and I would have to agree that he's not the best President we've had in American history thus far...

But if this follows through...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20050207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_summit

...on top of what's happening with Democracy in Iraq... You can bet he'll be considered one of the most influential, risk taking Presidents there ever was regarding foreign policy. I can even see future dinar bills bearing his portrait

Discuss.

The question is how religious are you. ;)

Honestly if this works its GREAT news. But Iraq is hardly won over and still has a long road ahead. And I still think he is a awful president.

What does religion have to do with this topic?

If he satisfies the criteria in the middle east now or 20 years from tomorrow it'll have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

And if you're trying to make another bunk argument like I think you are... we're the ones that live with freedom of religion and don’t execute on unpopular beliefs, remember?

And even if you think Religion will solidify the deal then you're sadly mistaken. As an agnostic, I'd still have to agree with the fact.

*Before anyone attacks this please understand that this is merely hypothetical at this point.*

Assuming that everything goes as planed -and- for the sake of argument: Name one other President that's brought stability to Israel-Palestine and a Democracy influence in the Middle East?

You could even add domestic issues into the equation, such as the deficit (etc), and you'd still have to agree that he was a fair/good President. If you still don’t think this way then you’ll need to go one step further by asking yourself another important question... Name one President that's brought stability to Israel and Palestine, Democracy influence in the Middle East and established a stronger economy by the end of his term(s)?

The only reason you'd have to dislike Bush at that point is the fact you voted against him or are a Democrat:


And I still think he is a awful president.

Good luck thinking out of the box on this one!

Name one other President that's brought stability to Israel-Palestine and a Democracy influence in the Middle East?

You could even add domestic issues into the equation, such as the deficit (etc), and you'd still have to agree that he was a fair/good President. If you still don’t think this way then you’ll need to go one step further by asking yourself another important question... Name one President that's brought stability to Israel and Palestine, Democracy influence in the Middle East and established a stronger economy by the end of his term(s)?

The only reason you'd have to dislike Bush at that point is the fact you voted against him or are a Democrat:



Good luck thinking out of the box on this one!

I think the question to ask is "who else has tried to bring peace to the mideast? " We all know multiple presidents, republican and democrat, who have made attempts at this. And I'm not discounting Bush's efforts- they do seem to be the most effective.... so far. Please don't try to paint liberals as pessimistic (we've already been down that road), we just aren't going to give complete credit to the guy based just on our faith that things will work out as planned. I hope things do work out... but it seems that another question to ask is was bringing democratic influence to the middle of a resistant region a good idea in the first place? And will this turn out to be a positive influence, or will it ultimately end up in more conflict and a greater obligation for our own country to clean the mess up? I guess.

I feel you're giving him credit a little too early, and not taking into account the very possible downsides of our efforts. If, and that's a big one, this summit somehow brings an end to the centuries of conflict in those precious few acres of sand, I guess we lefties will have to give him credit. These are the kinds of things that aren't clear until years afterward, and I don't think Bush was just doing this for political gain, or credit- so why be so quick to praise him? I'll cheer him on, but I'm not gonna start waving the victory banner.

Remember, I'm not discouraging his efforts, and I also believe things are headed in the right direction, and I hope fopr the best. I'm just recalling the countless other efforts made by previous presidents which all apparently failed. I don't see why this one would be much different.

Did I also succeed at making a 'bunk argument'? Cause thats what I was shootin for. :D

The only reason you'd have to dislike Bush at that point is the fact you voted against him or are a Democrat:

Oh, and I also happen to know plenty of republicans who hate bush, but voted for him anyway as the 'least unattractive' candidate.I don't see why you have to make this flase generalization, it doesn't even really support your point. :p

What does religion have to do with this topic?

If he satisfies the criteria in the middle east now or 20 years from tomorrow it'll have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

And if you're trying to make another bunk argument like I think you are... we're the ones that live with freedom of religion and don’t execute on unpopular beliefs, remember?


See the wink? Yeah I was being sarcastic, maybe next time I'll actually type *sarcasm* by my wink. So your assumptions where WAY off. :rolleyes:

And even if you think Religion will solidify the deal then you're sadly mistaken. As an agnostic, I'd still have to agree with the fact.

*Before anyone attacks this please understand that this is merely hypothetical at this point.*

Assuming that everything goes as planed -and- for the sake of argument: Name one other President that's brought stability to Israel-Palestine and a Democracy influence in the Middle East?

