Bush - pro & con

[Epology]

The 43. President of the USA is one the most controversally discussed persons nowadays.
Besides SeymourGuados opinion, which we all can read here (http://rpgn.lintbox.net/forums/showthread.php?t=718&page=3&pp=20), I'd like to know what other participants in this forum think about him.

My opinion of him is very clear. I think that he is simply incapable. ^^ If an argumentation is required, I will write one later.

Please share your thoughts about this affair. :)

[Kilu]

I think he is an idiot, plain and simple.

[Epology]

Please elaborate why.

[Locke]

Personally, I think he's one of the worst things to happen to the earth in a while. Especially if he ends up trying to use nuclear force on Iran. That would just end badly.

He is rated as the worst president of the last hundred years or so, he's started 2 wars, he's run the United States into the largest deficit they've ever had, he messes up even the speeches that are written for him. You would think that the man in charge of the most powerful military in the world would at the very least be able to speak proper english... but he can't.

He's also one of the worst things to happen environmentally, he's refused to sign numerous agreements on climate change, while the US is one of the leading countries in greenhouse gas emmisions.

His policies have also caused the Veto'ing of a chemical warfare ban by Nato and a ban on the Militarization of Space, both of which one would assume would be good things (I would assume, anyways)

Anyways, that's enough of a rant from me....

To conclude, I'll just leave off that I personnally think he's the worst excuse for a president the US has ever had.

[SeymourGuado]

I think he is an idiot, plain and simple.Well boo hoo for u, cause he's stayin;)

edit:

I will make some points however.

It is easy to hate Bush and blame America for everything but when you look at it on the whole it is only right to take an agressive stance. People, like the democrats, that sit there twiddling thumbs pretending that it will all go away are deluded. That attitude is what led to Hitler's rise to power and also 9/11.

What for Iran? Do you suggest that we just let them get on with Nuclear enrichment in the hope we are wrong and that Iran is a nice peaceful country contrary to the actual president saying things like Israel will be finished in 1 foul swoop? Or that it should be wiped off the map?

NO. The answer is to take people like this and bomb the hell out of them. Give them a chance..then if they still aren't prepared to budge it is time for action. Lord knows we try to be civilised but history has shown that sometimes this cannot lead to a peaceful resolution.

So it is easy to say 1 liners like Bush is an "idiot" but until you look at the situation we are in with the world today and all the things the Bush administration has to take into account I think that is a pretty unfair statement Kilu.

In the end it doesn't matter what people think. He is there doing things the way he wants, and after 9/11 who can blame him?

On Iraq, ok so no weapons found..but there was a clear admission that Saddam was a threat to world peace and had every intention of reviving his nuclear program. All countries whether Spineless like France or not believed he had WMD. It is always better to err on the side of caution.

err on the side of caution, err on the side of caution, err on the side of caution :)

Locke: Noone is going to use nuclear weapons on Iran, the civilised world (i.e. not Iran or North Korea) doesn't work that way:), they would only be used if there was intelligence to suggest Iran was a threat and was about to use them. Israel and America have every right to bomb Iran (with conventional weapons) if they don't give up their ambition to be a nuclear power, and especially when they have a nutjob president in charge making threats against the west.

On another note, noone can honestly expect america to start being Green when you have China allowed to do what it wants because it is a "devleoping nation". America does what is in it's own interests and for the good of the economy most americans, however selfish, will support Bush on this. Until there is an organisation or plan to curtail all countries CO2 emiisions etc, I am with Bush on this stance also.

[Kilu]

Please elaborate why.
Locke did it quite well for me.

Israel and America have every right to bomb Iran (with conventional weapons) if they don't give up their ambition to be a nuclear power, and especially when they have a nutjob president in charge making threats against the west.
Try reversing this. Except that Bush has been beyond threats a long time now. How does that make him any better than this other nutjob president?

[SeymourGuado]

Try reversing this. Except that Bush has been beyond threats a long time now. How does that make him any better than this other nutjob president?There is a big difference:) Iran's president wants shia law all over the world and the destruction of a country by any means in a pre emptive strike. America stands in most circumstances to international law and tries peaceful solutions before resorting to attacks.

Without making threats against people like Iran's president we would be doomed to have them develop nuclear bombs and it wouldn't be too long after that they used them or sold them to a nutty group.

