NationStates Jolt Archive

First off...I'd like to keep this from turning into a an anti-Bush thread.
There are plenty of those....and I support every one of them...
so...no need for another.

What I want to know is this:

Since Bush took office, has your perception of him, and the job he is doing, changed at all?

In other words, has your opinion of him gotten better?
Worse?

Are you pleased with his performance, or do you find yourself not liking his policies?

Obviously, if your not a Bush supporter, this thread aint for you..as we already know you hate the mans pukey guts.

Could you do any better?

People make mistakes. At an international level it is slightly worse than at a everyday oops i chose the wrong road level, but there it is.

I would give him a 5 , not the best, but not the worst, and not as good as was expected.

At first I was happy based on the fact that he wasnt Bill Clinton. Say what you like, I hate that guy.
My opinion of him increased somewhat post-9/11, and when we took over Afghanistan.
Iraq was a big plus as well, although now that things are dragging along, its slowly degarding my opinion.
The fact that he cant speak for jack is something I dont mind. A politician that isnt charismatic can only be a good thing.
The assorted domestic issues within the us balance each other out, he does some bad things and some good things.

Overall, I would give him a 6 or a 7 out of ten,

I have lost faith in the party because of him, and may just vote libertarian in the next election. Why? Because he is completely idiotic about the war on terror. With unsecured boarders, who cares how many terrorist you kill oversees? They can get in here really easily.

I supported him in 2000 as the lesser of two evils (Let's face it, did you really want Gore running the country?), but he impressed me early in his presidency, and I support him fully now. He's not perfect, but hey, who is?

I'm not exactly a Republican (more of a libertarian or some such), but there are many issues on which I support Bush, and others which I do not. For instance, I support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I disagree with the way he has handled some aspects of the wars (honestly, not giving the military armored cars?) At the same time, I disagree with his proposed bans on gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion while agreeing with the need for Social Security reform. All in all, I think that he's done an okay job, but he could also do some things better.

I have lost faith in the party because of him, and may just vote libertarian in the next election. Why? Because he is completely idiotic about the war on terror. With unsecured boarders, who cares how many terrorist you kill oversees? They can get in here really easily.

You are aware that the Libertarian party would like to open borders to anyone who wishes to emigrate, yes? Now I support that idea wholeheartedly, in fact it's why I originally became interested in the idea of Libertarianism, but it doesn't sound like it sits at ease with your xenophobic beliefs about those eeeeevil Canadians and Mexicans.

Could you do any better?
Yes, I could.

I voted consistently Republican for nearly twenty years, but this pathetic excuse for a President forced me to vote Democratic in the last election. Why?

1) I was taught that a main tenet of the Republican Party was a reverence for the Constitution. Yet, in four years, this administration has done so much damage to the Constitution that I am doubtful we will ever be able to recover.

2) I am pro-Capitalism, but his handing over of everything to the corporate world is not Capitalism; it is corporate welfare. And it's all at the expense of American taxpayers.

3) The Republicanism that I was raised on is somewhat Isolationistic. Yet, while his administration talks about walking away from the UN, there actions reek of international activism. Was Saddam a bad man? Yes, he was. But we had no right or need to waste our resources on removing him. He was not a threat to our security, and indeed this action has increased the threat. If the Iraqis wanted him out, then they should have done something about it themselves just like our forefathers did over 200 years ago.

4) Nothing is more dangerous to our security and our freedom than the bigoted and jingoistic attitudes of the religious extremists who apparently have our President's ear. As long as he caters to them, to the detriment of all Americans, neither he nor the Republican Party can be trusted.

As Abraham Lincoln prophetically stated, "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." President Bush and his cronies (and the pathetic idiots who follow them) are the embodiment of President Lincoln's warning.

I think I might vote Libertarian next time as well.

You are aware that the Libertarian party would like to open borders to anyone who wishes to emigrate, yes? Now I support that idea wholeheartedly, in fact it's why I originally became interested in the idea of Libertarianism, but it doesn't sound like it sits at ease with your xenophobic beliefs about those eeeeevil Canadians and Mexicans.