You could even add domestic issues into the equation, such as the deficit (etc), and you'd still have to agree that he was a fair/good President. If you still don’t think this way then you’ll need to go one step further by asking yourself another important question... Name one President that's brought stability to Israel and Palestine, Democracy influence in the Middle East and established a stronger economy by the end of his term(s)?

The only reason you'd have to dislike Bush at that point is the fact you voted against him or are a Democrat:

Good luck thinking out of the box on this one!

Wrong, there are many reasons why I dislike Jr. And most of them have nothing to do with being a Democrat or the fact that I voted against him. (Well I voted against him for those reasons.) He has not been a fair/good President in my eyes. And just like I thought when I met him that he wasn't a good Governor in my eyes. And just like he was not a good buisness man in my eyes. If you want I'll give you my list of reasons of why I think he is a bad President.

Also you are giving him way to much credit WAY to early. But hey I can't think out of the box because I believe he is a awful president. :rolleyes:

Also you are giving him way to much credit WAY to early.

I feel you're giving him credit a little too early

I don't get it! Do you two not understand what Hypothetical means? I know scoobsport is agreeing with me to a degree but do you both try to act stupid? Given my question, will he -or- won't he be considered a much better President than what he's viewed at today? YES or NO is all I ask...

If you focus on the hypothetical situation in this thread there's no way you can reasonably argue your position without looking somewhat like a political front-running, conformist.

Would you two like to present your groundbreaking argument to all of us? How exactly would bringing democratic influence to the middle of a "resistant region" not be good idea in the first place? Iranian Government leaders can't even get a cab if they're recognized in the streets.

How exactly is the region resistant to this fact when they practiced it with staggering numbers? Because someone killed a few of their own in downtown Baghdad with the coward-like act of suicide? Are you assuming the horizon is infinitely flat again?

Enlighten us.

EDIT: I know I sound like I'm getting loud in this reponse but I'm not... I really want to hear WHY you think this way.

Also you are giving him way to much credit WAY to early. But hey I can't think out of the box because I believe he is a awful president. :rolleyes:

Let's try to focus on the topic of the middle east. How do you feel about the potential for a democratic Palestinian state, armed by the US, side by side with Israel? Good, bad, or what? If you don't believe it'll happen, that's one thing. But I'd like to hear your view of the plan itself. (Bush has done pretty much everything else he said he would do foreign policy-wise, so I have little reason to doubt him.)

I'm assuming you were a pretty fair fan of Clinton. I'd like to sum up the foreign policy comparisons:

Clinton:
-Bosnia-genocide.
-Rwanda-genocide
-Afghanistan-falls to the Taliban, begins allowing Osama to set up terror training camps.
-Somalia-total pullout. Somalia becomes a haven for extremists in Africa.
-Israel-Palestine: goes nowhere.
-WTC attack #1: Clinton's response, put some people in jail, leave bin laden be. Later, some missiles thrown at him. No serious military move in response to the destruction of two US embassies (Keny and Tanzania).

Bush:
9-11 happens, then:
-Taliban government is toppled. Bin Laden has to run and hide. Afghanistan gets a vote, and women are allowed to buy food for their families once again.
-Corrupt regime in Pakistan under Nawaz Sharif falls (before 9/11); Bush establishes close alliance with Musharraf.
-Saddam, continuing with business as usual, thumbs his nose at the UN weapons inspectors. Bush wipes him off the map as punishment.
-Khaddafi dismantles weapons programs, apologizes for funding terror, and starts a move towards good relations with the west.
-Iraqi voters celebrate in the streets at the first democratic vote in 50 years or so.
-Pushes for a palestinian state, and offers to equip that government to deal with terrorism. Leans on Sharon to get rid of settlements and sign a truce.

End result: Bush now has two democracies-in-process with US troops surrounding Iran, a major state sponsor of terror, and he has a plan to give the majority of Palestinians what they've been asking for, a state with roughly pre-1967 borders.

I'd like to see your explanation of how these things make Bush an awful president.

Sure, there's a long way to go on his projects, but he got them started, and if they work out the "muslims versus the world" ideology may just find its way into the Bush dustbin of history.

Good points & interesting way of looking at it.

