Will George W. Bush go down in history...

[Red Dawn]

He'll been seen in the same light as the Roman Emperor Claudias.

 

[DotheDamnTHing]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

25 years?! lol.. if you asked about 200 years from now, your question might be relevant.

I believe that in 200 years, he will be seen as the man who began the anti-terrorism campaign which eventually ended widespread terrorism in the world... then again, that is only if the cowardly anti's dont screw everything up! If they cant find the courage and stamina to stick this war out for the 50 to 75 years it's going to take to "win," THEN we're screwed. And Then Bush will only be seen as the man who TRIED to save us from terrorism, while the liberal panzies who came after him doomed us all to failure and catastrophe...

Really...and just what exactly do you bring to the table? An e-badass attitude? Impressive, I'm sure Osama is just quaking in his boots.

If anybody is a danger to the fight against terrorism, it's people like you. You guys keep saying that the world's changed, and that this is a new kind of war, and yet you're still fighting the last one...actually, you're a rather large number of wars back. Terrorism truly is a different kind of conflict, one that is not impressed with action movie BS. It is, above all else, an intellectual conflict. It turns into a straight forward kind of conflict when you invade countries, but in most cases, that is a poor way to fight terrorism. 9/11 couldn't have been stopped by attitude, or cheesy bumper stickers, or spazzing at "antis" on the internet. It could have been stopped by a handful of cops if they knew where to look. It's an intelligence game, and quite frankly, guys like you don't bring a lot of that to the table.

Correction, they do know where to look...the intercepted phone calls of Americans

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Malak


The US has done little to make it something worth remembering. There have been thousands and thousands of civilizations that you have never even heard of, some that survived longer than the US. It is in fact more likely that someone like Bill Gates will be remembered longer than any president we ever had.

LOL! We just invented the Atomic bomb and landed man on the moon. Oh, yeah, without us everyone would be speaking German by now and the list just goes on and on.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
He'll been seen in the same light as the Roman Emperor Claudias.

What about Emperor Nero?

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Malak


The US has done little to make it something worth remembering. There have been thousands and thousands of civilizations that you have never even heard of, some that survived longer than the US. It is in fact more likely that someone like Bill Gates will be remembered longer than any president we ever had.

LOL! We just invented the Atomic bomb and landed man on the moon. Oh, yeah, without us everyone would be speaking German by now and the list just goes on and on.

Cripes--if it were not for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd all be facing Mecca, and praying to Allah while consipring to blow things up.

WHEN WILL YOU LIBS UNDERSTAND THIS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:laugh:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

25 years?! lol.. if you asked about 200 years from now, your question might be relevant.

I believe that in 200 years, he will be seen as the man who began the anti-terrorism campaign which eventually ended widespread terrorism in the world... then again, that is only if the cowardly anti's dont screw everything up! If they cant find the courage and stamina to stick this war out for the 50 to 75 years it's going to take to "win," THEN we're screwed. And Then Bush will only be seen as the man who TRIED to save us from terrorism, while the liberal panzies who came after him doomed us all to failure and catastrophe...

Really...and just what exactly do you bring to the table? An e-badass attitude? Impressive, I'm sure Osama is just quaking in his boots.

If anybody is a danger to the fight against terrorism, it's people like you. You guys keep saying that the world's changed, and that this is a new kind of war, and yet you're still fighting the last one...actually, you're a rather large number of wars back. Terrorism truly is a different kind of conflict, one that is not impressed with action movie BS. It is, above all else, an intellectual conflict. It turns into a straight forward kind of conflict when you invade countries, but in most cases, that is a poor way to fight terrorism. 9/11 couldn't have been stopped by attitude, or cheesy bumper stickers, or spazzing at "antis" on the internet. It could have been stopped by a handful of cops if they knew where to look. It's an intelligence game, and quite frankly, guys like you don't bring a lot of that to the table.

so you say, but it's guys like me who are doing the actual work, both physcially and intellectually; while guys like most of those here in ATPN sit off on the sidelines preaching that they know better.

I agree with you that it's certainly a new kind of war, and one that will be mostly fought by Intel personnel and special forces. However, along the way some nation states must be taken care of as well. You cannot deny the fact that several of them stand in the way of a stable ME and the total erradication of terrorism; including Iraq and Iran.

I remember when many people believed that Clinton was to be the worst president in history. I didnt buy into that either. He was worse than Bush, sure, but not the worst in history... After all, Osama declared war on the US during Clinton's presidency (1996). what exactly did he do about it? oh ya...

