The discussion revolves around the accomplishments and failures of President Bush during his four-year term, focusing on various aspects such as military actions, economic impacts, and civilian casualties. Participants share differing perspectives on these topics, providing links and references to support their claims.
Participants generally do not reach consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the assessment of Bush's accomplishments and failures. Disagreements persist over the interpretation of casualty figures, economic impacts, and the effectiveness of military strategies.
Limitations include varying interpretations of casualty figures, differing definitions of economic terms, and unresolved debates about the implications of military actions and budgetary policies.
This discussion may be of interest to individuals examining political history, military strategy, economic policy, and the impacts of presidential decisions on both domestic and international fronts.
The sanctions were driven from day one by the USA. The sanctions killed people. The invasion, part of which meant the end of those sanctions, killed people. None of it is good.JohnDubYa said:I thought you liked the United Nations. By invading Iraq, George W. undid the sanctions imposed by the United Nations.
Both are important. And the reasons for discussing the deaths caused by the USA invasion have been covered extensively in many threads. Including this one.Whose opinions matter more? Surviving relatives of those killed by the US Army, or surviving relatives of those killed by Saddam Hussein and the sanctions? Why did you only single out the former? (Possible bias, perhaps?)
JohnDubYa said:By the way, Adam, I didn't say the DEATHS were meaningless. I said the body-counts (that is, statistics) were meaningless.
How nice that you can sit there thousands of KM away and separate the deaths from the numbers.
The sanctions were driven from day one by the USA.