Is Re-Electing Bush a Mistake Given His Presidential Record?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, President George W. Bush presided over a period of economic decline, record-breaking deficits, record numbers of job losses, and unprecedented secrecy and accountability problems.
  • #71
Prometheus said:
Your viewpoint is certainly one way to look at it. Another way that some people look at it is that the U.S. had no business in Vietname or in Iraq. Therefore, the reason that civilians were killed is that the U.S. invaded these 2 countries when it had no business doing so, and in the process used such excuses as yours to jusitify killing people that never should have been placed under attack in the first place.

I agree that the war in Vietnam was foolish (because it was strategically unnecessary), but I find it very interesting that no one ever seems to argue that North Vietnam had no right to invade and forcibly take over South Vietnam.

Elizabeth said:
I oppose ALL war. I don't see how bombing other people to smithereens (whether "intentional" or not) is an acceptable solution to anything.

I suspected that you felt this way. For my part, I'm damn glad we did what we did back in the 40's, and I think we should have done it a lot sooner.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
loseyourname said:
I agree that the war in Vietnam was foolish (because it was strategically unnecessary), but I find it very interesting that no one ever seems to argue that North Vietnam had no right to invade and forcibly take over South Vietnam.

Come on, surely you have heard many people make this claim.

But not me. What possible justification can you make for forcibly excising part of Vietnam and setting up a puppet government, and then claiming that they have no right to fight it out in their attempt to keep it separate or to unify?

Are you saying that the North had no right to invade and forcibly take over the South in the American Civil War? In this case, at least the people involved chose the division, unlike in Vietnam where greedy imperialists made the decisions.

If you believe that North Vietnam had no right to go to war to reunify with the South, then I claim that you have no right to support any war that has ever happened in history, as there can be no better justification for a war.

You probably believe that China would be evil if they were to invade Taiwan. After all, the U.S. stole it fair and square.
 
  • #73
So you equate the Confederacy's desire to secede due to the fact that they wanted to continue to enslave Africans to Taiwan's desire for basic human rights and self-determination? Is that really a good comparison to make? Are you a communist? I'm not saying your opinion is invalidated if you are, but I'm curious.
 
  • #74
Voting for Bush means voting for the status quo dismal intelligence that allows Al Queda to thrive.


What remains inexplicable to me is why the Bush administration would believe that the attacks did not prove the need for an urgent overhaul of U.S. intelligence, but that business as usual would suffice? Whatever one thinks of Bush on other subjects, this decision remains unexplained and undefended.

Did Clinton find out about the first bombing of the WTC in time to prevent it? In his eight years as President, did he overhaul the CIA to fit with modern times?
 
  • #75
loseyourname said:
So you equate the Confederacy's desire to secede due to the fact that they wanted to continue to enslave Africans to Taiwan's desire for basic human rights and self-determination? Is that really a good comparison to make? Are you a communist? I'm not saying your opinion is invalidated if you are, but I'm curious.

Are you a communist? I'm not saying your question is meaningless, but it is.

You speak of Taiwan's desire for basic human rights and self-determination. How old are you, under 25?

Taiwan did not secede from China for basic human rights or for self-determination. The United States supported its point man in China, Chiang Kai-Shek. He had zero concern for the inhabitants of the island that he invaded from China. The native Taiwanese despise him. They appreciate the position that they are in due to the assistance that the U.S. gave to Taiwan, and particularly the money. Ask a Taiwanese man, not a descendent of one of the soldiers in the invasion, if he thinks that Chiang Kai-Shek did anything for the basic human rights of his parents when he invaded.

The South in the U.S. wanted self-determination. Taiwan did not. Taiwan was invaded by a ruthless dictator who held power only thanks to help from the U.S. His invasion was brutal to the local inhabitants. Read a history book.
 