Not to mention all of the violations that Saddam commited during Clinton's watch, but instead of taking care of Saddam back then, Clinton was too scared to act, and simply let Saddam continue to get away with murder, literally!

oh, how the young love to live in the here and now, knowing nothing of history, and therefore doomed to repeat it!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74


oh, how the young love to live in the here and now, knowing nothing of history, and therefore doomed to repeat it!

I remember the Vietnam debacle just fine and if GWB had been paying attention instead of partying he would also.

 

[borosp1]

Originally posted by: Subwayeatbig
4. Embryoinc stem cells arent the only thing. Recently a group broke through and was able to use Nasal stem cells. There are other things besides using embryos. Nasal stem cells are cheap and they can grow almost at the same rate as embryos. The Media makes it look like only embryo stem cells can save lives but it just aint true.

From almost every scientist studying stem cells they say that Embryonic are the most usefull as it can be potentially formed into any living cell of the body. The argument is that Bush says embryos are living beings and cannot be killed for research. That argument is flawed because abortion is still legal in the United States and because of Bush we cannot use the aborted embryo, but have to discard it in the garbage. Now you tell me which is more ethical using tissue to potentially cure diseases or throw it away in the garbage because Bush and other religious crack pots think its killing life.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

25 years?! lol.. if you asked about 200 years from now, your question might be relevant.

I believe that in 200 years, he will be seen as the man who began the anti-terrorism campaign which eventually ended widespread terrorism in the world... then again, that is only if the cowardly anti's dont screw everything up! If they cant find the courage and stamina to stick this war out for the 50 to 75 years it's going to take to "win," THEN we're screwed. And Then Bush will only be seen as the man who TRIED to save us from terrorism, while the liberal panzies who came after him doomed us all to failure and catastrophe...

Really...and just what exactly do you bring to the table? An e-badass attitude? Impressive, I'm sure Osama is just quaking in his boots.

If anybody is a danger to the fight against terrorism, it's people like you. You guys keep saying that the world's changed, and that this is a new kind of war, and yet you're still fighting the last one...actually, you're a rather large number of wars back. Terrorism truly is a different kind of conflict, one that is not impressed with action movie BS. It is, above all else, an intellectual conflict. It turns into a straight forward kind of conflict when you invade countries, but in most cases, that is a poor way to fight terrorism. 9/11 couldn't have been stopped by attitude, or cheesy bumper stickers, or spazzing at "antis" on the internet. It could have been stopped by a handful of cops if they knew where to look. It's an intelligence game, and quite frankly, guys like you don't bring a lot of that to the table.

so you say, but it's guys like me who are doing the actual work, both physcially and intellectually; while guys like most of those here in ATPN sit off on the sidelines preaching that they know better.

I agree with you that it's certainly a new kind of war, and one that will be mostly fought by Intel personnel and special forces. However, along the way some nation states must be taken care of as well. You cannot deny the fact that several of them stand in the way of a stable ME and the total erradication of terrorism; including Iraq and Iran.

I remember when many people believed that Clinton was to be the worst president in history. I didnt buy into that either. He was worse than Bush, sure, but not the worst in history... After all, Osama declared war on the US during Clinton's presidency (1996). what exactly did he do about it? oh ya...

Not to mention all of the violations that Saddam commited during Clinton's watch, but instead of taking care of Saddam back then, Clinton was too scared to act, and simply let Saddam continue to get away with murder, literally!

oh, how the young love to live in the here and now, knowing nothing of history, and therefore doomed to repeat it!

Worse than Bush? AAHAHAHAHA!

Under Bush:
Let's see.. corruption throughout the White House including Libby/Cheney.
Hamas has come to rule. 10s of thousands of dead Iraqis, and over 14k injured Americans, over 2k dead Americans due to a war that involved exaggerations to the public..
100s of billions in debt.
Katrina was handled as poorly as humanly possible and 6 months later people are still living on the streets...
9 billion dollars unaccounted for involving Iraq.
Handing over our ports to a group linked to the 9/11 attacks.
Iran is building nuclear weapons.
Iraq is showing signs of civil war.
An awful economy.
We are giving fundamentalists in Iraq control of their "government."
A miserably failed social security reform plan.
4.5 years without capturing Bin Laden.
Cuts to education, cuts to border patrol, cuts to alternative energy, windfall profits for oil companies, environmental setbacks.
Illegal wiretaping on AMERICANS.
The patriot act restricting our american rights...
Outsourced jobs galore!


