CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Although I highly disagree with all of his mindless foreign policy that being the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and he increased the federal government more than any other president or congress while cutting taxes and consequently, a bigger debt, President Bush was good for some things. Not entirely sure what that good is but compared with Obama, it is much more.
Even though I'm from San Francisco, I'm a Republican and think Bush was a good president.
Bush had the right idea with the Iraq invasion- he prevented an economic meltdown. The fundamentals of our economy is oil and where does oil come from? The Middle East including Iraq. everything we own or do is a bi-product of oil. Even green technology. The items we associate as green come from factories that run on electricity and where does most electricity come from coal or oil.
In the 1990's Saddam invaded and tried to take over Kuwait- an oil wealthy nation that was/is friendly to the US. We knew that Saddam would then cut off our oil supply from Kuwait which would then effect our gas prices and our economy.
In 2001 9/11 happened and Bush lied and said Saddam was behind it because that was the only way he would get the majority vote for declaration of war. Saddam again threatened to cut off our oil supply and we told him to step down or face a military strike. He refused and we took him down and set up a US friendly government that would continue to supply oil.
Some may ask why not just use a new alternative energy? The answer is look at how long it took to build up the oil industry to where it is now and money. Green tech is expensive.
Bush knew that oil is running out and in the not-so-distant future there will probably be an even bigger war over the last wells of oil. We built three of the biggest military bases in the Middle East and we built them to last so even if all our troops come home we have a foundation for a strong defensive position when the the time comes.
Bush also took the first major step in fighting terrorism- he chose to destroy terrorism at its roots.
Remember that "what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular."
It seems to me that people are blinded by the fact that he told a lie. What can you expect he's a politician all politicians lie and he lied for the good of the country.
Honestly, Bush was the target of the biggest propaganda war in history. Most of the criticisms of him are mindlessly repeated talking points. Like any politician, he did good and bad things. My biggest criticism of him is his massive, uncontrolled spending, but he also took a strong stance on terrorism which prevented further attacks on American soil for several years. The Bush tax cuts that everyone criticizes also corresponded to the highest tax revenue we've had in some time. 10% of 100 is much higher than 40% of 20. The economy was very good, something some attributed to the tax cuts, though things like that are impossible to prove. However you feel about the Iraq war, Iraq is in a much better and freer place than it was before we came, which, for them anyway, is good.
Anyway, my point is he is certainly not the best president we've ever had
I, as a Republican and a Texan, support what Bush did in his time in office although I know many do not. I think the gripe most people have about him is that people voted for him thinking a republican president would help with U.S. debt, but instead he turned around and spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war effort. Normally, I wouldn't like this either, but I've come to the conclusion that the pentagon knows things citizens don't and they would never authorize hundreds of billions of dollars on a wild goose chase. There must have been some validity to it.
That is pretty much the opposite of Republicanism. Republicans believe in limited government, little government power, and have a fundamental distrust in the government. And yet you trust him presumably because he is Republican, not because "the Pentagon knows things we don't". If it is in fact because "the Pentagon knows things we don't", you must be in favor that everything our government does because it knows things that we don't.
Republicans also often believe in a strong military power to intervene in international affairs when it is in the United States' best interest. Especially ones who fall on the authoritarian end of the political spectrum.
Well, you seem to be implying that you are on the authoritarian end of the spectrum. As you are not a liberal, I wouldn't really call you socialist or communist, but rather fascist. Not as a derogatory term, but it seems to me like that is the essential element of your belief: a police/military state.
Additionally your definition of what which international affairs is vague and therefore incapable of creating a valid generalization about the Republican party. Who decide's the United States' "best interest"? Is it the President, the Senators, the Representatives, the special interest groups, Wall Street, the American People, the children, or the military? As you can see, it's impossible to define "best interest" of the United States because of the differing opinion of each powerful social group. If you believe it's any form of government that can decide "best interest", then you must believe they can decide "best interest" in domestic affairs as well. As such, you must be able to accept liberality. But you said you are a military minded Republican. Either it is merely yourself, or the Republican party cannot decide what to believe consistently.
Going to the middle east was one of his best decisions. you are blinded by the fact that he told a little lie to go there, but he's a politician and all politicians lie.
Right, it was just a "little lie". It was a "little lie" that sunk the U.S. even further into debt. It was a "little lie" that we went to Iraq, overthrew their government, made ourselves overseers, installed ourselves militarily there, spent eight+ years of military activity their, poured trillions of dollars into the Middle East, and killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers, insurgents, and innocents. It was a "little lie" that made the rest of the Western nations lose faith in U.S. leadership.
