I think you'll find a lot of people who beg to differ, I'll just say the words 'power point presentation' and let Pipe fill you in on the details ...The only one who IMHO comes out unharmed is Gen. Colin Powell who resigned when he saw what was really going on.
Everyone ? Another of your sweeping statements, Carlos. I think you'll also find that not everyone agreed with this "theory" either.While at first everyone agreed with the theory of "let's attack them in their homelands before they keep attacking us in ours" the way he did it led to a full blown catastrophe.
Obviously not "everyone" in absolute terms, yet "everyone" in general terms to give him freedom of movements to do what he did.Everyone ? Another of your sweeping statements, Carlos. I think you'll also find that not everyone agreed with this "theory" either.While at first everyone agreed with the theory of "let's attack them in their homelands before they keep attacking us in ours" the way he did it led to a full blown catastrophe.
On Powell, his reputation is damaged but remains stronger than many associated with Bush's first term, but he himself says he bitterly regrets the infamous UN presentation. He also didn't resign when he "saw what was really going on" - he stuck it out to the end of Bush's first term.
Although the Iraq war is very much connected to GWB, it wasn't exactly his idea. And I dispute that GWB has proven to be a nightmare. A funny change-happy black guy with lots of hope but lack of plan may prove to be equally disastrous, but in a more cozy manner that doesn't make all the lefties in Europe cry out.GWB has proven to be a nightmare for everyone from the moment on when the world got to know the whole premises of the Iraq invasion were false. While at first everyone agreed with the theory of "let's attack them in their homelands before they keep attacking us in ours" the way he did it led to a full blown catastrophe. And noone knows how the US should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan without opening a huge Pandora box. This is to blame entirely on GWB and his administration. The only one who IMHO comes out unharmed is Gen. Colin Powell who resigned when he saw what was really going on.
This leads us to the point where everybody is eager to see GWB out of office. What comes next, be it B. Obama, H. Clinton or McCain, noone has a crystal ball to see into the future and guesses are wild speculation. But this does not belong to this thread.
All the journalists cover the pre-election and there is a 3-minute limit on daily news for US matters if no "extraordinary" event takes place. I haven't heard much of Roland Koch, either, in the last two weeks.Here in Germany, we currently hear lots and lots about:
Clinton
Obama
A little less about:
McCain
Romney
But next to nothing about HIM.
Question: Does anybody really keep on taking notice of the current president?
I'm almost tempted to say that if GWB wants the world to listen to him and take him seriously once more, he'd have to invade Iran
No not really, eh?All the journalists cover the pre-election and there is a 3-minute limit on daily news for US matters if no "extraordinary" event takes place. I haven't heard much of Roland Koch, either, in the last two weeks.
On the other hand, you can't really tell me you want to see him - I mean hearing about him is OK, but seeing him really is not a must Obviously not his idea. Did he ever had an own?
Although the Iraq war is very much connected to GWB, it wasn't exactly his idea. And I dispute that GWB has proven to be a nightmare. A funny change-happy black guy with lots of hope but lack of plan may prove to be equally disastrous, but in a more cozy manner that doesn't make all the lefties in Europe cry out.
I am not one of those people who call him an idiot. I know that is quite fancy but it simplifies things.Obviously not his idea. Did he ever had an own?
Good that you don't have to vote. So many countries have presidents I don't like, while few of those unliked president's countries have aircraft carriers.But he was idiot enough to be the tool in the hands of those who had this idea way back in the 1990´s. And the damage will be connected to him for ever. Not my kind of President.
Oh, I actually voted for Kohl. Does that make me bad?You wanna dispute? Based on what? By putting all Bush opponents in the "lefties corner"? Somehow I think we are talking to a Kohl voter here. I suggest a trip to the region most affected by Bush´s desastrous policies. That´s the ME for you, if you have the guts.
To me this whole thing looks like another O.J. Simpson case. Although you're bored stiff after 3 days you have to wade through tons of "news" every single day to get through to some stuff you're actually interested in. In both cases a "Let me know when there is a decision, ok ?" to me.A funny change-happy black guy with lots of hope but lack of plan may prove to be equally disastrous, but in a more cozy manner that doesn't make all the lefties in Europe cry out.
No, but it fits exactly in your type of electorate. I wasn´t all wrong about you then, was I.Oh, I actually voted for Kohl. Does that make me bad?
Nonsense!The majority of critic I hear about Bush is exactly on the pathetic level as you demonstrate here: you call him an idiot, a war-monger, you consider all of his supporters "dark lords of evil". Actually, I cannot call that sober arguments. You appear to be trapped in your own limited sets of unquestionable "truths".
I feel sorry that your AD.com legacy has vanished. I cannot (and actually don't want to) research your remarks you made in the last 5 years. You either respond with proper arguments or you don't. That's it. What you wrote here so far is bullshit. And I am surprised that despite you being so much more educated on this issue, so much more experienced in the world (hey, you've been to ME!), you always have to increase the level of escalation in such a discussion. Now, after only two posts we're down to stereotype level. Thanks for it, maybe former AD.com is better off in the sewer.No, but it fits exactly in your type of electorate. I wasn´t all wrong about you then, was I.Oh, I actually voted for Kohl. Does that make me bad?
Nonsense!The majority of critic I hear about Bush is exactly on the pathetic level as you demonstrate here: you call him an idiot, a war-monger, you consider all of his supporters "dark lords of evil". Actually, I cannot call that sober arguments. You appear to be trapped in your own limited sets of unquestionable "truths".
