Honestly, George Bush was NOT a bad person.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

He started two wars that were not considered worthwhile by many and was indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Iraqi babies are being born now with birth defects due to the spent uranium that the Americans coated their bullets in.

The fuck do you have to do to be considered a bad person these days?

adamsaccount:
Iraqi babies are being born now with birth defects due to the spent uranium that the Americans coated their bullets in.

Not exactly, they make tank shells out of them. I daresay the effects are over-stated as well, it's the common or garden stuff that happens when you give a country a good kicking that the kids are suffering from, not exotic poisons. For one thing, those munitions wouldn't be used that much, they are made for destroying tanks.

thaluikhain:

adamsaccount:
Iraqi babies are being born now with birth defects due to the spent uranium that the Americans coated their bullets in.

Not exactly, they make tank shells out of them. I daresay the effects are over-stated as well, it's the common or garden stuff that happens when you give a country a good kicking that the kids are suffering from, not exotic poisons. For one thing, those munitions wouldn't be used that much, they are made for destroying tanks.

Well its more the effects I have a problem with than the cause.

Not sure what you mean when you say its the "common or garden stuff", you mean pesticides and the like?

adamsaccount:
Not sure what you mean when you say its the "common or garden stuff", you mean pesticides and stuff?

I mean when you give the infrastructure a good hammering, and muck the social structure up as well. It's hardly going to do the local medical services any good, you get problems with clean water and electricity, those are the real killers. Problems which aren't usually real issues in the developed world, and thus tend to get overlooked.

thaluikhain:

adamsaccount:
Not sure what you mean when you say its the "common or garden stuff", you mean pesticides and stuff?

I mean when you give the infrastructure a good hammering, and muck the social structure up as well. It's hardly going to do the local medical services any good, you get problems with clean water and electricity, those are the real killers. Problems which aren't usually real issues in the developed world, and thus tend to get overlooked.

I see what you mean but I cant understand anything but radiation being responsible for an increase in birth defects.

adamsaccount:

thaluikhain:

adamsaccount:
Iraqi babies are being born now with birth defects due to the spent uranium that the Americans coated their bullets in.

Not exactly, they make tank shells out of them. I daresay the effects are over-stated as well, it's the common or garden stuff that happens when you give a country a good kicking that the kids are suffering from, not exotic poisons. For one thing, those munitions wouldn't be used that much, they are made for destroying tanks.

Well its more the effects I have a problem with than the cause.

Not sure what you mean when you say its the "common or garden stuff", you mean pesticides and the like?

Depleted uranium is actually so low on radiation that even background radiation is likely orders of magnitude higher. If my desk was made of pure U238, it'd likely still expose me to a lot less radiation than my computer gadgets do.

However, there is a different kind truth in exposure to depleted uranium being harmful. Uranium is a heavy metal. And heavy metals are mostly toxic to human body. Uranium is less toxic than mercury or lead in that regard, but it's still not a good idea to eat it.

The mistake many make here is assume that depleted uranium is dangerous because uranium = radioactivity. A lot more complications result from it simply being a toxic metal.

adamsaccount:
I see what you mean but I cant understand anything but radiation being responsible for an increase in birth defects.

Poor nutrition or unsafe drinking water come to mind.

No evidence for this, but I'd not be surprised if some industrial sites got hit, with various unpleasant things being released into the general environment.

Still, its connected to the war in some way

adamsaccount:
Still, its connected to the war in some way

Oh certainly, yes. It's just that, IMHO, when words like "nuclear" or "uranium" or "radiation" get mentioned, everyone forgets everything else. The tsunami that killed tens of thousands got ignored for problems at Fukushima, people worry about radiation following a nuclear attack, not dealing with burns and faces full of broken glass when there's no runnign water or hospitals, etc. For that matter, people care about the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then dismiss all the others people killed in bombings on cities.

thaluikhain:

adamsaccount:
Still, its connected to the war in some way

Oh certainly, yes. It's just that, IMHO, when words like "nuclear" or "uranium" or "radiation" get mentioned, everyone forgets everything else. The tsunami that killed tens of thousands got ignored for problems at Fukushima, people worry about radiation following a nuclear attack, not dealing with burns and faces full of broken glass when there's no runnign water or hospitals, etc. For that matter, people care about the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then dismiss all the others people killed in bombings on cities.

