Page 1 of 9 [ 124 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next


Do you think that George Bush is doing a good job as President of the United States?
Yes, I think he's doing a wonderful job! 6%  6%  [ 8 ]
Yes, I think he's doing a wonderful job! 6%  6%  [ 8 ]
No, I think he's doing a horrible job! 44%  44%  [ 59 ]
No, I think he's doing a horrible job! 44%  44%  [ 59 ]
Total votes : 134

Chris
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 237

26 Nov 2004, 12:17 am

Here you can say what you think on the War on Terror and George W. Bush. I remember Alex saying in another forum that you're allowed to make personal attacks against anyone who is not a WrongPlanet member and probably never will become one. So feel free to say all you want about him as long as it doesn't include profanity.

As for me, I feel like Bush has done a terrible job. He has sent soldiers to kill innocent people and has scared the world into thinking that this is the only thing to stop terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Can't people just send spies in the investigate without anybody noticing. George Bush is really ticking me off... If you don't believe me, watch Farenheit 9-11. I have only seen a little bit of it myself, so I don't want to be a hyprocrite. But the bit that I did see totally convinced me that George Bush has done a horrible job. Yet he won the presidential election again?! Ugh!! I think John Kerry should have won.

Yours truly,

Christopher Grills



Feste-Fenris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 519

26 Nov 2004, 3:52 am

The War on Terror was originally a good idea (like World War II sort of) but Bush has corrupted it due to politicking, corruption and ultra-conservative machiavellianism...

Think about how Iraq had no official links to terrorist groups... and no WMDs...

I know Saddam was a tyrant... but Bush declared war on false pretences...

Even to remove a genocidal tyrant... declaring war based on convenient lies is morally wrong...



batman
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 55

26 Nov 2004, 4:01 am

I hate war.I think that going to war should be viewed only as a last resort. President Bush was to quick to send U.S.A to war in Iraq. I think the american people are not being told the full story about the Iraq war. It is to bad that inocent people are loosing there lives. I wish people could just get along. :?



Feste-Fenris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 519

26 Nov 2004, 4:08 am

Batman... that's the most logical thing I've heard all month...

Keep rescuing damsels... or fighting villains with lame themes...



hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,774
Location: None

26 Nov 2004, 6:44 am

I don't seem to think about this bush stuff at all. Of course it will affect my country in several ways, but I didn't elect him or anything, so I don't really have the right to an opinion.



newt
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 40
Location: Canada

27 Nov 2004, 8:26 pm

Chris wrote:
He has sent soldiers to kill innocent people


and many of America's own soldiers have been killed as well. :( And all of this has solved nothing.

Hey, has anyone else noticed that "Dubya" always seems to have a look on his face like a little boy who is lost in a store and can't find his mommy? :P


_________________
The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.


followMe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 32
Location: US

27 Nov 2004, 11:18 pm

i don't like george w. bush, but i don't think he's a total failure. i think he's done some good things. privatizing social security is a good idea. we have to do something before it goes bankrupt. no child left behind and school choice are good too. the tax cuts helped end the recession. he also made a stand against late-term abortion. iraq was a good idea. his people did a terrible job executing the operation, however. it was terrible timing, and i don't appreciate him lying to get us in there. i also don't agree with some of his budgeting decisions, and i don't like a lot of the members of his cabinet.

i would rather have a democrat in the white house to protect our social programs and our environment and to fight for our workers. in fact, i voted for kerry, but i can't stand it when people bash bush all the time. he won fair and square this time by over 3 million votes. if kerry ran a better campaign he would have won. get over it. we have another chance in 2008.



