| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bhamnt
Upperclassman
15 Posts |
 Posted - 04/21/2004 : 22:40:04
|
Interesting facts. Thought you might be interested.
Worst president in history?
(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective:)
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.
Let's clear up one point:
President Bush didn't start the war on terror.
Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let's look at the worst president and mismanagement claims.
FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11. |
|
|
y82benji
'04 Poster of the Year!
USA
601 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2004 : 22:31:08
|
Having taken several history courses, I feel inclined to clarify some points for anyone who might mistaken take all of this information as truth.
No one (intelligent) thinks Bush started the war on terror. They attacked us first. However, imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is ultimately to blame for many of the forces set in motion today. The criticism of Bush according to people who are educated enough on the matter to produced a sound opinion cites that the problem is two-fold. One, Bush has distinctly alienated several countries and foreign officials through his general foreign policy actions, not just on Iraq, as confirmed by repeated statements by these officials (who are not all French). Two, the administration had no distinct and viable plan for Iraq after the war. Whether or not these are true, those are the specific criticisms which have received strong support and which have not been answered.
The United States is most commonly blamed for entering WWII too late. WWII began because after WWI Germany's reparations left it so destitute that the country bought into the promises of economic salvation offered by Adolf Hitler. Hitler then used specific military ties to form a strong oligarchy. Italy, by virtue of its susceptibility to an attack from Germany and its political aspirations on its northern borders, and Japan, with it's aspirations for property on the main continent and through the Pacific were quick to join the rising power of Hitler. Japan attacked the United States because we refused to support their oil and other needs to fuel their aggression towards their neighbors and because we presented a challenge to their Pacific dominance. It was only well after Europe and Asia were under seige by dictators of a few nations that the US entered the war.
Korea and Vietnam started as efforts to inhibit the spread of communism. This was seen as politically necessary by both Republicans and Democrats to show the USSR that the United States would stand strong against the spread of communism. Opposition to the Vietnam war was first strong among "hippie liberals," not Republicans, and when it became a national movement in the late 60s, Richard Nixon rode that movement into the White House. Nixon, a Republican, made surface efforts to make it appear as if we were leaving Vietnam even though the last troops did not leave until 1975, a year after his impeachment.
In the 1990s, US troops entered Bosnia as a peace-keeping force. This was considered a war-like action, however, because those troops were repeatedly attacked and were forced to defend not only themselves but also civilians that were being subjected to acts of genocide. These exercises did not begin with the explicit recommendation of the UN or the French but they were also not overtly and publicly opposed by either entity. As for the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden, George Bush, during the first Gulf War, passed on several opportunities to assassinate Saddam Hussein. It should be considered that both the choice by Bush and the choice by Clinton in these instances were the results of distinct political motivations to the contrary, including avoiding the provocation of more attacks or avoiding the production of a dangerous political vacuum.
As for figures of lives lost, ask the military. They'll tell you that medical advances, disease prevention (disease was a significant factor in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam), and advances in US warfare technology and strategy are largely responsible for the improvement of US military casualty rates. |
Edited by - y82benji on 05/27/2004 22:34:34 |
 |
|
|
goregantua
Underclassman
3 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 17:08:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by y82benji
Having taken several history courses, I feel inclined to clarify some points for anyone who might mistaken take all of this information as truth.
No one (intelligent) thinks Bush started the war on terror. They attacked us first. However, imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is ultimately to blame for many of the forces set in motion today. The criticism of Bush according to people who are educated enough on the matter to produced a sound opinion cites that the problem is two-fold. One, Bush has distinctly alienated several countries and foreign officials through his general foreign policy actions, not just on Iraq, as confirmed by repeated statements by these officials (who are not all French). Two, the administration had no distinct and viable plan for Iraq after the war. Whether or not these are true, those are the specific criticisms which have received strong support and which have not been answered.
The United States is most commonly blamed for entering WWII too late. WWII began because after WWI Germany's reparations left it so destitute that the country bought into the promises of economic salvation offered by Adolf Hitler. Hitler then used specific military ties to form a strong oligarchy. Italy, by virtue of its susceptibility to an attack from Germany and its political aspirations on its northern borders, and Japan, with it's aspirations for property on the main continent and through the Pacific were quick to join the rising power of Hitler. Japan attacked the United States because we refused to support their oil and other needs to fuel their aggression towards their neighbors and because we presented a challenge to their Pacific dominance. It was only well after Europe and Asia were under seige by dictators of a few nations that the US entered the war.
Korea and Vietnam started as efforts to inhibit the spread of communism. This was seen as politically necessary by both Republicans and Democrats to show the USSR that the United States would stand strong against the spread of communism. Opposition to the Vietnam war was first strong among "hippie liberals," not Republicans, and when it became a national movement in the late 60s, Richard Nixon rode that movement into the White House. Nixon, a Republican, made surface efforts to make it appear as if we were leaving Vietnam even though the last troops did not leave until 1975, a year after his impeachment.
