The Instigator
WhiteAfricanAmerican
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
pewpewpew
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

George Bush was a Genocidal Maniac

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
WhiteAfricanAmerican
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,416 times Debate No: 7905
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

WhiteAfricanAmerican

Con

My opponent in a different thread made some extremely wild accusations and assertions about President George W Bush.

They range from:
Gross Human Rights Atrocities and singular responsibility for the outsourcing of work overseas, to being incapable of doing anything other than what Vice President Cheney ordered be done.

While, I do not believe GW Bush to have been the best president, he certainly wasn't anywhere near as bad as my opponent (or the left wing talking heads in the media) make him out to be.

I present this debate in the hopes that he will validate these wild assertions with facts, and reason and not rely on the second hand material provided by the Anti-Bush crowd.
pewpewpew

Pro

I can understand how my opponent feels about most accusations made against the latter president George W. Bush. These accusations however are true. Besides having his highest disapproval rating after both presidents Truman and Nixon, Bush has also invaded a developing nation (Iraq) on the basis that they are producing nuclear weapons. I mean Iraq is only using nuclear weapons as a way of protection. Israel gets to have nuclear weapons so Iraq and Iran should get a right as well. They even went in thinking they were liberators, no you just made soldiers kill innocent people for no gain whatsoever.

Besides his mistakes in Iraq, Bush messed up with his tax cuts. Too deep, especially for top earners, resulting in chronic budget deficits that have only added to the current economic crisis and weakened the dollar.

Then there was Katrina-- Feds should have stepped in immediately with financial help to the insurance industry while they forced them to pay homeowners claims immediately to start the rebuilding faster. Most of the damage was caused by the failure of a federal levee. Bush paid a huge price for letting damage fester in New Orleans.

He also ran up the national debt, which some people blame on the Clinton administration. $750,000,000 a day on Iraq can hurt...
I mean just look at the uses that are beneficial to the country with $750,000,000. Besides body bags and bullets...
Many people could be getting the medical coverage they need.
Many schools could be built for the nations youth and their educational needs.

While Bush may have been nothing more than a puppet to vice president the only assumption that is true about him is that through out his presidency America has never encountered any terrorist attacks after the events that occurred on 9/11.

I just hope you have taken my statements up as the real deal and not the biased liberal bull you might think it is.
Debate Round No. 1
WhiteAfricanAmerican

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I look forward to an energetic exchange of ideas.
I will begin by addressing my opponents points.

"Besides having his highest disapproval rating after both presidents Truman and Nixon, Bush has also invaded a developing nation (Iraq) on the basis that they are producing nuclear weapons. "

This Statement is factually inaccurate, as there were many reasons for the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
One of them happened to be the violation of 14 UN Resolution over a period of 12 years that specifically related to Iraq's refusal to abide by the Desert Storm Ceasefire Agreement.

At no point was it ever asserted that Iraq was producing Nuclear Weapons, it was asserted that Iraq was actively attempting to acquire the resources to build, Nuclear Weapons.

The primary reason for the invasion was the concern that an Iraq with Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) weapons had the potential to sell or deliver these weapons to a terror organisation that had demonstrated its ability to attack the USA on it's own soil on two occasions.

Also, it was not the US alone that demanded Iraq not have WMD's, it was essentially the entire world.

"I mean Iraq is only using nuclear weapons as a way of protection. Israel gets to have nuclear weapons so Iraq and Iran should get a right as well."

The difference between Iraq/Iran and Israel, is that to my knowledge Israel has not launched unilateral military operations against it's enemies ever. Whereas the former have done so on many occasions.

Iraq used Chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Iraq used Chemical weapons against it's own population in it's assault on the Kurds also in the 1980's
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Those are just two prime examples of Iraq's use of NBC weaponry against not only its enemies, but also it's own population.

Israel does not have the rap sheet that Iraq does, as such, with all due respect, the comparison is irrelevant to the example provided.

"They even went in thinking they were liberators, no you just made soldiers kill innocent people for no gain whatsoever."

I would at this point demand that the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Rules of Engagement (ROE) of US Forces in Iraq include the active and willful targeting of innocent people, or in the event that my opponent cannot produce such documentation, I would ask for definitive examples where US Forces have wantonly engaged innocent civilians.

In addition, the general consensus amoung Iraqi's and most reasonable people, is that the only individuals who actively target innocent Iraqi's are the insurgent forces seeking to intimidate the population of Iraq against US Forces and the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq.

"Besides his mistakes in Iraq, Bush messed up with his tax cuts. Too deep, especially for top earners, resulting in chronic budget deficits that have only added to the current economic crisis and weakened the dollar."

I would ask my opponent to explain further what exactly he means when he says 'tax cuts for top earners'.
At face value he appears to be stating that top earners got a larger tax cut than an average earner. If this is the case his logic would be flawed because a 10% tax cut would yield more money to a top earner, as the top earner is taxed more than a medium earner is taxed.

