How will history judge GW Bush and America

G.W. Bush will be yanked by the toes harder than Rumsfeld when the election season starts. Hillary and others will charge that he is en Fiasco.

The weakened state of Am. will be subsidized with orally, painted pictures of Rose Gardens. And the "It's all OK" signal will be given. The next leader will strategically withdraw certain sectors of the Am. population in the ME, and quietly supplant another.

The War Luster is to shined with over-budgeting, and Haliburtin and its off shoots will allow themselves even more.

But, as for W: He'd better start planning a strategy. Rumsfeld was played as a joke, and joke he is. W will be brought to the shaken ground of distraught, super imposition. Laid at the feet of total fault.

History is written by the victors.

i don't think i matters what history judges, history tends to be a poor judge as the generation that looks at it will be looking from a set of values that are different. context will be lost or distorted by the prejudice of the writers, how does history judge Italy in light of the roman empire, pretty well considering the thing that went down then. so history as a judge, eh who cares all the players and the audience of the time will be dead and gone .

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Its no secret that Al Queda... Zarqawi... faction of Al Queda.
I didnt think that this was a big secret, maybe you should read more about this topic.
Also Coven, i do agree with you on Saudi Arabia, I really dont trust them and never have

Originally posted by coven

Iraq only, which is now a known hotspot for Al Queda. [edit on 27-3-2007 by Kr0n0s]

not to be rude but do you have a source for that? Preferably UK or German would be nice.



Coven

[edit on 27-3-2007 by Kr0n0s]
Members really should be allowed to edit other members messages without U2Uing first...

1st off... My point about Iraq was Iraq Had NOTHING to do with Al Queda before we were preparing to attack them... If you Have any European News Sources to Quote to Prove your theory that al Queda was there PRE CONFLICT (note the wording... not pre war... pre diplomatic conflict, IRAQ had nothing to do with Al Queda... Last I check Zarqawi didn't work for Saddam... I have a feeling if he was there before the war plans were being put into play, I promise you can find an iraqi story showing saddam had zarqawi wanted dead or alive...


2nd off... if you don't agree with a point... u2u me... don't TOUCH MY POST... WTF why would a mod let a member do that? I may have misspoked but a simple hey dude I think your wrong there... *ohh i see, i misspoke, mistyped whatever) oh look new post explaining it...


rant off

Coven

Hey dude, that was over a month ago and I didnt touch your post, what happened was I screwed up when quoting and that is why it turned out like that. grow up and quit sending me whining U2U's about something you havent got a clue about.

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Hey dude, that was over a month ago and I didnt touch your post, what happened was I screwed up when quoting and that is why it turned out like that. grow up and quit sending me whining U2U's about something you havent got a clue about.

lol whatever... I posted that response last night...

Yea whatever, what does when you posted it have to do with anything?
You should be sure of what youre talking about before sending U2U's to people calling them "Asses"
In answer to your original question, Al Queda in Iraq takes responsibility for most major attacks in Iraq or at least they did.
Something that comes to mind now that didnt last month is that they seem to be less visible than they were before Zarqawi was killed.
Usually most attacks are blamed on some splinter group or something that has never been heard of before.
However, wasnt the huge Bridge that was blown up blamed on Al Queda in Iraq?
I cant remember...
BTW nowhere in any post i made did i say that Al Queda was ever in Iraq prior to 2003.
Zarqawi, is the one that was given the "honor" of being the one that brought Al Queda to Iraq, which is why he was labeled as "the leader of Al Queda In Iraq"

Also, mods will you please explain to this member that it is NOT possible for another member to edit his post.
I am getting tired of his whining U2U's accusing me of editing his posts and calling me names.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by Kr0n0s]

GWB will be remembered as a mass murderer.
And america will be remembered as model not to be followed.