Because a politician lies, doesn't that mean we should not trust him or her with our money, interest, or troops? It seems to me when a leader cannot act responsibly, or does not act with the consent of the governed, that it is our right to displace said leader.
Additionally, you never provided any justifications for how it was "one of his best decisions". Please do so or your argument is invalid.
It was a good decision because it protected our oil. Plus under Bush he protected us. After 9/11 there were no other attacks on US soil.
Saying that the oil industry will die is a bunch of crap because everything we do or own is a bi-product of oil. Even green technology comes from oil because it's made in factories and factories use machines that run on oil and other fossil fuels.
Saddam had threatened to cut off our oil supply and oil is the fundamentals of our economy so if he did cut it off our economy would have felt the cut in a negative way.
We overthrew their government and put in a US friendly government that would continue to supply us with oil. Plus Saddam was the leader of a corrupt regime and he was responsible for genocide. He was going to get screwed over sooner of later and it happened to be the US that did it.
Obama isn't exactly doing anything to get us out of debt in fact he is spending even more money than Bush. Most of the soldiers over there believe they are doing the right thing. The insurgents deserve no mercy because they seek to destroy America and the innocent people die because the insurgents refuse to distinguish themselves from civilians.
if we we didn't trust any politicians then we would have no government because they all lie. They say what people want to hear to get elected and then once elected they do their own thing. Obama has lied because he's a politician- it's part of the job.
How did Bush protect us by invading Iraq? Our interests, maybe, but certainly not American lives. Neither the Taliban nor Al-Qaeda were in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They still are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not Iraq. Additionally, Iraq is not even one of the most influential or highest producing members of OPEC. They don't hold as much power as you seem to think they do.
Eventually the oil industry will die. It's just a matter of time. The green "stuff" we have now is made by fossil fueled energy, but slowly the grids and energy systems of the U.S. (and the World) will switch over to renewable, cheaper, cleaner, domestic energy.
"We overthrew their government and put in a US friendly government that would continue to supply us with oil. Plus Saddam was the leader of a corrupt regime and he was responsible for genocide. He was going to get screwed over sooner of later and it happened to be the US that did it."
The US friendly government is still corrupt. Saddam's "killings" it seems were a little exaggerated (http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html). Iraq is not our country to impose our will. Imperialism (even economic) is bad.
"Obama isn't exactly doing anything to get us out of debt in fact he is spending even more money than Bush. Most of the soldiers over there believe they are doing the right thing. The insurgents deserve no mercy because they seek to destroy America and the innocent people die because the insurgents refuse to distinguish themselves from civilians."
Obama is spending more money on what? You need to be clearer. Bush spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow, I doubt Obama has spent that much yet. One of the important parts about a modern soldier is their huge amount of conformity. They do not think for themselves. They follow orders. If higher-ups say the war is a good cause, then it is for them. The insurgents just want America out of their country. They will probably make their country go to hell, but it's there right to choose their government. Additionally, it's a guerrilla war. Of course the insurgents don't distinguish themselves. That would defeat the purpose of fighting a guerrilla war. However, that does not mean that all civilians are killed through confusion. Ina specific bombing of Saleh Shehadeh, his house was destroyed (via "smart" missile) along with 3 neighboring buildings, 150 civilians wounded, 15 dead, including Shehadeh's wife and children. Although this attack was performed by the Israeli Army, we are still responsible for the escalating conflict between insurgent and Allied forces.
I agree that politicians sometimes lie. But they also tell the truth. It seems like Obama really does want reform. It seemed like Bush really thought he was helping the American people. That doesn't mean that either are good or bad. Their actions and, to a lesser extent, their words are reflective of their efficiency. I'd rather have an effective president passing legislation to reform finances, housing, social security, health care, and education, than an ineffective president who drags a war on four eight+ years with no end in sight by the end of his term.
He protected our economy. There are actually Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Recently, a top Al-Qeada official was killed in Iraq and Biden called it a "Devastating blow" They are still in Afghanistan and Pakistan and now in Yemen and Somalia. Iraq may not be the most influential OPEC member, but our economy is based on infinite growth and infinite resources which means that we need all the resources we can get. Because our demand for oil greatly out ways our supply even a little pinch will be felt with a bigger impact stateside.
