Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   But but but Putin - Or how America lost Russia because of Bush   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Russia, Vladimir Putin, sphere of influence, liberal democracy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, bilateral relations, American nationalism, George W. Bush  
•       •       •

2355 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2014 at 5:23 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-19 02:55:57 PM  
Bush lost nothing. Putin has always been an asshole.
 
2014-04-19 03:07:13 PM  
Well, the only way to mend this fence is to enter Obama in the All Valley Karate Tournament, where he will face Putin in the final match.  While they'll fight each other fiercely, they'll grow closer as a result of the experience.  Time to get ol' Preznit Fartsnacker training for this showdown by waxing some classic cars and catching insects with chopsticks.

i595.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-19 03:13:08 PM  
Wow. The Obama Damage Control squad is working overtime.
 
2014-04-19 03:14:02 PM  
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
 
2014-04-19 03:16:57 PM  

bigpeeler: Wow. The Obama Damage Control squad is working overtime.


Sweep.  The.  Leg.  Do you have a problem with that?!?!?

Put him in a body bag, bigpeeler!
 
2014-04-19 03:32:19 PM  
You mean if elected officials actively campaign as if Russians are not to be trusted, that some folks might notice? Shocking...

We've taken Russia for granted since the fall of its Communist government, and yet haven't treated them as equals, and often as adversaries. Yeah, Putin and others actually pay the f*ck attention you shaved back jackanapes...
 
2014-04-19 03:52:44 PM  

bigpeeler: Wow. The Obama Damage Control squad is working overtime.


What damage is there to control, other than in conservative fantasyland?
 
2014-04-19 04:49:57 PM  
Wtf? No one should trust Putin.
 
2014-04-19 04:53:35 PM  

bigpeeler: Wow. The Obama Damage Control squad is working overtime.


Short, sweet and at the top of the thread. Should get plenty of bites.
 
2014-04-19 05:27:19 PM  
"The real red line has always been Ukraine," Matlock said.

img825.imageshack.us
 
2014-04-19 05:28:18 PM  
It's almost as if there were things that were independent of our wills!
 
2014-04-19 05:33:56 PM  

bigpeeler: Wow. The Obama Damage Control squad is working overtime.


Third posts. You sure showed those two guys above you!
 
2014-04-19 05:34:28 PM  

hubiestubert: You mean if elected officials actively campaign as if Russians are not to be trusted, that some folks might notice? Shocking...

We've taken Russia for granted since the fall of its Communist government, and yet haven't treated them as equals, and often as adversaries. Yeah, Putin and others actually pay the f*ck attention you shaved back jackanapes...


Maybe someone should campaign with a Putin Bobblehead and knock it a fence post. That'll show 'em.
 
2014-04-19 05:37:45 PM  
FTFA: For a moment, it seemed, the distrust and antipathy of the Cold War were fading. Then, just weeks later, Bush announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so that it could build a system in Eastern Europe to protect NATO allies and U.S. bases from Iranian missile attack.

Thanks, O-Bush-ma.
 
2014-04-19 05:42:46 PM  

WTF Indeed: Bush lost nothing. Putin has always been an asshole.


Yeah, pretty much this.
 
2014-04-19 05:44:15 PM  

bigpeeler: Wow. The Obama Damage Control squad is working overtime.


I would love to hear what you think Obama should actually be doing.
 
2014-04-19 05:45:05 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: WTF Indeed: Bush lost nothing. Putin has always been an asshole.

Yeah, pretty much this.


Exactly Bush was just a fool to think Putin was a good guy. Actually he realized later how wrong he was.
 
2014-04-19 05:46:08 PM  
I really was waiting to see how they could pin this all on Bush. Well played Salon. I figured they'd go with "unilateralism" in terms of intervention but saying that Putin loved us up till we decided to put a missile shield up against Iran, well that's spectacular gymnastics. 10/10.
 
2014-04-19 05:48:51 PM  

Corvus: bigpeeler: Wow. The Obama Damage Control squad is working overtime.

I would love to hear what you think Obama should actually be doing.


Or how anything in the article was incorrect or dishonest.

Remember, our relations with all countries every where were 100 percent perfect before Obama took pwoer.
 
2014-04-19 05:54:30 PM  
img.fark.net

/You all know who I am talking about...
 
