BF2S Forums Mrs. Bush, Rice: Bush presidency not a failure

never said he didnt fail did i?  i said he aint the worst.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I would have thought at least finding out what was going on would be more interesting than hearing about fictional farmyard animals.

Whatever, if you think the Bush Presidency wasn't a failure you're out of step with the rest of the US, and certainly the whole of the rest of the world.

Please point to some successes if you can.

Don't see where anyone is saying the Bush presidency doesn't appear to have been a failure at this point. Just arguing your nonsensical position that Bush somehow "let" AQ attack the US. That's pure, unfounded, idiocy that serves no purpose other than to attempt to provoke flame responses. Silly.

And his reaction to the news has been explained multiple times. Perhaps you should research it a bit...but that would be too inconvenient to your Bush-bashing conspiracy nonsense.

ya i'm done with dogbert.  and once you are done with him, all that will be left is lowing.  once he tosses him aside, then he will just talk to himself.  thats the plan at least.  hop on board.

Lowing wrote:

1. Also Oliver North named Bin Laden as a threat in the '80's

So why didn't Bush Snr do anything?

2. like it or not the UN deemed Iraq as a threat, they believed the same intel that the US believed.

No they didn't, the US should have put it to a vote in the UNSC if they were so sure. Even if France had vetoed a majority vote would have given SOME legitimacy.

3. Iraq was breaking the peace treaty for a decade.

No they didn't, they didn't develop WMDs so they didn't break it.

4. Iraq's continued games in violating the peace treaty with inspections. Iraq refused to allow any "surprise" inspections. Iraq would deny access and kick out inspectors for weeks, only to let them in at a later date. Iraq's actions were suspecious and intentions obvious. Continuing the war was justified because the tool used to stop it was not being adhered to. http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Then its up to the UN to deal with. 'Continuing the war' ten years on is just ridiculous, even so a UNSC resolution would be required.

6. Then at least you are not denying the reason these other countries did not want to thump Iraq, it would mess up their dealings with Iraq. Sorry about that.

No I'm not denying various countries, including the US, had business with Iraq. I'm saying it wasn't a factor in the UN discussions. If anything the West had more business with Iraq around Gulf War I and it wasn't a factor.

7.  It is a number, no one knows the exact death count under his rule, does it really matter when we know what he was doing?

It didn't bother anyone at the time, only when he threatened the West's oil supply.

8. I am sorry, when was Bin Laden in our crosshairs after 911 and Bush said let him go?

That would be at Tora Bora, hiring easily bribed mercenaries to hunt him down and keeping US troops in reserve for Iraq.
It was politically useful to have Bin Laden in the lawless and unreachable tribal areas same as it was useful to have AQ attack the US in the first place. Duhbya just 'misunderestimated' the scale of the attack.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-01 16:57:12)

FEOS wrote:

And they weren't alone in that.

Who else was responsible exactly?

FEOS wrote:

And if you bothered to actually look at what they considered to be successes, you'd be hard pressed to say they weren't positive policies

Palestine - deeds not words required, saying one thing while delivering 2,000lb DU bombs to be used on civilians, cynical much?
Africa - drop in the ocean TBH.

Got anything else?

Clinton took a bundle of action, please point to something team durwood did, just one thing, seriously.

I like my blinders fine thank you.
Honestly I believe Duhbya is a dim and easily influenced dolt, Cheney is Satan incarnate.
I don't care what his wife thinks, but seriously if thats the best she can come up with for eight years of his work I wouldn't want to have had to write the Christmas cards.

Bomb specification nazi.
I was thinking kgs, not lbs, my mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28

usmarine wrote:

oug wrote:

Laura Bush wrote:

I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way"

Then we don't really need to consider such moronic views either now do we?

I hope she and her kin die a horrible death and rid us of their miserable existence.

Fuck. Off. You. Fat. Bitch.

funny, i say that about the greeks.




anyway, what do you idiots expect his WIFE to say?  jesus.

you say what about the Greeks?

