If you think Bush is a good president, please state why

Remove all ads!

I think he meant they are not "evil people who hate our freedom"..... They are evil people who hate and despise the actions the US government have taken, sometimes at the cost of thousands of lives not in the interest of the world but only our immediate gain (like playing both Iraq and Iran against each other)

 

Oops - I misunderstood. My apologies, Ragusa - I want to be quick to speak and quicker to retract! Can we agree that these terrorists are "evil people who hate the United States, and would prefer an unfree theocracy in their homelands" - and, if we can agree to that, can we agree that it would be legitimate to publicly call them evil and hateful?

 

I'd certainly agree with that, as long their is no necessary connenction between being evil and being member of a monotheistic religion.

 

Well, the arab terrorists to the largest part aren't retard hedge-thugs like the, let's for simplicity's sake say, Taleban. They didn't wake up one day with a unsatiable bloodthirst and hate on america and they certainly didn't get their pint of oral hate at last friday's prayer at the mosque.

Mohammad Attah was an educated man, he studied in Germany. His 9/11 goons were educated as well. Many other arab militants have studied - in the US, in France in the UK and elsewhere in the west - they have been in contact with the west and they have decided to prefer their own culture, for whatever reason. More, while they have had contact to the west, they have in common a dislike of the US. Why? And why primarily on the US?

They have sound reason, as Jshild rightly hinted on above [EDIT: and below], resulting from the US, more than anyone else, actively engaging in the middle east. The points criticised are: The cruel sanctions against Iraq the US insisted on (while others wanted to lift them for humanitarian reasons) which have probably killed half a generation of Iraqis (500.000 children alone according to UN estimates), the double standard for Palestine and Israel, the support of Israels militarism, the US talk about democracy while supporting the repressive regimes in the region, the use of Afganistan as a proxy in the cold war only to abondon it as soon as it wasn't needed any longer, US presence in Saudi-Arabia and recently the illegal invasion of Iraq ... I could go on.
Even very pro western arabs living in the west are understandably deeply pissed off about that.

A president who overlooks that and simplifies it in the handy and convenient formula "evil people who hate our freedom" blames them alone.
That is certainly misleading, as it denies any US responsibility for their actions - instead it suggests a sort of alien, esoteric and mysterious grudge against everything american - which is dead wrong. The terrorists are sane persons, and they have rational motives.
The "evil people who hate our freedom" phrase allows to circumnavigate the unpleasant question of what might drive them, pushing the arab militants and their motives in the realm of madness. It supresses inconvenient questions about US responsibility - and that isn't actually blame the victim but rather blame another perpetrator. Bush's magic formula blows fog over this aspect.

An israeli general who led the military intelligence said that as long as the roots of the conflict aren't adressed, and that is the nature of US policy in the middle east, there will be no end of fighting - and when Bush speaks about "evil people who hate our freedom" that clearly hints on that he indeed doesn't understand, much less adresses the reasons. Bush's disastrous approach to the middle east, in fact by *escalating* the problems stressed above, strongly underlines this impression.

 

Gray - the problem is how bush says that it is because we are free that they hate us. They hate us because of our actions and policies. Read up on history if you want to know about some of our actions like overthrowing legitimately elected governments like in Iran and installing people who are favorable to us (but hey, if they brutilize their own people, its not our concern). They are evil, but you do the world a disservice when you simplify it to such a degree. Unfortantly thats what Bush does with all of his foreign policies.

 

Ragusa - "a pint of oral hate" - that's an incredible turn of phrase! This whole post was worth that one line! Regardless of how this debate turns out, you will truly have had the last word.

I think it's fair to say that the terrorists hate us not just because of our actions and policies, but also because of who we are. At the least, bin Laden, Iran, et al. have pointed to both our actions and our being in their propaganda.

