Honestly, George Bush was NOT a bad person.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

dyre:
Who cares if he was good or evil? That's between him and his deity. What matters are the effects of his policies on his country's citizens. And regardless of whether he invaded Iraq for oil or whether it was because the influence of war hawks/ defense department assholes like Cheney and Rumsfeld was greater than the influence of doves (comparatively speaking) like Powell, one can hardly say he invaded Iraq out of benevolence.

Lil devils x:

Of course the same could be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, and Obama. It has been a long while since a non war monger has been elected in the United States.

Ron Paul on Impeaching Clinton over bombings 1998:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

I think there's a difference between what's closer to bullying with a big stick (Bush Sr's Panama invasion, Clinton's Iraq bombings and arguably his intervention in the Bosnian-Serb war/genocide) and a full blown war, with its thousands of deaths and big profits to defense/rebuilding contractors. Bush Sr and Clinton, I'm sure you'll agree, have considerably less blood on their hands than Bush Jr

Clinton bombed more than just Iraq, if you had watched the clip I posted above, you would see it was not just a discussion about Iraq, It was Clintons actions as well that were the reason Bin Laden targeted the US. Clinton did not give notice to the civilians in the area before bombing either, at least Bush let them know he was coming and to flee. CLinton never gave them that option, no he blind sided them.

I also disagree that bombing or attacking without an actual war is any better, I actually consider that worse. In war, you know where you stand, there is the understanding that this is a war and that you should flee, take shelter, or fight. Blind attacks are no better than terrorist attacks, because they do not even know they are coming. I think the non declarations of war are far worse than even a long drawn out wrong war, as they attack more like terrorists or pirates rather than give them a chance to prepare both civilians and their forces. Not giving the families and children a chance to take cover is far worse. Bush dropped an insane amount of leaflets prior warning them, so many he was criticized for spending too much on them, but it is better to give them notices than to attack them blind.

If today, it was announced your nation was being invaded and you were at war, you would respond accordingly. Suddenly your streets are filled with paper telling you to flee or die, are you just going to sit there? Failing to make that announcement causes MORE civilian deaths, not less, because they don't know where they stand. When it is announced, that you are war, and it is coming to YOU, you respond. You either Flee, Fight or take cover. There is no room for "an in-between war". I have no respect for leaders who fail to announce they are coming,or failing to give notice to the people there to protect their children. That I can never respect.

In Iraq the Iraqi government and surrounding nations were responsible for increasing civilian deaths because they would not allow the people to evacuate, even after they were given notice. It isn't like the government there treated their own people humanely in the first place, they had a terrible history of civilian abuse.

bin Laden's main gripe with the US was its military presence in Saudi Arabia, iirc. He's had it out for the US since Desert Storm (1).

And I think the numbers prove that Bush's war killed a helluva lot more families, children, and other sorts of civilians than Clinton's missile strikes...

dyre:

Lil devils x:

dyre:
Who cares if he was good or evil? That's between him and his deity. What matters are the effects of his policies on his country's citizens. And regardless of whether he invaded Iraq for oil or whether it was because the influence of war hawks/ defense department assholes like Cheney and Rumsfeld was greater than the influence of doves (comparatively speaking) like Powell, one can hardly say he invaded Iraq out of benevolence.

I think there's a difference between what's closer to bullying with a big stick (Bush Sr's Panama invasion, Clinton's Iraq bombings and arguably his intervention in the Bosnian-Serb war/genocide) and a full blown war, with its thousands of deaths and big profits to defense/rebuilding contractors. Bush Sr and Clinton, I'm sure you'll agree, have considerably less blood on their hands than Bush Jr

Clinton bombed more than just Iraq, if you had watched the clip I posted above, you would see it was not just a discussion about Iraq, It was Clintons actions as well that were the reason Bin Laden targeted the US. Clinton did not give notice to the civilians in the area before bombing either, at least Bush let them know he was coming and to flee. CLinton never gave them that option, no he blind sided them.

I also disagree that bombing or attacking without an actual war is any better, I actually consider that worse. In war, you know where you stand, there is the understanding that this is a war and that you should flee, take shelter, or fight. Blind attacks are no better than terrorist attacks, because they do not even know they are coming. I think the non declarations of war are far worse than even a long drawn out wrong war, as they attack more like terrorists or pirates rather than give them a chance to prepare both civilians and their forces. Not giving the families and children a chance to take cover is far worse. Bush dropped an insane amount of leaflets prior warning them, so many he was criticized for spending too much on them, but it is better to give them notices than to attack them blind.