And even though Clinton went nowhere with Israel and Palestine he certainly enjoyed his numerous visits from Yasser: http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/Norway/Images/arafat.jpg

I don't get it! Do you two not understand what Hypothetical means? I know scoobsport is agreeing with me to a degree but do you both try to act stupid? Given my question, will he -or- won't he be considered a much better President than what he's viewed at today? YES or NO is all I ask...

If you focus on the hypothetical situation in this thread there's no way you can reasonably argue your position without looking somewhat like a political front-running, conformist.

Would you two like to present your groundbreaking argument to all of us? How exactly would bringing democratic influence to the middle of a "resistant region" not be good idea in the first place? How exactly is the region resistant to this fact when they practiced it with staggering numbers? Because someone killed a few of their own in downtown Baghdad with the coward-like act of suicide? Are you assuming the horizon is infinitely flat again?

Enlighten us.

EDIT: I know I sound like I'm getting loud in this reponse but I'm not... I really want to hear WHY you think this way.

Who is 'us'? You are the only one who seems to be having a hard time getting what I'm saying. I don't see why you always have to play like we're on different teams, with different agendas, fighitng for different goals. Anyway, I'm not 'going out of my way to act stupid,' that would be a waste of time, don't you see? ;) And if you notice the word in bold in my post, you will see that I DO understand hypothetical situations. My point was, and still is, is how are we going to give him credit when the 'stability' that he is so obviously on his way toward will be fragile for decades to come? Maybe down the line that far, we can look back and priase his headstrong efforts.

And the 'region I was referring to was the entire mideast- I should have been clearer. I don't know that that region is practicing democracy in 'staggering numbers.' This could turn out well, and democracy and freedom could spread, just as we hoped. But, can't you see how this may possibly backfire if many people (or just small radical groups) resist, causing civil wars and international strife? It would be quite a surprise, actually, if our efforts somehow completely stabilized the entire area and somehow reversed the trend of breeding anti-american sentiment, and evryone was able to accept us and embrace what we were trying to do for them. (that is, assuming we aren't just there for our own nterests ;))

Once again, I hope for the best, and hope our plans work out... cause there's no turning back now. I'm just trying to stay realistic, wouldn't it be Bush supporters' job to be blindly optimistic? :D

Let's try to focus on the topic of the middle east. How do you feel about the potential for a democratic Palestinian state, armed by the US, side by side with Israel? Good, bad, or what? If you don't believe it'll happen, that's one thing. But I'd like to hear your view of the plan itself. (Bush has done pretty much everything else he said he would do foreign policy-wise, so I have little reason to doubt him.)

Keeping history in mind, it's hard to be optimistic about any sort of stability in that region. As for the plan... it sounds great... on paper. I'm sure you realize that some things that you draw up don't work out when you actually put them to use. Bush and his thinktank may have a flawless plan, but it's goal can't be reached without the cooperation, over a looong period of time, of people and cultures we don't have absolute control over. There is always some unpredictability in any such operation, you just have to do your best to minimize it, and be prepared for the worst should it happen.

I'm assuming you were a pretty fair fan of Clinton. I'd like to sum up the foreign policy comparisons:

Clinton:
-Bosnia-genocide.
-Rwanda-genocide
-Afghanistan-falls to the Taliban, begins allowing Osama to set up terror training camps.
-Somalia-total pullout. Somalia becomes a haven for extremists in Africa.
-Israel-Palestine: goes nowhere.
-WTC attack #1: Clinton's response, put some people in jail, leave bin laden be. Later, some missiles thrown at him. No serious military move in response to the destruction of two US embassies (Keny and Tanzania).

Bush:
9-11 happens, then:
-Taliban government is toppled. Bin Laden has to run and hide. Afghanistan gets a vote, and women are allowed to buy food for their families once again.
-Corrupt regime in Pakistan under Nawaz Sharif falls (before 9/11); Bush establishes close alliance with Musharraf.
-Saddam, continuing with business as usual, thumbs his nose at the UN weapons inspectors. Bush wipes him off the map as punishment.
-Khaddafi dismantles weapons programs, apologizes for funding terror, and starts a move towards good relations with the west.
-Iraqi voters celebrate in the streets at the first democratic vote in 50 years or so.
-Pushes for a palestinian state, and offers to equip that government to deal with terrorism. Leans on Sharon to get rid of settlements and sign a truce.



