Bush: Hate Him or Love Him (split from UK terror thread)

[mehrdad368]

In fact i can see Iraq and afkanistan become better after American armys captured there.I prefer American capture Iran too.But surely Our leaders pay them hush money.For this reason they don't attack here.I also know that Iran has nuclear weapons.But Bush still for his advantages.Hush money is better than attack.

[Leah]

Part of that was Nagin's fault. But perhaps if Bush hadn't cut funds in the first place they would have been able to replace the levees.

I still think Bush is a fucking dumbass and I still hate him for all of the reasons I've said.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Leah

Part of that was Nagin's fault. But perhaps if Bush hadn't cut funds in the first place they would have been able to replace the levees.

Oh...I see. The levees failed because Bush cut funds.
The lack of funding had nothing to do with Louisiana politicians siphoning money out of federal funding over the past decades. They've gotten plenty of money over the years to make the repairs, but they didn't. Millions have vanished over the years, and yet, the repairs were never made. Often, state officials didn't even put paperwork through to get federal matching funds.
Katrina was a systemic failure decades in the making.

[ryan]

Originally Posted by Leah

Part of that was Nagin's fault. But perhaps if Bush hadn't cut funds in the first place they would have been able to replace the levees.

I still think Bush is a fucking dumbass and I still hate him for all of the reasons I've said.

reasons that carry no weight

[Leah]

reasons that carry no weight to you...I have personal reasons that carry weight with me.

[Leah]

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

Oh...I see. The levees failed because Bush cut funds.
The lack of funding had nothing to do with Louisiana politicians siphoning money out of federal funding over the past decades. They've gotten plenty of money over the years to make the repairs, but they didn't. Millions have vanished over the years, and yet, the repairs were never made. Often, state officials didn't even put paperwork through to get federal matching funds.
Katrina was a systemic failure decades in the making.

Levees have to be replaced quite often, especially in Louisiana. It's not the fault of them that they couldn't replace them most recently.

[ryan]

Originally Posted by Leah

reasons that carry no weight to you*...I have personal reasons that carry weight with me.

*everyone but me

[Hazzle]

Heh Ryan. Leave the girl alone!

He's right though...

Leah, you're talking to Brad, a Floridian. As far as Hurricanes go, they know their shit. And like he said, Louisiana has been diverting federal funding for the repairs onto other things. It doesn't matter how regularly the levees need replacing, they've not been replaced in years because the State government has been "less than prudent" with the money it does have. It's all good and well complaining about not getting more, but they had plenty and wasted it. There's severe question marks over where all that money went, and at the time I definitely remember some eyebrows raised over potential corruption within the State. In that environment Bush carries no blame.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Leah

Levees have to be replaced quite often, especially in Louisiana. It's not the fault of them that they couldn't replace them most recently.

Yes, they do. One would think that politicians would realize this and not fritter away tens of millions of dollars on vote buying programs, but, they did. Much of the federal money was appropriated for other programs by state officials. Much of it simply disappeared.
Hardly surprising in a state where a congressman was caught with a $90,000 bribe in his freezer, wrapped in tinfoil.

[Leah]

Oh well in that case it's more Nagin's fault than I initially thought..oh and thank you Hazzle.

[Lacy]

I'm not going to spend the time to read all the other posts, sorry but I am quite tired. I will simply say that I dislike Bush very much so. I don't hate him, because I don't believe in hate, but he is on my list of people I am not so fond of I guess the main reasons I don't like him are that we are still in the war. It is one thing to make a mistake and get in a war, but to stay in it this long when it has nothing to do with us anymore really is rediculous(sp?) he may be just trying to help but it's not our job to take care of other countries problems. Also, he makes Americans and Texans look like quite the dumbasses. I don't like America all that much, but I still don't appreciate the way he represents us. On the other hand, I do believe that he is most likely trying his hardest, and I will give him that much, afterall we were the fuckups that voted for him again.

[Foeni]

So you'd rather that you left Iraq (I'm assuming that's the war you're talking about), and thereby left the country to terrorists and extremists? The international society has a responsibility for helping out when a dictator is torturing and murdering his people. And yes, it does have something to do with you. Don't you think a stabile oil market is good for you? A democratic Iraq would help in that matter.

Ok, that was a little off-topic.
We have had that discussion a few times before, haven't we?

On-topic: I think Bush has a reputation in lots of European countries that USA thinks it's the world cop that we all should follow. Bush is a rather unpopular man over here. I personally would rather have Bush than Kerry. Not thereby saying Bush is good, just saying he's better than Kerry.

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by Foeni

So you'd rather that you left Iraq (I'm assuming that's the war you're talking about), and thereby left the country to terrorists and extremists? The international society has a responsibility for helping out when a dictator is torturing and murdering his people. And yes, it does have something to do with you. Don't you think a stabile oil market is good for you? A democratic Iraq would help in that matter.

Yeah, that must be why the UN couldn't wait to help out. Puh-lease.

[Hazzle]

The UN? Since when has that organisation had ANY credibility?

Security Council countries that voted against the proposal:

China - ALWAYS opposes the US in the UN. Check the history for yourself

Russia - Tends to oppose the US in the UN too and yet sat on the fence here.

Germany - ALWAYS opposes war. Even opposed Kosovo

France - Had a financial interest as French oil producers had deals with the Iraqi oil producers whereby they could bypass the sanctions to get cheap oil to France. An invasion would've meant the end of this and would've put them on a level playing field with other oil producers around the world.

Former French colonies - And plenty of evidence of French coercion. In fact since there were 3 former French colonies, plus France, that means the French controlled 4 votes automatically. At best you could argue the US controlled the UK vote (and they didn't, we just tend to vote with them every time anyway). Bit skewed that.

Pakistan - Heh.

Syria - Even bigger heh.

Hardly a resounding victory for the anti-war brigade.

[Leonie]

That's all lovely, but not quite the point is it? It's the official organisation representing the international society and its duty that Foeni were talking about.

[acliff]

And what Haz is saying is that the UN is not necessarily the place to go when you're talking about international duty. For example members have been known to overlook dictatorships and minor genocides for monetary or political gain. And when some nations oppose each other as a matter of course, it makes the whole thing look like a farce. I'm not even going to mention reaction times.

[Foeni]

I wasn't talking about the UN. Reasons: see haz's and cliff's posts.
I'm glad some countries took action even though the Security Council didn't approve. I think that's a point in Bush's favour.

[acliff]

Of course countries taking action despite what the Security Council says doesn't do the SC's credibility any good.

[Leonie]

Retry: the UN should be what Foeni is describing, and aspires to be. Of course, the plan fails when people go off and do what suits them at the time anyway (US/China/all of Haz's examples).

[Hazzle]

I think we all agree it SHOULD be. But it's not, so the fact it didn't back the war in Iraq doesn't really work as an anti-war argument.

The fact is the UN is a shambles. It's not just the US that believes this.

Syria and Pakistan, for example, would probably argue that the US support of Israel makes it impossible for a UN-backed war on Israel. The only reason those countries don't go it alone like the US is because Israel would annihilate them in a war, not because they have any more respect for the UN than the US does.