  • #76
Interesting opinion on Taiwan:

http://www.npf.org.tw/English/Publication/NS/NS-C-090-261.htm
 
  • #77
JohnDubYa said:
Interesting opinion on Taiwan:

http://www.npf.org.tw/English/Publication/NS/NS-C-090-261.htm

Gee whiz. Aren't we surprised that the Taiwan National Policy Foundation writes a completely unbiased account of how wonderful Chiang Kai-Shek was?
Surely, the Taiwanese that survived the initial slaughter should thank the heavens for his coming.
 
  • #78
loseyourname said:
I agree that the war in Vietnam was foolish (because it was strategically unnecessary),
Are you a communist? I'm not saying your opinion is invalidated if you are, but I'm curious.
 
  • #79
Afterall, we never know if who's a terrorist and who's not over there, right?

I agree. And remember that terrorists are not limited to Islamic Arabs which makes the question even more mentally-draining.

If they do, then I assume they'd want to just nuke all of the Middle East.

I know some people who would agree to that sentiment.

Gosh, I really hope people don't think that way!

I hope so too.
 
  • #80
Elizabeth1405 said:
...unless he happens to be a Democrat, like Jimmy Carter
I've never seen Carter cited on this issue (maybe I'm too young). But no, I don't consider any President, even Carter, to have much of an impact. So now its up to you: do you think Carter was responsible for the economy of the 70s? Do you think Clinton was responsible for the economy of the 90s? Do you want to have it both ways?
I oppose ALL war. I don't see how bombing other people to smithereens (whether "intentional" or not) is an acceptable solution to anything.
That certainly is a comfortable - if not realistic - opinion. In what period of history would such a position have been actionable? I can't think of one.

I see bumper stickers and t-shirts all the time that say "War is not the answer." Never once have I seen one that says "the answer is..." Its a lot easier to condemn an action than to suggest an alternative.

For example, pick a world leader to replace (except for Hitler) and a year (sometime in the mid-'30s, probably). Put in that position, what would you have done to prevent WWII.
 
Last edited:
  • #81
loseyourname said:
I was being serious, dickhead. Never mind.

My gosh. Did I upset you? How could that be, since I only asked you the same question that you asked me.

You pretend to be upset. Sure. You are serious. Sure. You attempt to insult me, and then you get vulgar in reaction to the same question that you hoped I would smile at? Sure.

I do confess that I did not realize that you are so eloquent. You are serious, aren't you? Never mind.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Ah, I'm sorry. I'm just really frustrated that no one on this forum ever answers a question. I honestly wanted to know if you are a communist.
 
  • #84
I was pissed off at him, but George W. has my vote after seeing the image, although I wish he had been playing real football. (I call him by his first name since we are such good friends.)
 
  • #85
I think putting that photo forth as indicative of character is more indicative of the character of the poster..
 
  • #86
kat said:
I think putting that photo forth as indicative of character is more indicative of the character of the poster..
Oh come on, don't take everything so seriously. You really don't think seeing the president punching someone in the face is funny?
 
  • #87
I remember the story about J.C. Watts decking someone at a YMCA. Someone pushed a kid down on the running track and J.C. whapped him. Knocked him out. J.C. later apologized, but I didn't think he needed to.

Must be a Republican thing.
 
  • #88
I've seen that list before-41 reasons why George Bush sucks. This one is even better, how bout 1000 reasons why you should hate george bush. And every reason has a citation how bout that! www.thousandreasons.org
 
  • #89
JohnDubYa said:
I remember the story about J.C. Watts decking someone at a YMCA. Someone pushed a kid down on the running track and J.C. whapped him. Knocked him out. J.C. later apologized, but I didn't think he needed to.

Must be a Republican thing.
Nah, it's just when Howard Dean flips out, he makes sure no one hears from the guy again :smile:
 
  • #90
Does he threaten him with litigation?
 
  • #91
how did I miss this amazing circle jerk until now??
BTW Ivan, 6 pages ago you made an original post. A quick google search shows most of those points are fake.
I'll write it all out later if I get some time.

I really can't wait for this board to come back to some calibur of quality.
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
893
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
837
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
74
Views
8K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
81
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
Back
Top