Yeah, Clinton is obviously worse than that.:Q

 

[Strk]

Not to mention all of the violations that Saddam commited during Clinton's watch, but instead of taking care of Saddam back then, Clinton was too scared to act, and simply let Saddam continue to get away with murder, literally!

Do a little research on Operation Desert Fox. Apparently, it worked, since there were no weapons found when we went in Iraq.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

A miserable failure who employed cronies in positions that caused havok. A man who got through life using his name alone. A meglomaniac who's ego caused the needless deaths of thousands. He will be regarded as a divider of a great nation, a president who mocked the very document used to forge the position. Hopefully he will go down as prisoner #923485 in Leavenworth

 

[tommywishbone]

"... Hopefully he will go down as condemned prisoner #923485 in Leavenworth"


Fixed

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

25 years?! lol.. if you asked about 200 years from now, your question might be relevant.

I believe that in 200 years, he will be seen as the man who began the anti-terrorism campaign which eventually ended widespread terrorism in the world... then again, that is only if the cowardly anti's dont screw everything up! If they cant find the courage and stamina to stick this war out for the 50 to 75 years it's going to take to "win," THEN we're screwed. And Then Bush will only be seen as the man who TRIED to save us from terrorism, while the liberal panzies who came after him doomed us all to failure and catastrophe...

Really...and just what exactly do you bring to the table? An e-badass attitude? Impressive, I'm sure Osama is just quaking in his boots.

If anybody is a danger to the fight against terrorism, it's people like you. You guys keep saying that the world's changed, and that this is a new kind of war, and yet you're still fighting the last one...actually, you're a rather large number of wars back. Terrorism truly is a different kind of conflict, one that is not impressed with action movie BS. It is, above all else, an intellectual conflict. It turns into a straight forward kind of conflict when you invade countries, but in most cases, that is a poor way to fight terrorism. 9/11 couldn't have been stopped by attitude, or cheesy bumper stickers, or spazzing at "antis" on the internet. It could have been stopped by a handful of cops if they knew where to look. It's an intelligence game, and quite frankly, guys like you don't bring a lot of that to the table.

so you say, but it's guys like me who are doing the actual work, both physcially and intellectually; while guys like most of those here in ATPN sit off on the sidelines preaching that they know better.

I agree with you that it's certainly a new kind of war, and one that will be mostly fought by Intel personnel and special forces. However, along the way some nation states must be taken care of as well. You cannot deny the fact that several of them stand in the way of a stable ME and the total erradication of terrorism; including Iraq and Iran.

I remember when many people believed that Clinton was to be the worst president in history. I didnt buy into that either. He was worse than Bush, sure, but not the worst in history... After all, Osama declared war on the US during Clinton's presidency (1996). what exactly did he do about it? oh ya...

Not to mention all of the violations that Saddam commited during Clinton's watch, but instead of taking care of Saddam back then, Clinton was too scared to act, and simply let Saddam continue to get away with murder, literally!

oh, how the young love to live in the here and now, knowing nothing of history, and therefore doomed to repeat it!

Then why are you insisting on repeating the mistakes of the 1920's brits?

BTW, there are a lot of combat vets who think this is a damn foolish war, and will be glad to see the back end of Bush when his term is up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Then why are you insisting on repeating the mistakes of the 1920's brits?

BTW, there are a lot of combat vets who think this is a damn foolish war, and will be glad to see the back end of Bush when his term is up.

very few that I've served with.

 

[shira]

The question was, literally, "Will Bush go down in history?"

The answer is yes: He will go down in history. And down and down and down. Right now, Bush is "officially" rated a mediocrity - somewhere in the middle of the list of 42 Presidents. But that surprisingly elevated stature is probably a consequence of contemporary politics, with the full effects of Bush's incompetence not yet reflected in his ranking.

Time has a way of de-emphasizing the political in favor of the objective. So I'm confident that Bush, Jr., will continue his slide downward, and where he'll stop is anybody's guess. As the consequences of his policy decisions become more apparent in the coming years, it's hard to imagine that Bush will ultimately be rated above the bottom 5.

What's truly amazing about Bush is that it's difficult to think of ANYTHING he's done right.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
A miserable failure who employed cronies in positions that caused havok. A man who got through life using his name alone. A meglomaniac who's ego caused the needless deaths of thousands. He will be regarded as a divider of a great nation, a president who mocked the very document used to forge the position. Hopefully he will go down as prisoner #923485 in Leavenworth

Who, Nixon?