In the 1990s, US troops entered Bosnia as a peace-keeping force. This was considered a war-like action, however, because those troops were repeatedly attacked and were forced to defend not only themselves but also civilians that were being subjected to acts of genocide. These exercises did not begin with the explicit recommendation of the UN or the French but they were also not overtly and publicly opposed by either entity. As for the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden, George Bush, during the first Gulf War, passed on several opportunities to assassinate Saddam Hussein. It should be considered that both the choice by Bush and the choice by Clinton in these instances were the results of distinct political motivations to the contrary, including avoiding the provocation of more attacks or avoiding the production of a dangerous political vacuum.
As for figures of lives lost, ask the military. They'll tell you that medical advances, disease prevention (disease was a significant factor in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam), and advances in US warfare technology and strategy are largely responsible for the improvement of US military casualty rates.
|
|
|
|
goregantua
Underclassman
3 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 17:15:54
|
They attacked us first? Who is they; Iraq? Osama Bin Laden was proven to be the provocer of the 9/11 attacks, and you say you took history classes on this. Wow what a screwed up backwards history class that would be. Why do so many americans link 9/11 with osama bin laden when he wasn't an Iraqi, but an Afganistan terrorist. I'll tell you why, because of the media, peoples stupidity and racism, and the U.S. governments agenda.
you are an absolute idiot. Did you not watch the news when they said who was responsible? Why does the average american seem to have a third grade level of intelligence?
I feel sorry for you! |
|
|
|
goregantua
Underclassman
3 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 17:20:50
|
| I want to fix one writing problem with my last post. I meant to say "why do so many americans link Saddam with 9/11" not osama because osama was responsible. Since I'm still typing I want to say that bush is definitley the worst most deceitful "president" we've ever had. He lies and lies and lies and lies and people still love him. America is doomed! The republicrats are ruining our worlds future and we the people need to stop them. |
|
|
|
steveb_za
Underclassman
Zambia
1 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2005 : 05:06:05
|
| Please understand that President Bush does not decide every action by the American Government in isolation. He has advisors on almost every issue. The problem of his having attacked Iraq had everything to do with 9/11 but for the wrong reasons. If you followed the sequence of events immediately following 9/11, you will have noticed that he lost a lot of support from Americans who felt he could have prevented that horrible attack. So he needed a scapegoat and Iraq came along just in time. Forget that evidence is now emerging that Iraq was never a threat, he was not looking for a threat otherwise he would have directed the attack to Korea. All he needed was a weak country to use for Public Relations purposes. And much as I hate to admit it, that war helped to galvanise the USA and prevent the uncontrollable outpouring of anti-government emotions that could have threatened not just the USA but the entire world. So is George Bush the worst American President ever? Think again |
|
|
|
Posc
'05 Poster of the Year!
191 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2005 : 11:00:29
|
Are you saying that if the US hadn't attacked Iraq it would have fallen into civil war and anarchy?
What are you smoking?
Trying to think of a catchy phrase. |
|
|
|
aasha7681
Underclassman
3 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 18:53:12
|
yes, bush is the WORST president ever. He has led us into war. Moments after the 9/11 attack, the gov. claimed that Saddam/ Usamah attacked. How did they know in just two minutes. Saddam was just a scapegoat. Don't get me wrong. I don'tlike Saddam or Bin Laden. I am against terrorrism. bush has led so many people to their death. These brave men gave up their lives for their country but bush didn't give them the full info. Bush was simply trying to get his hands on Irag's oil. U.S. has nuclear weopons and there was no trace of one in Iraq. Bush is misleading us and we are following blindly. We must stand up against terrorrism. But Iraq and our country's soldiers are not terrorist. Most innocent civilians and citizens are being killed.
We are doing nothing yet,. I urge u 2 stand up 4 what's right.
Muslims are not terrorrists. Infact, the Koran clearly forbids voilence, immorality, cruelty, suicide, etc. The media,ofcourse, is misguiding u. The people's actions can't be counted as te Religion's teachings. Are there not robbers and thieves in Christianity? Yet, we do not hold that against the religion. b open-minded enough to research. |
|
|
|
aasha7681
Underclassman
3 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 19:00:05
|
| President George'Butcher' Bush is decietful, arrogant, voilent, war-loving, killer, murderer, ruiner of lives! |
|
|
|
Mini247
Underclassman
1 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2005 : 10:22:46
|
bush- if he is such a "great" president then why did he cicle the distruction of Katrina and wait so long to go and actually talk to people. Couldn't he have landed the @#@! plane and give the people all the water and peanuts that where most definately in that first class airplane!!!!!!!!!!! If you think that he is doing this country any justice explain the selfish acts he makes? The man has the worst English i've ever heard. i couldn't stand Clintons annoying voice but i definately can not stand a studdering non- educated present that can not mess up one speech! |
|
|
|
Posc
'05 Poster of the Year!
191 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 16:04:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by aasha7681
President George'Butcher' Bush is decietful, arrogant, voilent, war-loving, killer, murderer, ruiner of lives!
Why do I get the distinct impression you don't really hold America near and dear to your heart? If you are living in this great country and I fear you are, I want you to know you don't need to stay since we have a killing murdering ruiner of lives running the show.
