• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should George W. Bush be put on Mount Rushmore?

Should George W. Bush join George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Abe?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 21.5%
  • No

    Votes: 62 78.5%

  • Total voters
    79
So the number of your own civilians that a mass murderer did is the only metric you will accept? Bush did kill over 2000 Americans by sending them into Iraq and of course the 100k+ Iraqis.

You mention civilians on your first line but soldiers on the second?
 
You mention civilians on your first line but soldiers on the second?

And? Are soldiers now non citizens? Sending people into battle based on a lie or executing them wrongly is a crime in my book. Those 2000.. well more like 4000 dead American citizens in Iraq were murdered not only by Iraqi resistance to occupation but by the commander in chief who sent them in their on a lie.
 
Mount Rushmore should be reserved for truly great presidents. Even though I like Obama, his achievements don't compare to those of Lincoln, Washington or Jefferson. So Bush, definitely not.

I'd favor putting Kennedy on the memorial, BTW.
 
Maybe this is the way to not go off the fiscal cliff. We put Karl Marx on Mount Rushmore and make a 0% tax rate for anyone earning more than $250,000 annually.
 
And? Are soldiers now non citizens? Sending people into battle based on a lie or executing them wrongly is a crime in my book. Those 2000.. well more like 4000 dead American citizens in Iraq were murdered not only by Iraqi resistance to occupation but by the commander in chief who sent them in their on a lie.

The difference between civilians and military is that the military can fight back. It has weapons of various levels ready to use for their purpose, either to occupy or defend. Civilians do not have any means to defend themselves. If you were to kill civilians unarmed you would be terrorizing and maybe be involved in genocide. The military thus can not be considered as civilian in that war, for they were fighting armed and went in with the purpose of war to begin with.
 
Back
Top Bottom