Bush good or bad?

[platinum_angel]

i got this from surfing other boards

Hello all. The title of this is my postulation. I believe that George Bush is one of the worst things to happen to America. This isn't a Democrat versus Republican thing... I can't respect anyone who identifies him or herself with the pre-written ideology of a specific party. This is just a logic thing. If you disagree, please say why:

1. Bush is castrating our medical advancements. I'm talking about stem cell research and cloning, specifically. The possibilities of cloning eyes for blindpoeple and working organs (instead of relying on our donor lists that have high potentials of being bodily rejected.) Stem cell research is roundly praised as offering us the best potential to make breakthroughs in cellular research... but like those people at Constantinople who refused to see the importance of investing in the cannon, Bush uses his overdeveloped sense of morality to keep us back. The result is happening right now: A brain-drain is occuring, our scientists flocking to Europe and elsewhere. Those nations which support this research will be profiting from the cures that they develop. America loses its brightest, as well as a major economic edge.

2. Iraq was not part of the War on Terror. Terrorist-funding nations like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran were the next likely targets. Instead, Bush creates a trumped-up case for invasion. He links Hussein and Bin Laden, two men who hate each other (Hussein is a secular despot) and refuses to give inspectros the few more weeks they were requesting. Like some impatient child, he defies long-time allies and invades another country on the pretext of "preventive war." Now, I'm waiting for China or other nations to use this same assinine philosophy. It's a dangerous precedent. If we had better evidence, fine. I'm no pacifist, not even close. But war must be justified... a hunch doesn't cut it. The results are this: we are losing U.S. troops every week, we haven't found anything in the way of WMDs, we are financially-strapped and over-extended... that's likely why North Korea presumes to be so bold because they know we can't spread ourselves too much thinner. And Iraq is now FAR more unstable than it was under Hussein. Now the Shiites have crawled out of their holes and are wanting to impose a theocracy. This is ironic, since after 9-11 55% of the Iranian people were rallying in the street PRO-AMERICA and expressing their desire to instate a secular democracy in their nation. Seems Iran would have made a better, more manageable and profitable target.

3. Bush doesn't finish the job in Afghanistan. Major Taliban attacks are rumored to be brewing still, but Bush puts a minimum of troops to bring order to that nation while theowing the bulk of our resources into Iraq.

4. The greatest unemployment figures since the great depression exist now. So what does Bush do? He requests a gigantic sum of money to increase our military... we're now pushing a national deficit of half-a-trillion. Republicans say "We were attacked, that's why the money requests." But wait... keep straight the facts. We were attacked by box-cutter-wielding terrorists, not enemy subs and missiles. Why do we need to order new subs? What's with the prepostrous number of B-2 bombers?

5. The White House leaks that have endagered many lives of the intelligence community is (I admit, cirumstanctially) tied to Roe, one of Bush's buddies.

6. Two issues I always agree with Repuhblicans on is lower spending and smaller government. But Bush is a BAD REPUBLICAN. He's spending ar more than Clinton ever did, and government is bigger than ever...almost Orwellian if Ashcroft's pro-Patriot Act crusade continues.

7. We're overextended, in debt, and have lost credibility... three issues which brought the Roman Empire to heel. The other thing that killed Rome was direct invasion. While I don't expect that to happen (and it's an impossibility... no foreign power could ever subdue all 50 states) it can happen in another way. Bush looks to Iraq and declares that Hussein is a threat. I look to China and the EU and see a very real economic threat. With such a bad economy you'dthink that Bush would be creating jobs... major railway or highway projects to start. But no... he gives tax breaks to the rich (the stereotype in action.)

8. Ken Lay is walking around as a free man. Cheney's company gets the bid to rebuild Iraq (Cheney didn't even let other companies bid) and now they're making in excess of $300 million ALREADY. All this corporate fraud, and no one up top lifts a finger to do anything but instead, like Aragorn trying to lure Sauron's Eye out of Mordor, our administration keeps the American Eye looking abroad for more attacks.

In the meantime, we fal behind scientifically, economically, and lose credibility. Remember the Empires of Rome, Britain, and the Turks? yes, it can happen here... this is how.

[platinum_angel]

9. Hurrican Isabel. Bush knew it was coming, and yet did nothing to stop it. He allowed it to strike the shores of the United States knowing full well what the affects would be. Does the burning of the Reichstag ring any bells?

