Bush and 9/11 are already in the history books. Mine even had something to say about Bushisms :lol:

 

 

 

From memory because I don't have the book anymore: "Bush's greatest crime was against the English language." Then something about "wings to take dream" and some other quotes.

Actually, they're all people aged 20+ and 25+.

 

While I realize most people might think me unqualified to say this, but young people are easily impressionable, I myself have often "believed everything I heard" despite warning from my mother. So the 20-25 years doesn't surprise me, especially since drafting was blown way out of proportion and it NEVER HAPPENED during the War on Terror, and the 20-25 age group is right in that ideal ball park. i think people's dislike of Bush was a combination of media blowing things out of proportion and his "get things done attitude".

 

 

 

That get things done attitude was the one good thing about Bush. I don't see much else that was good about him though, he was just the guy that wanted war for me. I don't see any good reason why one would go to war.

 

 

 

Bush wanted to keep our troops out of war. But then 9/11 happened, and all of his previous plans were shoved aside to deal with the issue at hand.

That get things done attitude was the one good thing about Bush. I don't see much else that was good about him though, he was just the guy that wanted war for me. I don't see any good reason why one would go to war.

 

 

 

My good man/woman I am trying very hard not to become angry atm. No good reason to go to war? the slaughter of thousands, the attacking of the military headquarters of these United States of America, the mere fact that foreign warriors(despite their tactics they are warriors) attacked us on our home turf. Please spare me the Bush organized it thing, then why in the heck did terrorists claim responsibility, why did they run and hide when the Iron Fist Of Resolve came to open up a can of whoop-azz?? On second thought I don't want to hear your explanation as it will only make me angrier I'm sure.

 

 

 

I see no reason to get angry over a debate. Take a break from this topic for a while, relax ;).

 

 

 

One thing though, tell me when they attacked you on your home turf? And don't say 9/11, those were the talibans, not the irakis.

If you heard that some kid much weaker than you was threatening to rape your sister, would you go over there and confront him about it, or just sit back and wait?

 

 

 

That's the worst analogy I've ever heard.

If you heard that some kid much weaker than you was threatening to rape your sister, would you go over there and confront him about it, or just sit back and wait?

 

 

 

Bush has a sister?

Ok sbrideau2000 I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions, recently I seem to have been surrounded by conspiracy theorists... Anyway when did they attack me on my home turf, well you won't like this, but 9/11, yes that was the Taliban, and Iraq may not have even been involved, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were. And also Saddam Hussein was a bad man to say the least, and I, with every fiber of my being, believe he had WMDs, whether we found them or not. And time will tell if the world is any less safe with one less dictator.

 

 

 

And i think the sister analogy is a perfectly good one, but we should probably get back onto what events we think will make it in rather than discussing them, as we can do that ll day.

If you heard that some kid much weaker than you was threatening to rape your sister, would you go over there and confront him about it, or just sit back and wait?

 

 

 

Depends. Is your sister hot?

Ok sbrideau2000 I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions, recently I seem to have been surrounded by conspiracy theorists... Anyway when did they attack me on my home turf, well you won't like this, but 9/11, yes that was the Taliban, and Iraq may not have even been involved, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were. And also Saddam Hussein was a bad man to say the least, and I, with every fiber of my being, believe he had WMDs, whether we found them or not. And time will tell if the world is any less safe with one less dictator.

 

 

 

And i think the sister analogy is a perfectly good one, but we should probably get back onto what events we think will make it in rather than discussing them, as we can do that ll day.

 

 

 

I agree with you on this one though, one less dictator is good, and more democracy. I could add some more, but I'm tired of debating :P.

Ok sbrideau2000 I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions, recently I seem to have been surrounded by conspiracy theorists... Anyway when did they attack me on my home turf, well you won't like this, but 9/11, yes that was the Taliban, and Iraq may not have even been involved, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were. And also Saddam Hussein was a bad man to say the least, and I, with every fiber of my being, believe he had WMDs, whether we found them or not. And time will tell if the world is any less safe with one less dictator.

