*DAMN R6 Forum

Hi guys, I received an e-mail from my sister in Alaska yesterday and wanted to share it on here (she is with her husband who is stationed with the Air Force in Anchorage):

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

Worst president in history?

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

I just wanna invade another country... and make the whole world one big U.S. FUCKIN A.  Yep... i think that's the best idea yet.


   no matter how much I like Clinton, that was definitely one of the biggest blunders of US history... by not taking OBL when he had the chance, and as a result we have these whacked out policies that were instated during his term.  But i still do believe that Bush, no matter what screw-ups he may have made or whatever in Iraq, is the better candidate for the next 4 years than Kerry... i have a feeling that Kerry would be very similar to clinton, where we all have a false sense of security... that's just not right... i don't want to live through another 9-11 of any sort, big or small... but i definitely don't want to be lookin for some rag-head in some fucked up mountains in the middle of no where in a deprived country while our brothers and sisters in arms die daily for the next 10-20 years.


   So i guess I'm trying to say that we should not have backed out of Falluja (whatever) and give those extremists something to gloat about thinking they somehow thwarted us. Jesus... when are they going to learn that we can crush practically the entire world and some boners supporting an old/dead/ILLEGAL gov't in Iraq pose absolutely no real threat to our forces if all we wanted was to just get in there and slaughter them... bah... fuck em all.

A couple of points....

You havn't 'taken' iraq... Bush might have done his 'Press shoot" when he annouced the end of the war... would you tell me the war is over right now? Driving through some desert with your tanks is not 'taking iraq'.


Germany did infact take on a policy of randomly attacking any ship in the North sea after a massive battle with the British Fleet... And US ships were attacked. It was one of the factors that helped drag america into the war.

???


Sorry to hear you guys kill each other so much over there... perhaps  more tiime and effort sorting out home turf would be better spent.



For the last bloody time... IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AL-QAIDA.
Saddam hussaiin was not a terrorist. He is a disgusting murderer but not a terrorist.
U call it liberation... a lot of Iraqi's i feel might disagree.

Here's some pictures of our  liberation of Iraq (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14195963%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=outrage%2dat%2damerican%2dtorture%2dof%2diraqi%2dprisoners-name_page.html).

What do Korea, Vietnam and WW2 have in common? We were protecting other countries who were attacked ( that, and in the case of WW2, defending ourselves ).

North Korea had attacked South Korea. North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam. Germany attacked, well, just about everyone.

Iraq was attacking. . .?

Afganistan was attacking. . .?


Looks more like 740 to me. . . Also, where do you get "2 years"? We invaded Iraq in early 2003, it's now mid 2004. That's just an exaggerated number to make the casualty count seem insignifficant.  


Yeah? Then why did 9 Americans die in Iraq yesterday? The war isn't over until the shooting stops.

The above posts are Democratic as u can tell. They both think Bush is a stupid, ignorant asshole who has ruined the world. They dont know what they are talking about just as we Republicans dont know what we are talking about. No one knows the fuckin truth so why does everyone bitch? Frankly i think Kerry is a stupid, ignorant, ugly, queer, old guy who will fuck up the presidency. We are all born and raised on Repub or Demo and either way its going to be ugly. For example, if Kerry were to win the election, Repubs would be here bitching and complaing about how hes fucked things up and then Demos would reply (like typhy) and support him. Either way none of this does anything except waste time that we could be putting into life. I think everyone in the US should love and support their nation and its leaders and people who think its bad should be thrown into the pits with our enemies. Mess with the best, die like the rest. You Demos wanna bitch? Go to fuckin Iraq and suck a carpet bomb.

That's the sad truth. An even sadder truth is that the war will never be over, because the shooting will never stop.

They've been at war for over a millenium.

I'm not trying to say GS was right, but let us not forget that Saddam Hussein's cute little Bathe Party was in the business of compensating the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel (along with parts of the royal family in Saudi Arabia).  I'm not trying to say that Israel is right in what they are doing either and that they didn't deserve to be attacked, but to tell some poor kid that he/she's family will get $25,000 USD if they "carry this backpack" over by that school bus stop, or perhaps that busy cafe, that's just sick.  He might not have been a terrorist himself, but how long should the U.S., or the world for that matter, have simply stood by allowing that cauldron to boil over?