Agree on the second part btw, it's his wife. I wouldn't be surprised by comments a lot worse than this coming from her.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Clinton took a bundle of action, please point to something team durwood did, just one thing, seriously.

Clinton did what, exactly? Didn't authorize CIA to kill bin Laden when they had him dead to rights? Let the Pakistani ISI (which means Taliban/AQ knows) when the cruise missiles were coming in and to where?

Great "bundle of action" there.

Oh, and then there's the fact that Clinton was in office for years, while Bush was in office for 8 months before 9/11.

Pesky, pesky facts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I like my blinders fine thank you.

Obviously.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Honestly I believe Duhbya is a dim and easily influenced dolt, Cheney is Satan incarnate.

Yep...only dumbasses get into Yale and Harvard.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't care what his wife thinks, but seriously if thats the best she can come up with for eight years of his work I wouldn't want to have had to write the Christmas cards.

It goes back to whether you think it's odd that a woman defends her husband. Clearly you do.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bomb specification nazi.
I was thinking kgs, not lbs, my mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28

More like "fact nazi" if you want to label me.

The GBU-28 is a 2000lb-class munition. But there is no such thing as a DU bomb. Doesn't exist. Thanks for playing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Clinton did what, exactly? Didn't authorize CIA to kill bin Laden when they had him dead to rights? Let the Pakistani ISI (which means Taliban/AQ knows) when the cruise missiles were coming in and to where?
Great "bundle of action" there.
Oh, and then there's the fact that Clinton was in office for years, while Bush was in office for 8 months before 9/11.
Pesky, pesky facts.

Still waiting to hear what action Duhbya took.

What action could he have taken? We've been through this before...you're looking at it with the benefit of knowing exactly what happened and how, then expecting them, based on what we know now vice what we actually knew then, to have taken action to prevent what happened. Your logic is utterly flawed.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yep...only dumbasses with rich and powerful daddies get into Yale and Harvard.

Fixed

Doesn't matter how rich and powerful daddy is...if you don't have the grades and extracurriculars to get in, you don't.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It goes back to whether you think it's odd that a woman defends her husband. Clearly you do.

Sometimes its better to say nothing.
'My husband was a great President, in eight years he did, ah, err, oh.'

When someone attacks your spouse repeatedly, let's see if you keep quiet about it, shall we?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The GBU-28 is a 2000lb-class munition. But there is no such thing as a DU bomb. Doesn't exist. Thanks for playing.

Its a 2000kg munition, if you're going to be a fact nazi you need to be right now and then

I thought it had a DU tip, if not its another of the bunker busters supplied to Israel, no doubt you can clarify.

Nope. Even the bunker busters don't have DU in them. The only munitions that I'm aware of that do are AT rounds (sabot, 30mm, etc). I know for sure that no air-dropped gravity bomb has DU in it.

And the GBU-28 (a laser guided version of the Mk84 2000lb gravity bomb) is what you were talking about, wasn't it? I'm not aware of any 2000kg (4400lb) bombs in the US inventory (or sold via FMS). I'll check with all the USAF weapons officers when I'm with them for the next two weeks in Vegas...I'm sure they'll know if we do.

Please...continue to tell me about USAF munitions. I'd love to hear more.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-01-03 21:08:11)

Dilbert_X wrote:

According to these guys, and plenty of others, they contain depleted uranium.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bombe … 80417.html

But we will never know for sure.

from that link, "The bomb cases contained simulated nuclear components made of depleted uranium, a heavy metal that closely approximates the physical characteristics of enriched uranium, without the hazards associated with weapons-grade material. Use of depleted uranium allowed scientists to realistically assess the effects of impact."