Also, the western countries are all more or less democracies. Iran is a shambles.

9/11 is the very reason why Bush is right to attack first.

[Locke]

In the end it doesn't matter what people think. He is there doing things the way he wants, and after 9/11 who can blame him?

Locke: Noone is going to use nuclear weapons on Iran, the civilised world (i.e. not Iran or North Korea) doesn't work that way:), they would only be used if there was intelligence to suggest Iran was a threat and was about to use them. Israel and America have every right to bomb Iran (with conventional weapons) if they don't give up their ambition to be a nuclear power, and especially when they have a nutjob president in charge making threats against the west.

On another note, noone can honestly expect america to start being Green when you have China allowed to do what it wants because it is a "devleoping nation". America does what is in it's own interests and for the good of the economy most americans, however selfish, will support Bush on this. Until there is an organisation or plan to curtail all countries CO2 emiisions etc, I am with Bush on this stance also.
Well, first off... you are aware that 9/11 was something that was fabricated by the bush administration, right. The plane's had minimal crew and passangers (which doesn't happen on flights between major cities during midday flights, which those were), the plane that hit the pentagon wasn't, in fact, a plane. There were no remains of a plane left behind, and the hole that was left on the side of it was way way too small for a 747 to fit into.

Also the entire bin Laden family that was left in America was flown out on Air Force One either immediately following 9/11 or the day before (sorry, I don't recall which it was).

As for the whole preemtive strike thingy... what do you think terrorism is? A preemptive strike against another nation or group of people that is unlawful to the rest of the world.... which is what bush has been doing. And as for suddam hussein... he was put into office and funded by the US until he decided that he wanted to run his own country, then suddenly there was a threat of WMD's and he got bombed until he was deposed.

And as to the whole being green thing... how can we get a plan for global GHG emmision reduction when bush won't even agree to go to the meetings. There's lot's of way's it can be done. Emmisions trading between countries, lot's of things. And, as far as memory serves, China wasn't the one who walked out on any attempt to help the world, that would be the illustrious leader of the US, Bush.

I'm sorry that you feel he's a great man... because, well, he's rated as the worst president of the US in the last hundred years. I'll see if I can dig up the link to that news article.

As to the whole 9/11 is why he can strike first... that's why his administration concocted it. It allowed him to go to war for oil.

[SeymourGuado]

Well, first off... you are aware that 9/11 was something that was fabricated by the bush administration, rightThat is pure and utter nonsense. Everyone knows that that particular conspiricy theory holds no ground.

Next you will be telling me the footage of the planes driving into the twin towers was trick photography.

Terrorism is a pre emptive strike with no legal basis whatsoever, the fact the Bush administration attack is in defense to prevent ruthless dicatators being able to make another 9/11 or similar catastrophic event. So it isn't terrorism for the west to bomb Iran if Iran is too stupid not to stop nuclear enrichment.

Also, it isn't you or any silly poll that will decide whther he was a good president or not, ultimately it will be historians. BUt the American public gave their backing also and for that I am thankful.

[Locke]

That is pure and utter nonsense. Everyone knows that that particular conspiricy theory holds no ground.

Next you will be telling me the footage of the planes driving into the twin towers was trick photographyNo, the footage of the planes hitting them was real, but the amount of fuel that should have been in them both shouldn't have been enough to cause complete destruction of the towers, and wouldn't you think that the force of a pair of 747's hitting the twin towers might have made them fall over a bit, as opposed to straight down in a controlled demolition. Also the twin towers had solid steel supports that an explosion from a jet plane wouldn't reach temperatures hot enough to melt them. The footage that everyone saw about 9/11 was all real, it just wasn't everything that was going on.

[SeymourGuado]

It has been the topic of many documentaries, one by the BBC that the fuel was more than enough to melt the metal girders and make the buildings collapse.

You denial that this is what caused the buildings to collapse is at best absurd:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

I suggest you read that, it shows the lengths and arguments people will fabricate in order to make something out of nothing. it is a fact that bin laden's group was responsible, a fact that the temperature was enough to destroy the structure, a fact that the footage is real, a fact that the plane that hit the pentagon was real, a fact that one was probably on it's way to the whitehouse and finally a fact that it was terrorism

[Locke]

Alright, seeing as how this is thread about pro's and con's about bush, how about we agree to disagree on this. I won't convince you that I'm right, and you won't convince me that your right.

