Shouldn't George W. Bush be blamed for starting WW3?

Question

Anyone who watches/reads the news on a daily basis has to realize that the beginning of WW3 has started. Do you agree that George W. Bush is to blame for starting it (or at least being a catalyst for it)?

Who am I to be tossing blame at anyone?? I AM A US CITIZEN. I have the right to argue, debate and dislikes Bush's politics as much as I like, which some of you call, bush bashing, is actually what the fore fathers of this great country intended. Thomas Jefferson once said, "A country can not be free and ignorant, but can be freely ignorat" obviously some of you have chosen imprisonment of ignorance, I just hope you don't vote.

Answer 1

I'm sure you know by now, if you scampered off on command to read a few history books, that there is no longer any such thing as "a local skirmish". The world is too entwined to comfort ourselves with the delusion that political, religious, or ethic conflict can be isolated.

The current government of this country...Bush...has, in the past six years, turned American foreign policy into a flaccid joke. If WWIII begins...oh, and by the way, "duck and cover" doesn't work anymore either...yes, Bush and his cronies will in large part be responsible.

But not one of his supporters will ever admit it.

Now sit back and read how they squeal with indignation...

Answer 2

Wow, you are really skewed to the left, buddy. I watch/read the news at least an hour a day. If in fact there is your version of WW3 going on, it is by far, not the fault of G.W. Bush. Terrrorists related with Al Qaieda had been planning assaults on the U.S. for some years now. Actually, many of Al Qaieda's plans were brewed during the Clinton administration. They had enough intel to destroy them then, but Clinton was indecisive on the measure of stopping international terrorism. He could have stopped your so called "WW3" but refused to do so, because doing so would lower his favorability percentages. This is fact. George Bush should be applauded for his efforts, even though some strategy could have been better. I believe that blaming the president for this is like blaming Hoover for the depression. It was going to happen regardless. In all honesty, the public's attention span is about is long as your dick, not very. They know that we as Americans are in a bad situation, but they dont take the time to break down why we are in such a situation. Instead they blame our leader for this mishap, much like yourself. You should really read into facts before making such a broad and uninformed statement or question.

Answer 3

This is why I love George Bush's opponents. They're as wacky as he is!

World War 3? Dude, they're fighting in the middle east, same as always. The North Koreans are acting like fools... same as always. The Iranians are shouting off their mouths... same as the past three decades. The Russians are trying to keep some ethnic minority in place... same as the past couple centuries. There is trouble in Africa -- nothing new. Afghanistan is a hot spot; ok, that's relatively new, but so what. How the hell is this World War 3?

And did George Bush cause this or serve as the catalyst for it? How do you figure that?

Take it one at a time: fighting in the middle east... not Bush's fault. Ok, Iraq might be doing better but otherwise its business as usual. You might as well blame every president and British Prime Minister for the past hundred years and then some.

North Korea? Blame for North Korea lies with their increasingly disconnected-from-the-rest-of-the-world leader.

Iranians? If we caused anything there it was from supporting the Shah and that goes back a long time before Bush (jr. or sr.).

Russian minorities? Sorry, but I think the Russians are screwing that one up on their own.

Africa (Sudan, etc.)? I suppose we could be doing more, but also not sure it would matter.

Afghanistan? We got rid of the freaking Taliban, that's got to count for something.

Hey, Bush is gone in two years and good riddance. But World War 3 -- and Bush is to blame? Wrong on both counts, my friend.

Answer 4

You know, you're 100% right. George W. Bush is the cause of WWIII and every other ill known to mankind since time began.

I'm in awe of your conceptual, deductive reasoning and I am trying hard not to be envious of the epiphany you had.

I must be a real dunce to think he wasn't at fault because I was led to believe that:

#1 - Lebanon was told years ago by the United Nations to get rid of their terrorist cells

#2 - Lebanon didn't do a thing about it

#3 - Lebanon's terrorists repeatedly sent bombs and rockets into Israel (only because the residents there weren't Muslim / Islamic)

#4 - Israel FINALLY fights back and begins kicking Lebanon's butt

#5 - Lebanon starts whining they're being "picked on" by the mean old Israelites

#6 - almost the entire world (except for the Islamic nutzoids) agrees Lebanon got what it deserves and....