2014-04-19 05:59:08 PM  
The NEOCons are the ones spoiling for another fight.  After success in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have turned their attention on bringing Democracy to Ukraine.

They were really upset that the US and Godless Russia were getting along so well, after all, now that Al Quada is finished, why does the US need a huge military?

Evil Russia, the new4th member of the Axis of Evil.
 
2014-04-19 06:03:11 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-19 06:05:44 PM  

Mrbogey: I really was waiting to see how they could pin this all on Bush. Well played Salon. I figured they'd go with "unilateralism" in terms of intervention but saying that Putin loved us up till we decided to put a missile shield up against Iran, well that's spectacular gymnastics. 10/10.


I'm surprised they attempted that landing, considering how good the Russians are at gymnastics.
 
2014-04-19 06:29:13 PM  
regardless of anything in the article, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq basically undermined any moral authority the USA has NOW to speak out against Russia doing the same thing.

the end.
 
2014-04-19 06:31:42 PM  

mrEdude: regardless of anything in the article, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq basically undermined any moral authority the USA has NOW to speak out against Russia doing the same thing.

the end.


Same thing? Really?
Does anyone in the world think there's even the possibility that Ukraine has WMDs?
 
2014-04-19 06:36:49 PM  

Mrbogey: mrEdude: regardless of anything in the article, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq basically undermined any moral authority the USA has NOW to speak out against Russia doing the same thing.

the end.

Same thing? Really?
Does anyone in the world think there's even the possibility that Ukraine has WMDs?


So same thing.
 
2014-04-19 06:42:55 PM  

Summoner101: Mrbogey: mrEdude: regardless of anything in the article, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq basically undermined any moral authority the USA has NOW to speak out against Russia doing the same thing.

the end.

Same thing? Really?
Does anyone in the world think there's even the possibility that Ukraine has WMDs?

So same thing.


whiplash noise + ohsnap.jpeg
 
2014-04-19 06:55:46 PM  

Summoner101: So same thing.


Eh.  Non-partisan middle ground opinion here....Bush was a fool.  I was and am still against the invasion of Iraq.  BUT....saying the ongoing annexation of parts of Ukraine is the same thing as the invasion of Iraq is naive partisan idiocy.     No one, in either political camp, denies Saddam and his regime, were extremely evil murderous   psychopaths - who used banned WMDs on their own citizens killing hundreds of thousands (millions by some estimates) of them, not once, by repeatedly over decades.
 
2014-04-19 07:16:42 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Summoner101: So same thing.

Eh.  Non-partisan middle ground opinion here....Bush was a fool.  I was and am still against the invasion of Iraq.  BUT....saying the ongoing annexation of parts of Ukraine is the same thing as the invasion of Iraq is naive partisan idiocy.     No one, in either political camp, denies Saddam and his regime, were extremely evil murderous   psychopaths - who used banned WMDs on their own citizens killing hundreds of thousands (millions by some estimates) of them, not once, by repeatedly over decades.


Yea, at least Ukraine is on Russia's front door step and is one last buffer between NATO members and Russia.  Not defending Russia's actions, but I can at least understand them.

And really, if we knew Saddam was an extremely evil, murderous psychopath and was committing the level of genocide claimed thus had to be taken out, why did we wait for decades and invade on a trumped up lie?  This is what's kind of scary of the post-Iraq war retconning, people forget why we invaded in the first place then smooth it over with reasoning that applies to dozens of other despot-led countries.  Not to mention the supposed-WMDs he was supposed to have were the WMDs we had given the man but had long since passed their shelf life.
 
2014-04-19 07:23:03 PM  
I'm sorry, was there some time when we "had" Russia?
 
2014-04-19 07:27:41 PM  
Mrbogey better not show his face in this thread again after being served so utterly. Best to just walk it off and live to derp another day.
 
2014-04-19 07:31:45 PM  

Summoner101: why did we wait for decades and invade on a trumped up lie?


Once again, I will say I did not, and do not in retrospect support the invasion of Iraq.  I was just saying your post saying it's the same thing as Ukraine was idiotic, that's all.
 
2014-04-19 07:58:02 PM  

theorellior: Mrbogey better not show his face in this thread again after being served so utterly. Best to just walk it off and live to derp another day.


That was awesome.
 
