some intelligent topic for you
Thecure
Posts: 814
if the war on iraq leads to great middle east would Bush be seen as a head of the time. no "yes or no" answer please.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
sure why wouldnt he?
maybe even it doesn't work out so well
I believe that he would be looked upon more favoribly if our invasion of Iraq does create a better Middle East in the future. There are still other aspects of his presidency that would hold him back from being viewed as a great or good president though.
NO.
Katrina
Torture
WMD
Iraq/911 ties
Harriet Myers
Scooter Libby pardon or whatever the fuck it was
Alberto Gonzales (see #2 and the politicization of the Justic Department)
Good Job Brownie (see # 1)
Record Deficit
tax cuts for the weatlhy during a "global war that could last a generation"
Terry Schiavo
Stem Cell research (untold damage and loss of advancement)
Gay rights, lack thereof
domestic spying
patriot act
Gitmo
destruction of habeous corpus
cia black prisons
Mission Accomplished
etc
etc
etc
the list goes on and on and on and on
SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK HAVE SOME OF YOU PEOPLE BEEN DOING AND WATCHING FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS? THIS SHIT HAS BEEN A FUCKING DISASTER.
ask the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's what they think... or the approx 20,000 dead and severely wounded US soldiers
not everyone around here has English as their first language... just an guess?
IF Iraq became a success why would bush still be looked at as a failure?
remember, shortly after 9/11 he had a 85% approval rating.
failure to capture osama? what else? cant pin him on the economy. (no im not defending bush, just discussing)
but he is suggesting that "the war with no end" did end, and ended successfully.
he would still be one of the worse presidents ever?
sorry to inform you, but most americans will never hear about any of that stuff. iraq is bush's legacy. period. if it succeeds, he will be remembered as a controversial but successful president. if it fails, he will be remembered as a colossal failure. but history is not going to remember terry schaivo or bush's tax cuts, just as nobody remembers lbj's war on poverty aside from the fact that it happened. katrina will be remembered as a huge disaster and bush's role in it will be forgotten. your personal views ought not blind you to reality and the effect of time on memory and history.
hell two of our most popular and beloved presidents were jfk and reagan, 2 that i see as horrible in their effects. but becos one was martyred and one "won" the cold war, they are beloved. reagan's presidency was as crooked and reprehensible as bush's, but history has still been kind to him.
ah yes, Katrina. bad bad bad.
but the others you listed are just disagreements you have because you are a far left liberal. no?
it's possible, though i admit unlikely. in that case i would see him more like a truman. a guy who was pretty controversial, not very well liked, won by narrow margins, but DID win a war. maybe not the worst, but i still think his legacy will be a questionable one, albeit successful.
assuming iraq somehow ends successfully. i don't think anyone can describe what that would look like though. i envision another iconic photograph of american choppers desperately abandoning the us embassy in baghdad under gunfire while screaming out the door "hey, we won! seriously guys!"
well a successful senario would look like sunni, shittes, and kurds somehow setting aside their differences and uniting as one democratic free country.
then of course it would take years to rebuild but with US help (money) its certainly possible. maybe the place can resemble something like Dubai. not in terms of the amount of skyscrapers its building, but create a tourism industry in Iraq and maybe a center of business in the middle east.
I would love to visit Iraq someday. Babylon and the beginning or civilization......that would be cool to see.
I'm not saying he would still be viewed as a failure. I said he still wouldn't be viewed as a great president. There are a list of other Bush actions and descisions that would keep him from reaching that title of great president.
No Child Left Behind
Ballooning Deficit
Largest expansion of government in recent times
Those are just 3 that I thought of off the top of my head.
the only way bush can be seen more favourably in the future is if we all continue to ignore the travesty that is his administration ... my2hands said it quite well ...
There's little chance. Because when the war stops and things settle a little there some shit is bound to surface from Iraq. Truths which are not yet known by the general public, testimonies, a proper death count etc.
We're not in the 70's anymore and information seems to have a way of coming up. We'll see, but I think that be it a "failure" or a "success" it's too late for him.
And I'm not even speaking about his domestic successes (or his public appearances).
i agree, but i somehow doubt the three sects of islam will set aside their differences becos a bunch of christians with better guns comes in and tells them they damn well better.
Only far left liberals think these....:
Torture
WMD
Record Deficit
domestic spying
patriot act
Gitmo
destruction of habeous corpus
cia black prisons
....are unacceptable and damaging to his legacy?
this is debatable. many people agree things like water boarding should be used in cases of getting information for a dirty bomb attack for example.
ok what about them? If the Iraq war turns out successful, this will be forgotten.
sure its not good, but he has a plan to reduce it and time will tell if it works.
both are also debatable. some believe they are important to fight possible terror attacks in the US. (like I said, far left liberals disagree)
again in a grey area. during this time of war, a unconventional war, terms like enemy combatant appear.
what about them?
being christian has nothing to do with it. sometimes being "free" is better then living under the lock and key of a Islamic dictator.
but seems impossible to debate that with you being how you feel "free" is somehow a negative thing.
