKK. I'll be telling them what they want to hear. But I'm just raising money. I'm not really racist! "

So I provided reasons why Bush would say something he doesn't mean.

And you come back with an insistence that you're right and I'm wrong, with no reasons provided, ignoring obvious incentives when donors are involved.

I think I'm done here =)

 

[RustyNails]

The best hope for an abandonment of an Iranian nuclear weapons program is for the regime to be toppled and replaced with a more moderate one (the Iranian people aren't nearly as conservative nutso as their rulers are) but there's no way in hell that's going to happen.

I see Enron already in his cheerleader outfit and waving his pom poms about the need for toppling a middle eastern regime.

The fuck outta here. People like you indirectly took the lives of one million iraqis, thousands of dead Americans on Iraq soil and millions more injured. Now it's Iran's turn? When will you learn?

 

[dabig2]

Ok, fine. I'll come back just for you. Because the bolded part is a lie.

Where exactly did I say that?

I'm still struggling to understand your frustration of how the debate has drawn on. You threw out 2 other options to diplomacy and, as likely is to happen in conversation about choices, people debated about those options.

And the fact that you think my other post is cramming words or the post you quoted is, speaks to me that you really don't know what you're talking about. The dude you quoted wasn't saying you wanted a war with Iran, just that those 2 choices, the only other choices we apparently have, would result in a long, drawn out war with Iran.

Stop being so thin skinned.

 

[robotzombie]

did anyone say George W. Bash yet?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

There is nothing you really can do. Your choices are 1) ramp up the punishment or 2) covertly destroy it. The United States is willing to do 2), but only to a certain extent - like Stuxnet, etc. Israel is willing to go further - to gas up the bombers and hit their facilities, take out their scientists, etc etc. and they are going to do whatever they think is necessary with or without our approval.

The best hope for an abandonment of an Iranian nuclear weapons program is for the regime to be toppled and replaced with a more moderate one (the Iranian people aren't nearly as conservative nutso as their rulers are) but there's no way in hell that's going to happen.

This is a ridiculous concept and has many historical counterexamples. Nukes aren't the product of crazy regimes, they're a product of defense and a country which senses a threat.

The US perhaps being the only one that desired them for offensive use. Which after seeing the result we recoiled from.

Russia developed a bomb to defend themselves and their gains in WWII, the UK feared the Soviets and a resurgent Germany in the Future, France had been invaded twice, China was solidifying its revolution and developed nukes when the rest of the world didn't recognize them as the "true china" once that had a nuke and people realized they were going nowhere they got recognition. India and Pakistan developed nukes so their border disputes wouldn't escalate, NK to prevent western intervention, Israel to make sure the Jewish state was never existential threatened after 67.

Iran wants a nuke because idiots keep talking about wanting to over throw them. A nuke would prevent that.

Since the impetus for their nuclear program is a fear of intervention and war the best policy towards not getting a nuke would be to stop threatening them, welcoming them back into the nations and not treating them like a pariah state and making them think they have something to fear from every other nation in the region.

A moderate Iran isn't going to not be threatened by israeli/sa hegemony in the region. And the notion that Iran's leaders are radically crazy is absurd because their religion not withstanding (we have had christian messianics in US government before) nothing they've done is different than "moderate" nations like SA, Israel, the US, China, Russia, etc. do all the time. So no regime change isn't a solution, unless to replace them with puppets, which is actually what neocons want, not democratic rulers.

Russia went from the Soviets to "democracy" their foreign policy remains relatively unchanged, Israel has had liberal and right wing governments, foreign policy unchanged. Geography seems to have much more influence in setting foreign policy than and ideology

 

[BobLoblaw]

"this guy is really bad at fixing my mistakes"

Title should be: Founder of ISIS, George W. Bush, criticizes President Obama on Middle East

Can we merge these two into the first post and close the thread please?

 

[Enron]

I see Enron already in his cheerleader outfit and waving his pom poms about the need for toppling a middle eastern regime.

The fuck outta here. People like you indirectly took the lives of one million iraqis, thousands of dead Americans on Iraq soil and millions more injured. Now it's Iran's turn? When will you learn?

Ok fuck it. If I do leave, people will just keep posting this bullshit unchallenged.

I don't advocate for a regime change. I just think that's probably the surest way to get Iran to stop. Doesn't make it a good idea. In fact, I said it wasn't.

No, YOU get the fuck out of here with that bolded shit. Christ almightly.

Iran wants a nuke because idiots keep talking about wanting to over throw them. A nuke would prevent that.

Since the impetus for their nuclear program is a fear of intervention and war the best policy towards not getting a nuke would be to stop threatening them, welcoming them back into the nations and not treating them like a pariah state and making them think they have something to fear from every other nation in the region.

A moderate Iran isn't going to not be threatened by israeli/sa hegemony in the region. And the notion that Iran's leaders are radically crazy is absurd because their religion not withstanding (we have had christian messianics in US government before) nothing they've done is different than "moderate" nations like SA, Israel, the US, China, Russia, etc. do all the time.

No, Iran wants a nuke because they desire what comes along with it - the mere possibility when dealing with others. It strengthens their positions both diplomatically and militarily. Iran is already pretty bold in their interference in other countries in the region - acting like wanting a nuke just so people would leave them alone is pretty hilarious. This is why no one wants them to have a nuke.