I'm interested to hear any refutements to any of the other statements about bush and his administration though.

Edit: If you click on your own link and click pentagon and read through it they point out how a 757 couldn't have been hijacked and hit the pentagon. They explain how one could leave an impact hole, but that woulda taken preperation and not been a hijacking. Also the people that supposedly hijacked the planes came to the states for flying lessons, and are described as the "worst pilot's" their instructor had ever seen. ;) Thanks for pointing that out to me ;)

[SeymourGuado]

I have said my piece so far, and added to the other post below, but let's keep this real please and not go into the realms of silly conspiracy theorieshttp://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Locke]

Actually, it has occured to me that if you want something good to read about the US government and it's policies (right from bush senior to the current pres.) read Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky. It's pretty blatent on pointing out how the US has either funded or caused some of the worst terrorist activities in the world.

[SeymourGuado]

Actually, it has occured to me that if you want something good to read about the US government and it's policies (right from bush senior to the current pres.) read Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky. It's pretty blatent on pointing out how the US has either funded or caused some of the worst terrorist activities in the world.Partly true for own purposes that backfired, it still doesn't alter the fact that they were attacked in a most brutal way, that the buildings collapsed as a result and now, some countries have had to pay

[Locke]

But Bush has gone to war on an ideal. Not on a country, or even those directly responsible. An ideal. And it's something that his own country has been the largest benificiary for in the world. That's part of the reason on why I believe that Bush is a bad person to have in charge of the US government.

[Epology]

I pretty much agree with all that was stated by Locke. Though there are some issues that have to be discussed more detailled.

First
Well, first off... you are aware that 9/11 was something that was fabricated by the bush administration, right. The plane's had minimal crew and passangers (which doesn't happen on flights between major cities during midday flights, which those were), the plane that hit the pentagon wasn't, in fact, a plane. There were no remains of a plane left behind, and the hole that was left on the side of it was way way too small for a 747 to fit into.None of these statements are officially proven. Like you I tend to believe in them because this whole strike fit right into the plans of Bush and his administrative staff. Since an investigation about these events has never been executed by a neutral authority (It's obvious that the US government would never admit a calamity like it has been supposed.).

There are also three points about the theory that could be of interest.
1.
The Pentagon has automated gun turrets as well as anti-ait-defense systems positioned around and on the five walls which are surrounding the building itself. They are operated fully automatical and do not need humam operation. On 9/11 none of these reacted when the automatic radar spotted the planes.
The only explanation given was that they were malfunctioning the day before and therefore needed to be deactivated.

2.
All video tapes of the happenings were confiscated in minutes after the crash. Questions were not allowed and there was no explanation for this act.

3.
There is another automated system working around Washington.
If any airplane is not responding properly to an automated sequence, sent by military computers down at the base nearby, within a certain amount of time, two fighters will be depatched from this base, automatically.
Instead of depatching two planes from the base in Washington, the automatic called fighters from some base far west. (Can't remember the name, sorry.) This is highly unlogical. No machine can change it's programming. The government justified this intervention with the argument, there would not have been any fighters available in Washington at this time. This does not make sense either, because it is a law that there MUST be at least 2 fighters fully operational at any time.

Though, much of these informations were biased by numerous sources. Point 1 is the only one that everybody can be certain of. 2 and 3 are speculative theories. Note that there are no faults in the argumentation. It could just be, that all given explanations by Bush, are correct.

Second
I totally agree that it is a problem of the US mentality that is causing so much trouble. It is just the fact that one nation believes that their oppinion and view of things is best and should be brought to other countries as well.
I a few cases, this thinking was useful. For example during the Korea conflict. But that Bush is so convinced of his actions (At least he seems conviced of actions that are done under his name.) that there appears to be no room left for independent thinking.



I wanted to write more, but my fingers hurt. ^^

edit
----------------------------
I started writing this after Lockes last big post of which the quote is taken.
----------------------------

[Cyrano de Hero]

It's not that Bush's job approval rating is below 40%,(http://english.people.com.cn/200604/11/eng20060411_257539.html) his refusal to fire that clown Rumsfeld, or even that he failed to make good on his promise to reform Social Security:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12388020/
"And, by the way, remember Social Security reform? That was going to be the big one, the big domestic initiative of the second term. It went nowhere. A president with a job-approval rating in the 30s can’t do much — certainly not revamp the most costly and crucial social welfare program on the planet."

