Worst President of the 20th Century

DeletedUser

Yes, some things are the presidents fault. Like the War on Terror. That will always be President George W. Bush's fault. Some things can be blamed on them but are not directly there fault. For example, a president can veto a bill. However, the other group of people (I forget which one but I think its Congress) can vote and override the veto, letting it go into power. I don't know if this has happened, but in some cases, it might not be the presidents but Congress' fault. I for one am not going to blame the president for releasing a criminal instead of putting them in jail, that I blame on the Supreme Court. Things like Guantanamo and the War on Terror I blame on the president. One thing that Obama is doing right is closing Guantanamo.
 

DeletedUser

If they close Guantanamo, they'll just release a bunch of terrorists back to Iraq, or worse, into our justice system.
 

DeletedUser

If they were genuine terrorists they could be charged in real courts, and would not need to be kept in Guantanamo bay in violation of their human rights....
 

DeletedUser

I say let them be tortured. They are terroists, they deserve it. And I'm sure Divest will say something about this like, wow, you really don't know what you're talking about.
 

DeletedUser

If they were genuine terrorists they could be charged in real courts, and would not need to be kept in Guantanamo bay in violation of their human rights....

I say let them be tortured. They are terroists, they deserve it. And I'm sure Divest will say something about this like, wow, you really don't know what you're talking about.
Divest would be absolutely right to say that. You are endorsing the torture of people based purely on hearsay and circumstance, I think that is about as ignorant and cruel as it is possible to be. Tell me, have you ever experienced a human emotion, or are you completely incapable of sympathy or compassion?
 

DeletedUser

They aren't American citizens, and the US Justice System was designed to prosecuted American citizens. And, at Guantanamo Bay that are subjected to torture like waterboarding, but they probably live better in our prisons than they do in their hideouts. If I ran the government, I would have them executed as soon as they were captured.
 

DeletedUser

Divest would be absolutely right to say that. You are endorsing the torture of people based purely on hearsay and circumstance, I think that is about as ignorant and cruel as it is possible to be. Tell me, have you ever experienced a human emotion, or are you completely incapable of sympathy or compassion?

Nope, never had emotion. Too busy for that. But I'm sure I could if I wanted. And besides, they would do the same to us. Eye for an eye.
 

DeletedUser

They aren't American citizens, and the US Justice System was designed to prosecuted American citizens.
No, the U.S. Justice system was designed to prosecute criminals, regardless of their citizenship.

And, at Guantanamo Bay that are subjected to torture like waterboarding, but they probably live better in our prisons than they do in their hideouts.
You are #1, assuming they lived in a hideout and #2, assuming they are guilty and #3, condoning torture and #4, assuming that living in a prison is better than freedom.

Three of those are gross assumptions, the other is unconscionable. The mere fact Americans are debating whether torture is an acceptable action shows just how out of touch America has become.

If I ran the government, I would have them executed as soon as they were captured.
Again, you are assuming guilt.

Nope, never had emotion. Too busy for that. But I'm sure I could if I wanted.
If you insist on trolling here, be forewarned. Everyone has emotions, unless they're sociopaths in need of incarceration.

And besides, they would do the same to us. Eye for an eye.
#1, you're assuming guilt. #2, you're condoning torture. #3 see above.
 

DeletedUser

That is an assumption, that they live in dinky caves up in the mountains, but some do and they (probably, I don't have definite proof) probably don't have as good living conditions and luxuries as in Guantanamo, the terrorists would probably want out simply because it would be freedom and helping their cause.

I know that not all terrorists and criminals live in bad conditions, many of the Somalian pirates own mansions.
 

DeletedUser

It does no good to admit you posted assumptions and then go on to post further assumptions even saying you don't have proof. This is a running theme with you. Either do the research and provide proof or don't post your assumptions. We spend more time doing the research for you in order to prove what you say is not based in any fact at all than you spend thinking up your next crazy idea.

I haven't seen a post of yours yet that is accurate. If you are going to take part in debates at least do some homework.

Also, doing research doesn't mean finding one site that agrees with whatever preconceived notions you have. It means gathering and reading a lot of data from different sources.
 

