How do you think History will judge George Bush's presidency? Will he go down as someone who helped set up democracy in middle east? or as an oppressor of other peoples cultures and values.
George Bush
Good question. His invasion (or should I rephrase it the Western Invasion as it included the US, UK, and other Western countries) of Iraq could be regarded as an act of neo-colonization. But once it was ascertained that the reason for the invasion did not exist, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, he could have pulled out the US forces, which would have doubled the disaster since there most of the infrastructure was destroyed and the country in chaos, and he did not do that. Troops stayed on, and perhaps some of that could be regarded as the US Military providing assistance along democratic lines.
I would say the US Military under Bush did good works in Afghanistan over and above playing a military role. So perhaps there was a democratic contribution in this as well.
I guess the verdict is still out on how history will write about Bush and maybe they will be conflicted in their opinion as well.
I would say the US Military under Bush did good works in Afghanistan over and above playing a military role. So perhaps there was a democratic contribution in this as well.
I guess the verdict is still out on how history will write about Bush and maybe they will be conflicted in their opinion as well.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Good question. His invasion (or should I rephrase it the Western Invasion as it included the US, UK, and other Western countries) of Iraq could be regarded as an act of neo-colonization. But once it was ascertained that the reason for the invasion did not exist, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, he could have pulled out the US forces, which would have doubled the disaster since there most of the infrastructure was destroyed and the country in chaos, and he did not do that. Troops stayed on, and perhaps some of that could be regarded as the US Military providing assistance along democratic lines. |
This is true. I wish he would have pulled out the troops after they descended into chaos. Because we had no place there after we captured our main people that were terrorizing us. But, if we did pull out the troops the government and police wouldn't be set up and the country would still be in chaos. Sooo, i agree with you Deanhills. And i think he will be written down in history as an opressor because people do not look deep down. Just at statistics.
I guess when you ask the question about how history will paint George Bush's presidency you need to ask who's history, US history will undoubtedly paint him as a liberator of Iraq and a leader that spread democracy to Afganistan. I'm sure the blurbs in encyclopedias and history texts will also be written to show him as a true leader and crusader of democracy and protector of freedom.
Like so many books that I've read that were efforts by the authors to paint a more accurate picture of say the revolutionary war or the civil war, those that try to include as many of the happenings of the times that lead up to and took place during those wars, you get a vastly different picture of the events and reasons for the wars. I read a book on the revolutionary war many years ago that pointed out that the whole thing about taxation without representation was only a minor part of the revolutionary war, and had little to do with the Boston Tea Party. The Author pointed out that what happened was the colonial banks had borrowed money from the bank of england to purchase the supplies and seeds necessary to grow the tea, and the bank of england called in the loan before the colonies could get the tea to market and sell it in order to pay back the debt. When the british army confiscated the tea in leu of the debt, the colonists threw it in the harbor. That was completely different story from the one that I had learned in school. There are a lot of things like that in history where one author writes a completely different story than the widely accepted story of those times.
Anyway I think that many authors will paint a completely different version of George Bush one of corruption, catering to big oil, selectivly pulling from intellegence reports to justify the war in Iraq, so on and so forth. So I guess it depends on who is writing the history. Ever notice how history written by the loosers is vastly different than the history painted by the victors.
Like so many books that I've read that were efforts by the authors to paint a more accurate picture of say the revolutionary war or the civil war, those that try to include as many of the happenings of the times that lead up to and took place during those wars, you get a vastly different picture of the events and reasons for the wars. I read a book on the revolutionary war many years ago that pointed out that the whole thing about taxation without representation was only a minor part of the revolutionary war, and had little to do with the Boston Tea Party. The Author pointed out that what happened was the colonial banks had borrowed money from the bank of england to purchase the supplies and seeds necessary to grow the tea, and the bank of england called in the loan before the colonies could get the tea to market and sell it in order to pay back the debt. When the british army confiscated the tea in leu of the debt, the colonists threw it in the harbor. That was completely different story from the one that I had learned in school. There are a lot of things like that in history where one author writes a completely different story than the widely accepted story of those times.
Anyway I think that many authors will paint a completely different version of George Bush one of corruption, catering to big oil, selectivly pulling from intellegence reports to justify the war in Iraq, so on and so forth. So I guess it depends on who is writing the history. Ever notice how history written by the loosers is vastly different than the history painted by the victors.
| BigGeek wrote: |
| I guess when you ask the question about how history will paint George Bush's presidency you need to ask who's history, US history will undoubtedly paint him as a liberator of Iraq and a leader that spread democracy to Afganistan... |
I'm not sure how true that is, or is going to be. It sounds like you think people will idolize him, but he was really an unpopular president during his term, even amongst his "own people."
