George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saudi Arabia bank rolls ISIS,
Qatar bank rolls ISIS,
Turkey bank rolls ISIS,
UAE bank roll ISIS

but waaittt just because Casnio Boss in Vegas says Iran is a bigger threat and just because Bibi NentenYAHOO says that Iran is a bigger threat.. lets jsut go destabilize another country in the Middle-East because Saudi Arabia and Israel want it so

and for what? more chaos?

Deal with ISIS first. And call a spade a spade. Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism and Israel is okay with it because both want Assad out.

what a world of garbage.



Iran is fighting AGAINST ISIS. IMO to my eyes, ISIS it the bigger threat
 
Enron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is what I said. They want to be able to be a regional power. People don't want them to be a regional power. Namely SA and Israel.

My point about the nuke was to prevent talk of regime change. It would give them and their proxies a better ability to get policy which is better for them. This runs contrary to SA and Israels interest. They don't want to deal with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Hothis, Shias demanding rights, They want to just bomb them into oblivion.

Proxy conflict isn't just for the hell of it and it doesn't just continue just because, there are underlying problems which by not being solved continue the struggle. A nuke or a welcoming of them back into the brotherhood of nations can get us to attempt to broach these subjects we haven't and which constantly bubble up to conflicts were thousands die. Obviously the latter is preferable and what Obama is attempting and which Neo-cons detest.

Regime change doesn't change the support for Hothis, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Shias in other nations.
 
Enron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you have this knee-jerk reaction to immediately dismiss the prospect of a peace deal? It's this or war buddy.
 
ProfessorMoran said:
Obama basically gave back everything gained through the surge in Iraq and that country is a fucking mess with Iranian forces running around, Syria is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess, Yemen is a mess, Libya is a mess, six and a half years in office and at some point Obama has to take some responsibility for making the middle east a complete clusterfuck, there's no way around it.
Click to expand...



I'll only blame President Obama for his own mistakes, not his predecessor, who happened to fuck up everything you mentioned.
 
soleil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Got it. It's ok to be an idiot as long as your idiocy is not intended for the general public.
 
9aTUgeC.gif



didn't read lol ^
 
Enron said:
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.
Click to expand...
First, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Our best intelligence indicates that Iran abandoned weaponization over a decade ago. Presently, Iran has an enrichment program. That is a key difference. Second, there are options outside of sabotage or sanctions. You could use a combination of economic and political incentives to induce cooperation and reduce Iran's security concerns. Obviously, an inspections regime would be used to verify compliance. The Obama Administration and its partners are pursuing such a strategy. And I think it's our best option for a few reasons. First, it provides access to Iranian facilities and information that we otherwise lack. Second, it maintains the surprisingly broad international coalition opposed to Iran's enrichment program. We are not limited by two options.

I don't think that is necessarily our best hope. It might depend on your definition of "moderate." If by moderate you mean democratic, then maybe. But I would not presume that a democratic Iran would acquiesce on its enrichment program. The history of nuclear weapons proliferation suggests democracies are as motivated to develop them as autocracies. Of the ten states that have developed nuclear programs, half have been democracies. When you consider that nuclear weapons development is largely motivated by security maximization, that factor transcends regime type. And this touches on your response to APKmetfan, that Iran wants nuclear weapons for the mere possibility when dealing with others, the motivations are not mutually exclusive. Strengthening their position diplomatically and militarily also maximizes their security. That is the overriding motivation for Iran.
ProfessorMoran said:
Obama basically gave back everything gained through the surge in Iraq and that country is a fucking mess with Iranian forces running around, Syria is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess, Yemen is a mess, Libya is a mess, six and a half years in office and at some point Obama has to take some responsibility for making the middle east a complete clusterfuck, there's no way around it.
Click to expand...
The gains from the surge were illusory. That's not Obama's fault. The surge was premised on political reconciliation, and reductions of violence were a means to allow for it. Bush stated as much when he implemented the policy. Reconciliation never materialized. That's why Iraq partially collapsed last year. American troops might have prevented that, but at some point Iraq needed to fend for itself. We had to remove the training wheels eventually. Iraq might as well get over the growing pains now. As for the rest, the only one that I'd blame on Obama is Libya. I didn't support the intervention, and I don't think it's been vindicated. But the rest of it was crap long before Obama.
 
Enron said:
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.
Click to expand...

No that would be the surest way to a long term civil war much like Syria. Who the hell does the US think they are choosing which regime governs who? The US already toppled a democratically elected regime in Iran and it brought the Shah and that lead to the 1979 revolution.

