• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner: Bush would have punched Putin in the nose

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
32,997
Reaction score
14,642
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Davenport, Iowa (CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner is trashing President Obama's foreign policy on the campaign trail by talking up someone Republicans have spent years running from: George W. Bush.
"Does anybody think that Vladimir Putin would have gone into Crimea had George W. Bush been president of the United States? No!" Boehner asked, and answered, before a group of Republican volunteers here.
"Even Putin is smart enough to know that Bush would have punched him in the nose in about 10 seconds!" Boehner said to an applauding crowd.

Boehner: Bush would have punched Putin in the nose - CNN.com

Just STFU Boehner. Seriously. The Cowboy act doesn't hunt. Honestly. This helps diplomacy how exactly?
 
That actually sums up Bush era foreign policy really well. When in doubt, just go punch a world leader in the nose. Who needs diplomacy, trade, negotiation, and other traditional means of foreign relations when you have 'murican pride and really big ass bombs?
 
Putin's Russia went into Georgia in August 2008, while George W. Bush was still President of America, and Putin's nose went unpunched.
 
Putin's Russia went into Georgia in August 2008, while George W. Bush was still President of America, and Putin's nose went unpunched.

Sorry, I hadn't seen that you posted that before I posted my reply.
 
That actually sums up Bush era foreign policy really well. When in doubt, just go punch a world leader in the nose. Who needs diplomacy, trade, negotiation, and other traditional means of foreign relations when you have 'murican pride and really big ass bombs?

Russia has the largest tested nuke: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
 
That actually sums up Bush era foreign policy really well. When in doubt, just go punch a world leader in the nose.

In his defense, Saddam did commit genocide twice, institutionalize rape, sell food-from-oil, fire on no-flies in place to prevent further genocide, fake a WMD program and otherwise obliterate Iraq's economic, social and ecologic capital.
 
That actually sums up Bush era foreign policy really well. When in doubt, just go punch a world leader in the nose.

Maybe Dubya would have given him a nice back rub.

bush-merkel-backrub4.jpg
 
Great person to punch in the nose, eh?

I doubt the strike attempt would be successful anyway seeing as Putin is trained in physical combat and Bush isn't, at least, not anywhere to the level the KGB provides.
 
In his defense, Saddam did commit genocide twice, institutionalize rape, sell food-from-oil, fire on no-flies in place to prevent further genocide, fake a WMD program and otherwise obliterate Iraq's economic, social and ecologic capital.

Rwanda's genocide went on without U.S. intervention and Reagan's administration illegally supported the Contras, whom were rapists and child killers (sometimes by swinging them by their ankles so they could smash their heads on rocks).
 
Rwanda's genocide went on without U.S. intervention and Reagan's administration illegally supported the Contras, whom were rapists and child killers (sometimes by swinging them by their ankles so they could smash their heads on rocks).
That's nothing compared to Saddam, but okay.

BTW, no one's acting like America always does right.
 
Rwanda's genocide

Clinton claims failing to intervene is his greatest presidential regret.

the Contras

It's not like there were good guys. World history is full of such things, so what?
 
In his defense, Saddam did commit genocide twice, institutionalize rape, sell food-from-oil, fire on no-flies in place to prevent further genocide, fake a WMD program and otherwise obliterate Iraq's economic, social and ecologic capital.

Would you like a list of other heads of state who have done much the same or worse whose countries we never invaded?
 
Would you like a list of other heads of state who have done much the same or worse whose countries we never invaded?

250k to genocide (towns of 10k with chems), institutionalized rape, 17 unscr violations and a fake wmd program. Ok, go...
 
250k to genocide (towns of 10k with chems), institutionalized rape, 17 unscr violations and a fake wmd program. Ok, go...

Skipping around the globe, off the top of my head:

Tibet

North Korea

Uganda

El Salvador
 
Skipping around the globe, off the top of my head:

Tibet

North Korea

Uganda

El Salvador

For your next feat will you explain why with actual historical context, political and other limitations and geopolitical priorities?

Or will "does not doing everything all the time" prove the US is evil.
 
That's nothing compared to Saddam, but okay.

BTW, no one's acting like America always does right.

Wholesale rape and murder of women and children is wholesale rape and murder of women and children. Or is there a distinction that you're trying to draw here?
 
Wholesale rape and murder of women and children is wholesale rape and murder of women and children. Or is there a distinction that you're trying to draw here?

The distinction is scale. Do you have a problem with noting factors of power in difference regarding scale?
 
250k to genocide (towns of 10k with chems), institutionalized rape, 17 unscr violations and a fake wmd program. Ok, go...

How many times has Israel done the same? They also won't disclose their WMD's. Should they be invaded too?
 
The distinction is scale. Do you have a problem with noting factors of power in difference regarding scale?

No, not at all. I was just wondering what distinction he was using.
 
Clinton claims failing to intervene is his greatest presidential regret.

It's not like there were good guys. World history is full of such things, so what?

Which is, after all, meaningless.

Saddam was a POS that we supported until he messed with "people" (oil) we obviously backed up with full military force. We looked the other way for many of those atrocities, like gassing the Kurds and then crushing their rebellion after President George H.W. Bush told them to overthrow Saddam. I'm not even remotely trying to suggest that Saddam deserved to live, but after a person learns of the filth we've associated with, and the terrible inhumane things those people have done with our support, the morality argument for disposing Saddam weakens considerably. Because if we're going to base our interventions on morality, we'd be invading pretty much all of Africa, the Middle East and sporadic countries in Asia, most notably, North Korea and China. Now, if you want to add the, "Saddam was a threat to the United States," that argument is similarly bull****.
 
How many times has Israel done the same?

That would none. Given you're unaware of such basic facts, it's difficult to figure what you might be on about.

They also won't disclose their WMD's. Should they be invaded too?

They didn't sign the NPT and comparing them to Saddam or the Iranian regime is disgusting stupidity. Do you have a point?
 
Back
Top Bottom