BF2S Forums Delusional Bush DOESN'T listen to his generals. Credibility = 0.

Masques wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Ignoring a little something are we. You fail at proper debate.

Those polled were not damn military general or experts. The public wants no more troops because they believe the war is stupid/pointless/ take your pick. They still have no damn idea about military tactics or how to properly maintain peace in a place like Iraq. There for it doesn't fucking matter what the hell people think, because they have no clue. The only people I want to hear from are the generals and experts period. This is why I told you this is a worthless point and that you should focus on your other ones.

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not arguing about whether we should put more troops in or not. This article has no relevane to what I wrote. Not that it's not interesting.

I never diagreed with ship builder either. I simply pointed out that one of his points of emphasis was flawed.

stef10 wrote:

Bush is such a noob of war.

and yet no terror attacks in the US since 911, NOT because they haven't tried either. Who exactly are you going to give credit for that to? OR do you choose to just ignore that inconvenient FACT??!!

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

stef10 wrote:

Bush is such a noob of war.

and yet no terror attacks in the US since 911, NOT because they haven't tried either. Who exactly are you going to give credit for that to? OR do you choose to just ignore that inconvenient FACT??!!

Give us some links or something man. I'd love details on Bush thwarting Al Qaeda plans.

What is the matter? The NEWS doesn't air in your hometown or a newspapaper ever get delivered to it???

Bush was right to do something with Iraq.  He spent too much money.  Other than the money, the war has been a great success.  Few casualties, new government, lots of dead terrorists, and stabile oil supply.

Bush is a dick and a moron, but don't make stuff up about him.  He thought that the Iraqi people would respond better to democracy.  I did too at first.  He was wrong and I was wrong.  It is not Bush's fault, it is the Iraqi peoples fault.

Now lets carpet bomb them and get it over with.  F-Islam.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

Bush was right to do something with Iraq.  He spent too much money.  Other than the money, the war has been a great success.  Few casualties, new government, lots of dead terrorists, and stabile oil supply.

Bush is a dick and a moron, but don't make stuff up about him.  He thought that the Iraqi people would respond better to democracy.  I did too at first.  He was wrong and I was wrong.  It is not Bush's fault, it is the Iraqi peoples fault.

Now lets carpet bomb them and get it over with.  F-Islam.

WOW!


Bush was right with Afghanistan. Thats as far as the "Bush is right" argument goes.

So your solution in Iraq was...........

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

WOW!


Bush was right with Afghanistan. Thats as far as the "Bush is right" argument goes.

So your solution in Iraq was...........

Solutions.....yes. They would be good. Let's ignore that we should never have been in Iraq. Oh yeah, we've moved past that argument. Time to fix the presidential fuck up. Wait til 08' for solutions.

OIC, you are a complete moron.  I guess you forgot the 90's.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Most people from LA are liberal and don't support the war at all. Let alone the fact that nearly 100% of those surveyed are not, nor have ever been military officers. Please don't try to argue with me on part. We all know it's true.

Your other points however look valid. This one it not.

Wrong.

The fact that the poll was conducted by the LA Times has nothing to do with the findings. No newspaper would be stupid enough to conduct such a poll within a single metropolitan area. How do you think they conduct these polls... standing on the corner of Hollywood and Vine, polling passers-by?

LA Times wrote:

METHODOLOGY
The Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg Poll contacted 1,489 adults, including 1,342 registered voters, nationwide by telephone. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation, and random digit dialing techniques allowed listed and unlisted numbers to be contacted. Multiple attempts were made to contact each number. Adults were weighted slightly to conform with their respective census figures for sex, race, age, education and region. The margin of sampling error for all adults, and registered voters, is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups, the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results may also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.

Ignoring a little something are we. You fail at proper debate.

snore...

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Those polled were not damn military general or experts. The public wants no more troops because they believe the war is stupid/pointless/ take your pick. They still have no damn idea about military tactics or how to properly maintain peace in a place like Iraq. There for it doesn't fucking matter what the hell people think, because they have no clue. The only people I want to hear from are the generals and experts period. This is why I told you this is a worthless point and that you should focus on your other ones.

The first thing you did was to nitpick that the poll was based in Los Angeles, when common sense would tell you that it did not. I point that out, and now you're getting all excited ("damn" "fucking" "hell" "there for") because I didn't listen to your point that the American people are not experts about military tactics?

What you seem to misunderstand about my posting of the poll numbers was that it was to illustrate my point that Bush is not listening to nor pandering to ANYONE - not to his employees (ie the generals fighting the war) nor to his employers (ie the American people). If you yourself don't trust polls and don't want to listen to them, fine. You argue that I make "worthless points" and that I "fail at proper debate"? Sorry mate - once you demonstrate an ability to understand my points, I'll start listening to your critique of my style of argumentation.

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

and yet no terror attacks in the US since 911, NOT because they haven't tried either. Who exactly are you going to give credit for that to? OR do you choose to just ignore that inconvenient FACT??!!

Give us some links or something man. I'd love details on Bush thwarting Al Qaeda plans.

What is the matter? The NEWS doesn't air in your hometown or a newspapaper ever get delivered to it???

Exactly.

Why should we back up any contention we ever make, when we can just assign the burden of proof to everyone else?

someone please just answer my question:

Why do we think we know more than Bush considering the following two points:

1) we only know what a few elite people want us to hear (NY Times, Fox News, whatever our source) whereas Bush has been briefed by multiple authorities on what he knows.

2) we do NOT know any classified information, all of which Bush knows or can know if he needs to make a decision that depends on said information.

In all reality, please answer my question.  Convince me that, given the two above truths, we still think we are wiser than our president?

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

what is he thinking? Is he delusional?

leftoverkiller wrote:

bush and rummy are like noob commanders in bf2

IRONCHEF wrote:

His eternal soul is toast.

stef10 wrote:

Bush is such a noob of war.

G3|Genius wrote:

someone please just answer my question:

Why do we think we know more than Bush considering the following two points:

1) we only know what a few elite people want us to hear (NY Times, Fox News, whatever our source) whereas Bush has been briefed by multiple authorities on what he knows.

2) we do NOT know any classified information, all of which Bush knows or can know if he needs to make a decision that depends on said information.

In all reality, please answer my question.  Convince me that, given the two above truths, we still think we are wiser than our president?

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

what is he thinking? Is he delusional?

leftoverkiller wrote:

bush and rummy are like noob commanders in bf2

IRONCHEF wrote:

His eternal soul is toast.

stef10 wrote:

Bush is such a noob of war.

Because no war is a good war? The only winning move is not to play. I think that alone makes me more intelligent than any warmonger.

jonsimon wrote:

Because no war is a good war? The only winning move is not to play. I think that alone makes me more intelligent than any warmonger.

What is your nationality?  Why do I ask?  Because without war, you would not be where you are today.

usmarine2007 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Because no war is a good war? The only winning move is not to play. I think that alone makes me more intelligent than any warmonger.

What is your nationality?  Why do I ask?  Because without war, you would not be where you are today.

And that proves what? Without disease, famine, death, and destruction you probably wouldn't have ever been born, does that make any of those things better? No.