The United States of America isn't exactly the #1 country in the world, but I don't think that's an award they hand out at the end of year.  As much as some people hate America, or Americans, at least the U.S. has the balls (some might call it arrogance) to just tell the U.N. to keep having their little meetings while the U.S. Armed Forces move in and try to get results.  The world isn't a perfect place, so why do some of you to expect the U.S. to act all nice and friendly all the time?  <points to Europe>Geez... at least the U.S. didn't sit by while "ethnic cleansing" was "allowed" to take place in the Balkans.</points to Europe>

Simply put, just because the rest of the world is afraid to actually commit to something doesn't mean the U.S. has to play by those crap rules.

.::|N| Noto

P.S.  As for those U.S. soldiers who did those things at the prison in Iraq, they are immoral fools who let their "redneck" side get the better part of them.  They'll definitely get their day in court, and it's not because the world knows about it either.  The U.S. armed forces run a pretty tight ship, and crap like POW abuse is never condoned, let alone "okay at times".

hmm rebel you see things very black and white poor america if there are only 2 sides.

Yeah and europe shouldnt be sitting and waiting but they should kick americas ass for being such a friendly country to the other little countries they dont like.

Ho and bush attacked iraq and afganhistan and i cant remember that those countries attacked america.
There have been many bad leaders he may not be the worst but hes sure one of them.

And I dont believe that those soldiers will be brought to court or they will go home and get a medal after the war or they will get killed in iraq, but going to court for playing a bit with prisonners nah nobody notices that.

I kinda lost track at some point, but was the point you were trying to make: "Bush isnt so bad cause there has been even worse"?

Actually, a man named Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American, acted as a middleman between the U.S. and Sudan, in an attempt to broker a deal for Bin Laden. Former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger only had to meet with Ijaz one time to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interest, as he had a huge stake in Sudanese oil.

Ijaz urged Berger to end sanctions on Sudan, and claimed Sudan was ready to hand over Bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pursued every lead and tried to negotiate, and nothing came of it.?

Ironically, Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.




Wow, you're one ignorant bastard, pull your head out of your ass and get educated.

America wouldn't be America if we just blindly followed our leaders and let them do whatever the hell they wanted. I used to be one of those "Like It Or Leave It" people, but I've seen the error of my ways. Think for yourself, guys. Don't jump on the bandwagon and support the Iraq war, and don't jump on the OTHER bandwagon and be against it, either. Do some research and develop your own opinion. Don't let others dictate your opinions for you.

Brilliant. I found a bit i can agree with.

Rebel I really like your post. It has the mindset that states, "If you dont like what America stands for you should leave!" I am in full agreement with you. So why dont you leave? You obviously have no respect for the founding ideals of the United States. So start packing your bags, because I can hook you up with a nice apartment. You see, I have this Chinese friend that has just immigrated from Beijing and he needs his old apartment filled. I will contact him and tell him I know of an American who wants to be patsie. If you do not like political debate and other points of view you will love living in the middle of Beijing. If something wrong happens we should be quiet. You seem to be willing to give up alot of your rights that your grandfathers have fought for. "Communist" China seems like the perfect place for a narrow minded traglodyte such as yourself.

You also speak about democrats sucking on a carpet bomb. Well why arent you in Iraq? I want you to put your money where your mouth is and join the Army and get deployed to Iraq to see the truth you claim no one knows.

On a note on Germany, didnt Hitler actually declare war on the US the day after Pearl Harbor?


PS Hope you like your view of Tiananmen Square.

Yup, Nazi Germany was in alliance with Japan and Hitler thought it would be a good idea if they could get America to fight on a two front battle at that time instead of devoting all of her resources to the European theatre at a later date.


The first two we really didn't care so much for the countries as we did the spread of the Communist influence over relatively new countries finally breaking free from European and Japanese imperialism. Had the invading countries been non-communist, we wouldn't have blinked an eye at the situation. I tend to think of Korea and Vietnam as civil conflicts with a Communist twinge to it.

