Your thoughts on the matter...?

[Oddysee]

I've been having a little chat with Boo' and we crossed a topic I've been discussing with a few mates now and again. It struck me, that it'd be interesting to get some American views on the matter, as it rather does concern you.

The thought is; how will Bush be remembered in 5o years?
You see, talking about it and considering how the world works, I realised that history has a way of forgetting what a person was like, but only remembering what they did. So the fact that he can't read, talk or lead, wont be as important as what he's done that changed the world.
My thoughts are these:

There have been many wars, so Afghanistan, Irak. The lot. Will all be forgotten in a few years. No one hardly remembers Afghanistan as it is.
But Dictators! Now that's different. We only have so many of them and removing the best know living dictator. Now that's something that'll be remembered.
The reasons, the methods. All are insignificant when compared to the fact:
Bush removed Saddam Hussain.

Frankly the thought that he might actually be remembered for something possitive disturbs me, but I can't shake the feeling that that's where it's heading...

What about you, what are your thoughts on the matter?

[Note]
Please only post if you have any thoughts on it. Things like "omg bush sucks" really shouldb't be put here. I'm not interested in your private views on weather or not he's a moron, or weather or not you like him. I'm interested in your views on how you think the world will remember him, and weather or not you think it might be something positive.
Any points should be backed up with at least some sort of explination as to why you think it.
95% of you will not have needed this "note", but I added it hoping the last 5% will head it and either write something constructive, or not write at all.
Thank you.







Tm

[Tacz]

I'd like to add that, also, most economic changes (unless incredible, and I mean INCREDIBLE) are forgotten. Now that I think back to certain presidents, I don't remember much about what happened in the economy in their times.

And really, whats the problem if he's only remember for removing Saddam Hussein? Isn't that a great deed, worthy of its own recognition? In a way, I feel it's almost a process of "filtering the bullsh*t." People in the future will realize that, even if all we did in Iraq was boot Hussein, it was still a worthwhile cause.

[Aameul]

I believe that Bush's lack of language skill will only be remembered as an idiosyncracy if that. And regardless of what people on the left (like me) feel, he HAS lead. In the wrong direction on far too many issues, and he's definitely been far from a "uniter" like he claimed in his 2000 campaign, but he has lead. Just not those who have a liberal viewpoint. We've been told to just go F-off the last couple years, which, truh be told, we kinda deserve given our lack of ability to elect anyone to anything that matters.

History will judge him almost solely on the eventual outcome of Iraq as a democratic nation and the halo effect it has (or doesn't have) on the Middle East as a whole. Most people have "forgotten" Afghanistan because the vast majority of us, regardless of political viewpoint or affiliation, believe that the invasion of Afghanistan was a necessary and correct course of action. It was the viper's den and it needed to be crushed. If anything we should've acted faster, and I believe that more attention should have been paid to it before going into Iraq if we really needed to go into Iraq in the first place, which is the main beef of most liberals in the US.

So in my opinion, Iraq will be what history judges him by. Some days Iraq looks as if it's pulling out from its dark place and moving forward... other days it looks as bad as it ever was. It's just way too early to tell.

[Zephem]

Well, if I recall, in Regan's time there was a big problem with inflation, so he did a bunch of stuff. Republicans usually like to attribute what he did to being what affected the large surplus that Clinton enjoyed when he was president.

Then it quickly vanished into insane military spending. Weeeee.

50 years later, most people usually label a president merely 'good' or 'bad.' To be honest, I don't think there's been a 'good' president since Teddy Rosevelt. Not even his cousin.

[Vallikat]

I tend to agree with you Oddy. He hasn't done anything else significant enough to warrant being remembered in 50 years. Of course he still has time to blow up the world, but then no one will be around to remember him if that happens.

Seriously though, those images of the statues being torn down and the images of Hussein after being dug out of his hole are memorable. Those are the things of the history books.

He was president at the time of 911. It's just coincidence (or good planning on the part of the terrorists) that he was, but he was. He'll forever be associated with that fact as well.

Frankly, I'm hoping that he doesn't do anything to remember him for over the next few years. I'm hoping that he just keeps a low profile so we can forget him and move on.

