Bush is a crook.

I just can't muster that much outrage. As I said in another thread, by doing this Bush is underminding people's faith in the system and pressing forth with a libertarian agenda. Can't say I think that's a bad thing.

But I'm not expecting Republicans or Democrats to like that. Plus, Bush hasn't been very good for business.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Isn't it more likely that they will tell you that if it's necessary for national security, and the War against Terrorism/Drugs/<insert bogeyman here>, then it's perfectly justified, and that since you oppose these measures, you must be in favour of Terrorism/Drugs/<insert bogeyman here> not to mention that you hate America.

That was an ugly run-on sentance.

The executive branch gets away with a lot. Especially during times of war.

I know this one Republican president who suspended habeas corpus, and killed 400,000 or so Americans in a war. He also locked up anybody who said anything bad about him in the press. Think his name was Lincoln.

Also, a democrat president I heard about locked people up in concentration camps... oops I mean 'internment camps' for just being of Japanese descent.

Yet another democrat president lied about a certain incident and started a long war in some asian country called Vietnam.

Really, is what Bush doing that shocking? Those were just a few examples. He hasn't rounded up Arab-Americans and thrown them in camps. He's only suspended habeas corpus in the case of foreign nationals. He started a war, and lied about it. But plenty of presidents who have started wars have done that. So he has some innocent Iraqi's blood on his hands. So does Clinton. In fact Clinton has even more Iraqi blood on his hands thanks to UN sanctions on medicine. So we tortured some people... yeah, like that hasn't happened before?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Monkey King

Of course the US has a very ugly history. The thing is, when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and sent them to concentration camps, suspended habeus corpus, or got our troops stuck in a useless war over in Vietnam, it's universally agreed that our former presidents fucked up. It happens. Every country has had bad leaders and done stupid things.

Only a complete ignorance of American history could allow these actions to repeat themselves. Maybe just a general apathy for said events?

Originally Posted by Monkey King

It's shocking now because when people make mistakes, you're supposed to learn from those mistakes so that you don't make them again. And Bush is showing a staggering lack of hindsight when it comes to the blunders of his prececessors.

You're making a huge assumption assuming that the Bush Administration is lacking the ability of foresight. Everything from the war in Iraq, to the war drums beating over Iran screams of foresight. Maybe you just think it's an odd coincidence that Bush is starting to sound like Jimmy Carter three years after Iraq when energy prices are rising? Another coincidence being that the Republicans could possible use the Iran war drums a'beatin' to discredit the Democrats in the coming elections when no attack materializes?

I don't believe in coincidences. While I don't believe what the Bush Administration is doing is entirely sane, I can't believe they don't have reasons for doing what they are. We just don't know about them.

Originally Posted by Monkey King

If this was the first time any of this were happening, it would be awful but it'd be a learning experience. There's no excuse for it now, when the country has screwed up like that before and should know better.

Hate stating the obvious, but we don't live in an ideal world. Back to Bush.

The NSA domestic spying, the Valerie Plame affair and more. All of which could have come out before the last presidential election. This leads to me to believe that Bush is nothing more then a scapegoat. For what? Who knows.

Originally Posted by Arainach

There were Americans and British citizens at Gitmo too.

British citizens falls under the foreign nationals category. Also, I don't think any American detained at Gitmo was anything but an enemy combatant. So they forfeit their right to their citizenship. Not like Michael Moore is taking a vacation at Gitmo! Harhar!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

But without Habeus Corpus, how exactly can we determine whether that claim is valid? Isn't that essentially giving the Government a blank check to arrest whoever you want? "Wait, I get a lawyer!" "No, you're an enemy combatant!" "Says Who?" "King George of course."

That's legal grey area that the Bush Administration is using to dodge the issue. The constitution doesn't cover American citizens captured and held outside of American territory. Plus, American citizens found to be in combat operations against American forces captured on foreign soil not acting as a proxy on behalf of a nation-state has no legal precedance to my knowledge.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

That makes it right because...?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

The whole of your case seems to be that if other people did bad things while in the White House, then that would entitle George W. Bush to do bad things too. I'm not buying it.

When did I ever say it was right? I'm not trying to rationalize anything for anybody. I can leave that to those who have politically motivated agendas.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I'm quite familiar with modern history, thank you. I'm aware of all of those examples, and the circumstances under which those decisions were taken. What I'm not aware of, though, is the part where Lincoln. Roosevelt and Kennedy had been absolved of all blame for their actions.

History has been quite forgiving to all of them don't you think? Very little of their negative actions have been mentioned or just glossed over in most history books. With a very few notable exceptions. Certainly not the version of history most people learn in school.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I'm not saying it's entirely fair to blame them for actions which they felt they had no choice but to take, but I don't agree that what they did is all fine and dandy. I also don't think that you can excuse Bush by saying that America has had presidents who did bad things in the past.

You're contradicting yourself. By saying this, and then saying it's not okay for Bush to do what he's done you're holding people who have held this particular office to differing standards. What if the Bush or his Administration thinks that he/they have no choice in doing what they've done?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

In so far as that is the case, that was wrong too. Democrat candidates can often be as bad as Republicans, is that what you wanted someone to admit? If so, consider it admitted. That doesn't change the fact that it must be stopped, no matter what party the current President represents. It's the issue that concerns me, not George W. Bush.