 

[Subwayeatbig]

Originally posted by: borosp1

Originally posted by: Subwayeatbig
4. Embryoinc stem cells arent the only thing. Recently a group broke through and was able to use Nasal stem cells. There are other things besides using embryos. Nasal stem cells are cheap and they can grow almost at the same rate as embryos. The Media makes it look like only embryo stem cells can save lives but it just aint true.

From almost every scientist studying stem cells they say that Embryonic are the most usefull as it can be potentially formed into any living cell of the body. The argument is that Bush says embryos are living beings and cannot be killed for research. That argument is flawed because abortion is still legal in the United States and because of Bush we cannot use the aborted embryo, but have to discard it in the garbage. Now you tell me which is more ethical using tissue to potentially cure diseases or throw it away in the garbage because Bush and other religious crack pots think its killing life.

From what i understand is that there are alternatives to embryo. The media makes ppl think that there is only embryos but thats totally false. Those with unlimited budgets continue working on it but as you can see nasal stem cells are much cheaper and are as efficent as embryo cells. Also they can use umbilical cords for stem cells. Also abortion is like stopping life. Whats the difference from killing a babby thats one month old and an embryo. Your just basically stopping life.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Subwayeatbig

Originally posted by: borosp1

Originally posted by: Subwayeatbig
4. Embryoinc stem cells arent the only thing. Recently a group broke through and was able to use Nasal stem cells. There are other things besides using embryos. Nasal stem cells are cheap and they can grow almost at the same rate as embryos. The Media makes it look like only embryo stem cells can save lives but it just aint true.

From almost every scientist studying stem cells they say that Embryonic are the most usefull as it can be potentially formed into any living cell of the body. The argument is that Bush says embryos are living beings and cannot be killed for research. That argument is flawed because abortion is still legal in the United States and because of Bush we cannot use the aborted embryo, but have to discard it in the garbage. Now you tell me which is more ethical using tissue to potentially cure diseases or throw it away in the garbage because Bush and other religious crack pots think its killing life.

From what i understand is that there are alternatives to embryo. The media makes ppl think that there is only embryos but thats totally false. Those with unlimited budgets continue working on it but as you can see nasal stem cells are much cheaper and are as efficent as embryo cells. Also they can use umbilical cords for stem cells. Also abortion is like stopping life. Whats the difference from killing a babby thats one month old and an embryo. Your just basically stopping life.

I think some of the stem cell "breakthroughs" were in fact the fraudulent results claimed by that South Korean researcher. Fetal stem cells are as far as I know by far still the best candidates for research.

And we all know there are hundreds of thousands or millions of frozen embryos stored in reproductive clinics, each one a potentical source of fetal stem cells. The vast majority of these embryos are going to be discarded ("killed") sooner or later. Is the right planning on passing a federal law forcing reproductive clinics to maintain these embryos forever? I highly doubt it. So, if these "human lives" (I take strong exception to referring to 16-celled blastomeres or 128-celled blastulas as "babies" - they're balls of cells, for goodness sake!) are going to be destroyed anyway, wouldn't it make much more sense to allow those deaths serve a useful purpose?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

25 years?! lol.. if you asked about 200 years from now, your question might be relevant.

I believe that in 200 years, he will be seen as the man who began the anti-terrorism campaign which eventually ended widespread terrorism in the world... then again, that is only if the cowardly anti's dont screw everything up! If they cant find the courage and stamina to stick this war out for the 50 to 75 years it's going to take to "win," THEN we're screwed. And Then Bush will only be seen as the man who TRIED to save us from terrorism, while the liberal panzies who came after him doomed us all to failure and catastrophe...

Really...and just what exactly do you bring to the table? An e-badass attitude? Impressive, I'm sure Osama is just quaking in his boots.

If anybody is a danger to the fight against terrorism, it's people like you. You guys keep saying that the world's changed, and that this is a new kind of war, and yet you're still fighting the last one...actually, you're a rather large number of wars back. Terrorism truly is a different kind of conflict, one that is not impressed with action movie BS. It is, above all else, an intellectual conflict. It turns into a straight forward kind of conflict when you invade countries, but in most cases, that is a poor way to fight terrorism. 9/11 couldn't have been stopped by attitude, or cheesy bumper stickers, or spazzing at "antis" on the internet. It could have been stopped by a handful of cops if they knew where to look. It's an intelligence game, and quite frankly, guys like you don't bring a lot of that to the table.

so you say, but it's guys like me who are doing the actual work, both physcially and intellectually; while guys like most of those here in ATPN sit off on the sidelines preaching that they know better.

