The foreign policy legacy of George W. Bush

[logger]

It wasn't as good as it could have been. Because there were sociopaths in Congress (Republicans) who didn't want Obama to fix the economy because that would have been bad for them politically. They literally wanted the economy to be as bad as possible so they could make Obama a one term President. They failed in that, of course.

Okay next question, what did Obama want to do to get this economy roaring?

 

[Tony Stark]

I can agree with that. Why did Obama and Hillary do the exact same thing in Libya and are hell bent on getting it done in Syria?

Because it it wasn't the exact same thing. Obama, unlike the idiot war criminal you voted for did not invade and occupy Libya or Syria.

 

[Tony Stark]

Okay next question, what did Obama want to do to get this economy roaring?

One of the first things he did as President was the stimulus bill that economists agree helped to stave off economic disaster. It should have been larger, but due to Republican scum, it was the biggest that could be passed.

 

[logger]

Because it it wasn't the exact same thing. Obama, unlike the idiot war criminal you voted for did not invade and occupy Libya or Syria.

Tony do you even think before you type. If they depose the leader and just leave, what happens?

Why do you think we occupied Iraq? It wasn't for ***** and giggles.

 

[logger]

One of the first things he did as President was the stimulus bill that economists agree helped to stave off economic disaster. It should have been larger, but due to Republican scum, it was the biggest that could be passed.

Is that it?
A stimulus to stave off the great recession?
What else there has to be something else?

 

[Tony Stark]

Tony do you even think before you type. If they depose the leader and just leave, what happens?

Why do you think we occupied Iraq? It wasn't for ***** and giggles.

We wasted thousands of American lives occupying Iraqi due to the insane neocon belief that we could force democracy on the Middle East.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Stark]

Is that it?
A stimulus to stave off the great recession?
What else there has to be something else?

As I already said, low life trash in Congress vowed to make Obama a failed one term President. A failed vow, of course.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

 

[logger]

As I already said, low life trash in Congress vowed to make Obama a failed one term President. A failed vow, of course.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

Looks like you can't come up with anything he proposed to get this economy going, I can't think of anything either.

 

[Tony Stark]

Looks like you can't come up with anything he proposed to get this economy going, I can't think of anything either.

Actually, there was another stimulus bill that he proposed that would have with no doubt whatsoever helped the economy. Like the first one. Republican trash in Congress made sure it didn't pass though. Because they literally did not want to help the economy. Because a Democrat helping the economy would have been bad for them politically.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

 

[Loss Leader]

Why did Obama and Hillary do the exact same thing in Libya and are hell bent on getting it done in Syria?

They didn't. They aided a civil war in Libya without attempting to impose a transitional government or free elections. They have and continue to support the right of Syrians to self-determination free from dictatorship. As our improving relations with Iran show, we can work with a theocracy. We just can't allow it to be a base for terrorism.

There are very, very few US soldiers in Syria with no plans to send any larger force. The Obama administration has encouraged a coalition of Muslim nations to help stabilize their own region, free of fears of Western imperialism.

These are the lessons of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Iran and Iraq which, after fifty years, our government seems to be catching up to.

 

[3point14]

I hope he'll be remembered as the President who proved that US-style democracy is not the road to salvation for every nation and every people. Attempting to impose it, or even just encourage it, can cause decades worth of blowback and millions of lives.

I consider 'US-style democracy' to be a codeword for 'US-style capitalism'.

The rhetoric is for democracy, the desire is to open up new markets for corporate paymasters.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It wasn't W's fault and it certainly wasn't Obama's.

W's recession was in the last part of his presidency. Obama's sad economic recovery has been just that, sad. The word most use to describe his time is anemic. If you'd like to be honest about history you could admit that.

His policies certainly fed the bubble. They were touting that more and more people were owning homes regardless of if they could afford them until the bubble burst.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can agree with that. Why did Obama and Hillary do the exact same thing in Libya and are hell bent on getting it done in Syria?