2014-04-19 08:01:58 PM  

Summoner101: And really, if we knew Saddam was an extremely evil, murderous psychopath and was committing the level of genocide claimed thus had to be taken out, why did we wait for decades and invade on a trumped up lie? This is what's kind of scary of the post-Iraq war retconning, people forget why we invaded in the first place then smooth it over with reasoning that applies to dozens of other despot-led countries. Not to mention the supposed-WMDs he was supposed to have were the WMDs we had given the man but had long since passed their shelf life.


A common misconception. Unless you are French WE didn't give or sell him anything directly related to WMD. We (and many other nations) did sell some dual use technology and materials but most of what Iraq had in its war machine was sold to them by Russia, France, China and Chile. Germany, the US, France, Britain, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Brazil all sold Iraq tools and materials that could have been used by Iraq to make their own in-house weapons. The precursors were not sold to Iraq by the US, that was mostly the French and Soviet era Russians.
 
2014-04-19 08:05:28 PM  

Summoner101: ThrobblefootSpectre: Summoner101: So same thing.

Eh.  Non-partisan middle ground opinion here....Bush was a fool.  I was and am still against the invasion of Iraq.  BUT....saying the ongoing annexation of parts of Ukraine is the same thing as the invasion of Iraq is naive partisan idiocy.     No one, in either political camp, denies Saddam and his regime, were extremely evil murderous   psychopaths - who used banned WMDs on their own citizens killing hundreds of thousands (millions by some estimates) of them, not once, by repeatedly over decades.

Yea, at least Ukraine is on Russia's front door step and is one last buffer between NATO members and Russia.  Not defending Russia's actions, but I can at least understand them.

And really, if we knew Saddam was an extremely evil, murderous psychopath and was committing the level of genocide claimed thus had to be taken out, why did we wait for decades and invade on a trumped up lie?  This is what's kind of scary of the post-Iraq war retconning, people forget why we invaded in the first place then smooth it over with reasoning that applies to dozens of other despot-led countries.  Not to mention the supposed-WMDs he was supposed to have were the WMDs we had given the man but had long since passed their shelf life.


Saddam was our "friend" when he used the chemical weapons on our "enemy'"Iran, We sorta grumbled when he used it on the Kurds. Syria is not our "friend" so we were gonna bomb the shiat out of them for using then America fark yeah.
 
2014-04-19 08:06:08 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Summoner101: why did we wait for decades and invade on a trumped up lie?

Once again, I will say I did not, and do not in retrospect support the invasion of Iraq.  I was just saying your post saying it's the same thing as Ukraine was idiotic, that's all.


You may be new to burns, but they only work if they're brief. If you really want to contextualize my initial comment, it was in response to a known troll inferring Iraq had WMDs while Ukraine does not. Since Iraq did not, my comment is correct in that precise context.

Unless Ukraine still has WMDs which would be unlikely since they'd likely use them to stop, y'know, being invaded and all.
 
2014-04-19 08:08:04 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Summoner101: And really, if we knew Saddam was an extremely evil, murderous psychopath and was committing the level of genocide claimed thus had to be taken out, why did we wait for decades and invade on a trumped up lie? This is what's kind of scary of the post-Iraq war retconning, people forget why we invaded in the first place then smooth it over with reasoning that applies to dozens of other despot-led countries. Not to mention the supposed-WMDs he was supposed to have were the WMDs we had given the man but had long since passed their shelf life.

A common misconception. Unless you are French WE didn't give or sell him anything directly related to WMD. We (and many other nations) did sell some dual use technology and materials but most of what Iraq had in its war machine was sold to them by Russia, France, China and Chile. Germany, the US, France, Britain, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Brazil all sold Iraq tools and materials that could have been used by Iraq to make their own in-house weapons. The precursors were not sold to Iraq by the US, that was mostly the French and Soviet era Russians.


Then that is my mistake. Still, he didn't produce them himself and we didn't give a shiat until we wanted it as an excuse to invade.
 
2014-04-19 08:23:41 PM  

Summoner101: Radioactive Ass: Summoner101: And really, if we knew Saddam was an extremely evil, murderous psychopath and was committing the level of genocide claimed thus had to be taken out, why did we wait for decades and invade on a trumped up lie? This is what's kind of scary of the post-Iraq war retconning, people forget why we invaded in the first place then smooth it over with reasoning that applies to dozens of other despot-led countries. Not to mention the supposed-WMDs he was supposed to have were the WMDs we had given the man but had long since passed their shelf life.