Iraq attacked nobody, but with what Bush apparently knew at the time, he thought they would either attack us or spread some WMD to a terrorist organization a la al-Qaeda for them to attack us.

Afghanistan harbored those who attacked us on 9/11 and the ruling Taliban refused to turn them over. Harboring those who attack you is pretty much the same as attacking you themselves and everyone ended up getting punished for that.

Now back to the original question, who was the worst President ever. If you say Bush, you are spouting out nothing but partisan bullshit (same goes to those who love Bush and think he is one of the best). Let's get real folks, there are things that he has well in and things that he has fucked up in.

Worst few Presidents (in no particular order):

Hoover: Great Depression, failure to crack down on big business, etc.

Carter: Great man, but horrible President. Did almost nothng good during his term.

Grant: Corrupt man who had almost no influence within his own administration.

Bush, George HW: Stormed into office riding Reagan's continuing popularity along with the impending meltdown of the Soviet Union..also, 3 words "Read my lips"

I have a few others in my mind, I just dont have enough time to post them...perhaps later.

Since I am enrolled in a class called "the presidency" right now, I am versed on this issue
Here are what I consider the worst presidents:

1. James Buchanan - Think you could sit on your hands any longer James?
2. Warren G. Harding -Talk about corruption, this man was king of it. Almost his entire cabinet was indicted. And he was an idiot to boot.
3. Calvin Coolidge - "The business of America is business." - no shit, Cal
4. Jimmy Carter - He was an awesome guy. The only reason his presidency was bad was because he refused to play by the same corrupt rules as everyone else. Unfortunately, if you do that in our day and age, you can't get anything done, and he didn't.
5. Andrew Johnson - Way to fuck up reconstruction, buddy.

even me, one of the biggest Dubya haters ever, wouldnt put him on the "worst ever" list.

also, that email has a lot of information but it doesnt really ever use that information to make any sort of coherent point, besides the vague undertone that "liberals are bad".

I can't really understand why Jimmy Carter keeps getting a bad rap as a President. In my eyes, he's one of the best we've had, certainly THE best we've had in the last 50 years.

1. Three Mile Island. He went in and reorganized the emergency effort to stop the meltdown. He excercised leadership and personal courage at the individual level when he PERSONALLY went to the accident site to oversee the effort. I believe he was instrumental in stopping Three Mile Island from a total meltdown. He put his life on the line to save his fellow citizens and stop what would have been the most serious disaster in US history, what other president can claim that?

2. Carter was the ONLY President to come close to achieving peace in the middle east. He negotiated peace treaties between nations that had previously been at war for DECADES. For that, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Only two other Presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

At every point during his administration he excercised EXACTLY the kind of leadership that embodies the highest ideals of the Presidency.

There were only two reasons he didn't get relected: there was a hostage situation in Iran and the rescue effort failed. That's it. Otherwise, Reagan would never have been elected and the world would be a very different place today.

And the report is that Kissinger and Reagan struck a deal with Iran to hold those hostages until after the election.  Same sick scheming bs goes on today.  

If you don't mind GS, I'll go ahead and pre-emptively post your reply...  "that's right.  you snooze you lose."

THE best in the last 50 years???  You are telling me Carter was a better President than Eisenhower?  I think not (besides the fact that I rank Kennedy, Reagan, and the current Bush higher than Carter also).

What did Eisenhower do that was so special (discount the stuff he did in WWII, I want to know about his presidency not his military career).

I didn't intend to include Eisenhower. Kennedy would be my number two. But I think he's better than all the rest, paricularly Reagan and Bush Jr.

Eisenhower was a very strong leader when it came to deterrence against the Soviet Union.  It all goes back to the fact that if you make your enemy think that you will destroy him if he attacks you, he wont attack you.  I think that Eisenhower certainly did that very well during the 1950s, thus keeping us out of a nuclear war.

Yeah, I would love the Soviet Union to still be in existance.

As for closest to peace in the Middle East, are you kidding me? The closest would have to be in 1995 until Yitzhak Rabin was gunned down by a Jew extremeist (yet another reason why there will never be peace in the Middle East...extremeists on both sides would never allow it to happen).