You want regime change for a stable Middle East, start with Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the backwards regimes in the gulf who back ISIS financially, ideologically and theologically or as long as they are allies they are immune to "democracy"?

Don't think for a second that toppling the regime in Iran is as easy as flicking a switch, it will be worse than Syria.

And that bolded shit? The US sanctions against Iraq killed over 500,000 Iraqis alone, that is after the US turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein massacring 200,000 Shia because they feared Iran's influence would spread if Saddam was toppled, the same Saddam that the US and their regional allies bankrolled and turned a blind eye to his massacres against the Iranians back during the Iran Iraq war. The US dealt with the scum of the earth before, striking a deal with Iran won't be the worst thing they've ever done, not by a long mile.

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.
Click to expand...

Want nukes according to who? Not a single piece of evidence that suggest that Iran ever sought to have nukes? Want to kill a man just because you think they might commit a crime possibly sometime in the future?

Iran gets nukes, the Saudis buy nukes from Pakistan we're back to square one. No, I don't see the Iranians vying for nuclear weapons, all of their facilities are open to inspections anyway. This is the same witch hunt that happening in Iraq repeating itself, this is just the same right wing conservatives in the US trying to undermine an agreement simply because they had no part in it.
 
Enron said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know quite well what happened in Iran before the Sha. You know that they have damn good reason to want a nuke.

Don't pretend otherwise.
 
gutter_trash said:
Saudi Arabia bank rolls ISIS,
Qatar bank rolls ISIS,
Turkey bank rolls ISIS,
UAE bank roll ISIS

but waaittt just because Casnio Boss in Vegas says Iran is a bigger threat and just because Bibi NentenYAHOO says that Iran is a bigger threat.. lets jsut go destabilize another country in the Middle-East because Saudi Arabia and Israel want it so

and for what? more chaos?

Deal with ISIS first. And call a spade a spade. Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism and Israel is okay with it because both want Assad out.

what a world of garbage.



Iran is fighting AGAINST ISIS. IMO to my eyes, ISIS it the bigger threat
Click to expand...

I know some of those countries have pretty bad records but is there a documented fact that those countries bankroll Isis ?
 
Coriolanus said:
You know quite well what happened in Iran before the Sha. You know that they have damn good reason to want a nuke.

Don't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

While 53 (54?) is obviously a big part of western history it seems overblown to the motivation of the Iranians. Their memory is much much longer and goes back to the "The Great Game" and further back with repeated invasions of Persia being the link between east and west.

Obviously propaganda plays up recent interventions but these things go back centuries
 
Maninthemirror said:
I know some of those countries have pretty bad records but is there a documented fact that those countries bankroll Isis ?
Click to expand...
None. Private citizens bankrolling ISIS does not mean the government is funding ISIS. I am sure when push comes to shove Saudi Arabia will support ISIS over Assad. But at this moment the countries gutter trash mentioned are dropping bombs on ISIS targets inside Iraq.
 
"History will ultimately judge the decisions that were made for Iraq and I'm just not going to be around to see the final verdict," - George W. Bush

Documented civilian deaths from violence
138,000 – 156,500

Total violent deaths including combatants
211,000

-Iraq in total chaos.
-The most radical zealots the world has seen since the dark ages are running amok beheading innocent civilians. Religious minorities crucified, humanitarian disasters all around that part of the world.
-Several terrorist attacks in Europe as a response to Iraq invasion.
-Disenfranchised Muslim communities are growing, fertile ground for recruitment purposes.
-Refugees are flooding in. As a result of various military operations and upheaval, we have hundreds of thousands seeking refuge from countries like Greece and Italy (the Mediterranean death toll is absolutely horrible).
-Countless billions wasted
-We now have more political dysfunction as citizens don't really trust politicians to make honest and honorable choices.
-The constant lies and disregard for international law is a dangerous precedent. Who knows what the geopolitical situation would be today (with Russia for example), had western countries not invaded Iraq over ten years ago.

History HAS judged you. Tine to shut up.
 
Maninthemirror said:
I know some of those countries have pretty bad records but is there a documented fact that those countries bankroll Isis ?
Click to expand...

RustyNails said:
None. Private citizens bankrolling ISIS does not mean the government is funding ISIS. I am sure when push comes to shove Saudi Arabia will support ISIS over Assad. But at this moment the countries gutter trash mentioned are dropping bombs on ISIS targets inside Iraq.
Click to expand...