Originally posted by coven

Iraq only, which is now a known hotspot for Al Queda. [edit on 27-3-2007 by Kr0n0s]

not to be rude but do you have a source for that? Preferably UK or German would be nice.

also you state we should have stayed in Afghanistan... Am I the only person who thinks we can end terrorism by destroying the state that pays for it all? Saudi Arabia is at least Financially behind 99% of the terrorist attacks around the world. If were gonna indescriminately kill arabs, lets at least stick to the leaders of the Saudi Islamo-Fascist Regime.(dude they cut your head off for infidelity... WTF)


Coven


i think this is clear enough... my point in the original post over a month ago, which you changed and I noticed after checking favorites,

Iraq only, which is now a known hotspot for Al Queda. [edit on 27-3-2007 by Kr0n0s]

so I posted my other response... don't try to call me a whiner and flame me because I disagreed with your point... I don't think the Iraq War was a good Idea... you edited my original post and made it sound like i was saying Al Queda was a Hotspot for Iraq, Which is not what I said...

I said IRAQ was not a known hot spot Before the war... that was my opinion(and from what I have researched a FACT)....

you changed it and started this whole ordeal by flipping out when I posted a new response.

also... ass I see shows up in the forum... interesting... I bet jackass isn't a curse word here... why... oh I do wonder sometimes...



quit your threats... don't edit my posts... and we can all be happy...

[edit on 29-4-2007 by coven]

the Bush admin will be remembers as a leadership which has created a generation of people full of Hate and for the destroying all the good the US has ever stood for.

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Yes it is true that someone had to pick up the fight against radical islamists, i dont disagree with that at all, I also agreed with the fight against the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan but we had no business taking the anti terror fight to Iraq. Was Saddam a bad guy? yes he was, he was a horrible dictator and treated his people very badly but he had nothing to do with International terrorism and everyone knows it. I think the American people and most of the rest of the world would not have such a huge problem with us if he had just focused his attack to Afghanistan and kept up the pursuit of Bin Laden, like he promised he would do.
Imo, when we attacked Iraq, we completely went away from what our stated target was, which is and was USM and Al Queda. Saddam did not like USM and would have never allowed him in his country, there was never any evidence of any terrorism coming out of Iraq.
The whole Iraqi thing is what has reduced our standing with our allies, if we had just stuck with Afghanistan then I think we would still have most of the world with us, instead of hating our guts.

What is the reason "someone had to pick up the fight with radical islamists"?

Is it because we want the US to remove it's military bases from out part of the world? Is it because we want the world's only superpower to stop supporting corrupt governments in our region? Is it because we want them to end the one-sided support to the Zionists?

As long as these policies continue, America will continue to enjoy being humiliated on the world stage. More attacks will come, and the cowards who run the US will respond with more Crusades around the world, while stripping away the rights of it's citizens at home.

It is impossible for me to edit ANYONES post except mine and there is a window of time that I and everyone else has to do that.
Quit causing trouble and whining about me doing something that is NOT possible.
If youre so sure that I did this then report me to a mod or someone and let them tell you the same thing.
As far as your original post goes, i never said Iraq had Al Queda in the country prior to the war, i said " Iraq is NOW known as a hotspot for Al Queda"
Even this seems to have diminished since the death of Zarqawi, who was known as the Leader of Al Queda in Iraq.
So get over it and quit accusing me of something that is impossible for me to do.

Yep, I have to agree with that. The USA used to be known as a country that everybody wanted to go to (for the most part)
Bush has taken America from one of the most loved countries to THE most hated country in the world and he only needed 6 years to do this.
He is a horrible leader and a horrible person and I sincerely hope that he countries across the world put out warrants for his arrest, leaving him no safe place to run to.
It would be great to see him begging some South American country to allow him entrance and not be extradited.
I read somewhere that he was trying to purchase 800k acres in Uruguay and is building a home there with a private army guarding him..
Probably not much truth to this, it sounds like something youd hear in a tabloid type paper lol..

Originally posted by bodrul
the Bush admin will be remembers as a leadership which has created a generation of people full of Hate and for the destroying all the good the US has ever stood for.

These little snipes at one another stop now.

Kr0n0s, coven, this thread is not about the two of you guys. ATS is not a medium created to allow you two to bicker back and forth. The topic of this thread is "How will history judge GW Bush and America". Any posts that do not carry any relevance to the subject at hand, will be removed, and the author will be held accountable.

