What is George Bush's Legacy?

[Lenticular_J]

Hi all, can we get back onto the topic please (Bush's legacy). Maybe he lied about Iraq WMDs, and maybe he didn't - so perhaps phrase your responses in the terms of "I think that history will decide that George Bush lied to take us into Iraq, and so I think... but if history decides that George Bush didn't lie to take us into Iraq, then I think..."

 

 

 

You'd think in the time you've been here you'd realize that just isn't possible for Off-Topic.

[Yomyth105]

he will be looked upon as a leader who led the economy into the dumps. Personally i dislike when ppl blame bush for everything wrong in America. He isnt the only one. Congress can be blamed just as well. its because hes one person makes it an easier victim. He wasn't great but not as bad as others think.

[Lenticular_J]

Our job is not to police the world. According to our founding fathers we should not engage in "entangling alliances". In other words, WE SHOULD MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS. It is not our job.

 

 

 

I agree. I wish our nation was isolationist, as we once were (Spanish-American War probably ended that policy, or maybe even Mexican-American). Unfortunately, we can't do that now.

[sarg1010]

 

Pretty sure Truman never apologized to Nagasaki.

 

 

 

Why would he have to? Not only did Japan attack us first in Pearl Harbor, but Japanese generals refused to surrender even after the first nuke. Bush shows no remorse for duping his country or for Iraq, even though he was completely wrong for going to war with Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a good comparison.

 

 

 

The Japanese generals didn't surrender.... because they didn't know they we're nuked :shock:

 

 

 

[hide=Here's why]1. All the phones were nuked.

 

 

 

2. Nobody could run and tell them... because they were dead/legs were melting off.[/hide]

 

 

 

Who knows, maybe he did invade for different reasons, remember when, like 100m dollars just dissapeared or something out of thing air, while traveling over there?

[jackattack]

 

 

 

I'm not debating the facts of what happened. Every American knows them (or should). What I'm trying to say is that George Bush treated it as if nothing happened. I didn't hear an address to the nation on the fact that he got bad information and that he made a mistake, and like I have stated twice now, to me, that means he doesn't care and that is as good as lying to the American Public. We're pouring billions of dollars into the Iraq black hole every year when everyone knows that once we leave, it's just going to go back to the way it was. History shows that that area of the world will NEVER have any form of democracy or peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do know that Iran has a democracy? And I don't think he has anything to apologize for. We still did a good thing, regardless of why we did it.

[Lenticular_J]

Eh, I'm sort of with him as that being one of those constant hotspots in the world. It was the bosum of civilization, and is the crossroads of three continents and three different religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cabbage]'s goin' down, as my friend Raguel says.

[JeremyM]

He wont be remembered as the smartest, but it wasnt all bad. Since persuing the "War on Terror", their havent been anymore attacks such as 9/11 on America, why backout now?

[Saru Inc]

[hide=]

 

 

 

 

 

You really think Iraq never attacked us, ever?

 

 

 

No. Iraq has never attacked the United States of America and Saddam Hussein also did NOT harbor or help Al-Qaeda.

 

 

 

Some U.S. officials also accused Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship was found.

 

 

 

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's established. Now, if billions of people, think of an opinion the same way, it's usualyl fact, sometimes. But because you believe it, well, quite frankly, doesn't mean [cabbage].

 

 

 

You know what is fact? That most Americans think that invading Iraq was a dumb idea. Obviously you're not one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

 

 

 

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After September 11th, Americans felt like they needed to strike back on something, anything. Going to Afghanistan was justified, to me. It was the home of Osama Bin-Laden, but the Iraq war is ridiculous. There was not sufficient evidence. Here's some reasons why:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to the war, Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was claimed to pose a serious and imminent threat to Western national security. This assessment was supported by the U.K. intelligence services, but not by other countries such as France, Russia and Germany. United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD, giving support to earlier criticism of poor intelligence on Iraqi WMDs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what that means? The UN did NOT find evidence for WMDs. Only the United States and United Kingdom's intelligence agencies did. If you're having trouble connecting the dots, unlike most Americans today, here's another quote that has been hammered at you already, but you choose to keep ignoring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush reportedly told Palestenian officials either that God inspired him to end the tyranny in Iraq, or to hit Saddam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You want to know why? Because, unlike America, if you spoke out againstHussein, you were tortured. In so gruesome ways, I'm not gonna tell em (pm me if you wanna know) Ok? Also, he commited Genocide! Do you know know this? He nerve gassed thousands of Iraqis simply because they were a different kind of Muslim! He was a terrorist in executive position