I consider the Saudi regime turning a blind eye to all the private citizens funding ISIS via religious donations to be on the same level as official financial support, not to mention the tons of munitions including TOW ATGM's supplied to the so called moderates in Syria that ended up in the hands of Nusra Front and ISIS.

Then you have the fact that there are dozens if not hundreds of satellite TV stations, printed media, Mosques and radio stations legally within the gulf spreading the same Wahabi/Ibn Taymiya doctrine which ISIS follows (and the so does the Saudi regime) being spread.

It might not be on the paper official but that still the same effect as far as I'm concerned.
 
APKmetsfan said:
While 53 (54?) is obviously a big part of western history it seems overblown to the motivation of the Iranians. Their memory is much much longer and goes back to the "The Great Game" and further back with repeated invasions of Persia being the link between east and west.

Obviously propaganda plays up recent interventions but these things go back centuries
Click to expand...

Now factor how many of their neighbours suffered military incursions in recent history.

How things are happening are consequences of the great game, sure, and of how the ottoman empire was divvied up, obviously, but to modern Iran? Foreign incursions on the region do not exist in a vacuum.
 
dave is ok said:
Title should be: Founder of ISIS, George W. Bush, criticizes President Obama on Middle East
Click to expand...

As much as I hate Bush, ISIS is not his fault alone, it is the accumulation of mistakes from every US administration's policy in the middle east since they chose to make Saudi Arabia their regional ally against Abdel Nasser and Assad senior giving away to the rise of their ideology which ISIS shares.
 
Sijil said:
I consider the Saudi regime turning a blind eye to all the private citizens funding ISIS via religious donations to be on the same level as official financial support, not to mention the tons of munitions including TOW ATGM's supplied to the so called moderates in Syria that ended up in the hands of Nusra Front and ISIS.

Then you have the fact that there are dozens if not hundreds of satellite TV stations, printed media, Mosques and radio stations legally within the gulf spreading the same Wahabi/Ibn Taymiya doctrine which ISIS follows (and the so does the Saudi regime) being spread.

It might not be on the paper official but that still the same effect as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
You are right to an extent. I can't say for sure that Saudis are following a double faced mission. But as someone who follows Saudi Arabia news, I can vouch for the fact that the government AND the clerical establishment have condemned ISIS unequivocally. This is important. Saudi Arabian government has battled Al Qaida terrorists and has pretty much eradicated it on its soil. The clerics such as the imam of grand mosque in Makkah used vague terminology to describe AQ and their ideas. The clerics never mixed politics on the pulpit. But with ISIS, the imam of the grand mosque in Makkah (Al As-Sheikh) has repeatedly condemned ISIS from the pulpit using very specific language and called them out. I never saw that happening before.

But again if someone is a fan of duplicituous theory my post wont help. But I'm sort of not and I really think Saudis understand the ISIS threat. After all, ISIS' goal is also to overthrow the Sauds and destroy Kaaba.
 
Coriolanus said:
Now factor how many of their neighbours suffered military incursions in recent history.

How things are happening are consequences of the great game, sure, and of how the ottoman empire was divvied up, obviously, but to modern Iran? Foreign incursions on the region do not exist in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreing. I'm just saying the iranian/persian memory is much further than the US/neocon who thinks history started in 1979 or even 53
 
RustyNails said:
You are right to an extent. I can't say for sure that Saudis are following a double faced mission. But as someone who follows Saudi Arabia news, I can vouch for the fact that the government AND the clerical establishment have condemned ISIS unequivocally. This is important. Saudi Arabian government has battled Al Qaida terrorists and has pretty much eradicated it on its soil. The clerics such as the imam of grand mosque in Makkah used vague terminology to describe AQ and their ideas. The clerics never mixed politics on the pulpit. But with ISIS, the imam of the grand mosque in Makkah (Al As-Sheikh) has repeatedly condemned ISIS from the pulpit using very specific language and called them out. I never saw that happening before.

But again if someone is a fan of duplicituous theory my post wont help. But I'm sort of not and I really think Saudis understand the ISIS threat. After all, ISIS' goal is also to overthrow the Sauds and destroy Kaaba.
Click to expand...

Indeed the Saudis now fear ISIS spreading into their lands, but I can't see them fighting them outside the gulf borders since they proved to be a strong tool against Iran, Assad and Hezbollah.

Just look at the battlefield in Yemen and Iraq, over a thousand airstrike against a zaidi shia tribe in northern Yemen, yet Al Qaeda overran swathes of east Yemen without a single airstrike. They convened the entire Arab league against a single tribe in Yemen yet when ISIS started their onslaught in Iraq they didn't bother to intervene, isn't Iraq an Arab country? I guess they thought as long as ISIS is killing Iraqi Shia and Iranians they could prove to be useful. Then they wonder why the Arab shia prefer Iran over the Arab nation.
 
Sijil said:
Indeed the Saudis now fear ISIS spreading into their lands, but I can't see them fighting them outside the gulf borders since they prove to be a strong tool against Iran, Assad and Hezbollah.

Just look at the battlefield in Yemen and Iraq, over a thousand airstrike against a zaidi shia tribe in northern Yemen, yet Al Qaeda overran swathes of east Yemen without a single airstrike. They convened the entire Arab league against a single tribe in Yemen yet when ISIS started their onslaught in Iraq they didn't bother to intervene, isn't Iraq an Arab country? I guess they thought as long as ISIS is killing Iraqi Shia and Iranians they could prove to be useful. Then they wonder why the Arab shia prefer Iran over the Arab nation.
Click to expand...
Saudi Arabia hates Iran, Assad and Hezbollah more than ISIS for sure. But the elite realize that ISIS is not a tool you can weild lightly. It will burn anyone that tries to use them. The question of Al Qaida in Yemen was overlooked by the Saudi kingdom because their puppet Saleh was in control and he (rather ineptly) kept the terrorists in check. AQ never came close to toppling the Saleh regime. But the Houthi rebels toppled Hadi's regime and captured the capital San'aa in a fortnite, prompting a military campaign from the Saudis.
 
He should just shut the fuck up in order to prevent people from remembering that he exists, because we wouldn't be even talking about any of this if he hadn't sold us out to the military-industrial complex, spurred on by his blatant lies.

Shutting up is the only hope he has for what little bit of positive legacy he can scrape out from the smoldering remains of Iraq. He doesn't have the right to criticize anybody about their Middle Eastern policy, especially not the guy cleaning everything up.
 
Looking back (and it was embarassing before), but looking back it's so fucking embarassing this guy was ever president of our country. Jeeeeesus christ
 
Damaniel said:
He should just shut the fuck up in order to prevent people from remembering that he exists, because we wouldn't be even talking about any of this if he hadn't sold us out to the military-industrial complex, spurred on by his blatant lies.

Shutting up is the only hope he has for what little bit of positive legacy he can scrape out from the smoldering remains of Iraq. He doesn't have the right to criticize anybody about their Middle Eastern policy, especially not the guy cleaning everything up.
Click to expand...

He can't now. He has to say stuff since his brother is throwing a bid for 2016
 
Theonik said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol ISIS isn't getting anywhere near Iran.
 
Obama must be some goon if this guy has room to talk. He single handedly crushed any semblance of American credibility with his War on Terror.
 
I must admit, I thought President Bush would be better than this once he left office. Sad to see that he would pander to this deluded narrative to sweep his staggering failures under the rug and get some donor bucks for his brother's failed attempt at the Presidency.
 
Sometimes I think the phrase "smh" was invented just for George Bush.

Anyone remember this gem?

Bush did NOT know there was difference between Sunni & Shiite Muslims until Jan '03

Peter Galbraith - former U.S. diplomat: January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, "You mean...they're not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?"

continuing with Galbraith:
For the United States to launch a war where the president is not aware of this very fundamental difference between Sunni and Shiite Arabs is really stunning. It's a bit like the U.S. president intervening in Ireland and being unaware that there are two schools of Christianity - Catholics and Protestants.
Click to expand...
 
Snake said:
I must admit, I thought President Bush would be better than this once he left office. Sad to see that he would pander to this deluded narrative to sweep his staggering failures under the rug and get some donor bucks for his brother's failed attempt at the Presidency.
Click to expand...

It's hard to raise money by openly admitting to war crimes. It's not the easiest of sells.
 
to GW: Bitch no one cares what you think . No one gives a shit about your opinions on the ME. Half of use are thinking about throwing you in irons, and a third of us want you to disappear into private retirement forever.

the fuck out of here.
 
*throws shoe*

This guy has all the fucking nerve coming out of his paint-cave to do anything besides charity work, much less to discuss the Middle East.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Family activities central East florida
14
84
EverydayBeast replied
George Lucas told an impossible story in Star Wars
2
79
2K
Randall365 replied
George Foreman passes away at 76
43
2K
MrA replied
George Lucas on Boba Fett
38
3K
niilokin replied
AI Recreated George Costanza's Marine Biologist Story And It's A Cinematic Masterpiece
15
2K
GymWolf replied
Top Bottom