First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Bush's bad rep
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/24/07 , edited 5/24/07
Now I’m not saying rather or not he’s a good or bad president. Still, I’ve been watching Bush at a news council on the T.V. Honestly everything he is saying is true and logical, but presented in a poor manor. So is Bush really deserving of his bad reputation?

It seems to me that people are being narrow minded and childish on the matter; moreover, the enemy sees our utter lack of political unity. They further mitigating our already ambivalent teamwork with the murder of soldiers and innocence, but don‘t we realize that pulling out will only cause more death? (We seriously need to start fighting the enemy instead of ourselves. This wont be the first war we’ve lost because short sided anti-war extremists and political weakness of our fickle democracy. We=America.)

The thing that bothers me most is how idiotic people continuously pull out with that stupid (and 100% false) crap about how we have no reason to be down there. Sure, our initial reasons were destroyed. There are no nukes or weapons of mass destruction. However, the UN told us that the enemy had nuclear weaponry and we believe them. Using this information Bush acted as if they had nukes. Then we later discover there are no nukes. But, he didn’t know that then, so it’s not fair to judge his decision with this info…. Still, why are we lingering? Because this is a bloody war. Not the game “War” a friking real life thing. It’s not some child’s entertainment that we can just abandon when we get tired of it. It’s something we have to see to the finish. If we don’t the enemies terrorist organizations will have a safe-haven in their mind and attack again. This time more severe. (And that’s pretty bad because there are still people dying from 9/11. Don’t believe me? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_re_us/attacks_health)

Whatever the case he acted on information available then, not now. That’s not his fault. So I don’t think it’s fair to blame him for it. Whatever the case jumping out of the battle will A. Send an extremely unfavorable message about us to the world. (Rather England likes to admit it or not. Note I say rather, because I’ve heard a few English politicians argue both sides.) and B. Cause torture, chaos, poverty, and genocide of everyone who’s welcomed us and come to our side with the promises of our protection. In short, jumping out is a cowardly piss-ants line of action. From my point of view. It’s acting like the lives of American soldiers are more important than the lives of those who have conformed to our democratic way of life and supported us? And why? The latter is fighting the good fight too. Simply put it’s and ignorant prejudice. The former group is of American decent, so they’re better than the second….

I think people are forgetting what kind of enemy we are up against. No I’m not saying they’re evil. (Though bastards who will cheat on the Oil for Food Program probably are) And of course we can all say “Terrorists” but the argument of “You can’t fight a word!” Is only proof that we don’t know what terrorists are anymore. They don’t have the martial power to take us head on. So how are they going to take us? Politically. And you know what? Because we’re being childish, narrow minded, racists (as pointed out in the last paragraph), and short sighted they are winning.

That’s my opinion. Anyway my argument for Bush isn’t that he’s a great president. (In fact I’m not a Bush supported. The only reason my family voted for him was because he was the lesser of the evils.) Rather, it’s that he’s not as bad as people say. Come on now! Like I mentioned, it’s not fair to judge his choices then with information that we have now… Anyway, if the man was eloquen we'd be lined up like drones... So do we decide the value of a president, in our modern world, by his speechcraft?
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
No we don't hate him on his ability to make speeches. That always entertains me cause I find it hilarious. Its his arrogance and lack of a future plan that irritates me. Granted the UN might've said that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, but they also disproved of the US declaring war. Did Bush listen then? No. I can go on forever about his lack of ability to govern the country. But... I gotta go study for physics
921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / My own personal D...
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
Now the war in Iraq is yet another extremely dumbass thing the American government has thrown itself into, but to pull out in the middle of it is not a good idea. The fact that America declared war on country that doesn't have the martial power to resist, now also becouse the war seems like an attempt to silence all governmental forms that don't agree with America, many people outside of the United States view them as war mongering idiots that can be compared to Nazi Germany. But to the point of not pulling out, it's pulling out during the Afghan-Soviet war that most terrorist despise the US. But you don't have to listen to me since i'm changing a thread about Bush into a thread about the war in Iraq.

I hate Bush 'couse doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what he's doing, and what the consequences of those actions are.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
Well, Happy, assume they did have nukes. Then do you think it would be diligent or sagacious for the American president as the ruler of their #1 enemy to leave them with these weapons? Or to interfere and keep us from being blown to hell…? Just curious, cuz to me it seems the second line of action is the better one. Regardless of what the peace loving UN says… The UN is all for peace. In more or less any situation. Also, they were not the ones bombs; therefore, they’re not the ones directly involved. Beyond that they sent people in to investigate Iraq too… Just not to invade it. Yeah, they frowned upon the war. But their opinion doesn’t mean very much. It’s like a man’s opinion on abortion. I can rant all I like about it, but I’m not the one who has to go through with pregnancy so ultimately my opinion is worth jack squat….