C'mon, now... I could make just as good a comparison, but with Clinton painted as the better of the two. Of coure, I'd have to use your methods of picking, choosing, omitting, and spinning. How was Bosnia genocide and Afghanistan/Iraq glorious successes? I mean, I want to give Bush SOME credit, he's got the ball rolling. But when you praise him like you are, oblivious to the mistakes he's made, it only makes me want to try to make it clear to you that he isn't perfect. And why do you have to compare him to Clinton? Do you need to sh*t on his recorde to make Bush look good? Nobody said a democrat would have done all of this much better- I hate it when people think everything is left vs. right.


End result: Bush now has two democracies-in-process with US troops surrounding Iran, a major state sponsor of terror, and he has a plan to give the majority of Palestinians what they've been asking for, a state with roughly pre-1967 borders.

Who was questioning this fact? How does this make Bush a good president, considering what he did (sacraficed, lied) to acheive the two 'democracies in process' I agree, these are good things. But these things don't blind me of the squinty-eyed arrogance that fueled him, and made himself blind to many possible snags in his plans. But I won't get into that. Say you were a mechanic, and owned a shop. You let a buddy use it one night to dropa new engine in his, say, subaru :D. You see him the next day, and everything turned out great... but he completely desroyed your shop. Would you forgive him for thousands$$$ in damages, just because he came out with a nice, pretty result for himself? ...something to chew on.

Sure, there's a long way to go on his projects, but he got them started, and if they work out the "muslims versus the world" ideology may just find its way into the Bush dustbin of history.

...lets all hope so.

C'mon, now... I could make just as good a comparison, but with Clinton painted as the better of the two....And why do you have to compare him to Clinton? Do you need to sh*t on his recorde to make Bush look good?

Really? Well I'd like to see it. Go ahead and list Clinton's world-wide achievements. Let's see what you have over and above mine.

I agree, these are good things. But these things don't blind me of the squinty-eyed arrogance that fueled him, and made himself blind to many possible snags in his plans. But I won't get into that. Say you were a mechanic, and owned a shop. You let a buddy use it one night to dropa new engine in his, say, subaru :D. You see him the next day, and everything turned out great... but he completely desroyed your shop. Would you forgive him for thousands$$$ in damages, just because he came out with a nice, pretty result for himself? ...something to chew on.


That's not the right analogy, because if the Bush plan in the middle east works out, we are all monumentally better off than before. Terrorism and extremism, under oppressive regimes, were growing under Clinton. The Taliban took root then. If Bush's plan works out, and Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghani citizens enjoy a good quality of life and political freedom, then Bin Laden and friends will have been discredited in a large way. The more change in that direction, the better, for us (less terrorism, better relations with oil producing states) and for them.

If you think Bush is a good president you must not have watched (ALL) the debates against Kerry.. end of that discussion...

Bush might have found a "duct tape" solution or "quick fix" to the situation we have over seas.. after all the lives sacrificed.. the real war only lasted a week or two and if you didnt know that you obviously arent of military descent or werent given the right word on what really did occur oversees..

It's really easy to speak your mind when other people are fighting for you and your hiding behind a desk on a computer all day.

Obviously the war on terrorism is a war that we will obviously fight no matter what president we have... clinton.. bush.. whoever. If you think the towers were not ever going down you are thinking wrong my friend.

There is going to be another world war and I hope you are aware of that. Bush is a weak president.. and the whole election race was a joke not to mention disappointment with Bush barely winning.

And for all the troops that dont support the cause, dont try to say "well they didnt put a gun to your head and make you join" because that just means your a gay lil homo.. The truth of the matter is that not as many of soldiers, marines, sailors etc... as you think walk into the recruiters and say sign me up Im ready for war against the turbins or whatever.. Thats why they have to try to sell you in on the idea and make you buy it (why you want to join) thats why ever since the war was really over 2 weeks after it started, over a thousand lives could have been saved and were not. The numbers for men and women enlisting into the military has almost all failed to meet their mark in all but 1 branch that passed by the skin of their teeth. If you can't understand why recruiting is getting worse and dropping statistically each year overall you need to stop pretending you know everything about your president and start getting more educated in the matter at hand.