The oil industry will never die because everything depends on it. I agree it will diminish, but it won't be gone completely. we have found no other way to make plastics and they come mostly from oil. Agriculture depends on oil because all those machines run on oil and fertilizer comes for oil. Farmers will continue to go this way because they barely make enough money to be self sufficient. They have to get loans for the land and machines. There's no way they want another loan worth thousands of dollars so they can get some solar panels of wind turbines. Even with the tax credit from the government, it will still be expensive for them. Besides not all green tech is good. Electric cars that run on lithium ion batteries - the lithium has to be mined and mining is environmentally unfriendly, plus the cars have to be plugged in and electricity itself isn't clean. Even in California (where I'm from) most of the electricity comes from hydro-electric. That's not very good because it means damming rivers which hurts local fish populations. California has no major free flowing rivers.
All governments are corrupt. They use a democracy in which the Iraqi people vote for their leader. Saddam's killings aren't as much as they seem because not all of the bodies have been found yet.
"Imperialism (even economic) is bad" I don't see how it is bad. Controlling territories is a symbol of power and that power grants resources and expanded borders.
I agree that health care should be free ,but if it's going to cost America trillions of dollars it's not worth it. His stimulus package alone cost 787 billion dollars. not to mention the massive loans to banks and big corporations. Where is the money going to come from- new and increased taxes, more expensive products from companies and borrowed money from China. :(
Our soldiers are still people and they have opinions. Even before the US entered the middle east the insurgents hated us. They have always hated us and always will.
When you say the attack was conducted by the Israeli Army- did they conduct the attack on Palestine or Iraq?
All politicians believe that they are doing the right thing and they all lie.
I'd rather have a president with a strong foreign policy, strong defense policy and America's best interests at heart.
You debate well too, I just believe you're wrong :)
If we need to devote attention to the Middle East, we are going about it the wrong way. It should not be given (as much) to Iraq, but to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Additionally, the US is totally unprepared to fight a guerrilla war. We haven't one won since our own revolution. Vietnam was a failure. Korea was a failure. The "reconstruction" argument really doesn't apply as much as Japan was already pretty modern when we rebuilt it, and Iraq is pretty much a third world country, not advanced at all.
Eventually, it must die. Although there is an infinite demand for oil (and resources) that doesn't mean there is an infinite supply. Oil will run out. We will have to resort to other materials to produce our goods, be it biofuel, organic plastics, or other new materials. Farmers will develop new ways to make fertilizer not dependent on oil. And this scenario is much more desirable than being dependent on oil. As you said, our dependence on oil gives terrorists, tyrants, and oppressive regimes powerful bargaining powers. These potentially domestically grown/produced energy sources would be the US's, not some Sheikh's in Saudi Arabia.
"All governments are corrupt."
To some degree, but you seem to be implying some sort of equality of corruption. I would not say that America's government is as corrupt as Iraq's. Or Afghanistan's as Iran's. Or Russia's as Britain's. Or any other combination. It's impossible to eliminate all badness in all people. Instead it must be minimized and localized.
Even if controlling territories is a "symbol of power", the method of imperialism and the mentality behind it are negative human attributes. They necessarily require destruction, subjugation, and a superiority-complex. I don't want to be represented by that kind of personality.
If you want health care to be free, where do you propose it to come from, if not from taxes and loans? Taxes, although you might hate paying them at the moment, pay for all public services, establishments, and organizations. You can't have any form of government with out taxes. The only reason why we need to borrow from China is because we no longer produce most of our goods. We import more than export. As any economist can see, that is very bad in the long term.
Insurgents have not always hated us and won't always will. Sure, the leaders might: the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas etc. But the new recruits didn't always hate us. They hate us for or continued and indefinite occupation of their country. They hate us when we burn down their village, shoot up their homes, abuse them, harass them, or shoot "smart" missiles. Although not often, they do thank us for some things: education, more opportunities for women, distribution of basic goods, and restructuring of their government. It seems that that good is overwhelmed by the negative, however. After all, it's much easier to remember the bad in a time of passion than the good.
The attack by the Israeli Army on Saleh Shehadeh was because he was a leader in Hamas' military wing. Therefore I presume he was Palestinian. However, he is a basic representation of our attack on the insurgents and terrorists in the Middle East.
If they have our best interests at heart, then you should trust them. I didn't think Bush did have our (America's) best interests at heart. I've listed most of the bad decisions he made, and I can recognize the "good" decisions. The bad again just outweigh the good.