If today, it was announced your nation was being invaded and you were at war, you would respond accordingly. Suddenly your streets are filled with paper telling you to flee or die, are you just going to sit there? Failing to make that announcement causes MORE civilian deaths, not less, because they don't know where they stand. When it is announced, that you are war, and it is coming to YOU, you respond. You either Flee, Fight or take cover. There is no room for "an in-between war". I have no respect for leaders who fail to announce they are coming,or failing to give notice to the people there to protect their children. That I can never respect.

In Iraq the Iraqi government and surrounding nations were responsible for increasing civilian deaths because they would not allow the people to evacuate, even after they were given notice. It isn't like the government there treated their own people humanely in the first place, they had a terrible history of civilian abuse.

bin Laden's main gripe with the US was its military presence in Saudi Arabia, iirc. He's had it out for the US since Desert Storm (1).

And I think the numbers prove that Bush's war killed a helluva lot more families, children, and other sorts of civilians than Clinton's missile strikes...

That is utter hogwash. The embassy bombings in africa were due to US kidnapping and torturing 4 EIJ in Albania, not anything to do with IRAQ! In response to the embassy bombings Clinton attacked their CIVILIAN pharmacuetical factory in Sudan that provided medicine to the very poor and rural areas, killing civilians. That really pissed Bin Laden off further. Bin Laden made it very clear early on what he was pissed about, and it wasn't Iraq.

Of course you watched Bin ladens first videos with the dead kids Clinton bombed didn't you? He stated pretty clearly he was pissed. This actually started under Carter in 1979, When Bin laden joined the mujahideen, not Desert Storm, the very house that seal team 6 raided that bin laden was hiding in was owned by the mujahideen, the very same mujahideen we betrayed under the Carter administration and according to Brzeninski ( both Carter and Obama advisor) Brzeninski: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" They really didn't give two shits that they were pissing them off at the time. Bush was handed the mess Carter started. Not that he made good choices with it, but he certainly didn't start it, Bush jr was handed the mess set off by Clinton's actions. Bin laden was in Sudan at the time they bombed the Pharmaceutical factory, he saw the dead children with his own eyes. That isn't something that just goes away, it stays with you.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Brzezinski And The Mujahideen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhFleLinwEM

This had NOTHING to do with Iraq.

thaluikhain:
Well, invading Iraq for no good reason, and coming up with various lies to rationalise it sorta kinda makes him a bad person.

I'd argue there were perfectly good reasons to go into Iraq... but, yeah. If you think Bush was an OK guy, you haven't done your homework. Do some research on it, we aren't here to hold your hand. The man was an idiot, a war criminal, and one of the worst presidents we've ever had. He had Kissinger on his advisory staff for the incursion into Iraq. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know, I rest my case.

Danny Ocean:
At the same time, though, I think people should be a little bit more understanding of the fact that politicians can't necessarily do what they want, or what they think is right.

So, are you referring to Bush being used by Cheney or something?

Skeleon:

Danny Ocean:
At the same time, though, I think people should be a little bit more understanding of the fact that politicians can't necessarily do what they want, or what they think is right.

So, are you referring to Bush being used by Cheney or something?

Cheney is one scary dude. I wouldn't doubt that for a second tbh. He is disturbing to say the least. I would rather have the boogyman in my closet than that guy. Kissenger is quite frightening as well.

Skeleon:

Danny Ocean:
At the same time, though, I think people should be a little bit more understanding of the fact that politicians can't necessarily do what they want, or what they think is right.

So, are you referring to Bush being used by Cheney or something?

Hah! Maybe!

I was more referring to the fact that the actual day-to-day politics that occurs in, well, politics, can be very restricting.

I mean, just look at Obamacare: started out as a single-payer proposal, ended up being watered down by the opposition into something that will lose Democrats a lot of voters because they had to pass something.

Danny Ocean:
I was more referring to the fact that the actual day-to-day politics that occurs in, well, politics, can be very restricting.

I mean, just look at Obamacare: started out as a single-payer proposal, ended up being watered down by the opposition into something that will lose Democrats a lot of voters because they had to pass something.