I agree with you that it's certainly a new kind of war, and one that will be mostly fought by Intel personnel and special forces. However, along the way some nation states must be taken care of as well. You cannot deny the fact that several of them stand in the way of a stable ME and the total erradication of terrorism; including Iraq and Iran.

I remember when many people believed that Clinton was to be the worst president in history. I didnt buy into that either. He was worse than Bush, sure, but not the worst in history... After all, Osama declared war on the US during Clinton's presidency (1996). what exactly did he do about it? oh ya...

Not to mention all of the violations that Saddam commited during Clinton's watch, but instead of taking care of Saddam back then, Clinton was too scared to act, and simply let Saddam continue to get away with murder, literally!

oh, how the young love to live in the here and now, knowing nothing of history, and therefore doomed to repeat it!

Look, it's not that I disagree with what you are saying, it's just that your words don't match what I get reading between the lines. Of course I could be making a mistake there, but I'm usually pretty good at it. In any case, I get this sense of action movie BS from a lot of pro-war folks, whether or not they do the actual work or simply slap a bumper sticker on their car. The phrases about it being a new kind of long term war are repeated over and over again, yet the attitude seems to reflect a belief that fighting terrorism is really about landing on the beach and punching a Nazi in the face. You say you're doing the intellectual work, but over and over again I hear complaints about the "antis" who don't have enough courage and stamina. Which wouldn't be all that bad, except that group seems to include anyone who doesn't display the proper attitude. It's not just you, it's a lot of the folks on the pro-war side of things. Anyone who so much as questions our approach, or who suggests that fighting terrorism is more complex than just shooting everyone, is attacked (often in a truly viscious manner) as an inexcusable traitor who wants to just hand bin Laden a bunch of nuclear bombs and set him loose in New York. Look at your complaint, people sitting on the sidelines saying they know better how to fight terrorism. I agree, armchair quarterbacking is an issue, as it has always been. But this time, it's not just that they are wrong and don't know what they are talking about, it's that they lack the stamina and courage. They aren't just mistaken about how best to fight terrorism, they hate America.

That kind of talk is why I said what I said. You SAY you realize it's an intelligence war that is about intel and special forces as much as it is about nation states...but your attitude is that this is some sort of action movie, where being all tough and badass is all that is required to save the day, and where the people who disagree with you are "liberal panzies" who are going to get us all killed.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

25 years?! lol.. if you asked about 200 years from now, your question might be relevant.

I believe that in 200 years, he will be seen as the man who began the anti-terrorism campaign which eventually ended widespread terrorism in the world... then again, that is only if the cowardly anti's dont screw everything up! If they cant find the courage and stamina to stick this war out for the 50 to 75 years it's going to take to "win," THEN we're screwed. And Then Bush will only be seen as the man who TRIED to save us from terrorism, while the liberal panzies who came after him doomed us all to failure and catastrophe...

Really...and just what exactly do you bring to the table? An e-badass attitude? Impressive, I'm sure Osama is just quaking in his boots.

If anybody is a danger to the fight against terrorism, it's people like you. You guys keep saying that the world's changed, and that this is a new kind of war, and yet you're still fighting the last one...actually, you're a rather large number of wars back. Terrorism truly is a different kind of conflict, one that is not impressed with action movie BS. It is, above all else, an intellectual conflict. It turns into a straight forward kind of conflict when you invade countries, but in most cases, that is a poor way to fight terrorism. 9/11 couldn't have been stopped by attitude, or cheesy bumper stickers, or spazzing at "antis" on the internet. It could have been stopped by a handful of cops if they knew where to look. It's an intelligence game, and quite frankly, guys like you don't bring a lot of that to the table.

so you say, but it's guys like me who are doing the actual work, both physcially and intellectually; while guys like most of those here in ATPN sit off on the sidelines preaching that they know better.

I agree with you that it's certainly a new kind of war, and one that will be mostly fought by Intel personnel and special forces. However, along the way some nation states must be taken care of as well. You cannot deny the fact that several of them stand in the way of a stable ME and the total erradication of terrorism; including Iraq and Iran.

I remember when many people believed that Clinton was to be the worst president in history. I didnt buy into that either. He was worse than Bush, sure, but not the worst in history... After all, Osama declared war on the US during Clinton's presidency (1996). what exactly did he do about it? oh ya...

