Talk:George W. Bush

Debates

Have Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 been justified?

Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 have been justified.

<linkedimage>

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 1 This is a war, and waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.

<linkedimage>

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 1a We are at war.

1a-1 Can you call it a war when the enemy isn't a country or even an organized group?

1a-1.1 If it's not a war on some recognized geopolitical or cultural entity, do the usual caveats about "being at war" – specifically that freedoms must be curtailed – even apply?

1a-1.2 How do we know that Bush hasn't shaped his response to the situation specifically so that the label "war" could be applied, allowing him to make bad decisions and behave corruptly? Do we trust Bush to make "wartime" judgment calls without any accountability? See #Is Bush trustworthy? for further discussion.

1a-2 We shouldn't be at war.

1a-2.1 War is an inappropriate response to this situation.

1a.2.1.1 You don't attack the Mafia by invading Chicago, destroying its infrastructure, and getting all the locals ticked off at you. Similarly, you don't destroy terrorism with an army; it takes intelligence, in both senses of the word, and the Bush people have shown over and over again that what mental powers they do possess are mostly devoted to the intelligent design of sweetheart deals for their supporters – and consolidating their power through subterfuge, misdirection, and highly questionable legal theory. See #Is Bush trustworthy? for further discussion.

1a.2.1.1-1 The Islamofascists are a worse problem than the Mafia in a couple of ways.

1a.2.1.1-1.1 If you left the Mafia alone, they would leave you alone; the Islamofascists won't..

1a.2.1.1-1.1a The Mafia wasn't a problem when they were left alone.

1a.2.1.1-1.1a-1 The Mafia often demanded "protection money" of those who just happened to be within their turf, with dire consequences if the money was not paid.

1a.2.1.1-1.1b The islamofascists are a problem even when left alone.

1a.2.1.1-1.1b-1 Possibly true, though this one difference does not in itself justify revoking civil liberties.

1a.2.1.2 As I understand it all the terrorist plots that have been foiled recently were foiled using normal police methods – not by virtue of Bush's wiretapping, or by extracting confessions from tortured prisoners, much less any of the other reductions of freedom. If any of his actions had clearly played a part in the successful rounding-up of terrorists, I'm sure he would have been taking credit for it.

1a.2.1.1-1.2 The mafia don't blow up innocent people just to make a point.

1a.2.1.1-1.2 Possibly not, but they certainly did gun people down for that same reason.

<linkedimage>

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 1b Waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.

1b-1 The Mafia situation was worse than this one, and yet there was no significant curtailment of freedom.

1b-1.1 Regardless of whether you call the situation now with the Islamic terrorists, the Mafia in America in the 1920s-30s was substantially worse – people were being attacked on American soil, by a well-funded enemy who looked like us and even (mostly) had US citizenship – so there was no quick-and-dirty way to profile them for detention, as we are now doing. City governments were being corrupted and infiltrated by Mafia operatives, people were being gunned down in broad daylight, businesses were being burned.

1b-1.2 And yet, as far as I know, there was no significant curtailment of freedom in the fight against these terrorists. (Significantly, they largely arose as a major threat because of a curtailment of freedom – Prohibition. On a related note, the rampant corruption of the US occupation of Iraq is having a similar effect over there.)

<linkedimage>

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 2 Bush's abridgments of civil liberties thus far are at least within reason, whether or not you agree on the details.

i.e. it's difficult to judge if the current war justifies the curtailments thus far, so why not grant Bush the benefit of the doubt?

<linkedimage>

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 2a We still have far more freedoms than European countries do, so we don't really have any cause for complaint.

<linkedimage>

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 2b Some increase in surveillance powers at least seems reasonable.

<linkedimage>

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 3 Nobody has been seriously harmed by these curtailments so far.

<linkedimage>

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 3a The potential for abuse is there, but Bush would not intentionally abuse the power he has obtained.

Notes

#politics 2005-07-22

<TheWoozle> Would you consider "pro-big-business" to be a positive or negative side of Republicanism?
<TheWoozle> And is pro-big-businessness a Conservative trait too? I wouldn't necessarily *think* so, but maybe I'm confusing Conservative and Libertarian.