When I think "Obama", I'm more worried about the civil liberties infringements and the drone war going on. And, funnily enough, those are issues with bipartisan support. At worst, the (majority of the) other side is saying Obama is too weak. Isn't it interesting how defense and supposed security concerns are so often used to rally both sides to abandon what they claim to stand for? In that I condemn Bush and Obama both. Bush just started it. Obama continued and in some senses worsened it.

You won't find me disagreeing with you on issues like Obamacare (although I'd go further and say Obama's immediate retreat on these issues points not just to external restriction but to a lack of will and difference in ideology), I just think when it comes to defense this idea in practice doesn't seem to apply as much.

Skeleon:

You won't find me disagreeing with you on issues like Obamacare (although I'd go further and say Obama's immediate retreat on these issues points not just to external restriction but to a lack of will and difference in ideology), I just think when it comes to defence this idea in practice doesn't seem to apply as much.

I see what you mean, but I don't agree entirely. I think the difference is that instead of being subject to national political restrictions, they are subject to international ones. The USA is the exception to this rather than the rule, because it has the most power to set the norms of international relations. That is not to say it is without any restriction, it just has fewer than most other states, particularly when it comes to acting unilaterally.

Actually, scratch that, they *are* subject to national political restrictions, but not to the same extent. For example, international convention rather forced Obama's hand despite a strong national push for isolationism re: Libyan intervention.

Lil devils x:

That is utter hogwash. The embassy bombings in africa were due to US kidnapping and torturing 4 EIJ in Albania, not anything to do with IRAQ! In response to the embassy bombings Clinton attacked their CIVILIAN pharmacuetical factory in Sudan that provided medicine to the very poor and rural areas, killing civilians. That really pissed Bin Laden off further. Bin Laden made it very clear early on what he was pissed about, and it wasn't Iraq.

I wasn't talking about Iraq; I was talking about US military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's homeland and home to some Muslim holy sites that he was upset by the Americans desecrating with their presence. It's only tangentially related to Iraq because the military buildup was for Desert Shield / Desert Storm.

Lil devils x:

Of course you watched Bin ladens first videos with the dead kids Clinton bombed didn't you? He stated pretty clearly he was pissed. This actually started under Carter in 1979, When Bin laden joined the mujahideen, not Desert Storm, the very house that seal team 6 raided that bin laden was hiding in was owned by the mujahideen, the very same mujahideen we betrayed under the Carter administration and according to Brzeninski ( both Carter and Obama advisor) Brzeninski: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" They really didn't give two shits that they were pissing them off at the time. Bush was handed the mess Carter started. Not that he made good choices with it, but he certainly didn't start it, Bush jr was handed the mess set off by Clinton's actions. Bin laden was in Sudan at the time they bombed the Pharmaceutical factory, he saw the dead children with his own eyes. That isn't something that just goes away, it stays with you.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Brzezinski And The Mujahideen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhFleLinwEM

This had NOTHING to do with Iraq.

Ok, I don't see how you can pin this on Carter at all. It's not like Carter asked the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. Brzeninski was talking about the fact that arming a bunch of Islamists was an acceptable cost to giving the Soviets their own Vietnam. I don't see how we betrayed the Mujahadeen at all, unless you mean abandoning them after the war so that the Taliban took over the country rather than the moderates.

And I know no one likes Brzeninski, but it was pretty normal for the US government to underestimate Islamic radicalism back then. I can't really blame him for believing he could use the Mujahadeen as pawns against the USSR.

edit: just read your link. Well fuck me, Carter did cause the Soviets to invade Afghanistan...

dyre:

Lil devils x:

That is utter hogwash. The embassy bombings in africa were due to US kidnapping and torturing 4 EIJ in Albania, not anything to do with IRAQ! In response to the embassy bombings Clinton attacked their CIVILIAN pharmacuetical factory in Sudan that provided medicine to the very poor and rural areas, killing civilians. That really pissed Bin Laden off further. Bin Laden made it very clear early on what he was pissed about, and it wasn't Iraq.

I wasn't talking about Iraq; I was talking about US military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's homeland and home to some Muslim holy sites that he was upset by the Americans desecrating with their presence. It's only tangentially related to Iraq because the military buildup was for Desert Shield / Desert Storm.