You might ask why it concerns me, if you glance at my flag. The reason is that these same issues are affecting the country in which I live. I can't help but feel that if the American people manage to win any kind of a victory in these matters, then that's something to give me hope too.

Yet another contradiction. Democrat presidents can be as bad as Republican presidents. Yet, you assume Britain will somehow be better off with a Democrat President?

Hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are just as committed to Iraq and our current foreign policy as the Republicans are. Especially when it comes to issues like Iraq. Kerry didn't sound all that different from Bush during the 2004 presidential election. He just said that Bush did Iraq all wrong and he would have done it differently. Only now has he started to call for withdrawls. Guess he has to throw the anti-war crowd and world another carrot eh?

Originally Posted by Monkey King

I don't have to assume. All I have to do is point at the current state of Iraq.

You're assuming that things like the current state of Iraq is not going according to plan, or not part of a back up plan. Maybe some planner in the Pentagon thought it'd be easier to control Iraq by breaking it up.

Originally Posted by Monkey King

Ideal world, no. That makes it okay?

No. It should just put things into prespective.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

About the planning issue:
What do you reckon is more probable, that efforts like the Iraq war are the result of a large, more or less coordinated scheme or of about as many different agendas as people involved? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'd just like to hear your opinion on it.

Neither, and both at the same time. While I have no doubts that different agendas are at work, the overall war itself was and still is conducted with a surprising degree of coordination. Talk of an "exit strategy" is a red herring. While the democrats and republicans all talk of such a "exit strategy" they are only talking in context of limited withdraws and not a complete expulsion of our military forces. Honestly I have no way of knowing either way. It's somewhere close to impossible to determine, but skepticism from the very beginning has been a problem in the matter of civil discourse.

Whether I'm right or not, I think we can all agree that the Iraq War was started and carried on without as much scrutiny as it deserved. Certainly more then just OIL. The resource, or what was once called Operation Iraqi Liberation. But that'll be up to the historians.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I gave my own opinions. History has been kind to them because their postitive actions have been found to outweigh their negative actions. That doesn't make certain actions that they took any less improper, and nor should it. If I believed that George W. Bush had accomplished sufficient good to outweigh his negative impact on America and on the world, then I wouldn't criticise his presidency either.

I'd to think what Bush has done has had some positive repurcussions. By channeling this nationalistic frevor into what's essentially a war without end, this practically will guarantee an end to extensive American influence and power abroad. While limiting our foreign policy options, I don't think forcing us to act in accordance with our allies (at the very least) is that bad of an outcome.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I admit that I did not make myself entirely clear, but I believe that I can clarify my view in such a way that you would not view it as a contradiction. I don't think that it's entirely fair to condemn any President of the United States for the actions that he felt needed to be taken. It's only fair to take into account the fact that the likelyhood is that he was only doing what he thought was right. On the other hand, even if those decisions were made with the best of intentions, it still does not automatically make the results a good thing either for America, or for the world.

The likelyhood is that Bush believes he is doing what needs to be done, but that will not stop his presidency from being judged on the basis of his results. That's really the most valid basis, in my mind, on which to judge a US President, and on that basis, I'd suggest that his results are going to prove to be substantially worse than any of the four former presidents we have discussed in this thread. I think you'll find that this is less contradictory, even if you don't agree with me.

I'm don't disagree. I'm just thinking along the lines of the long term causes and effects. I make frequent comparisons between to Nixon and Bush. Mostly because what Nixon did still has such far reaching consequences to this day. Now more then ever it's a common perception that our elected officials are crooks. Republicans or Democrats. This is a particularly new reevaluation completely uncommon years ago. Since immediately after Nixon resigned, it was generally assumed that the system itself was stable. It was only Nixon's fault and personal corruption which made the events of Watergate possible. In the short term, what Bush is doing is not helpful to the America or the world. As for the long term, who's to say?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Where did I state this? I believe that Britain and the rest of the world will be better off with a president other than George W. Bush, but I don't believe that a Republican president is automatically worse than a Democrat. I am not one of the blinkered ideologues who belies that all Republicans are ineffectual and evil.

Nothing personal, by posting what I did I was merely trying to fight against what I consider a relapse into old styles of judgement that yield responsible from our positions of power. Too many liberals/democrats in this country blame the man, not the office. Since the office itself is frequently and easily corruptable and corrupted. My comments were solely based on what I mentioned above. ^

Originally Posted by Bradylama

One interpretation of an intentional botched invasion of Iraq is that the military is used as a destabilizing force in an oil-heavy region. Driving up the price of oil, as a result, and increasing the value of oil futures. This makes oil interests very happy, but as a result, it also encourages market shifts towards alternative methods of fuel.

Another interpetation would be the that the invasion/occupation was not botched in the first place. Everything is going according to plan. We have 100,000+ troops in a strategic region at the all important time of the end of the age of cheap and abundant oil.