Last but not least, if you think we are now doing better then we ever have your sadly mistaken and if you are not atleast military, do not pretend you have any know-how on whats going on in the middle east and what the morale of the troops are. Not exactly everyone thats been there wants to go back. If that shocks you maybe you should get to know them real well and find out why. Even if Bush gets some peace established middle east, thats just merely 1 peice of the pie that we can chew on and wonder what happens next.. Check out the facts then you are welcome to reply to this post, until then shut your piehole about how good everything is going/getting whatever. Peace

There's a few things wrong with your post, Kewldan. I think you feel inclined to give your .02 as someone that's either in a military family -or- a Veteran yourself. Unfortunately, everything in your post is rambling as it does not focus on the argument.

First of all Bush is not a weak president and even Europe has tipped their hat to that. It's one of the main reasons why Bush got reelected and why Subaruguru's list on Bush varies so much from Clinton.

Although you may be military (not sure what MOS) it's obvious that you're not up-to-date on all the facts either. Meeting a recruiting quota and not wanting to leave on a second tour has little to do with peace negotiations in Israel-Palestine -or- Iraqis’ Democratic support via successful election.

I don't get it! Do you two not understand what Hypothetical means? I know scoobsport is agreeing with me to a degree but do you both try to act stupid? Given my question, will he -or- won't he be considered a much better President than what he's viewed at today? YES or NO is all I ask...

Your asking a question that can't really be answered with a logical responce without stating that it is yet to early to tell what will happen. Who knows but right now the way things are going No.

If you focus on the hypothetical situation in this thread there's no way you can reasonably argue your position without looking somewhat like a political front-running, conformist.

Thats a big assumption. But I sure can support my position. Of course if you limit the scoupe of possiblities on what I get to judge Jr. on then you make it more diffucult or near impossible. You also again are giving to much credit on Democracy in Iraq. They voted thats a small step, the big steps are about to start soon. And to me Jr. has done a poor job up to the small step of having voted.

Would you two like to present your groundbreaking argument to all of us? How exactly would bringing democratic influence to the middle of a "resistant region" not be good idea in the first place? Iranian Government leaders can't even get a cab if they're recognized in the streets.

Maybe you missed it but I never stated that it was a bad thing to do. Just a bad way of doing it. Their where millions of other options that would of saved more of our soldiers lives had Jr. dong things differently. And not even drastic difference, shoot just having a exist strat. before even going in would of made a difference.

How exactly is the region resistant to this fact when they practiced it with staggering numbers? Because someone killed a few of their own in downtown Baghdad with the coward-like act of suicide? Are you assuming the horizon is infinitely flat again?

Im starting to see a partern with you. You seem to hold on to one point and fail to see the whole picture of my/our arguments. The point was that its not over anytime soon. Hence that it is to early to call success when such actions are happening in the "green zones" of where our forces are. Supposedly the most secure area in the whole of Iraq. Its like saying oh look we scored a touch down we so have this game won. So no im not assuming that the horizon is flat if anything im seeing a more realistic view in that the world is really not round but oval.

Enlighten us.

That help any?

EDIT: I know I sound like I'm getting loud in this reponse but I'm not... I really want to hear WHY you think this way.

Hope that helps.

Let's try to focus on the topic of the middle east. How do you feel about the potential for a democratic Palestinian state, armed by the US, side by side with Israel? Good, bad, or what? If you don't believe it'll happen, that's one thing. But I'd like to hear your view of the plan itself. (Bush has done pretty much everything else he said he would do foreign policy-wise, so I have little reason to doubt him.)

I'm assuming you were a pretty fair fan of Clinton. I'd like to sum up the foreign policy comparisons:

Clinton:
-Bosnia-genocide.
-Rwanda-genocide
-Afghanistan-falls to the Taliban, begins allowing Osama to set up terror training camps.
-Somalia-total pullout. Somalia becomes a haven for extremists in Africa.
-Israel-Palestine: goes nowhere.
-WTC attack #1: Clinton's response, put some people in jail, leave bin laden be. Later, some missiles thrown at him. No serious military move in response to the destruction of two US embassies (Keny and Tanzania).

Bush:
9-11 happens, then:
-Taliban government is toppled. Bin Laden has to run and hide. Afghanistan gets a vote, and women are allowed to buy food for their families once again.
-Corrupt regime in Pakistan under Nawaz Sharif falls (before 9/11); Bush establishes close alliance with Musharraf.
-Saddam, continuing with business as usual, thumbs his nose at the UN weapons inspectors. Bush wipes him off the map as punishment.
-Khaddafi dismantles weapons programs, apologizes for funding terror, and starts a move towards good relations with the west.
-Iraqi voters celebrate in the streets at the first democratic vote in 50 years or so.
-Pushes for a palestinian state, and offers to equip that government to deal with terrorism. Leans on Sharon to get rid of settlements and sign a truce.