Not to mention all of the violations that Saddam commited during Clinton's watch, but instead of taking care of Saddam back then, Clinton was too scared to act, and simply let Saddam continue to get away with murder, literally!

oh, how the young love to live in the here and now, knowing nothing of history, and therefore doomed to repeat it!

Look, it's not that I disagree with what you are saying, it's just that your words don't match what I get reading between the lines. Of course I could be making a mistake there, but I'm usually pretty good at it. In any case, I get this sense of action movie BS from a lot of pro-war folks, whether or not they do the actual work or simply slap a bumper sticker on their car. The phrases about it being a new kind of long term war are repeated over and over again, yet the attitude seems to reflect a belief that fighting terrorism is really about landing on the beach and punching a Nazi in the face. You say you're doing the intellectual work, but over and over again I hear complaints about the "antis" who don't have enough courage and stamina. Which wouldn't be all that bad, except that group seems to include anyone who doesn't display the proper attitude. It's not just you, it's a lot of the folks on the pro-war side of things. Anyone who so much as questions our approach, or who suggests that fighting terrorism is more complex than just shooting everyone, is attacked (often in a truly viscious manner) as an inexcusable traitor who wants to just hand bin Laden a bunch of nuclear bombs and set him loose in New York. Look at your complaint, people sitting on the sidelines saying they know better how to fight terrorism. I agree, armchair quarterbacking is an issue, as it has always been. But this time, it's not just that they are wrong and don't know what they are talking about, it's that they lack the stamina and courage. They aren't just mistaken about how best to fight terrorism, they hate America.

That kind of talk is why I said what I said. You SAY you realize it's an intelligence war that is about intel and special forces as much as it is about nation states...but your attitude is that this is some sort of action movie, where being all tough and badass is all that is required to save the day, and where the people who disagree with you are "liberal panzies" who are going to get us all killed.

Well thought out post.

 

[snowdogg187]

Originally posted by: fjord
The GWB administration is the worst in modern times. That is how it is regarded now.

How will it be viewed into the future? No doubt as time reveals just how disasterous this administrations policies have affected Americans--it will be viewed as the worst administration to date in our history.

I firmly agree

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

25 years?! lol.. if you asked about 200 years from now, your question might be relevant.

I believe that in 200 years, he will be seen as the man who began the anti-terrorism campaign which eventually ended widespread terrorism in the world... then again, that is only if the cowardly anti's dont screw everything up! If they cant find the courage and stamina to stick this war out for the 50 to 75 years it's going to take to "win," THEN we're screwed. And Then Bush will only be seen as the man who TRIED to save us from terrorism, while the liberal panzies who came after him doomed us all to failure and catastrophe...

Really...and just what exactly do you bring to the table? An e-badass attitude? Impressive, I'm sure Osama is just quaking in his boots.

If anybody is a danger to the fight against terrorism, it's people like you. You guys keep saying that the world's changed, and that this is a new kind of war, and yet you're still fighting the last one...actually, you're a rather large number of wars back. Terrorism truly is a different kind of conflict, one that is not impressed with action movie BS. It is, above all else, an intellectual conflict. It turns into a straight forward kind of conflict when you invade countries, but in most cases, that is a poor way to fight terrorism. 9/11 couldn't have been stopped by attitude, or cheesy bumper stickers, or spazzing at "antis" on the internet. It could have been stopped by a handful of cops if they knew where to look. It's an intelligence game, and quite frankly, guys like you don't bring a lot of that to the table.

so you say, but it's guys like me who are doing the actual work, both physcially and intellectually; while guys like most of those here in ATPN sit off on the sidelines preaching that they know better.

I agree with you that it's certainly a new kind of war, and one that will be mostly fought by Intel personnel and special forces. However, along the way some nation states must be taken care of as well. You cannot deny the fact that several of them stand in the way of a stable ME and the total erradication of terrorism; including Iraq and Iran.

I remember when many people believed that Clinton was to be the worst president in history. I didnt buy into that either. He was worse than Bush, sure, but not the worst in history... After all, Osama declared war on the US during Clinton's presidency (1996). what exactly did he do about it? oh ya...

Not to mention all of the violations that Saddam commited during Clinton's watch, but instead of taking care of Saddam back then, Clinton was too scared to act, and simply let Saddam continue to get away with murder, literally!

oh, how the young love to live in the here and now, knowing nothing of history, and therefore doomed to repeat it!

