President Bush

[purebloodtexan]

Re: President Bush

President Bush has been an arrogant bigot from the start. For the most part, he does things his way. He leaves little room for compromise or diplomacy. He rushed us into an unnecessary war for all the wrong reasons. He is also chipping away at the civil liberties that are the foundation of America. On top of that, he seems to support criminals (Libby) and seems to have a whole lot of scandals going on around him. Bush also acts harshly whenever someone is critical of him. Notice that there aren't too many Citgo stations around anymore? They started disappearing after the Venezuelan dictator called Bush "the devil." Citgo is Venezuelan gas.

Bush has been catering to the rich and been driving his buddies' companies profits skyward. Halliburton, for example. Dick Cheney used to be the president of it. He still holds stocks. Also, the rich have been getting tax cut after tax cut. One of the Republican-controlled Congress's last passed bills was a tax cut that gave the wealthiest 1% of America 38% of the total tax cut money. The second largest amount went to the wealthiest 10%. The rest went to the majority of America.

In the aftermath of Katrina, the Greeks offered to send over two fully equipped hospital ships. Bush, on the other hand, turned down this offer so that he could rent out two cruise ships from a company that is a huge supporter of the Republican party. Sounds like corruption on some level to me.

After 9/11, Bush and the government began to order record numbers of brand new, $300 million a piece fighter jets. What better way to fight box cutter wielding terrorists? Basically, Bush is and Congress are wasting tax money. About half a trillion dollars a year is being spent on the military. The budgets for education, public works, state governments, local governments, etc. have all been cut so that the military can spend more to buy things that only end up eliminating thousands of people.

But yeah, I think Bush is a dolt.

Sorry if it looks like I'm wasting space, but nice post.

And about the budget, the national debt is currently in the trillions. So wouldn't it be logical for bush to stop with the tax breaks and get some money in?

Be back in a minute, researching (what you might call) competent presidential candidates.

[Adamaja456]

Re: President Bush

I'm going to have to give my opinion on this.

On one hand, you could say Bush was doing the right thing 4 years ago but if we look back it right now, its pretty easy to see that maybe invading Iraq wasn't the best idea. I guess the question is will Bush admit that not much is being accomplished in Iraq and pull out or wait until a democrat takes office to withdraw troops?

I just think with all the lives lost over the years, it just doesn't seem worth it to stay fighting in Iraq

Oh, and if anyone could post information about what has been accomplished in Iraq, I would strongly like to know. Thanks

[purebloodtexan]

Re: President Bush

Oh, and if anyone could post information about what has been accomplished in Iraq, I would strongly like to know. Thanks

Well, we've made sure that there are no WMD's (Which we should've done before we bombed the country). And if this counts as an achievement, we've gotten rid of Saddam. Other than that, we've accomplished nothing more than a high death toll.

[trillobyite]

Re: President Bush

I think the USA should pull out. The USA is trying to stabilize the country and she is failing, because Iraq has fallen too far into chaos. The USA is trying to defeat terrorists but they are so disgustingly embedded within the population that the only way to find them is to go door-to-door with an interpreter and watch as all the Iraqis lie to you, act like they can't understand a word, or blame some neighbor they don't like. It's like a game or a riddle, how to tell who is lying and who is not. I'm Iraqi myself, and honestly I'm ashamed of fellow Iraqis who are Sunni or Shia. When it comes to dealing with US Soldiers, they are either liars who play dumb and smuggle weapons, or revenge-seekers who will give information only if some family member was injured and want the local insurgent leader killed by US troops. And in the meantime US troops are being shelled by random arms smugglers, who are being given ideological support from the sheikhs who spread anti-coalition propoganda BS and doctored photos, and the US can't touch the sheikhs because they have an almost diplomatic immuntiy, even though they are just as much scum as the insurgents. They all hate each other too. They bomb each other's funerals and then they bomb the rescue workers. If they choose, 70% by the polls, to justify attacks on the USA, and then act like crybabies because in the same poll 70% also feel it is too early for the US to pull out, because they want protection from whatever ethnic group they hate, then screw them. Let them wipe each other off.
The USA should do this:
1. Split it into 3 states, sunni, kurdish, and shia.
2. Pull out.
3. Give economic and technological and even some military support to the Kurdish state which is the only civilized one in the region and actually looks like a normal place with skyscrapers and an economy. Then the two can become allies and the USA can have a second outlet in the Middle East.
4. Deal with the many domestic problems in the USA and let the rest of Iraq go to the toilet. If the USA really wants to be humanitarian, then they should install power-hungry dictators and then break off connection with them and let them subjugate their people, seeing as that's the only government fit for them.