Lil devils x:

Of course you watched Bin ladens first videos with the dead kids Clinton bombed didn't you? He stated pretty clearly he was pissed. This actually started under Carter in 1979, When Bin laden joined the mujahideen, not Desert Storm, the very house that seal team 6 raided that bin laden was hiding in was owned by the mujahideen, the very same mujahideen we betrayed under the Carter administration and according to Brzeninski ( both Carter and Obama advisor) Brzeninski: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" They really didn't give two shits that they were pissing them off at the time. Bush was handed the mess Carter started. Not that he made good choices with it, but he certainly didn't start it, Bush jr was handed the mess set off by Clinton's actions. Bin laden was in Sudan at the time they bombed the Pharmaceutical factory, he saw the dead children with his own eyes. That isn't something that just goes away, it stays with you.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Brzezinski And The Mujahideen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhFleLinwEM

This had NOTHING to do with Iraq.

Ok, I don't see how you can pin this on Carter at all. It's not like Carter asked the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. Brzeninski was talking about the fact that arming a bunch of Islamists was an acceptable cost to giving the Soviets their own Vietnam. I don't see how we betrayed the Mujahadeen at all, unless you mean abandoning them after the war so that the Taliban took over the country rather than the moderates.

And I know no one likes Brzeninski, but it was pretty normal for the US government to underestimate Islamic radicalism back then. I can't really blame him for believing he could use the Mujahadeen as pawns against the USSR.

edit: just read your link. Well fuck me, Carter did cause the Soviets to invade Afghanistan...

Well yes, Carter did cause the mess, as well as we didn't just betray them, we didn't think they would actually win, we just thought it would exhaust the soviet resources, we actually sent the mujahideen to die, because we didn't think they had a chance in hell.. but, yes, we made many promises to them we had no intention of keeping, and they expected us to keep our word. Worse than that though, not only did we not keep our word, we actually attacked them instead, and they considered that a knife to the back. We betrayed them, and they did not let us forget. If the US had just behaved honorably none of this would have happened at all.

He attacked the wrong country Afghanistan I could understand, but Iraq no. Most of the 9/11 crew were Saudis, but if we had attack that country we would have had a world war on our hands so we attack the country above it. As for WMDs chemical weapons were WMDs so the people that say Iraq didn't have one were off by a mile.

well, he willingly lied to the world and is responsible for an immoral and illegal war of aggression. if he was on trial in nürnberg, they'd have hung him. so i can kind of see where someone is coming from when saying that he's evil, yeah.

How nice someone appears in TV interviews isn't a factor in whether they're good or evil, relative as those terms are in and of themselves. It's a good measure of of how charismatic someone is or how much PR support they have, but how personable you are in media has no correlation (causal or otherwise) with being good or evil that I'm aware of.

And Obama with his drones that can kill Americans without a trial is a saint?

lol. Take off those liberal goggles.

@ShiningAmber
How about you stick around a little bit before saying such nonsense? People here - including myself - are very critical regarding Obama's outrageous civil liberties infringements, including the drone-usage. Also, stop thinking in this tribalistic way. Plenty of us hate or dislike both major parties of the USA. Just because we think Bush was atrocious doesn't mean we think Obama is a saint. At best we might think he is the lesser evil, although even that is debatable on an issue-by-issue basis. Alright?

Skeleon:
@ShiningAmber
How about you stick around a little bit before saying such nonsense? People here - including myself - are very critical regarding Obama's outrageous civil liberties infringements, including the drone-usage. Also, stop thinking in this tribalistic way. Plenty of us hate or dislike both major parties of the USA. Just because we think Bush was atrocious doesn't mean we think Obama is a saint. At best we might think he is the lesser evil, although even that is debatable on an issue-by-issue basis. Alright?

Drones are ok by me. Saves our troops lives and are far more efficent then people give them credit for. People are often under the impression that drones just fly around and shoot down innocents, not the case. The area has to be scanned and carefully planned BEFORE the Drone is even sent out, everything is weighed in.

Some civilians die, it's terrible, but that happens in war regardless. War is bad, but sometimes it's necessary evil. And anything that keeps the troops alive is progress.

ShiningAmber:
And Obama with his drones that can kill Americans without a trial is a saint?

lol. Take off those liberal goggles.

Was that meant to be directed towards me?

