sandy2

Could Bush be the greartest president in recent history?

▼

Could Bush be the greartest president in recent history?

Well.. not yet.. but he may be on the right track.

from JoeUser Forums

That's right. George Bush has the ability to become one of the better presidents in the history of the United States of America. He has a historic opportunity right now with the situation in the middle east, and if he deals with it properly, the many bad things about him will be outweighed by this great feat. Now, I am not saying I expect him to be able to handle the situation correctly, actually I think he will fail miserably at it because I feel he is inept regarding the middle east. There is something else he can do, however, to make up for his mistakes in the past. Reforming taxes, in the proper way, as in closing all loopholes except the charitable deduction one and standard business purchase ones, would be one of the greatest things done by a president in recent history. Also, he is on the right track with admitting that social security needs to be reformed. If he does this successfully, while not costing taxpayers or the country anymore money, then this will be yet another great thing in the history of the country. So though I often criticize Bush, and with reason, I admit that some of the ideas he claims to have are good. Now, the way I think we should deal with social security.. well I'll leave that for another day.

Site Meter

politics
25,435 views 71 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened.

I dont see Pearl harbor in that?  Sorry, is it written in invisible ink?

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Dr Guy is upset with you stealing his "Karnac" gig here at JU...
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #25 By: whoman69 - 12/20/2004 8:57:47 AM
Please show me where I said Pearl Harbor never happened. It slipped my mind that I would ever say that.
Also, show me where I said Japan never threatened us. I missed that statement as well.


WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened


We really were not threatened. We were outright attacked. BIG difference.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

We really were not threatened. We were outright attacked. BIG difference

The same arguement could be made against Iraq since they had been firing at us for over 12 years.  Yet in both cases, no state of the United States was attacked, just bases over seas (Hawaii was not a state at the time, and Guam, Wake Island are still only territories).  It has been argued that we were imperialists anyway and should not have had foreign bases, nor foreign territories.

However, I will clarify my statement that the Mainland US was never threatened, nor was there plans by any Axis powers to invade us.

Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
I dont see Pearl harbor in that? Sorry, is it written in invisible ink?


How did America get in WWII, Pearl Harbor, but you said that America was not threatened which would mean that the attack on Pearl Harbor in your opinion was not a threat.
WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened.


Your words once again.
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
However, I will clarify my statement that the Mainland US was never threatened, nor was there plans by any Axis powers to invade us.


Wrong again, the Japanese attacked the Aleutians and Midway with the threat that the west coast of America could be bombed from that location.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is your Karnac again,as you simply dont know, but must presume to know. Like I said, read the reports from 1946, and then tell me this in another 30 years. WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened. We could have let Europe go to the Nazis, and ceded the western pacific to the japanese. Why should we risk our lives for such insiginificant things?


I know there are soldiers with insufficient equipment to fight an enemy that didn't attack us. Tell me where I've presumed.

Neither you nor I will judge Bush, but the future will., I care not of your opinionated assessment. It matters not since it has no basis in facts, just your opinion.


Technically, I qualify as the future, so judge I shall.

But since you dont know, you must love being wrong. I dont say I know. So I cant be said to be wrong.


This is an irrelevant point. Take a position, defend the position, fight for the position. Don't try to shield yourself from counter arguments by saying you don't know. That's just weak.

However, I will clarify my statement that the Mainland US was never threatened, nor was there plans by any Axis powers to invade us.


Yeah, Hitler wouldn't have considered coming for us next. Cuz he was sane like that.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wrong again, the Japanese attacked the Aleutians and Midway with the threat that the west coast of America could be bombed from that location.

Midway is not mainland USA, nor are the aleutions.  And neither are close enough to the US for bombing.  Both were attacked with hopes of setting up air bases to restrict shipping (SE assia in one case, and Russia in the other).

And if we had said we would not strike back, Japan would have never had anyreason to attack them.  You better learn some geography.