A common misconception. Unless you are French WE didn't give or sell him anything directly related to WMD. We (and many other nations) did sell some dual use technology and materials but most of what Iraq had in its war machine was sold to them by Russia, France, China and Chile. Germany, the US, France, Britain, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Brazil all sold Iraq tools and materials that could have been used by Iraq to make their own in-house weapons. The precursors were not sold to Iraq by the US, that was mostly the French and Soviet era Russians.

Then that is my mistake. Still, he didn't produce them himself and we didn't give a shiat until we wanted it as an excuse to invade.


And they were useless after 1991.
 
2014-04-19 08:24:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Summoner101: Radioactive Ass: Summoner101: And really, if we knew Saddam was an extremely evil, murderous psychopath and was committing the level of genocide claimed thus had to be taken out, why did we wait for decades and invade on a trumped up lie? This is what's kind of scary of the post-Iraq war retconning, people forget why we invaded in the first place then smooth it over with reasoning that applies to dozens of other despot-led countries. Not to mention the supposed-WMDs he was supposed to have were the WMDs we had given the man but had long since passed their shelf life.

A common misconception. Unless you are French WE didn't give or sell him anything directly related to WMD. We (and many other nations) did sell some dual use technology and materials but most of what Iraq had in its war machine was sold to them by Russia, France, China and Chile. Germany, the US, France, Britain, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Brazil all sold Iraq tools and materials that could have been used by Iraq to make their own in-house weapons. The precursors were not sold to Iraq by the US, that was mostly the French and Soviet era Russians.

Then that is my mistake. Still, he didn't produce them himself and we didn't give a shiat until we wanted it as an excuse to invade.

And they were useless after 1991.


That too
 
2014-04-19 08:32:08 PM  
I don't understand.

I distinctly remember Bush looking into Pootie-Poot's soul and seeing someone we could work with.

I must have been misinfromed...
 
2014-04-19 08:58:49 PM  

Summoner101: Mrbogey: mrEdude: regardless of anything in the article, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq basically undermined any moral authority the USA has NOW to speak out against Russia doing the same thing.

the end.

Same thing? Really?
Does anyone in the world think there's even the possibility that Ukraine has WMDs?

So same thing.


The Iraq war was only a decade ago. How can you possibly be so ignorant of fairly recent history?

Let me guess, you read a lot of Daily Kos?

You probably think the Democrats and Clinton voted against the war too.
 
2014-04-19 09:03:30 PM  
theorellior(mainly trolls; seldom contributes): Mrbogey better not show his face in this thread again after being served so utterly. Best to just walk it off and live to derp another day.

Uh huh. Sure. You can do better.
 
2014-04-19 09:08:09 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: I don't understand.

I distinctly remember Bush looking into Pootie-Poot's soul and seeing someone we could work with.

I must have been misinfromed...


Maybe that was just a reflection off the fiery pits of hell.
 
2014-04-19 09:09:00 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: I don't understand.

I distinctly remember Bush looking into Pootie-Poot's soul and seeing someone we could work with.

I must have been misinfromed...


Yes, and spelling error.
 
2014-04-19 09:12:57 PM  

HawgWild: Post hoc ergo propter hoc?


What about birds of prey?
 
2014-04-19 09:54:21 PM  

Summoner101: Then that is my mistake. Still, he didn't produce them himself and we didn't give a shiat until we wanted it as an excuse to invade.


Well that's not exactly true either. We did give a shiat and quite a bit of fuss was made about it, both by Bush the elder who enacted the no fly zone and the Clinton administrations, especially from about 1996 onward. Surely I don't have to drag out all of the quotes made during the Clinton era about how Iraq had WMD do I?

What changed was that pre-9/11 we treated terrorism and other nasty things like it mostly as law enforcement matters, the bombing of the USS Cole for example was investigated by the FBI and there was no military response to it at all, even though that was an actual act of war worthy of a military response that no nation could reasonably object to. After 9/11 we treated them as military matters because, well, treating them as law enforcement matters clearly wasn't working out so well for us. Once that shift in policy was made it became much easier for us to go into Iraq. Saddam had been given plenty of chances to come entirely clean and stop doing the things that he was doing but I think that he didn't realize what that policy shift meant for him and that business as usual was going to get a different response than before.