If ad.com hadn´t gone down the sewer, you´d have a pile of archives where I accused Bush and his cronies when everybody was still in a hype over the Iraq invasion. When it was "unpatriotic" and "un/anti-american", when mud was thrown at a few of us because we were predicting the exact disaster that has become the american Iraq adventure. I´m just too tired to throw it out all again. And anyway, why "throwing pearls before the pigs" to a guy who puts me right away into the "lefties corner" only because I´m critizising Bush since long time, since the times when it wasn´t fashionable at all to critisize him.
Bush critics = Lefties
Israel critics = Anti-Semites
Why not German = Nazis?
You´re the last one who can accuse me of being " trapped in your own limited sets of unquestionable truths". (But that WAS funny, I give you that!)
I think YOU must be called an idiot if you still buy the fairy tales of "Poor Bush deceived by his evil advisors about the war reasons". And they lived happily ever after ...
Prost!
Pipe
Yeah, maybe we should stop here, indeed. Just as a reminder: It was YOU who started the stereotype bullshit by putting all Bush critics into the "Leftie Corner". SO, what exactly did you expect in return?I feel sorry that your AD.com legacy has vanished. I cannot (and actually don't want to) research your remarks you made in the last 5 years. You either respond with proper arguments or you don't. That's it. What you wrote here so far is bullshit. And I am surprised that despite you being so much more educated on this issue, so much more experienced in the world (hey, you've been to ME!), you always have to increase the level of escalation in such a discussion. Now, after only two posts we're down to stereotype level. Thanks for it, maybe former AD.com is better off in the sewer.No, but it fits exactly in your type of electorate. I wasn´t all wrong about you then, was I.Oh, I actually voted for Kohl. Does that make me bad?
Nonsense!The majority of critic I hear about Bush is exactly on the pathetic level as you demonstrate here: you call him an idiot, a war-monger, you consider all of his supporters "dark lords of evil". Actually, I cannot call that sober arguments. You appear to be trapped in your own limited sets of unquestionable "truths".
If ad.com hadn´t gone down the sewer, you´d have a pile of archives where I accused Bush and his cronies when everybody was still in a hype over the Iraq invasion. When it was "unpatriotic" and "un/anti-american", when mud was thrown at a few of us because we were predicting the exact disaster that has become the american Iraq adventure. I´m just too tired to throw it out all again. And anyway, why "throwing pearls before the pigs" to a guy who puts me right away into the "lefties corner" only because I´m critizising Bush since long time, since the times when it wasn´t fashionable at all to critisize him.
Bush critics = Lefties
Israel critics = Anti-Semites
Why not German = Nazis?
You´re the last one who can accuse me of being " trapped in your own limited sets of unquestionable truths". (But that WAS funny, I give you that!)
I think YOU must be called an idiot if you still buy the fairy tales of "Poor Bush deceived by his evil advisors about the war reasons". And they lived happily ever after ...
Prost!
Pipe
No, Bush is not an idiot, the war was not his idea, and he has not proven to be a nightmare. But Pipe puts it well in saying that he allowed certain people to manipulate policy and him personally into getting the United States out of its depth and invade a country that was not a threat to anyone while other tangible threats were left wanting. It may not be a nightmare, but we are dealing with the resulting bad dreams of Pakistan and Afghanistan now, not to mention nuclear proliferation and a polluted reputation on the subject of human rights. Iraq happened on Bush's watch, and his presidency will be judged by success or failure there and in those domestic and other foreign areas which were neglected as a result of Iraq, for many years. In fact, I can't immediately think of anything good that has come out of the Bush Administration, other than maybe that big wildlife and sealife reservation that was declared in western Hawaii, which, as worthy as that is, was also not Bush's idea and hardly defines a presidency.Although the Iraq war is very much connected to GWB, it wasn't exactly his idea. And I dispute that GWB has proven to be a nightmare.
Mmmmmm. There is every doubt that Saddam needed to be removed, even if he became a threat again, which was unlikely given 12 years of the containment policy. Anyway, we just don't go marching into countries whom we deem on a whim to be a threat. There are and have been plenty of other countries who have threatened the US which we have left alone.There is no doubt Saddam needed to be removed or Iraq would eventually become a threat again "IF" left alone.
I don´t want to discuss Saddam. Just remember that he was your dear ally. As so many that you later on wanted or still want to have removed. A very tricky policy .............. maybe we can call it hipocrisy.Time will tell how GWB's presidency and the Iraq escapade is viewed.
There is no doubt Saddam needed to be removed or Iraq would eventually become a threat again "IF" left alone.
Given the intelligence available at the time, most Western countries (including Germany and France) were convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. After the UN's inspectors were in, out, in, out, in again, they began to doubt the existence and indeed believe Saddam had removed / destroyed the ones he was known to have.
It's not so much that the U.S. removed Saddam, that would have to happen sooner or later, but that he did it without the support of several major allies and a flawed exit strategy.
GWB was convinced he could make Iraq into a democracy that would lead the Middle East into the 21st century. Well, so much for that idea.
Again, 50 years from now the world could have a different opinion of GWB.
Harry Truman was not a popular president by anyone estimation, but fifty years later he's been found to have some very interesting ideas that changed our view of the man. That was Truman, time will tell about Bush.
Allies by heart like Stalin and Hitler allies from September 1st 1939 to June 22nd 1941 or the USA and the Soviet Union from the December 11th 1941 to late 1945.I don´t want to discuss Saddam. Just remember that he was your dear ally. As so many that you later on wanted or still want to have removed. A very tricky policy .............. maybe we can call it hipocrisy.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