"History" is also variable depending on the time, not only on historians.
History of events also changes and the average interpretation of historic changes if it is 10 years after the events 50 ,100 years or more.
In the relatively short term, it seems clear that outside US and "US controlled countries" Bush will be considered as a bad president.
In US and satellite countries I guess that it depends quite much on people so, the official version may depend on who is ruling US. If Democrats Bush will be surely seen as bad and if Republicans it should be much better. (A little bit like in Orwell's book 1984 where the history is rewritten depending on the alliances)
History of events also changes and the average interpretation of historic changes if it is 10 years after the events 50 ,100 years or more.
In the relatively short term, it seems clear that outside US and "US controlled countries" Bush will be considered as a bad president.
In US and satellite countries I guess that it depends quite much on people so, the official version may depend on who is ruling US. If Democrats Bush will be surely seen as bad and if Republicans it should be much better. (A little bit like in Orwell's book 1984 where the history is rewritten depending on the alliances)
| carlospro7 wrote: |
| even amongst his "own people." |
| Quote: |
| This is true. I wish he would have pulled out the troops after they descended into chaos. |
Which would have been a really cruel thing to do.
| Quote: |
| Because we had no place there after we captured our main people that were terrorizing us. |
We captured people in Iraq who were terrorizing us? Who, exactly, were those people?
| Quote: |
| Sooo, i agree with you Deanhills. And i think he will be written down in history as an opressor because people do not look deep down. |
I agree. Both on a foreign and domestic level.
Funny thing, History. The opinions of world leaders often changes through time, as well as location. I'm sure Bush will have his supporters in History, as well as his detractors. As secretive as our government is about it's actions though, the history books about our modern leaders will likely go through many drastic changes as new information comes to light over time.
I agree with the Big Geek's point, you'll need to look at who's writing the history of G Bush. I think there will probably be some american historians who look favorably at his presidency, but I think many others will correctly write that it was a time of collosal insanity. Americans were freaked out about 9/11 and instead of looking inward, they opted for the warpath. George w. Bush obliged this hystery. Probably 90% of the rest of the world will see it this way. My questions is, what's the guy doing now that he's not president?
| jharriman80 wrote: |
| Americans were freaked out about 9/11 and instead of looking inward, they opted for the warpath. |
The way he executed the war, it is entirely waroholics attitude. He was just trying to finish his dad's left job. It wasnot for the peace or democracy but for the power. Americans want to show how powerful they are and Bush was the leader of them.
They spend more money in weapons then their food. They are just showing powers. Hope the new administration will not show muscle. If they believe in democracy then respect the freedom of every people, whether you like them or not. Not everyone can be the slave of money and power.
They spend more money in weapons then their food. They are just showing powers. Hope the new administration will not show muscle. If they believe in democracy then respect the freedom of every people, whether you like them or not. Not everyone can be the slave of money and power.
| sajeebr wrote: |
| The way he executed the war, it is entirely waroholics attitude. He was just trying to finish his dad's left job. It wasnot for the peace or democracy but for the power. Americans want to show how powerful they are and Bush was the leader of them.
They spend more money in weapons then their food. They are just showing powers. Hope the new administration will not show muscle. If they believe in democracy then respect the freedom of every people, whether you like them or not. Not everyone can be the slave of money and power. |
I agree that if Bush didn't take a hard stance with terrorists right from the begining, more horrific incidents could have happened or encouraged terrorists to plan in the future. Also legislature was passed to help combat terrorists financially and better intelligence put in place.
| HerbalTree wrote: |
| I agree that if Bush didn't take a hard stance with terrorists right from the begining, more horrific incidents could have happened or encouraged terrorists to plan in the future. Also legislature was passed to help combat terrorists financially and better intelligence put in place. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| You're right, he was firm, and not only with terrorists, but that is probably one of his main accomplishments. In order to accomplish it though he had to sacrifice a lot of popularity and I think that is a good sign in any leader. Not to do what is popular, but to do what he perceives as right after consulting with all of his specialists. |
Sadly, doing the unpopular thing isn't always the right thing. The invasion was based on faulty intelligence about weapons that didn't exist. Keep in mind, not a single of the alleged hijackers from Sept 11, 2001, were Iraqi(most were Saudi, and as with any criminal investigation, the money trail should have been followed). This was a sovereign Nation being invaded based on faulty intel, period. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, it was just a bad blunder. Unfortunately, they figured out the intel was wrong pretty quick(many people on both sides of the political aisle were waving their arms in the air with information stating this), yet still kept pushing deeper into Iraq.
