How will history remember Bush?

[Uzume]

Bush may be a little like Zaphod Beeblebrox, however I don't think he's as stupid as everyone thinks he is. Sure the guy has made some mistakes, who wouldn't in his position? Hell I don't know what would happen if he was able to see his plans through. How do we know they wouldn't benefit the US financially in the long run? I tell ya, I'm not really looking forward to seeing some new idiot come in mid stream with some bright new way to screw things up.
Bush may have sent Americans to Iraq, but he didn't start this conflict. This war has targeted any country that believes in freedom of choice.
Anyone who values this freedom should jump at any cost to keep it. The problem with people nowadays is that everyone is quick to turn a blind eye to terrorism. They've already shown us that sitting at home minding our own business isn't going to stop them from their religious zealotry.

[Enkidu]

If Bush didn't start the Iraq war who the hell did?

[Captain Seafort]

Bush may have sent Americans to Iraq, but he didn't start this conflict. This war has targeted any country that believes in freedom of choice. Anyone who values this freedom should jump at any cost to keep it. The problem with people nowadays is that everyone is quick to turn a blind eye to terrorism. They've already shown us that sitting at home minding our own business isn't going to stop them from their religious zealotry.

Turning a blind eye to terrorism won't help, but charging in gung-ho will only make the situation worse. Indeed, as a direct result of the invasion of Afghanistan the global insurgency that was originally focused on al-Qaida's training camps and HQ in Afghanistan has decentralised to hundreds or possibly thousands of "home-grown" cells worldwide. The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has provided it with a recruiting Sergeant far more effective than any Mullar - the perception of a US-led crusade against Islam.

Any purely or largely military approach to counter-terrorism will fail - that should only comprise about 10% of the overall response. Instead, intelligence and "hearts and minds" operations are far more important - you might be able to stop one attack, or a dozen, or a hundred, but eventually another 9/11 scale attack will suceed if the emphasis is put on preventing individual events. A "hearts and minds" approach, aimed at removing or mitigating the core greivances that motivated the attackers, will in the long term be far more effective.

[Sionnach Glic]

He'd be a definate improvement on Huckabee - anyone who can be described as "the candidate for those tired of George Bush's intellectuallism", and who makes Ian Paisley look like a religious moderate should be barred from political office.

How can such a person be allowed to exist?

Bush may have sent Americans to Iraq, but he didn't start this conflict.

Yes, he did. In fact, sending troops into a foreign country with the goal of toppling their government is the very definition of 'starting this conflict'.

This war has targeted any country that believes in freedom of choice.

What war? I presume you're talking about the evil hordes of terrorists that are just waiting for the right moment to strike? News flash; these groups had virtualy no influence before Bush's idiotic War on Terror. His actions are what has caused the fanaticism in the Middle East to have turned into a violent hatred of the first world.
Tell me, just how many serious terrorist attacks have there been on first world countries by Muslim fanatics since 9/11? I bet I could count the number of them on a single hand. The threat of terrorism has been ridiculously blown out of proportion by the US government.

Anyone who values this freedom should jump at any cost to keep it.

Yeah, because everyone knows that the best way to keep freedom is to invade and occupy foreign countries for no reason, and restrict the rights of your citizens at home.

Oh....wait.....

The problem with people nowadays is that everyone is quick to turn a blind eye to terrorism.

No, the problem is that people are over-reacting and striking out at the Muslims, thereby causing such fanaticism and terrorism.

They've already shown us that sitting at home minding our own business isn't going to stop them from their religious zealotry.

And charging into the Middle East with guns blazing is just going to make the situation worse, as we have just seen in the past few years. The entire Middle East thinks that the West is on a religious crusade to destroy Islam. And the actions of the US government (let's not forget Bush's 'God told me to invade Iraq' idiocy) seem to just confirm that thought to the Muslims.
The best course of action is not open warfare on Islamic countries, neither is just sitting at home, but sitting at home and minding your own business is probably the best possible thing we can do. How many terror attacks where there before 9/11 by Islamic fanatics? This stuff has all blown up on us because of the US' actions. Things in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonised the West to the Middle East, which makes terrorism all the more likely. If we had simply kept "sitting at home minding our own business", as you put it, the fanatics in the ME would have nowhere near the amount of recruits they have now, simply because they'd have nothing to demonize the West with.