[hayatewillown]

Re: President Bush

The USA should do this:
1. Split it into 3 states, sunni, kurdish, and shia.
2. Pull out.
3. Give economic and technological and even some military support to the Kurdish state which is the only civilized one in the region and actually looks like a normal place with skyscrapers and an economy. Then the two can become allies and the USA can have a second outlet in the Middle East.
4. Deal with the many domestic problems in the USA and let the rest of Iraq go to the toilet. If the USA really wants to be humanitarian, then they should install power-hungry dictators and then break off connection with them and let them subjugate their people, seeing as that's the only government fit for them.

To much of a literalistic idea. Won't work. Thats just BEGGING for a civil war.

First of all...
Don't pull out. If we stop stomping down the terrorists , they will grow in size and destroy us.

George Bush has done his good so far. I bet that very few people including myself has met the man. He has very good views on the war. If we pull out, we will be destroyed. Simple as that. " Oh no my son died I think we should pull out"- Well first of all, why is your son in the military?

People! Don't go in the military unless you want to work or fight for your country!

Well, we've made sure that there are no WMD's (Which we should've done before we bombed the country). And if this counts as an achievement, we've gotten rid of Saddam. Other than that, we've accomplished nothing more than a high death toll.

Nice try. Yes, we did not find WMD's, which was good. The death toll? Well that was all terrorists let me tell you that. You want a high amount of terrorists? Fine by me, lets stick you out there and see how many shoot you.

On one hand, you could say Bush was doing the right thing 4 years ago but if we look back it right now, its pretty easy to see that maybe invading Iraq wasn't the best idea. I guess the question is will Bush admit that not much is being accomplished in Iraq and pull out or wait until a democrat takes office to withdraw troops?

WRONG!

He has been doing the right thing in all of his years in office. Why would he admit something that he did not do? Well, much has been accomplished in Iraq. Like I said to puretexanblood, lets stick you out there and see how many terrorists shoot you. A life is a life, and people would pay for lives. We've killed a lot of terrorists and there are still terrorists left. Plus, we had to start the war. We were bombed. If you were in office and didn't attack the country because it bombed you, you would be assassinated straight off the bat.

Fun Fact #361:

Before the United States invaded Iraq, it was a sovereign nation. Now, four years later, it's in the midst of a civil war, every morning the streets of Baghdad are littered with the tortured corpses of innocent Iraq civilians, we aren't any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, we never found any WMDs and this war has no end in sight.

I don't see this war having a happy ending.

No war has a happy ending.

The Israelites and the Palestine's are bound into a religious war. We were bombed by a terrorist group that resided in Iraq. Now, we are getting rid of the terrorists.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: President Bush

To much of a literalistic idea. Won't work. Thats just BEGGING for a civil war.

First of all...
Don't pull out. If we stop stomping down the terrorists , they will grow in size and destroy us.

George Bush has done his good so far. I bet that very few people including myself has met the man. He has very good views on the war. If we pull out, we will be destroyed. Simple as that. " Oh no my son died I think we should pull out"- Well first of all, why is your son in the military?

People! Don't go in the military unless you want to work or fight for your country!



Nice try. Yes, we did not find WMD's, which was good. The death toll? Well that was all terrorists let me tell you that. You want a high amount of terrorists? Fine by me, lets stick you out there and see how many shoot you.



WRONG!

He has been doing the right thing in all of his years in office. Why would he admit something that he did not do? Well, much has been accomplished in Iraq. Like I said to puretexanblood, lets stick you out there and see how many terrorists shoot you. A life is a life, and people would pay for lives. We've killed a lot of terrorists and there are still terrorists left. Plus, we had to start the war. We were bombed. If you were in office and didn't attack the country because it bombed you, you would be assassinated straight off the bat.



No war has a happy ending.

The Israelites and the Palestine's are bound into a religious war. We were bombed by a terrorist group that resided in Iraq. Now, we are getting rid of the terrorists.

Their son/daughter did want to join the military. It doesn't necessarily mean that their parents think that their son/daughter belongs in there.

First off, we shouldn't be in there in the first place. The only reason why we're fighting right now is to clean up our mess, which I haven't seen much progress on. Bush said to give his plan time, and I will; in my eyes, however, it's not working well.

Second off, we fired our weapons before an inspection occured, which the initial reason we went into the ME in the first place was the possible threat of weapons. Had we not fired at them before the inspection, I think the war would've gone [to the least bit] in a different direction.

We've basically triggered another holy war in the Middle East

So, tell me: Have you read any previous posts other than the ones you've quoted?

Also, the Iraq war had little if nothing to do with 9/11; atleast not the initial cause of invading Iraq. If not, prove me wrong.

[hayatewillown]

Re: President Bush

Their son/daughter did want to join the military. It doesn't necessarily mean that their parents think that their son/daughter belongs in there.

First off, we shouldn't be in there in the first place. The only reason why we're fighting right now is to clean up our mess, which I haven't seen much progress on. Bush said to give his plan time, and I will; in my eyes, however, it's not working well.