End result: Bush now has two democracies-in-process with US troops surrounding Iran, a major state sponsor of terror, and he has a plan to give the majority of Palestinians what they've been asking for, a state with roughly pre-1967 borders.

I'd like to see your explanation of how these things make Bush an awful president.

Sure, there's a long way to go on his projects, but he got them started, and if they work out the "muslims versus the world" ideology may just find its way into the Bush dustbin of history.

All I have to say to that is keep beating that dead horse.

And you obviously missed EVERYTHING that has led up to the voting in Iraq. I guess if Salty can say we are blind democrats for hating jr then you must be the ever loving republican. Because you really missed out on a lot of things that he did HORRIBLY wrong.

All I have to say to that is keep beating that dead horse.

And you obviously missed EVERYTHING that has led up to the voting in Iraq. I guess if Salty can say we are blind democrats for hating jr then you must be the ever loving republican. Because you really missed out on a lot of things that he did HORRIBLY wrong.

How horribly wrong can it be if we have the vote by now? In any event, that wasn't the point of the list. I may be wrongly assuming that you thought Clinton was a good president, but that's probably not the case.

Now, here's the question again: If, given that list, Clinton was a good president, then what the heck did Bush do to put him behind Clinton in terms of achievement?

Really? Well I'd like to see it. Go ahead and list Clinton's world-wide achievements. Let's see what you have over and above mine.

Geez... that wasn't even my point. I'm not trying to say that Clinton is head and shoulders above Bush foreign policy wise (I know you think this is still blue vs. red-give it up), I was simply tring to point out your unfair comparison. I mean, I could pick, choose, omit and spin the same 'events' you listed, and hae Bush seem like the worse one. I think both presidents tried to help other countries in need- it's a duty our country has taken upon itself. What you're doing isn't consructive at all- are you tring to discount the opinion of half of our counrty's population also?


That's not the right analogy, because if the Bush plan in the middle east works out, we are all monumentally better off than before. Terrorism and extremism, under oppressive regimes, were growing under Clinton. The Taliban took root then. If Bush's plan works out, and Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghani citizens enjoy a good quality of life and political freedom, then Bin Laden and friends will have been discredited in a large way. The more change in that direction, the better, for us (less terrorism, better relations with oil producing states) and for them.

Hey, it might not be a perfect analagy, but I was trying my best to make my point clear to you; however, it still seems that you don't understand what I was trying to say, which is: don't just judge by the outcome and overlook the sacrafices and possible mistakes made on the way to reaching that outcome. Also, that's one of the biggest 'if''s I've ever heard, in the first sentence there. And what how will you guage if it 'works out'? I'll let you in on a fact: there are more terrorists and a wider anti-American sentiment around the world since Bush took office. Stop it with the Clinton comparisons, whatt he hell does he have to do with what we're talking about (unless this is left vs. right, which, again, it is NOT) I can't see how you fail to see how our efforts *might* be couter-productive. This 'blindness' worries me, and if the people in charge of making military decisions think the same way, that really worries me. And currently, I'm paying a ****load more for gas than I was when clinton was in office, if you still want to make those comparisons. Bush has a sh*tload of work to do. Nothing is even close to being done yet. But yes, we seem to be (finally) heading in the right direction.

I totally share your optimistim for reaching that ideal outcome, which you outlined. I think we should really start working on the information war- to make it clear to future terrorist recruits that we aren't evil, and we want them to live the best life for themselves. Now that we've made the current terrorists more or less run away from the areas we control or go and hide in their holes, we have to establish trust and loyalty among the public that DO understand our true intentions, and, keeping fingers crossed, allow the governments we helped start to grow and ultimately support themselves. THEN, then the terrorists won't have much, if any, argument against us. I can see how the fundamentalists may become more political, less violent, and try to legitiamately quell the spread of democracy and capitalism, as those aren't exactly fundamental pillars of their religion, taken strictly. It will be interesting to see how we might respond to this.

I mean, I could pick, choose, omit and spin the same 'events' you listed, and hae Bush seem like the worse one. I think both presidents tried to help other countries in need- it's a duty our country has taken upon itself.