[Monroe]

Bush will go down as the worst president in American history I think. He's got some close runners with some of those reconstruction presidents but none of them managed to lower the United States' stance in the world like Bush did. Turned Clinton's surplus into a massive debt that will take decades to get out of. Ruined the value of the dollar. Gave blank checks to friends' companies.

The only good thing that will come out of this I think is if it gets Obama elected. Then we'll start turning the government around.

If you want proof on why Bush sucks how come Bill Gates will get a $1200 tax refund check this year?

[Captain Seafort]

Iraq didn't start the current wave of extremist-Islam-inspired terrorism, although it did, as I mentioned, prove a godsend for al-Qaida recruitment. Off the top of my head I can think of the USS Cole, the 1998 embassy bombing in '98, the '93 WTC bomb, possibly Lockerbie, and the 1983 Beirut bombing. Limited, but extant.

Since 9/11, while only the Madrid, London and Glasgow attacks were successful, there have been about half a dozen attempted attacks that have failed or been blocked (Richard Reid, the "fertiliser" plot, the second London attack, and the car bombs the day before Glasgow immediately spring to mind). My recollections are limited to attempted attacks on Britain - others might be able to recall examples from other countries.

The point to realise is that there is a threat, and while individual attacks are relatively rare, al-Q has a propensity for going for large-scale, mass casualty attacks. Overall, I much prefer the current state of affairs than the risk of a bomb in very letter box the Provos presented, but that doesn't mean that it's all been dreamt up by the US government.

[Graham Kennedy]

The whole idea of terrorism being a threat to freedom is wrongheaded in my view.

Terrorists didn't take America's freedom away on 9/11; they didn't even try to do that. All a terrorists can do is kill people and destroy property, and they aren't too good at either. Their ultimate aim is to make people afraid. Whether they are able to accomplish that depends entirely on the people in question. As is what they do about it.

[Sionnach Glic]

Iraq didn't start the current wave of extremist-Islam-inspired terrorism, although it did, as I mentioned, prove a godsend for al-Qaida recruitment.

True, I meant the whole War on Terror thing, which severely agravated the ME.

Off the top of my head I can think of the USS Cole, the 1998 embassy bombing in '98, the '93 WTC bomb, possibly Lockerbie, and the 1983 Beirut bombing. Limited, but extant.

Weird, didn't know there was that many.

The point to realise is that there is a threat, and while individual attacks are relatively rare, al-Q has a propensity for going for large-scale, mass casualty attacks.

Agreed.

but that doesn't mean that it's all been dreamt up by the US government.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was no threat at all, what I meant was that the threat they actualy pose is a hell of a lot lower than what they'd have you believe.

[Tsukiyumi]

...In fact, sending troops into a foreign country with the goal of toppling their government is the very definition of 'starting this conflict'.

Uzume was trying to claw her way to the keyboard to respond, but I felt like giving this a try first. I believe she was referring to the greater overall struggle between ideals here.

...these groups had virtualy no influence before Bush's idiotic War on Terror...

Al Qaeda, Hamas, and a number of others were quite active in the '90s; Clinton launched cruise missiles into a number of countries trying to destroy their training camps.

...His actions are what has caused the fanaticism in the Middle East to have turned into a violent hatred of the first world.

They (the fanaticists) have been trying to eliminate those who don't believe for the last thousand years or so. I really don't believe Bush did anything beyond kicking the anthill...

Tell me, just how many serious terrorist attacks have there been on first world countries by Muslim fanatics since 9/11? I bet I could count the number of them on a single hand.

The London attack comes to mind, and the Madrid train attack, and the attacks on black africans in the Sudan, and the conflict in the Philippines, and a good deal more that I can think of.

The threat of terrorism has been ridiculously blown out of proportion by the US government.

9/11 was a fairly clear indication to us that the threat is quite real.

Yeah, because everyone knows that the best way to keep freedom is to invade and occupy foreign countries for no reason, and restrict the rights of your citizens at home.

Oh....wait......

We're certainly not questioning the fact of restrictions on our freedoms over here.

[Reliant121]

Bush...depends on the country...In England, or at least round here, he'd be remembered as a poorly educated and politically inept man that had his pudgy fingers grasping Blair firmly by the collar....