Other reasons why Carter sucked:

Oil crisis
Big time inflation
Large unemployment
His inability to deal with the Soviets
His post-Presidency dealings with foreign "enemy" leaders (North Korea, Cuba, Syria, etc.) and his public bad mouthing of America (yes, even though this is post-Presidency, it makes Carter look even worse)

How was he not tough on the Soviets? He was responsible for creating the Afghan Quagmire for them when he sent Zbignew to have the CIA train and equip the Mujahadeen. Then again, one can say that was a mistake of a totally different nature, but he was tough against the Soviets.
        Hate to break it to you GS, but we Russians did not think the US military of 1950s would emerge victorious and Eisenhower did not terrify Nikita Kruschev or Mao Tse Tung. The Soviets lack of wanting to go to war against the US was due to the fact that Nikita did not want a war. Infact, he made a policy change during his term as premeir to switch from military dominance of the West to economic competition with the West. Unfortunately Brezhnev did not uphold this. Not to mention if the USSR did go to war they along with the United States and the rest of the world would be irradiated. Mutually assured destruction offered a sick kind of peace, but it kept us from the apocolypse. Of coarse the USSR would be destroyed but so would the USSR. If you say Eisenhower scared the shit out of the Soviet Union, you must also comment on how Nikita scared the United States. Dont get me wrong, Eisenhower was not a bad president, it was just relativley uneventful. It is a shame (or a great thing depending on your politics) that he could not control McCarthy. You will find no bigger anti-Communist than I, but what started out as a purge of Communists from high level governmental positions turned into a nationwide witch hunt depriving many of their professions because of their suspected political beleifs. I may be a fervent anti-Communist but I also support free speech no matter what that speech may be.
        A few good things that Eisenhower did was end the Korean War, and he threw the first stone when it came to Civil Rights. Remember about the nonsegregation of a Little Rock Highschool? He also tried to pass a Voting Rights Act type legislation called the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Unfortunately, the nation was not ready for this and it waited ten years later for LBJ to sign it.

I picked Eisenhower to dress up as in 4th grade. He was an awesome president indeed. I like ike.

As for Jimmy Carter... i have but one thing to say: panama canal, wtf.

If a strong, competent (at least in foreign policy) President were in office at the time, the Soviets would have never invaded Afghanistan in the first place. The last thing they wanted to do was to piss off the US over a country as small and insignificant as Afghanistan, but seeing as Carter really made no threats or never really showed his displeasure with the Soviets, they took it as a green light to invade and run into their own quagmire.

Like I said earlier, Carter is a good man, but was a crappy President...I don't know why people feel so compelled to defend him.

In addition to assassin's criticisms of carter, i would like to add:

-horrible relationship with congress: his constant antogonism of key leadership in both the house and senate allied both parties against him and caused his domestic agenda, including several key budgets, to be held up indefinitely

-awful cabinet: besides brzezinski, Carter nominated the one of the most inexperienced, haphazard cabinets ever. then he made matters worst by suddenly calling for all of their immediate resignations after three years of their blundering. talk about instability.

-delegation of responsibility: Carter never got much done, because he insisted on doing absolutely everything himself rather than let his assistants, advisors, and cabinet do the things that those positions normally do. because of his constant obsession over every minor detail (down to, as legend goes it, the scheduling of who got to play tennis on the white house tennis court each day) he never got to a lot of important stuff.

-also, I don't see how it's a good thing for the president to try to solve a nuclear disaster himself. we have nuclear engineers for that. it is a security risk for the president to needlessly put his life on the line like that.

It shoudl be said though that Carter was more principled than any other leader we have ever had. His personal morality and beliefs were an honor to the nation--never have we had a leader with a greater sense of duty and responsiblility-it's just a shame that he didn't put the principles to use as well as he could have.

Eisenhower enforced key civil rights legislation despite the protests of his own party
Eisenhower presided over an excellent foreign policy
Eisenhower did an excellent job managing the postwar economy and keeping the deficit in tow

Ummmyeah... you know that he's a nuclear engineer right? That's kinda how he was able to step in and take charge of the situation. His background in nuclear engineering let him know who was bullshitting him and who wasn't. He got rid of the guys who didn't know what they were talking about and brought in his own people.