Jodi
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2004
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 61
Location: North Carolina, USA. Earth, Milky Way

27 Nov 2004, 11:57 pm

im not too crazy about Bush. Back in 2000 i didnt trust Gore. This election I was rooting for Kerry. At least it'll be only for more yrs



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

26 Jan 2005, 3:26 pm

Whether Iraq even had WMDs is actually beside the point. They did not decide to move in on that thought alone, then we might have outright invaded Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Turkestan, Ukraine, as well as Iraq. It was a combination of things leading to a conclusion of world peace danger or threat based on actions taken by Saddam and Iraq leading upto the war. Its like parenting, what is the good of threatening punishment if you don't carry through if the bad behavior is not changed? Or like after AT & T was broken up from a monopoly in the early 1980's, would the people have benefited or the government been effecient if it let AT & T and its components recombine within a decade or less?

Iraq invaded its neighbor Iran to get its oil in the early 1980's. After millions of deaths caused by his 8 year attempt, he finally withdrew. Then a couple years later, he invaded Kuwait. Allies built up to prevent further expansion and hoped to influence Iraq to withdraw peacefully after witnessing the size of the force and number of countries against him. Neither worked. He then attacked Isreal by launching missles, his third nation targeted for aggression. Shortly before all deadlines passed, Iraq invaded Saudia Arabia, number four. When would his aggression end? After Kuwait was freed and peace was agreed on, Saddam bickered about it and delayed as long as he could. When the agreements were finally made, Saddam promptly tested his limited by gassing his own citizens in rebellious territories with WMD Chemical weapons (he did have WMDs, at least at one time). Air restrictions were then enforced to protect "Iraqis" from Saddam. (Admittedly, a clear set of guidelines should have been created before peace, but that is hindsight). For the next ten years or so, Saddam and Iraq frequently acted like there never was a war, let alone a peace agreement and continously defied, ignored, lied about, deceived, or demanded from all manner of actions, stipulations with regard to the peace, weapons and weapon development, and proof of compliance. Then there was the second war. It came to this because of Saddam's series of lies, deception, and refusal to provide proof with documents, inspections, flyovers, and such. He lost the war and was lucky the alliies let him stay at all after two attempted invasions of neighbor "Muslim" nations.

Lets review:

1. A brutal dictator with a history of personally committing acts of murder and torture, lies, and deceipt.
2. Lack of cooperation or compliance with respect to proofs as in documents, U.N. inspections, and what not.
3. A history of invasions and attacks on other nations, namely neighbors and Muslim nations at that.
4. A history of using WMD weapons, even on his own people.
5. They did in fact find evidence of and small amounts of one of the forms of WMDs in Iraq, that of chemical weapons. There age maybe a matter of debate, but they were suppose to dispose of them, not bury or hide them.

The result was a real threat from a force with a history of use of it and of attacking neighbors, and in recent memory under the same government/leadership, there was not compliance with a peace agreement and years of dodging elements of said peace agreement, and there was a possibility of WMDs being developed. That was evidenced by his secrecy, treatment and deception of U.N. inspectors, material/resource shipments, possibly the oil for food scam, lack of produced documentation, inteviews with Iraqi personnel (some of which had fled, some of which were more settle (meaning with those still loyal to Saddam) and thus deception detected), and the delaying tactics practiced by Iraq Officials and Saddam.

What were the allies supposed to think? Past warnings some unheded and somthing happened, some heded and something happened just maybe less so or not enough was done, some unheded and nothing happend, some heded and nothing happened.

The threat of West Point falling to British hands so Washington had it reinforced, but it still fell. (By treason).

Japan might attack and Pearl Harbor is a likely target. (Radar, radio traffic, predictions, and even military texts the Japanese read were all clues (warned and happened)).

During the years of tension in the '60's there were many warnings or a potential nuclear war and many people rehearsed with sirens and prepared with bomb shelters. (But nothing happened)

In ancient China, Cao Cao was warned about a threat to his south if Shu asked Wu for help. No action taken. Cao Cao was lucky Wu's leader at the time, Sun Ce, died before he could march his troops. (Warning not heded, nothing happened)

A good leader though cannot depend on nothing happening, one must take precautions.

