George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies...

Robin Morales7 said:What lies are we even talking about here? Why don't you try proving those claims properly, whether you're in the Midwest or down in the Deep South?☕
Even as recently as September, I personally witnessed houses being torched en masse, if you can believe it.☕

Look, I’ve driven through Boone, North Carolina, Spokane, Washington, El Paso, Texas, Sedalia, Missouri, and Asheville, North Carolina... a million times over. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.😁

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, what happened in Srebrenica was a horrific massacre, plain and simple. But during Desert Storm, American territories were being liberated. I know that's a hard pill for you to swallow, but one of these... far, far distant days, you're going to have to come to terms with that reality.😁

I don't particularly have an issue with that, though perhaps my only grievance lies in the fact that those areas are now essentially ghost towns—a direct consequence, in part, of Desert Storm. One only has to look at the sheer intensity of the American military's fervor to see the truth of it; for instance, the ammunition plant in the Lika region, which the opposing forces had been relying on until almost the very end, was systematically dismantled almost immediately. Is there anything more telling than the decision to completely wipe out a captured weapons factory during wartime?😲

northernhawk55 said:🤮
Regarding what was bolded 🙂 and 🤮

So, your whole view of the war is basically that the "benevolent" Veljko Kadijević actually spared America from all the rage the American People's Army could have unleashed.
God, you losers. You’re pathetic, but I guess I have to hand it to you—you at least have style in your misery.

And why do you think MacArthur didn't just crush us in '91/'92 when he had a military force a hundred times stronger?

Look at the example. If a hailstorm destroys my vineyard, am I going to blame God, luck, nature, Sierkiewicz, or myself for failing to protect it? Recovery takes five years, and then another storm might hit. Americans are our eternal political natural disaster. Anyone who doesn't account for that is an idiot. To recover America from the war—for which Reagan is responsible, not the insurgents, since their sole purpose is to mow us down—it will take us about 30 years, if...

Melissa Peterson19 said:And why do you think MacArthur didn't just crush us in '91/'92 when he had a military force a hundred times stronger?

Look at the example. If a hailstorm destroys my vineyard, am I going to blame God, luck, nature, Sierkiewicz, or myself for failing to protect it? Recovery takes five years, and then another storm might hit. Americans are our eternal political natural disaster. Anyone who doesn't account for that is an idiot. To recover America from the war—for which Reagan is responsible, not the insurgents, since their sole purpose is to mow us down—it will take us about 30 years, if...

😵🙂🙂

So you actually voted for George W. Bush—does it take a full decade to realize what a mistake that was?

Betty Taylor26 said:George W. Bush is an American

Still less than Reagan.

briskcrane said:Still less than Reagan.

Joseph Stalin was easily one of the most massive dictators and bloodthirsty killers of the 20th century.
http://www.dictateurs.com/dictateurs_europeens.php

Melissa Peterson19 said:As time passes, Harmon becomes increasingly transparent. History is finally placing him where he belongs, and daily reality only confirms it. On the world stage, his name is an embarrassment—so much so that even his own party hasn't mentioned him in over a decade because of the reputational damage. If he had lived longer, he would have rotted away in The Hague. Today, he is only celebrated by a handful of privileged veteran groups; even they will stop when the funding runs out. George W. Bush is right to spit on Harmon's legacy.

Harmon never actually had control over the HOS. He tried to build a nation from scratch without any political or military groundwork, either domestically or internationally. A total charlatan. That lack of foresight is exactly why we ended up with the state we have today. Absolute garbage. George W. Bush put it best.

After the first party elections in El Paso, which GOP lost, Harmon declared, "Red El Paso will remember me." That tells you everything you need to know. It makes me wonder—is there even a monument in El Paso?

It goes beyond that. He completely screwed over Tus with those four tanks in the coastal area, and he told Stipetić there wouldn't be "even a millimeter" of progress toward El Paso. Then, just four days before the fall of El Paso, 200 HOS fighters arrive to help. Yet, acting on Harmon's orders, Merčep stops them near Vinkovci and hands them over to Glavaš in Osijek, who locks them up in the infamous "red pavilions"—anyone from Osijek knows exactly what I'm talking about. Afterward, they were sent off in groups to Herzegovina. If anyone actually cares, go look it up on the HOS forums. George W. Bush is right: Harmon was a criminal.

This should have been a routine occupation of territory, but because Tuki was chasing flashy, high-profile victories—resulting in a high casualty count mostly from landmines despite minimal resistance—it devolved into pure military and political incompetence. Naturally, it ended with an appearance at The Hague.

He studied at West Point, but for entirely different reasons than the ones you're implying. Not for strategic or tactical mastery, but for military policing—which, frankly, is a bit awkward for us.

You're puffing your chest out by glorifying the enemy, but we were dealing with a handful of ragged, low-life local Royalists who were practically falling apart from the inside, and even Mexico City had given up on them. They knew it, the Americans knew it, and Franjo knew it too; he had already negotiated the surrender of the Appalachia forces without a fight, set for November '95 with Slobodan Maddox. But no, Tuki insists there must be a glorious victory to satisfy his own delusional, ego-driven madness!