Fafnirsbane wrote:

Now the war in Iraq is yet another extremely dumbass thing the American government has thrown itself into, but to pull out in the middle of it is not a good idea. The fact that America declared war on country that doesn't have the martial power to resist, now also becouse the war seems like an attempt to silence all governmental forms that don't agree with America, many people outside of the United States view them as war mongering idiots that can be compared to Nazi Germany. But to the point of not pulling out, it's pulling out during the Afghan-Soviet war that most terrorist despise the US. But you don't have to listen to me since i'm changing a thread about Bush into a thread about the war in Iraq.

I hate Bush 'couse doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what he's doing, and what the consequences of those actions are.


A lot of that is true. I agree with most of what you said, but I support the war... Still, people think us war mongers for it.. But, that's dumb, because they struck first. We retaliated.

Also, we can't be fairly compared to the Nazis. We're trying to liberate people subjected to tyrany. Besides, the Nazi were the ones to start a bloody war. We didn't start this war, we just made it official.
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
We can't assume ANYTHING when it comes to war. Its their job to get the job straight. Suspicions of having nukes in not enough to go into war. Thats like me punching a guy because I thought he might have looked at me in the wrong way. And no where did the terrorists who did bomb 9/11 said anything about Iraq yet Bush invaded it (probably due to the family's personal vendetta against them)

UN is all for peace for a reason. To keep hot-headedness the united states from doing anything stupid. And look now we are in a war we can't get out of. And congress declares the war on terrorism. Not Iraq. Since when did terrorism = Iraq, I have no clue. Its the goverment that makes half the world hates the United States and guess who you can thank for that?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
I didn’t say we were fighting Iraq… In fact, we’re there on their invitation. Bush himself said that if they said, “Leave” then he’d leave. He’d drag everybody out with him. Anyway it was a matter of assuming on our part. It was on the matter of the “Godly UN.” Anti-Americans like you really make me chuckle, because you’re let your prejudice do your thinking for you. It’s like in the old courts when anytime a black came up against a white the black must be in the wrong. Because he’s black and the other person is white. Well, because the UN is the UN and we are America the UN must be right. No need to think further in it.

To further my wry amusement you jump into these childish tirades without ever putting our shoes on. Never even try to see it from our point of view. America is hated because America is the biggest. Also because our people are ambivalent and disunited. As I mentioned before. You know, this whole war could have been avoided if we just saw the last one through. Nope. We dropped out and created another.

Also, you’re a flippant. Bombings, death, and slaughter are not on the same level as dirty looks and macho dumb asses punching each other out for it. It’s on a much greater level. We went to war to prevent nuclear war. As far as we knew we knew they had nukes. Get it? If anybody is to be blamed for assumption then it’s certainly the UN for giving us false information. Of course they’re not to be blamed.

Anyway that’s a panglossian and childish statement. You can’t assume anything? I’m sorry my friend but when it comes to nuclear war I’m not willing to let the dice fly high. In our courts if somebody is proven guilty beyond -reasonable- doubt they are guilty. In this case that small gray area happened to hit, which just shows we put too much value in the UN and her words.

Now, I love the UN and I don’t mean to badger it. I completely support the UN, but the truth is their ideology is to far from ours, and the situations too different, for them to properly decide what line of action we should take.

Anyway, if you want to debate the war then PM me. This thread is not about the war.
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
I didn't turn this about the war. I just saying that Bush's incompetance lead to it. I'm not anti-America, I'm just anti-Bush. I'll be happy when the new presidential election comes up. I lived in Canada and am currently in the US so I have seen both mixed opinions on it from my peers. America wasn't hated as much as it is now.

And I sure iraq people welcomed us. I mean everyone likes to get bombed now and then and have the lives of many innocent people die right? (*sarcasim)

Do you even know what the war is for? It's job is NOT to liberate Iraq or any of those things. And since we are going on personal attacks for some reason, you should know what the words you are using means and their parts of speech instead of using a thesaurus. Speak normally and stop trying to look smarter. i.e Flippant is a adj and yet you used it as a noun.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
Well, my dear friend, I’m not using any thesaurus. Though I am using spell check. Just to clarify that. These words are a part of my own vocabulary, that’s what happens when you read up on political matters and are a fan of literature. Tell me which words you don’t understand and I’ll explain them.