DeletedUser

Thomas, you are making a gross error in judgment if you think luxury imprisonment surpasses squalid freedom, and an even greater error in judgment if you think torture happens in a single timeframe. To put it simply, the threat of torture serves to terrorize the prisoners in Guantanamo, for the entirety of their imprisonment.

It's easy to dismiss the issue, because it's not happening to you.
 

DeletedUser

Thomas lets put this in terms maybe you can understand. It would be like your parents grounding you for life because some kids in your school got caught smoking pot. Just because you go to that school or may know some of those kids you are guilty by association. You aren't allowed to defend yourself. You are put in your room and not allowed to leave. In addition, they take away all your little toys, throw you in a cold shower and make you walk around naked. Oh, and not only that they tell everybody they know and it even gets on the news that you are a pot smoking freak and they can't let you out in case you smoke again.
 

DeletedUser

I agree with Denisero and Hellstromm. Torture is not humane. I don't care whether it's a good man, for example George Washington, or an evil man, say Adolf Hitler. I would not torture either of them according to the accusations or because of there being evil. They are humans. They have feelings, pains, and they have life. I would not execute either, for taking the life of a man is wrong. I would want them to live the rest of there lives with guilt, unless they are psychopaths and wouldnt care, but still. Torture, execution, any form of that is humanely wrong. I support the life sentance, but not the death sentance.

And to put your accusations Thomas, terrorists don't live in caves. They hide yes, and so far Osama Bin Laden is the World's Hide and Go Seek Champion. But, they do not live in caves, use clubs, or are neanderthals. They are smart people who think that fighting and dieing for there cause will get them to heaven. In the Muslim case, 72 virgins and a river of honey. These people are religiously extreme, and should not be judged by that. I don't judge the Pope cause he preaches about God all the time and leads the Catholic Church. And I do not judge Osama Bin Laden because he fights for Allah and leads terrorists to fight for Allah also. They are humans and should be judged accordingly yes. If I continue on, I think Im going to go on a rant and lose track of where I am and what Im talking about so thats all I have to say for now.
 

DeletedUser

I agree with Denisero and Hellstromm. Torture is not humane. I don't care whether it's a good man, for example George Washington, or an evil man, say Adolf Hitler. I would not torture either of them according to the accusations or because of there being evil. They are humans. They have feelings, pains, and they have life. I would not execute either, for taking the life of a man is wrong. I would want them to live the rest of there lives with guilt, unless they are psychopaths and wouldnt care, but still. Torture, execution, any form of that is humanely wrong. I support the life sentance, but not the death sentance.

And to put your accusations Thomas, terrorists don't live in caves. They hide yes, and so far Osama Bin Laden is the World's Hide and Go Seek Champion. But, they do not live in caves, use clubs, or are neanderthals. They are smart people who think that fighting and dieing for there cause will get them to heaven. In the Muslim case, 72 virgins and a river of honey. These people are religiously extreme, and should not be judged by that. I don't judge the Pope cause he preaches about God all the time and leads the Catholic Church. And I do not judge Osama Bin Laden because he fights for Allah and leads terrorists to fight for Allah also. They are humans and should be judged accordingly yes. If I continue on, I think Im going to go on a rant and lose track of where I am and what Im talking about so thats all I have to say for now.

I judge Osama because he attacked MY country. What did we do in response? Start a long and stupid war that pitted our own people against eachother. Now, if we were barbaric, we would have retaliated by destroying one of their highly populated areas to sum it all up, that would mean 3,000 dead civilians, just like our 3,000 dead on 9/11. But we are far more civilized/generous/intellegent than that, so we just focused on the taliban and Al Queda.

I hold a grudge against Osama because he attacked MY soil, he had his soldiers, Martars, Marauders or whatever the hell they are tresspass AND destroy public property on MY soil. America belongs to all of us, he was destroying what is ours. Why? Simple, who would blame him for it 7 years later? Who would care about 3,000 dead people when the economy colapses because of insufficient funds? Who cares? Not many of you, thats for damn sure. Unlike many people, I still remember watching the news, seeing the gaping hole in the tower. "What the hell's going on?" I asked calmly as my parents watched with me. At first it was not that scary, the tower probably wouldn't fall I thought, then there was a second plane, it smashed into the other tower. ************s! I said as the smoke burst out of the tower. I continued watching but soon had to go to school. We watched it in my second grade class, all of us worried or focused. Then the buildings came crashing down.