 

 

 

So in your opinion, since the United States has a powerful military, we have to take out crazed dictators every time they pop up? No, I think that there were other reasons for going into Iraq. Why aren't we occupying Darfur? Surely you know of the genocide being committed there. What about Hitler and the Jews? We remained neutral until we were attacked. No, the reason we went into Iraq is because it benefited our country. Darfur doesn't benefit us because Africa is a lost cause and after Somalia, I think our country knows better. We need to leave the policing of the world to the United Nations, not the United States. It's what it was designed for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thank GOD that we are in there.

 

 

 

So does George Bush, in fact, he told him to go in there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay I'll try to break this down very simply. If you think something is true saying it is not lying. I guess you and that moron Robert Wexler don't understand that. He did the exact same thing when Sec. Rice testified to them. So unless you think that the President has his own private Intelligence agency that is better than CIA and told him that Saddam did have WMD's then he wasn't lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not debating the facts of what happened. Every American knows them (or should). What I'm trying to say is that George Bush treated it as if nothing happened. I didn't hear an address to the nation on the fact that he got bad information and that he made a mistake, and like I have stated twice now, to me, that means he doesn't care and that is as good as lying to the American Public. We're pouring billions of dollars into the Iraq black hole every year when everyone knows that once we leave, it's just going to go back to the way it was. History shows that that area of the world will NEVER have any form of democracy or peace.

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, do oyu honestly think the WashingPost will give you an unbiased answer, in all seriousness?

 

 

 

Most of my quotes and links, I got from Wikipedia. Want another source that says the same thing?

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/21/iraq.poll/index.html

 

 

 

This was from 2006 and still it was 61% disapproved. Imagine what the rate is 2 years later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, you act like no president has ever gone in to free people from a dictator.

 

 

 

Our job is not to police the world. According to our founding fathers we should not engage in "entangling alliances". In other words, WE SHOULD MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS. It is not our job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I'd bet $50 that all those 'Iraqi war hating americans' are below the age of 30.

 

 

 

Regardless of the fact that 60% of our country is not below the age of 30 and older than the age of 18 (which is what percentage disagrees with the War in Iraq and is allowed to vote in polls maintained by the government and news stations), since when does it matter what age a person has to be for their opinion to be voiced?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really, in your right mind think te UN is competent to know anything? Also, Russia was in the pits. They're just trying to gert stablized.

 

 

 

Are you really questioning the UN's competence? They have served as a world peace-keeper for 63 years, yet somehow you doubt their competence to solve an issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really need to stop googling stuff, it won't get you anywhere. Use databases, those are usually true, unlike Newspapers, which are pretty much, 90% time, biased.

 

 

 

Right, so in all your infinite wisdom, you have come up with such unrefutable evidence to compel me to completely give up my arguments to the likes of "I'd bet $50 that all those 'Iraqi war hating Americans' are below the age of 30." I have yet to see you post ANY links or articles related to your argument. The most you do is rant (with many curses and spelling mistakes present) on your own uneducated, extremely biased opinions. And no, citing your dad as a reporter does NOT count as a credible news source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't even begin to address your arguments because they make absolutely no sense. You address none of my points except by asking me pointless questions. Are you done yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's how I know I'm winning the debate, you use my language, and various spelling mistakes as a fact to discredit me. Without even wondering if maybe my keyboard is broken....?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, do not even start to talk about the Neutrality Proclamation, if you don't even believe in what Washington believed in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, I've posted some links, but I do more research, then just copying and pasting. Because, for me, you should know what you're talking about, without the need for links, maybe they're helpful if you have a certain percentage you need to share, but could easily be faked. But, most of these threads are opinionated.

 

 

 

And fyi, any one with knowledge of the UN, sees that it's a nice idea, but should stick to food aid and disaster relief. It is awful at mediating crisis, does it have any more right to mediate in a seperate countries affairs then we, as a country do?