Look, it's not that I disagree with what you are saying, it's just that your words don't match what I get reading between the lines. Of course I could be making a mistake there, but I'm usually pretty good at it. In any case, I get this sense of action movie BS from a lot of pro-war folks, whether or not they do the actual work or simply slap a bumper sticker on their car. The phrases about it being a new kind of long term war are repeated over and over again, yet the attitude seems to reflect a belief that fighting terrorism is really about landing on the beach and punching a Nazi in the face. You say you're doing the intellectual work, but over and over again I hear complaints about the "antis" who don't have enough courage and stamina. Which wouldn't be all that bad, except that group seems to include anyone who doesn't display the proper attitude. It's not just you, it's a lot of the folks on the pro-war side of things. Anyone who so much as questions our approach, or who suggests that fighting terrorism is more complex than just shooting everyone, is attacked (often in a truly viscious manner) as an inexcusable traitor who wants to just hand bin Laden a bunch of nuclear bombs and set him loose in New York. Look at your complaint, people sitting on the sidelines saying they know better how to fight terrorism. I agree, armchair quarterbacking is an issue, as it has always been. But this time, it's not just that they are wrong and don't know what they are talking about, it's that they lack the stamina and courage. They aren't just mistaken about how best to fight terrorism, they hate America.

That kind of talk is why I said what I said. You SAY you realize it's an intelligence war that is about intel and special forces as much as it is about nation states...but your attitude is that this is some sort of action movie, where being all tough and badass is all that is required to save the day, and where the people who disagree with you are "liberal panzies" who are going to get us all killed.

well said! (I'm beyond tired, so my response wont be nearly as well written...LOL!)

I dont believe I was clear in my delivery before... so let me try that again:

I dont see it so much as having "supermen" on one side, and total cowards on the other. But, rather, on one side are the folks who are actually working and doing something about terrorism (The "do-ers"), and on the other side are those whose only function seems to be sitting around and whining or complaining about how the other side is doing the job!

So you have the "do-ers," versus "do nothing except complain-ers."

The result is that those actually doing something about terrorism may even be doing it incorrectly, or inefficiently; but hell, atleast their doing something besides sitting around bitching, moaning, whining, and complaining.

Not quite the most eloquent summary I've ever posted, but I hope it's clear enough to make my points. Time for bed...uhg.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

25 years?! lol.. if you asked about 200 years from now, your question might be relevant.

I believe that in 200 years, he will be seen as the man who began the anti-terrorism campaign which eventually ended widespread terrorism in the world... then again, that is only if the cowardly anti's dont screw everything up! If they cant find the courage and stamina to stick this war out for the 50 to 75 years it's going to take to "win," THEN we're screwed. And Then Bush will only be seen as the man who TRIED to save us from terrorism, while the liberal panzies who came after him doomed us all to failure and catastrophe...

Really...and just what exactly do you bring to the table? An e-badass attitude? Impressive, I'm sure Osama is just quaking in his boots.

If anybody is a danger to the fight against terrorism, it's people like you. You guys keep saying that the world's changed, and that this is a new kind of war, and yet you're still fighting the last one...actually, you're a rather large number of wars back. Terrorism truly is a different kind of conflict, one that is not impressed with action movie BS. It is, above all else, an intellectual conflict. It turns into a straight forward kind of conflict when you invade countries, but in most cases, that is a poor way to fight terrorism. 9/11 couldn't have been stopped by attitude, or cheesy bumper stickers, or spazzing at "antis" on the internet. It could have been stopped by a handful of cops if they knew where to look. It's an intelligence game, and quite frankly, guys like you don't bring a lot of that to the table.

so you say, but it's guys like me who are doing the actual work, both physcially and intellectually; while guys like most of those here in ATPN sit off on the sidelines preaching that they know better.

I agree with you that it's certainly a new kind of war, and one that will be mostly fought by Intel personnel and special forces. However, along the way some nation states must be taken care of as well. You cannot deny the fact that several of them stand in the way of a stable ME and the total erradication of terrorism; including Iraq and Iran.

I remember when many people believed that Clinton was to be the worst president in history. I didnt buy into that either. He was worse than Bush, sure, but not the worst in history... After all, Osama declared war on the US during Clinton's presidency (1996). what exactly did he do about it? oh ya...

Not to mention all of the violations that Saddam commited during Clinton's watch, but instead of taking care of Saddam back then, Clinton was too scared to act, and simply let Saddam continue to get away with murder, literally!

oh, how the young love to live in the here and now, knowing nothing of history, and therefore doomed to repeat it!

