• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

George Bush: The Leader

redboy220

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Say what you want about George Bush the politician, but as a leader he is one of the greatest presidents of our time. Because of him, two countries are now on their way to becoming free. That is almost 40 million people now becoming democratic. Now people (mainly liberals) who say that Iraq is failing are wrong. Demcracies don't happen overnight. The United States did not become one overnight, so how do you expect a society that has been under totalitarian rule for more than fifty years to just suddenly say, "Okay, let's be democratic." Okay, I'm a little off topic. Now some politicians will say they will do something and do something completely different. When Bush, however, says he will do something he does it. If Al Gore had one in 2000,(God help us) come September 11th he would have taken a straw pole and asked other countries (like France-don't get me started) what to do. It would've been weeks or maybe even months before he would have even thought of going to war. George, though, said we're coming after you. He promised the American people to protect us from ALL terrorists, not just the ones in Afghanistan, and by-God he is fufilling that promise. George W. Bush may not be the best politician in the world, but at this point time America does not need a politician. It needs a leader, and it has one- George W. Bush
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Say what you want about George Bush the politician, but as a leader he is one of the greatest presidents of our time.

Absolutely!
Well said.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Great Presidents unite his/her nation for his/her cause, Bush has completely divided his. (Quite a feat for a "war-time" President)

Vive le France! lol :rolleyes:
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Redboy, you mention us 'democratizing' two nations. Now, let me stick to Iraq, because I completely agree with the war in Afghanistan. We did democratize Iraq, but how can you compare that to our revolution?? We had a revolution because we wanted democracy. In Iraq, we brought democracy upon a country. If the people wanted democracy, they should have democratized themselves. We can not tell a country that "democracy if best. Why? Because We Said SO!!". Let them find their own way. I don't see Iraqi 'democracy' lasting long at all without a US military presence for atleast 5 or 10 more years. And with our military guiding them, is it really democracy? You mention that Bush vowed to fight terror 'anywhere'. Well, that's great. But to fight something, we should really define it. What is terrorism? An act causing terror, as the name suggests? If that's the case, than who are the bigger terrorists: the USA or Al-Qaeda. After all, Al-Qaeda is fighting for what they believe to be a just cause. We are fighting for what we believe to be a just cause. Both sides inflict terror on the other, only we have an organised military, making it much much easier for us to inflict terror on them. But, disregarding all that, Iraq harbored no terrorists! "Let's fight terrorism" (by the way, I should reiterate what leftists have been saying all along: You cannot declare war on 'terrorism'. It is about as specific as declaring war on the atlantic ocean, and about as effective as the war against communism. You cannot defeat an ideology: Communism still exists today. All the US did was defeat an oppresive oligarchy. And only one of them! Likewise, you will never kill terrorism, it is a tactic, or, now, an ideology.) Now, Bush, if you want to fight terrorism, than fight it. Don't fight a poor 3rd world country, run by an old, powerless dictator, not harboring terrorists. i've said it before and I'll say it again: why didn't we go after the Saudis???
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
President Bush didn't divide the country, that was going on before and during the Reagan administration. Clinton definitely added to it.
In Iraq, we brought democracy upon a country. If the people wanted democracy, they should have democratized themselves. We can not tell a country that "democracy if best. Why? Because We Said SO!!". Let them find their own way.
I guess if they hadn’t been tortured or shot for even speaking out against Saddam they might have formed a militia that could overtake the half a million thugs in power. Lol The type of government they are setting up is the one they want. It does not have much of a resembelance to ours. It is a representative government meaning none of the major factions will be left out of the process. In many ways it is probably better than ours.
What is terrorism? An act causing terror, as the name suggests? If that's the case, than who are the bigger terrorists: the USA or Al-Qaeda. After all, Al-Qaeda is fighting for what they believe to be a just cause. We are fighting for what we believe to be a just cause. Both sides inflict terror on the other, only we have an organised military, making it much much easier for us to inflict terror on them.
Main Entry: ter•ror•ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter•ror•ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter•ror•is•tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
That’s the difference.
You cannot declare war on 'terrorism'. It is about as specific as declaring war on the atlantic ocean, and about as effective as the war against communism. You cannot defeat an ideology:
That is why they are not entitled to the same protection that military men and women are. Communism is certainly becoming less common, so that is yet to be determined. The war on drugs probably isn’t winnable either, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try to “control” it.
Don't fight a poor 3rd world country, run by an old, powerless dictator, not harboring terrorists. i've said it before and I'll say it again: why didn't we go after the Saudis???
Old and powerless? What have you been smoking? Saddam was funding terrorist cells for years. We had more reason to go after Saddam due to his violation of the no fly zone and UN sanctions/resolutions. Maybe the Saudis are next on the list. That will make ya all happy. Lol
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Squawker said:
President Bush didn't divide the country, that was going on before and during the Reagan administration. Clinton definitely added to it.
I guess if they hadn’t been tortured or shot for even speaking out against Saddam they might have formed a militia that could overtake the half a million thugs in power. Lol The type of government they are setting up is the one they want. It does not have much of a resembelance to ours. It is a representative government meaning none of the major factions will be left out of the process. In many ways it is probably better than ours.