1)Actually, as compared to what Gore wanted to do to the health care and pharmaceutical industries, Bush is downright nurturing. As for stem cells, Bush feels that research in that area is morally dubious considering the most readily available source of stem cells. He opposes it on a moral level (meaning he believes it is wrong) and I understand and respect that though I might not agree with it entirely. It would also be interesting to note that just about every major medical advance over the past century (certainly the past 70 years) has come from the US including sulfer drugs, anti-biotics, and just about every AIDS drug that "works." In fact, there are several new drugs for this particular disease that are in the works, but held up thanks to the FDA. If Bush really wanted to do something good for the pharmacuetical industries and for the advancment of medical care, he would yank the choke chain of the FDA.

2)Iraq was not part of the War on Terror

Actually, Saddam was engaged in a form of terror. True, he did not go about covertly through other nations and blow up embassies. What he did do though, is to publicly, and within the full knowledge of the civilized western world, torture, maim, and murder at the very least, 2 million people. There is now evidence coming out of Iraq that, indeed, Hussein did have some ties to terrorists, though the extent of those ties are still to be determined. At the very least, he turned a blind eye to their activities while in his borders. He and binLadin may despise each other, but war makes strange bedfellows. Do you think that either would hesitate for an instant if they thought through some sort of cooperation, they could take a serious shot at the US, or Britain, or Sadui Arabia? Osama is a "traditional," religious terrorist. Hussein is/was a secular, publicly funded, industrialized terrorist. Besides, going to Iran with force isn't really neccessary considering their are already forces working for the changes within that country already. Iran is beginning to change for the better, and possibly, it will start to drag some of the other nearby nations in the region with it into the 21st century.

As for the instability in Iraq, what did you expect? It's not like you can run down to the local convenience market and purchase a new, functional, democratic government for $1.99? It takes time, money, and effort, and it seems that's what you're condeming Bush for a little later on, putting the funding needed into this project to make it work.

3.There are still a significant number of US and Allied troops in Afganistan, working to rout out the last pockets of Taliban resistance and scour the countryside for bin Ladin. They are helping the Loya Jirga to form a new government. They are building schools, hospitals, and houses. They are handing out food and helping to try and restore order as best as possible while the warlords persist in their petty combats. Again, it's not like a new government can be purchased at the nearest five and dime.

4.Perhaps he is thinking, and rightfully, that by funneling money into the industries that support the military and asking them to build more equipment, he can help create jobs at least in that sector. Bombers don't build themselves you know. Much of the current economic problems can really be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration. Artificial inflation and hollow economic expansion resulted in a giant "bubble" that, unfortunately, started to leak sometime last summer, or was it two summers ago. Things were very bad for a long time, but if you haven't noticed, the market and economy are beginning to level off and start to rise again. Not surprisingly, things are back to about the level they were when Clinton started his two terms. Any businessman worth his salt knows that growth is good, but growth that cannot be sustained can be catastrophic.

5.So, Bush engineered this leak? From Area 51 right?

6.Bush is spending more so that he can follow through with what he started. Seems to me a laudible practice rather than a condemable one. Clinton said he would take care of Hussein in the late ninties. He took four days of light bombing, then declared success, and turned his back. Bush said he would do something about Saddam. He went in with the full might of several divisions of the US armed forces, swept away the tyranical regime, ousted Saddam and is still currently hunting for him, eliminated his two heirs apparant, and is beginning the total reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure with the aid of several groups that despise the US presence as an invasion. Clinton, in response to repeated terrorist attacks against US interests, launched two cruise missiles into Afganistan and turned away. Bush, in response to a major attack resulting in the deaths of several thousand people plus the destruction of trillions of dollars of public, federal, and personal property, specificaly targeted Osama bin Ladin and his organization, removed an outlaw regime protecting him, still hunts for the man now, continues to hunt for Al Quaida operatives, and works to restore order in Afganistan. Seems to me that the oft lauded Clinton was the master of half measures while dandling an intern in the oval office and then lying about it under oath.

7.Actually, the cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire was so complex that even today, we don't rightly understand it. Debt had little to do with it considering the size of tax revenues and land improvements throughout the Empire. The Roman Empire never really had credibility, except as conquerors. You either got out of their way, got on their good side, or prepared for anihilation. The US, similarly, has never really had credibility from many other nations, or even from its own citizens except in a sort of patronizing, sad way. Actions speak louder than words, and despite high words from Eurpoean intelligentsia and American loudmouths, the US has been a major vehicle for good during the 20th century. I direct your attention to the attempted League of Nations proposed by Wilson (but subsequently corrupted by the revenge mentality of the European powers), WWII, and the Marshall Plan. There has been little of comprable scale or effectiveness from the rest of the world. True, the US has caused its fair share of trouble, but at least it has been balanced by a credible attempt to promote good.