And I was asking you to make an alternative comparison if you thought mine was wrong. I perfectly understood you. Now you may understand my request: If you think I'm wrong, make your own list with your own "spin" that compares Bush to Clinton. Let's see where you end up. A million and a half people dead in Rwanda and Kosovo is pretty tough to balance out.

I'll let you in on a fact: there are more terrorists and a wider anti-American sentiment around the world since Bush took office.

Please show me evidence of any policy clinton persued that reduced Terrorism, or made the rest of the world love the U.S. The U.S. has been hated by terrorists and some Europeans for longer than Bush. I'll let you in on that little fact. If you disagree, again, let's see your proof.

I can't see how you fail to see how our efforts *might* be couter-productive. This 'blindness' worries me, and if the people in charge of making military decisions think the same way, that really worries me.

When did I say "Bush will absolutely previal"? Nope. What I am saying is that it's a good policy in principle, and that he's actually getting things done. Any plan can go wrong. The fact that something might go wrong is not, per se, a reason not to do it. So this isn't relevant.

And currently, I'm paying a ****load more for gas than I was when clinton was in office, if you still want to make those comparisons.

Well, when you do your comparison of Clinton and Bush, go ahead and include "lower gas price" and tell me what that outweighs on the Bush side. Also, tell me how you think the Clinton policy would've prevented higher gas prices.

Let's see what you've got.

And I was asking you to make an alternative comparison if you thought mine was wrong. I perfectly understood you. Now you may understand my request: If you think I'm wrong, make your own list with your own "spin" that compares Bush to Clinton. Let's see where you end up. A million and a half people dead in Rwanda and Kosovo is pretty tough to balance out.


I don't see why I need to do that. My goal isn't to portray clinton as better than Bush, it is to help you see the flaws and unfairness in your own comparison. It seems you still don't get it. I'm not fighting for the left, I'm fightng for logic, reason, and fairness, void of the partisan bullsh*t you seem to keep bringing back to the table. Nobody wants to hear it- we know how the right thinks... now how about doing some thinking for yourself? By immediately discrediting the validity of or completely ignoring) the other side of the argument, you end all hope of any constructive discussion. It may seem like it sometimes, but this forum isn't made for spouting off opinions with earplugs in. If you wan't to know what my argument is, try re-reading the parts of post 13, which you conveniently deleted from the quote in your reply. Why didn't you want to include those things? Would it requre you to *think* to be able to make a decent response? I know, it's much easier when you delete the crux of their argument and just pick a few supporting arguments to refute ;)

Please show me evidence of any policy clinton persued that reduced Terrorism, or made the rest of the world love the U.S. The U.S. has been hated by terrorists and some Europeans for longer than Bush. I'll let you in on that little fact. If you disagree, again, let's see your proof.
Why, so I can show you that Clinton was way better than Bush? Geez, man- get the clue- that's not my intent, or even how I really feel. So, I guess I don't really disagree whith what you said there, but I am upset at your inability to see my point. I never implied that there weren't any terrorists before Bush, only a retard wouldn't know that was false (thaks for letting me in on that fact anyway). I was simply stating a fact that the number of terrorist recruits (and their fame) has increased greatly since Bush was in office. You seemed to think (judging from what you said) that Bush is 'eradicating' the terrorists and stopping the spread of hatred toward us, so I felt I needed to let you in on reality. Will you not admit that the worldwide sentiment toward the US was MUCH better previous to Bush's mideast escapade? (I'm not saying Clinton was the reason for being better- I'm saying Bush has made it worse).As of yet, our plan hasn't reaped us the benefits of positive sentiment, as our efforts are in progress. Our methods of reaching our goal has been mainly what other countries (and many americans) have a problem with- Freedom in the mideast is a pretty agreeable goal, but until we reach it, there will be many who hate us for how we have proceeded so far.


When did I say "Bush will absolutely previal"? Nope. What I am saying is that it's a good policy in principle, and that he's actually getting things done. Any plan can go wrong. The fact that something might go wrong is not, per se, a reason not to do it. So this isn't relevant.

Once again, how does this refute anything I said? I agree, and have all along, with what you say here. Did I ever say that we shouldn't have gone to war out of fear of failure, as you imply? There is no need to say any of this... it's all obvious, and nobody seems to disagree- so yes, it is NOT relevant- I agree. I also agree that it is a good policy, in principle. If he had stuck to those principles, however, I might be more hapy about the outcome he is finally seeming to reach. He is getting things done, it seems, but how he went about acheiving them is what I have a problem with. We can go back to my shop analagy, if you don't understand. I like the finished product, but the sacrafices and (preventable) mistakes he made along the way can't be forgotten. I guess, unlees you want to forget them, as you seem to have done.



