What will happen with George Bush

Mr.Micro

cozmik wrote: »

Sorry, NTM - but you're really clutching at straws here. The positives in Bush's presidency are few and far between the overall picture reveals that he has failed miserably in major areas of presidential performance.

Bush is headed for historical disgrace and there is absolutley nothing he can do about it. As Abraham Lincoln once said "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history"

I have to agree, it is hard to think of many or should I say any positives with regards to Bush's tenure. Then again the Neocons got what they wanted, I guess and they will be happy. Has the US, the land of the free, lurched more to the right during this time? Saddam is gone but at what price? The loss of life, all for the whim of Mr.Bush and the Neocon set, who probably subscribe to the man and superman philosophy, or the end justifies the means.

Chakar

The world is a much safer place especially in Ireland during the tenure of President Bush. However that's due in large part to the events of 9/11, which drove home to the U.S. federal and state governments and the American people, the threat of terrorism in the world.

The U.S. were somewhat lax in pursuing terrorists, terrorist organisations and other security related matters before 9/11 but when it happened they took unilateral action, taking out terrorist camps in Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan. They cut off the money supplying terrorist organisations and their accounts. They beefed up security worldwide and at home coming down hard on any terrorist related activities.

The U.S. put intense pressure on all countries to take action to curb and eliminate terrorist activities within their borders. The eventual demise of the IRA was accelerated by 9/11 with no funds or support coming from within United States.

Regarding Iraq it's a too early to say for sure as the future of Iraq lies in the hands of the 44th President. But the aftermath of the invasion could have been handled better with greater numbers of troops for 'overwhelming force'.

Manic Moran

Much though I am far from reluctant to give Bush any credit, I'm not entirely sure how one can make the case that the PIRA peace process is a result of 9/11 or Bush Administration policy. I certainly recall the whole thing long pre-dating it. It is true that a lot of the sources of funding have dried up as a result of the US public/plastic paddys rethinking their notion of 'romantic terrorists', but the need for that funding had reduced quite a bit by that point.

NTM

BostonFenian

speedboatchase wrote: »

I miss the old Iraq with good old Saddam and the mass graves. Petreaus who?

You don't need to miss the mass graves. You can enjoy the ones that are being created right now as a result of the invasion and the consequential sectarian violence.

Saddam was a bad guy, but if I hear that one more time as a justification for the war in Iraq, I'm going to throw up.

First we were told he helped with 9/11. Then when we found out that wasn't the case (not that many believed), we were told that he had nukes, but wait not nukes, he might have anthrax, mustard gas, sarin, etc, and that's bad. See he used it on the Kurds before? Except, when asked if the component materials for those weapons had anything to do with rumsfeld's visits to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war, if they were meant to be used against the Iranians, it's sort of hard to get an honest answer. When that failed, we were told he was just a bad guy.

So when are we going to invade all the other country's with 'bad guys' running them? It's sheer BS, and I'm sick of it. He *was* a bad guy, but if you believe that's why we invaded, then I'm afraid you bought into a lie.

nacho libre

Chakar wrote: »

They cut off the money supplying terrorist organisations and their accounts. They beefed up security worldwide and at home coming down hard on any terrorist related activities.

'.

The US were not lax in funding terrorist groups, like PRMI( formerly known as Jundullah), in Iran. Don't you find that hypocriticial? are you of the view that there are instances where distinctions can be made between good and bad terrorists - depending on who they are aligned to?

AngryHippie

nacho libre wrote: »

The US were not lax in funding terrorist groups, like PRMI( formerly known as Jundullah), in Iran. Don't you find that hypocriticial? are you of the view that there are instances where distinctions can be made between good and bad terrorists - depending on who they are aligned to?

Yes and no, But it is a hypocrisy that is inherent in terrorist acts that have an element of popular support, By popular support, I do not mean banner waving flag burning mobs, but instead a tolerance of those who plan it, or support it, on political moral religious economic or ethnic grounds. Oppressed people, backed into a corner, they are very susceptible to suggestion by those in a position to manipulate desperation and frustration into a terrible act of destruction in order to change their situation.
Unfortunately, it is the usual suspects that position themselves to take full advantage of this desperation and despair, and the A team they ain't. They get used by whoever can get closest, sometimes changes are made for their lot that constitute an improvement of their lot, usually not. It still does not make it right, but there are good (misguided, desperate) terrorists and bad terrorists and an absence of popular support (read as above) The bad will usually be yielded by society for justice. It is not for me to judge any particular instances, But I do have strong feelings over several "politically motivated" acts of terror in Ireland that were committed by bad people, and again, several that were well intentioned misguided acts orchestrated by a clever manipulation of vulnerable youth and republican rhetoric

Its a dilly of a pickle

BostonFenian

The current definition of terrorism is crap, and it's just another word like communism and fascism to get blood boiling against the common enemy so that government power can be extended in the name of security. It's been happening since the beginning of time.

The fact remains that it's pretty silly to demonize one group of people for indiscriminately bombing civilians with handmade devices while not saying the same of nations doing the same from miles in the air.

Especially, when as in a lot of cases, those people who commit acts of 'terrorism' would never have done so if they'd not been bombed out of their home, lost a mother, etc.