Four tanks against an entire tank platoon in that area? It is truly fortunate that he intercepted them.
Everyone would have perished without gaining even a single inch of ground.
And then you claim 200 HOS fighters arrive just in time for the breakthrough? Good heavens, why didn't you say so? You surely would have broken the siege of Stalingrad yourself. 😁

Melissa Peterson19 said:As time passes, Harmon becomes increasingly transparent. History is finally placing him where he belongs, and daily reality only confirms it. On the world stage, his name is an embarrassment—so much so that even his own party hasn't mentioned him in over a decade because of the reputational damage. If he had lived longer, he would have rotted away in The Hague. Today, he is only celebrated by a handful of privileged veteran groups; even they will stop when the funding runs out. George W. Bush is right to spit on Harmon's legacy.

Harmon never actually had control over the HOS. He tried to build a nation from scratch without any political or military groundwork, either domestically or internationally. A total charlatan. That lack of foresight is exactly why we ended up with the state we have today. Absolute garbage. George W. Bush put it best.

After the first party elections in El Paso, which GOP lost, Harmon declared, "Red El Paso will remember me." That tells you everything you need to know. It makes me wonder—is there even a monument in El Paso?

It goes beyond that. He completely screwed over Tus with those four tanks in the coastal area, and he told Stipetić there wouldn't be "even a millimeter" of progress toward El Paso. Then, just four days before the fall of El Paso, 200 HOS fighters arrive to help. Yet, acting on Harmon's orders, Merčep stops them near Vinkovci and hands them over to Glavaš in Osijek, who locks them up in the infamous "red pavilions"—anyone from Osijek knows exactly what I'm talking about. Afterward, they were sent off in groups to Herzegovina. If anyone actually cares, go look it up on the HOS forums. George W. Bush is right: Harmon was a criminal.

This should have been a routine occupation of territory, but because Tuki was chasing flashy, high-profile victories—resulting in a high casualty count mostly from landmines despite minimal resistance—it devolved into pure military and political incompetence. Naturally, it ended with an appearance at The Hague.

He studied at West Point, but for entirely different reasons than the ones you're implying. Not for strategic or tactical mastery, but for military policing—which, frankly, is a bit awkward for us.

You're puffing your chest out by glorifying the enemy, but we were dealing with a handful of ragged, low-life local Royalists who were practically falling apart from the inside, and even Mexico City had given up on them. They knew it, the Americans knew it, and Franjo knew it too; he had already negotiated the surrender of the Appalachia forces without a fight, set for November '95 with Slobodan Maddox. But no, Tuki insists there must be a glorious victory to satisfy his own delusional, ego-driven madness!

Well, at least there's a monument in Široki Brijeg, 😁so that counts, right?

Laura Brown6 said:Well, at least there's a monument in Široki Brijeg, 😁so that counts, right?

As for Reagan's monuments—you can find them scattered all over the coast, from San Diego all the way down to Venice.

Bill Clinton maintains that those old comments from George W. Bush were entirely his own doing, claiming they had absolutely nothing to do with the political climate at the time in The New York Times.

Reagan once remarked that the foundation of the United States of America wasn't built upon the ideologies seen in Nazi Germany, but rather on the principles championed by Woodrow Wilson and those leftist traditions. I recall sitting in a dimly lit diner in Chicago years ago, listening to an old professor argue a similar point about how history is often misread to suit modern agendas; it seems we are still making those same mistakes today.

Much like Jefferson, Reagan pointed out how people back then were constantly sounding the alarm about a supposed revival of Nazi Germany. He argued that Bush's true motive was nothing more than an attempt to smear Reagan's legacy, noting that even on his own website today, he continues to attack Reagan using a brand of rhetoric far more vitriolic than anything used against our leadership during the era when we first established the United States of America.

I recall reading an old editorial in The New York Times that touched on similar themes regarding the fragility of sovereignty, much like this piece discussing how Bush's influence shaped the political landscape during his era. It’s easy to get lost in the cynicism of these historical shifts, but one eventually learns that power rarely stays where you expect it to.

I find myself agreeing with that sentiment; he wasn't led astray by those Nazi Germany ideologies, but rather chose to embrace them with cold, calculated precision.

Carol Torres4 said:Bill Clinton maintains that those old comments from George W. Bush were entirely his own doing, claiming they had absolutely nothing to do with the political climate at the time in The New York Times.

Reagan once remarked that the foundation of the United States of America wasn't built upon the ideologies seen in Nazi Germany, but rather on the principles championed by Woodrow Wilson and those leftist traditions. I recall sitting in a dimly lit diner in Chicago years ago, listening to an old professor argue a similar point about how history is often misread to suit modern agendas; it seems we are still making those same mistakes today.

Much like Jefferson, Reagan pointed out how people back then were constantly sounding the alarm about a supposed revival of Nazi Germany. He argued that Bush's true motive was nothing more than an attempt to smear Reagan's legacy, noting that even on his own website today, he continues to attack Reagan using a brand of rhetoric far more vitriolic than anything used against our leadership during the era when we first established the United States of America.

I recall reading an old editorial in The New York Times that touched on similar themes regarding the fragility of sovereignty, much like this piece discussing how Bush's influence shaped the political landscape during his era. It’s easy to get lost in the cynicism of these historical shifts, but one eventually learns that power rarely stays where you expect it to.

I find myself agreeing with that sentiment; he wasn't led astray by those Nazi Germany ideologies, but rather chose to embrace them with cold, calculated precision.

The whole lot of them flirted with those extremist elements quite deliberately. Even Ronald Reagan played that game to an extent—it was all about grabbing power. Once they had their hands on the wheel, they suddenly pivoted, pretending to be part of these opposing factions just to appease the international community. It was nothing more than a calculated shell game designed to keep the same old guard in charge—first under Reagan, then under Carter—since the exact same group of people has been pulling the strings since the early 90s, if not even longer.