Archived

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

walter sobchak

George w bush

65 posts in this topic

The George W Bush Presidential Center

 

BushInstituteSupport.jpg

Yeah but tbf you'll see a lot of buildings like that in North America because space is cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but tbf you'll see a lot of buildings like that in North America because space is cheap.

 

It's the second biggest of these grotesque presidential library, museum things.  The biggest is Reagan's.  Another awww, shucks homespun politico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the second biggest of these grotesque presidential library, museum things.  The biggest is Reagan's.  Another awww, shucks homespun politico.

Reagan was a Californian. Clinton was the redneck President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan being Californian doesn't stop him being another awww, shucks homespun politico.  That's pretty much exactly what he was.

 

I have no strong opinions either way on Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan was a Californian. Clinton was the redneck President.

Would that be Rhodes scholar Clinton

Redneck is as redneck does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that be Rhodes scholar Clinton

Redneck is as redneck does

Redneck is not necessarily a pejorative term. Clinton played very much on his poor rural roots as a politician. He was also a very intelligent man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan being Californian doesn't stop him being another awww, shucks homespun politico.  That's pretty much exactly what he was.

 

I have no strong opinions either way on Clinton.

California has quite a different identity. Whereas Clinton could present himself as a non-racist good-old-boy-made-good and milk it for what it was worth; and Bush could play on his tough-talking-cowboy image (ironically his family were from New England); there is no corresponding folksy but wise stereotype for California. Californians are hippies. Reagan was a good communicator but he had no regional stereotype to draw upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting notion that it's OK to invade a country, which leads directly to 1000's of deaths and indirectly to 100,000 more, which fails in every stated aim bar one (removing saddam), which leads to greater instability, etc, as long as you something 'good'.

 

Iraq = very bad thing

AIDS relief = very good thing

 

Does doing the latter make it OK to to the former?  It's an interesting idea.

 

As for war crimes, 'we' won so extremely unlikely, plus 'big' counties have enough clout to avoid them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for war crimes, 'we' won so extremely unlikely, plus 'big' counties have enough clout to avoid them. 

You missed out the main factor which is "not having done anything that constitutes a war crime".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California has quite a different identity. Whereas Clinton could present himself as a non-racist good-old-boy-made-good and milk it for what it was worth; and Bush could play on his tough-talking-cowboy image (ironically his family were from New England); there is no corresponding folksy but wise stereotype for California. Californians are hippies. Reagan was a good communicator but he had no regional stereotype to draw upon.

He used a national '1950's' stereotype, of a world of apple pies, swimming in the creek, running through corn feilds, etc.  Folksy old world charm, where guy's said ma'am and sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed out the main factor which is "not having done anything that constitutes a war crime".

I think it's generous to say that the invasion was on shaky ground legally.  Falling back on an old resolution, that could be stretched was iffy to say the least.  GWB didn't even want a resolution or see the need to involve the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's generous to say that the invasion was on shaky ground legally.  Falling back on an old resolution, that could be stretched was iffy to say the least.  GWB didn't even want a resolution or see the need to involve the UN.

It wasn't stretched, it was ambiguously worded.

 

At the end of the first gulf war, the Americans wanted a "We can come back and kick your ass if we want to" clause put into the peace terms. The French were strongly opposed. The resulting fudge could be both argued to legitimise W's war and also argued not to precisely because that is what it was designed to do. Hence the attorney general of the UK was in two minds over whether the war was legal or not.

 

Of course it should be noted that fighting an illegal war isn't actually a war crime and thus there is nothing to charge Bush or indeed Blair with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He used a national '1950's' stereotype, of a world of apple pies, swimming in the creek, running through corn feilds, etc.  Folksy old world charm, where guy's said ma'am and sir.

True but remember that he actually was from that era. He was unusually old when he took office and there were 3 Presidential terms (1 Bush Senior, 2 Clinton) separating him from GWB. He was a totally different generation from GWB, possibly even two generations different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a semi-literate alchoholic drug abuser who thinks there's "Uhmurica , airstrip 1 (great Britain) and the rest"

 

Yeah great to have his finger on the button.

 

The present incumbent of that position? Meh, more of "Uhmurican" foreign policy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting notion that it's OK to invade a country, which leads directly to 1000's of deaths and indirectly to 100,000 more, which fails in every stated aim bar one (removing saddam), which leads to greater instability, etc, as long as you something 'good'.