Well, when you do your comparison of Clinton and Bush, go ahead and include "lower gas price" and tell me what that outweighs on the Bush side. Also, tell me how you think the Clinton policy would've prevented higher gas prices.

or not- I'm not dodging this question, I'm trying to avoid us getting caught up in something that has nothing to do with the topic at issue. Unless someone seems to think Clinton is the epitome of presidential greatness, to which all who take office shoud aspire to, which I don't, clinton should have never been brought up.
The only reason I can see that you made the initail comparison (flawed as it may be) was to fuel the left-right debate and hold the right high while painting the left as worthless

Let's see what you've got.

It seems you think you made some rock-solid points here, which I'd have trouble agruing against. :rolleyes: I didn't even have to disagree with many of the things you said and I still think I 'won' that one... you make it too easy :D I guess if you completely missed my point to begin with, it wasn't really fair. I did my best to make it clear on my end- I guess you just decided what and what not to listen to.

No more hand-holding from here on... I just wont respond when you make such blind replies.

I don't see why I need to do that. My goal isn't to portray clinton as better than Bush, it is to help you see the flaws and unfairness in your own comparison. It seems you still don't get it. I'm not fighting for the left, I'm fightng for logic, reason, and fairness, void of the partisan bullsh*t you seem to keep bringing back to the table. Nobody wants to hear it- we know how the right thinks... now how about doing some thinking for yourself?

Oh this is classic!

I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post because i've seriosuly lost hope in your "logic" long ago.

1)You follow up the fact you don't want to present your own comparison by mentioning the fact his flawed and unfair once again? Touche!

2)logic, reason, and fairness? LMAO

3)Do you actually think subaruguru is on the right? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/lol.gif If anything, Dave is one of the most logical thinkers I’ve ever known.

Oh this is classic!

I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post because i've seriosuly lost hope in your "logic" long ago.

How do you expect to make an intelligent response when you don't even read what I have to say? Are you telling me to give up on this forum? I'm making a genuine effort to explain my position, and you, the moderator, don't even read it before making this lame, condescending response.


1)You follow up the fact you don't want to present your own comparison by mentioning the fact his flawed and unfair once again? Touche!

I explained why I didn't make my own comparison. Now why don't you speak to that reasoning rather than ststing the obvious. My point has nothing to do with portraying clinton as better than Bush, which is what you're asking me to do. If you can't see the spin and slant in his comparison, I guess I can't help you. And why even make the comparison in the first place? His whole point was based on the false assumption that Unreg. and I were 'fans' of Clinton. So, I don't see how painting Bush as better than Clinton foreign policy-wise does anything to prove that he is on his way to being among the most influential, risk-taking presidents this country has had.

2)logic, reason, and fairness?
you got it.

3)Do you actually think subaruguru is on the right? If anything, Dave is one of the most logical thinkers I’ve ever known.

Okay, I may have made the wrong assumption there. However, my argument doesn't solely rest on that assumption, as his does. He doesn't seem to be able to admit he made a similar false assumption, and took it much further. It seems you know him personally, so you probably have a much different impression than I, who has only read what he has posted here. I realize this is a problem with this kind of online forum, so I think we should all be a little more careful we don't give the wrong impressions- I've already started to do so- People who are more outspoken come off as more 'extreme' be it liberal or conservative. Someone might remember one thing people argued about, and judge them from that one opinion. Personally, I feel I'm pretty moderate. I argue mostly for the left, however, because I feel they are being discounted and liberal views which I agree with are being ignored. With the current admin., I don't think there's much use in voicing the opinion that 'we're gonna win!' and 'Bush will be revered forever!' Perhaps if you read what I had to say in my last post, you might have a better frame of reference to argue from. 'Dave' may be a logical thinker, but he sure isn't showing it here. I'm not doubting his intelligence, but I am questioning his objectivity in this particular case.


C'mon, Salty.. MORE EFFORT! Take some time off from LYAO and explain to me how I'm being illogical, unfair, unreasonable, or any combination of the three.

geez, I write too much :D ...we can all agree on this one, right?

Bump... No reply? I feel unloved... :)