In all fairness I believe you're wrong too. :) Kapeesh
More or less I agree. The Iraq war should have lasted no longer than four years, but as you know I still think the invasion was justified. Korea was not a failure. We successfully prevented the communist takeover of South Korea. If we maintained a police force in Vietnam like we do in Korea, then we could have had to Vietnam's. ( but that's another debate for another time)
It won't die completely because there are some things that oil makes better like valve oil. I've tried organic valve oil for my trumpet but it just doesn't work as well as my petroleum based oil. Farmers don't really invent things. And where will they get the money? They won't want another loan.And if they don't do what the food companies want then they get sacked and end up with nothing. ( Food Inc)
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that all governments are equally corrupt. They're not.
It's not only a symbol of power but a chance to help poorer countries. You can give locals jobs since slavery is no longer legal. You can build schools and hospitals and provide health care.
The people that don't hate us aren't insurgents they are just people who live in fear of and are constantly blackmailed by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
I find it sickening and hateful to be at the mercy of China because we import most of our goods from them.
So he was attacked because because he was a high ranking official in a terrorist organization?
I did trust the Bush administration to a certain extent. I don't trust any government/ administration fully. I can also recognize his "bad" decisions but overall I think the good out way the bad.
Because something we have now isn't sufficient for our needs does not mean that there will never be anything sufficient. Like it or not, oil will be depleted. It will eventually go higher and higher, making it more and more costly to buy and sell. Once there is probably about a 5-10% profit margin, you can bet that research in (or full on) organic production (or chemical production) of oil will increase tenfold. It won't be up to the farmers to invent them. I don't know where you got that idea. It will be research labs that invent the seeds to sell to farmers.
If you believe that imperialism is what you said, you are (sorry to say this) hopelessly naive. What did we do when we decided to "help" the Philippines? We occupied them (and they kept fighting us) until 1936, and we didn't even recognize their self-governance until 1946. The Cubans were under our heel until their Communist revolution. Puerto Rico is still, while being slightly better off than other Latin American countries, one of the poorest nations in this hemisphere. The British Empire broke up because almost no one wants to be ruled by some foreign, magnanimous political body.
I'm sorry, but anyone who is fighting against the US and our allies in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East is an insurgent. They aren't all blackmailed, but rather the majority have been convinced of our evil through our actions (and a little Taliban pressure). It's sad, but true.
We are at the mercy of China because we don't produce as much. It's because we have our finger in every pie that we are spread so thin and don't produce as much domestically.
I'm not offended or upset that we wanted to kill this man, but rather that 3 buildings were destroyed, 150 people were injured, and 16 (including him, his wife, and child) were killed. That is the part that upsets me. That just shows a lack of respect for the power that we potentially wield over others' lives.
Sadly the food companies control the farmers and if the farmers don't comply with what the food companies want then they will get sacked. ( Food Inc.) If you want to change agriculture then first you will need to change how the food companies operate. Right now the food companies want to ban organic foods because it brings in a profit to the farmer instead of the food companies.
What do you believe imperialism. I think it's perspective. Do you consider the fact that we have bases in South Korea, Japan and various European countries imperialistic? Don't you think that would put us in a better position to take over? They like our presence there but people in the middle east are blinded by the lies of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The people in Afghanistan didn't even know what 9/11 was because the Taliban lied to them. The Taliban have a huge influence in Afghanistan.
We could easily produce as much as much as China. Exports are still a big part of the US economy. In 2008 exports accounted for 800 billion dollars. All it would take is if China decided to start a war. China is also invested in many world markets.
In an urban area population density is much greater, so of course there is a greater number of casualties. The part that upsets me is that he could easily kill even more innocent people in an even more dehumanizing way. Statistically civilian deaths are unavoidable in an urban area.
I think we should leave food/farming alone for now because it's gotten off the topic of Bush. Maybe for another debate.
Imperialism is starting a war with another country for the purpose of territorial gain or taking of resources. In that way, our military bases in other countries are not directly imperialistic, just an omnipresent eye into said country. You imply that the Taliban or Al-Qaeda are an all powerful organization that shape everyone in the Middle East's opinions and facts. I disagree. There are many different branches of the Taliban and of Al-Qaeda. If we are simply paying back the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (or it seems to be the ENTIRE Middle East) for 9-11, I think we've accomplished that goal. The death tolls were about equal a year into the War. Over 100,000 civilians have been killed as of now.
Sad but true, wars do tend to stimulate economic recovery, as WWII did for the US in the Depression, but I refuse to value money over the value of a human life. I do not believe in warmongering solely for a profit.
It is not as if such an attack had to have been made while Shehadeh was in an urban environment. Had the Israeli's done proper investigations, they could have taken him out in a more isolated area. War does not need to be fought in the city neighborhoods. We must maintain a level of civility, even in war and death.