I didn't mention anything about Obama being a saint, nor would I unless I'd taken a severe blow to the head.

TheLycanKing144:
*snip*

The issue isn't using drones, the issue is of how they use drones.
I suggest you inform yourself on signature strikes, the civilian victims (you may have to dig a little because they decided to simply define any male of a particular age to be a potential militant and thus not count them), especially children, and the concept of immediacy, which they decided to totally butcher (meaning that they no longer need an actual immediate threat to execute somebody without a trial because immediacy is - in a very Orwellian way - redefined to be applicable to pretty much anything). It's about accountability, about the proper process and about protecting innocents from arbitrary strikes. You really shouldn't swallow their half-hearted explanations of how and why some people qualify for destruction according to them. Especially when they won't release any info about the reasoning behind the executions. "Trust us, we are acting very responsibly and are totally justified, honest" is a really bad argument and support for executing people.

TheLycanKing144:
from watching interviews and whatnot he doesn't seem like a bad person at all

Why anyone would ever judge a politician on the public persona they portray in interviews, speeches, and the like is beyond me.

If you want to judge a politician, judge them on their record. And what is Bushes legacy?

- Two wars that they weren't prepared to fight and had no real plan to win.
- Guantanimo Bay - indefinite detainment of terrorists and terror suspects, not to mention torture
- The Patriot Act expanding government surveillance power to levels so absurd that I'm not even sure how they're constitutional if they even are at all
- Massive budget deficits, military over spending, the Bush tax cuts, and just general fiscal mismanagement

And that stuff is really kind of the tip of the iceberg. Was Bush an evil man? Maybe not. He may not even be as big an idiot as he often appeared (he's had the good sense to lay low for the most part since his term ended after all). But he was a terrible President.

Skeleon:
@ShiningAmber
How about you stick around a little bit before saying such nonsense? People here - including myself - are very critical regarding Obama's outrageous civil liberties infringements, including the drone-usage. Also, stop thinking in this tribalistic way. Plenty of us hate or dislike both major parties of the USA. Just because we think Bush was atrocious doesn't mean we think Obama is a saint. At best we might think he is the lesser evil, although even that is debatable on an issue-by-issue basis. Alright?

Oh, please. A 16,000 post count and my post count doesn't indicate much to me. An opinion is an opinion, sir. Just because you've been around here awhile, doesn't grant you some authority over me or allow you to speak down to me. You're not intimidating.

It isn't utter nonsense. If you're going to talk about Bush being a bad person, I'll happily bring up Obama. If you think Mr. Obama (I refuse to acknowledge him as president) is any better than Bush, I think a reality check is in order. And a lesser evil? Oh, how I wish.

And do not assume that I am conservative by any means. I hate both parties for various reasons.

Take your smugness elsewhere.

Overhead:

ShiningAmber:
And Obama with his drones that can kill Americans without a trial is a saint?

lol. Take off those liberal goggles.

Was that meant to be directed towards me?

I didn't mention anything about Obama being a saint, nor would I unless I'd taken a severe blow to the head.

Actually, it wasn't directed at you at all. And I apologize for the misunderstanding. It would just seem we happened to use the same word choice.

English isn't my first language, so forgive me on that :P

ShiningAmber:
Oh, please. A 16,000 post count and my post count don't indicate much to me. An opinion is an opinion, sir. Just because you've been around here awhile, doesn't grant you some authority over me or allow you to speak down to me. You're not intimidating.

I'll talk down to you all I want because you talked down to us as if we were mindless banner-carriers for Obama. This has nothing to do with your post count but with your join-date: It's obvious you weren't around to read the various arguments going on about Obama on this subforum, so kindly stop acting like we're fans of him. It's insulting.

It isn't utter nonsense. If you're going to talk about Bush being a bad person, I'll happily bring up Obama.

That's perfectly fine.

If you think Mr. Obama (I refuse to acknowledge him as president) is any better than Bush, I think a reality check is in order. And a lesser evil? Oh, how I wish.

That's fine too. That's your opinion of the guy. And we could possibly debate the various issues where we disagree on that. But what isn't fine is implying that we are unthinking Obama-admirers.

And do not assume that I am conservative by any means. I hate both parties for various reasons.

Then do not assume we're Democrats or American Liberals. Stop projecting.

Take your smugness elsewhere.