THAT was a single testing mock-up.  Designed to simulate a nuclear bunker buster with DU in place of the fissile element.
NOT an inventory-item bomb.
And, nothing close to what you two were talking

Dilbert_X wrote:

The bomb weighs ~4400lb according to these guys
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … gbu-28.htm

That link references a nominally 5000lbs GBU-28, with a total basic weight of 4637lbs & warhead of 4400lbs.. before you start sticking add-on guidance packages, linkages, and all the little details that bring it up to damn-close to 5000#

Now, per standard United States military practice, our bombs are generally referred to by rounded weights in pounds, rounded in 250 pound increments.  For example, 250#, 500#, 750#, 1000#, 2000#.
Exceptions are generally for special purpose bombs with form-factors well outside the packaging norm of the typical "iron bomb" - like the MOAB, FAE packages, high-yield bunker busters, or nuclear ordinance.

We don't do Kilograms with our bombs, as a rule.

We also don't use (very expensive) Depleted Uranium in applications where iron or lead will do.  This means, with almost no exception, no DU in free-fall/gravity bombs.  The sectional density, thermobaric effects, and tensile strength of DU are applicable to armor penetration applications (tank sabot rounds) - not gravity bombs.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Guess you don't know a lot huh?

Dude, WTF?
You're pulling semi-random articles out of Google's ass, after the fact, that in the majority do not support what you are talking about in the way you represent them to.

AND you're telling a USAF officer he "don't know alot" regarding USAF ordinance - after he's previously demonstrated that, in fact, he does?

AND you're being a condescending prick about it?

That'd be like someone telling me I don't know shit about the M-16, M-60, and C-4.
There are people on the planet that could tell me this, and be right relative to their own expertise - but you are none of them.

Rice was the one pulling the strings in the first place. She is one crazy bitch.

Dilbert_X wrote:

LOL They were links to the manufacturers websites.
If FEOS says its a 2,000lb bomb, and Raytheon and General Dynamics say its a 4,400lb bomb, I think I know who to believe.

AND you're telling a USAF officer he "don't know alot" regarding USAF ordinance - after he's previously demonstrated that, in fact, he does?

He's just proven he knows the square root of fuck all about something he claims to be an expert in, so yeah.

The sectional density, thermobaric effects, and tensile strength of DU are applicable to armor penetration applications (tank sabot rounds) - not gravity bombs.

We are talking about bunker-busting bombs here, hence the use of DU could be appropriate.

Now be quiet, there are grown-ups talking.

You know what? I was thinking of the GBU-27, not the -28. My bad.

Bottomline is: There are no DU bombs in the US inventory, which was the point of the argument, moreso than the weight. The article you linked "proving" DU is used in the weapon says that it was a test round, using DU to simulate a nuke warhead. Remember that whole flare-up about the US testing a new bunker-buster nuke a while back? There you go. Not in production, not fielded...a test round. Ergo, not in the active inventory, not sold to anyone (at least the DU version).

Regardless, you were correct on the weight of the damn thing...just not its makeup.

So be happy. You won 1/4 of the overall argument. Yay for you.

If only you were man enough to admit when you got something wrong, we'd really be making some progress.

And if you think me getting a single munition type--which has only been used by the US a couple of times, back in 1991--confused with another means I know the "square root of fuck all" about USAF weaponry...then you're seriously deluded. Whatever makes you think your e-penis is bigger, I guess.

Oh...and PLEASE point out where I claimed to be an expert on the GBU-28. PLEASE.

What's your next flawed argument?

Last edited by FEOS (2009-01-04 08:04:59)

RDX-FX wrote:

He said "I'm not aware of any 2000kg (4400lb) bombs in the US inventory"

Thats correct, and he was wrong.

Now I'm sure you'd like to give us a rundown on the 7.62mm NATO roller locked M16.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-04 13:20:39)

Dilbert_X wrote:

RDX-FX wrote:

He said "I'm not aware of any 2000kg (4400lb) bombs in the US inventory"

Thats correct, and he was wrong.

Now I'm sure you'd like to give us a rundown on the 7.62mm NATO roller locked M16.

Only if you mistakenly do something horribly ill-informed like confusing the roller-locked 7.62x51 H&K G3 family with the gas-operated M-16 family.

Other than that, FEOS covered everything else in his latest post above.