Obama compared to Bush

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Ultimate Wil
How will Obama do compared to George W. Bush?

Symmetric Chaos
By the end of his first term the ability to fire disintegrator beams out your eyes will be common place.

He'll also be more liberal and blacker . . . beyond that it would be mainly guessing.

thegodfatha
Obama of course - You'll see.

lord xyz
The only way for me to hate Obama and consider him a possible comparison to Bush is for him to invade Iran.

THE JLRTENJAC
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
beyond that it would be mainly guessing.

yes

KidRock
Originally posted by lord xyz
The only way for me to hate Obama and consider him a possible comparison to Bush is for him to invade Iran.

What about Pakistan?

lord xyz
Originally posted by KidRock
What about Pakistan? Hmm, that would be less bad, but yeah.

Bicnarok
Its a case of horses for courses.

Bush was good dealing with the 9/11 thing (which may have been an inside job?), in such a situation when attacked overwhelming force is needed not waffling.

Now Obama has other problems to solve. He has inherited a open can of worms, and the worms are always harder to get back in than to release them.

It could of course be a white extremist cunning plan, mess everything up then get some black dude to take over to blame for all the problems.smile

One thing for sure, Obama won´t be as good a laugh as Bush.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by lord xyz
Hmm, that would be less bad, but yeah.

Invading a country with nuclear capability which has been a US ally throughout the war on terror and has not provoked a US invasion (it really hasn't regardless of the problems in the Afghan-Pakistan border.) would be not as bad as invading a country which does not have a nuclear capability and has consistently been at odds with the US since the revolution?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Invading a country with nuclear capability which has been a US ally throughout the war on terror and has not provoked a US invasion (it really hasn't regardless of the problems in the Afghan-Pakistan border.) would be not as bad as invading a country which does not have a nuclear capability and has consistently been at odds with the US since the revolution? Invading Iran c/would lead to a US--China war.

Ultimate Wil
IMO Bush is the worst president of all time. He has dragged down our country, and has pretty much killed 1000's upon 1000's of our troops. It didn't take this damn long to end WWII, why is it taking this long to end this. Why haven't we Nuked Iran yet? We decided to nuke Japan but won't nuke Iran? Obama will make us great again.

Wei Phoenix
Originally posted by Ultimate Wil
Why haven't we Nuked Iran yet?

Maybe because we aren't at war with them and because nuking them would be wrong and it would cause thousands of innocent Iranians and children to die. I'm no Einstein but I believe that is the reason. Why do you even think we should nuke Iran?

Ultimate Wil
Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
Maybe because we aren't at war with them and because nuking them would be wrong and it would cause thousands of innocent Iranians and children to die. I'm no Einstein but I believe that is the reason. Why do you even think we should nuke Iran?

We are at war. This has lasted longer than WWII. We didn't care about those Japaneese people, but now we care about the Iranians, do I think it is right to nuke them, no, but what are we waiting? I don't think we should nuke them, but honestly, we had the balls to do it against Japan.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
Maybe because we aren't at war with them and because nuking them would be wrong and it would cause thousands of innocent Iranians and children to die. I'm no Einstein but I believe that is the reason. Why do you even think we should nuke Iran?

"I like nuked food."


-Arnold Schwarzenegger in Twins as Julius Benedict.

Wei Phoenix
Originally posted by Ultimate Wil
We are at war. This has lasted longer than WWII. We didn't care about those Japaneese people, but now we care about the Iranians, do I think it is right to nuke them, no, but what are we waiting? I don't think we should nuke them, but honestly, we had the balls to do it against Japan.

We aren't at war? The Iraq war has been over for years and we aren't at war with Iran. We didn't care about the Japanese people because all of the propaganda that was used to influence us to hate them. Like this.

http://www.irintech.com/x1/images/jean/supermann_says.jpg

If you don't think its right to nuke them then why do you think we should? Do you want to kill 1000s of innocent people? After we did it to Japan, we actually apologized and admitted being wrong for doing so. We don't need a nuke to handle a small country like Iran.

inimalist
Originally posted by lord xyz
Invading Iran c/would lead to a US--China war.

You should look up Pakistan-China relations during Indira Ghandi's rule of India.