Right back at you.

ShiningAmber:
And Obama with his drones that can kill Americans without a trial is a saint?

lol. Take off those liberal goggles.

You're projecting so hard I can see it from space. I don't see you lasting long with that attitude...

No person here has claimed to be even a large fan of Obama, let alone a voicebox for him. I think he's a better president than Bush, but that didn't take a lot.

Vivi22:

TheLycanKing144:
from watching interviews and whatnot he doesn't seem like a bad person at all

Why anyone would ever judge a politician on the public persona they portray in interviews, speeches, and the like is beyond me.

If you want to judge a politician, judge them on their record. And what is Bushes legacy?

- Two wars that they weren't prepared to fight and had no real plan to win.
- Guantanimo Bay - indefinite detainment of terrorists and terror suspects, not to mention torture
- The Patriot Act expanding government surveillance power to levels so absurd that I'm not even sure how they're constitutional if they even are at all
- Massive budget deficits, military over spending, the Bush tax cuts, and just general fiscal mismanagement

And that stuff is really kind of the tip of the iceberg. Was Bush an evil man? Maybe not. He may not even be as big an idiot as he often appeared (he's had the good sense to lay low for the most part since his term ended after all). But he was a terrible President.

1.Iraq and Afghanistan weren't just Bush's doing, he had to get approval and funding from Congress to engage in those conflicts, to which they allowed. And that's technically what they were, military engagments. The US has not been in an official war since like the 1940's. Also many Democrats also supported it inlcuding Clinton and Biden at the time. But for some reason people like to pretend otherwise.

2. Guantanimo was necessary, even though torture is unconstitutional but it was done out of necessity. What would you do if you had a terrorist in your midst and he information about a bomb that was going to kill your entire city? Would you just let it happen? I know I wouldn't.

3. The Patriot Act doesn't actually spy on the average american civilian citizen, no one has the resources to do that. It would require MASSIVE amounts of server rooms and they not even the US Military has those resources or man power to do that. I don't really support the PATRIOT Act either and wanted it to end, but people do this out to be a bigger deal than it really is.

4. Yes I agree with all of your points here. He did not manage the economy right, but neither has Obama or most other presidents (though Obama has done a better job in my opinion).

I think time will judge him more effectively. I had several disagreements with Bush, but I never felt like he was trying to destroy the country or was that he was THAT bad. I feel the same way about Obama (and I voted for him last election), I see people on the far right doing the same thing to Obama that people on the far left did to Bush, the only difference is that hating Bush was the "cool" thing to do at the time.

TheLycanKing144:
1.Iraq and Afghanistan weren't just Bush's doing, he had to get approval and funding from Congress to engage in those conflicts, to which they allowed. And that's technically what they were, military engagments. The US has not been in an official war since like the 1940's. Also many Democrats also supported it inlcuding Clinton and Biden at the time. But for some reason people like to pretend otherwise.

Granted, going into Afghanistan was not really his fault. But the fact that the US and other countries are still there speaks to how poorly managed the war was. There was no clear path to victory, they vastly over estimated how long it would take and how much it would cost, and that speaks to their inability to effectively lead. Iraq is another can of worms all together since the big push for that was based on potential WMD's and we all know how that actually turned out. Meanwhile, countries which were known to absolutely have WMD's were left entirely alone, leading any rational person to believe that whatever the rationale behind Iraq, WMD's either had nothing to do with it or Bush and his administration were complete hypocrites and didn't even try to hide it.

As for arguing that they aren't really "wars"; that's semantics and bureaucratic smoke and mirrors. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck as they say.

2. Guantanimo was necessary, even though torture is unconstitutional but it was done out of necessity. What would you do if you had a terrorist in your midst and he information about a bomb that was going to kill your entire city? Would you just let it happen? I know I wouldn't.

Doesn't matter since torture has repeatedly proven to be an unreliable method for extracting information, and there has been no known case of it's use ever resulting in accurate information that prevented a terrorist attack since the war on terror began. Bad enough that it is completely immoral, but the fact that it doesn't even work only makes it worse. It means that his administration authorized the physical and psychological abuse of human beings in violation of their fundamental human rights and nothing good ever even came of it. They're basically just doing it because they can. That's the behaviour of psychopaths.

