Is GW Bush the Worst President Ever?

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed that the same crap goes on all over the world and america does nothing. However given the choice between stopping two equally evil acts, whats wrong with stopping the one that helps you out a bit too. Was it Kant who believed in the greatest good for the greatest number? The war in Iraq helps certian americans as well as freeing Iraq. Helping africa will only help the africans. While that alone should be reason enough for america to go into Mugabe's palace and kick him out, I can understand the logic behind choosing Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe the Iraq war is helping Iraqis or helping the U.S. It certainly seems like there are quite a few Iraqis over there who want us out and would like to kill us. I wouldn't be suprised if this war has created more terrorists than it has terminated. I am also not sure that ordinary Iraqis appreciate us being there as many of them are worse off than they were before the war.

The United States had a lot of good will from foreign countries before this war began. The world was on our side. However, because Bush went into Iraq before getting support from our allies, a lot of that goodwill was lost. I honestly believe that this war has caused more foreigners to hate us and has not and will not make us safer in the long run.

My personal preference would have been to fight a covert war. Put CIA operatives on the ground in the Middle East and other known terroris hotspots. When they find a terrorist organization, they call in a small group of special ops folks to dispose of the group. Quick, quiet and more clean than this huge messy war. We still haven't caught Bin Laden. Were resources diverted away from his capture and into the Iraq war? If so, that is a travesty.

One last thing: Saddam was basically crippled before this war. He didn't have any kinds of weapons that could hurt our country. He wasn't a threat to us, but he was a force in Iraq and he provided some measure of stability. I like the way Bush I handled Iraq: cripple Saddam but leave him in power so that the country will be somewhat stable. Now that we've ousted Saddam it is our job to stabilize Iraq and that won't be easy to do.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed that the same crap goes on all over the world and america does nothing. However given the choice between stopping two equally evil acts, whats wrong with stopping the one that helps you out a bit too. Was it Kant who believed in the greatest good for the greatest number? The war in Iraq helps certian americans as well as freeing Iraq. Helping africa will only help the africans. While that alone should be reason enough for america to go into Mugabe's palace and kick him out, I can understand the logic behind choosing Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe the Iraq war is helping Iraqis or helping the U.S. It certainly seems like there are quite a few Iraqis over there who want us out and would like to kill us. I wouldn't be suprised if this war has created more terrorists than it has terminated. I am also not sure that ordinary Iraqis appreciate us being there as many of them are worse off than they were before the war.

The United States had a lot of good will from foreign countries before this war began. The world was on our side. However, because Bush went into Iraq before getting support from our allies, a lot of that goodwill was lost. I honestly believe that this war has caused more foreigners to hate us and has not and will not make us safer in the long run.

My personal preference would have been to fight a covert war. Put CIA operatives on the ground in the Middle East and other known terroris hotspots. When they find a terrorist organization, they call in a small group of special ops folks to dispose of the group. Quick, quiet and more clean than this huge messy war. We still haven't caught Bin Laden. Were resources diverted away from his capture and into the Iraq war? If so, that is a travesty.

One last thing: Saddam was basically crippled before this war. He didn't have any kinds of weapons that could hurt our country. He wasn't a threat to us, but he was a force in Iraq and he provided some measure of stability. I like the way Bush I handled Iraq: cripple Saddam but leave him in power so that the country will be somewhat stable. Now that we've ousted Saddam it is our job to stabilize Iraq and that won't be easy to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

...very nice job of concisely summing up the current situation.

Be prepared, however, for your opinion to get toasted by some here.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could have at least used any amount of fact to discredit what he said

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm waiting for your next attempt at a witty retort since your first was such a failure.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you conveniently forget the genocide that happened in Iraq? Are they not as important? We have lost around 4k lives, which is in my opinion, compared to WW2, vietnam, korea, is not that many lives. Im sorry, but it is a ground war, we are trying to make sure the genocides never happen again, we need to make sure that safegaurds are in place (ie a decent and good regime), hence more loss of American lives. I know you will say it is about oil, or other some begnign argument, but I choose to believe (and you can pretty much, not prove to me otherwise) that we are over there for altruistic reasons. If 10 years from now, we learn the truth and the liberal/dems are right, I will rescind my argument, and agree that Bush is horrible, but I have to believe for now, that he is trying to do the right/altruistic thing.


[/ QUOTE ]


the thing is, I don't see how we aren't gonna be in Iraq in 10 years. Iraq is gonna turn into our generation's Vietnam, and to give the 4K lives lost quote is naive in that we all know that this war is in its infancy. I really wouldn't be surprised if Iran is the next destination for the US army.

If we are to make Iraq a success we need to stay there and work for the next 20 years on creating a stable system of government there. This is the same problem that plauged Vietnam, there was never a real strategy. We went in there to "take out" saddamm, but how was he threatening us at all, he wasn't, so our reasons for going in there were invalid to begin with, and now we are stuck in a really bad situation where we don't really know why we are there and what we are trully doing there, which is gonna lead to nothing but massive problems down the line

[BCPVP]

I actually see the Iraq war as a reverse Vietnam, in a way. First we went in with the military and I see our role fading away into mere advisor mode, which is backwards of how Vietnam was fought. I can see this happening before '08.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually see the Iraq war as a reverse Vietnam, in a way. First we went in with the military and I see our role fading away into mere advisor mode, which is backwards of how Vietnam was fought. I can see this happening before '08.

[/ QUOTE ]


from everything my brother has been telling me, this is certainly not the case. He is stationed in Mosul right now, and the US is still fighting in skirmishes all over the place. Conscription is being thought of being brought back, and I can see that happenening before 08 instead of us turning into an advisory role by then

[natedogg]

Not even close.

If it weren't for Jimmy Carter, you might have to go back a ways but as it is, Bush II isn't even the worse president since 1980.

natedogg

[gonores]

All politics aside, it is laughable to consider a re-elected president as "worst ever."

[lozen]

He has had some major events to deal with but yes one of the worst. Though he reads a maen story to the kids when the towers are falling and plays a maen guitar while people are drowning in there attics.
Reason he won was greed some people just wanted there tax cuts

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
All politics aside, it is laughable to consider a re-elected president as "worst ever."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. In some ways, a bad president has a better chance to get re-elected than a not-so-bad one (I was going to say a good one, but then I realized there's never been a good one).

So who is the least bad president ever? Without really thinking about it too much, I nominate Ford, since I can't think of a single thing he ever did, good or bad.