Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

walter sobchak

George w bush

65 posts in this topic

George w bush has just underwent heart surgery to open a blocked heart artery, I wish Americas 43rd president a speedy recovery as I want him alive and well for when he's standing in the dock on trial in the Hague facing charges of crimes committed against humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George w bush has just underwent heart surgery to open a blocked heart artery, I wish Americas 43rd president a speedy recovery as I want him alive and well for when he's standing in the dock on trial in the Hague facing charges of crimes committed against humanity.

No chance of that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George w bush has just underwent heart surgery to open a blocked heart artery, I wish Americas 43rd president a speedy recovery as I want him alive and well for when he's standing in the dock on trial in the Hague facing charges of crimes committed against humanity.

Which aspect of the "crimes against humanity" do you believe he is guilty of?

 

This is just something that the sillier end of the far left come out with, in reality, they are very shaky on the details because he didn't commit any offences.

 

He shouldn't have invaded Iraq but it's not a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George w bush has just underwent heart surgery to open a blocked heart artery, I wish Americas 43rd president a speedy recovery as I want him alive and well for when he's standing in the dock on trial in the Hague facing charges of crimes committed against humanity.

Are you being serious?

 

If you could put aside your prejudices you would realise that Bush deserves some sort of humanitarian medal for committing around $15 billion over five years (2003–2008) to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.

 

It was his true legacy.

 

With a focus particularly on Africa, the programme increased the number of Africans receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) from 50,000 at the start of the initiative in 2004 to at least 1.2 million in early 2008

 

Bush's programme was probably the largest health initiative ever initiated by one country to address a disease, and it has saved millions of lives by making ART widely available.

 

According to a 2009 study published in Annals of Internal Medicine,] the programme had averted about 1.1 million deaths in Africa and reduced the death rate due to AIDS in the countries involved by 10%.

 

Some crime against humanity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you being serious?

If you could put aside your prejudices you would realise that Bush deserves some sort of humanitarian medal for committing around $15 billion over five years (2003–2008) to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.

It was his true legacy.

With a focus particularly on Africa, the programme increased the number of Africans receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) from 50,000 at the start of the initiative in 2004 to at least 1.2 million in early 2008

Bush's programme was probably the largest health initiative ever initiated by one country to address a disease, and it has saved millions of lives by making ART widely available.

According to a 2009 study published in Annals of Internal Medicine,] the programme had averted about 1.1 million deaths in Africa and reduced the death rate due to AIDS in the countries involved by 10%.

Some crime against humanity!

I don't agree with the original poster

But why is that his true legacy and not the other things he has done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the original poster

But why is that his true legacy and not the other things he has done?

Because it's the most long lasting, giving so many people the chance for life who otherwise would have just been another Aids statistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and integrated over the generations, too.

 

It still suits the UK's  pseudo-intellectual left in the media to have someone like Bush as a focus of their anit-Americanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing he definitely did was make his father look like a statesman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing he definitely did was make his father look like a statesman

You're certainly right in one sense.

 

Despite everything he did in the fight against Aids, Bush never sought any particular credit for it.

 

He doesn't seem comfortable posing as a "statesman", and he has a self-deprecating sense of humour.

 

He is quite unlike many other politicians in not having an outsized ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's the most long lasting, giving so many people the chance for life who otherwise would have just been another Aids statistic.

 

 

Because it's the most long lasting, giving so many people the chance for life who otherwise would have just been another Aids statistic.

 

 

..and integrated over the generations, too.

 

It still suits the UK's  pseudo-intellectual left in the media to have someone like Bush as a focus of their anit-Americanism

not being keen on Bush doesn't make you a pseudo intellectual leftie or anti american

 

it might or might not be his most enduring act, but you are right to highlight its benefits to human kind but bush has a hell of a lot to answer for in the states and abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're certainly right in one sense.

 

Despite everything he did in the fight against Aids, Bush never sought any particular credit for it.

 

He doesn't seem comfortable posing as a "statesman", and he has a self-deprecating sense of humour.

