• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The foreign policy legacy of George W. Bush

Allen773

Graduate Poster
Allen773
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
1,743
Location
Cali Four Neea
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.
 
Hopefully he will be remembered as the war criminal that he is. Never will be prosecuted, of course, but that's a different story.

And no, Iraq and the average iraquians are not better now than under Saddam. A lot of warlords are making a killing, though...
 
W is without any doubt whatsoever a war criminal.

The only good foreign policy decision that he made was to not start a war with Iran despite the urgings of the most evil person to hold American high office in modern history (Darth Cheney, of course).
 
Allen773 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on that or give a link? I've not witnessed that, at least not any effect on that on this side of the pond, and I'm not aware, for instance, of any US involvement in trying to end the Second Congo War, the deadliest conflict since WW2.

ETA: and I agree with Megalodon and Tony w.r.t. Iraq. I'd welcome if Shrub would visit The Hague (in chains, that is).
 
Last edited:
Allen773 said:
........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.......
Click to expand...

Tell me more. I'm a big Africa-phile, and can't say I noticed a sudden turn for the better in American policy on the continent at the time........but I'm willing to hear details.
 

Attachments

  • US-national-debt-GDP-graph.jpg
    US-national-debt-GDP-graph.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 16
  • jericho---small-graph-4-data.jpg
    jericho---small-graph-4-data.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 14
  • JobCreation_dec07_dec11_480px.jpg
    JobCreation_dec07_dec11_480px.jpg
    94.9 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
But that was all caused by Obummer, before he was even elected.
Click to expand...
I've had morons tell me with a straight face that the Great Recession was Obama's fault. Specifically because he didn't rescue the Lehman Brothers. Of course, when faced with the irrefutable fact that they collapsed before Obama was even elected, it wasn't Dubya's fault through some very bizarre "logic".
 
Tony Stark said:
I've had morons tell me with a straight face that the Great Recession was Obama's fault. Specifically because he didn't rescue the Lehman Brothers. Of course, when faced with the irrefutable fact that they collapsed before Obama was even elected, it wasn't Dubya's fault through some very bizarre "logic".
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tony Stark said:
Actually, US law specifically says that actions he took (torturing people) are war crimes.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


And I'm saying the AUMF and commander-in-chief powers will find a lot of support for the case that congress cannot authorize force and confine the president in that manner.

I would say for good or ill, but it is only for ill.
 
logger said:
Id be nice to have his economy back.
Click to expand...

Memory is a very strange thing.


As for the OP, I don't think history will be kind. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but if there were still a Saddam, there would be no Daesh. (I know someone named "Isis". I decided to stop using that name for those other people, and they don't actually call themselves that anyway, even when translated into English.)

When the Iraq war is viewed in history, I think the general conclusion will be that it was justified based on a lie, and executed poorly, resulting in chaos in the region, and the growth of Iranian power. I don't see GWB's legacy being a good one.
 
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.
 
Loss Leader said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
logger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

But without any doubt whatsoever, the economy would have been even worse if the American people had been dumb enough to put McCain in the White House. Because there wouldn't have been the stimulus that economists agree helped the economy in dire times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom