For those who think Bush is the problem...read.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

26th April 2010, 00:30
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Tell me, at what point does something become 'water under the bridge'? When talking about it starts to become inconvenient or embarrassing? Do you have a set timescale for this? Again, say that all you like, but it won't be forgotten. Sorry.

I never once said it should be forgotten about. What I dismiss is the constant nattering that amounts to "I told you so" for about the last 8 years. The UK isn't pulling out, the USA isn't pulling out, and they wont until Iraq is in a better place from what I can figure. Never once did I tell you to forget about it, but I would like something else to come from you and Eki more intelligellable than "Bush is an idiot, Bush is evil, bush is this..bush is that...yadda yadda yadda."

My point in making the post is that with all leaders, good or bad, there is a lot of gray areas and there were people who saw Bush's them or us stances towards human rights in certain countries as a good thing. I think he wasn't principled enough in how he did it, and I don't think he was consistent enough, but I do think it is better than what Obama does, which basically says to the world "It's ok...you do what you like within your borders..we apologize for anything we may have offended you with before". What kind of ****E is that? HE rolls over with 4 feet in the air and says "rub my belly" and expects respect?

No...Bush was ham fisted and awkward, but the USA didn't have to worry about being their enemies knifing them in the back. With Bush, they were clearly defined on their own.

A clear foreign policy with consistent values is what the USA needs, and they didn't get it all the time with Bush, but they certainly are not getting it with Obama.
26th April 2010, 00:42
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I never once said it should be forgotten about. What I dismiss is the constant nattering that amounts to "I told you so" for about the last 8 years. The UK isn't pulling out, the USA isn't pulling out, and they wont until Iraq is in a better place from what I can figure. Never once did I tell you to forget about it, but I would like something else to come from you and Eki more intelligellable than "Bush is an idiot, Bush is evil, bush is this..bush is that...yadda yadda yadda."

When have I ever gone on in that fashion? I resent being lumped in with those who do so.
26th April 2010, 01:12
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

When have I ever gone on in that fashion? I resent being lumped in with those who do so.

You do it in a far more intellectual manner, but in the essence, the fact we are arguing about it says to me that is how you have come across on this subject. I shouldn't simplify your stance on this Ben, but the reality is for the last 8 years I have heard over and over again by people who dislike Bush is how he is such a screw up and we shouldn't be in Iraq...and the reality is, the USA and UK are in Iraq, and THAT is a done deal. It is over...done...finished...the direction of history has changed for good on that score. We can debate how smart is was, and I wont disagree that in hindsight it was foolish, but I just dislike this constant chorus of complaints about that stupid dork Bush. He was President...he isn't now...and yet people are just content to demonize the guy as if he was still in power. He isn't..
26th April 2010, 01:18
gloomyDAY

America is still on the side of political dissidents.

Las Damas de Blanco!
26th April 2010, 04:30
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I think your knowledge of flags is sadly lacking. Germany then used a different flag to Germany now. Indeed, the name of the state of Germany is different. But this may be a little too nuanced for you. (Sorry about the number of syllables used there, as well.)

Different flag........same people.
26th April 2010, 04:31
gloomyDAY

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Different flag........same people.

You're insane.
26th April 2010, 05:39
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Different flag........same people.

Ya right...sometimes Tony, even if you have a point, you shoot yourself in the foot....
26th April 2010, 05:55
Tomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

We don't care if you respect us. The Government of Finland does...that is the only thing that matters when discussing US-Finland relations.

Normal diplomatic relationship is not the same as respect.
26th April 2010, 06:19
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomi

Normal diplomatic relationship is not the same as respect.

You have that right.....
26th April 2010, 09:15
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomi

Normal diplomatic relationship is not the same as respect.

Nor is it groveling face down in the dirt as Obama does.
26th April 2010, 10:06
fandango

While I am one of the people who think that Bush's overall impact on the world has been negative as President (invading Iraq based on 9/11, when most of the terrorists were Saudis, the "axis of evil" nonsense, creating a concentration camp in Cuba), I think Mark makes a good point about Obama's shortcomings, and that it's not as simple as it's made out to be in the media.

What I find sad is the rather immature idea that some Americans have that trying a softer approach, as Obama seems to be trying to do, is somehow being all wimpy. This isn't the school playground.

Of course, the logical progression of Obama's policy is that he mustn't show any hesitation in using controlled, effective force when the diplomacy doesn't work. The jury's still out on whether he can do this, because whenever (when, not if) it happens there will be a certain number of people who will say he's a warmonger and no different to his predecessor.
26th April 2010, 10:41
ShiftingGears

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Different flag........same people.

