Salty

iTrader: (14)

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?tmp...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.

Unregistered

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.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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!

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

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.

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

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.

Unregistered

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.

Unregistered

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.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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.

subaruguru

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.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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/Norw...ges/arafat.jpg

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

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?

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

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.

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.

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 . 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.

...lets all hope so.

subaruguru

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.

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.

kewldan

iTrader: (2)

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