Second off, we fired our weapons before an inspection occured, which the initial reason we went into the ME in the first place was the possible threat of weapons. Had we not fired at them before the inspection, I think the war would've gone [to the least bit] in a different direction.

We've basically triggered another holy war in the Middle East

So, tell me: Have you read any previous posts other than the ones you've quoted?

Also, the Iraq war had little if nothing to do with 9/11; atleast not the initial cause of invading Iraq. If not, prove me wrong.

First off, we shouldn't be in there in the first place. The only reason why we're fighting right now is to clean up our mess, which I haven't seen much progress on. Bush said to give his plan time, and I will; in my eyes, however, it's not working well.

Then you're obviously blind!
How will you know what President Bush is planning unless he said something about it? So far, his first action, fighting in the war, is still being commenced!

We have not triggered another holy war! What the heck are you even talking about? Do you even read what you are typing?!

The holy war has been going on for centuries!

The bombing has everything to do with our interaction with the terrorists.

Also, the Iraq war had little if nothing to do with 9/11; atleast not the initial cause of invading Iraq. If not, prove me wrong.

You just love me doing that don't you.

[devonin]

Re: President Bush

First of all...
Don't pull out. If we stop stomping down the terrorists , they will grow in size and destroy us.

The sad thing is that you don't seem to understand that by trampling roughshod over the Middle East you are doing -far- more to create and encourage anti-american sentiment than you are to stop it. You're making -more- terrorists not less.

If we pull out, we will be destroyed. Simple as that.

I'm curious to hear your expert military opinion on the logistics of a country that has been blasted to rubble, under sanction, and struggling to reform a government after an invasion force executed their leader is capable of "destroying" you. You seem to have a very low opinion of America's ability to defend itself.

The death toll? Well that was all terrorists let me tell you that

I'm trying to tell whether you are implying that the only reason there are dead americans is because of terrorists (which isn't true) or that the only people who were killed by americans were terrorists (which definately isn't true)

Well, much has been accomplished in Iraq.

Yes, you overthrew a legally elected government (albiet not a very kind one) killed thousands, many innocent civilians, destroyed homes, cities, some of the oldest and most culturally significant artifacts in the world, and uh...the violence is worse now than when you started. Yeah, a lot has been accomplished.

If you were in office and didn't attack the country because it bombed you, you would be assassinated straight off the bat.

Hmm...let see...Egyptian and Saudi Arabian terrorists attack the United states, and in response the United States invades and overthrows the controlling governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, declare their mission accomplished, and then set out to lose hundreds more soldiers, and kill hundreds more civilians and destroy hundreds more homes and buildings.

So...America was attacked by no country at all, and even if you wanted to think they were, they were attacked by Egypt and Saudi Arabia...Bush has not attacked those countries, and remains unassassinated.

We were bombed by a terrorist group that resided in Iraq.

Se above. You were -attacked- (not bombed) by terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt...neither of those names is Iraq.

[hayatewillown]

Re: President Bush

So...America was attacked by no country at all, and even if you wanted to think they were, they were attacked by Egypt and Saudi Arabia...Bush has not attacked those countries, and remains unassassinated.
Se above. You were -attacked- (not bombed) by terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt...neither of those names is Iraq.

They reside in Iraq.

I'm curious to hear your expert military opinion on the logistics of a country that has been blasted to rubble, under sanction, and struggling to reform a government after an invasion force executed their leader is capable of "destroying" you. You seem to have a very low opinion of America's ability to defend itself.

My military expert opinion? My father is in the Navy, I live next to 16 marines. They all agree with me.

Low opinion on it's ability to defend it's self? Excuse me? Is hiding behind a bulwark defense really the best option? HA! Lets see you make a giant shield that can defend against nuclear weapons and bombs. Nice try.

The best defense is a good offense.

Pot...meet kettle, I believe you two have something in common.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: President Bush

Then you're obviously blind!
How will you know what President Bush is planning unless he said something about it? So far, his first action, fighting in the war, is still being commenced!

We have not triggered another holy war! What the heck are you even talking about? Do you even read what you are typing?!

The holy war has been going on for centuries!

The bombing has everything to do with our interaction with the terrorists.



You just love me doing that don't you.

As Devonin just explained, Bush has accomplished little. And yes, he has told us about it. He told us about it the night we bombed the country. I remember these words clearly, even when I heard them in fifth grade:

"...to disarm Iraq, and to free its people."

There was nothing wrong with Iraq in the first place. It was atleast in what you might call a state of peace when Saddam was the ruler. And the people, also as Devonin has explained, are probably in a bigger mess than they were back in '03*. Hell, a lot of what Bush called "people" is willingly involved with the fighting.