[Tarryk]

And really, whats the problem if he's only remember for removing Saddam Hussein? Isn't that a great deed, worthy of its own recognition?

Yes, the removal of a tyrant by itself is a great deed.

So was the Allies winning of WW2. But that doesn't make Hiroshima and Nagisaki a great deed.

What needs to be remembered (and I hope it is) is Bush's faltering and flubbering bouqet of made-up reasons to blast Saddam, when really all it boiled down to was Bush wanting his legacy etched in the stone tablets of that very history that filters both the bullshit AND the valid criticisms.

[Boinky]

Well all I have to ad is I'm not sure. Furthermore I think it's an interesting thing to consider maybe, but I doubt any of us have insight enough to glean a fraction of what the hindsight view of Bush will be in 50 years let alone 5 or 10, 2 even. Personally I envision that something like unto the Iran-Contra scandal will come about when credible information starts being discovered or given up by informants not willing to talk on the record yet about what this administration has done. Sadly though information about wrongdoings after the fact, many years removed, only lets you punish for transgressions & not stifle great wrongs being done. Still it all hinges on much information none of us truly have at the minute, so who knows what will come.

[Maephina]

First I think he'll be remembered in an image that comes to my mind: Bush sitting in that class room when he is informed of the planes hitting the world trade center. The look on his face afterwards and what he said as a result of it.

Second: How poor intelligence was used as justification to start a war over nothing, (WMDs) and that it was all about oil/money. (Which is what I and many other people believe to be the case).

There were no WMDs in Iraq that he claimed to be after. Nothing that was stated as justification for nearly 2000 American soldiers lives has been discovered there. Yet, we are still there. That leads me to number three: How we went into Iraq with probably the most pathetic exit strategy ever and how our presence there, what our military has done there, has dramatically effected the global perspective of the United States.

In short I think he'll be remembered as the president who, in the 21st century, gave America a bad name in so many ways that the presidents to follow him will be elected on the size of the mop and bucket they bring to the oval office.

That's just the tip of the iceberg methinks.

[Darth Bootay]

The world still has its surplus of dictators and tyrants. Time has a way of making what seems monumentous today become trivia a generation down the line. I wonder how many of us here remember such names as Idi Amin Dada. Or know why Viet Nam vets hate Jane Fonda.

One could, and I sometimes do, argue that George the second is a tyrant in his own right. I sometimes think that is how the rest of the world will remember him, if he continues to make the same foriegn policy decisions he has become infamous for.

[FoxyJama]

Or know why Viet Nam vets hate Jane Fonda.

Oh, I do! My dad, to this day, rants about Hanoi Jane every time he sees her on TV...

On the topic of George Bush, however...
""Since history has no properly scientific value, its only purpose is educative. And if historians neglect to educate the public, if they fail to interest it intelligently in the past, then all their historical learning is valueless except in so far as it educates themselves." G. M. Trevelyan. "

Because our modern day "historians" (the people responsible for recording history) are media hounds more interested in ratings than truth, and more concerned with sensationalism than education, I think our history over the next 50 years is going to reflect that. Already, a mere 13 years later, what is George Bush Sr. remembered for? Vomiting on the Japanese Prime Minister. Most folks under the age of 30 probably couldn't tell you anything else that George Bush Sr. accomplished in his term as president. Can you?


"History does nothing, possesses no enormous wealth, fights no battles. It is rather man, the real, living man, who does everything, possesses, fights. It is not History, as if she were a person apart, who uses men as a means to work out her purposes, but history itself is nothing but the activity of men pursuing their purposes." - Karl Marx

[Oddysee]

Second: How poor intelligence was used as justification to start a war over nothing, (WMDs) and that it was all about oil/money. (Which is what I and many other people believe to be the case).

Historically, I doubt this will be mentioned. There have been kings who made likewise descisions. Emperors with the same folleys, and presidents with like scandals. All in all, none are really remembered.
I asked my question with what you say there in mind. A lot of people argue that these actions will matter. I beg to differ, simply because in all of history, he is not the only person to commit such mistakes. Yet no one can remember any others. I personally think it's because it's not important enough to remember.

From a European point of view, I sometimes wonder if Bush will become yet another of the "unknowns". Another face in a long list of names that we will never remember, because ultimately, they didn't change our nations further than the present moment.