#7 - George Bush is the reason for WWIII


Wow, thanks for setting me straight on world affairs!


Now I think I'll curl up with a good book and a Lebanon Baloney sandwich - my job here is finished.....

Answer 5

No. Bush did what he had to do. If we had backed off of another attack on Americans, this nation would not exist today. The terrorists seem to have succeeded to an extent because they have separated America at the Party Line. I am not sure how, though. It just seems obvious to me that you cannot let people come into your home and start tormenting the family. I do not understand why people are so upset with Bush for taking care of business!

Answer 6

This is one of the dumbest questions I have read here. You should feel lucky that we are not even near WW3. You think $3.00 a gallon is alot? How about people vacationing in Tokyo or other places in the world peacefully today without having any restrictions. How about writing this peacefully without having the fear that a bomb is going to hit your home. There's a lot of countries now days that can be able to reach america with missles. If it were to be WW3, the UN will be up in arms. I feel lucky that we are not in any WW yet. Maybe, just maybe is thanks to Bush. If we were to have had a dirty bomb here in america, then probably we were to have been already in WW3. Thanks to Bush again we are not.

Answer 7

No that would be Bin Laden. He was behind 9-11. But wait... Bin Laden attacked the US or US intersests of people all over the globe starting in 1993 (with the first WTC bombing) then you had Somilia, attacks on service men in Saudi Arabia, the Kobhar Towers in Africa, the USS Cole.
All of these happened under Bill Clinton, and he never did anything about it. I say we blame him.

Answer 8

the reason for 911 and world war 3:

No More Tears: Benny Morris and the Road Back from Liberal Zionism

Joel Beinin

(Joel Beinin, an editor of this magazine, teaches Middle East history at Stanford University.)

Books Reviewed

Benny Morris, 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990, second edition, 1994).

Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).



Haganah militiamen expel Palestinian Arabs from Haifa, April 1948. (Agence France Presse)

On July 11, 1948, Aharon Cohen, director of the Arab Affairs Department of the socialist-Zionist Mapam party in Israel, received a carbon copy of a military intelligence report. Israel, a state less than two months old, was embroiled in a war with neighboring Arab states that would last until 1949. The document in Cohen’s hands analyzed the reasons for the flight of 240,000 Palestinian Arabs from areas which had been allocated to the Jewish state by the November 1947 UN partition plan and another 150,000 from the Jerusalem region and areas allocated to the Arab state. Cohen was upset to read the report’s conclusion that 70 percent of these Arabs had fled due to “direct, hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements” by Zionist militias, or the “effect of our hostile operations on nearby (Arab) settlements.”[1] One month before Cohen received this report, Mapam’s political committee had issued a resolution opposing “the tendency to expel the Arabs from the Jewish state,” in response to Cohen’s warnings that such operations were taking place.

Over the course of Arab-Jewish fighting between 1947 and 1949, well over 700,000 Palestinians were made refugees, the majority of them by direct expulsion or the fear of expulsion or massacre. The largest single expulsion occurred after Israeli conquest of the towns of Lydda and Ramla in the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv corridor during July 9-18, 1948. Some 50,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes in these towns by Israeli forces whose deputy commander was Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of Israel from 1974-1977 and 1992-1995. Some two dozen massacres of Palestinians were perpetrated by pre-state Zionist militias and Israeli forces, the most infamous of them on April 9-10, 1948, at the village of Deir Yassin.

Answer 9

Are you stupid, bro? Your question can't be serious. The Jew-Arab debacle has been in the works SINCE BIBLICAL TIMES, IDIOT! Someone as dim as you may not realize this, but those times occurred before Bush was born, moron! Learn your history. Until then, your stupidity is reflecting on those who legitimately disagree with Bush's policy decisions. For shame.

Answer 10

World war 3 has not started yet. Read your history books - it's important that as a present or future voter that you understand the difference between a world war and localized skirmishes.

The violence in the middle east is a localized skirmish, and it happens a lot in that region.