Overextension was a problem of the Roman Empire, but not as serious a one as is often made out. Every land that Rome conquered came with local conscripts and various auxilliary troops. These irregulars were better paid, better fed, and better trained than those who did not join the Roman military and thus had a better life of it. In addition, they began to learn something of expert military tactics from their Roman commanders (who were the undisputed masters of it in their time) and began to organize themselves. Similarly, the US is not terribly overextended. Not yet at least. There are still many reserve and auxiliary troops that have not been called up for service and there are still standing troops based in the States. The US has the biggest, most advanced, and almost unarguably best military machine in the history of this planet. It is impressive that the US has fought two major engagments nearly simultaneously and still has enough troops left over in the reserves to defend the country and consider a third conflict.

The real downfall of the Roman empire can be traced to a number of different elements that interacted badly. A)A sequence of bad emperors after the first. Julius Ceaser may have been a bit of a jerk, but he was a good emperor, and a good statesman. Those that followed him were, well, pale shadows of their progenitor. Most notably, Caligula who was infamously mad. In fact, one might argue that the entire change from a semi-democratic republican system was a major mistakae for the Empire.

B)As it expanded, Rome became very multi-cultural. Before too long, members of the barbarian tribes were permited to be legionnaires. The legions began to change, and degrade from the almost unstoppable military machine that they were before. They were less well trained and less organized. The top military leadership was given over to less experience generalship (very similar to what happened in the 1660's after the royalists took control of England again). And all the while, the barbarian tribes were getting better and smarter in war thanks to the training of Roman soldiers and their own nationalism. Eventually, they were able to challenge the legions in toe to toe combat.

C)The introduction of Christianity to the Roman Empire, or more specificaly Constantinian Christianity, was catastrophic to the multi-cultural nature of the Empire. Before, conquered peoples were permitted to retain their religion and, in fact, their deities were adopted by many of the Romans themselves. Some religions actualy became fads, like the cult of Isis and other Mystery Cults. Now, Christianity became a powerful force and was less accepting of other religions. The new faith spread like wildfire and eventually, dogmatic differences between two major sects of Christianity in the Empire lead to a scism(sp?) that split the religion and the Empire in two. This, ultimately, lead to the military and political downfall of the Western portion of the Empire and the eventual destruction of the Eastern Empire after its transmogrification into the Byzantine Empire.

D)Because of political and military troubles, the Empire was forced to withdraw legions from Britain and parts of Gaul and parts of the northern fronteir. These troops were needed to bolster defensive troops in the heart of the empire. However, the auxiliary forces I mentioned earlier were left largely in place to "hold down the fort" in the absence of the legionaires. Sensing weekness, some of the outlying provinces became rebelious and broke away from the Empire, or at least tried to. Palestine tried to break away, but that rebellion was put down very harshly by a succession of emperors and eventually, the rebelious elements of the region were actually shipped out to other parts of the Empire to make them quieter. Britain, left all on its lonesom, fell prey to repeated Saxon and Anglish invasion. It is in this time that the legends of King Arthur were born. But by and large, the people in power in Britain still remained "Roman" for quite a long time. Almost to the point of the Norman invasion in 1066. The central Germanic tribes also remained relatively Roman, hence the subsequent birth of the Holy Roman Empire and the coronation of Charlamegne. One could argue (and I do) that the Roman Empire didn't "disapear" or "fall," but that only the central mechanism was removed and the provinces were left to carry on as best they could. It is obvious that the stamp of Rome is still heavy all across Europe. Go to Colchester in Kent, near London, to see for yourself.

Now, call me funny, but I don't really see these conditions manifesting themselves in the US. Instead, what I see is the mechanisms of a healthy and thriving democracy which, unfortunately, carries with it people with opinions.

8.That's something I disagree with myself, but there's very little that can be done with it. There's also very little there to harm the US. Only a bit of bad business ethics really.

In the meantime, we fal behind scientifically, economically, and lose credibility. Remember the Empires of Rome, Britain, and the Turks? yes, it can happen here... this is how.

You're joking right? See above for my response to the fall of the Roman Empire. The British Empire fell prey to pretty much the same problem, but more importantly, to 20th century thought. Meanwhile, scientifically, the US is worlds ahead of many other nations. Industrially, we are one of the more efficient nations, well ahead of China whom you seem to be afraid of. Economicaly, we are still strong and are recovering from a small slump. It was nowhere near as bad as many people want to make it out to be. As is popular in Britain now, people site that the British Pound is stronger than the US dollar. Yeah, that's because the infrastructure behind it is much tighter and more centralized, Britain did not suffer a major economic slump over the last few years, and Britain has yet to accept fully the Euro.