Anyway I only ventured to petty insults after you became condescending. If that was not your intention, which is something I doubt, then I do owe you an apology. But, I’m about 98% sure you were trying to be insulting and demeaning if only to prove your point, so I don’t feel at all bad issuing out personal insults. Besides that it creates a more fiery and spunky thread leading to more intense and interesting debate. Or argument if nothing else. Being controversial is a large point of this thread, why do you think I, as somebody who doesn’t support Bush, started a thread in his defense? To create an interesting and though provoking thread that requires characters to defend their side with all their passion.

Yes, I know America’s reputation has gone even further down the drain, but wouldn’t have won any popularity contests before the war anyway. So why should we care? Anyway at least we haven’t created the image that we just let people get away free after striking us… Yet. America is going down hill because of crap like this.

Well Iraq is less stable than it was before we came there. However, we are welcome by the current government. Rather you like it or not. Also, we’ve been bombing the hills were the previous tyranny has been hiding. Not the cities that we’ve helped support. Sure, some of their citizens are bound to get caught up in it, but in the end (if we see this through like we promised we would) it will be better for them and they know it. Sodom, Osama, all these people we’re attacking weren’t exactly popular.

I guess you were right though. You didn’t change the thread. But I bluntly disagree with you. I think Bush acted in the best and proper way, given the situation and information available then. If nothing else we’ve kept them from using their oil to squeeze their hands around all of our necks…
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
No I wasn't trying to be too condescending but I can't help if I let out a little person biased in my argument. (That and the fact I had a physics midterm to study for...made me...not happy ^^)

Fiery passion is good but you can just attack my statements and call me an optimistic child o.O (on the contrary, I'm quite negative =])

There will be rebellious people in every country. And with the invasion, we let them take over. So why would the current Iraqi government hate us? I didn't like the situation with Iraq under Saddam's ruling but I thought it was none of our business to "liberate" them. I mean its not like Saddam was imprisoning them in their own country... like North Korea. If the United States bail out of Iraq now, all that will result is total anarchy. So Its not even possible for the troops to leave.

Granted American wasn't the most popular country to begin with, but when Canadian government official start calling the current president a moron, then that just sad (of course they as her to step down cause we don't want a border conflict ><).
Posted 5/24/07
Bush has totally botched up the war yes....but in all seriousness...look @ what our alternative would have been....John Kerry....he would have crumbled 6 months into office....yes bush's last presidential term has been nothing short of a cluster fuck of mistakes but....i think we picked the lesser of two evils for this country so although im a member of the gop and i try to keep an open mind while supporting our president... i still would have much rather had bush than kerry in office...it would be soo much worse imo had he been president.


Trevor (OP)
Posted 5/24/07
"Well Iraq is less stable than it was before we came there. However, we are welcome by the current government. "

Ofcourse the US is, they pretty much made the current government there and had a huge part in setting it up. You think they wouldve set up an anti-us government. If they did that theyd pretty much be back at square 1.
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
I wonder what Kerry would be like in office.... I agree probably be awkward. But if the democrats had even half of the big named people running for 2008 in 2004, I bet you then Bush would have been kicked off.
Posted 5/24/07

happyxix wrote:

I wonder what Kerry would be like in office.... I agree probably be awkward. But if the democrats had even half of the big named people running for 2008 in 2004, I bet you then Bush would have been kicked off.



Idc if im a repub or not...i want al gore back :(
...i honestly dont think any of the current democractic canidates will win in the 08 election...and i really dont want to see anyone from the liberal or conservative side win right now...which is why im pulling for a resurfacing of al gore!


Trevor (OP)
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 5/24/07
o.O Al Gore eh... I wonder. Go green party then?
45677 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Rochester, NY (USA)
Offline
Posted 5/24/07

kyocool wrote:

Bush has totally botched up the war yes....but in all seriousness...look @ what our alternative would have been....John Kerry....he would have crumbled 6 months into office....yes bush's last presidential term has been nothing short of a cluster fuck of mistakes but....i think we picked the lesser of two evils for this country so although im a member of the gop and i try to keep an open mind while supporting our president... i still would have much rather had bush than kerry in office...it would be soo much worse imo had he been president.


Trevor (OP)


It's painful, but you're right about this. Kerry would have been even more disastrous.

The thing that makes Bush a bad president is the fact that he lacks ability as a public speaker, and in my opinion as a man who can motivate people.

The simple truth is that half of the presidents job is to be well liked and respected. Having a president they think they can count on makes people feel safe and confident.

The other half of his job is to be a public speaker. We all know Bush is terrible in this regard. And it is an important thing. Aside from not being informative, concise, and (imo) knowledgeable, Bush projects a bad image of America to the world. The world assumes that Americans are like Bush who, lets face it, sounds like an idiot 75% of the time.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.