 

He is quite unlike many other politicians in not having an outsized ego.

 

 

You're certainly right in one sense.

 

Despite everything he did in the fight against Aids, Bush never sought any particular credit for it.

 

He doesn't seem comfortable posing as a "statesman", and he has a self-deprecating sense of humour.

 

He is quite unlike many other politicians in not having an outsized ego.

I agree

his aw shucks hick from the Texan sticks who mangles the english language and doesn't know where countries are act is a bit of a facade

 

and it was a very clever move for him to use his dad's influence to get him into the air national guard, thereby avoiding vietnam but still being able to say he was in the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which aspect of the "crimes against humanity" do you believe he is guilty of?

 

This is just something that the sillier end of the far left come out with, in reality, they are very shaky on the details because he didn't commit any offences.

 

He shouldn't have invaded Iraq but it's not a crime.

How about the invasion of Iraq being illegal under international law as claimed by the then UN security general kofi annan who said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council and it was not in accordance with the UN's founding charter. How about the war being based on a pack of lies, like WMD's and links between saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It's very telling of what you think about non westerners that you say he(bush) shouldn't have invaded Iraq but that it wasn't a crime, as if causing the death and wounding of hundreds of thousands of iraqis and destroying their country was just a mistake. I bet you wouldn't be saying it wasn't a crime if china or Iran had invaded a western country killing and wounding hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you being serious?

 

If you could put aside your prejudices you would realise that Bush deserves some sort of humanitarian medal for committing around $15 billion over five years (2003–2008) to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.

 

It was his true legacy.

 

With a focus particularly on Africa, the programme increased the number of Africans receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) from 50,000 at the start of the initiative in 2004 to at least 1.2 million in early 2008

 

Bush's programme was probably the largest health initiative ever initiated by one country to address a disease, and it has saved millions of lives by making ART widely available.

 

According to a 2009 study published in Annals of Internal Medicine,] the programme had averted about 1.1 million deaths in Africa and reduced the death rate due to AIDS in the countries involved by 10%.

 

Some crime against humanity!

Why would I not be serious? You must have been exploring Antarctica for the past decade to have missed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any aid given to Africa to fight diseases and the global HIV/aids pandemic is drowned in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded in bush's Iraq war. Do you have anything to say about the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis or is it ok because they're just Arabs/Muslims/Iraqis and there blood is cheap compared to westerners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the invasion of Iraq being illegal under international law as claimed by the then UN security general kofi annan who said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council and it was not in accordance with the UN's founding charter. How about the war being based on a pack of lies, like WMD's and links between saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It's very telling of what you think about non westerners that you say he(bush) shouldn't have invaded Iraq but that it wasn't a crime, as if causing the death and wounding of hundreds of thousands of iraqis and destroying their country was just a mistake. I bet you wouldn't be saying it wasn't a crime if china or Iran had invaded a western country killing and wounding hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children.

I'd be annoyed but I'd still say that it wasn't a crime. And the vast majority of the "hundreds of thousands" were killed by their own countrymen (or other Arabs) not the Americans.

 

The thing is that the war might have been illegal (debatable it's a grey area*) but fighting an illegal war isn't a war crime. If you think it is then tell me what the charge would be.

 

* what you missed off is that war can be legitimised also by treaty, in this case the ceasefire treaty after the first gulf war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I not be serious? You must have been exploring Antarctica for the past decade to have missed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any aid given to Africa to fight diseases and the global HIV/aids pandemic is drowned in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded in bush's Iraq war. Do you have anything to say about the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis or is it ok because they're just Arabs/Muslims/Iraqis and there blood is cheap compared to westerners?

An Iraqi plants a bomb and kills his neighbours and everybody blames the Americans for it.

 

It's never their fault, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and integrated over the generations, too.

 

It still suits the UK's  pseudo-intellectual left in the media to have someone like Bush as a focus of their anit-Americanism

If hating bush qualifies you for being anti-American in your eyes, then 3/4's of Americans are anti-American because he left office with one of the lowest approval ratings of all time and was voted as one of the top 5 worst US presidents of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Iraqi plants a bomb and kills his neighbours and everybody blames the Americans for it.