I won't argue that America's involvement in the Middle East region, historically (pre-current Bush), has been either peaceably pure or consistently competent. But I don't think there's much of anything that America could do - or not do - that would appease these terrorists. Supporting the corrupt Saudi regime is bad...but so is ousting the murderous Hussein regime. Propping up corrupt governments by buying their oil is bad...but so is refusing to buy through sanctions. Working outside the UN is bad...but so is operating within UN-imposed sanctions. If we must be hated, then better to err on the side of democracy and freedom, no?

And historically, the worst crimes have been Arab on Arab - Lebanon against itself, Syria against Lebanon, Syria against itself, Iraq against itself, Iraq against Iran, Iran against itself, Yemen against itself, Egypt against itself, etc. etc. Israel has dealt its share of death and destruction - I don't want to argue whether those wars were defensive, or whether Israel brought war upon itself - but nothing compared to what Arabs have done to themselves. Can you imagine Israel slaughtering tens of thousands of Arabs, or leveling an entire Palestinian city, just to maintain crowd control? The technique worked wonders for Syria and Iraq.

As for the Iraq-Iran war, our hindsight is too comfortable and too complacent. This was the 1980s, recall, when the USSR was finally losing its ideological grip on the world, and its power was melting away in the Middle East. Ba'athist Iraq and theocratic Iran presented opposing ideological forces - either of which, if victorious, could have transformed the Middle East into a new totalitarian empire. Yes, the US aided the fighting (after Iraq sparked the war independently), and therefore contributed to the bloodshed. But we should be careful not to judge too self-righteously America's efforts to keep the scorpions in their self-blown bottle.

At the end of the First World War, after the Bolsheviks had taken Moscow, the Allies sent divisions into Russia in support of the dictatorial White Army. Can anyone seriously argue that the world is better off today because the West failed to reimpose a reactionary regime on Russia, thus allowing the Bolsheviks to murder millions and eventually help spark the Second World War? Sometimes the most moral option is to crush an evil ideology before it bears its bitter fruit. How much more moral, then, to crush an evil regime and replace it with a free democracy - especially if we're going to be hated one way or the other?

Incidentally, this is completely off-topic. I'm sorry, Death Rabbit, that this post has focused so much on Bush's foreign policy - there's a lot to be said for his domestic policy, too. If no one else has anything to contribute, I'll write some on that, too. But I think that my hollow voice has more than made your intended point!

 

DR - Don't forget The Great Snook. He is always very good in these debates. And I see that the debate has already started. I knew the anti-Bush people couldn't hold back.

edit: I did have to comment that the Reagan people have always felt that Sr. Bush was way too much of an "internationalist"(whatever that really is). I still remember the convention here in Houston some years back, when the Reagan supporters were actually spitting on the Bush supporters. Nevertheless, Sr. Bush was only a fair president.

Ragusa - I voted for Bill Clinton twice and still don't regret those votes, although Bill has proven that he lacks in character for what he makes up in brilliance and competence. I will still hold my fire on Shrub, except to say that he must have learned the Art of Lying from the aforementioned president.

[ October 21, 2003, 05:24: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Look, I don't want to out-right critisize Bush with this topic, just correct a few misinterpretations which may lead people to think that these Arabs are evil.

To call fundamentalist interpretation of the bible as historical is highly doubtful-of all those who translated it into english from Latin, 3 of about 24 actually spoke latin, 2 of which died before the job was finished, and even assuming that it wasn't so bad in the other translations, many Kings and priests over time have added, removed, or changed certain sections.

Also it is filled with allegory and symbology, and is far from literal, there are plenty of books on this topic, historical or otherwise.

Also, the old testament was written by the jews, (who obtained most of it from Chaldea), both of whom are arabs. Allthough I do not agree with their own current translation any more than our own (literally) the symbology of the two is clearly identical, and most of these problems arise when people lie to the populous about the religion that they all folow.

So really, Bush doesn't believe in God, he believes in misinterpretations. Two wrongs do not make a right, so you cannot say what he does is ok, just because another zealot may do something else.

And a zealot is what he is, someone who ignores all the messages of compassion, love thy neighbour, and forgiveness, and instead decides that it is his own responcibilty ("vengence is mine and mine alone" anyone?-a fundamentalist should have at least read this and let his god wreak the fire and brimstone) his own responcibilty to destroy, or at least violently oppose, those he sees as, well anything he doesn't like.