"Then there was Katrina-- Feds should have stepped in immediately with financial help to the insurance industry while they forced them to pay homeowners claims immediately to start the rebuilding faster. Most of the damage was caused by the failure of a federal levee. Bush paid a huge price for letting damage fester in New Orleans."

This assertion is flawed. In this Democratic Republic, responses to crises like this are to be dealt with at the Local and State Level first. If the Local and State Officials feel that they are incapable of dealing with the crisis they then yield control to the Federal Government.

You'll notice the LA didn't activate their own National Guard, that there were hundreds of school buses submerged still in their parking lot, New Orleans knew the hurricane was coming the instant it formed and did nothing to prepare for the worst case scenario.

The Washington Post reported on an attempt by the Bush Administration to take authority of the situation from LA Governor Blanco on Friday Sept 2 2005. This demonstrates that the State of LA had total control of what was going on for 4 days after Katrina made land fall on Monday Aug 29 2005.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

So the assertion that the catastrophe of Katrina lays exclusively at the feet of the Bush Administration is flawed. Unless you support the unilateral usurpation of States Rights by the Federal Govt at any time the Fed chooses.

"He also ran up the national debt, which some people blame on the Clinton administration. $750,000,000 a day on Iraq can hurt...
I mean just look at the uses that are beneficial to the country with $750,000,000. Besides body bags and bullets...
Many people could be getting the medical coverage they need.
Many schools could be built for the nations youth and their educational needs."

Are you suggesting then that retaliation for the attacks on 9/11, in addition to the prosecution of Al Queida's [sp] supporting government was not a reasonable action?

The last time I checked prosecuting a war costs money, more so than it did 60 years ago?

In addition, HealthCare and Education are all line items in the National Budget. If I'm not mistaken Education receives almost as much as Defense does. While it would be nice to use that money else where, it would be equally as nice to not have foreign nationals attacking US Citizens on our own soil.

"While Bush may have been nothing more than a puppet to vice president the only assumption that is true about him is that through out his presidency America has never encountered any terrorist attacks after the events that occurred on 9/11."

I would also request that my opponent present evidence that President Bush was only a mouth piece for the puppet master, Dick Cheney.

Every President has a cabinet, whom he appoints, and who are essentially advisers to the President. Using my opponents logic, it can be stated that every President is a puppet of his Cabinet, particularly if he actively seeks advice from the Cabinet and acts on that advice.

Nothing my opponent has presents demonstrates that GW Bush was a genocidal maniac, or a terrible president. In fact many of his assertions have no foundation in fact.

I've demonstrated that GW Bush operated reasonably within the rule of law both locally and internationally as it relates to examples my opponent has presented, and that is really all that can be expected from a President as his Administration deals with the predictability that is human nature.

I therefore urge you to vote Con.
Thank You
What evidence do you have that Bush was a 'puppet' of Vice President Cheney?
pewpewpew

Pro

Sorry if i respond to these in a different order than the ones presented. I may not answer all of them since i don't have lots of time on me at the moment. I might end up forfeiting this if I can't get back in time.

"This assertion is flawed. In this Democratic Republic, responses to crises like this are to be dealt with at the Local and State Level first. If the Local and State Officials feel that they are incapable of dealing with the crisis they then yield control to the Federal Government."

I don't think the local or state governments could respond to this crises seeing how lots of the cities in the south Louisiana were flooded and the state government could have been busy with other cities in the same state. They should have given control of the situation to the federal government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would at this point demand that the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Rules of Engagement (ROE) of US Forces in Iraq include the active and willful targeting of innocent people, or in the event that my opponent cannot produce such documentation, I would ask for definitive examples where US Forces have wantonly engaged innocent civilians."

For this we have to go back to Vietnam where America was paranoid at the time that if Vietnam was taken over by the communist that they would start to spread to more of South-East Asia. Bob Kerry, a so called "Hero" was responsible for carrying out a role in which US forces massacred twenty un-armed and innocent women and children.

http://www.independent.co.uk...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Round No. 2
WhiteAfricanAmerican

Con

WhiteAfricanAmerican forfeited this round.
pewpewpew

Pro

Thanks. I really need the time.
Debate Round No. 3
WhiteAfricanAmerican

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to continue, albeit briefly, this debate. I will address my opponents points before I make my closing argument

"I don't think the local or state governments could respond to this crises seeing how lots of the cities in the south Louisiana were flooded and the state government could have been busy with other cities in the same state. They should have given control of the situation to the federal government."

If Iowa, can deal with flooding (which happened this year) of a similar proportion, then any state should be able to deal with it. The reality is that the Democrat Govenor and Democrat Mayor were the biggest failure of the whole debacle. The Govenor refused to yield control to the Federal Govt, to the point (as I pointed out in my original argument) that the Fed attempted to wrestle control from the State FIVE DAYS after Katrina made landfall.

For anyone to assert, as my opponent has, that the failures of Katrina are a blight on the legacy of the Bush Administration exclusively, then they are trafficking in intellectual dishonesty.