I think your missing the point about open borders. For one Mexico especially does nothing to arrest terrorists in their own country. Terrorists can easily get into Mexico, build a dirty nuke, smuggle themselves into the U.S. and then disaster strikes. Canada is almost as bad, but not too bad.

As far as my support for Bush. I have supported him 100% since 2000, and I continue to do so today. He has made some decision I dissagreed with, like not cracking down on ILLEGAL immigration, but all in all, he's doing very well considering what was given to him when he was innaugurated and what came about later in 9/11. The economy was on a downturn as it was from late 1999, and the fact that it did crash further and we're now cutting the deficit, more jobs being created, interest rates are still low, is really a major accomplishment in my book.

You know honestly, the anti-bush people shouldn't bash people him the way they do. It pushes people further and further away from the other parties. Why? They don't like the extremism. I didn't like Clinton in office at all, but I didn't bash him with such hate. But the more radical the rhetoric, the more you push people to the other side.

You are aware that the Libertarian party would like to open borders to anyone who wishes to emigrate, yes? Now I support that idea wholeheartedly, in fact it's why I originally became interested in the idea of Libertarianism, but it doesn't sound like it sits at ease with your xenophobic beliefs about those eeeeevil Canadians and Mexicans.

I don’t think Mexicans and Canadians are evil. I think most Canadians don’t want to move to the US, or else they would. As for the Mexicans, they cause a lot of crime, but those are the same people who commit crimes back in Mexico. We need strong boarder security to keep criminals and terrorists out. I support boarder security because then we know who is here. Right now we have millions of undocumented aliens, and that is what causes the problems. The documented ones do just fine, and provide vital labor. It’s the undocumented ones who cause financial problems because they are afraid to attend English classes and things like that for fear of being caught.

In my opinion, Bush has done an O.K. job. He isn't Reagan, but he's good enough to make Clinton look like an insignificant president. I approve completely of his economic policies and his handling of foreign affairs in general, although mistakes have been made in that area. For the time, he is as effective as most other presidents would have been in his situation.

he really should pay more attention to our southern boarder

In my opinion, Bush has done an O.K. job. He isn't Reagan, but he's good enough to make Clinton look like an insignificant president. I approve completely of his economic policies and his handling of foreign affairs in general, although mistakes have been made in that area. For the time, he is as effective as most other presidents would have been in his situation.

So, My question to you would be this:

We cant say what any other president "would have" done in this situation, becuase no other IS in it.
So then, given the current situation in Iraq, where we will inevitably be forced to hold a hostile occupation in Iraq, indefinately....do you think now, that going there was a mistake, and if so, how much responsibility does Bush hold for making the choice to go, particularly knowing what we now know?

I think your missing the point about open borders. For one Mexico especially does nothing to arrest terrorists in their own country. Terrorists can easily get into Mexico, build a dirty nuke, smuggle themselves into the U.S. and then disaster strikes. Canada is almost as bad, but not too bad.

As far as my support for Bush. I have supported him 100% since 2000, and I continue to do so today. He has made some decision I dissagreed with, like not cracking down on ILLEGAL immigration, but all in all, he's doing very well considering what was given to him when he was innaugurated and what came about later in 9/11. The economy was on a downturn as it was from late 1999, and the fact that it did crash further and we're now cutting the deficit, more jobs being created, interest rates are still low, is really a major accomplishment in my book.

You know honestly, the anti-bush people shouldn't bash people him the way they do. It pushes people further and further away from the other parties. Why? They don't like the extremism. I didn't like Clinton in office at all, but I didn't bash him with such hate. But the more radical the rhetoric, the more you push people to the other side.

Okay, you say you support Bush 100%.
Thats fine, its your right as a human to support whomever you want.
But let me ask you this:

If you watch the news, it seems as though very high ranking officials are lying more and more about Karl Rove, and wether or not he leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent.
This is most definately a crime, and the White House, is not doing much to discover the truth.

If..and I say IF...George is lying to all of us about this issue, and has no plans whatsoever to see justice served IF Rove is guilty...then doesnt that mean that he isnt supporting the constitution, or our way of life, or anything that this country suppoosed to stand for, if he is willing to let his subordinates break the law and endanger american citizens?