 

Iraq = very bad thing

AIDS relief = very good thing

 

Does doing the latter make it OK to to the former?  It's an interesting idea.

 

As for war crimes, 'we' won so extremely unlikely, plus 'big' counties have enough clout to avoid them. 

If a country is threatening the rest of the world, what's the alternative?

 

We tried the alternative with Germany in the 30s, and many of our fathers and grandfathers paid a heavy price.

 

The problem is that we don't know what would have happened in Iraq if we hadn't invaded.

 

Maybe it would have been a good outcome, but we'll never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a semi-literate alchoholic drug abuser who thinks there's "Uhmurica , airstrip 1 (great Britain) and the rest"

 

Yeah great to have his finger on the button.

 

The present incumbent of that position? Meh, more of "Uhmurican" foreign policy

Bush gained a degree in history from Yale and then an MBA from Harvard Business School. He was the only American president to have gained an MBA.

 

He was a waster, to a great extent, in his younger days.

 

But to suggest he is semi-literate is to believe the nonsense written about him by uninformed critics.

 

In fact he is an assiduous reader, as Karl Rove makes clear in this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a country is threatening the rest of the world, what's the alternative?

 

We tried the alternative with Germany in the 30s, and many of our fathers and grandfathers paid a heavy price.

 

The problem is that we don't know what would have happened in Iraq if we hadn't invaded.

 

Maybe it would have been a good outcome, but we'll never know.

I think the one thing we did know was that Iraq is not comparable with Hitler and Germany in any way and was not threatening the world.

 

In terms of industrial might, capability, resourses, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the one thing we did know was that Iraq is not comparable with Hitler and Germany in any way and was not threatening the world.

 

In terms of industrial might, capability, resourses, etc.  

I'm surprised you say that.

 

Iraq invaded its neighbour, rather like Germany. It went to war with its neighbours, rather like Germany. Saddam made clear his hatred of Jews, and threatened to annihilate them, rather like Hitler.

 

Saddam liked to boast about the power of his military, rather like Hitler did.

 

 

Admittedly he wasn't as near to us as Germany was.

 

And, as it turned out, his military wasn't the threat that he suggested.

 

But there were some strong similarities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you say that.

 

Iraq invaded its neighbour, rather like Germany. It went to war with its neighbours, rather like Germany. Saddam made clear his hatred of Jews, and threatened to annihilate them, rather like Hitler.

 

Saddam liked to boast about the power of his military, rather like Hitler did.

 

 

Admittedly he wasn't as near to us as Germany was.

 

And, as it turned out, his military wasn't the threat that he suggested.

 

But there were some strong similarities.

You missed out that he had a moustache and spoke funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush gained a degree in history from Yale and then an MBA from Harvard Business School. He was the only American president to have gained an MBA.

 

He was a waster, to a great extent, in his younger days.

 

But to suggest he is semi-literate is to believe the nonsense written about him by uninformed critics.

 

In fact he is an assiduous reader, as Karl Rove makes clear in this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html

 

Karl Rove is hardly an independent commentator.

 

MBAs are worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed out that he had a moustache and spoke funny.

Absolutely! 

 

Well spotted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a country is threatening the rest of the world, what's the alternative?

 

We tried the alternative with Germany in the 30s, and many of our fathers and grandfathers paid a heavy price.

 

The problem is that we don't know what would have happened in Iraq if we hadn't invaded.

 

Maybe it would have been a good outcome, but we'll never know.

 

 

If a country is threatening the rest of the world, what's the alternative?

 

We tried the alternative with Germany in the 30s, and many of our fathers and grandfathers paid a heavy price.

 

The problem is that we don't know what would have happened in Iraq if we hadn't invaded.

 

Maybe it would have been a good outcome, but we'll never know.

there is no comparison between Iraq in the early 21st century  and the germany of 1930s

 

also if we went to war with a country on the basis of 'well you never know what they might do' then we would be at war all the time.

 

Presumably you are in favour of military action against North Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl Rove is hardly an independent commentator.

 

MBAs are worthless.

Depends where you get them from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush gained a degree in history from Yale and then an MBA from Harvard Business School. He was the only American president to have gained an MBA.

 

He was a waster, to a great extent, in his younger days.

 

But to suggest he is semi-literate is to believe the nonsense written about him by uninformed critics.

 

In fact he is an assiduous reader, as Karl Rove makes clear in this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html

 

 

Ok i was wrong, he's one of the greatest figures of modern times  :biggrin:

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