George H. W Bush vs George W Bush

Slartibartfast wrote: Tapfret wrote: And who doesn't love waterboarding? You have single handedly made me rethink my position.

Singlehandedly, Slart?

Tapfret wrote: So, these benefits? Was one of them the ability to put food on your family?

Come to think of it, I do remember W coming around and single-handedly putting food on my family.  Then again maybe it was just one of my bizarre dreams.  Back to this:

 

Tapfret wrote:   http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-sarah-palin-quotes.htm?PS=224%3A6

Sarah Palin is never going to be president. And, as much as I hate the woman, I am willing to defend her on a few of those. She obviously just misspoke when she was talking about our North Korean allies, she spent the whole sentence before talking about North Korea and she slipped, it's incredibly unimportant. While she bombed the Katie Couric interview, she was not "unable" to name any newspapers she read, she was pissed that Katie was asking what was (in her mind) an inane question.

Oxford thinks so. 

don't  look at me I have nothing to do with that   , you should se how much security Oslo were under then you could nat fart without getting a gun pointed at you.

Henry Plainview wrote: Oxford thinks so.

I stand corrected but I've never heard it before (it must be American in origin?)

The history books already show that GW didn't topple the Taliban, failed to get Bin Laden despite his dead or alive bluster, terrorized people for political advantage, squandered a surplus to put more money into the hands of the already wealthy....

Slartibartfast wrote: The history books already show that GW didn't topple the Taliban, failed to get Bin Laden despite his dead or alive bluster, terrorized people for political advantage, squandered a surplus to put more money into the hands of the already wealthy....

But, one hundred years from now, the historians may paint a very different picture. Bush could be portrayed broadly as someone who took a firm lead in dealing with the threat of Islamic extremism. They do say the victors of war write the history books. If indeed, America is the victor.

He did depose Saddam Hussein. The fact that this was done on the back of a pack of lies, will not stop the historians recording that this was such a significantly positive step in achieving world peace, that the 'nuances' of the situation were justified by the ends.

The Taleban is broadly not in power in Afghanistan anymore. They only have regional strongholds. Osama Bin Laden was only ever a red herring (not to mention formally a CIA asset) at the best of times. Bush just needed a crook to display on his 'Wanted' posters. America needed someone specific to blame for 9/11. A faceless rag tag band of militants hiding in caves, simply wasn't good enough.

Governments learn from their mistakes, in terms of how to manage the information their electorate sees. There are some very basic principles of psychology and sociology which govern how people behave in packs and as societies in times of crisis, in their search for leadership through the dark. It is quite possible that the Bush years will actually be recounted with some degree of warmth; once everyone who was actually alive while he was in office has died of old age...

Blacksword wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: The history books already show that GW didn't topple the Taliban, failed to get Bin Laden despite his dead or alive bluster, terrorized people for political advantage, squandered a surplus to put more money into the hands of the already wealthy.... But, one hundred years from now, the historians may paint a very different picture. Bush could be portrayed broadly as someone who took a firm lead in dealing with the threat of Islamic exteirremism. They do say the victors of war write the history books. If indeed, America is the victor.

The ones responsible for the islamic extremism are the Americans, the English, the French and the Israelis, so fighting it is simply cleaning their own mess

He did depose Saddam Hussein. The fact that this was done on the back of a pack of lies, will not stop the historians recording that this was such a significantly positive step in achieving world peace, that the 'nuances' of the situation were justified by the ends.

Saddam was created due to English colonialism on the area. If they really did a good job on the independen Iraqi kingdom, instead of using it as a tool to their interests (i.e. getting cheap oil), Saddam would never be the Iraqi president/prime minister.

The Taleban is broadly not in power in Afghanistan anymore. They only have regional strongholds. Osama Bin Laden was only ever a red herring (not to mention formally a CIA asset) at the best of times. Bush just needed a crook to display on his 'Wanted' posters. America needed someone specific to blame for 9/11. A faceless rag tag band of militants hiding in caves, simply wasn't good enough.

The americans and the english were both responsible for the rise of the Taleban in Afghanistan. The former for weakening an independent and powerful regional kingdom only for the sake of expanding its colonial costal areas and the latter for not supporting the Afghan royal family and the Afghan republic when they needed AND for supporting the Taleban and other terrorist groups for the sake of fighting the decaying Soviet union.

Governments learn from their mistakes, in terms of how to manage the information their electorate sees. There are some very basic principles of psychology and sociology which govern how people behave in packs and as societies in times of crisis, in their search for leadership through the dark. It is quite possible that the Bush years will actually be recounted with some degree of warmth; once everyone who was actually alive while he was in office has died of old age...

I really doubt it.


Edited by CCVP - January 04 2011 at 09:12

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: ^^It seems sarcasm without emoticons doesn't really work after all... Or was it bad sarcasm? Could be could be. Ok, to put it like for a five year old: "I don't have a proper opinion so I decided to write some sh*t". The final part, though, was sarcasm-free. Saying that a person sucks because his ancestors sucked just, well, sucks. Okay now I'm confused.  Are you addressing me?

Oh no. I was addressing one two posts above mine where it was said that I preferred W because of the benefits of his presidency to me, askig if he actually put food on my table. I just commented on my first post. The second part though was straight. The guy who said we have to be hold accountable for what our ancestors did is actually, factually, slightly confused, to put it nicely.