That and the US in general went a little bit insane for a couple of years. I think that it was national grief that caused that to happen but Saddam didn't take that into account either.
 
2014-04-19 09:55:48 PM  

Mrbogey: theorellior (mainly trolls; seldom contributes)


Oh, look, I've been Farkied as a troll by Fark's resident dumbass right-wing moron.

Check yourself, pardner. I've been around as long as you have, and remember times when right-wing Farkers would be embarrassed to be in the same thread as your lame-ass self.
 
2014-04-19 09:56:56 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Summoner101: Then that is my mistake. Still, he didn't produce them himself and we didn't give a shiat until we wanted it as an excuse to invade.

Well that's not exactly true either. We did give a shiat and quite a bit of fuss was made about it, both by Bush the elder who enacted the no fly zone and the Clinton administrations, especially from about 1996 onward. Surely I don't have to drag out all of the quotes made during the Clinton era about how Iraq had WMD do I?

What changed was that pre-9/11 we treated terrorism and other nasty things like it mostly as law enforcement matters, the bombing of the USS Cole for example was investigated by the FBI and there was no military response to it at all, even though that was an actual act of war worthy of a military response that no nation could reasonably object to. After 9/11 we treated them as military matters because, well, treating them as law enforcement matters clearly wasn't working out so well for us. Once that shift in policy was made it became much easier for us to go into Iraq. Saddam had been given plenty of chances to come entirely clean and stop doing the things that he was doing but I think that he didn't realize what that policy shift meant for him and that business as usual was going to get a different response than before.

That and the US in general went a little bit insane for a couple of years. I think that it was national grief that caused that to happen but Saddam didn't take that into account either.




The NEOCONS did not want to let the 9/11 attack to go to waste. Invading Iraq, quickly followed by an invasion of Iran.
 
2014-04-19 10:04:16 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Summoner101: Then that is my mistake. Still, he didn't produce them himself and we didn't give a shiat until we wanted it as an excuse to invade.

Well that's not exactly true either. We did give a shiat and quite a bit of fuss was made about it, both by Bush the elder who enacted the no fly zone and the Clinton administrations, especially from about 1996 onward. Surely I don't have to drag out all of the quotes made during the Clinton era about how Iraq had WMD do I?

What changed was that pre-9/11 we treated terrorism and other nasty things like it mostly as law enforcement matters, the bombing of the USS Cole for example was investigated by the FBI and there was no military response to it at all, even though that was an actual act of war worthy of a military response that no nation could reasonably object to. After 9/11 we treated them as military matters because, well, treating them as law enforcement matters clearly wasn't working out so well for us. Once that shift in policy was made it became much easier for us to go into Iraq. Saddam had been given plenty of chances to come entirely clean and stop doing the things that he was doing but I think that he didn't realize what that policy shift meant for him and that business as usual was going to get a different response than before.

That and the US in general went a little bit insane for a couple of years. I think that it was national grief that caused that to happen but Saddam didn't take that into account either.


Pretty much this.
 
2014-04-19 10:04:53 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Radioactive Ass: Summoner101: Then that is my mistake. Still, he didn't produce them himself and we didn't give a shiat until we wanted it as an excuse to invade.

Well that's not exactly true either. We did give a shiat and quite a bit of fuss was made about it, both by Bush the elder who enacted the no fly zone and the Clinton administrations, especially from about 1996 onward. Surely I don't have to drag out all of the quotes made during the Clinton era about how Iraq had WMD do I?

What changed was that pre-9/11 we treated terrorism and other nasty things like it mostly as law enforcement matters, the bombing of the USS Cole for example was investigated by the FBI and there was no military response to it at all, even though that was an actual act of war worthy of a military response that no nation could reasonably object to. After 9/11 we treated them as military matters because, well, treating them as law enforcement matters clearly wasn't working out so well for us. Once that shift in policy was made it became much easier for us to go into Iraq. Saddam had been given plenty of chances to come entirely clean and stop doing the things that he was doing but I think that he didn't realize what that policy shift meant for him and that business as usual was going to get a different response than before.

That and the US in general went a little bit insane for a couple of years. I think that it was national grief that caused that to happen but Saddam didn't take that into account either.

The NEOCONS did not want to let the 9/11 attack to go to waste. Invading Iraq, quickly followed by an invasion of Iran.


We've been about to invade Iran for as long as Iran's been about to have a nuke.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report