And there are many christian and hindu terrorists. What do you think has been happening in Ireland all these years? There are christian terrorists in many places, the ones who destroy abortion clinics for example, or those who kill others because they are "sinners" or they "want to take them to better place." Any religion can have it's extremists, and by this I mean those who don't actually take the religion seriously, only their own dogmas and ideologies.

I don't think of any of these people are evil per se, but if you will persist in calling one downward spiralling group evil, then you must also call those others, so yes, The Pope and George Bush, lest you succumb to their folly, because while all these groups beleive they are doing the right thing, it is only when you seperate yourself from them that you realize they are almost identical.

When you have both sides praying to the same god to kill the other side, you know something has gone amiss.

I know this is getting off topic, but I can't understand the argument here of "They are evil, so it is right for us, nay, it is only right that we must kill them," One should at least be honest and say "I don't like them, or the way they do things, so I'm going to make some changes." (hopefully to the benefit of those left after it's all finished) "If we must kill those who oppose us, so be it."

There are a lot of alternatives to a war of invasion, a lot of ways any of these could have been handled to actually benefit the local population. Sometimes there are just so many people involved that a war seems inevitable, and I will admit that war can sometimes bring about good changes, but only if it is conducted in such a manner from the start, and often this was not the case. As I have said elesewhere, the US may have just not put saddam in power in the first place, or stopped bombing and sanctioning the rest of Iraq (let's face it, Saddam was still just as rich), and focus on the minority of the population who was actually in power. Edit- I just want to make it clear I use Iraq only because it is the current example, this probably applies more to the other events spoken of than Iraq itself, but this is the one whose details are freshest in my memory.

Again I'm sorry for interrupting here, but I do not think that these qualities in a leader should be admired. Fanaticism may well work, but it should at least be balanced by ethics, which I think it has been proven (elsewhere) that Bush, and most of his regime, lack.

A gonverments policies are only as good as the principles of those who create them, and the way and reasons those same people enforce them, regardless of the lies they may tell us.

But anyway, I hope I haven't gone on for too long, and congratulations to Grey Magistrate, for being able to take this much flak for what you believe in (that is, the politics involved in, or at least the results from Bush's foreign policy), but even if it may seem to give those in the US some short-term (or even long-term for all I know) benefits, does this really justify what's going on?

It just seems to me that most of these leaders, whatever country or body they are from, political or otherwise, seem to lack integrity.

Can I please sincerly ask what it is about the way Bush conducts himself that is seen as admirable? I understand he may have increased America's foothold as a dominant force, and may even be seen to be trying to correct some of Americas mistakes from the past, but he only seems to do this through destruction, and even then, there is no re-birth, no thought to make things better, just the stench of death.

I really think all these issues in his foreign policy are a reflection of the way things are run in his own country, please, can someone say anything good about the way this is conducted because the country Bush is damaging the most is the US, which has been tearing itself apart from the inside out for the last 60 years.

[ October 21, 2003, 07:51: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

Yes, of course. I am sorry for going so far afield, I was just trying to ilustrate that it is difficult to make a distinction between a fantatic on either side of the field, and voicing my disagreement as to whether Bush's policies can be seen as "good," and the others as "evil."

But I am serious in my assumption that all errors in any actions taken in this foreign policy, while rooted in the midscape of the governments responcible (again, on either side, as the case may be) are also a product of the situation which has created those same mindscapes, which is constantly perpetuated by the policies enacted within the home countries of those self-same governmental bodies (which in turn is affecting the citizens of the country, who become-or elect- the leaders, or support those other bodies with which the goverment is symbiotic, et al.)