For sure, its a new(ish) and scary technology. I think the Fukushima problems got a lot of publicity because Japan has an unfortunate legacy of being the only country to be atom bombed

lowhat:

Leadfinger:

lowhat:

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

I said nothing about whether Nixon was or was not a warmonger. My main point was that only someone completely ignorant of world history could make a statement as bumfuck retarded as "Dubya's only real competitor in the field of warmongering is Tricky Dick."

It's at this point that your comments and reality completely part company. It's not a question of knowledge of history so much as an inability on your part to understand the context of a discussion or to respond coherently.

While I'm sure that in person W. Bush is a nice enough guy, he still was a terrible president and many things he did or supported left America worse off than when he left it. So when they say he was bad, they're not refering to his manners at a dinner party or anything like that.

Whether he's an asshole or not is besides the point. He can be affable, mild-mannered, but he was still responsible for two wars which are considered by many to be illegitimate or outright illegal, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, for reasons which were felt unjustified.

To those people (And I'm one of them), he'll always be a bad person, because he's responsible for mass-fucking-murder.

"Oh, but he was such a nice fellow, always so polite. I can't think of him doing anything like that."

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.

George Bush officially pardoned the Catholic church when it was found guilty of protecting child molestors.

HE IS A FUCKING TERRIBLE PERSON

Loonyyy:
Whether he's an asshole or not is besides the point. He can be affable, mild-mannered, but he was still responsible for two wars which are considered by many to be illegitimate or outright illegal, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, for reasons which were felt unjustified.

To those people (And I'm one of them), he'll always be a bad person, because he's responsible for mass-fucking-murder.

"Oh, but he was such a nice fellow, always so polite. I can't think of him doing anything like that."

Sounds like someone else I know... Someone in the Reagan administration, military fellow, if I recall... Something about arms to Iran; it's right there! I know it is! A Marine Colonel, maybe.

Vegosiux:

adamsaccount:

thaluikhain:

Not exactly, they make tank shells out of them. I daresay the effects are over-stated as well, it's the common or garden stuff that happens when you give a country a good kicking that the kids are suffering from, not exotic poisons. For one thing, those munitions wouldn't be used that much, they are made for destroying tanks.

Well its more the effects I have a problem with than the cause.

Not sure what you mean when you say its the "common or garden stuff", you mean pesticides and the like?

Depleted uranium is actually so low on radiation that even background radiation is likely orders of magnitude higher. If my desk was made of pure U238, it'd likely still expose me to a lot less radiation than my computer gadgets do.

However, there is a different kind truth in exposure to depleted uranium being harmful. Uranium is a heavy metal. And heavy metals are mostly toxic to human body. Uranium is less toxic than mercury or lead in that regard, but it's still not a good idea to eat it.

The mistake many make here is assume that depleted uranium is dangerous because uranium = radioactivity. A lot more complications result from it simply being a toxic metal.

Just an note. Uranium is actually very weak as far as radioactivity is concerned. Even U-235 is only a very weak alpha reactor. If I set a block of weapons-grade U-235 the size of my television next to said television, I'd still get more radiation from the TV than the Uranium. U-235 is only dangerous because it is very easy to fission. Very, very easy. It's like nitroglycerin, quite harmless to the human body (most blood pressure meds are still based on it) as long as you don't create the conditions to detonate it, but will detonate if you tap the glass with just your finger. Depleted Uranium rounds (U-238) exist because they are actually safer and far more effective than any other comparable round.

Plutonium, only the other hand, is insanely dangerous. Highly radioactive, extremely unstable, and in sufficient mass will fission on it's own without outside prompting. Seriously, a mass of plutonium the size of an softball will go critical on it's own in a matter of minutes. It won't explode because the fission is undirected but it basically a mini nuclear reactor you can hold in your hand, until said hand falls of that is.

Unfortunately, the media rarely distinguishes between the two when talking about fissionable and radioactive materials and constantly mixes up which has what properties. For fucks sakes, I can buy a chunk of Uranium over the internet without even a license. And still get next day delivery. Because Uranium is for the most part completely safe to handle.

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.

Does that make anything better?

Verbatim:

DJjaffacake:

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act,

You mean the one that Joe Biden wrote?

What does that even mean? One Neocon passed an act that another Neocon wrote. Both are full of shit.

Dhael:
Unfortunately, the media rarely distinguishes between the two when talking about fissionable and radioactive materials and constantly mixes up which has what properties. For fucks sakes, I can buy a chunk of Uranium over the internet without even a license. And still get next day delivery. Because Uranium is for the most part completely safe to handle.

Well...ish. It happens to be poisonous, but then again so is drain cleaner.

Hafrael:
What does that even mean?