I bet you did not know that Japan also Bombed Oregon, but that was whewn they were losing the war.  There were no plans to invade or attack Mainland USA.  But that is besides the point anyway.

Those who rush to claim that Iraq never threatened us have short memories, or are saying they never threatened the Continental US.  ALl I am pointing out is neither did the Japanese. By their definition.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Midway is not mainland USA, nor are the aleutions. And neither are close enough to the US for bombing. Both were attacked with hopes of setting up air bases to restrict shipping (SE assia in one case, and Russia in the other).And if we had said we would not strike back, Japan would have never had anyreason to attack them. You better learn some geography.I bet you did not know that Japan also Bombed Oregon, but that was whewn they were losing the war. There were no plans to invade or attack Mainland USA. But that is besides the point anyway.Those who rush to claim that Iraq never threatened us have short memories, or are saying they never threatened the Continental US. ALl I am pointing out is neither did the Japanese. By their definition.


But you don't know any of this right? Cuz then we could say you're wrong.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

But you don't know any of this right? Cuz then we could say you're wrong.

You can say I am wrong, but that would just make you wrong.  Read up on the history of the Second World War.  You will see what I am saying from the captured documents of the Japanese after the war.

But then they must have been lying, right?

Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
I bet you did not know that Japan also Bombed Oregon, but that was whewn they were losing the war. There were no plans to invade or attack Mainland USA. But that is besides the point anyway.


Oregon was attacked by bombs attached to balloons launched from Japan. They were very inefficienct causing only a few small forest fires and only one fatality.

Taking over Midway would have allowed the Japanese to control the entire Pacific with the bases they already had.
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top
The main thing is you are trying to claim there was no threat to the US during WWII all in some twisted manner to claim that it was much the same as the war in Iraq. Iraq did not attack any part of the US or their holdings, ever. With the condition of their military in 2003 they couldn't have posed a threat to ANY other nation. Bush bought into a bluff. This comparison to a global conflict like WWII is ridiculous. Every reason given for entering Iraq has been debunked.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can say I am wrong, but that would just make you wrong.


I'm just trying to clear up whatever you were trying to say before about not knowing anything of what you said so not being wrong or whatever.

And you don't know their intentions any more than I know Bush's.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Oregon was attacked by bombs attached to balloons launched from Japan. They were very inefficienct causing only a few small forest fires and only one fatality.

Wrong again.  They were bombs dropped from a sea plane launched from a Submarine.  Even today, no one could remote control a balloon over 6000 miles with any degree of accuracy.

Taking over Midway would have allowed the Japanese to control the entire Pacific with the bases they already had.

Wrong again.  It would have allowed for land based aircraft to control the access to Pearl Harbor, not the end entire pacific.  NOt even close, but it would have made commerce with SE Asia a lot harder since all sea lanes between the US and that part are within range of Midway.

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

The main thing is you are trying to claim there was no threat to the US during WWII all in some twisted manner to claim that it was much the same as the war in Iraq.

No, I am not claiming any such thing.  I am trying to show the stupidy and absurdity of claiming that Roosevelt was a great president by virtue of a just war.  That was not the reason he was a great president.  He was presented with an opportunity and he did not shirk it the way others have.  Whether Bush is also judged will remain for our children's children to decide, not US.  You dont like the decidions he made, but your grand children may see it in a different light.  You claim he is losing the peace, the same claims taht were made by the journalist in late 45 and 46 about the US.

 

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

And you don't know their intentions any more than I know Bush's.

You are right.,  ALl the official documents were probably just lies made up to make us beleive if we had not fought back against Japan, we would have been left alone.  So that after we beat them into submission, then we could say "oh, sorry, we will give it all back to you".

 

You really need to think about what you are saying, because if that is what you are saying, it is stupid.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
He was presented with an opportunity and he did not shirk it the way others have.


And Bush didn't have an opportunity, so he made one.