Main Entry: ter•ror•ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter•ror•ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter•ror•is•tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
That’s the difference.

That is why they are not entitled to the same protection that military men and women are. Communism is certainly becoming less common, so that is yet to be determined. The war on drugs probably isn’t winnable either, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try to “control” it.
Old and powerless? What have you been smoking? Saddam was funding terrorist cells for years. We had more reason to go after Saddam due to his violation of the no fly zone and UN sanctions/resolutions. Maybe the Saudis are next on the list. That will make ya all happy. Lol
Saddam, had, for whatever reason, slowed the torture. If we were concerned about torture, why didn't we invade Iraq when it was actually happening (the 90's). But it will be interesting to see if the Iraqi gov't lasts when we get out of there (if we ever do...).
Using that definition of terrorism, the USA fits under the first one.
To comment on your last paragraph, let me start by saying that communism has gone 'underground' since 1968. The anti-capitalist movement (which includes communism) has grown since then. If you know anything about the Seattle protests of '99 you know this. Now, you may view this as a bad thing but to us on the left it is a beacon of hope. Saddam didn't even have the ability to attack Israel, let alone the USA. And where's your evidence for him "funding terrorist cells"? Perhaps we could have spent some of this war money helping out African nations, if you really want to be humanitarian, that is. Rwanda and Sudan anyone? And we shouldn't attack the Saudis, only reform them (get rid of the monarchy or atleast pressure them to). I mean, using the reasons cons give for attacking Iraq, we could have attacked (or helped) most of the countries in the world. Democratizing-Libya, Sudan, N Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Belarus, Cuba, China. (just to name a few!)
Humanitarian-every 3rd world country in the world.
Defense/fighting terrorism-Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Israel or Palestinians, Vasquence of Spain.
So should we attack all these countries? No. Should we have attacked Iraq? No.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
pwo said:
anomaly,
Even america needed help in it's revolution. Viva le France. lol
I think that's a very valid point. Just because the Iraqi's weren't in a position to battle Saddam on their own, doesn't mean they didn't want democracy.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
. If we were concerned about torture, why didn't we invade Iraq when it was actually happening (the 90's).
That is what half the country is wondering. Why do you think the UN or Clinton didn’t do their job?
let me start by saying that communism has gone 'underground' since 1968.
The only underground they know is the DU. The pundants claim they joined the environmentalist movement. As a party they are not going to gain any power in the US or most of the world.
So should we attack all these countries? No. Should we have attacked Iraq? No.
We should attack any country that poses a threat to us or our allies, any country that aids or condones terrorists and any country that defies UN resolutions. An empty promise of retaliation means nothing. The UN could help all the countries you named too. Ask them why they don’t do it. Wait, I think we know – they are making too much money dealing with third world thugs. You just want to trash America and this is getting old. The US can do nothing right according to you. I always wonder why people want to come here when we are supposed to be so evil.
 

pwo

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
205
Reaction score
1
Location
Illinois
Thanks Parcridge,
Ya know, i have heard that a lot. "if they wanted to be free, then they should have fought for it themselves" I would like to see liberals fight for freedom. NO weapons. NO chance in hell. Just get tortured to death for standing up.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
pwo said:
Thanks Parcridge,
Ya know, i have heard that a lot. "if they wanted to be free, then they should have fought for it themselves" I would like to see liberals fight for freedom. NO weapons. NO chance in hell. Just get tortured to death for standing up.
Yes, I don't think it was ever a viable option. Basically that's a lot like telling the people in many African nations to do the same. Or like saying: Those people are starving? Why don't they eat something? The bottom line is anytime the Iraqi people made any attempt to even speak out negatively regarding Saddam and his regime they were dealt with in very terrible ways. Denying that fact isn't any different than denying the fact he didn't have WMD's. Altering reality doesn't help anyone.
 