BTW, who from 6/7 century history was a violent war-loving killer, rapist and pedaphile? Hmm, who could that be? Hint: not the founder of my great faith.
Trying to think of a catchy phrase. |
|
|
|
cute_pug
Underclassman
1 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 19:08:49
|
benji,
beautifully stated. my hat is off to you!
quote:
Originally posted by y82benji
Having taken several history courses, I feel inclined to clarify some points for anyone who might mistaken take all of this information as truth.
No one (intelligent) thinks Bush started the war on terror. They attacked us first. However, imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is ultimately to blame for many of the forces set in motion today. The criticism of Bush according to people who are educated enough on the matter to produced a sound opinion cites that the problem is two-fold. One, Bush has distinctly alienated several countries and foreign officials through his general foreign policy actions, not just on Iraq, as confirmed by repeated statements by these officials (who are not all French). Two, the administration had no distinct and viable plan for Iraq after the war. Whether or not these are true, those are the specific criticisms which have received strong support and which have not been answered.
The United States is most commonly blamed for entering WWII too late. WWII began because after WWI Germany's reparations left it so destitute that the country bought into the promises of economic salvation offered by Adolf Hitler. Hitler then used specific military ties to form a strong oligarchy. Italy, by virtue of its susceptibility to an attack from Germany and its political aspirations on its northern borders, and Japan, with it's aspirations for property on the main continent and through the Pacific were quick to join the rising power of Hitler. Japan attacked the United States because we refused to support their oil and other needs to fuel their aggression towards their neighbors and because we presented a challenge to their Pacific dominance. It was only well after Europe and Asia were under seige by dictators of a few nations that the US entered the war.
Korea and Vietnam started as efforts to inhibit the spread of communism. This was seen as politically necessary by both Republicans and Democrats to show the USSR that the United States would stand strong against the spread of communism. Opposition to the Vietnam war was first strong among "hippie liberals," not Republicans, and when it became a national movement in the late 60s, Richard Nixon rode that movement into the White House. Nixon, a Republican, made surface efforts to make it appear as if we were leaving Vietnam even though the last troops did not leave until 1975, a year after his impeachment.
In the 1990s, US troops entered Bosnia as a peace-keeping force. This was considered a war-like action, however, because those troops were repeatedly attacked and were forced to defend not only themselves but also civilians that were being subjected to acts of genocide. These exercises did not begin with the explicit recommendation of the UN or the French but they were also not overtly and publicly opposed by either entity. As for the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden, George Bush, during the first Gulf War, passed on several opportunities to assassinate Saddam Hussein. It should be considered that both the choice by Bush and the choice by Clinton in these instances were the results of distinct political motivations to the contrary, including avoiding the provocation of more attacks or avoiding the production of a dangerous political vacuum.
As for figures of lives lost, ask the military. They'll tell you that medical advances, disease prevention (disease was a significant factor in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam), and advances in US warfare technology and strategy are largely responsible for the improvement of US military casualty rates.
|
|
|
|
gfm975
Underclassman
1 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 15:55:51
|
| GWB, a divider not a uniter, Katrina proved he's no leader and his illegal war and his administration's ineptness will be his legacy! Indeed, he's the worst ever President. http://www.gwbworstever.com |
|
|
|
Iconoclast
Underclassman
2 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 04:11:09
|
Usama bin Laden killed about 3000 innocent Americans for no good reason, and so did George W. Bush. It's a wash, isn't it, Bunky?
Get the hook and get Bush and his ganf off the stage before they do this nation some real damage.
Oops -- too late for that. Just get them off the stage. |
|
|
|
ohhfantastikk
Underclassman
1 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 23:42:38
|
two things to say.
one: 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with the war on terrorism, except one word and that's 'terrorism'. the people involved in 9/11 weren't iraqis and i'm tired of people thinking that.
two: no one thinks george w. bush STARTED the war on terrorism, considering it's been going on for ages. he just decided to give his little fandango in Iraq the name 'War on Terrorism' and that he is fully to blame for.
three: george w. bush isn't all of those fancy adjectives in reality, aasha7681. he's a c-average man with a score of zero when it comes to the number of qualities he has as a president. and i don't want to hear any bull 'i get c's and i'm still a good person!' crap from anyone, because while a lot of people out there get C-averages, they don't need to be running our country.
like the saying goes: 'when clinton lied, no one died.' i'd rather have my president commit adultery rather than be an idiot. |
|
|
|
MikeinOK
Underclassman
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 17:38:59
|
I think Bush was put in a difficult spot. In all fairness, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter didn't have an event as drastic as 9/11 occur during their presidency. Seriously, Lincoln may have been the only pres to have something as serious occur during his tenure.
But, Bush hasn't exactly been stellar at handling it and he still doesn't seem capable of finding a way out after all these years. He's clearly done a crappy job of handling his media image and that has caused a great loss of confidence. It's hard to be a good pres if your followers don't believe in you.
He may not be the worst ever, but I think when historians look back in 100 years, he'll be in the top 5 or 10 worst. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Bush worst pres ever?