It's funny because you're an idiot.
26th April 2010, 10:57
Tomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Nor is it groveling face down in the dirt as Obama does.

You should understand that you in us get what you deserve and elect, but the rest of the world, cant effect your choise, but often we pay for the consequenses of your lousy choises, in many different ways.
26th April 2010, 11:26
Camelopard

Quote:

Originally Posted by edv

This is an incorrect assertion. The last 2 times that I visited the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, it was dominated by the Syrian military.

So edv when were you last in the Bekaa Valley? Syria moved it's troops out of Lebanon quite a few years ago. In fact the time I visited the Bekka Valley (may 2008) there wasn't a Syrian military person to be seen. Didn't make it there this time, we only went to Tripoli, Byblos and Beirut.

Guess whose planes were doing low level sorties over Beirut the week before last when I was there?

Give up? Israel that is who. Why ? To continue to destabilise the region, that's why.

VP Biden goes to Israel to try and restart the peace process, what does Israel do? Announce on the very day he arrives that israel will build 1,600 new houses in East Jerusalem. Helpful? constructive? I don't think so! http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html

Obama snubbing israel? Well I say good on Obama for showing some balls in standing up to israel for once, unlike any other US president recently.

Now israel is claiming that Syria is providing Hezbollah with scuds..... Most serious observers say that scuds are the last thing Hezbollah fighters need. The people I spoke to in Beirut are sure this is a ruse being used by israel as an excuse to attack Lebanon this coming June or July.
26th April 2010, 11:32
Camelopard

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Different flag........same people.

I could say the same thing about you and what your hispanic ancestors did to the Aztecs and the Incas.................... different flags, same people...........
26th April 2010, 13:19
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Nor is it groveling face down in the dirt as Obama does.

I haven't seen Obama groveling face down anywhere. If you refer to that meeting with the Japanese Emperor, then I must tell you that good manners aren't the same as groveling.
26th April 2010, 13:55
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Different flag........same people.

And with that remark, you confirm yourself to be nothing short of bonkers.
26th April 2010, 14:14
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by fandango

While I am one of the people who think that Bush's overall impact on the world has been negative as President (invading Iraq based on 9/11, when most of the terrorists were Saudis, the "axis of evil" nonsense, creating a concentration camp in Cuba), I think Mark makes a good point about Obama's shortcomings, and that it's not as simple as it's made out to be in the media.

It is never that simple. I thank you for seeing where I am driving at. IN the last year of Obama, I still here people ripping Bush, and Obama, unless you are an American Republican can do no wrong. Well, the world is made up of shades of gray. Some darker and lighter than others. My link to the article at the start of the thread was interviews with people from oppressive regimes who were adament part of the reason they were alive was from Bush's pressure on their regimes and they didn't see the same sort of support from Obama

Quote:

Originally Posted by fandango

What I find sad is the rather immature idea that some Americans have that trying a softer approach, as Obama seems to be trying to do, is somehow being all wimpy. This isn't the school playground.

Of course, the logical progression of Obama's policy is that he mustn't show any hesitation in using controlled, effective force when the diplomacy doesn't work. The jury's still out on whether he can do this, because whenever (when, not if) it happens there will be a certain number of people who will say he's a warmonger and no different to his predecessor.

Obama is trapped by his ideology and his party's radical left fringe, who he has spent more time listening to than Bill Clinton ever did. A "softer" America is pressupposing of course that Bush was too hard. Well, in many ways, he wasn't. When you are dealing with people who want to use nuclear weapons to finish the job Hitler started, being nice isn't really going to get you too far. When you are dealing with regimes who treat human rights as something they pay lip service to in the press while they confiscate property and throw people in jail for their political beliefs, why should "manners" or being "nice" come into it?

Lets face a HARSH reality. There are nation states out there that really don't CARE whether the man on the street in Birmingham or San Diego or Uppsala like them. They do what they do because dictatorial regimes are about the appearance of legitimacy while strangling any dissent in a vicious manner. So to treat these nations with respect and tact and "manners" as Obama does is kind of silly. Bush was blunt, to the point, and undiplomatic. At times, he did exacerbate things. That said, if he had stayed out of Iraq ( a big one I know to presume) tell me where he has actually made the world worse? Not guessing, not leaping to conclusions..not telling me how this is that..and it is all...opinion.

In the end, you take Iraq out of the mix, and Bush's foreign policy where he was blunt and contrary to those in Europe really did nothing but rub some limo liberals the wrong way in New York, and annoyed Europeans. Great...so he was annoying. Still don't know where that should sit in the final standing of things. The point is, the dictators and thugs who run much of the worst places a man could live knew that Bush wasn't messing around kissing their heiney. When I saw the transcrpits and excerpts of Obama's speech in Cairo to the Arab Third World, I saw a mixed message.