Stick to the subject guys. This childish bickering has gone on for too long in this thread.

Again, back to the subject.

"How will history judge GW Bush and America"

As I was saying from my first post.


Bush will be judged as the new American Imperialist. He has focused on organizing troops in the Middle East to build new Permanent Bases, for the main purpose of locking down a source of Oil besides our Own. It is been fairly well shown that Afghanistan was nothing but a cover to remove the tali ban to allow the building of a Natural Gas Pipeline through Afghanistan to Kazakhstan.
Now we have engaged our troops in Iraq, Locking down one of the Largest Producers of Oil in the World... Now were in position for Iran.

Once we take Iran, I have a feeling our next stop is Saudi Arabia.
Then the Conservative Goal is to basically form the Middle Eastern States of America. This is going to leave Bush with but one historical Option... Write his own story... (his-story) and keep himself in a positive light 60 years from now, or let us write the history, and become written as one of the worst Empirical Leader in history... well besides Alexander the great.

By worst I mean most driven to continue warring for more and more land.

Theres my 2 cents.


Hope to hell that the books keep it somewhat truthful.

Coven

We are also trying to the form the "Middle East States of America." However, we will call it the Islamic Khilafah, and Shar'iah will be the law.

Iraq will become an Islamic state, be sure of that. America cannot maintain it. Just as America installed the Shah, and watched them get removed, so will the puppets in Iraq. Look at Turkey right now...the tide is slowly turning there, too, and will continue in the right direction, insha'Allah.

America will not touch the dictators who are friendly...if America did anything to disrupt the Saudi regime (which I would WELCOME!!!), do you know what you would get? "Sunni Iran"...except better, in my opinion.

Of course I want that, so my opinion is biased.

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
We are also trying to the form the "Middle East States of America." However, we will call it the Islamic Khilafah, and Shar'iah will be the law.

Iraq will become an Islamic state, be sure of that. America cannot maintain it. Just as America installed the Shah, and watched them get removed, so will the puppets in Iraq. Look at Turkey right now...the tide is slowly turning there, too, and will continue in the right direction, insha'Allah.

America will not touch the dictators who are friendly...if America did anything to disrupt the Saudi regime (which I would WELCOME!!!), do you know what you would get? "Sunni Iran"...except better, in my opinion.

Of course I want that, so my opinion is biased.

I get what your saying completely... the best way to sum up my world view would be that the people who live in a region control that region. Not a group of a-holes who say they have your best interest at heart, while they take care of there friends in the end.

Imagine a middle East run by the majority of middle easterners. Though some think Shar'iah law is a bad idea I whole heartedly endorse it(for most cases, theft, murder, rape the things that actually hurt people... I doubt I could condone the stoning of a person for adultery however... ) the middle east would probably be the most lawful and peaceful society in the world(once we figure out a way to fix the Israel/Palestine situation) personally I like the... YOUR FRIGGIN COUSINS GET OVER IT ALREADY arguement... I am sure as a middle east supporter you probably would prefer Israel to be relocated; like lets say Utah... =) [no offense on the assumption intended]

Coven

It's an illegal state. It shouldn't be relocated, it should be removed. But that doesn't meant the people have to die, or be removed. The people can stay, but the government must be dismantled, and the term "Israel" must no longer apply to a state.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by AbuMusaab]

History is not objective and it's engines tend not to judge America in any sense of rancor.

History was written for the entire debacle in Iraq before it occurred to fit this American imperialistic endevour. History was written for 9/11 just days after it occurred. History is, as you can see, pliable to our whim, especially if our whim is to create a world under our sphere of influence.

Luxifero

President Bush and America will be judged the same way any other national entity or elected official is judged...by whatever bias the author of said history uses.

Generally? I've really no idea. It would depend largely upon the outcome of the Iraq war, and its fallout in the Middle East in general, even the rest of the world. If Iraq becomes a successful republican democracy, than he'll be judged the saviour of a nation. If it doesn't work out and Iraq becomes Lebanon of the 80's writ large, then he'll be consigned to the dustbin along with all the other leaders who tried and failed. Simple really.