Wait, scratch that. He had an opportunity, didn't like it, and made up one that he did.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are right., ALl the official documents were probably just lies made up to make us beleive if we had not fought back against Japan, we would have been left alone. So that after we beat them into submission, then we could say "oh, sorry, we will give it all back to you".


I'm saying that if one our troops ask our administration why they don't have enough equipment, I take their word for it over the president's. I am saying that is how I know he flung us into conflict unprepared. I'm saying that your official documents are not any more impressive than the words of current soldiers.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #39 By: Philomedy - 12/20/2004 4:20:25 PM
You can say I am wrong, but that would just make you wrong.


I'm just trying to clear up whatever you were trying to say before about not knowing anything of what you said so not being wrong or whatever.

And you don't know their intentions any more than I know Bush's.


That's where you would be wrong again.


Reply #36 By: Dr. Guy - 12/20/2004 3:09:58 PM
But you don't know any of this right? Cuz then we could say you're wrong.

You can say I am wrong, but that would just make you wrong. Read up on the history of the Second World War. You will see what I am saying from the captured documents of the Japanese after the war.
But then they must have been lying, right?


Through these documents we know *exactly* what they were thinking.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm saying that if one our troops ask our administration why they don't have enough equipment, I take their word for it over the president's. I am saying that is how I know he flung us into conflict unprepared. I'm saying that your official documents are not any more impressive than the words of current soldiers.

We are not talking about the same thing, and as far as that question goes, you better read up on the background and facts on it.

I still do not see why you think the japanese high command would plant false information AFTER they lost.  You really have to be a kook theorist to even imagine such rot.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

Through these documents we know *exactly* what they were thinking.

Remember Watergate?  Documents like that are usually not lies as they have to keep their own stories straight.  But you can claim any document is a lie.  However that gets you no where.

If you dont want to believe them, fine.  But historians are basing their histories on them.  So History says it is so. Does that make it so?  No more so than any documents you can produce showing we were even Bombed by the Japanese.  I guess that was made up as well.

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I've been saying all along, history is not going to treat Bush kindly. He is a failure at everything he's undertaken since becoming president. Unless, of course, you consider weakening environmental regulations, tanking the economy, tax cuts to the wealthy, waging an unnecessary and costly war that we cannot extricate ourselves from, implementing the Unpatriot Act, disregarding international law and treaties, etc. to be successes. In other words, with successes like these, we don't need failures.

If you're saying that now that he has a second term to make things right, which would make him a great president, that's nuts. Kind of reminds me of the firefighter who sets fires, only to be the first on the scene to put them out, so he can be viewed as the hero. I don't think so.

Again, the historians will write about these things, and it's not going to be pretty.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you're saying that now that he has a second term to make things right, which would make him a great president, that's nuts.


And, one other thought. Even if he can make some things "right", he'll never be able to bring back the 1300+ dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, nor will he be able to fix the grotesqely damaged bodies of those who survived their injuries. He will always be remembered for leading America into an unnecessary war for his own selfish gains. There is no going back for him. He's done. We can only hope the damage he causes in the next four years isn't going to be too great. But, I'm not very hopeful.

IMPEACH BUSH
and CHENEY, TOO
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

As I've been saying all along, history is not going to treat Bush kindly. He is a failure at everything he's undertaken since becoming president. Unless, of course, you consider weakening environmental regulations, tanking the economy, tax cuts to the wealthy, waging an unnecessary and costly war that we cannot extricate ourselves from, implementing the Unpatriot Act, disregarding international law and treaties, etc. to be successes. In other words, with successes like these, we don't need failures.


Your opinion is exactly why I said that presidents are not judged by current generations, but future ones.  The simple fact is that is just your opinion, and not based on real facts.  Once we are all dust, our future generations will judge him.


There were a lot of people back 60+ years ago that thought Roosevelt was a dismal failure, I am sure you would have been among them.  They are gone and now he is judged a good to great one.  You should have read the entire thread, but then I doubt it would have made any difference to you.