It isn't Bush's America. Get over it...but Obama is sending out a mixed message. Maybe in the end it will work for him, but he has spent a lot of time acting like the good cop to George's Bad Cop. That only works if in the end, both cops know what is important....and on Obama...well we really cannot be sure...
26th April 2010, 15:22
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camelopard

I could say the same thing about you and what your hispanic ancestors did to the Aztecs and the Incas.................... different flags, same people...........

And?
26th April 2010, 15:23
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomi

Normal diplomatic relationship is not the same as respect.

Normal Diplomatic relations is accomplished through intimidation.
26th April 2010, 16:40
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Normal Diplomatic relations is accomplished through intimidation.

That's like saying normal business relations and sexual relations are accomplished through intimidation just because the Mafia and rapists do it.

Contrary to your belief, normal diplomatic relations are based on mutual trust and mutual respect.
26th April 2010, 16:46
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

And?

And you don't get the point.
26th April 2010, 16:47
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

That's like saying normal business relations and sexual relations are accomplished through intimidation just because the Mafia and rapists do it.

Indeed. What a strange statement from Anthonyvop.
26th April 2010, 16:58
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

That's like saying normal business relations and sexual relations are accomplished through intimidation just because the Mafia and rapists do it.

No it is not.
What you pop-out for analogies are weird on a good day, and naive on all others.
26th April 2010, 17:14
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

Indeed. What a strange statement from Anthonyvop.

I think you're entirely wrong. It would be a strange statement from a sensible person. From anthonyvop it is entirely to be expected.
26th April 2010, 17:28
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I think you're entirely wrong. It would be a strange statement from a sensible person. From anthonyvop it is entirely to be expected.

I'm not so familiar with the gentleman's previous works. ;) A little eccentric, is he? :)
26th April 2010, 18:26
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

I'm not so familiar with the gentleman's previous works. ;) A little eccentric, is he? :)

Maybe a little, but not much more than Bob Riebe.
26th April 2010, 19:56
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

I'm not so familiar with the gentleman's previous works. ;) A little eccentric, is he? :)

Tony is Tony. Even those from the right side of political debates see some of his ideas as...unorthodox. He hasn't seen a shade of gray in his entire life....
26th April 2010, 22:11
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Maybe a little, but not much more than Bob Riebe.

Well, verses your naiveté, that would be a complement.
27th April 2010, 09:10
henners88

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I guess genocide and political repression is peaceful for you. Not Surprising seeing what flag you wave.

I must admit, I'm a little confused by that comment. :confused:
*Comment reinstated*
27th April 2010, 13:34
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by fandango

invading Iraq based on 9/11, when most of the terrorists were Saudis

This was the worst mistake of Bush's term in office, and (unfortunatly) it will be his legacy.

Now let me explain, as that does not mean what most of you think. What fandango has stated there is an outright falsehood. Bush did not invade Iraq based on 9/11. He NEVER said so. He made a few speeches where he drew paralells that were misinterpreted. The fact that he never took the time to clear up the misunderstandings/misinterpretations is the worst mistake of Bush's Presidency. There was, and is, a clear justification for the war. That is that Iraq was in CLEAR violation of the terms of the cease fire, Saddam signed, to end the first Gulf War. Those violations are/were well known. Had Bush just pushed those reasons harder, I think history may look on him in a better light. But I'm sure in a few years when the High School text books are writing their sections on the Iraqi war, they'll say just what fandango has, "Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11".

But now I've sparked off a whole new debate, and we'll get the usual cast of characters spouting off more and more about Bush's "evilness".
27th April 2010, 14:12
fandango

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

It is never that simple.... (snipped)
....... Bush was blunt, to the point, and undiplomatic. At times, he did exacerbate things. That said, if he had stayed out of Iraq ( a big one I know to presume) tell me where he has actually made the world worse? ......

What I have to say on this subject is not to say that Obama is the goody and Bush was the baddie. My biggest problem with Bush, if I had to name one thing, was that he created the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay. People have been interned there with no trial and tortured. Some of them guilty of something, some not. So his claim to be defending freedom simply is not true.

Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, but I don't believe that Bush's methods for dealing with terrorism will do anything other than prolong the existence of these terrorists. I saw it happen time again with the British in Northern Ireland.

People who support Bush have this attitude of "well, he stepped on some toes, but you knew where you stood." I live in the state of Spain, and you still hear some people say that same thing about Franco. I'm sure there were many in Iraq who felt the same about Saddam, ordinary people who just kept out of the way, living their life. The American invasion has probably made them look back on the fun easy times of the days when Saddam was in power. There are many ways, many better ways to remove an evil dictator from power.