Many people here seem to think this is called "being firm", or having resolve, but it's ultimately just being stubborn and not wanting to admit to making a mistake. That was the biggest problem with his administration; they never wanted to admit to f*cking up. I don't see that as a strength.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Many people here seem to think this is called "being firm", or having resolve, but it's ultimately just being stubborn and not wanting to admit to making a mistake. That was the biggest problem with his administration; they never wanted to admit to f*cking up. I don't see that as a strength. |
I would agree with deanhills
I think initially the hawks and people wanting to profit from US going to war had the biggest hand in coming up with faulty info. I am not defending bush or dick chenney for not confirming the inteligence reports since it is ultimately their job to do so. But personal opinion of mine is (and i have never been to iraq or know much about their culture.) the world, middle east, and iraq as a country will be better off in the future. Iraq with the help from US has a chance to show the rest of the islam people that terrorism and extremism is not the way to prosperity.
| Quote: |
| they could have pulled out, but felt that they were committed to set things right. |
Interesting! 2 wars and end the term with 1 the economic crisis seriously. He is remembered more than the people who caused the war on my homeland.
Faulty intel is the official statement, anyway. Going to war in Iraq was a decision that was made into policy, and the White House ignored intelligence that didn't conform to that decision. Tyler Drumheller, a top CIA official and a veteran of 26 years, confirmed this when he spoke out in 2006(a year after he retired). He wasn't the only one to come forward with such information, but he may be the most credible.
Here is the full link: Tyler Drumheller on CBS
| Tyler Drumheller wrote: |
| "He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.
"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it’s an intelligence failure. It’s an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller tells Bradley. Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t: "The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller. |
Here is the full link: Tyler Drumheller on CBS
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
Faulty intel is the official statement, anyway. Going to war in Iraq was a decision that was made into policy, and the White House ignored intelligence that didn't conform to that decision. Tyler Drumheller, a top CIA official and a veteran of 26 years, confirmed this when he spoke out in 2006(a year after he retired). He wasn't the only one to come forward with such information, but he may be the most credible.
Here is the full link: Tyler Drumheller on CBS |
Well if you want to know what I think- which I'm sure you don't, but I will tell you anyways-
I think that every president twists the intel to their own ends. In fact I bet that at heart they are all the same. Bush just happened to be unpopular and so people chose the let it be known that he did those things, partly because they get more fame for doing so I'm sure.
I think that every president twists the intel to their own ends. In fact I bet that at heart they are all the same. Bush just happened to be unpopular and so people chose the let it be known that he did those things, partly because they get more fame for doing so I'm sure.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I always thought that the act of going into war is more than just a decision by the President, and that it is usually approved by a number of people, including Congress? I totally am in awe of this. That a country that is supposed to be democratic can make their President responsible for the whole of the Iraq war. That has to give him the status of some sort of autocrat? |
Well it wasn't just one man named Bush. He had many people on his team who thought the same way, and they were in the right positions to get things done. His presidency is actually a unique case in that he exercised more executive power and influence than any other president had in a very long time(if ever). He just gets to bear the brunt of the backlash because he is the mouthpiece.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| I think that every president twists the intel to their own ends. In fact I bet that at heart they are all the same. Bush just happened to be unpopular and so people chose the let it be known that he did those things, partly because they get more fame for doing so I'm sure. |
Agreed. Though it's not just because Bush was disliked, it's also because the US government assumed the public would blindly accept their reasons for invasion. When WMD's didn't work, they changed their justification to "connections with Bin Laden", when that didn't fly, they said we have to liberate the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator. Then it was simply "Democratization". Forcing Democracy at the end of a rifle. And people just sat by and let it happen.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Though it's not just because Bush was disliked, it's also because the US government assumed the public would blindly accept their reasons for invasion. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| OK, now I am baffled again. Why is there a difference between the Government and the Public? I thought the Government was elected by the Public? The Public are represented by their democratically elected representatives in the Government? The Government is a Government that belongs to the Public? The Government is the people of the United States? Sounds almost as though a unique disempowerment and division seems to happen after the elections? All of a sudden we have the Government this and that and the other and Bush and Obama this that and the other. I thought they were of and answerable to the people of the United States? |
Sure that would be the ideal, but it is nowhere near this. The U.S. Government is supposed to be a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. IS it? Hell No. Replace the word people with government and I think that maybe you might be on to something. As to politicians being answerable to the people of the united states.... only when the media feels like it.