What bothers me the most about Bush is this: his consistency. Take a look at the U.S. right now. Gas prices are skyrocketing, unemployment is on the rise. Take a look at Iraq: thousands of soliders are dying, billions of dollars are being spent. The cost of the war could reach near 1 trillion. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042106A.shtml

And all signs point towards more of the same from Bush. Bush would rather dig the nation's economical and politcal grave further than begin to clean up the mess.

What really makes me afraid is that the U.S. won't realize just how truly awful of a President Bush has been until he's left office, when the next President (hopefully a Democrat) has to begin to repair the damage he's done. http://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/sad.gif

(Oh, and while I clearly don't like Bush, I still think that the whole "9/11 was a conspiracy by Bush" thing is just a bit too farfetched for me to believe. There's too many loopholes...)

[Locke]

I should also point out that immediately following 9/11 Al Queda support was at it's lowest ever, and immediately following the bombing of Afghanistan Al Queda support skyrocketed. Thus Bush made Al Queda gain a victory from it, when it was in fact a defeat.

Now we've got the whole Iran thing. Personally I think what we are seeing in the media is trumped up so Bush can once more go to war. Meh, at least he'll be out before too much longer. I'm just surprised that with the infringements on human rights and such that he's allowed to go on (the patriot act, etc.) that he hasn't been impeached yet.

[SeymourGuado]

Like usual your answers to everything are the same....do nothing.

That is something that is wrong and it is not being put into practice again thankgod;)

[Locke]

Like usual your answers to everything are the same....do nothing.

That is something that is wrong and it is not being put into practice again thankgod;)Where did I ever suggest do nothing? Honestly, I don't recall ever telling anyone that nothing would be the correct solution to anything. There's always something that can be done. But what should give Bush the right to invade other countries that have done nothing to him? They might someday be able to, but that's the same thing as saying that we should slaughter all the children of the world because they "might" grow up to be terrorists. That doesn't mean we should, nor give us the right.

The US should be confortable with the knowledge that any assault on them would result in the complete annihilation of the country that it origionated in. The threat of overwhelming force is a wonderful deterrant, and it would stop the slaughter of so many innocents by US forces.

It's not a question of whether nothing could be done, it's a question of whether something "should" be done. How does anyone know that even if Iran were to develope Nuclear capability that they wouldn't use them intelligently. The US is a huge military power, and any military attack on them would be ... well, stupid. It's insulting to the intelligence of others to think that there really is any threat on earth that could cause the US to loose a war (minus Vietnam, because that was kinda pointless and technically considered a "conflict" not a war.)

Personally, I don't think the US has the right to do what it's doing now, and as to the "War on Terror"... how can you win a war on an ideal that every assault on a country feuls hundreds and thousands more to sign up to the groups that you are sworn to fight against?

That's enough out of me for now, please back up your statements in the future, as the whole do nothing comment really isn't backed by anything.

[SeymourGuado]

It's not a question of whether nothing should be done, it's a question of whether something "should" be done. This is an oxymoron. So it appears it is you who needs to back up his statements.

Also we know iran won't use them intelligently because Iran's president has already said he wants Israel wiping off the map publicly. The fact that his country is surpressed and undemocratic is more than enough to immediately take steps to stop him. Noone believes he is enriching uranium for energy purposes...noone.

He is the one in the wrong, it is not his right to have nuclear bombs and it is a risk we aren't prepared to take. Nor should we, you do remember Hitler don't you?>

It is also the matter that a nuclear device does not have to be launched anymore, and if Iran were to develop one, it would be a risk that they could give it to a terrorist organisation. Surely you understand this?

It is not a question on whether something should be done, it is an answer that something will and if he dares to challenge the west it will only be a matter of time before the bombs are a dropping.

Actually to be prefectly honest I can hardly wait...now time for a beer.

EDIT:

when the next President (hopefully a Democrat) I forsee the next president being republican:) and hopefully even more right wing than Bush.

Oh, and while I clearly don't like Bush, I still think that the whole "9/11 was a conspiracy by Bush" thing is just a bit too farfetched for me to believe. There's too many loopholes...Atleast you see through that nonsense.

