Obviously you’ve gotten these ideas from the rubbish Lancet Survey-a better estimate would be a 100,000 Iraqis dead-and that would be the high estimate.
I think you’re the one who needs to get real. To say that President Bush was worse than Buchanan (who let the South prepare for war while the Union did nothing) or Madison (who started the suicidal War of 1812) is ridiculous.
At any rate it was good the US conquered the Southwest. Compare El Paso and Ciudad Juarex or San Diego and Tijuana. Quite frankly the best thing that could have happened to Mexico was if Polk decided to annex all of it. Far bigger US and probably earlier racial tolerance.
It was not rubbish, and they actually mentioned 650,000. There was yet another survey done by the British and it came with 1 million dead… in 2008.
You need to read more carefully, I think he is saying that it is indeed controversial to say that he was the worst, however it is not good to say that the ones claiming that he was the worst are candidates for the loony bin, one could say that they would be candidates for not being taken seriously.
This is one of the most condescending an insulting bits seen for awhile in this place. Specially the racial tolerance bit. (The Mexican-American war is one item that lead to the American Civil War)
Regarding racial tolerance you will have to ask people like Vallejo in California if that was the case. (Even with all the shit the US did to Vallejo, he still remained in favor of the US)
Whether he’s the worst President in history may be debatable. I’m challenged to think of a President that’s even a contender in the past 50 years or so. And I grew up with Tricky Dicky…
Buchanan and Madison were completely different eras and I think that’s an apples to oranges comparison.
Curtis, I know you’re something like 13, but by just about any scorecard Bush at best did poorly, and at worst was abysmal. this thread is full of bad examples, but can you share a few examples of where Bush did what is fairly universally acknowledged as a good job? For example, Nixon for all his sins is credited with savvy foreign policy, opening to China, etc.
As another doper pointed out, when we invaded Iraq the oil ministry was one of the places that was secured at the earliest. Places with suspected WMDs were not secured or did not had a priority to be secured (Of course, it was found later that there were no active stockpiles). Leading many to suspect that in reality even the Bush administration already knew that it was not likely to find any.
The Lancet study used the same methodology that is normally used to estimate casualties. It’s not “rubbish”.
Yeah, right. How do we know they are terrorists? Why, if they weren’t terrorists we wouldn’t have killed them! Look, there’s a whole family of terrorists trying to escape! Make sure you kill that baby terrorist!
Labeling our victims “terrorists” or “communists” or whatever other bogeyman of the moment doesn’t make it true.
Garbage. They cherry picked and distorted intelligence in order to justify their attack, made a point of attacking before the UN could prove them wrong, and are known to have intended to attack no matter what. If they really believed there were WMDs, the military wouldn’t have driven past and ignored the Iraqi Army’s armories so they could secure the Oil Ministry right off.
Our attack on Iraq was never intended to be anything other than the national equivalent of a mugging or rape. It was an act of pure aggression, with not a trace of self defense to it. Pure evil.
How many is a lot?
Do you draw any distinction between terrorists and folks who just plum don’t like foreign invaders?
How much killings were done by the terrorists? How do you distinguish between terrorists and regular people who are just pissed that their country’s been ripped apart, and some new social group’s been promoted to dominance by foreigners?
And, in the blink of an eye, you have lost all credibility with me. Anyone who can go through those kinds of mental contortions necessary to somehow defend the death of tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of deaths of people in Iraq, is unworthy of any attention. Thank you for making it easy on me.
How many terrorists would have to be living in your city before you’d consider it OK for me to kill you and your family in the name of stopping terrorism?
Bush is no better or worse than any president over the last few decades, including our most recent.
They’re all bought and paid for by the party, which are bought and paid for by stockholders, investors, corporations, foreign interests, lobbying groups, etc, etc, etc who give two stinky shits about what’s best for the general population. They’re all in it for money and power.
There are exceptions, so to say all is dishonest. That’s the overwhelming majority though.
The hatred of Bush is manufactured through media to keep people divided, finding their identity through elephants and asses (who are all screwing the masses…hehe I’m a poet).
I’ve over being mad at Bush or Obama. Getting mad at them is like getting mad at a marrionette for the way it’s dancing.
Well, there are a hundred thousand or so dead Iraqi civilians (as of 2/13/10), and then there’s the torture thing. Yes, it’s getting old – Bush thread => my hangup about the USA torturing people, but I just can’t seem to let go of it.
I could list many more things, but the least number of words to describe it is that we endured a surreal eight years of absolute doublespeak. From the fraudulent “no child left behind” to “the economy is in great shape,” I had to constantly wonder what lies were being perpetrated on us, our children, other countries, and the human race. Just get a transcript of everything he said between January 20, 2001 and January 20, 2009, and assume that a good 90% of it is the exact opposite of the truth. If he said the sky was blue, I’d really have to go out and check for myself, and even if it seemed blue, I’d have to suspect shenanigans.