Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Worst. President. Ever.
America's historians, it seems, don't think much of George W. Bush.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804

Finally! A completely un-biased, neutral, no agenda driven or partisan hack job post about Bush.

Oh, Wait, April Fool's day was the first, huh?

I was shocked to find out there are only 109 historians in the US though. Thanks for that bit of information Blatham. I'd have thought there to be more in a country our size.

0 Replies

More of that wonderful aftermath for the cons to cheer about. And wonders of wonders, they lied about them too.

Quote:

Investigators: Millions in Iraq contracts never finished

0 Replies

Well I wouldn't blame GWB for all of that. His minions, maybe.

But he has been a complete arse of a president as is a complete arse of a man.

I'm glad we were right about that, but sad for America.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Well I wouldn't blame GWB for all of that. His minions, maybe.

But he has been a complete arse of a president as is a complete arse of a man.

I'm glad we were right about that, but sad for America.

Wanna know how little we care about what anyone in your country thinks about who should govern America?

Does '1776' ring a bell?

0 Replies

Good point. A victory for British colonists and their French allies against a foreign king and his mercenary army.

Smile

Shows what can be done with international cooperation and understanding, in contrast to today's quagmire.

0 Replies

Iraqis are indeed engaged in a fight for their political freedom.

But it is not the US that is their opponent.

It is some of their own countrymen, plus Islamic radicals imported to help out. Their type of 'international co-operation' will not lead to freedom for the Iraqi people.

Saddam's removal was a direct result of his own actions:

He filled mass graves with the bodies of his political enemies, including the use of biological weapons against his own people.

He harbored and financed various terrorist groups, including a hijacking school outside of Baghdad.

He created instability in the region by engaging in an 8 year war with Iran.

He invaded Kuwait and was pushed back to Baghdad. A cease fire with conditions was implemented.

He consistently and purposefully violated those conditions, (including intentionally deceiving the intelligence services of the world into thinking he had or was developing WMDs)

Saddam lied, people died.

Perhaps you think the world would be a safer and better place if Saddam were still in power.

I do not.

Much of the 'international community' (with a few notable levelheaded exceptions such as Tony Blair) got cold feet (aka French feet) when they realized that GWB actually meant to take action on the 10 years of UN resolutions, instead of merely talking about them.

Far from being a 'king', Bush was duly elected twice, the second time by a larger majority than the first.

That is how politics in America works. Maybe you could read up on it sometime.

0 Replies

You read up on it, but take your blinkers off first.

I am gratifed to note that most commentators in America, in the USA and elsewhere, recognise that this presidency has been an unqualified disaster for the USA and for the world.

And hey, being anti-Bush does not make anyone an apologist for Saddam (Mr Rumsfeld's erstwhile ally).

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I am gratifed to note that most commentators in America, in the USA and elsewhere, recognise that this presidency has been an unqualified disaster for the USA and for the world.

Your appeal to punditry around the world is pathetic. Who really cares what 'commentators' have to say?

I am interested in what YOU think, if you can articulate a viewpoint of your own.

I have already given mine.

Can you give a reasonable defense of the idea that Saddam should have been left in power to continually defy the UN conditions of the cease fire?

If so, then after you do perhaps you can also tell us what YOU would have done after 10+ years of failed UN resolutions.

Should we just have urged the UN to pass a few more resolutions while a few more years passed?

Should we have rolled the dice and hoped for the best? Let Saddam continue to harbor and finance terrorists? Invited him back to Kuwait and apologized?

0 Replies

You ask

"Can you give a reasonable defense of the idea that Saddam should have been left in power to continually defy the UN conditions of the cease fire?"

indicating that you have fallen victim of the propaganda which is continually pumped at you.

Does the USA see itself as the military arm of the UN? If so, the contempt of the UN expressed in various statements by US spokesmen in 2002 and since then is a puzzle.

And you will be aware of the many UN resolutions against the conduct of Israel, which have not yet resulted in an invasion by a US-led coalition of that country.
How do you account for this apparent paradox?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

You ask

"Can you give a reasonable defense of the idea that Saddam should have been left in power to continually defy the UN conditions of the cease fire?"

indicating that you have fallen victim of the propaganda which is continually pumped at you.

Does the USA see itself as the military arm of the UN? If so, the contempt of the UN expressed in various statements by US spokesmen in 2002 and since then is a puzzle.

And you will be aware of the many UN resolutions against the conduct of Israel, which have not yet resulted in an invasion by a US-led coalition of that country.
How do you account for this apparent paradox?

Answering a question with a totally unrelated question back to the questioner? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

You ask

"Can you give a reasonable defense of the idea that Saddam should have been left in power to continually defy the UN conditions of the cease fire?"

indicating that you have fallen victim of the propaganda which is continually pumped at you.

Does the USA see itself as the military arm of the UN? If so, the contempt of the UN expressed in various statements by US spokesmen in 2002 and since then is a puzzle.

And you will be aware of the many UN resolutions against the conduct of Israel, which have not yet resulted in an invasion by a US-led coalition of that country.
How do you account for this apparent paradox?

Actually the propaganda which is continually pumped at me is of the leftist variety, as you admitted earlier when you said commentators around the world agree that Bush is a ...........................

My views are representative of me, not of any other.

Now how 'bout answering the question instead of changing the subject?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

McTag wrote:
You ask

"Can you give a reasonable defense of the idea that Saddam should have been left in power to continually defy the UN conditions of the cease fire?"

indicating that you have fallen victim of the propaganda which is continually pumped at you.