[Locke]

This is an oxymoron. So it appears it is you who needs to back up his statements.

Also we know iran won't use them intelligently because Iran's president has already said he wants Israel wiping off the map publicly. The fact that his country is surpressed and undemocratic is more than enough to immediately take steps to stop him. Noone believes he is enriching uranium for energy purposes...noone.

Israel is actually next behind the United States on Terrorist activities, as they are backed fully by the US government so's to allow the US a militarist nation "friendly" to them in the middle east.

As to my oxymoron... that was a typo that I have since corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. http://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/wink.gif

Any country that used Nuclear arms would immediately become the target of every other country in the world (with the exception of the US, as they seem to be able to get away with just about anything and shrug it off as their "divine right")

As to me needing to back up my statements, I believe I have been expanding on any of the statements I've made. If theres any that I haven't, please, let me know, I'd be more then happy to back them up.

As to the concept of democracy... look at Iraq. The Iraqi government has had democratic elections, but the US didn't like who was voted in, and so deemed their election "undemocratic" and had another one called. With full intents to leave US officials to "oversee the fledgeling government in it's developmental stages".

If the US didn't do so much "policing" of the world and sticking their noses in other countries where they aren't needed or wanted... they wouldn't be the most hated country in most middle eastern countries. They would also be able to let civilians wander the globe without fear of being killed, which is prone to happen in many countries right now.

Canada, on the other hand, has a peacekeeping role and we tend to be welcomed pretty much wherever we go http://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/smile.gif

[SeymourGuado]

it's a question of whether something "should" be done. and it should and will http://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

and i don't believe you about the typohttp://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/dance.gif

Everyone knows somethibng could be done;)
anyway I am taking a break and letting someone else make their point (prob anti bush as usual)

[Locke]

I don't know how many other points there are after the tirade we just went through, but that's a good plan and I think I will also abstain from further posts for a couple days to let some others get their viewpoints accross.

As to the typo... why would you not believe it was a typo. I honestly did intent to put could instead of the should there... but meh, to each their own.

/ranting for now

[Epology]

It seems great to me that you two are discussing so hard, but you both may need to stay a bit more objective. Comments about the others position being stupid aren't helping at all. :)

As for me, I am often asking myself this question.

The US used 9/11 to justify their attacks on iraq, but later on even Bush admitted that the whole operation was a everything but a success.
So how can they honestly plan to start another catastrophy like this in Iran?
So incredibly many innocent people died because of the American ignorance, and even after Bushs confession the slaughtering went on.
One could justify this with the logical fear for terrorism, and therefore I am certain that the war on Iraq was a step that couldn't be evaded since the whole US was sure about it. But Iran must something different.

Does the fact that one country MAY produce WMD, give another one the right to attempt preventive strikes?

Given the circumstances that, as mentioned before, any use of these weapons would inevitable lead to a world-wide attack against this country.

[SeymourGuado]

You will find the majority of slaughtering was done by Saddam which previous administrations inc. bush's father did zip all about.

Todays slaughtering is squarely the fault of insurgents, terrorists and the silly people of Iraq for not understanding the fruits of true democracy ...with time however- Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan will be forced to come to our way of thinking. If not in the immediate future certainly within 500 years.

How can anyone blame bush for wanting rid of despot regimes the world over...wait let me think...nope, no blame from me.

Seifer Almasy

[Epology]

Agreed. Hussein was a dictator and killed lots of his own people.

But besides the fact that it was the US which appointed him on his position before, how does one slaughtering justify another? The believe that the opposing Iraqi will one day just crawl out of their holes and surrender to the almighty, supreme and democratic government (Which was established by the US, the very enemy they are about to fight to death.) is unsubstantiated.
The war against Iraq was based on the expectation to find WMD and to attempt the get ahold of terrorists. Neither were there WMP, nor did the US forces find any terrorist organisations.
Because these had no connection to the state itself.

[SeymourGuado]

True but Saddam may have been a future threat and now he isn't, better to be safe than sorry. Also, wasn't Bush's administration that put and left him there.

And they found 1 WMD in iraq..it was Saddam himself.

Iran and North korea are a different kettle of fish. North korea already believed to have a bomb and Iran trying to develop one, the simularity?

They both making threats against western countries. It isn't on, and it must be stopped.