[platinum_angel]

reply from antibush side:

Hamlet,

I never understood why you waited so long to kill your uncle. That always annoyed me.

As to your points... I am ecstatic to talk to someone who knows Rome! Really knows it... that's rare.

Point #2 - "What he did do though, is to publicly, and within the full knowledge of the civilized western world, torture, maim, and murder at the very least, 2 million people."

Yes, but that wasn't the reasons for going in. It's back-peddling on the BA's part to point this out. By this reasoning, we should invade China next by the mandate of this moral crusade... and I'm sory, I don't think that saving the few is worth a nuclear war.

"There is now evidence coming out of Iraq that, indeed, Hussein did have some ties to terrorists, though the extent of those ties are still to be determined."

That's a stretch and, as you've rightly mentioned, it's still being determined. But the Baath Party was not on the list of terrorist groups.


"Iran is beginning to change for the better, and possibly, it will start to drag some of the other nearby nations in the region with it into the 21st century."

I sincerely hope so... but I think it would have been a better place... just consider the proximity to our other invasion, Afghanistan.


Point # 4 -- "Perhaps he is thinking, and rightfully, that by funneling money into the industries that support the military and asking them to build more equipment, he can help create jobs at least in that sector."

Perhaps, but I think it's more likely that he (or others behind him) are reaping the beenfits as others in this thread have already pointed out.

5.So, Bush engineered this leak? From Area 51 right?

I really don't think Bush is that diabolical. I think others on his administration are and are using him the way Joan of Arc was used -- an idealist to rally behind, while they achieve their own crooked ends.


# 7 -- "Actually, the cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire was so complex that even today, we don't rightly understand it. Debt had little to do with it considering the size of tax revenues and land improvements throughout the Empire. The Roman Empire never really had credibility, except as conquerors. You either got out of their way, got on their good side, or prepared for anihilation. The US, similarly, has never really had credibility from many other nations, or even from its own citizens except in a sort of patronizing, sad way."

Well, I agree and disagree with you. Economic issues were definitely a large part of it, as was overextension. So was a loss of belief in the government.... (How many senators were poisoned in the last days of the Empire?)

"Overextension was a problem of the Roman Empire, but not as serious a one as is often made out. Every land that Rome conquered came with local conscripts and various auxilliary troops. These irregulars were better paid, better fed, and better trained than those who did not join the Roman military and thus had a better life of it."


Not always. Rome treated the Visigoths (before their invasion under Alaric) atrociously, and probably gave Alaric support by doing this. And their trumped-up case against Stillicho was just assinine and indicative of the shortsightedness of Rome's mindset at that time.


I agree with you about Caesar, and your other points. (Nice to talk to someone who knows Rome!)

ally, they were able to challenge the legions in toe to toe combat.

"The introduction of Christianity to the Roman Empire, or more specificaly Constantinian Christianity, was catastrophic to the multi-cultural nature of the Empire."

ABSOLUTELY! YES! THANK YOU! It is no coincidence that Rome fell less than a hundred years after this formal theocratic changeover.


"It is obvious that the stamp of Rome is still heavy all across Europe."

Ever see or walk Hadrian's Wall. Good ole Hadrian, I miss him.

"Now, call me funny, but I don't really see these conditions manifesting themselves in the US. Instead, what I see is the mechanisms of a healthy and thriving democracy which, unfortunately, carries with it people with opinions."

I won't call you funny, but I'll politely differ on this point. We ARE overextended, we've lost credibility even more than ever before, and we are having economic problems (be it from Clinton, Bush, both, or Area 51.) I don't expect an invasion from the North but I think our democracy is VERY MUCH IN JEOPARDY. I'm sure you know the term Jingoism . That, and the polarized politics which Hamilton and other greats opposed, are destroying healthy democracy. So is ignorance of science and technology... in fact, in this month's issue of DISCOVER there is an interview with Carl Sagan's wife, and she makes this point succinctly. Democracy only works in an educated population. Who would want to fork over democracy to a bunch of ignorants... that creates a tyrrany of the uneducated majority... and THAT brings down empires.


"The US is worlds ahead of many other nations."

Have you been keeping up with the changes occuring in China? I'd be happy to talk about this specifically in another thread (or here, if it's not too off-topic.) And I don't see how the economic juggernaut that will be the EU doesn't intimidate you.

[platinum_angel]

thought i would start the debating back upl again.

[gregimotis]

I am so tired of listening to people whining about Bush not being 'democratically' elected. People - this is a Republic, not a pure Democracy. The people don't vote for the president they vote for the electoral college - always have, and you should know that from the fifth grade.

The election came down too to close to call, and it went to the lawyers for decision. Bush's lawyers/PR people won and Gore's lost. That's it.