 

 

 

And i think the sister analogy is a perfectly good one, but we should probably get back onto what events we think will make it in rather than discussing them, as we can do that ll day.

 

 

 

I agree with you on this one though, one less dictator is good, and more democracy. I could add some more, but I'm tired of debating :P.

 

 

 

You guys are delusional. The US supports and provides money to dozens of dictators - just look at Africa ffs, at least 50% of the weapons being used there were given to warlords by western countries (predominately the US). I don't really much care, I just find it quite annoying when people present steaming piles of opinionated [cabbage] and actually expect people to agree with them.

 

 

 

+ here's the funny thing. Saddam Hussein hated terrorists. There was no Al Queda in Iraq before the US came in, and Saddam would routinely execute known terrorists in public. Also, if there are modern industrialized western nations that can't get nukes, why do you think that some little pissant country like Iraq could get a nuclear arsenal without people noticing anything? (oh look a strawman!)

 

/rant

Maybe you didn't notice that in Africa they use Ak-47s, the most popular assault rifle in the world and its RUSSIAN MADE! As for Saddam i don't know about him executing terrorists but i also know he slaughtered innocents during th gulf War and WMD doesn't just mean nukes idiot, we are talking bio and chemical weapons.

Maybe you didn't notice that in Africa they use Ak-47s, the most popular assault rifle in the world and its RUSSIAN MADE!

 

I have an appliance here that says made in China. Does that mean I bought it from the Chinese? Weapons have a tendency to float around from country to arms dealer and whatnot. Then when you look at all the Kalashnikovs that went "missing" after the collapse of the USSR...

 

 

 

As for Saddam i don't know about him executing terrorists but i also know he slaughtered innocents during th gulf War.

 

 

 

 

Just like virtually every country in existence. The Americans slaughtered the Natives, the Germans the Jews, the Turks the Armenians, the Russians the Eastern Europeans, the Spanish the Mayans/Aztech. What does it really matter? You aren't the world police, and if you decide to be, you'll just end up over-extending your military and racking up a huge debt trying to pay upkeep for wars you can't win (oh wait, that's exactly what's happening).

 

 

 

and WMD doesn't just mean nukes idiot, we are talking bio and chemical weapons

 

It's mostly used in reference to nuclear weapons, which is what America went into Iraq looking for (even after inspectors found no evidence that Iraq could even manufacture them, [garden tool] hum)

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't notice that in Africa they use Ak-47s, the most popular assault rifle in the world and its RUSSIAN MADE! As for Saddam i don't know about him executing terrorists but i also know he slaughtered innocents during th gulf War and WMD doesn't just mean nukes idiot, we are talking bio and chemical weapons.

 

What a respectful debate participant. I envy you sir.

 

 

 

Please include all relevant [/sarcasm] tags in you post, as my detector is under repairs atm.

Lol, you said it, Dusty. It was opinionated, not looked up. We can't know it all.

 

 

 

Edit: Two posts after the place I clicked reply.

Lol, you said it, Dusty. It was opinionated, not looked up. We can't know it all.

 

 

 

Edit: Two posts after the place I clicked reply.

 

 

 

Gotta work on that quick draw mate.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHFLwe98rYM#t=4m46s

One thing that will be overlooked will be this recession. They happen quite frequently, so it is not major enough to be remembered.

 

 

 

To Kcdragon and all the people who agree with him -

 

 

 

Are you ill informed or just completely ignorant ?

 

 

 

Or maybe you're pulling this stuff outta' nowhere, beacause when you said that - in my eyes - you lost all your credibility.

The September 11 Attacks will be remembered, as well as the London Bombings (probably not going to be considered as "major", but it will definitely be mentioned). The Bush era will be written in a more positive manner than people recall it now, but it will mention how the recession and increased anti-American tensions will be linked to his presidency (as well as the waterboarding techniques for interrogation at Guantanamo Bay). It will also mention how Bush and Cheney basically ruined the image of the Republican Party in the public's eyes and the successful election campaign of Barack Hussein Obama. It will definitely mention how he was the first *half* Black president elected in the United States and make it out to be some glorious achievement. If Obama's presidency doesn't accomplish what it hoped to do, then I suspect that he will lose the next election and the textbooks will mention his shortcomings and public disappointment.