It's usually at this point in any discussion that someone is outraged that a democratically-elected leader can be compared to a dictator. That's a fair point, but once you start comparing the bad things they did to people the line gets rather blurred.

Bush added to the flames. That doesn't put out the fire. People are either more afraid of THEM, or more desparate and ready to die to kill THEM.

I have no strong opinion on Obama. He had a message of hope, of conciliation. I'm reserving judgement.
27th April 2010, 14:36
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by fandango

People who support Bush have this attitude of "well, he stepped on some toes, but you knew where you stood." I live in the state of Spain, and you still hear some people say that same thing about Franco. I'm sure there were many in Iraq who felt the same about Saddam, ordinary people who just kept out of the way, living their life.

Many Russians still miss Stalin. He was voted the third greatest Russian in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

The fact that he was a Georgian and not a Russian didn't bother them.
27th April 2010, 14:47
Rudy Tamasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Many Russians still miss Stalin. He was voted the third greatest Russian in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

The fact that he was a Georgian and not a Russian didn't bother them.

Hey, you needed a Swede to come to your rescue.
27th April 2010, 16:59
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Hey, you needed a Swede to come to your rescue.

Do you mean Mannerheim? He was born in Finland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gu...mil_Mannerheim
27th April 2010, 17:48
veeten

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

This was the worst mistake of Bush's term in office, and (unfortunatly) it will be his legacy.

Now let me explain, as that does not mean what most of you think. What fandango has stated there is an outright falsehood. Bush did not invade Iraq based on 9/11. He NEVER said so. He made a few speeches where he drew paralells that were misinterpreted. The fact that he never took the time to clear up the misunderstandings/misinterpretations is the worst mistake of Bush's Presidency. There was, and is, a clear justification for the war. That is that Iraq was in CLEAR violation of the terms of the cease fire, Saddam signed, to end the first Gulf War. Those violations are/were well known. Had Bush just pushed those reasons harder, I think history may look on him in a better light. But I'm sure in a few years when the High School text books are writing their sections on the Iraqi war, they'll say just what fandango has, "Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11".

But now I've sparked off a whole new debate, and we'll get the usual cast of characters spouting off more and more about Bush's "evilness".

No, the real reason was a lack of evidence, from the WMD searches to the supposed Al-Qaida connections, but not for a lack of trying from W and the gang to make some kind of excuse, no matter just how flawed it may be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

In some ways, it reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Bay of Tonkin fiasco as a way of escallating US presence in Vietnam, and President Clinton for Somalia & former Yugoslavia.
27th April 2010, 18:18
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by veeten

No, the real reason was a lack of evidence, from the WMD searches to the supposed Al-Qaida connections, but not for a lack of trying from W and the gang to make some kind of excuse, no matter just how flawed it may be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

In some ways, it reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Bay of Tonkin fiasco as a way of escallating US presence in Vietnam, and President Clinton for Somalia & former Yugoslavia.

Cheney even tried to threaten the UN weapons inspectors to produce evidence or else...

http://www.infowars.com/hans-blix-wo...ey-war-crimes/

Quote:

In an interview with Aljazeera today, former Chief of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq told the TV that he and the Head of the IAEA “Mohamed Al-Baradei” were subjected to direct threats from Dick Cheney before the war.
Blix said that Cheney threatened to defame both men’s reputations if they didn’t came with the “required” answers.

[youtube]CVldccu5RmQ[/youtube]
27th April 2010, 19:42
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Many Russians still miss Stalin. He was voted the third greatest Russian in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

The fact that he was a Georgian and not a Russian didn't bother them.

The fact he was in charge of a regime that killed 40 million people obviously escaped their notice too.

Wonder why people don't trust the Russians? These same people who think Stalin was a good leader elected the current office holders....
27th April 2010, 20:12
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The fact he was in charge of a regime that killed 40 million people obviously escaped their notice too.

Wonder why people don't trust the Russians? These same people who think Stalin was a good leader elected the current office holders....

Hey, normal diplomacy isn't about trust, it's about intimidation, just ask anthonyvop. And what's more intimidating than killing millions of people?
27th April 2010, 20:56
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Hey, normal diplomacy isn't about trust, it's about intimidation, just ask anthonyvop. And what's more intimidating than killing millions of people?

Well diplomacy is about lying apparently. Saying what is polite rather than what is on one's mind. As for nation state's and how they interact, sometimes the lies are more obvious when the people making them are the keepers of a legacy of 40 million dead.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page