US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3766

On May 08 2016 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:

I don't think he was thinking about saving poor people and creating beautiful democratic nations when he was painting those countries as evil no.

On May 08 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:

That's really not what I asked, though.

Those regimes got the name because they officially sponsored terrorism, including subsidizing suicide bombers, pursued WMD programs, treated their own people unspeakably, and so on. But the Axis of Evil wasn't coined as a checklist of countries to invade. It just happens that if you tear down a regime, nation building, pejorative or not, is the next step. It's interesting that you frame it as Bush "painting" them as evil without addressing the question of whether it's true, so I assume you think it's an unfair portrayal. Would you think the term "Axis of Saddam was a bad guy, but..." would have been more appropriate?

On May 08 2016 04:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Gorsamath believes that Bush is evil, that Bush and everything he ever did is wrong, and does not believe needing a reason for believing that is necessary. He believes its impossible for Bush to have simply failed at doing something good and was outright trying to harm those nations and its people.

Like many left leaning folks, he prefers to see his enemies as dragons to be slain than people to be negotiated with.

On May 08 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:

Project much?

I think Bush certainly did plenty of evil things, Lying his country into a war that cost thousands of lives and destabilized an entire region of the world for god knows how long for one.
Do I think he is Hitler? No, i'm sure he meant perfectly well but then everyone always seems to mean well. At best he was utterly unfit for his job as President of the United States.

Nor do I actually believe he went to war with Iraq for the people, to many lies and finishing daddies work for that.

On May 08 2016 04:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Bush is one of the worst president in the history of the US.
You're all focusing on discurse and not on actions which is kinda funny to me ; WMDs ? I thought it was already more or less accepted that the idea of WMD was a lie in Iraq, and that the war was settled on false ground ? What about the effect of the war ? The costs ?

On May 08 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:

Project much?

I think Bush certainly did plenty of evil things, Lying his country into a war that cost thousands of lives and destabilized an entire region of the world for god knows how long for one.
Do I think he is Hitler? No, i'm sure he meant perfectly well but then everyone always seems to mean well. At best he was utterly unfit for his job as President of the United States.

Nor do I actually believe he went to war with Iraq for the people, to many lies and finishing daddies work for that.

On May 08 2016 03:44 oBlade wrote:
Were we supposed to infer you think the Bush administration in some way was trying to fight "Muslims" or the populations of certain countries?

On May 08 2016 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:


Not sure what your point is but I was simply saying that the underlying logic of Bush's nation building and democracy spreading is a universal belief in the idea that people everywhere are, at least in principle, open to democracy and liberty and that we just need to get rid of the terrible regimes running them.

Trump's "fuck them they're rotten anyway" logic is much more cynical and fatalistic and much more divisive. It's the same attitude that people in Europe have towards the Middle-East and it is one that has divided the domestic populations to a much higher degree Muslims included. The US pretty much has no problem with its Muslim population. You can judge Bush harshly from an internationalist standpoint but he hasn't damaged the social fabric in the US.

On May 08 2016 05:00 oBlade wrote:

That's because that question was for Gorsameth, not you. He seems to think Bush was more like the description of Trump you just gave and cited the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric as an excuse to wage war against populations.

On May 08 2016 04:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:


If there was proof it was an outright lie then Bush and his team would be imprisoned for both war crimes and false testimony. You are mistaking assumed with proven.

The side effects of a war is also not something that is known prior to engagement. The short term results of the invasion of Iraq was very successful--and in the context of "we should go there to stop WMD's was very much exactly what was to be expected. That we stayed to prevent a power vacuum is a separate discussion--there's a reason ISIS waited for the US to leave for example.

The cost of the war itself was very low until it shifted to occupation (the bill for something is much smaller when looked at from a 2 week scale versus the 10 year scale we eventually put into occupation).

Bush is definitely one of the worst presidents, for sure. But everything should be taken in context.

On May 08 2016 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:


If you honestly believe that Bush meant well and its just unfortunate that things shook out the way it did--then you wouldn't blame Bush for the quagmire we were in. You'd simply take it a teaching moment to understand what can happen when those decisions are made. To be angry at Bush is to assume that he (A) wanted the quagmire to happen, and (B) made sure it happened.

Sometimes decisions don't pan out--don't hate the man for having a tough call and making it.

Also, Bush Senior literally went there to help the people of Kuwait. He showed up, kicked ass, then left. If junior was following his father's work then he would not have occupied, if his father had wanted to occupy senior already had enough support to do that in the first Desert storm. Sadly for junior, Operation Freedom is 100% his baby and has nothing to do with his father.

On May 08 2016 05:07 Rebs wrote:


Honestly looking at it, that isnt the implication at all. Its a lazy comment sure but you are extrapolating way more than you can guage accurately from that one line. Thats some pretty high level projection tbh

On May 08 2016 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:

Stalin I am sure meant well, should we consider the deaths in Russia under his rule "unfortunate that things shook out this way"?
Everyone means well, outside of actual psychopaths, that does not mean we should shrug at the consequences of their actions.

On May 08 2016 05:11 Simberto wrote:


Bush's administration was either lying or utterly incompetent.

The "stopping of WMDs" worked exactly as well with an invasion as without one, as despite all the desperate searches for those that they did afterwards they failed to find any. Which feeds back to the "lying or utterly incompetent" argument, because they provided that "proof" of Saddams nuclear problem with such confidence before the war, which turned out afterwards to be a) false and b) very, very shaky proof to begin with, and despite the massive consequences of the decision to go to war no one seemed to be interested to verify that claim beforehand.

And you can't just go into a country, remove the current government, and then go away afterwards without disastrous results. I think the very naive assumption was that the iraqis would immediately be happy to be freed of the evil dictator and establish an instantly working western democracy. So once again, lying or utterly incompetent.

I find it hard to believe that the whole administration can have such an incredible level of collective incompetence. Occam's razor leads to "lying". Of course it can't be proven, which is why they are not going to go to prison for their crimes. Also it is very hard to imprison powerful people, which they still are.

None of this matters though. When you analyze the quality of a president, you don't look at their intentions, but at their results. And results-wise, it is hard to imagine a way how Bush could have fucked stuff up harder than he did. He could have just sat in the oval office twiddling his thumbs for eight years and the result would have been better. (At least) Tens of thousands dead in a useless war. Massive monetary costs for that war which resulted in absolutely no gain for the US. Large amounts of international goodwill and trust lost for the US, which will take decades to rebuild. Torture camps abroad. Fear instilled into the population due to the constant paranoid narrative of this imaginary "war on terror". Deep cuts into the freedom of americans and others with stuff like the Patriot act. On the other side, is there even a single positive thing that the Bush administration achieved?

No matter what intentions Bush had, the results speak for themselves.

On May 08 2016 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:


You do know that, if the USSR was not such a big superpower, there is a damn good chance that the US would have invaded it to stop Stalin as well. It was called The Cold War for a reason--and none of that was because of peace. And yes, I do believe Stalin meant well. I also believe he was coward who saw enemies in every corner and in his attempt to protect himself burned the world around him to do it. But yes, I do think that the core of his intentions were also well meaning.

On May 08 2016 05:30 Simberto wrote:


No one argued against that, in fact that is exactly what Gorsameth wrote. Everyone means well. Barely anyone sees himself as the villain. Some rare psychopaths might really only care for their own interests, but besides that, most people want to have a positive influence on the world. Some are wrong. You can still be evil and / or have very bad effects on the world, despite meaning well.