Both nations have worked hand in hand with each-other against India. Unless you have some stuff I haven't seen (which is likely, lol) I'd almost venture that Pakistan and China have closer relations than Iran and China.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Ultimate Wil
IMO Bush is the worst president of all time. He has dragged down our country, and has pretty much killed 1000's upon 1000's of our troops. It didn't take this damn long to end WWII, why is it taking this long to end this. Why haven't we Nuked Iran yet? We decided to nuke Japan but won't nuke Iran? Obama will make us great again.
Ever heard of Buchanan? He did a little worse.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Ultimate Wil
Why haven't we Nuked Iran yet?

Because before your nuke would hit Iran, two more would land in America - one from Iran and the other one from Russia because you're nuking her backyard.

Although, Im sure few more nukes from other Arab countries would land in America too.

Because starting a nuclear war is all about flexing a muscle.
Get a grip.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Because before your nuke would hit Iran, two more would land in America - one from Iran and the other one from Russia because you're nuking her backyard.

Although, Im sure few more nukes from other Arab countries would land in America too.

Because starting a nuclear war is all about flexing a muscle.
Get a grip.

Russia has faster missiles than the US?

And Iran has Nuclear Weapons?

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Because before your nuke would hit Iran, two more would land in America - one from Iran and the other one from Russia because you're nuking her backyard.

Although, Im sure few more nukes from other Arab countries would land in America too.

Because starting a nuclear war is all about flexing a muscle.
Get a grip.

having a nuclear weapon is vastly different than having the delivery capabilities to hit America from Iran

to compare, Pakistan has had nukes for a while now, yet have no way of striking America with them (they are building their first nuclear capable sub).

Iran does not have intercontinental ballistic abilities. They might hit Israel (who would just nuke them back with complete impunity) but imho their only ability to hit America would be from giving nuclear material to (some) jihadi organizations.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Russia has faster missiles than the US?

And Iran has Nuclear Weapons?

It is in everyone interest, particulary to that of India, China and Russia for America to keep thinking they just own/have nothing of value, are poor and stupid.

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is in everyone interest, particulary to that of India, China and Russia for America to keep thinking they just own/have nothing of value, are poor and stupid.

even if that is 100% true, it doesn't mean that Iran has ICBMs

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
even if that is 100% true, it doesn't mean that Iran has ICBMs

It also does not mean they don't. And it is therefore not an oppertunity to ''nuke'' anyone, just because America suspects they may be unable to defend themselves.

Wei Phoenix
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Because before your nuke would hit Iran, two more would land in America - one from Iran and the other one from Russia because you're nuking her backyard.

Although, Im sure few more nukes from other Arab countries would land in America too.

Because starting a nuclear war is all about flexing a muscle.
Get a grip.

They can shoot all the nukes they want but they won't hit us as long as the legendary Tommy Oliver is there to save us. big grin

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It also does not mean they don't. And it is therefore not an oppertunity to ''nuke'' anyone, just because America suspects they may be unable to defend themselves.

Is there anything indicating that Iran has nuclear capabilities and, on top of that, the ability to strike to the US with them, besides "Well, they might, why not."?

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It also does not mean they don't. And it is therefore not an oppertunity to ''nuke'' anyone, just because America suspects they may be unable to defend themselves.

I might argue about the value of positive and negative evidence, I get your point. I am not arguing for nuclear or ANY military action against Iran.

All I am saying is that, imho, as best we (as in people who follow this but aren't privy to classified info) can discern, Iran probably doesn't have nuclear capabilities that would enable it to defend itself against an American nuclear onslaught.

however, that point is pretty redundant considering that Iran couldn't touch America with conventional warfare anyways.

smile

Ultimate Wil
Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
We aren't at war? The Iraq war has been over for years and we aren't at war with Iran. We didn't care about the Japanese people because all of the propaganda that was used to influence us to hate them. Like this.

http://www.irintech.com/x1/images/jean/supermann_says.jpg

If you don't think its right to nuke them then why do you think we should? Do you want to kill 1000s of innocent people? After we did it to Japan, we actually apologized and admitted being wrong for doing so. We don't need a nuke to handle a small country like Iran.

Are troops are still in Iran, and Bush never bothered to take them out. He let 1000's of our people die. Who cares, they are still innocent people who we killed, and we didn't give a shit about them, and now we care, stupid.