 

 

 

And what I meant is, that most of the people who are against the war are younger people. And please, quote something b esides Msnbc and CNN, do FoxNews, or AP, or Drudge, dare to be different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And lastly, I think you highly misunderstood Washington, and what he meant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JeremyM, (post below), careful, no anti liberal thinking allowed

[JeremyM]

Thanks for the warning! I'll go to bed now so I can have a good sleep, instead of being flamed and have nightmares about it!

[Range_This11]

 

 

 

That's how I know I'm winning the debate, you use my language, and various spelling mistakes as a fact to discredit me. Without even wondering if maybe my keyboard is broken....?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, do not even start to talk about the Neutrality Proclamation, if you don't even believe in what Washington believed in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, I've posted some links, but I do more research, then just copying and pasting. Because, for me, you should know what you're talking about, without the need for links, maybe they're helpful if you have a certain percentage you need to share, but could easily be faked. But, most of these threads are opinionated.

 

 

 

And fyi, any one with knowledge of the UN, sees that it's a nice idea, but should stick to food aid and disaster relief. It is awful at mediating crisis, does it have any more right to mediate in a seperate countries affairs then we, as a country do?

 

 

 

And what I meant is, that most of the people who are against the war are younger people. And please, quote something b esides Msnbc and CNN, do FoxNews, or AP, or Drudge, dare to be different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And lastly, I think you highly misunderstood Washington, and what he meant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JeremyM, (post below), careful, no anti liberal thinking allowed

 

 

 

I understand perfectly well what "entangling alliances" meant. It is quite obvious if you read into it a little bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now for me posting articles, I can really see where you're coming from. I get that you think that I'm just being a copypasta. I'm not. I argued for nearly 4 pages of this thread without using any links or quotes from outside sources. It was when you came in and tried to throw out all my arguments by simply dismissing them as being liberal and biased that I started to post links. Also, you assume that I go out and type in "Iraq War waste of time lol" and paste the first site. That's not what happens. I read the stuff that I post. Just like maybe you should re-read some of your posts to catch some glaring holes in your arguments. But you can rattle on and on about how the media is biased or how my links to reputable news organizations are completely fake (go figure :roll: ), but when the consensus of the nation is that Bush is a bad president and the Iraq war was a bad idea, you just have to come to terms. CNN is one of the most UNBIASED news stations, that's why I took the last poll I used from there. And are you really going to try to tell me that because I have a different opinion than you, that all my sources are false?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if I should really post this, but you're extremely wrong about the UN, and here is why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've completely forgone the original argument (which was about Iraq) and have dropped to criticizing my credibility after I post countless sources that prove you wrong. Please, I beg you: Find any news article or any Wikipedia article that proves anything I have said about the Iraq War wrong.

[Lenticular_J]

Our cases aren't at peace because we have some sort of peacekeeping presence in most of the world. We're quite a bit more ready to send aid if people need it, which often has undesirable consequences.

[magekillr]

I think one thing he could be remembered for is forever killing the Republican Party of the late 20th to early 21st century (Reagan and on).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Republican party could possibly splinter after this election into 3 separate factions: neon-cons, social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. Each one wants to go in another direction, and this election is showing the massive strain that the party is currently under. Party leaders are criticizing Palin every which way (Romney's people), because Romney wants to face Palin in 2012 (at least this is my expectation). The Evangelicals are a large base, but half of them are voting Democrat this election. McCain is killing the fiscal conservatives because of his budget freeze/buying all subprime mortgages. He's sitting well with neo-cons. The party is in complete disarray because of this election and choosing of Palin. However, what caused this in-fighting is everyone vs. George Bush and Karl Rove.

[Saru Inc]

First off, RangeThis, I'm not saying you make up data, I'm saying the sources you get it from are obviously liberal, I understand that CNN is largely unbiased, but they to stray to liberal side a bit. Second, I asked EVERY single one of my teachers todasy, past abnd present, Christian, Athiest, and one Muslim, if they thought the UN was effective. All of them said no. In fact, when I brought up the fact that UN people found no WMDs my gov't teacher said 'well what do you expect if you warn them you're coming?'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And ok, describe to me waht you think the Neutrality Proclamtion is, and what is stood for.

[Range_This11]

First off, RangeThis, I'm not saying you make up data, I'm saying the sources you get it from are obviously liberal, I understand that CNN is largely unbiased, but they to stray to liberal side a bit. Second, I asked EVERY single one of my teachers todasy, past abnd present, Christian, Athiest, and one Muslim, if they thought the UN was effective. All of them said no. In fact, when I brought up the fact that UN people found no WMDs my gov't teacher said 'well what do you expect if you warn them you're coming?'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And ok, describe to me waht you think the Neutrality Proclamtion is, and what is stood for.