 

 

 

Later on, it will probably mention tensions between China and the United States (and almost definitely Russia) as they become rivals (China becomes more hostile as its overpopulation continues and the trade between the two super-powers becomes soured). Once the oil reserves are depleted (the US government will brutally go after oil in Alaska as it becomes desperate for oil) tensions will significantly increase between the West and the Middle East (specifically Saudi Arabia).

 

 

 

Over time, you'll see the world atlas change. Canada and the United States might eventually get closer together and perhaps talk about joining the Union (unless of course unbridled immigration doesn't completely put the European-American population in the minority and cause severe cultural changes that basically make America not the same United States that it used to be, more like just a geographical location). You might see the weakening and eventual collapse of the United Nations and see more organizations like the European Union spring up, effectively replacing the outdated UN. You will most definitely see wars and tensions between superpowers as one powerful nation bullies another one around for resources (much like the Russian invasion of Georgia).

 

 

 

As far as technology goes, it'll become much more complex. Nanotechnology will make huge leaps and bounds. A team of astronauts will be sent to Mars. WMDs will become "cleaner" (as in radiation will become less and less of a threat to untargeted areas, but the weapons themselves will also become much more powerful). In an act of trying to reduce pollution, automobiles will emit less fumes. Alternative fuels will be used in place of gasoline. Laws will be enacted that make it mandatory for cities to build more mono-rail/subway systems (as well as increased use of buses). Trains will become more popular in the United States (though most likely not to the magnitude that it was during the 1800s) as it provides an expedient and cheap service to civilians. The new train system will be similar to the ones used throughout Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

(This is all just a guess of what could happen.)

9/11, London Bombings, conflict in the middle east are things that spring to mind.

Tony Blair?

 

North Korea... don't know how long all that's been going on for though

 

9/11, Al-Qaeda, etc, the emergence of 'green' energy. Huge scientific advances, maybe the LHC.

I have an appliance here that says made in China. Does that mean I bought it from the Chinese? Weapons have a tendency to float around from country to arms dealer and whatnot. Then when you look at all the Kalashnikovs that went "missing" after the collapse of the USSR...

 

 

 

But how does that prove they bought it from America....

 

 

 

Just like virtually every country in existence. The Americans slaughtered the Natives, the Germans the Jews, the Turks the Armenians, the Russians the Eastern Europeans, the Spanish the Mayans/Aztech. What does it really matter? You aren't the world police, and if you decide to be, you'll just end up over-extending your military and racking up a huge debt trying to pay upkeep for wars you can't win (oh wait, that's exactly what's happening).

 

 

 

Lets not play the blame game here, I'm talking about what I KNOW happened, I'm not trying to pretend we should right every wrong in history. If you gave me a decent source that proved Saddam hated terrorists and executed them I'd at the very least consider it.

 

 

 

It's mostly used in reference to nuclear weapons, which is what America went into Iraq looking for (even after inspectors found no evidence that Iraq could even manufacture them, [garden tool] hum)

 

 

 

While that's true it is mostly used to reference nuclear weapons anyone with a quarter of a brain knew he didn't have nukes but we know he had USED chemical weapons on the Kurds during the Gulf War, you probably think we went looking for nukes because some stupid reporter said something like, "The UN inspector still has found no evidence of WMD's SUCH AS nuclear weapons."

Lord, I find it so hard finding people who share this view with me. Thank you.

 

We should form a club.

 

 

 

I hope my birth ends up in them ... But, otherwise, I don't think there have been any huge events. Then again, the Battle of Agincourt was just another brawl for Henry V! Someone told him he should put it in the books, and he said, "Ye olde timey villiain! Offeth with thy headeth!"

 

 

 

Paraphrased.

 

 

 

*joins*

 

 

 

 

 

Obama's presidency will probably be the most important event in my life so far. And about Michael Jackson, if you look at how Elvis Presley is remembered now, I think it will be about the same as that. Perhaps a little more because of his fame outside of his music.