If you really think the election was stolen, you ought to be fighting to change the system which allowed it to be stolen (and could allow it again), but you aren't are you?

I contend that anyone still complaining about the 'stolen' election who isn't fighting to change the electoral system in this country really doesn't care one whit about whether the election was stolen, they only care that the other guy stole it and their guy didn't.





Also, George Bush sucks.


And that's my second rant today.

[Toudiyama[NL]]

Originally posted by gregimotis
I am so tired of listening to people whining about Bush not being 'democratically' elected. People - this is a Republic, not a pure Democracy. The people don't vote for the president they vote for the electoral college - always have, and you should know that from the fifth grade.

The election came down too to close to call, and it went to the lawyers for decision. Bush's lawyers/PR people won and Gore's lost. That's it.

If you really think the election was stolen, you ought to be fighting to change the system which allowed it to be stolen (and could allow it again), but you aren't are you?

I contend that anyone still complaining about the 'stolen' election who isn't fighting to change the electoral system in this country really doesn't care one whit about whether the election was stolen, they only care that the other guy stole it and their guy didn't.





Also, George Bush sucks.


And that's my second rant today.

Bush his layer won but lets not forget who the judge was


As you can see I'm not from the US, I'm from Holland, and I will fight the introduction of a simular sistem here, maybe it works in big countries but with 16 million I think it won't
Also I want every vote to be worth the same and not that a vote from rural areas is worth more that that of urban areas just because they have a right to e representative from their area

I don't want someone from my area when he represent the other party, I want someone to represent my opinion
They are chosen to rule the country not to protect the interrest of the area, for instance I would rather choose a frenchman for european parlement who thinks of Europe than a dutchmen who thinks of Holland

[Szczepankiewicz]

I thought you didn't like having to make that choice and wanted others to make it for you Toudi!?

[Toudiyama[NL]]

Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz
I thought you didn't like having to make that choice and wanted others to make it for you Toudi!?

Hë just because I adhere to the communistic principles as stated by Marx (Carl that is not Groucho) doesn't mean I do not like to vote, I thought it was obvious I like to voice my opinion

Hey Spank, seriously, I was in the assumption that every US base over the world was considered US grounds, so when on a base in germany you fall under US law, am I correct?

If so why isn't cuantanamo bay US grounds?

[Szczepankiewicz]

Guantanamo Bay IS US property.

Why do you ask? (I hesitate to ask... )

[Toudiyama[NL]]

they somehow didn't have to comply to US law because all of a sudden it wasn't US ground anymore and the prisoners do not have to be treated as any other prisoner in the US

This administration really plays with words and thinks the people are stupid

If some inveestigating reporter finds that all contracts went to companies supporting the Bush campain, they just say it isn't true or coincidence

[Szczepankiewicz]

Where are you getting this information?

Cite your sources so we all can enjoy.

[Szczepankiewicz]

I found something that makes me agree with you Toudi.

"Europeans have done something that no one has ever done before: create a zone of peace where war is ruled out, absolutely out," Karl Kaiser, director of the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Affairs

It's really just that simple. If we outlaw war, and by proxy, outlaw violence, we will no longer have the problems we are having.

I'm with ya man. Pacifists of the World Unite! I'm going down the the Red Hall to get my membership card...

Sometimes the simplest solution is truly the best.

Spanky

[Toudiyama[NL]]

Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz
Where are you getting this information?

Cite your sources so we all can enjoy.

Documentaries on Belgium TV made either by british or american reporters, wish I would know who produced it so I could give you the sources
As far as I know the US civil rights org tried to get the same rights for prisoners in GB as for any prisoner in the states and they lost the case because the judge rules that GB is not US Grounds and therefore doesn't have to comply to US law

try this link, maybe I put it into words wrongly

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/guan-s19.shtml

or any page from this google

http://www.google.nl/search?q=guantanamo+bay+civil+right&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=nl&btnG=Google+zoeken&lr=

[Toudiyama[NL]]

Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz
I found something that makes me agree with you Toudi.



It's really just that simple. If we outlaw war, and by proxy, outlaw violence, we will no longer have the problems we are having.

I'm with ya man. Pacifists of the World Unite! I'm going down the the Red Hall to get my membership card...

Sometimes the simplest solution is truly the best.

Spanky

I don't get this which zone ....europe itself maybe? well then he is talking from his neck, because isn't that true for the US too, non of the states are in war with eachother


BTW
You only get a Partymembership if you know from the top of your head who wrote the Communistic Manifest

[Szczepankiewicz]

Not only do I know who wrote it, I have my own personal copy.

I actually did a research paper on it.