Now, people can break this, as I stated, by a seperation from the ideologies involved. I am not saying that this is what everyone should do, merely asking what it is, so far as the internal political decisions, that is supported by those who who also support Bush's foreign policy, or if it is only the results and or benefits from those foreign policies, as they percieve them, that is seen as favourable, and also, if by good, what is meant? That is, a leader obviously, but do you mean good as in a good person, noble, ethical, honourable, moral, or good as in he gets the job done, and that is, afterall, what he is supposed to do. His own principles don't matter as long as he properly benefits the country he is running.

If you think my previous post did waver too far (a thing I am oft to do as I bring my arguments into a focus), I will certainly remove parts, or all of it as required.

Again, I ask for clarification, and try to remove misinterpretation, nothing more. I am sorry if this has not seemed the case.

Edit: And of course, this is why I think that Bush and his administration is good, because it sparks such thought and debate. It usually requires a shock to get people to really be bothered changing something-especially in the way of thought patterns-, or to consider the entire situatuation. The whole thing is progressive, what may seem good or bad in the short term usually ends up being good in the long term because it has challenged the way people think and conduct themselves, either by forcing them to accept their mistakes or by reinforcing the correct course of action, or by cementing a lesson they have allready learned. Nothing is a better facilitator of learning than opposition, because even if you are correct, it causes you to sort out the experiences in your mind and form them into something you can clearly understand and benefit from, and perhaps tell to others.

Thus, it is why I myself think that Bush is good for us, whether it is immediately apparrent or no.

[ October 21, 2003, 07:05: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

Grey,
your naivity is astounding. You cheerfully say: "And historically, the worst crimes have been Arab on Arab". You do really think that the US are less hated only because arabs are also massacring themselves, so that, in the essence, a little US aid here and then doesn't really make a difference to the overall death toll?

Look at the US and Israel and the palestinians and think about a beating in school:
Two guys are beating up each other and Uncle Sam comes around, sees the fighting and intervenes - in his unique way: He hands one of them, his buddy Mr. Israel a knife and sais to the palestinian: "Behave, you two! Mind, when Mr. Israel stabs you, he has a right to defend himself. I want to see more efforts for peace from you Mr. Palestine." Sais so and also hands an axe and a baseball bat to Israel. Mr. Plaestine will not like Sam for it, nor will his buddies. So Sam shouldn't wonder when another bystander, Mr. Arab, Palestines buddy, hands him a punch in the face for what he sees as hypochrisy.
When you go to a bad place and choose a side, you become part of the local conflict. Not realising that is the ever-repeating mistake America has made, and seemingly never understood. They went to Mogadischu as peacekeepers, joined the fray against Aidid and wondered that they were attacked ... They went to Lebanon as peacekeepers, chose the maronite christian and pro-israel side and wondered why the opponents of their allies attacked them ... Common sense should tell you that when you join the fray, you shouldn't wonder when you get hit. The US have a problem that they can't be neutral in the middle east.


You also questioned why I see religious belief as a risk. Quite simple, faith sometimes is a bad advisor. When you think that you and the events around you are a part of Gods big plan you may tend to see things a little pre-determined or fatalistic. I always think about nukes then, imagine Bush thinking: "When god wants it ... and the sooner I and christianity get eternal life after armageddon, the better ... so BRING'EM ON!" Another example for faith based insanity are the jewish extremists in Israel, claiming 2000 year old rights and escalate the conflict by settling on palestinian land, illegally and in the knowlegde that it will provoke more violence, in fact counting on the violence as that will give the hard right around Sharon the opportunity to retaliate with superior force. Faith oriented Taleban are convinced they have a right to beat up woman for going out alone and without burka.
These examples are to say, having faith can as much qualify to be a nutcase rather than a prudent person. Along Paracelsus line, it's all about the right dose.
Bush's demonstrated christianity actually, considering the US stance in the middle east, is a big help for islamists. The leader of the intervening country as a faithful christ, aided by Satan-mongering generals, gives some arabs the feeling they have to defend themselves, their faith and perhaps Jerusalem and Mekka. Consequently Bush's belief in good and evil rules out compromises like neutrality - and that defies common sense. Seen that way, today the US might be much better off with a godless rational cynical villain like Kissinger - no one would suggest him crusaderism.