Was it not Dick Cheney said that the "American way of life is not negotiable."? I don't think he was kidding.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Cal

Context? Quote looks to be either delightfully patriotic or fascist.

That depends on what you think was going on in Cheney's head when he was quoted as to saying that. In early 2001 I believe. It's generally assumed that he was referring to the American dependency on cars and our suburban-centric lifestyles.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I can see your point, and I do admit that there's something to be said for that as an outcome of this war. However, I cannot bring myself to praise Bush, or his policies for bringing about this outcome. It was not his intention, after all. Indeed, I do not think his conviction has ever wavered.

Intentions don't really matter at this point. The War is on. I didn't mean to say that he should be praised, just that I don't really think intentions have mattered much to history. Only the outcome, or the light in which said outcome was portrayed. Given Bush's public noterioty, it does not bode well for him.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I do believe that it's a personal style of George W. Bush to gather more power directly to the office of the president, and I can't say I llike what I've seen of his public image one bit.

I think every president who has held the office has had a goal of preserving and expanding the power/influence of the office. Not just for themselves, but for their predesscors. Starting from the beginning with Washington. Centralized authorities tend to be authortarian by nature. Drawing more powers to themselves. Can't name a historic example to the contrary. This was probably the prime motivation behind the decentralized Articles of Confederation.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

I keep hearing this, and things like it, brought up as an argument against Bush; that he's only doing what his father wants. Other than the fact that George Bush is George W. Bush's father, where does it come from?

A desire to emulate, or even surpass his father perhaps? I'm no expert, so I'll just link you to an old article in the Guardian where a psychologist talks in detail about Bush's psyche.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...033904,00.html

An old article, but still entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

It comes from the tongue-in-cheek observation that George Bush wanted Saddam Hussain's head on a silver platter, and George W. Bush seems to have delivered. It's not an argument against Bush, as such, when I say it. It's simply the observation that the grudge seems to have been passed down from father to son. I don't suggest that George W. Bush is his father's puppet, in any way. I perhaps phrased that in a misleading way

Tongue in cheek statement or not, it might have a psychological basis.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Just to clarify, are we both talking about the same thing here? I'm talking about attempting to take those powers which rightfully belong to the other branches of the United States Government, and bring them directly under the personal control of the office of the President.

Yeah, we're talking about the same thing.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

All I will say is that if the system of checks and balances is intended to protect the American people from abuse of governmental powers, then the erosion of that system is something to be greatly concerned about. I'm aware that statement is pretty much self-evident, but wouldn't you agree that George W. Bush has done his part to erode that system, and will probably try to do more?

Absolutely. I don't expect any less from the people that will hold the office after he does. I hate to say it, but nothing Bush has done is a historical precedant. I'd be more keen to denounce him if it was. The system to a great extent is already eroded. Bush's predecessors have set down an awful lot of groundwork in that regard. He's just continuing to forge that particular path.

We probably have the best form of governing, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Nor that we have ideal people running it. Oh well, at least it isn't communism.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PUG1911

How can intentions not matter? If someone accidentally accomplishes something positive, then they aren't going to be remembered as a great visionary. They'll be remembered for pulling a Homer.

I'll use the worse recent historical example I can. Adolf Hitler was trying to build a utopia. To take that evolutionary step up for mankind. Mein Kampf if you've read it, make's this painfully clear. Jews, mentally ill, and other "sub-humans" were just holding the human race back on it's next evolutionary step to the "master race". Yet people do not judge Hitler by his intentions. We judge him by the genocide that was brought about by his utopian thinking.
His actions and the overall outcome mattered more then his intentions.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

He based everything he did on his own bias, with absolutely no facts supporting him whatsoever.

Yes, but how much of science or philosophy (religion aside) could honestly be said to be based on facts? Eugenics is a bastard mix of both. It had plenty of valid scientific support in that particular age.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

His intention was not just to create a utopia, his intention was to wipe out anything that didn't fall into his master plan so as to create a utopia for a race he hand-picked himself.

That's certainly a acceptable and plausible view that differs from mine. Something historians argue over too. But only Hitler knew his intentions. Maybe not even he did, if he was a complete lunatic near the end. So it's impossible to tell what he intended. That's why history never focuses on intentions. It's just a interesting point of debate/contention.

Originally Posted by Dullenplain

As they say, "actions speak louder than words". However, in the era where thoughtcrime may become a reality, both actions and words may have equal weight and therefore intention will be under greater scrutiny.

From a legal standpoint intention counts for a lot already. Only counting when you're speaking in the present tense. It's hard, if not impossible to determine either way. Despite this, there's still a huge difference between the penalties for a premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter.

As for thoughtcrime/precrime, technology make's it easier to scam the system. It's never been easier to steal somebody's identity. Just get their social security number and it's practically done. It seems like to me that with every step forward there will be two steps backwards.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Also scientists who accientaly happened upon a discovery later intentionally developed and investigated it right? That's a far cry from accidentally setting things in motion that other people would subsequently pick up on and expand on.

Not in all cases. In some cases an exterior authority physically prevented them from following up on their discoveries.

Most amazing jew boots