3. The Patriot Act doesn't actually spy on the average american civilian citizen, no one has the resources to do that. It would require MASSIVE amounts of server rooms and they not even the US Military has those resources or man power to do that. I don't really support the PATRIOT Act either and wanted it to end, but people do this out to be a bigger deal than it really is.

Firstly, I never said the patriot act is used to spy on the average American citizen. I said it expanded surveillance powers to degrees which are disturbing. Being able to wire tap without warrants (aka probable cause) should not be legal and no American who gives the slightest care about their freedom and the founding principles of their nation should tolerate it under any circumstances. The potential for abuse of power is simply too great to be allowed.

4. Yes I agree with all of your points here. He did not manage the economy right, but neither has Obama or most other presidents (though Obama has done a better job in my opinion).

I would agree, though Obama's big problem was not being more aggressive in pursuing actual democratic policies when they had a majority in the house. Now that the Republicans hold it he's pretty hamstrung. But I agree, he hasn't been very effective. Better than Bush, but he set the bar so low Obama could trip over it.

I see people on the far right doing the same thing to Obama that people on the far left did to Bush, the only difference is that hating Bush was the "cool" thing to do at the time.

I have to disagree to be honest. Yes, people on the so called left were against Bush during his terms. But the level of sheer insanity displayed by the present day republican party is so far beyond what occurred during bushes presidency that there's really no comparison. Many of the actions taken by Republicans simply to go against Obama or make him look bad could rightly be viewed as completely insane.

TheLycanKing144:
I had my disagreements with some of his policies, especially Iraq, but I never understood why many people acted like Bush was the devil. He wasn't, from watching interviews and whatnot he doesn't seem like a bad person at all, and I don't think he went to Iraq for oil nor do I think he was behind 9/11.

I feel much the same way about Obama (who I voted for last year), I have some disagreements to be sure, but I don't understand why some people want to personally attack him and make him out to be a monster. He doesn't seem like a bad person in the slightest.

What I don't understand is why Bush was vilified while Obama is glorified. There is little to no difference between them. Compare the pair. I don't understand how a nobel peace prize winner can have a kill list. It angers me so much with this hypocrisy.

HecticAdlay:

TheLycanKing144:
I had my disagreements with some of his policies, especially Iraq, but I never understood why many people acted like Bush was the devil. He wasn't, from watching interviews and whatnot he doesn't seem like a bad person at all, and I don't think he went to Iraq for oil nor do I think he was behind 9/11.

I feel much the same way about Obama (who I voted for last year), I have some disagreements to be sure, but I don't understand why some people want to personally attack him and make him out to be a monster. He doesn't seem like a bad person in the slightest.

What I don't understand is why Bush was vilified while Obama is glorified. There is little to no difference between them. Compare the pair. I don't understand how a nobel peace prize winner can have a kill list. It angers me so much with this hypocrisy.

Scale? Obama gets to jump around and say "I'm somewhat less bad than the last guy", and that gets confused with "doing a great job" somehow...comparatively, I guess you could say it is.

@HecticAdlay
Really? Again? I won't bother to repeat what I said to ShiningAmber.
But:

I don't understand how a nobel peace prize winner can have a kill list.

Even back then, some people interpreted it more as an attempt to push him in a particular direction ("You're a Nobel Peace Prize winner now, you wouldn't go to war based on lies and torture people like your predecessor, would you?") rather than an acknowledgement of his peaceful policies. I mean, that was very early in his presidency. He hadn't really done anything yet at the time. Basically, people couldn't foresee the future; they didn't know he'd keep Gitmo open, do the Drone War, kick the civil liberties that were already lying on the floor from Bush's presidency deeper into the mud etc.. It was an attempt that failed.

HecticAdlay:

TheLycanKing144:
I had my disagreements with some of his policies, especially Iraq, but I never understood why many people acted like Bush was the devil. He wasn't, from watching interviews and whatnot he doesn't seem like a bad person at all, and I don't think he went to Iraq for oil nor do I think he was behind 9/11.

I feel much the same way about Obama (who I voted for last year), I have some disagreements to be sure, but I don't understand why some people want to personally attack him and make him out to be a monster. He doesn't seem like a bad person in the slightest.

What I don't understand is why Bush was vilified while Obama is glorified. There is little to no difference between them. Compare the pair. I don't understand how a nobel peace prize winner can have a kill list. It angers me so much with this hypocrisy.