For 6 years, people supported the war to try and stop that from ever happening again, plenty of people from the own USA came up with conspiracys, one man even said the people in the tower deserved to die, and on year 7, no one seemed to remember. Bushes term ended with him going down worse than ever, thanks to his stimulas which screwed up everything for years to come, and now there is a president who is severely underestimating the problems, and going with the "global warming" crowd instead. We are now leaving many of the countries in the Middle east, improper militias are left to attempt a full defense. Civilians are regretting their hate for the US already, and some have asked for a return of our soldiers before it all hits the fan. Our troops are focused in Afghanistan now, and the US citizens are in dismay. The terrorists didn't even have to do anything, but they decided they would take advantage of America anyways and demolish two national landmarks. Not to mention the attack on the Pentagon which left many people dead and wounded.

Osama attacked innocent people, and killed many of them all in the name of Allah. He attacked the US because they were the weak infidels, and he never did underestimate us, as you can see, many are giving up the good fight, many of us no longer hate the enemy, more of, accepting fate, hoping for the better.

We could have done more to find Osama, but we decided to liberate Iraq. What we got was nothing except a faster death. We could have focused on hostile threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but, we liberated Iraq. For nothing. Iraq will soon turn back to the Militia ruled place it once was, only there will be a leader other than Saddam this time and a far stronger army. Just like what happened with Iran, give them an inch, they take a mile.

Regarding torture, I would make sure Osama Bin Ladin dies a slow, painful death. I want him to remember the 3,000 lives that were paid so he can go to his land of milk and honey, and I want him to see the faces of the victims each time he lays eyes on the 72 virgins. I want him to suffer for what he cost us. But, there is no "us" anymore, there is no "we", is there? Only them, they, him, her, she, he, me and I.

What ever happened to "Stand United"?

We should Unite, many of us are better than none of us. We should Stand, sitting gets us stepped on. We should be AMERICANS.

USA, and that's all I have to say.
 

DeletedUser

Wasn't the Afghanistan war started, because the Taliban accommodated Osama Bin Laden? Now Afghanistan is occupied by western troops and talibans have become a synonym of terrorist, but the fight is still going on. Bin Laden is still at large, and the war in Afghanistan just doesn't want to end. As more troops and money is sent/spent to/on Afghanistan now under the Obama administration: Have the Americans decided, that there soldiers will stay there for ever (/"permanently")? Afghanistan is threatened to become a "failed state", with human rights abuses (or at least several accounts of abuses), high illegal drug production, weak institutions and repeating fights, also leading to civilian casualties (2,118 civilian death were reported by the UN Mission in Afgh. in 2008). And think of the Afghanistan people, how can they lead a peaceful and liberal life, when they constantly have to fear to be killed during the fight between NATO soldiers and taliban. Bombs and bullets have no eyes at thus can not tell, if they hit civilians or soldiers.

I can't tell who the worst American president in the 20th century is, but Bush Jnr is definetely the worst American president throughout history. And he got two terms!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Wasn't the Afghanistan war started, because the Taliban accommodated Osama Bin Laden? Now Afghanistan is occupied by western troops and talibans have become a synonym of terrorist, but the fight is still going on. Bin Laden is still at large, and the war in Afghanistan just doesn't want to end. As more troops and money is sent/spent to/on Afghanistan now under the Obama administration: Have the Americans decided, that there soldiers will stay there for ever (/"permanently")? Afghanistan is threatened to become a "failed state", with human rights abuses (or at least several accounts of abuses), high illegal drug production, weak institutions and repeating fights, also leading to civilian casualties (2,118 civilian death were reported by the UN Mission in Afgh. in 2008). And think of the Afghanistan people, how can they lead a peaceful and liberal life, when they constantly have to fear to be killed during the fight between NATO soldiers and taliban. Bombs and bullets have no eyes at thus can not tell, if they hit civilians or soldiers.

I can't tell who the worst American president in the 20th century is, but Bush Jnr is definetely the worst American president throughout history. And he got two terms!

He started sucking horribly on his second term, if he would have lost to Kerry, then we would be far better off and everyone would have what they want. Bush would not be hated, Kerry would have been President, and We would have a new president now, Independent or republican since Kerry obviously is an epic failure. Im glad Bush had his first term, anyTHING beats Al "Manbearpig warming" Gore.
 