Going back to the mentioned [supposed] state of peace, the fall of Saddam has thrown the Sunnis and Shi'ites back together and rekindled the fighting in Iraq. So, yes, we have started another holy war.

And, as Devonin also explained, the group that executed the attack had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

[devonin]

Re: President Bush

They reside in Iraq.

Proof other than "The guys in the army say so"?

One of the largest criticisms from the UN about the American actions in Iraq was their complete inabilty to forge a reasonable link between Saudi and Egyptian terrorists who carried out the attack, and Iraq. (As a humourous aside, a political cartoon printed during the time America was trying to convince the UN to give its blessing to military actions in Iraq depicted Colin Powell standing in front of a display board with the words "Al-Qaeda" and "Iraq" on it, with the Q in each word circled, and the caption "And you can clearly see the connection between the two groups")

Bin Laden and Hussein were commonly on the record as dispising each other to the point of encouraging hostile actions against each other's organisations.

Hussein thought that Al-Qaeda were ignorant, picking fights against entirely the wrong targets, and Bin Laden felt that Iraq was basically a lapdog of the United States, for the degree to which western culture had infiltrated the country. (This is, incidentally from -US Government- released tapes and videos coming from Bin Laden, and other high up members of both Al-Qaeda and Iraq)

The best defense is a good offense.

So when the terrorist group takes an offensive stance, they are horrible attacking evil people, but when America takes an offensive stance, it's defending itself?

I'm sorry but I fail to see how a group of people working for -years- with dozens of people on the inside working to bring this about managing to hijack three planes, take down a building, and kill a few thousand civilians out of the 300 million people living in America constitutes a threat on the order of "We must obliterate them from the earth or they will destory us outright, and any amount of civilian death and damage is well worth it"

Nobody in their right mind would take a nuclear strike against a country that possesses enough nuclear weapons to destory all life on earth a few dozen times. And if you want to argue instead that these people are just not in their right mind, do you really think that overthrowing the government in a country that -at most- didn't actively seek out and destory that organisation is going to let that stop them in the slightest?

[trillobyite]

Re: President Bush

To much of a literalistic idea. Won't work. Thats just BEGGING for a civil war.

First of all...
Don't pull out. If we stop stomping down the terrorists , they will grow in size and destroy us.

Dammit, I posted a response and then there was an error and now it's all missing. My major points were that the only way to defeat terrorism is through psychological and propoganda warfare, since terrorists have become homegrown, and staying in Iraq won't help the situation. I agree with Bush that staying on the offensive is safer than being on the defensive. But I feel the soldiers could be on a better mission right now than serving in Iraq, which is a whirlpool of **** in which fighters are being funded by Syrians and Iranians who want to destabilize the region due to centuries long rivalry with Iraq. The best interest for the USA is a puppet or ally in Iraq and I feel a Kurdish state could be a good ally.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how a group of people working for -years- with dozens of people on the inside working to bring this about managing to hijack three planes, take down a building, and kill a few thousand civilians out of the 300 million people living in America constitutes a threat on the order of "We must obliterate them from the earth or they will destory us outright, and any amount of civilian death and damage is well worth it"

Dude, 9/11 isn't the only instance of terrorism in the past few decades. Madrid bombings, London bombings, the 1993 WTC bombing, and beyond dozens against Israel are only some, not even including terrorism against India, and Xinjiang province of China, and Dagestan, and the Chechnya school massacre where hundreds of little kids werre butchered in favor of a separate theocratic state, and also Al-Queda operations in Turkey and in Pakistan, Islamic separatists in Ethiopia that dragged it into a war with Somalia, the Darfur genocide whose government is quite possibly supported by terrorists, and right now Fatah in a Palestinian refugee camp fighting the Lebanese army... The sheer amount of terrorist sympathizers in the world and especially the Middle East is staggering, the amount of terrorist groups with thousands of members is enormous, the amount of homegrown terrorists who are caught planning attacks are high enough to be considered a threat. There are crowds of hundreds of thousands rallying often to chant hatred against America all over the world.

And God forbid just one tiny terrorist organization get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

[trillobyite]

Re: President Bush

Edit: Sorry for the double post...

[devonin]

Re: President Bush

Dude, 9/11 isn't the only instance of terrorism in the past few decades.

His whole point to which I was responding was the necessity of -America- responding to attacks -On America- or -America- would be "destroyed"

I'd love to see Bush extend his war on terror into Belfast, but somehow I doubt that will be happening any time soon.

[trillobyite]

Re: President Bush

His whole point to which I was responding was the necessity of -America- responding to attacks -On America- or -America- would be "destroyed"

I'd love to see Bush extend his war on terror into Belfast, but somehow I doubt that will be happening any time soon.

The organizations behind and claiming responsibility for many of the bombings or instances I listed are extremely anti-American and are a considerable threat if you ask me.