I don't think we should either, I am just wondering why haven't we nuked them. Well we did it to Japan. Yes, and we will do the same in this case smile.

watchk1lla
asdfasdfoasidjf[90q2348 nv048rugw-qe9r8unv 9uifnhi0sfn9qv8n98m75v891374yrnm87edhfn8v734mhv873
mhr8v7chqmt8n79qwhmdf7mhqc7fm434yvm d7yfmqcsoidnv3p9ejf nkasdjfv9f4hyd nipc8y578934yt8c msfg908uhy v4ng89nh4598

Mr Parker
Great to see just about everybody else voted for the first one as well.

Burning thought
oh please, America does not want another war mongering President, and if you did something as ridiculous as attacking Iran, either it will piss off the reds or its own allies.

obviously if it done something as idiotic as actually nuked Iran (if this happens ill be looking out my window for the flying pigs) then the EU will most likely be thinking of throttling America alongside the reds.

inimalist
Originally posted by Burning thought
oh please, America does not want another war mongering President, and if you did something as ridiculous as attacking Iran, either it will piss off the reds or its own allies.

obviously if it done something as idiotic as actually nuked Iran (if this happens ill be looking out my window for the flying pigs) then the EU will most likely be thinking of throttling America alongside the reds.

so, in your opinion, putting more forces into Afghanistan and extending full military operations into Pakistan is not warmongering?

Grand-Moff-Gav
Why is attacking a consistent US ally with nuclear capability seen as worse than attacking a consistent US enemy with no nuclear capability?

Dusty
Obama. No question. I feel sorry for the two idiots who voted for McCain in the above poll.

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why is attacking a consistent US ally with nuclear capability seen as worse than attacking a consistent US enemy with no nuclear capability?

-having an ally in the middle east is nice
-no chance of harsh retaliation

I see your point, and at least personally, I am not suggesting one for the other. Overt military strength in that region is ultimately detrimental, imho, to American security interests, even if it serves an immediate benefit.

Originally posted by Dusty
Obama. No question. I feel sorry for the two idiots who voted for McCain in the above poll.

yes, it is unfortunate that not everyone has the good graces to believe exactly as you do

Bicnarok

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Dusty
Obama. No question. I feel sorry for the two idiots who voted for McCain in the above poll.

yeah I know.Obama might turn out to be as corrupt and evil like the last three presidents we have had,we dont know yet for sure.I'm willing to give him a chance,but at least with Obama things MIGHT change.If MCcain had been elected,things would have stayed the exact same way.

Dusty
Originally posted by inimalist


yes, it is unfortunate that not everyone has the good graces to believe exactly as you do

I know, isn't it?

Mr Parker
Ar first I didn't think it would be much of a difference if Obama or MCcain got elected.Don't get me wrong,I was for sure pulling for Obama when it was obvious Ron Paul wasn't going to get in or have a chance and it came down between these two,but Obama it seems was a far better choice than I thought he would be than Mccain.They said he is already going to shut down Guantanamo bay so no more tortures can take place and he has also said to have ordered some kind of investigation into a UFO sighting or something.Mccain would never have done wither of these two things so at least with Obama,things look like they are going to improve for sure.If Mccain had gotten in things would have stayed the same and the world would be still be screwed up for sure the next four to eight years.

I give Obama props for those two things.He might not be so bad after all.He might have just voted to reinstaet the patriot act like Mccain did cause he knew he there would be no chance for him to get selected to put in by the government if he held the same postition that ron paul did.

tom_servo
Jesus, people. He JUST got elected. Let's wait until he's half-way through his term before we start making comparisons.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mr Parker
I was for sure pulling for Obama when it was obvious Ron Paul wasn't going to get in or have a chance

Wait, there was a point when you though Ron Paul was anything but a joke candidate?

Mr Parker
Not me.Your thinking of someone else."I" said from the very beginning dating way back to last summer all the way up till the elections here many times, that unless Ron Paul got in,were screwed,thats theres no hope for the future of the country or the world cause he is the only candidate who is for the people and more importantly,the only one who believes in the constitution where all the other candidates are all corrupt and only represent big business and big government.I have always said that we were screwed either way with either candidate getting elected.Based on those two things Obama has done so far,I have just a LITTLE bit of hope now that I was wrong and things might get better.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.