Look, it's not that I disagree with what you are saying, it's just that your words don't match what I get reading between the lines. Of course I could be making a mistake there, but I'm usually pretty good at it. In any case, I get this sense of action movie BS from a lot of pro-war folks, whether or not they do the actual work or simply slap a bumper sticker on their car. The phrases about it being a new kind of long term war are repeated over and over again, yet the attitude seems to reflect a belief that fighting terrorism is really about landing on the beach and punching a Nazi in the face. You say you're doing the intellectual work, but over and over again I hear complaints about the "antis" who don't have enough courage and stamina. Which wouldn't be all that bad, except that group seems to include anyone who doesn't display the proper attitude. It's not just you, it's a lot of the folks on the pro-war side of things. Anyone who so much as questions our approach, or who suggests that fighting terrorism is more complex than just shooting everyone, is attacked (often in a truly viscious manner) as an inexcusable traitor who wants to just hand bin Laden a bunch of nuclear bombs and set him loose in New York. Look at your complaint, people sitting on the sidelines saying they know better how to fight terrorism. I agree, armchair quarterbacking is an issue, as it has always been. But this time, it's not just that they are wrong and don't know what they are talking about, it's that they lack the stamina and courage. They aren't just mistaken about how best to fight terrorism, they hate America.

That kind of talk is why I said what I said. You SAY you realize it's an intelligence war that is about intel and special forces as much as it is about nation states...but your attitude is that this is some sort of action movie, where being all tough and badass is all that is required to save the day, and where the people who disagree with you are "liberal panzies" who are going to get us all killed.

well said! (I'm beyond tired, so my response wont be nearly as well written...LOL!)

I dont believe I was clear in my delivery before... so let me try that again:

I dont see it so much as having "supermen" on one side, and total cowards on the other. But, rather, on one side are the folks who are actually working and doing something about terrorism (The "do-ers"), and on the other side are those whose only function seems to be sitting around and whining or complaining about how the other side is doing the job!

So you have the "do-ers," versus "do nothing except complain-ers."

The result is that those actually doing something about terrorism may even be doing it incorrectly, or inefficiently; but hell, atleast their doing something besides sitting around bitching, moaning, whining, and complaining.

Not quite the most eloquent summary I've ever posted, but I hope it's clear enough to make my points. Time for bed...uhg.

I see what you're saying, and it does make a certain kind of sense. But I'd point out that in our current Republican dominated system, there is very little anyone who doesn't agree with Bush's approach can do other than complain about the job he's doing. People who think like Bush are planning and executing every step of this war, it's not like those who disagree can plan and run their own war on terror. It's either support Bush's way, or make some noise about it. The only "do-ers" are on his side, because he controls who gets to be a do-er and who gets to watch from the sidelines. Even people in the intelligence and military community who disagree can only go so far, at the end of the day, Bush IS the boss...and he's is less receptive than most presidents to dissenting opinions from his peons.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that the "do-ers" group contains quite a few less people than Bush supporters might like to think. Slapping a sticker on your truck doesn't make you a do-er, in the grand scheme of the war on terrorism, it puts you just about where the complainers are. Whether you are cheering for the Packers or booing them, neither act makes you a football player. I'm not suggesting that only those who play an active role in the conflict should be allowed to voice their opinions, I'm just saying that the vast majority of people speaking on this issue are not do-ers in any sense of the word (provided that it is in fact a word ). They're all armchair generals and armchair intelligence officers. Which is fine, as far as that goes, just wanted to provide some perspective for some peopel who think approving of the way Bush is doing things gives their opinion some special weight.

 

[RichardE]

If in 20 years, the basses in the ME win the oil wars...he will be seen as the greated president ever.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Malak
The US has done little to make it something worth remembering. There have been thousands and thousands of civilizations that you have never even heard of, some that survived longer than the US. It is in fact more likely that someone like Bill Gates will be remembered longer than any president we ever had.

Obviously, the U.S. will be remembered for having been the most powerful nation in the 20th Century. However, sadly, it will be remembered and studied similarly to how people study the fall of the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, we're now in the "fall" part, thanks to Benedict Bush.

What if the future does not see things that way? What if they judge past civilations on a different scale, and don't find the US to be particularly worth mentioning at all? What if out of the thousands of years there have been civilizations, the 20th century doesn't tend to be a spotlight in human history? What makes you think anyone will really care?

The US was falling apart since the day it started. There is only one thing that can keep a nation going, which this nation certainly tried. This nation will fall in no part due to Bush. Your perspective on what makes a country great or terrible is quite distorted.