 

It's never their fault, is it?

Can you be a bit more specific, are you talking about the Iraqi casualties at the height of the resistance or the post US pullout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you be a bit more specific, are you talking about the Iraqi casualties at the height of the resistance or the post US pullout?

Any of them.

 

The Yanks have to take their share of the blame for destroying the Iraqi regime but the bulk of the blame lies with those carrying out the sectarian violence on their fellow Iraqis. The vast majority of deaths had very little to do with the Americans either before the pull-out or after the pull-out.

 

I'm no fan of Blair but he had a point when he said that the violence would have happened anyway when the Arab spring came along. Is the death toll in Syria any lower than Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I not be serious? You must have been exploring Antarctica for the past decade to have missed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any aid given to Africa to fight diseases and the global HIV/aids pandemic is drowned in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded in bush's Iraq war. Do you have anything to say about the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis or is it ok because they're just Arabs/Muslims/Iraqis and there blood is cheap compared to westerners?

At the time of the invasion of Iraq, that country was ruled by an increasingly unstable dictator who had proved his mettle by invading a neighbour and having to be forced out of that country, while boasting about his stock of weapons of mass destruction and threatening what he might do with them.

 

As it turned out, he was a fantasist in relation to the weapons, but his regime terrorised his own people, having killed many of them, and threatened its neighbours, as we've seen with Kuwait and Iran.

 

Many of his own people, not to mention his neighbours, wanted him out, and are very glad to this day to have got rid of him.

 

Unfortunately sectarian divisions continue to dog Iraq, and there are still far too many deaths there from suicide bombings.

 

The Americans probably didn't understand how they were lifting the lid off a powder keg, and there's no doubt that there were massive failings in how they handled the whole process.

 

But to call the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a war crime is almost to pervert the meaning of the term, in my view.

 

And your last sentence just makes you look silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of them.

 

The Yanks have to take their share of the blame for destroying the Iraqi regime but the bulk of the blame lies with those carrying out the sectarian violence on their fellow Iraqis. The vast majority of deaths had very little to do with the Americans either before the pull-out or after the pull-out.

 

I'm no fan of Blair but he had a point when he said that the violence would have happened anyway when the Arab spring came along. Is the death toll in Syria any lower than Iraq?

Of course a large part of the sectarian violence was/is carried out by al qaeda in Iraq, a group that didn't exist in Iraq prior to the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq. Also again prior to the US/UK invasion sectarianism was unheard of in Iraq as there was large numbers of Sunni/Shia mixed neighbourhoods in Baghdad, Mosul, fallujah etc as was Sunni-shia intermarriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're certainly right in one sense.

 

Despite everything he did in the fight against Aids, Bush never sought any particular credit for it.

 

He doesn't seem comfortable posing as a "statesman", and he has a self-deprecating sense of humour.

 

He is quite unlike many other politicians in not having an outsized ego.

 

 

I was being sarcastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

He is quite unlike many other politicians in not having an outsized ego.

 

The George W Bush Presidential Center

 

BushInstituteSupport.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course a large part of the sectarian violence was/is carried out by al qaeda in Iraq, a group that didn't exist in Iraq prior to the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq. Also again prior to the US/UK invasion sectarianism was unheard of in Iraq as there was large numbers of Sunni/Shia mixed neighbourhoods in Baghdad, Mosul, fallujah etc as was Sunni-shia intermarriage.

This is pure nonsense.

 

Sectarianism existed in Iraq before the invasion, any cursory glance at the history of Iraq under Saddam would tell you that. Saddam's government was a Sunni government. Could you explain why the Shi'ia rose up against Saddam after the first gulf war but the Sunni did not?

 

Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist but making out that their existence is soley the fault of the USA is particularly one-eyed. Nothing to do with the Iraqis who joined up, the Syrians who supplied them or the Shi'ite Iraqis for alienating the Sunnis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017