That's like taking a broom to the beach and trying to sweep up the sand.
Ethnic cleansing of the middle east will not be labeled a success unless it's a genocide and several generations after the fact.
Bush's legacy will most likely be looked back on as the antagonist to world war III
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
A success in Iraq is not a success in the Middle East as a whole. You still have Israel and the Palestine issue. You have economic issues. You most certainly will still have the terrorist factor. With U.S. military bases being built in Iraq, the potential for future tension with Iran, Russia and China are not out of the question.
Bush's legacy is marred by his non-existent domestic policies and his foreign policies. His most grievous failure was to his Oath of the Office of the President to uphold the Constitution, that legacy will affect generation after generation of Americans.
I agree. this is purely hypothetically. but if the Iraq issue is fixed. I think everyone would put the focus on the Israel issue and the Iran problem might go away. and depending who is the next president, we might actually become friends with Iran. but if Iran goes forward with getting a nuke bomb that wont help anything.
little extreme dont ya think? if Iraq is a success he most certainly will be looked at favorably. but not the best or the worst.
you think that is the way they see it? that we are just freedom-bringers bearing gifts to islam? come on man, you're smarter than that.
way to twist my words though. freedom is a negative right, not a negative thing. it's not like a right to bear arms or a right to do x, y, and z. it's more a denial of someone else's right to interfere with you in some way. and in that sense, to people in iraq (as the last few years have shown) they see what's going on as trading lack of freedom under an islamic dictator for lack of freedom under christian invaders.
how come when islam blows something up, you say it's about the violence of their religion, but when america invades iraq you deny that there is any way they can perceive it on religious terms?
as to the other parts of bush's legacy, those points aren't all far left talking points. there are a LOT of right wingers and conservatives that are very uncomfortable with his wire-tapping programs and similar measures. bush's legacy is questionable regardless of success in iraq. success in iraq makes it a mixed bag from history's perspective at best. failure makes his legacy a disaster.
I disgree. being free can never be used in a negative sense. we are human beings, not to be controlled by anyone other then our own minds.
are we bombing in the name of jesus? are we air dropping bibles? I dont get what you are saying.
conservative Islam says people should die if they are now followers of the great allah.
death is never an option even for the most extreme side of Christianity.
perhaps. i see that as their choice though and i also see it as a large reason why iraq is an inevitable failure. we simply cannot force them to be what we want. it's why we failed in vietnam. the south vietnamese mostly WANTED a unified vietnam, even if it was communist.
you're not much of a philosopher. you can't see negative without equating it to "bad thing" which is not at all the sense in which i have been using it. when i see freedom is a negative it means "absence, not presence." a right to bear arms can be described in positive terms... i am allowed carry a gun. a right to health care means i am allowed to have a doctor. a right to freedom is... i am allowed to... what? do what i want? even the most liberal libertarian is not comfortable saying freedom is a right to do ANYTHING you want. it is defined as the absence of restraint from others. in that sense it is a negative. it is not the presence of a bundle of rights or allowed actions, it is the absense of restraint.
that is not true and you know it. there are people murdering abortion doctors and starting crusades. violence can and has been part of christinianity. just not as common as it is in islam.
If its true, then why is it extreme? Bush's legacy is Commander-in-Chief to a failed Iraq policy. Bush's legacy as the Decider is failure to uphold his Oath of Office as the President of the United States and the Constitution. Bush's legacy both as the Commander-in-Chief and the Decider is the selling out of a CIA agent (treason), the illegal prisoner of war tactics (war crimes) and the fleecing of the American taxpayers (corruption and favoritism). Lesson that he ignored - it's the Office, not the occupant- and he and his Administration has diminished the Office and in doing so, the character of the United States abroad and at home and for that he will be viewed as a failed President with a really, really nice library.
how would any any nation be without western intervention?
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
i wrote the title as a joke becuase some other person wrote a thread about what happen to intelligent discussion on the board. sorry if the joke did not work.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
not ANYTHING you want. but free to think how you want. freedom of expression, speech, religion, etc. I want no restraint from others in that regard. but im not going to get into a philosophical pissing match with you. I see nothing negavitive with freedom, even in the terms you try to portray it. with freedom comes responsibility. hoping people understand that is a big assumpution im willing to make.
wow so a few doctors get murdered and now its somehow in the same ballpark as conservative Islam?
we are talking something like 0.00001% of death used in the name of jesus
to something like 25% of conservative Islam in the world
crusades ended 1000 years ago.