I am in favour of nuking the lot of them, but since this isn't going to happen, we should just conventional bomb them into the ground. North korea may be a problem, I would leave them alone and try diplomacy, but if there was 1 sniff of a chance they were preparing any kind of attack on us, Boom, I would nuke them..

Hope, in the end they see sense and stop pissing us off.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for diplomacy and talk, but that isn't gong to work with these freaks. It never has and probably never will.

[Kilu]

it still doesn't alter the fact that they were attacked in a most brutal way, that the buildings collapsed as a result and now, some countries have had to pay
It's a cycle of violence. Who knows who started it, but 9/11 wasn't the first strike. US has been poking it's nose in the conflicts they know nothing about for a while now, and it's naive to think that it wouldn't backfire. And as they continue to do so, they are practically asking for more attacks againts them. And in turn US will then have more reasons to invade other countries, which again will spawn more terrorist activity. And it goes on.

Just like this thread.

But that is all beside this thread really.

I have nothing new to add to cons of Bush that hasn't been said already. He is a stupid warmonger whose decisions aren't helping anyone.

[SeymourGuado]

I have said all I have to say on this, and I am also glad esp. Kilu isn't president due to the fact I sense a policy of doing nothing is the cut of his jig. Long live Bush, long live Rumsfeld.

*I am finished with this debate*

[Skikkles]

SeymourGuado:True but Saddam may have been a future threat and now he isn't, better to be safe than sorry.

So are you saying that it is better to kill/imprison everyone who is a potential threat? Just would like some clarification.

Also after reading through this entire thread I have noticed a few things.

1.SeymourGuado: You seem to believe that the US (aka Bush) seems to have
the right to do whatever they want to whoever they want if their is even an
inclination that something may happen. That's like punching the guy next to you in the theatre because he glared at you.

2.Locke/Epology: I understand your views on Bush and how you find him repulsively unintelligent. Though you do seem a bit harsh. The conspiracy theories I have read over and some seem quite logical, though to say they are fact is a bit over assuming that the sources are good. I do agree with the fact that Bush does seem to be in this war for a different reason, though not as much so as you believe. I personally believe (personal opinion here not fact) that Bush Sr. is the 'brains' behind this operation.

And finally this discussion has gotten to the point where people have begun to take shots at each other to lower their credibility (much like politicians).

I am not saying I'm an expert on politics but I do think everyone has a right to say what they say. So say it.

Pro: He reads books to little kids.
Con: He can't read properly to little kids.

(Sorry bout the above comments I know this is serious discussions but if you know me you know I had to make that comment.)

As for this thread I believe that if it gets any more personal (pokes at people for their spelling/wording/views) that it should be locked or deleted as to not destroy friendships or cause enemies.

[Epology]

It is truely a pitty, but I agree.
Though I think, taking the developement of other threads in this forum into consideration, that we three are handling the situation and conflict well and do not discuss this on a personal level. Creating this thread, I was certain that more than us 4 or 5 people would join in.

As for your take of our statements Skikkles, please review the detailed comment in this thread I wrote. I clearly state that the conspiration theories mentioned can not be taken as facts.

Still you are right about closing this topic. A continuation would be in vain.
If some mod would have the time, please shut down this one.

What a bummer. :(

[Cyrano de Hero]

Long live Bush, long live Rumsfeld.
Tell that to the thousands that died.

[SeymourGuado]

So are you saying that it is better to kill/imprison everyone who is a potential threat? Just would like some clarification.
I have finished with this topic, but since you asked. The answer is obviously yes to people like Saddam (and most others)

Tell that to the thousands that died. If you are attributing all blame to Bush and Rumsfeld that figure should be tens of thousands. I would have no problem telling them that because I have no doubt what we did was correct, and should similar action need taking....it will be:) you should just be glad I am not president, 1 sniff of a problem from North Korea and I would blow it right off the map. I know where arguments like this leads, it leads to major death like WW2, and if I am not mistaken, it were people like you I am afraid that caused it with appeasement.

[Locke]

The only statement that I will make further past the views that I've already expressed here is this: What gives Bush the right to decide what is "right". He definently doesn't have the brains, and nobody asked him to make the decision for them, so what gives him the right to decide how another country will be run/who lives and dies.

As to remaining objective... I tried, I thought I was pretty much objective. It might not have ended objectively... but I don't really take credit for that.