| Xanatos wrote: | ||
Sure that would be the ideal, but it is nowhere near this. The U.S. Government is supposed to be a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. IS it? Hell No. Replace the word people with government and I think that maybe you might be on to something. As to politicians being answerable to the people of the united states.... only when the media feels like it. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Well maybe it is time then to change the Government so that it is by the people, of the people and for the people. Worst is that the Government has been robbing the people with daylight robbery, last sitting 1.2-trillion US dollars! Scandalous! Where is the spunk of the people of the Boston Tea Party variety? |
If they have been robbing us, it's because we let them. I agree, we need to change the government. I actually prefer to get rid of it completely, but that's another thread for another day.
As far as the spunk of the Boston Tea Party people... it's gone. People are complaicant, apathetic, cynical and just plain lazy. On the rare occasion that an American does try to make this change, they get shouted down for being unpatriotic. And in a post 9/11 USA, that's a fate worse than death. We sold ourselves out. As long as people have 600 channels of HD TV, a PS3, an Ipod, and a steady stream of Mountain Dew in an IV drip, they just don't give a fu*k what the government does. When taxes go up, people complain for about a day then just go about their lives. As long as the Fed keeps us in debt, we don't have time to revolt or change things, we are too busy working.
It will take abject poverty afflicting almost every citizen before anything changes. Even then, it will require alot of spilled blood. And don't expect that from a thin skinned, weakling society that can't handle hot coffee without a lawsuit.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| As far as the spunk of the Boston Tea Party people... it's gone. People are complaicant, apathetic, cynical and just plain lazy. On the rare occasion that an American does try to make this change, they get shouted down for being unpatriotic. And in a post 9/11 USA, that's a fate worse than death. We sold ourselves out. As long as people have 600 channels of HD TV, a PS3, an Ipod, and a steady stream of Mountain Dew in an IV drip, they just don't give a fu*k what the government does. When taxes go up, people complain for about a day then just go about their lives. As long as the Fed keeps us in debt, we don't have time to revolt or change things, we are too busy working.
It will take abject poverty afflicting almost every citizen before anything changes. Even then, it will require alot of spilled blood. And don't expect that from a thin skinned, weakling society that can't handle hot coffee without a lawsuit. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| That is quite sad, let's hope it is a passing phase though, as of course is that not how the Roman Empire started to crumble? |
I agree, it is sad. Maybe it's temporary, but I can't see how people are just going to give up their way of life in order to change the world. People have become addicted to instant gratification, and such a large change requires people to sacrifice that immediate gratification for long-term struggle.
It is strikingly similar to the way Rome and Babylon started to crumble. You and many others have made this observation. The only thing that can change such a downward spiral is revolution, which again, requires sacrifice. People would rather live in blissful ignorance of their own demise than stand up to it and defy it.
History will judge Bush as person who drive the world into a war just for the interest USA had in oil and power
Bush was almost a religious fanatic as any other Muslim
Bush was almost a religious fanatic as any other Muslim
well you guys can go on, with him pulling the troops out, cause there dieing, getting injured and more, but listen i dont recall there being a draft for all men 18+ had to go to war, these brave men signed up for the military, and when they did they had to of realized they could go to war, and also, it was george bush's first year when 9-11 happened, he was very stressed, you know most people would be
| ahlenius wrote: |
| well you guys can go on, with him pulling the troops out, cause there dieing, getting injured and more, but listen i dont recall there being a draft for all men 18+ had to go to war, these brave men signed up for the military, and when they did they had to of realized they could go to war, and also, it was george bush's first year when 9-11 happened, he was very stressed, you know most people would be |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
The Administration clearly overreacted and used 9/11 to carry out an irrelevant task (at the time). I wouldn't pin the blame solely on the American public...they were lied to, had constant fear mongering thrown at them, the media confused plenty of stuff, the media exaggerated every little thing, etc.
hehehe
If im a kurdish family man/woman in Iraq... If feel hell of a lot better today than i did years ago. But it sucks that US economy had to get ruined in the process.
he wasn't nearly as bad as what everyone likes to make him out to be, but by no means was he one of the greatest presidents
| jabce85 wrote: |
| he wasn't nearly as bad as what everyone likes to make him out to be, but by no means was he one of the greatest presidents |
Who would you say was the greates President in the last 20 years?
He should have been a stand up comedian. That's all he's really known for.
| hamza1122 wrote: |
| He should have been a stand up comedian. That's all he's really known for. |
Related topics
 |