Does the USA see itself as the military arm of the UN? If so, the contempt of the UN expressed in various statements by US spokesmen in 2002 and since then is a puzzle.

And you will be aware of the many UN resolutions against the conduct of Israel, which have not yet resulted in an invasion by a US-led coalition of that country.
How do you account for this apparent paradox?

Answering a question with a totally unrelated question back to the questioner?

If you think that is totally unrelated (hint: it's not) then you are about as shortsighted as the other correspondent.

This matter has been well aired on other threads, and no-one seems to be able very often to convince the other of the rightness of their position. People just do it to sound off, and I suppose it makes them feel better. I hope so.

I just come on to this thread to insult GWB, and lament his influence on the moral standing of his country.
Ideally he and Tony Blair would have to answer for their crimes in an international court.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

McTag wrote:
I am gratifed to note that most commentators in America, in the USA and elsewhere, recognise that this presidency has been an unqualified disaster for the USA and for the world.

Your appeal to punditry around the world is pathetic. Who really cares what 'commentators' have to say?

"International opinion against us? Who cares about the rest of the world? If they don't agree with us, we can bomb them. Hell, we're going to bomb them anyway."

Quote:

I am interested in what YOU think, if you can articulate a viewpoint of your own.

I have already given mine.

Can you give a reasonable defense of the idea that Saddam should have been left in power to continually defy the UN conditions of the cease fire?

No. But then I never advocated that.

Quote:

If so, then after you do perhaps you can also tell us what YOU would have done after 10+ years of failed UN resolutions.

Should we just have urged the UN to pass a few more resolutions while a few more years passed?

Perhaps. Whatever was done, had to be done under UN resolution. The US tried and tried again to get a resolution to invade, but failed.
No invasion should consequently have taken place. It was a crime.

Quote:

Should we have rolled the dice and hoped for the best? Let Saddam continue to harbor and finance terrorists? Invited him back to Kuwait and apologized?

Saddam's Iraq was the ONLY country in the Middle East which was AGAINST the alQuaida terrorists. Saddam was bin Laden's ENEMY.

So if 9/11 terrorism was the key to the decision to invade, the wrong country got invaded.

But it wasn't really, was it?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

woiyo wrote:
McTag wrote:
You ask

"Can you give a reasonable defense of the idea that Saddam should have been left in power to continually defy the UN conditions of the cease fire?"

indicating that you have fallen victim of the propaganda which is continually pumped at you.

Does the USA see itself as the military arm of the UN? If so, the contempt of the UN expressed in various statements by US spokesmen in 2002 and since then is a puzzle.

And you will be aware of the many UN resolutions against the conduct of Israel, which have not yet resulted in an invasion by a US-led coalition of that country.
How do you account for this apparent paradox?

Answering a question with a totally unrelated question back to the questioner?

If you think that is totally unrelated (hint: it's not) then you are about as shortsighted as the other correspondent.

This matter has been well aired on other threads, and no-one seems to be able very often to convince the other of the rightness of their position. People just do it to sound off, and I suppose it makes them feel better. I hope so.

I just come on to this thread to insult GWB, and lament his influence on the moral standing of his country.
Ideally he and Tony Blair would have to answer for their crimes in an international court.

Well then just admit you refuse to answer the question then. You are just another wind bag with nothing to offer in the way of an objective debate.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

McTag wrote:
woiyo wrote:
McTag wrote:
You ask

"Can you give a reasonable defense of the idea that Saddam should have been left in power to continually defy the UN conditions of the cease fire?"

indicating that you have fallen victim of the propaganda which is continually pumped at you.

Does the USA see itself as the military arm of the UN? If so, the contempt of the UN expressed in various statements by US spokesmen in 2002 and since then is a puzzle.

And you will be aware of the many UN resolutions against the conduct of Israel, which have not yet resulted in an invasion by a US-led coalition of that country.
How do you account for this apparent paradox?

Answering a question with a totally unrelated question back to the questioner?

If you think that is totally unrelated (hint: it's not) then you are about as shortsighted as the other correspondent.

This matter has been well aired on other threads, and no-one seems to be able very often to convince the other of the rightness of their position. People just do it to sound off, and I suppose it makes them feel better. I hope so.

I just come on to this thread to insult GWB, and lament his influence on the moral standing of his country.
Ideally he and Tony Blair would have to answer for their crimes in an international court.

Well then just admit you refuse to answer the question then. You are just another wind bag with nothing to offer in the way of an objective debate.

Hey! You can't insult me here! This is a thread for insulting Mr Bush.

Actually I did refer you to the threads where these matters are examined most exhaustively. That's the place for you to get your questions answered, if that's what you really want. Which I doubt.

0 Replies

What's Mr Bush going to do between now and January?
Write his memoirs?

0 Replies

There's lots of brush to clear down in Crawford ...

0 Replies

He's going to expand his world travels, and try to get some pats on the back from other country's leaders.

His special one billion dollar reading program was a dismal failure like everything else he promoted.

0 Replies

Food for thought: http://mondediplo.com/2008/06/06ussecurity

0 Replies

When are we going to hear a speech from Bush speaking at night from one of the flooded cities of Iowa promising one of the biggest reconstruction projects in the US?

He doesn't seem to have any difficulty asking for billions more for the war in Iraq. What happened to helping Americans?

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know