Cyrano... I couldn't have put it better myself

As for closing the thread, I don't think we'd really need to have it closed. There's just not really anything else that needs to be said. General consensus (with exceptions) would be that Bush is an idiot and is doing a terrible job, hence the debate was successful. Nobody got flamed or anything, we just had a bit of a heated debate for a while.

As to not counting the conspiracy theory stuff as fact.... there's no way to prove any of it, so of course it's not fact, merely speculation.

Anyways, to conclude, I'll simply ask that everybody remembers basic human rights apply the world over, not just in countries who's view's coincide with your own countries.

[Skikkles]

Locke: "...nobody asked him to make the decision for them..."

On the contrary good sir he was voted the president therefore people did request for him to make their decisions in a sense.

And I do not believe that Bush as a person is too intelligent though he does know how to make some people happy, be it the trigger happy people of America.

No offense meant just a Canadian stereotype of Americans.

[SeymourGuado]

Locke: "...nobody asked him to make the decision for them..."

On the contrary good sir he was voted the president therefore people did request for him to make their decisions in a sense.
Actually I was gonna add that myself, but didn't want myself carrying on and on:)

[Locke]

I was actually not reffering to the American people, as Bush isn't bombing the hell out of them. I was referring to, say, the Iraqi people. Or the Afghani people, or any of them. Honestly, I really don't think there was a vote to the population on whether the US army should invade.

[SeymourGuado]

Maybe to the iraqi people there wasn't, but there was a ringing endorsement from the american people on Bush's polices granted by his reelection. The time for talk ended on Sep 11th 2001.

[kai]

Originally Posted by SeymourGuado
Also, it isn't you or any silly poll that will decide whther he was a good president or not, ultimately it will be historians. BUt the American public gave their backing also and for that I am thankful.Historians eh???? Ok then, here you go . . .

The Worst President in History?
By Sean Wilentz
Rolling Stonehttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042006J.shtml


Edit : I could get into this discussion however being I am not directly effected by Bush's decisions at the moment I don't believe I can make an intelligent argument concerning his presidency. From reading the posts in this discussion I will say I see a lot of bias and possibly racism.

[SeymourGuado]

I think you need your eyes tested if you think there is racism going on.noone on here has so far been guilty of that.

Also, I said historians...that link means nothing. Historical look on something is made years and years after an event...you cannot have an historical look at a president that i still in power, I hope you understand that.

Anyway, I don't want engaging on this. I kinda think this topic has worn out and no new statements have really been made:)

[kai]

Originally Posted by SeymourGuado
I think you need your eyes tested if you think there is racism going on.noone on here has so far been guilty of that.

Also, I said historians...that link means nothing. Historical look on something is made years and years after an event...you cannot have an historical look at a president that i still in power, I hope you understand that.
Your entitled to your opinions and I'm entiled to mine, thanks for the input though. ;) And besides most racism isn't blatantly obvious but can easily be picked up if you look for it. ( I won't expand anymore on this, it is my opinion simple as that)

As for the historical look at something. I will agree that because the events taking place are still current they cannot accuratley be dipicted as being good or bad. This is only because we don't know the outcome.

Edit : I think I worded the end of the post incorrectly. So here it is revised, hopefully no one is reponding to my post as I do this :knockedout: .

We do however know his intentions. Whether you view them as being good or bad is up to you however we can still compare them to the presidents of the past and what they wanted to do for their country. I myself don't believe Bush is trying to make the world a safer place but hey, that's just me. As I said earlier I didn't want to get into this discussion, I've already said more than I've wanted.

[SeymourGuado]

I have no problem with that statement seems to be balanced.

However, seems how I am the only one here so far giving an alternate account of Bush, I am largely suspecting that I am the one alone, who you are referring to as racist.

If this is so...you are wrong:)

EDIT

"Are you really that stupid. Read the link, the historians now would be quite able to figure out if he's doing good or bad, look at the ruin of the economy and gas prices"

<<< whoever sent this (and I am sorry Kai but it really does look like you who flamed me) should state their opinion here instead of being a coward.

Anyway, as I said countless times, this topic is done for me, and there won't be a further post from me now on here either.

[Kilu]

whoever sent this (and I am sorry Kai but it really does look like you who flamed me) should state their opinion here instead of being a coward.
Don't assume such things.

This topic is now closed.