Imperialism doesn't always mean declaring war on another country. Some people consider it imperialistic that we have bases and troops in Japan and in South Korea but they are our allies and want our protection. We don't only fight in the middle east we build schools and distribute basic supplies to civilians and still try to be respectful of the peoples cultures. You imply that we are like Russia when they invaded the middle east.
As long as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban continue to kill innocent people then we cannot just sit back and let them do so.
Wars do stimulate economy. I respect your refusal to disregard money for human life so I won't press the issue.
As much as I hate to admit it the Israeli's have one of the best intelligence agencies in the world. Maybe there was no better time for them to get him. I doubt we will ever know the best time because I don't think the Israeli's will show us their records.
I don't mean to say that we are like Russia was. I don't believe we are nearly that bad. What I do believe, however, is that we don't really understand the Middle Eastern culture. I think, if we want to improve relations with the Middle East, we need to start by teaching each soldier we send Arabic. It is essential that we are able to communicate with those we are trying to protect or fight. Bush never seemed to make communication (at least two-way communication if I can mention Abu Ghraib) a priority. I hope Obama will have the foresight or wisdom to do that, but again, Obama's another issue.
In all fairness the Middle East doesn't understand our culture either. I think think teaching each soldier Arabic would be good but not now because according to Obama the war is diminishing, but that would have bee good at the beginning. Bush didn't see the war as a chance to communicate and understand another culture he saw a threat to our interests and our security.
That is what is disturbing. We don't want a president to have tunnel vision. We want him (or her) to look objectively at the large picture in order to best tackle it. President Bush, as you said, "didn't see the war as a chance to communicate and understand another culture...". It's important to realize that in order to achieve an effective peace, one must communicate with the opposition. Perhaps not "negotiating with terrorists" but we must be able to understand or fully visualize the enemy's goals in order to best defeat them. The best avenue for that kind of understanding is through simple communication.
"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength" - George Orwell
How is war a good thing? Have you ever been to war? Have you seen any of the memoirs detailing war? I assume you've read "The Things They Carried".
I have not actually read the Art of War. Instead of a war mentality, we must strive always for peace, and war or military conflicts only as a last resort. However, I did just look it up and a famous quote that evolved into a Chinese proverb was "If you know only yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose". It seems that he also believed in learning about the "enemy" (culture, strategy, economy, political structure, etc.) before fighting the battle to ensure victory.
There are some enemies that can't be understood. This is especially true when you are fight a guerrilla war. Understanding your enemy is only a small part in war, but it is important.
I believe that the Taliban or Al- Qaeda can't be understood because they refuse to understand us.
In some ways I think you are right: the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are difficult to understand because their viewpoints are so drastically different from our own. But the crux of it is it seems like they think they understand us, our culture, and our way of life, but in reality they have as much trouble trying to understand us as us them.
As it is a guerrilla war, and has been since the start, it's abundantly clear that the United States has failed in almost all it's guerrilla wars (except perhaps the Revolution). Vietnam, the most notorious example of guerrilla warfare, was a complete failure. Korea was half a failure.
So is this the end of our debate? We have seemed to reach a common ground.
I don't think they try to understand us- they make assumptions about us and I guess we do too.
We had the right idea with Vietnam, but it was poorly executed. But we did what we were supposed to do there and that was delay the communist takeover for as long as possible.
I personally have mixed feelings about Vietnam. The plan was poorly executed. But I also believe that communism was bad. I know that we never could have won that war and Nixon new that too and that's why he started Vietnamization. We could still effectively kill the enemy while leaving the country.
He weakend education with no child left behind, he chose to use the clinton administraitions surplus for tax cuts instead of social security reform and he started a war that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. He has made america look like an imperialistic power instead of a champion of liberty that it needs to be.
Had to post on this side. Anyone posting on the other side clearly has issues, mental comes to mind. Single handedly brought down a nation, then again I don't know of anyone else that could have done that.
i do not like him and he was a bad president, but he is not as bad as he is made out to be. obama is blaming this economic shit storm on him but it was actually caused by the de regulation of derivatives in 99 (Clinton ) era....... IRAQ was a shit storm and he fucked up. no child left behind was not great but it was atleast it put a light on the poor education system we have. he was a bad president. Hitler as sum of these fucking Berkley idiots call him. no
president bubsh i think was bad but no complently bad i mean he did a good jo in 9/11 and i think the NCLB education act was meant to be a good thing it juts didin't turn out the way people would have hoped plus the media always makes things worse then they are