"Only property owners should vote"

All Presidents are the same period... We have not had a decent one in the last 60 years

 

That has nothing to do with this thread, and for the record, I'm not a fan of abortion, either. Nice stereotyping, though.

 

George H.W. Bush was decent except for his suckiness at rhetoric. His son, however, had some special suckiness all his own beyond just the torture of the English language.

 

Reagan and Clinton were good Presidents. History will be kinder to G.W. Bush as time goes on. B. Hussein Obama, what a disaster.

 

I don't think history will be very kind to George W. Bush. Other than being the first black guy, history will be indifferent to Obama.

 

In 1991 there was a regional conflict between tyrants. The monarchies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were at least as tyrannical if not worse than the dictatorship in Iraq. Former President George GW Bush involved the United States because the monarchies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were close personal friends and former business associates. I find using the US military based upon personal relationships by a President to be a reprehensible action and the United States had no logical reason for supporting any tyrannical regime in 1991.

Let us recall that the there was no al Qaeda threat against the United State prior to 1991 as al Qaeda's "enemy" was the tyrannical regime in Saudi Arabia. It was our military association with the Royal Family of Saud starting in 1991 that lead to the al Qaeda threat against America. The terrorists attacks in 1993 (WTC), 1998 (African Embassies), 2000 (USS Cole), and 2001 (9/11) were all a direct result of the US military support for the Royal Family of Saud in Saudi Arabia and former President George GW Bush was responsible for that US military involvement.

Never side with tyrants (even if they are close personal friends and former business associates) would be a good rule of thumb for any US president because it always come back to bite you in the ass.

 

I don't think Bush caused Katrina. And generally disaster relief is a local function, much like snow removal. As far as Iraq the West has stumbled repeatedly in dealing with Islamic parts of the world. The U.S. did not have an easy time of it in the Philippines after taking it in the Spanish-American War. The consequences of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire still haunt us today with a legacy of failed states such as Iraq and Syria. Egypt and Libya haven't been much better. Even the Barbary Coast victory was inconclusive and the version of the peace treaty shown to Americans diverged from the version signed by the princes of Araby.

Bush simply did no better than these other adventures. That doesn't mean we can allow ourselves to be picked to pieces.

 

The US liberated an occupied country. You can pretend that this was a backroom deal but Bush had every reason to not stop once Kuwait was liberated, but had the sense not to go from being liberator to being the aggressor. He had tons of criticism heaped on him for not letting Stormin Norman drive all the way to Baghdad. It was his refusal to intervene in an already improving economy when everybody was crying for stimulus that cost him the Presidency.

 

I don't think history will be kind to George W. Bush because of the USA Patriot Act and the massive erosion of civil liberties.

 

The U.S. has about 3.8 million square miles. At 64 acres per mile, that's 237 million acres. A .3 acre plot is plenty for a family of 4. We easily have enough land.

 

But that's assuming the land would be distributed equally, which it isn't. There's billionaires that own thousands upon thousands of acres. So there still wouldn't be enough land for everybody.

 

I don't think the Patriot Act has inconvenienced many beyond suicide bombers. I think that some other, non-Bush driven measures have caused more problems.

 

I think that historians do not look fondly on people who obscure the truth; alter the meaning of laws; and infringe upon civil liberties. History doesn't care about the day to day problems of people--it cares about the larger narrative.

 

I didn't make a personal attack on you; why did you make one on me?

 

If you see a personal attack on my post, then I really have no clue what is going on in your head.

 

You refer to me as someone who "obscures the truth." How is that not a personal attack?

 

Liberated an occupied country from what? The tyranny of Saddam only to re-instate the tyranny of the House of Sabah that is no less tyrannical that Saddam was and perhaps worse. The House of Sabah isn't even native to Kuwait and immigrated there in the early 18th Century and later established itself as a monarchy.

And if it's about removing an invading military force of occupation then why hasn't the US sent troops to Palestine to remove the Israeli military that invaded that territory in 1967 and has been occupying it and allowing illegal immigration of Israelis in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions?

The Gulf War was all about who was going to rape the natural resourses (oil) of Kuwait for the personal wealth. Former President George GW Bush wanted that wealth to go to the House of Sabah as opposed to Saddam because the members of the House of Sabah were his close personal friends and former business associates. It had nothing to do with the Kuwaiti people that were screwed in either case because the tyranny they were subjected to really didn't change. The House of Sabah actually put up tens of billions of dollars to hire the US military as a mercenary force to return control of Kuwait to their control. Of course the US taxpayers had to "pick up the difference" because the cost was greater than what the House of Sabah paid to the US government.

 

Unless you are George W. Bush, you might want to look at that conversation again. If you are George W. Bush, then yes you obscured the truth.