[Captain Seafort]

The whole idea of terrorism being a threat to freedom is wrongheaded in my view.

It depends on what sort of freedom you're talking about. If you mean it in the sense of democracy, true, it's only a threat indirectly, depending on the government reponse.

If on the other hand, you consider "freedom" to include the freedom to walk down the street with risking being blown up, terrorism can be a direct threat.

Personnally, I believe that al-Qaida is, fortunately, doing a pretty poor job of inspiring terror. Their attacks have a shock value due to their scale, but that scale means that they're far rarer and easier to detect, and most of the fear caused is, as Rochey says, most due to the hype of the media and government. An IRA-type campagn, with the threat of a bomb in every postbox, or in every car boot, would be far more frightening to me that the possibility of an attack on the scale of 9/11, or London, or Madrid, once in a blue moon.

[Uzume]

You know guys, I'm not gung ho for Bush. I've only tried to step out of "the masses" for awhile to try and see things from a different perspective. There is no denying that Bush used this situation to fule his own intentions.
Personally I think South Park said it best, "All votes that lead to office are between a turd sandwich or a giant douche."

[Captain Seafort]

Uzume was trying to claw her way to the keyboard to respond, but I felt like giving this a try first. I believe she was referring to the greater overall struggle between ideals here.

Yes, and "shock and awe" is the perfect way to win friends and influence people, isn't it?

Al Qaeda, Hamas, and a number of others were quite active in the '90s; Clinton launched cruise missiles into a number of countries trying to destroy their training camps.

True, but the "War on Terror", besides butchering the English language, has also massively increased their support among western Muslims.

They (the fanaticists) have been trying to eliminate those who don't believe for the last thousand years or so. I really don't believe Bush did anything beyond kicking the anthill...

And kicking anthills always makes the ants quieten down, doesn't it?

The London attack comes to mind, and the Madrid train attack, and the attacks on black africans in the Sudan, and the conflict in the Philippines, and a good deal more that I can think of.

Try reading his post - since when was the Sudan or the Phillipines "first world". There's been plenty of drama worldwide, how much of that is thanks to Islamic extremeism and how much due to local issues is debateable.

9/11 was a fairly clear indication to us that the threat is quite real.

Yes, nobody's arguing that a threat exists - the point is that it's a lot less dangerous than is often suggested by the government or media. I refer you to my comparison between al-Quaida's tactics and the IRA's.

[Graham Kennedy]

The whole idea of terrorism being a threat to freedom is wrongheaded in my view.

It depends on what sort of freedom you're talking about. If you mean it in the sense of democracy, true, it's only a threat indirectly, depending on the government reponse.

If on the other hand, you consider "freedom" to include the freedom to walk down the street with risking being blown up, terrorism can be a direct threat.

I meant the first mostly. They can do the second to some extent, but really not very significantly. We here in the UK went through 40 years of a determined terrorist campaign, and it had very little impact on the day to day freedom of the people. Terrorism is too rag-tag and limited in scope to pose a serious threat to people's safety.

Personnally, I believe that al-Qaida is, fortunately, doing a pretty poor job of inspiring terror. Their attacks have a shock value due to their scale, but that scale means that they're far rarer and easier to detect, and most of the fear caused is, as Rochey says, most due to the hype of the media and government. An IRA-type campagn, with the threat of a bomb in every postbox, or in every car boot, would be far more frightening to me that the possibility of an attack on the scale of 9/11, or London, or Madrid, once in a blue moon.

Terrorist campaigns are highly limited in what they can accomplish. The more people you have involved, the more likely one will make a mistake and tip off the authorities. Even the IRA managed, what, an average of a bomb every month? And each bomb killed perhaps one or two people at most, and immobilised maybe a hundred yard stretch of road for a day, maybe two or three.

Not to minimalise the impact on those directly involved, which I am sure was huge, but I lived my whole life through that campaign and I never, ever met a situation where I feared attack. The worst things that I ever experienced were (a) an occasion when I was late because a bomb resulted in a traffic jam, and (b) being annoyed that there were no bins in the train stations.

In terms of day to day fear, mugging is waaaaay more serious a threat to people than terrorism is.

[Uzume]

So I guess you read the book eh Seafort?

You are so cool... and notfatatall

Do yall have South Park?