board77

Here's a hypothetical.

Iraq becomes a stable democracy, and an example to the entire region what can happen with demorcracy and freedom. Say it stays that way for 50 years...

History will be forced to look at GW Bush, as a hero, for not caving to political pressure, and sticking to his course, to make Iraq into what would make it work.


I don't think Bush is a hero... I think he has made some monumental errors. Even IF things turn out well from what he's done, I think it foolish to forget those errors.

But the reality is, this kind of thing happens throughout history. While events are occuring, they are not HISTORY... they are just the only barely non-chaotic thing that is life. When things are put into historical perspective, they look completely different... The original context is almost impossible to understand or recreate... even if you lived through it!

Don't really know what else to say about it...

For the record, this has happened. Harry S. Truman's approval ratings were in the 30s throughout the second half of his Presidency, and the Democrats suffered some of their worst Congressional losses during it. Now he's widely considered to be a very good President.

It's no co-incidence that Truman is one of George W. Bush's favourite Presidents.

Ah, hindsight. It's a wonderful thing.

I wonder how much of a hero Bush will be viewed as if Iraq doesn't stabilize during his last term. If this Iraqi democracy thing stabilizes, Bush will be looked at with more favor than the path his legacy is currently traveling.

Itll look great unless you're a damn commie.




Borry

If the cyclical model of history is correct, we are in for 20 years of miserableness and social trauma of the magnitude of the Great Depression and WWII.

If that's so, history won't remember our current president fondly.

Even if Iraq does turn out fine, I don't see why Bush will be looked on kindly. Wouldn't it just mean that he went to war and started a process? If it takes 50 years to make a stable democracy in Iraq, Bush will have played a small part in it. Anyone can create a war, it takes far more to fix things afterwards.

I think Bush will just go down in history as the instigator. I don't think he will be anything more.

Look at Nixon. Regardless of his.. er.. tape editing talents, he is remembered to this day as the president that got the US out of Vietnam. One side looks at him as good for ending it, one side looks at him as bad for losing a war. Did he really have anything to do with it? I'm not sure he's the only person that could have. What options did he have really? He'd already tried Cambodia and that didn't work out so well so what choice did he have? Keep fighting a war for years and years that was obviously not going to be won, or get out. It's not much of a choice when the gun is to your head.

Bush didn't have a gun to his head, he made a choice and I think that will go down poorly for him. People will look at it and say yea so what. So what if Iraq turned out ok after 50 years. How many people died because of his mistakes in not being prepared to start with? No one will ever know now what would have happened had the planning been better. Had the US waited 10 years. Had France chosen do invade instead. Who knows. There are waaaay to many variables.

Unfortunately history doesn't always judge fairly either. Hindsight and all that. During the time leading up to the war I was for it. I was for it even after the first year or so. Now, with hindsight it's become painfully obvious to me that some serious errors were made.

History may someday judge him as a hero for Iraq, but I will always think of him as an idiot who went off half cocked.

I've been against the war from day one, merely because I used to play "Risk" a lot and you simply cannot take over the world by starting out in two separate countries. You take over ONE, consolidate your position, and then attack a neighboring country.

Starting two separate conflicts in two separate areas simply will not get you world domination.
Limited resources limit your effectiveness.

Just ask Hitler!

so we should have attacked Canada then?

I imagine that that would be like attacking Ankh Morpork, without the sewage and Ladies of Negotiable Affection.

"Canada welcomes invading countries!" They integrate them and before they know it, there is a province called "The province of the American Army"

Only Sith's deal in absolutes. Bush will never be 100% good or 100% bad. Some things he did better than others the same holds true of any President. Except Carter he pretty much did poorly .

Funny. Mr. Carter is thought of kindly around much of the world.

Invade Canada? Jeez. Wait a year or two, cuz we're not quite ready yet. When we are staggering under the debt of hosting the 2010 Olympics, etc., come on up North and bail us out.

We will ply you with good beer and let you go snowmobiling. It'll be like Iraq except: no one dies and it's not as hot.

You can teach us about democracy, too.

No need to invade Canada, the US already has an oil pipeline there

Politicans claiming responsibility for something good often conjure up an interesting mental image in me.

Imagine a group of people riding on top of a moving car, fighting over the highest point on the moving car, taking credit for steering the car.

The best way for a US President to become a good president is apparently to be assassinated in office. No matter how much of a mess they are in, or how badly policy has turned out or how close to destruction they have taken the US, they are heroes.

So, its an option, only has a few months to go but I can think of a few billion people who would see it as a good thing.

Dindraug wrote:

The best way for a US President to become a good president is apparently to be assassinated in office. No matter how much of a mess they are in, or how badly policy has turned out or how close to destruction they have taken the US, they are heroes.

So, its an option, only has a few months to go but I can think of a few billion people who would see it as a good thing.

Gosh, Din, then you would stick us all with Cheney, even YOU guys should be afraid of that scenario.