DeletedUser

You seem to hate Bin Laden very much and I believe your hate is justified.

Here's something I found in Wikipedia:

And you're right
Wikipedia said:
On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military hostilities, the Taliban did offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.[34] This offer was rejected by the U.S., and the bombing of targets within Afghanistan by U.S. and British forces commenced the same day.
October 14, 2001, seven days into the U.S./British bombing campaign, the Taliban offered to surrender Osama bin Laden to a third country for trial, if the bombing halted and they were shown evidence of his involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks. This offer was also rejected by U.S. President Bush, who declared "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."

If Bin Laden is in a court, everything would get simple, then he can be found and captured there.

Now we got ridd the talibans from the Afghanistan government, and the war is still going on, supported by the American people.
But Bin Laden is still somewhere hidden and laughing at the Americans. And some people think Bin Laden is in Pakistan. Will Pakistan be the next target? Bin Laden is playing hide and seek, but I don't think the Americans have to search/invade through whole Near-East to get him. I think the Americans have lost their aims. Capturing Bin Laden is the thing, that they should do, not invading countries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

A couple of questions...

Now, if we were barbaric, we would have retaliated by destroying one of their highly populated areas to sum it all up, that would mean 3,000 dead civilians, just like our 3,000 dead on 9/11.

Who are "they"? What cities does Al Qaeda have?

Let's assume that by "they" you mean "Muslims". Do you know the death toll for Iraqis alone? Do you think that somehow, under your definition, we haven't been "barbaric"?

But we are far more civilized/generous/intellegent than that, so we just focused on the taliban and Al Queda.

Er...we didn't do that.


Bushes term ended with him going down worse than ever, thanks to his stimulas which screwed up everything for years to come, and now there is a president who is severely underestimating the problems, and going with the "global warming" crowd instead.

Bush's economic stimulus had very little to do with the economy collapsing. Bush's economic stimulus was a reaction to the economy collapsing....not the cause of it.

We could have done more to find Osama, but we decided to liberate Iraq.

We NEVER decided to "liberate" Iraq...

Just like what happened with Iran, give them an inch, they take a mile.

Can you really blame them for wanting to create a military strong enough to defend themselves...against the US?

I want him to remember the 3,000 lives that were paid so he can go to his land of milk and honey, and I want him to see the faces of the victims each time he lays eyes on the 72 virgins. I want him to suffer for what he cost us.

What do you want to do to those responsible for the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of innocent lives taken when the US invaded and overthrew Iraq and Afghanistan?

What ever happened to "Stand United"?

"My country wrong or right, is like saying my mother, drunk or sober."
Chesterton, Gilbert K. [SIZE=-1]on[/SIZE] Patriotism
 

DeletedUser

i guess im the only conservative here

A couple of questions...







Bush's economic stimulus had very little to do with the economy collapsing. Bush's economic stimulus was a reaction to the economy collapsing....not the cause of it.

this one i agree on the stimulus was stupid but so are obamas stimulus packeges

and im sure you will disagree but the recession was caused buy govt regulations they made the banks gives loans to people who could not afford to pay back on. it wasnt bushs fault or greed on wall street



We NEVER decided to "liberate" Iraq...

what do you think we did? we attacked and liberated iraq from evil sadam husain

and heres the definition of liberate from merium websters dictionry i cut and copyed it

1: to set at liberty : free ; specifically : to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power

and if your going to use the argument that we weren't treated as liberators i strongly suggest you look at the footage of when we went into bagdad.

its a shame obama is pulling us out of iraq it shows the taliban they can win against us and without substantial presure over there on them they can focus more energy in attacking us over here



Can you really blame them for wanting to create a military strong enough to defend themselves...against the US?

why do we think about attacking them? its becuase they have a crazy leader who says he would love to wipe us and Israel "off the map" is that the kind of guy you would trust with nukes?



What do you want to do to those responsible for the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of innocent lives taken when the US invaded and overthrew Iraq and Afghanistan?

you are saying the terrorists are innocent?


any way feal freee to mail me for continued debate on this and other things as it is hard to keep up with so many people and posts
 
Top