Yet most republicans are thinking they were not doing enough to support ISIS to overthrow Assad a couple of years ago. So what was your suggestion, give him more chemical weapons at that time?

 

[Meadmaker]

I consider 'US-style democracy' to be a codeword for 'US-style capitalism'.

The rhetoric is for democracy, the desire is to open up new markets for corporate paymasters.

Several years ago, 2005 or 2006 or thereabouts, I read an interesting article in Harper's that argued this point fairly eloquently and at least somewhat persuasively. The premise of the article was that when the Bush team moved in to Iraq, they felt that the real essence of US style democracy was free market capitalism. The article detailed step after step that the regime, i.e. our regime, took to make sure that the Iraqi people had economic freedom, but ignored some other aspects of religious freedom and human rights. The new Iraq was to be a showplace for the success of free market capitalism, and that would lead to an idyllic, western style life in the middle east.

I have heard over the years various Republican commentators insist that economic freedom was the basis of all freedom. It's great in rhetoric, but in reality it ends up being that the number one priority is to lower rich people's taxes.

Personally, I am a great believer in US style democracy, and I do believe it's the best system for everywhere on the planet, but it shouldn't be confused with laissez-faire capitalism, and if you are going to impose democracy at gunpoint, you had better be prepared to hold your ground for a very long time.



On a related note, I felt that things were going very badly as soon as I saw that we had invaded two countries, taken them over, wrote a constitution, and both of them ended up as "Islamic republics". That isn't US style democracy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I consider 'US-style democracy' to be a codeword for 'US-style capitalism'.

The rhetoric is for democracy, the desire is to open up new markets for corporate paymasters.

Which isn't capitalism. Capitalism is a system recognizing private property rights. Taking resources by force violates the foundational principle. It is why avatar is one of the greatest pro capitalism film ever made. It shows the suffering of not recognizing another's property rights.

 

[3point14]

Which isn't capitalism. Capitalism is a system recognizing private property rights. Taking resources by force violates the foundational principle. It is why avatar is one of the greatest pro capitalism film ever made. It shows the suffering of not recognizing another's property rights.

ah, you'll forgive me, Bob, but I find your views so very extreme (by your own admission) and so unworkable (from a practical point of view) that I apply very little weight to anything you say. I find your point of view interesting but in no way helpful. (Inasmuch ans anything on an internet message board can be 'helpful')

 

[BobTheCoward]

ah, you'll forgive me, Bob, but I find your views so very extreme (by your own admission) and so unworkable (from a practical point of view) that I apply very little weight to anything you say. I find your point of view interesting but in no way helpful. (Inasmuch ans anything on an internet message board can be 'helpful')

Since you asked nicely I will forgive you.

 

[NoahFence]

~ snip -n - stuff

I also think, without saying anything else about how horrible the situation in Iraq and the Middle East is (and has been for a decade or so now), it's undeniable that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and his sons.

In hindsight I have to disagree. He wasn't even a threat to the southern portion of his own country, and seemed to keep things in check, as bad as he was.

 

[NoahFence]

Id be nice to have his economy back.

Come on man.

 

[Crossbow]

I was just thinking about this today, so I figured I'd start a thread on this subject.

What do you think the second President Bush's ultimate legacy will be, at home and around the world? Will history be kinder to him than many observers have been (particularly - but certainly not exclusively - non-American ones)? Or will future generations have as low (if not lower) of a collective view of his policies as many do now?

Leaving aside for a moment the many harsh criticisms that I (and many others, obviously) certainly have about Bush's foreign policy, I think one quite positive legacy of his is the work his administration did in raising more awareness and focusing more foreign policy attention in general on the plight of sub-Saharan Africa. I also think, without saying anything else about how horrible the situation in Iraq and the Middle East is (and has been for a decade or so now), it's undeniable that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and his sons.

George W. Bush is nothing but a stupid, idiotic, liar who happened to be the worst President that we have ever had.

As far as defining his legacy, I think that George W. Bush said it best when he said:

I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...test_hits.html