House Speaker Boehner: Bush would have Punched Putin in the Nose
32 replies, posted
Sometimes I wonder if American Republicans hatred for Mr. Putin is genuine, or if the whole Ukraine thing is just another one of their clubs to bash Obama with:
[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/27/politics/boehner-bush-punch-putin/index.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]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 [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/world/europe/vladimir-putin---fast-facts/index.html"]Vladimir Putin[/URL] 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.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]But to invoke Bush is unusual, especially since his foreign policy decisions -- namely the Iraq war -- led to a clean Democratic sweep in 2006. Democrats took control of both the House and Senate in Bush's sixth year in office.
Boehner is also engaging in revisionist history of sorts, since Putin did in fact invade another former member of the Soviet Union and key U.S. ally, the Republic of Georgia, in 2008 when Bush was president.
Bush did not punch either Putin or then-Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev in the nose. In fact, Bush was criticized at the time by some for not reacting more forcefully against Russia.[/QUOTE]
I don't think a lot of people appreciate how lucky we were to get Medvedev and Obama in 2008. Given enough time, the conflict between Bush and Putin, especially over missile defense systems in Ukraine and Poland, could have caused serious problems then.
I don't get how Boehner has the nerve to talk about foreign policy when his own party treats him like a doormat. He's a stooge who's been in charge of the House that has been easily one of the most inept bodies of our government for [b]almost[/b] a decade now.
As Much as you might dislike the notion, a belligerent United States sure would keep the peace better than a benign one.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46355678]As Much as you might dislike the notion, a belligerent United States sure would keep the peace better than a benign one.[/QUOTE]
Not many nations out there trust us at our word anymore, especially with the ongoing scandals and the fact we lead dozens of countries in to a war under false pretenses. That tends to piss people off.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46355678]As Much as you might dislike the notion, a belligerent United States sure would keep the peace better than a benign one.[/QUOTE]
Yeah because security through fear works all the time
Bush and Putin were good buddies, understandably because they have so much in common politically. It's interesting that he neglected to mention that.
Oh how quickly we forget the recent past...
That would be a terrible idea. Putin's nose contains a miniature button that launches the nukes.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46355678]As Much as you might dislike the notion, a belligerent United States sure would keep the peace better than a benign one.[/QUOTE]
Uh couldn't Russia just say the same thing about themselves in their region?
[QUOTE=MattSif;46355711]Not many nations out there trust us at our word anymore, especially with the ongoing scandals and the fact we lead dozens of countries in to a war under false pretenses. That tends to piss people off.[/QUOTE]
The initial motives that sparked the Iraq War were, of course, false and misleading, but it is hard to deny that Saddam Hussein had to be deposed. The United States with its allies was the only power truly capable of toppling Hussein. I am especially tired of hearing how much "better" Iraq would be now under Hussein had we not invaded, because he would have somehow crushed a group like ISIS, as if the only options Iraqis have for governance is tyranny under an autocrat or tyranny under a terrorist group.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46355966]The initial motives that sparked the Iraq War were, of course, false and misleading, but it is hard to deny that Saddam Hussein had to be deposed. The United States with its allies was the only power truly capable of toppling Hussein. I am especially tired of hearing how much "better" Iraq would be now under Hussein had we not invaded, because he would have somehow crushed a group like ISIS, as if the only options Iraqis have for governance is tyranny under an autocrat or tyranny under a terrorist group.[/QUOTE]
It's not about whether it would have been better or not, invading as we did and it turning out to be false is all that matters. It allowed for all of this violence to unfold and all the discord to become commonplace, you can't invade a country under false pretenses and hope the locals don't go fucking batshit as we leave their county in shambles.
What we did was wrong, dead wrong.
[QUOTE=MattSif;46356008]It's not about whether it would have been better or not, invading as we did and it turning out to be false is all that matters. It allowed for all of this violence to unfold and all the discord to become commonplace, you can't invade a country under false pretenses and hope the locals don't go fucking batshit as we leave their county in shambles.
What we did was wrong, dead wrong.[/QUOTE]
"As we leave their country in shambles." If you are suggesting that ISIS was born out of the United States leaving Iraq, I suggest that you leave that myth to Republican pundits. Al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS' direct predecessor, had been pushed out of Iraq by the end of the war. The group regained strength in 2011 not in the power struggle in Iraq but in the civil war in Syria. It would not be until two years later, after the group now dubbing itself ISIS had a stronghold in Syria, that they would return to Iraq. Bashar al-Assad, not Barack Obama, is responsible for ISIS' strength, but he does not quite care, because the group benefits him more than it hurts him, giving him a legitimate reason to use force against separatists.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46356032]"As we leave their country in shambles." If you are suggesting that ISIS was born out of the United States leaving Iraq, I suggest that you leave that myth to Republican pundits. Al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS' direct predecessor, had been pushed out of Iraq by the end of the war. The group regained strength in 2011 not in the power struggle in Iraq but in the civil war in Syria. It would not be until two years later, after the group now dubbing itself ISIS had a stronghold in Syria, that they would return to Iraq. Bashar al-Assad, not Barack Obama, is responsible for ISIS' strength, but he does not quite care, because the group benefits him more than it hurts him, giving him a legitimate reason to use force against separatists.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about ISIS at all, why do you keep bringing that up? Our being there triggered nutjobs from all over the region to come and fight us on a daily basis. As we left the militias stayed and the nation itself was weakened due al Maliki being a tool and shutting out the Kurds and Sunnis from the political process.