 

 

 

Hurricane Katrina will also probably be a big one.

While I was in the shower I thought about those 13 Days when Israel bombed Palestinian cities, I don't want to get into a debate over this so if anyone prompts one I will ignore it, I merely want to know if you think it will be in there.

Nah, in two hundred years the Israel-Palestine thing will probably be remembered as a minor thing. Unless one of those two groups conquer the world or something. Errrr.

But how does that prove they bought it from America....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625_pf.html

 

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n9afr.htm

 

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35148&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=83faf38f19

 

That's not to say that the USSR didn't also supply arms to the area, but it's pretty ignorant to think of the US in a "holier than thou" light.

 

 

 

 

Lets not play the blame game here, I'm talking about what I KNOW happened, I'm not trying to pretend we should right every wrong in history. If you gave me a decent source that proved Saddam hated terrorists and executed them I'd at the very least consider it.

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

 

All the stories are incredibly convoluted though, so we probably won't know the full truth until another decade or so.

 

 

 

While that's true it is mostly used to reference nuclear weapons anyone with a quarter of a brain knew he didn't have nukes but we know he had USED chemical weapons on the Kurds during the Gulf War, you probably think we went looking for nukes because some stupid reporter said something like, "The UN inspector still has found no evidence of WMD's SUCH AS nuclear weapons."

 

 

 

Except they had had a nuclear program, and that nukes are exactly what the inspectors went into Iraq looking for before the war. Everyone knew he had biological and chemical weapons, but western countries have had those since WW1, so the hooblah wasn't about those, it was about nuclear weapons.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=rwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q=&f=false

As a former history teacher, here's my take on recent history making it into the history books, as evidenced by what textbooks actually convey.

 

 

 

9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will get an entire chapter. George Bush will be featured as prominently as Clinton was during his tenure.

 

 

 

Katrina will get a footnote.

 

 

 

The HLC will get a footnote and maybe a picture in some science textbook with little relevance to the unit it's in.

 

 

 

Obama will be remembered for being the first African-American President. At the rate his approval rate is dropping, even if he serves a second term, this is likely to be his biggest achievement. I kid you not. Most Presidents are lucky to have a paragraph. It's the events that surround them that make them revered by history, not the man himself.

 

 

 

The Warren court will still get more coverage than anything to do with Sonia Sotomayer after liberals realize she's not the next Ruth Ginsberg.

 

 

 

The recession will be forgotten within a decade. Mark my words. It will be in the conclusion to the 9/11 (aka the Bush) chapter and maybe mentioned with President Obama's possible paragraph.

 

 

 

The main thing to remember kids? If it didn't happen before World War 2, it's not worth giving more than a paragraph to. It's the sad state of failing education nationwide that we will overload kids with facts and dates but not teach them how to analyze history for what it is. No analysis + facts and dates = kids who can't rationalize politics but can win on Jeapardy.

 

 

 

Schools are gradually cutting out history, government, and economics. Is there a sinister motive behind it or do they just not care? Your guess is as good as mine, but all the booksmarts in the world can't help you if you can't understand the world around you (I don't mean the natural world, either. I mean the geopolitical world.)

For us Brits I can't really say what'd go down. The London Bombings, hosting the 2012 Olympics might get a mention. Other than that as far as I remember nothing of great consequence has happened here. A lot of the news we have is gone within weeks. Like the MP expenses scandal, it'll all be forgotten soon enough.

It's the events that surround them that make them revered by history, not the man himself.

 

This makes me mad. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the most kick-[wagon] guy ever. Having him as the leader of early 20th century United States? He should have a whole damn chapter.

 

 

 

I agree about the history and whatnot getting cut out, too. My world history teacher last year was only interested in facts. Nothing else. If you knew the capital of a couple countries, great! How about how they feel about America, or maybe why they're an important nation?

 

 

 

Pretty ridiculous. Maybe Skynet is already active, and saw Terminator, so it's just going to destroy education instead.