redboy220

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To those who say Vive le France:
You have to realize that if it were not for us there would be two times in the last century that the French would be speaking German and attending Oktoberfest
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
redboy220 said:
To those who say Vive le France:
You have to realize that if it were not for us there would be two times in the last century that the French would be speaking German and attending Oktoberfest

You have to realise without France, there wouldn't be a nation called the United States of America. Maybe a country called New England with the British monarch as the head of state, quite like Canada. Boston would be well known for its tea shops lol.

And just quickly, Iraq was not a big threat to the west, not even a threat. North Korea is the biggest threat squawker, yet the US wants to TALK to them not invade them.

The US and UK did not do this to "liberate Iraqis" since they offered Saddam a chance to stay in power if he gave up his non-existent WMD's.

I'm not anti-American, Americans are the most friendly people on earth and most of them would help out a stranger without a thought. Sometimes you guys can be too trusting.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And just quickly, Iraq was not a big threat to the west, not even a threat. North Korea is the biggest threat squawker, yet the US wants to TALK to them not invade them.
Saddam was a threat even though the chemical weapons were not found.
Source

North Korea will be taken care of by the surrounding countries. They depend on outsiders for their very survival. Let me remind you that it was during the Clinton administration that they got the material to produce a nuclear weapon. They would be very foolish to actually use one though.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Squawker said:
Saddam was a threat even though the chemical weapons were not found.
Source
He was? I read your link, and yet we still knew that the Saudis were supporting terrorism much moreso than Saddam. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda would never ally themselves with Saddam: They are militant ISLAMISTS, Saddam was known to support secularization. If you want to fight countries harboring terrorism, you've got Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. And these countries support terrorism much more so than Iraq. It seems to me that the terrorists mentioned in your link were simply in Iraq. Did Saddam actually know? Perhaps the terrorists got there after we invaded? Your link really doesn't provide reason for Iraq being a threat. It just says that terrorists were in Iraq. Terrorists are in the USA too, and Canada. Should we invade ourselves? Should we invade Canada?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
anomaly said:
He was? I read your link, and yet we still knew that the Saudis were supporting terrorism much moreso than Saddam. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda would never ally themselves with Saddam: They are militant ISLAMISTS, Saddam was known to support secularization. If you want to fight countries harboring terrorism, you've got Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. And these countries support terrorism much more so than Iraq. It seems to me that the terrorists mentioned in your link were simply in Iraq. Did Saddam actually know? Perhaps the terrorists got there after we invaded? Your link really doesn't provide reason for Iraq being a threat. It just says that terrorists were in Iraq. Terrorists are in the USA too, and Canada. Should we invade ourselves? Should we invade Canada?
We have invaded ourselves. Honestly, I can't go anywhere without running into one of us.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you want to fight countries harboring terrorism, you've got Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia.
I expect it was because Saddam wouldn't co-operate where as the other countries made noises about it. The location of Iraq probably had something to do with it also.
 

PopeyeAtheist

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is this a debale o :confused: r is it someone drumimg a drum?
 

clearview

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Squawker said:
We should attack any country that poses a threat to us or our allies, any country that aids or condones terrorists and any country that defies UN resolutions. An empty promise of retaliation means nothing. The UN could help all the countries you named too. Ask them why they don’t do it. Wait, I think we know – they are making too much money dealing with third world thugs. You just want to trash America and this is getting old. The US can do nothing right according to you. I always wonder why people want to come here when we are supposed to be so evil.
Why is attacking the only option discussed? We have our own terrororist organizations here (gangs, white supremists, neo-Natzi's, religious zealots killing doctors, etc., etc.), yet we don't wage war on them. In fact, we tend to look the other way unless we are personally affected by it. Pearl Harbor brought us into WW II, this so-called war on terror was brought to us by 9/11. Where were we, the Super Power, before that?

I agree with the opinion that we are terrorists ourselves, but we tend to wrap our actions in the flag and the poetry of freedom and democracy, so that makes it different somehow. Basic fact is, we, the United States of America, don't always wear the white hat, we are not always right, and we could actually learn from other nations. But no, we are cocky. Our own government was happy controlling and manipulating our enemies to promote our own political and economic agenda (follow the money) until we got hit here at home. How dare they! We Americans forget how young and foolish we are... our nation is still very young -- a teenager compared to the rest of the world, and like teenagers, we know best -- right?