[ October 21, 2003, 14:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

@Chandos

Thanks for the props



I've been reading the posts, but have been unable to reply. About a month ago I was tripped while playing raquetball and my left pinky ended up where my left thumb was supposed to be. It turned out I dislocated my wrist and broke my radius. I now have a titanium plate in me that has three screws going into my radius and four prongs going into wrist bones. I have the x-ray and it is pretty cool looking. Needless to say this really slows down my typing, so I'm turning into a lurker (unless I can get someone else to type for me, like Mrs. Snook )

P.S. I am back at work after a three week layoff. Intense pain is a really sobering thing. I was on constant doses of Vicadin and percocet while home and morphine while in the ambulance/hospital. They could barely take the edge off of the pain. I saw the doctor and he told me If I would take two percocets now, i would probably sleep for twelve hours.

 

I wish you a speedy recovery, Snook. If the Mrs. isn't busy, would you mind asking her to dictate your thoughts here? I'd really like to hear your two cents.

Everyone else - this is NOT a "why Bush sucks" thread. Please keep the mudslinging to a minimum. Futile request, I know, but you never know unless you try asking.

 

Ooouccch!!! Sorry to hear about your hand, Snook. Hang in there, and get better soon.

But think of it this way, if one of the mentally handicapped can become president, then you can always debate us with just one hand.

 

GM has done an articulate job defending the Conservative ideology, and I find myself in agreement with him on most of what he says. I don't want to try to get into a point by point debate of every action of the Bush administration or Conservative politics in general. I do know one thing, clearly, and that is when I imagine waking up on the morning of September 11, 2001 to a United States under Al Gore, my blood runs cold. We (the US) were weak under the Clinton Administration, and as D&D gamers say, invoked an attack of opportunity. I find, in many ways, that I continue to offer support to our President.

 

I find it strange that Clinton is getting blamed for 9/11 while Shrub was at the helm and supposedly running things. I thought conservatives believed in "taking responsiblilty." Oh yeah, that was Truman, a democrat, who said, "the buck stops here."

 

"W" had been in office less than 9 months. The terror training camps that sponsored the attacks and trained the terrorists flourished during Clinton's adminstration. President Clinton's attempts to deal with them amounted to impacting a few cruise missiles into the Afganistan desert. It's like in baseball when you pull a pitcher, he is still responsible for the runners on base. To blame President Bush for 9/11 is naive. Even the information that we have been able to gather from the terrorists themselves indicates that the attack had been planned for a very long time and originated during the weak and ineffectual Clinton administration. If there is a "buck" that needs to be passed, it should be laid in the lap of William Jefferson Clinton (of course, we would need to get that cute, young page out of the way first!)

 

HS - Think back and try to remember. Ah, yes. The attack on Bin Laden was at the height of the Monica scandal and everything Bill attempted was called "wag the dog" by the wagging conservative tongues. Even the meager attempts were branded as "distractions" from the real issue at hand: If whether or not Bill really did Monica. The republicans were the best friends the terrorists had during the Clinton Years. By the way, when does Bush offically become prez anyway? When his replacement assumes office and things turn good again?

 

No President has ever had the luxury of serving his term without opposition, that is part of the beauty of the two-party system (just try a "one-party" system sometime is you don't believe me). It is true that Clinton's detractors accused him of trying to distract the nation from his personal issues, and rightfully so. Whether true or not, it does not excuse him allowing America's enemies to fester like a sore. The attack on the Al Qaida camp came as a result of hard intel concerning the location of bin Laden. If the attack had been carried out with the urgency and time frame as reccomended, we would probably still have two more builings standing in NYC. The opposition cannot be blamed for the terrorists simply because they stood against the President. I don't think that any serious analyst in the business has tried to defend that position.

As to the issue of what really went on the the White House, the current relationship between Bill and Hillary speaks volumes as to what happened. It leaves little doubt in my mind, but that's not really the subject of this forum.

I don't really understand your last comment/question: The President elect attains office upon swearing in, and for "W", that was Jan 20, 2001.