Currently, the talk here is either about Irak, or Saddam. None of Bush's other actions are mentioned or remembered unless you force people to. This indicates that it's already slipping from mind. In a few years, only the learned (clever, smarter, upperclass) people will remember. The rest wont care. Add a few years, neither will the learned.

All history remembers, is the actions that change it's course. Now it might be different for you, as he's also part of your nations history. But I have a feeling that for the rest of the world, he will go down according to what happens in Irak. Weather this is a Viet Nam over again, a story of success or weather he is another John Doe in a long line of Presidents.

As for what you wrote Tarryk, history is never written as we'd like to see it. I strongly doubt it will be "fair" or "as it should". It will come down to simple fact, and fact, is not measured in right or wrong. It's measured in action. Black on white, he invaded Irak and removed Saddam. He wasted a lot of money, but since money isn't factual, it can't be measured the same.
The mark he leaves on the planet on the other hand... Well, lets see if it's a face lift, or a scar...





Tm

[Mire]

In the historical view the world will look upon GWB will be exactly what Oddysee said. He will be remembered for the President who was in office on 9/11 and Iraq. Everything else mentioned by others is either opinions and or circumstantial critiquing of the President.

He still has 3 more years though, and two pending world events may come about during his term.

The very fact that the change in Iraq's goverment and political structure has forced the Middle East region to be once again focused on by the world body will also be mentioned (even if it is a side note).

On the US side he will be remembered for many things along with Iraq. He will forever be remembered as "the President who shouldn't have been" for the 2000 election. Arguments will continue for some time over that election.
He will be "hated" (used as a generic term to cover all other discriptions) by those who oppose his views, actions and what not.
He will be regarded as "the greatest president in modern history aside from Regan" by those who agree and believe in his presidency.

But, all and all, he will be regarded as the thrid most controversial president in modern US history with Nixon and Clinton.

[Maephina]

In the historical view the world will look upon GWB will be exactly what Oddysee said. He will be remembered for the President who was in office on 9/11 and Iraq. Everything else mentioned by others is either opinions and or circumstantial critiquing of the President.

I fail to see how it is circumstantial when asked a general question such as "What do you think history will remember him for."
The idea that any answers to that question by anyone here are circumstantial (And no one here to my knowledge is actually a historian) is in fact circumstantial it's self.

[Mire]

In the historical view the world will look upon GWB will be exactly what Oddysee said. He will be remembered for the President who was in office on 9/11 and Iraq. Everything else mentioned by others is either opinions and or circumstantial critiquing of the President.

I fail to see how it is circumstantial when asked a general question such as "What do you think history will remember him for."
The idea that any answers to that question by anyone here are circumstantial (And no one here to my knowledge is actually a historian) is in fact circumstantial it's self.

Circumstational only because right now, we are being asked to make a "what will be" while still dealing with information we are not 100% privy to.

It may not have been the correct term for me to use, but it was the only one I could think of that was expressing my thought.

[Darth Bootay]

I think the word you're looking for is rhetorical.

LOL Bush Sr? *spit* Funny that someone drags HIM up, since HE put Hussien in power and sold him arms. I have always found it more than a little ironic that the old man built Hussien's position of power and the son tore it down. It's like a sick family project.

Bush Sr also orchestrated some not so up and up stuff during the Carter presidency during the Hostage Crisis that swayed public opinion away from Carter. It isn't a coincidence that Carter's negotiations failed and that the hostages didn't come home until shortly after Reagan was elected. A large part of that was brought to you by Bush Sr and his CIA pals.

[Mire]

I think the word you're looking for is rhetorical.

LOL Bush Sr? *spit* Funny that someone drags HIM up, since HE put Hussien in power and sold him arms. I have always found it more than a little ironic that the old man built Hussien's position of power and the son tore it down. It's like a sick family project.

Bush Sr also orchestrated some not so up and up stuff during the Carter presidency during the Hostage Crisis that swayed public opinion away from Carter. It isn't a coincidence that Carter's negotiations failed and that the hostages didn't come home until shortly after Reagan was elected. A large part of that was brought to you by Bush Sr and his CIA pals.

With lots of circumstantial evidence at best to back up that argument at the present, which is a great example of my original point.