Compare:

North Korea: is threatening to develop such weapons, but they have not attacked a neighbor in over 50 years, nor do they have, at least, a recent history of using WMDs of any kind, and while negotiations are still ongoing, they are ongoing.

Iran: They maybe developing nukes too, but like North Korea, do not have a recent history of attacking or invading neighbors, or using them, or, at least directly sponsoring others (though they may be some that think otherwise and it maybe true, but I think they may do that, just not directly). Again, negotiations are going, this could not happen in Saddam's case, as he apparently did not listen anyway, and when he did, he lied or deceived his way around it. (Though there maybe some level of deception in both above cases. There is not the confluence of the circumstances as there were in the case of Iraq.)


Basic description of WMD - a weapon that kills indescriminently a large number of lives in fashion faster than natural life cycles, and generally consist of or pertain to: Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear/Atomic.

As for Afaghanistan, the government at the time, the Taliban, directly supported a force that attacked the U.S. and caused the deaths of thousands of its citizens. It would be comparable when the U.S. declared war on Italy and Japan during WWII because they were allied to Nazi Germany.



duncvis
Stroppy Get
Stroppy Get

User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,642
Location: The valleys of green and grey

26 Jan 2005, 3:48 pm

Interesting perspective Epimondandas. Incidentally how does that relate to your opinion of George W. Bush? I was unclear on whether that meant you supported his administration, or merely his justification for a pre-emptive war against Iraq, under the banner of The War On Terror.

Dunc


_________________
I'm usually smarter than this.

www.last.fm/user/nursethescreams <<my last.fm thingy

FOR THE HORDE!


Young_fogey
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 316

26 Jan 2005, 3:56 pm

Anti-Bush.

For more on that just click my 'www' button.



Rakkety_Tamm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: SoCal

26 Jan 2005, 4:54 pm

best president we've ever had. He is my hero.


_________________
Furry and proud.


Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

26 Jan 2005, 5:11 pm

duncvis wrote:
Interesting perspective Epimondandas. Incidentally how does that relate to your opinion of George W. Bush? I was unclear on whether that meant you supported his administration, or merely his justification for a pre-emptive war against Iraq, under the banner of The War On Terror.

Dunc


I will admit I don't necessarily agree with Bush blindly, but I see how it was needed and decided to go to Iraq. Some of his problems technically were leftovers for Clinton's administration, like an underfunded information network. And whether you think is a genius or intellectually challenged, I don't think it is the prime factor in a leader. There is feeling, and one of the most important hiring capable people around you (think about football, Barry Sanders was an excellent running back but the team never went far, on the other hand Wanstedts Chicago Bears a few years back had an all around good team but no player made it to the allstar game and yet then made a run toward the Superbowl in the playoffs). So you should not use intelligence as single arguement, besides unless you know his ability in all fields and situations, you cannot say what his level of intelligence is.

I don't see him as doing badly either, at least not any worse than Clinton. Who, in case you forgot, sent U.S. troops abroad to war torn areas more than any other president. Like Somalia and Yugoslavia.



ed
Odd Duck
Odd Duck

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,878
Location: Whitinsville, MA

26 Jan 2005, 5:29 pm

Bush is a mass-murderer. He should be shipped off to the World Court at The Hague and put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity.



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

26 Jan 2005, 5:48 pm

ed wrote:
Bush is a mass-murderer. He should be shipped off to the World Court at The Hague and put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity.


How do you see that?

Does he order soldiers to go kill indescriminantly?

How that compare to Clinton who sent soldiers out to fight more times thany any before?

Do you think that the former hit man, turned brutal dictator actually treated Iraqis better than Bush, despite the millions of deaths Saddam caused when he invaded Iran, or the care he showed his own citizens through torture and gas/chemical attacks in 1991, or all the attrocities committed when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

I think that is part of the reason I shifted away from the democrats, especially lately. Their comments on Bush seem exceptionally harsh, unwarranted, and for no worse reasons than presidents before.
I can't help wonder the cause for the underlying bitterness I see displayed in so many democrats.