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, 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]

Originally Posted by Kilu

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]

Originally Posted by Epology

Please elaborate why.

Locke did it quite well for me.

Originally Posted by SeymourGuado

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]

Originally Posted by Kilu

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]

Originally Posted by SeymourGuado

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]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well, first off... you are aware that 9/11 was something that was fabricated by the bush administration, right

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 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]

Originally Posted by SeymourGuado

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 photography

No, 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 theories

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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_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.

(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