 

 

 

Well first off, I'm going to trust a RAND survey over your teachers. Yes the United Nations has messed up and not completed the job on certain occasions, but so have we (Vietnam comes to mind). The comment about the WMDs is irrelevant. Iraq was being monitored for years after the Gulf War, and even after we captured Saddam, we have found no WMDs. 5 years of occupying every part of a country and there are no WMDs. You'd think that a collective U.S., UK, and UN effort would yield some WMDs if there really are any.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the the Neutrality Proclamation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Proclamation of Neutrality only came about because of the French Revolution. All of the founders agreed that neutrality was an American stance that needed to be kept. Some even thought it was so obvious that it didn't need to be written down. But because of the recent American Revolution, ties with Great Britain needed to be severed completely. Congress decided that they should establish that they remained neutral in the French Revolution to the rest of the world. Also, Washington is credited with the stance on being non-interventionist, but it was actually Thomas Paine who first came up with the idea in his famous work, Common Sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The United States is not trying to achieve an isolationist view, but rather a non-interventionist policy. This does not mean we sit by ourselves and forget the rest of the world, but instead, we have trade and commerce with other countries. The only time we should be involved in a militaristic way would be if we were attacked. There were many protesters to America's involvement in World War 2 prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans as far back as this country has been around have been striving for non-interventionism. In my opinion, in the last half of the 20th century and into the 21st century, America has gotten away from that perspective and I believe that is why we are having so many international problems lately and in our near past.

[Saru Inc]

Ok, I agree with you that a RAND survery would go above teachers and such, and I will agree that you'r eright about most of the UN. Just one problem: Iraq were buddies with other countries, so while this may not be the case, couldn't Iraq simply if not shipped the WMDs to Iran and such to disable then and destroy all traces, then at least sold them to Iran\other countries?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, ok, so you do understand what it's about, I apologize for being so harsh. Just one thing you may know, but if you don't, here it is: That Washington made that speech, because America as a country was not ready for any alliances, if they allied with Spain, and then England attacked Spain, Americans would have to go in and fight again the English. But Washington in general was not against all alliances, just the entangling ones. But, what I believe, is that now that America can fend for itself, that we can forget it, not entirely, but as in (and we already have)created new alliances.

[Range_This11]

Ok, I agree with you that a RAND survery would go above teachers and such, and I will agree that you'r eright about most of the UN. Just one problem: Iraq were buddies with other countries, so while this may not be the case, couldn't Iraq simply if not shipped the WMDs to Iran and such to disable then and destroy all traces, then at least sold them to Iran\other countries?

 

 

 

As much as I think that it's doubtful, it is a possibility, and right now, it looks like Iran might be the next North Korea. I just do not like the way Bush dealt with the American public on his misinformation even after we all found out there weren't any WMDs in Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, ok, so you do understand what it's about, I apologize for being so harsh. Just one thing you may know, but if you don't, here it is: That Washington made that speech, because America as a country was not ready for any alliances, if they allied with Spain, and then England attacked Spain, Americans would have to go in and fight again the English. But Washington in general was not against all alliances, just the entangling ones. But, what I believe, is that now that America can fend for itself, that we can forget it, not entirely, but as in (and we already have)created new alliances.

 

 

 

Alliances with other countries: absolutely. What I was really trying to stress was that I don't believe we should be intervening on smaller world issues (Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, etc.). Our country is definitely capable of intervening, but it is not in our best interest to intervene and create tension around the world and future tension with that country.

[dangeresque]

If they would've been sent anywhere it would've been North Korea, or some other country, just not Iran, Iraq and Iran HATE eachother, with a passion.

[jackattack]

Ok, I agree with you that a RAND survery would go above teachers and such, and I will agree that you'r eright about most of the UN. Just one problem: Iraq were buddies with other countries, so while this may not be the case, couldn't Iraq simply if not shipped the WMDs to Iran and such to disable then and destroy all traces, then at least sold them to Iran\other countries?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is just what they would have done. Same for Iran. They would be more than happy to give WMD's to Hezbollah so that it wouldn't go back to them.