Enough trashing of America? I think it's long overdue. Enough hiding behind God, the flag, and ignorance, refusing to acknowledge the injustices done under red, white and blue. This is not trashing America. This is having the humility to take an honest look at what is wrong with our country, because ONLY through that can we make it better! The founders of our country looked at what was wrong in the old world ruled by tyranny before deciding to take action, and what action to take, in order to make a new world ruled by democracy... of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE.

Just an observation -- when conservatives call liberal talk shows, they do actually get on the air to speak their piece, however, conservative friends, starting every debate with "You people..." and yelling at the host does nothing to bridge the divide already there. I just don't recall democracy applying to only our people, by only you people, and for only my people. Sorry, I digress.

I can still love my country in spite of its faults, and I do! I will defend it when it needs it, but I will not be so arrogant to defend it when it's wrong. That is my right -- to exercise the freedom of speech those before us gave us. I want the U.S. to succeed, and I want to be proud of what we have accomplished, but I want it done HONESTLY and HONORABLY!

We did something because we felt we had to, not because we had to. Your perception is your reality. Some day perhaps the world will move beyond force, but unfortunately the change has to come from humans, and as a species we are too engrossed with ourselves to put anything like peace before our egos. If we truly want to be a global leader, we should lead intelligently and by being strong enough to look at other solutions. How can you possibly hope to promote peace through war?
 

matay_brit

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Location
England, Britain, European Union
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
oh come on Bush is a n*bhead. A real class A twat. The fact is America funds countries that its friendly with even if they have got harsh regimes where torture is common place. Then when they feel like it they invade Iraq under the cloak of "liberating people" and "eliminating terrorists". Why don't you go and liberate all the other suppressed peoples too? Of course oil has nothing to do with it.

oh clearview very touching, i had a tear in my eye.
 

jpwright

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
clearview said:
Why is attacking the only option discussed? We have our own terrororist organizations here (gangs, white supremists, neo-Natzi's, religious zealots killing doctors, etc., etc.), yet we don't wage war on them. In fact, we tend to look the other way unless we are personally affected by it. Pearl Harbor brought us into WW II, this so-called war on terror was brought to us by 9/11. Where were we, the Super Power, before that?

I agree with the opinion that we are terrorists ourselves, but we tend to wrap our actions in the flag and the poetry of freedom and democracy, so that makes it different somehow. Basic fact is, we, the United States of America, don't always wear the white hat, we are not always right, and we could actually learn from other nations. But no, we are cocky. Our own government was happy controlling and manipulating our enemies to promote our own political and economic agenda (follow the money) until we got hit here at home. How dare they! We Americans forget how young and foolish we are... our nation is still very young -- a teenager compared to the rest of the world, and like teenagers, we know best -- right?

Enough trashing of America? I think it's long overdue. Enough hiding behind God, the flag, and ignorance, refusing to acknowledge the injustices done under red, white and blue. This is not trashing America. This is having the humility to take an honest look at what is wrong with our country, because ONLY through that can we make it better! The founders of our country looked at what was wrong in the old world ruled by tyranny before deciding to take action, and what action to take, in order to make a new world ruled by democracy... of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE.

Just an observation -- when conservatives call liberal talk shows, they do actually get on the air to speak their piece, however, conservative friends, starting every debate with "You people..." and yelling at the host does nothing to bridge the divide already there. I just don't recall democracy applying to only our people, by only you people, and for only my people. Sorry, I digress.

I can still love my country in spite of its faults, and I do! I will defend it when it needs it, but I will not be so arrogant to defend it when it's wrong. That is my right -- to exercise the freedom of speech those before us gave us. I want the U.S. to succeed, and I want to be proud of what we have accomplished, but I want it done HONESTLY and HONORABLY!

We did something because we felt we had to, not because we had to. Your perception is your reality. Some day perhaps the world will move beyond force, but unfortunately the change has to come from humans, and as a species we are too engrossed with ourselves to put anything like peace before our egos. If we truly want to be a global leader, we should lead intelligently and by being strong enough to look at other solutions. How can you possibly hope to promote peace through war?
:applaud Excellent post. I couldn't have said it any better myself.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The only people getting "tortured to death" are Iraqi citizens!
 
Top Bottom