It means that he can't imagine people attacking both sides for wrongdoing because we're all clearly partisan, after all, and never attack the Democrats for civil liberties infringements. *rolleyes*

Kaulen Fuhs:

Loonyyy:
Whether he's an asshole or not is besides the point. He can be affable, mild-mannered, but he was still responsible for two wars which are considered by many to be illegitimate or outright illegal, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, for reasons which were felt unjustified.

To those people (And I'm one of them), he'll always be a bad person, because he's responsible for mass-fucking-murder.

"Oh, but he was such a nice fellow, always so polite. I can't think of him doing anything like that."

Sounds like someone else I know... Someone in the Reagan administration, military fellow, if I recall... Something about arms to Iran; it's right there! I know it is! A Marine Colonel, maybe.

A "Soldier, Hero and Novellist", by any chance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QikSorPak6M

Hafrael:

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.

Does that make anything better?

Verbatim:

DJjaffacake:

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act,

You mean the one that Joe Biden wrote?

What does that even mean? One Neocon passed an act that another Neocon wrote. Both are full of shit.

Joe Biden, and Dianne 'AWB' Feinstein are now neocons? good to know.

Demon ID:
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.

Can't talk to the Hitler comparisons because they honestly come with everybody in a position of power. It's almost inevitable now. Though a difference I noticed in the Bush vs Obama debate in terms of Hitler comparisons is that Bush was called Hitler by common idiots that don't really hold any influence over anyone. With Obama, you hear political commentators or even the rare politician themselves making the comparison, which is a bit more worthy of being called out as utterly demented.

Likewise, with the calling him Satan thing. Nobody, or very few people, actually tried to claim that George W. Bush was literally Satan or the anti-Christ in human form.

Loonyyy:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Loonyyy:
Whether he's an asshole or not is besides the point. He can be affable, mild-mannered, but he was still responsible for two wars which are considered by many to be illegitimate or outright illegal, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, for reasons which were felt unjustified.

To those people (And I'm one of them), he'll always be a bad person, because he's responsible for mass-fucking-murder.

"Oh, but he was such a nice fellow, always so polite. I can't think of him doing anything like that."

Sounds like someone else I know... Someone in the Reagan administration, military fellow, if I recall... Something about arms to Iran; it's right there! I know it is! A Marine Colonel, maybe.

A "Soldier, Hero and Novellist", by any chance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QikSorPak6M

Oh, God. Haven't laughed that hard in a long time! Thanks, had never seen that.

Verbatim:

Joe Biden, and Dianne 'AWB' Feinstein are now neocons? good to know.

Well, you know, from an European point of view, there's no real "liberal" who holds any significant role in the US politics. But altogether? I am getting the vibe that the political bickering over there is akin to a couple of tough guys arguing whose fault it is that the house is on fire...while still being inside that house, and some people already burned to death.

Vegosiux:

Verbatim:

Joe Biden, and Dianne 'AWB' Feinstein are now neocons? good to know.

Well, you know, from an European point of view, there's no real "liberal" who holds any significant role in the US politics. But altogether? I am getting the vibe that the political bickering over there is akin to a couple of tough guys arguing whose fault it is that the house is on fire...while still being inside that house, and some people already burned to death.

ROFL, most EU countries have Neo-Nazi/Ultra Nationalist parties reaching the 20% mark and higher in parliamentary elections... But then again good ol' fascism might be considered left in Europe.
EU is not and never was some super liberal heaven, having universal healthcare and a leaking immigration policy does not make you one, otherwise Cuba will win that game every time.

Verbatim:

ROFL, most EU countries have Neo-Nazi/Ultra Nationalist parties reaching the 20% mark and higher in parliamentary elections...

ROFL no, most (which would be "at least 14") don't.

EU is not and never was some super liberal heaven, having universal healthcare and a leaking immigration policy does not make you one, otherwise Cuba will win that game every time.

It sure is damn well more liberal than USA tho, and that's pretty much what I said.

Can we quit it with false dichotomies?

Verbatim:

Hafrael:

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.

Does that make anything better?

Verbatim:

You mean the one that Joe Biden wrote?

What does that even mean? One Neocon passed an act that another Neocon wrote. Both are full of shit.

Joe Biden, and Dianne 'AWB' Feinstein are now neocons? good to know.

Of course that doesn't make anything any better, and that is the reason why we have these problems today. Even when going back to the Carter administration, Who most thought was less war mongering than others, and his involvment with deliberately and knowingly causing the Afghan Russian Military conflict, do you think that the people are suddenly going to now, in this time elect a non war monger? From what I have seen from the American people is they are leaning more towards MORE force, MORE brutality, not less. Those who oppose such things don't have chance in hell of being elected, and as long s that remains so, this will only get worse, not better.