It appears as though my opponent, in this last argument of his, concedes that the Bush Administration at the very least is not exclusively to blame as he has asserted before.

"For this we have to go back to Vietnam where America was paranoid at the time that if Vietnam was taken over by the communist that they would start to spread to more of South-East Asia. Bob Kerry, a so called "Hero" was responsible for carrying out a role in which US forces massacred twenty un-armed and innocent women and children.

http://www.independent.co.uk...;

I would encourage my opponent to read some other source of history other than revisionist history. The primary reason the US entered SE Asia, was to assist the French (Yes, The French....again) in a debacle that was draining France of soldiers and resources. The opposition to communism as a lesser factor to the larger one of assisting an allied nation.

In addition to which, the example of 6 men who may or may not have taken part in a massacre can not in any way be used as a corner stone for the assertion that US Forces have killed over 100 000 civilians. If my opponent wishes to engage in a debate regarding The Vietnam War and how it influences SOP of US Forces Today, I'd be more than happy to accomodate him.

As it stands though the introduction of unrelated material does nothing to support my opponents position that George Bush is a genocidal maniac.

Genocide is defined by Merriam-Webster's online dictionary as:
"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

The assertion that US Forces under direction of the Bush Administration engaged in genocide is ludicrious, particularly considering the the extreme pains US Forces in Iraq underwent to avoid collateral damage, be it human, sacred or humanitarian.

As evidence I point to the Siege of Sadr City, a battle that lasted the better part of 4 years. Had the Bush Admin, or US Forces indeed been genocidal maniacs, the siege wouldn't have lasted longer than a week with US Forces not given any quarter to anyone found within the limits of Sadr City.

Examples of the deliberate pains taken by US Forces can be seen in the fact that no hospitals were destroyed, despite Mahadi Militia Command and Control building were set up a mere 55 yards away from a hospital, and no places of worship were destroyed despite their being used as shelter by Mahadi Militia Men.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent in his statements prior to this debate has never once addressed the well known fact that the only group that actively targeted civilians, were the insurgent groups themselves. In his rush to label US Forces and GW Bush as genocidal maniacs, he complete misses the groups that are responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties in Iraq.

Sadly, due to my ignorance about this site and how to set up debates, I have inadvertently brought this debate to a premature close. My sincerest apologies to all who may have been following it.

I would urge my opponent to consider a rematch, where I'd be happy to cut and past my opening statement, allow him to do the same with is response, cut and past my second argument and have my opponent pick up from there.

If he chooses not to, then this debate is at an end.

I believe that I have present ample evidence that demonstrates George W Bush is not a genocidal maniac by any stretch of the imagination, as well as the fact that there are forces out there that produce massive amounts of factually vacant accusations aimed at the former President, which is conveniently package to take advantage of naive citizens who cannot or will not dig a little deeper to discover the reality of what they are espousing.

I urge you to vote Con in this matter.

Thank You
pewpewpew

Pro

pewpewpew forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican 8 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
I"m sorry to hear that.
Posted by pewpewpew 8 years ago
pewpewpew
I don't think I will be able to this time. Now I'm really handicapped for time because of CSTs. I'm very sorry but I don't think I will be able to continue this debate any longer. I have read your argument and taken point about it though. I don't think I will be able to participate in another debate with you though. I'm kinda new to this myself and I might want to brush up on a couple things about this matter. Also the rest of the month is pretty busy also. I'm sorry about this, but you might need to debate this with someone else. Again I am sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican 8 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
Hey Pew Pew..got a question.

Obviously this is my first attempt at setting up a debate, and I screwed it up pretty good.

Would you be interested in another debate, exact same topic where we cut and past the first 1 1/2 rounds.

In other words, I cut and paste my first argument/statement for the first round, you cut and paste your rebuttal, I C&P my second, and then you make your rebuttal to that instead of the very short response you were forced to make due to time constraints, and we continue from there?

Right now, there are 3 hours left for the final round, and I'd really like to get a bit more in depth with the discussion.

Let me know here, if I haven't heard from you in 2.5 hours then I'll just go ahead and make my final argument.
Posted by pewpewpew 8 years ago
pewpewpew
I don't think so.
Posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican 8 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
I'm sorry, I had to work late today, and didn't get to it in time to yield the round..... there isn't a way to edit the terms of the debate is there?
Posted by pewpewpew 8 years ago
pewpewpew
This is ok. I know how you feel. This arrangement is agreeable.
Posted by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
Have fun, banjo.
Posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican 8 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
I understand being pressed for time. To that end I'm going to wait till tomorrow this time and will forfeit my round, hopefully this will help with the time constraint issue.

I'd prefer to engage in a meaningful debate than work over an opponent who is handicapped by time.

I hope this arrangement is agreeable
Posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican 8 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
There's a lingering sentence at the end of my rebuttal. Feel free to ignore it, it isn't supposed to be there.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
WhiteAfricanAmericanpewpewpewTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by WhiteAfricanAmerican 8 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
WhiteAfricanAmericanpewpewpewTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70