Many people don't really have values, rather they are loyal to parties or political labels. So when "my side" does the same thing, they make excuses for it or try to downplay it while at the same time praising them.

I recommend people read the book "The Righteous Mind", it explains why many people are not free thinkers when it comes to politics, rather they seek to join a "left vs right" mindsight which to them ends up becoming "right vs wrong" or "good vs evil" as it makes the world feel smaller to them. In short, a lot of people don't really think in terms the issues, rather in terms of political labels, they ask "what is the stance my political group takes on this issue" rather than "what is my personal stance on this issue" which is the question people should be asking but don't.

The reason for this is due to us having a need to be in tribes. It creates a sense of security for those who are insecure politically and helps them find a purpose or something to stand behind. It's a very insightful read.

TheLycanKing144:

The reason for this is due to us having a need to be in tribes. It creates a sense of security for those who are insecure politically and helps them find a purpose or something to stand behind. It's a very insightful read.

I'm sorry, who are you actually talking about here? A few names will do, names of the people participating in this debate. Shouldn't be too difficult for someone as wise as you are.

My opinion on George Bush being a bad person or not can be summed up the same way Yahtzee sums up Capcom: "They're not bad people, they're just idiots."

Dee Oh Double Gizzle:
Yo ass should read his book. It aint nuthin but muthafuckin pretty phat n' hilarious at times.

I don't mind tha guy.

You know, I like you. You've got your schtick, but you don't use it to derail threads. You just go about your business like any other user, just with a few more shizzles and dizzles than most. All for the shiggles :-)

I remember the point where everyone in England seemed to think it was really cool to go on about how bad George Bush was, the hatred that man got from my fellow countrymen as quite incredible really especially if when questioned the answer tended to boil down to 'he's stupid'.

I don't really know much about him to be honest, I assume he wasn't as bad as everyone said nor do I assume he was particularly good.

The most interesting thing I find about him is that same group that called him a Hitler, evil, satan etc now openly mock everyone who calls Obama the same.

Leadfinger:

Lil devils x:

Leadfinger:
W? Not a bad guy to have a beer with, if you don't mind the blood dripping from his warmonger hands.

Of course the same could be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, and Obama. It has been a long while since a non war monger has been elected in the United States.

Ron Paul on Impeaching Clinton over bombings 1998:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

Point taken. However, W decided to fight two Asian land wars simultaneously, one ginned up based on lies, and the U.S. is still there more than ten years later. The sheer destruction and loss of life engendered kind of make the other presidents look like pikers. Dubya's only real competitor in the field of warmongering is Tricky Dick.

Modern education is just a disgrace. Did you really just try and lay blame for the disaster in Vietnam that LBJ started to make money selling armaments to the military, on the guy who got us out of there? Obviously, Nixon was a corrupt authoritarian asshole, but ffs, do they not even teach history anymore?

BTW, you might look up a guy named Woodrow Wilson, the amount of pointless blood on his hands will be tough for any American president to surpass.

lowhat:

Leadfinger:

Lil devils x:

Of course the same could be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, and Obama. It has been a long while since a non war monger has been elected in the United States.

Ron Paul on Impeaching Clinton over bombings 1998:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

Point taken. However, W decided to fight two Asian land wars simultaneously, one ginned up based on lies, and the U.S. is still there more than ten years later. The sheer destruction and loss of life engendered kind of make the other presidents look like pikers. Dubya's only real competitor in the field of warmongering is Tricky Dick.

Modern education is just a disgrace. Did you really just try and lay blame for the disaster in Vietnam that LBJ started to make money selling armaments to the military, on the guy who got us out of there? Obviously, Nixon was a corrupt authoritarian asshole, but ffs, do they not even teach history anymore?

BTW, you might look up a guy named Woodrow Wilson, the amount of pointless blood on his hands will be tough for any American president to surpass.

So, wait a minute. You're trying to say Nixon wasn't a warmonger? He sharply escalated the war in Vietnam and widened the conflict, tragically, to Cambodia and Laos. He destabilized Chile, looked the other way as his West Pakistani ally laid waste to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), ignored the Nigerian civil war and the resulting famine in Biafra, and gave the green light to the brutal Indonesian invasion of East Timor. captcha-trust me

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked