Speakeasy forum

General discussion

US Arrogance On Display Again

by James Denison / May 16, 2013 2:57 AM PDT

Obama is out there saying "Assad Must Go!" I wonder how we'd react if some big nation got up and said "Obama Must Go!" and threatened to remove him from power for the good of our people?

He's going to get rid of Assad, but can't protect an Embassy in Benghazi?

Our foreign policy doesn't make much sense. Are we deliberately trying to do all the work for the jihadist forces to form one great Islamic Empire in the Middle East? It sure seems that way.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: US Arrogance On Display Again
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: US Arrogance On Display Again
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Saddam Must Go!
by Josh K / May 16, 2013 3:07 AM PDT

I assume you considered those remarks (and the subsequent unilateral decision to remove him forcibly) just as arrogant if not more so?

Collapse -
Entirely different situation
by James Denison / May 16, 2013 3:16 AM PDT
In reply to: Saddam Must Go!

The possible possession of WMD, the possible nuclear program (we know Pakistan already did one), the threat to Kuwait and it's oil supply to us, and probably others directly related to our interest, which Syria isn't.

Collapse -
OK, now I think you're pulling my leg
by Josh K / May 16, 2013 3:25 AM PDT

You have to be. "Possible" WMD (which it turned out he didn't have). Syria has confirmed WMDs, that they may already have used.

You're admitting to the economic (oil) incentive though. Points for that.

Collapse -
I don't believe he's up to the job
by James Denison / May 16, 2013 3:57 AM PDT

And considering how much money he's overspent here at home, I certainly don't trust him to be as frugal for wartime costs as GW Bush Jr was. Obama can't even keep it down to Bush's spending and that without an active invasion and hot war going on. Obama is going to be the ruin of this nation.

Collapse -
So now it's about money?
by Josh K / May 16, 2013 4:12 AM PDT

Your story changes more often than Bush's reason(s) for invading did. I guess you're now off the "'_____ Must Go!' is arrogant" theme?

Collapse -
do you often get lost
by James Denison / May 16, 2013 5:11 AM PDT

in the itemizations and miss seeing the larger picture?

Collapse -
And true to form....
by Josh K / May 16, 2013 5:38 AM PDT
In reply to: do you often get lost

.....after painting yourself into a corner (yet again) you try to put it on me. Ciao.

Collapse -
Bush kept the costs low
by Diana Forum moderator / May 18, 2013 11:24 AM PDT

by not giving our troops the tools they needed to not get killed and blown up and not giving them the care at home when they survived getting blown up and gave Chaney's company lots of money to build buildings that they either didn't do or did a shoddy job of it so a soldier got electricuted in the shower..

You mean that kind of savings?


Collapse -
(NT) You forgot those free-lance Security Consultants @ AbuGhraib
by Ziks511 / May 20, 2013 12:43 PM PDT
Collapse -
Yeah, Bush was really frugal. NOT !!
by Ziks511 / May 20, 2013 12:40 PM PDT

And the money Obama has "spent" has mostly been spent to clean up the mess left by Bush and his wars and his failure to curb Wall Street or even monitor it via the SEC.

Republicans advocated the abandonment and death of the US car industry, and the loss of all those jobs. Republicans crafted a Bailout of Wall Street with no strings attached like "You can't throw parties with this money" "You can't pay bonuses to the guys who ruined these banks and Investment houses with this money." That's Bush/Republican frugality.



Collapse -
by James Denison / May 20, 2013 12:44 PM PDT

Again with the personal attacks?

Collapse -
Hate to break it to you, Ziks
by TONI H / May 20, 2013 8:24 PM PDT

but the Republicans didn't craft that bailout........the Dems did. Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, and Reid were all in control of the Finance committees in addition to the House and Senate for four years prior to the bailout being done. Selective memories.......I get blamed here in SE for that a lot, but you guys don't see that that door swings both ways. And yes, the Repubs wanted to allow the auto industry to file bankruptcy first and restructure before asking the Gov for financial help if they needed it......that's the normal way for things to go. Unfortunately, the Feds stepped in and bailed them out ahead of time with THEIR marching orders, and THEN bankruptcy happened anyhow.........and they STILL owe us the money back.

Collapse -
Bush signed the bill, Toni
by Josh K / May 20, 2013 10:45 PM PDT

You can (yet again) try to absolve him of any responsibility for anything that happened during his presidency, but he signed the bill and publicly said he thought it was the right thing to do, so don't try to craft some story about how he had no choice.

Collapse -
by TONI H / May 20, 2013 11:04 PM PDT

He signed the TARP bill into law and believed it was the right way to go regarding bailing out the financial industry. Reps did not craft the bill nor did they support including the auto industry bailout in that bill. Because it was rushed thru, the auto portion was a much smaller amount than what BO actually added to it two months later, Josh. Try as you might, you cannot twist the facts to your liking.

Collapse -
And because it was rushed through......
by Josh K / May 20, 2013 11:26 PM PDT
In reply to: Again

.......there was no accountability as to how the money was used, which is how AIG was able to use bailout money to give its top executives big bonuses.

The bill was bipartisan and Bush still signed it.