In a way, he prevented a tragedy far worse than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor could have been from even happening. And I figure in the presidential scheme of things, that's gotta be worth something.

W. is so French. He even takes French buses and brings along French flags when he goes on his "Yes, America Can" bus tour.

Apparently America can't build good buses or produce a flag worth bring'n along

(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040504/i/r1161594147.jpg)

Worst President? In my heart Bush is still the number-one shithead.

Look up your facts before you blindly hate on GWB...it is your kind of blind partisan bullshit that I rail against vehemently.

The buses are actually Canadian made, not French.

Also, Kerry isn't off the hook either, apparently earlier this year he also rode in Canadian buses during the primary campaign.

Shocking. absolutly shocking. Quick brand him for being un-patriotic. Disguisting behavior  :o

FRENCH Canadian. FRENCH Canadian. Isn't that enough? It would be for a Dem to get the shit. So what's good enough for the goose ...

...is enough to make us all look like idiots.

Seriously, when you make issues partisian, you play right into the power broker's hands. Issue based and candidate based voting is the only way to go. When you make it Us vs. Them, both sides stop thinking and more importanly, stop communicating and listening to each other's ideas.

My worry is that when you don't play by the same rules how can you win? If I'm playing tiddly winks and they're playing toss the grenade who's gonna hold the edge? When it's already us versus them and the Repubs have been practicing that idiom for a decades, honning it in the ninties to blunt perfection, how can you compete unless you compete?

I'm not making issues partisan: the issues are already partisan and I'm already partisan. I'm not gonna suddenly become a neutral observor.

Issue based and cadidate based voting would be great. It's not going to be that way for the forseeable future.

So it is Us vs Them. Ppl like you have the luxurious position of holding the middle ground. You can be the broker, if you'd like. I'd rather fight.

OMFG...

wtf does it matter if he rode in a goddamn iraqi bus on his campaign...does that really fucking matter? I'd be more concerned about the issues the candidates platform supports...not a fucking bus he rides in...

EDIT: That's a photoshopped picture btw...

Of course that is photoshopped...some left wing radical nut case probably made it so they can have the same false argument that sixhits had.

... Parrot of what Kos PY.nq.ict said... what does it freaking matter.

Oh and yeah, the lettering does look rather like its been stuck on with a touch of Gaussian blur... as for the flag and bush well.... lol its still funny shit :)

Um, no. I call doofus on you. (you too, Assass :-P)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040504/ids_photos_ts/r1161594147.jpg (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040504/ids_photos_ts/r1161594147.jpg)

and

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5064432&section=news (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5064432&section=news)

And in case you refuse to check the links, the first is a direct link to Yahoo news hosting this Reuters picture, the second is the article from Reuter's with more pictures. And we all know how they like to photoshop their pictures before posting them. It's not like Reuters is a credable news agency or anything.

Interestingly enough, there are now at least TWO pictures of Bush, hands on the French flag in a French Canadian bus. Call me a partisan but don't suggest I'm a lair or easily fooled.

(http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/mdf556760.jpg)

If you take a look at "mdf556760.jpg" (the Reuters' picture) in a hex editor, you will see the string:


or in ASCII:


Appearently, Reuters does photoshop their pictures.

Bah, every publication photoshops their pictures.  It's called color correction, editing, and the other 3 thousand things you do to an image before it is published.  So who knows, if it's on Reuters it would be photoshoped to enhance and not to distort in all likelyhood.

Besides, who fucking cares, goddamn arguing about everything possible.  Maybe his shirt is made from egyptian cotton, does that mean he is going to attack egypt next?

And what if his tighty whities where made by child labor in Africa: does that mean he likes to bang little black boys?

Just about sums it up. how many of you take photographs for work, or scan images and then put them to print or publish without editing them in PS? I don't think i ever have... and i doubt i ever will

Thanks for being ignorant.....

Why don't you elect the next president because of his penis size douchebag...