I don't have answers to this, because those of us who oppose this are in a very small minority, and in a society of " mob rule" the voice of the minority is pretty much insignificant.

By all accounts a personable human being, but a terrible administrator. It doesn't make you a bad person to be shit at your job. It just doesn't help.

Two words: Affably Evil
edit-
to avoid moderation, here's some more words.
I mean that you can be personable, nice, and all around nice guy.
But if you intentionally do horrible things (for example, torture, invade a country, lie), then you are still a horrible person.

nyysjan:
Two words: Affably Evil
edit-
to avoid moderation, here's some more words.
I mean that you can be personable, nice, and all around nice guy.
But if you intentionally do horrible things (for example, torture, invade a country, lie), then you are still a horrible person.

Intent is the issue here, and I do not see that Bush had " evil" intent. As for Invading another nation, according to everything I have read on the subject, he was given false information, not that he " lied" there is a difference. The same difference apparently that led Clinton to Bomb civilians because he thought a factory making medicine for the poor had chemical weapons, which also was proved later to be false.

Attacking the intelligence they received is far different than accusations of "lying" about it. As for politicians lying in general, I think it would be safe to say that as far back as I can remember, every president that has been elected has lied somewhere. It is the fact that people appear to find this acceptable during the election campaigns, that they somehow would be surprised they lied once they were in office. The people do not elect honest politicians so of course you could not expect them to suddenly " be someone else" once they are in office.

Lil devils x:
/snip

I'm not so sure whether it was really misinformation. Bush's administration did not allow enough time for UN investigations on the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He was insistent that they had to "attack now".

"In the two years after 9/11, Bush and senior administration officials made 935 false statements alleging Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and attempting to connect Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. A non-partisan study by the Center for Public Integrity said they represented "an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.""

While the invasions are the two things that Bush is the most infamous for, he had done some other pretty shitty things. Even in Iraq, his failures were beyond just a bad surge. He had the current administration dismantled and failed to reconstruct a replacement.He also threw millions of dollars behind corrupt mercenary groups. Anyone remember Blackwater? He also halted the nuclear non proliferation and put money into further development of nuclear weapons.

All in all, he was an out of touch Calvinist, which made him unable to realistically access the situation in Iraq. Don't take my word for it though, just Google "axis of evil" or any number of speeches where he stated "if you're not with us, you're against us".

In the foreign politics realm he was a disaster. I still remember the idiotic French Bashing that took place in those years, although I can't complain that much since apparently the Sikhs and the Muslims had it worse. No french people were attacked thankfully, although I remember that a number of Senegalese were assaulted.

At home, his handling of Hurricane Katrina was lamentable and he loosened EPA regulations. I have a folder right on my desk about the problems with water contamination during those years. He also put a ban on stem cell research and was generally regressive scientifically. He was an anti-intellectual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

The white house also manipulated health care info, blocked the Kyoto protocol and were in denial about climate change.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0608-05.htm

Let's not even get to the subject of religion. Does anyone remember his speeches saying that the US was a christian nation and his cries that Christians were under attack and were persecuted? There's supposed to be a separation between church and state.

He also put many of his cronies in possession of power (Former FEMA head Michael Brown, personally appointed by Bush, was formerly head of the International Arabian Horse Association) and was a great friend of big oil. He also helped to create a more inequality, although to be fair that was long time coming for the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15rich.html?ex=1355374800&en=10a3f3696a68ec00&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&_r=0

It's not as if there hasn't been presidents that have done worse things than him. I know that I have problems with Obama's handling of privacy, but it doesn't mean that I can't attack Bush for his violations of human rights. Every president has lied, but the extent of what happened underneath Bush is unbelievable.

I could go on and on about the man. I haven't even covered everything that someone could criticize him for, but this post is getting too long. He may or may not have been vicious, but with the things that were done under him, does it matter?
One thing for sure was that he was a complete idiot. In so many ways It would be laughable if he hadn't been in a position of such power.

He's a war criminal, just like Tony Blair. Plain and simple. I don't care if he had bloody good manners at dinner parties. Sure, his stupidity would be funny, if it wasn't for the fact that he used to be one of the most powerful people in the world and was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent civilians.

*drops microphone, walks out, shoots self through the back of the head*

I find it very amusing that this thread is right under the "American's Short-term meory" thread.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here