Collapse -
The bill
by TONI H / May 21, 2013 12:13 AM PDT

was bipartisan regarding the financial bailout not regarding the auto portion of it, Josh. AIG was able to do what it did, the same as other banks, because of existing contracts with their execs. And it wasn't Bush's idea to have no accountability....that was the Dems who controlled the money in the House. As for the rest of the auto bailout money, that was all on BO and his deal making with the unions.....which they then turned around and asked for and received a second bailout which they cooked the books for and used that second bailout to pay down the first bailout.....which BO then bragged about regarding how they paid back the bailout when anybody with a brain knew they hadn't paid off anything and they still owe us five years later, not to mention the loss on the stocks that BO sold off last year. Bush had two months to go in his final term and by being given crap information from people who knew better was pressured into quickly signing TARP. You can harp all you want about how we went into Iraq based on bad intel that everybody, including other countries, believed and that decision was also bipartisan.......but bad financial information from our own Finance Committees that Dodd and Frank headed up, resulted in another bad decision that didn't have to happen but it totally benefited every Dem agenda they wanted rather than the American people they were all elected to protect. Every dime of TARP could have gone instead to home owners who were sucked into bad loans and lost not only their savings but their homes as well, and all of that money would have been well spent in that direction instead....and then perhaps bank and finance officers could have been prosecuted and gone to jail instead of walking away clean. But the Dems weren't interested in any of that or BO two months later would have been all over it.

You can't have it both ways, even though you would love to.

Collapse -
And yet again.....
by Josh K / May 21, 2013 12:21 AM PDT
In reply to: The bill

......you try to pin everything on "The Dems" while giving Bush a complete pass. Was he responsible/accountable for ANYTHING?

Collapse -
by TONI H / May 21, 2013 12:40 AM PDT
In reply to: And yet again.....

he's being held accountable for everything, and BO is the one never accountable for anything, Josh. There were things that Bush did that I publicly posted here over the years that I didn't like or agree with.......I've yet to see even one post in here from a liberal criticizing this jerk for anything and even a liberal has to admit that we are far worse off today then we were with Bush, financially regarding the deficit and debt, security wise...both foreign and domestic, and financially regarding personal jobs or housing or being able to afford to buy even the barest of necessities. BO's agenda has become the 'new normal' and liberals are just fine with it.....as long there are two classes....the rich liberals who don't comprehend the pain the people are in or ignore it completely, and the welfare recipients.

Collapse -
I'm not asking for something you "didn't like."
by Josh K / May 21, 2013 1:02 AM PDT
In reply to: And yet again.....

I'm asking you to post about something that didn't go right, or something bad that happened, where you think Bush should be considered responsible (as president), or more directly accountable. One thing.

I've criticized Obama in the past and I'll do it again right now. I think the story about interference with the Associated Press and Fox News is very troubling. It wouldn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense but it's a very serious matter. It frankly surprises me that the Republicans keep trying to manufacture a scandal out of Benghazi while virtually ignoring a legitimate problem like this one. I read somewhere recently that something like 30% of the Republicans condemning the administration over Benghazi couldn't correctly identify what country that city is in.

Collapse -
Not necessarily Bush, but
by TONI H / May 21, 2013 1:16 AM PDT
In reply to: And yet again.....

when he tried to get immigration reform going and the Reps blocked it.....even though they had some legit reasons for doing so. I don't think that his 'no child left behind' program was successful, but BO's current program is worse.

As for Benghazi....that is ALL BO and HC....and is a real security issue that he and she should be held accountable for.

As for the AP and Fox crap.....that is also all his setting the tone for that that gave 'underlings' (the DOJ) the impression they could insulate him by getting his agenda done.

As for F&F, that is all on him, too for pulling 'executive privilege' for someone who has no legal right to it.

As for the IRS scandal, repeat the AP & Fox crap......

This particular leader has infringed on more Constitutional (and States) rights than any other prez in history and he gets a walk from the liberal media and liberal voters (most of which don't even know who Biden is so that ought to tell you something).

Now....give me your list of things you don't think BO is accountable for over the last four plus years, including not condemning the ad that called his opponent a murderer.

Collapse -
Oh come on
by Josh K / May 21, 2013 1:36 AM PDT
In reply to: And yet again.....

The best you can do is "he failed to get some legislation passed because Republicans in Congress blocked it?" Really?

Collapse -
Ya know Josh...
by Glenda. / May 21, 2013 2:24 AM PDT
In reply to: Saddam Must Go!

it gets tiresome when you continue the diatribe on Bush, when however the coin to Clinton is flipped you call it old news! BO is a bad President, even worse than Carter, But you won't stop defending him, Too bad:(

Collapse -
I don't know where you got that idea
by Josh K / May 21, 2013 2:39 AM PDT
In reply to: Ya know Josh...

I don't recall ever dismissing criticism of Clinton as "old news."

James tried to accuse this president of wrongfully doing something that his predecessor actually did, and which he defended at the time and continues to defend.

His inconsistency isn't my problem.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions

CNET Holiday Gift Guide

Looking for great gifts under $100?

Trendy tech gifts don't require a hefty price tag. Choose from these CNET-recommended useful and high-quality gadgets.