We armed and financed Sunni and Shia militias and didn't seem to care too much that they would be going after one another after we left. We involved ourselves in a region that didn't want our presence. Arguing against that fact is ludicrous.
Let's not forget Putin is a sambo martial art master. Not sure if Bush wants to punch him in the nose.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46355678]As Much as you might dislike the notion, a belligerent United States sure would keep the peace better than a benign one.[/QUOTE]
A belligerent nation can never keep the peace. If the US wanted to be a responsible superpower it should mediate conflicts rather than taking sides.
Take Ukraine for example: a neutral arbitrator would support an arrangement which gave the Crimea and the Ethnic Russian Donbass to Russia and promising that Ukraine would not join NATO, in exchange Russia would be required to recognize the new Ukrainian Government and accept accommodate it's desire to join the EU.
I would not be happy with the above arrangement because I'm hugely sympathetic to the Russians and would like to see a pro-Russian Government in Ukraine. But someone with pro western views would not support the solution either because they would see it as giving too many concessions to the Russians.
But such a solution would be an ideal compromise for someone who's only desire is to end the conflict. If the United States sought to play the role of a responsible mediator it would actively pursue the solution I just outlined, neither side would be 100% happy with it, but anything weighted too far in either one's favor would be taking sides. The United States has taken Ukraine's side in the conflict rather than being a responsible arbitrator, therefore it is unfit to maintain it's superpower status.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46356079]A belligerent nation can never keep the peace. If the US wanted to be a responsible superpower it should mediate conflicts rather than taking sides.
Take Ukraine for example: a neutral arbitrator would support an arrangement which gave the Crimea and the Ethnic Russian Donbass to Russia and promising that Ukraine would not join NATO, in exchange Russia would be required to recognize the new Ukrainian Government and accept accommodate it's desire to join the EU.
I would not be happy with the above arrangement because I'm hugely sympathetic to the Russians and would like to see a pro-Russian Government in Ukraine. But someone with pro western views would not support the solution either because they would see it as giving too many concessions to the Russians.
But such a solution would be an ideal compromise for someone who's only desire is to end the conflict. If the United States sought to play the role of a responsible mediator it would actively pursue the solution I just outlined, neither side would be 100% happy with it, but anything weighted too far in either one's favor would be taking sides. The United States has taken Ukraine's side in the conflict rather than being a responsible arbitrator, therefore it is unfit to maintain it's superpower status.[/QUOTE]
Only in a utopia would Ukraine ever consent to those conditions.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46356091]Only in an ideal world would Ukraine ever consent to those conditions.[/QUOTE]
Ukraine would never consent to that, their defence minister said that they would recapture Crimea militarily about 4 months ago but they have not gained ground.
[QUOTE=MattSif;46356059]I'm not talking about ISIS at all, why do you keep bringing that up? Our being there triggered nutjobs from all over the region to come and fight us on a daily basis. As we left the militias stayed and the nation itself was weakened due al Maliki being a tool and shutting out the Kurds and Sunnis from the political process.
We armed and financed Sunni and Shia militias and didn't seem to care too much that they would be going after one another after we left. We involved ourselves in a region that didn't want our presence. Arguing against that fact is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
Terrorist groups, including the predecessors of ISIS, existed in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. The nutjobs were already there.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46356091]Only in a utopia would Ukraine ever consent to those conditions.[/QUOTE]
Why shouldn't they? They get to join the EU just like those protestors wanted, and the parts that would rather join Russia join Russia, the alternative would be long term, bitter and possibly violent secessionist movements.
ukraine also has no economy, a fraction of russias population, and a shitty military. idk how theyre planning on getting crimea back.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46356105]Terrorist groups, including the predecessors of ISIS, existed in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. The nutjobs were already there.[/QUOTE]
Except they were in government then. :v:
Maybe things came full circle.
If we're just talking in terms of who would have the gall to punch another world leader in the face, considering his daddy threw up in Japan's lap, I think Boehner's right. That doesn't make it a good thing.
Bush might've punched Putin in the nose. With Putin's permission.
[video=youtube;fnVwjw2Un4k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnVwjw2Un4k[/video]
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;46355882]That would be a terrible idea. Putin's nose contains a miniature button that launches the nukes.[/QUOTE]
Let's hope his limo doesn't end up T-boning a rocket powered dump truck then!
[QUOTE=The mouse;46355678]As Much as you might dislike the notion, a belligerent United States sure would keep the peace better than a benign one.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it's not like the government spends trillions of dollars on the military every year.
oh wait
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46356134]ukraine also has no economy, a fraction of russias population, and a shitty military. idk how theyre planning on getting crimea back.[/QUOTE]
Really too bad they gave their nuclear arsenal back to the Russians. WMDs give a lot bargaining power to whatever nation that possesses them in any struggle.
Bush wouldn't have punched him in the nose but Cheney would have drained his life force and turn him into one of those husks from Mass Effect
[QUOTE=Govna;46356751]Really too bad they gave their nuclear arsenal back to the Russians. WMDs give a lot bargaining power to whatever nation that possesses them in any struggle.[/QUOTE]
Lol do you really want the Ukrainian army having nukes?
[QUOTE=laserguided;46356777]Lol do you really want the Ukrainian army having nukes?[/QUOTE]
If Ukraine had nukes in the first place this conflict would have probably not happend.
So yeah.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.