Now, to be fair, Roves innocence or guilt has yet to be proven, BUT....if the above is true...and this is the real question....why would you continue to support him then?

He hasn't exactly stood for what I believe in on a few of the issues I expected him to, but, overall, I would consider him quite nice. If only he stood firmer on the issues of abortion, illegal immigration, equipping the military, and avoiding appeasing the Democrats by appointing moderates to certain positions (after all, I voted Republican and not Democrat! I want a conservative SCOTUS justice :mad: ). But, all in all, I would give him a high rating.

He hasn't exactly stood for what I believe in on a few of the issues I expected him to, but, overall, I would consider him quite nice. If only he stood firmer on the issues of abortion, illegal immigration, equipping the military, and avoiding appeasing the Democrats by appointing moderates to certain positions (after all, I voted Republican and not Democrat! I want a conservative SCOTUS justice :mad: ). But, all in all, I would give him a high rating.


How do you feel about his performance in Iraq?

How do you feel about his performance in Iraq?



It was about the best that could be expected from occupying a foreign country with plenty of guerilla fighters I suppose.

It was about the best that could be expected from occupying a foreign country with plenty of guerilla fighters I suppose.


Do you feel that anything was handled wrongly, or that any decisions should have been done differently?

It was about the best that could be expected from occupying a foreign country with plenty of guerilla fighters I suppose.

Of course, going there in the first place was inevitable. :rolleyes:

200,000 troops in Iraq=targets
200,000 troops on US boarders=shield

Of course, going there in the first place was inevitable. :rolleyes:

200,000 troops in Iraq=targets
200,000 troops on US boarders=shield




It would be nice if our intelligence agencies were more reliable, but at least 25 million individuals liberated is nice for one's legacy ;)

It would be nice if our intelligence agencies were more reliable, but at least 25 million individuals liberated is nice for one's legacy ;)


I think Ive behaved myself nicely so far, so Im gonna get a bit...just a bit...more antagonistic...

Are they really liberated if they live in a country that is occupied militarily, by a foreign nation?

It would be nice if our intelligence agencies were more reliable, but at least 25 million individuals liberated is nice for one's legacy ;)

Honestly, I could care less if they are “liberated” or not, since that is a loaded term. The US armed service exists to protect the US, not everyone else. Besides, if you honestly think those people can sustain Democracy without a constant US occupation, you are wrong. There is not a single precedent in their history for it.

I’d like to add that the Iraqis didn’t ask for our help.

I think Ive behaved myself nicely so far, so Im gonna get a bit...just a bit...more antagonistic...

Are they really liberated if they live in a country that is occupied militarily, by a foreign nation?



It depends on the degree of restriction the liberators impose upon them. It's not like the US is raping/pillaging them. We've allowed them to elect their own government and have refrained from simply destroying Fallujah and other cities in order to stop the insurgency.

Honestly, I could care less if they are “liberated” or not, since that is a loaded term. The US armed service exists to protect the US, not everyone else. Besides, if you honestly think those people can sustain Democracy without a constant US occupation, you are wrong. There is not a single precedent in their history for it.




As long as people aren't throwing others head-first into plastic-shredders for merely disagreeing with them, I would say you are well enough off.

It depends on the degree of restriction the liberators impose upon them. It's not like the US is raping/pillaging them. We've allowed them to elect their own government and have refrained from simply destroying Fallujah and other cities in order to stop the insurgency.


But, you cannot deny that becuase of our presence there, suicide bombers and other hostile actions take place daily.
So all in all...what good have we really done there?

I think Ive behaved myself nicely so far, so Im gonna get a bit...just a bit...more antagonistic...

Are they really liberated if they live in a country that is occupied militarily, by a foreign nation?
There are 25,000 American troops in South Korea; holdovers from when we liberated them from their northern neighbors. Are they truly "liberated"?
There are nearly 100,000 troops in France; holdovers from when we liberated them from Germany. Are they truly "liberated"?
Rebuilding a nation is a long, arduous process. It will require many years and billions of dollars. Just look at the Marshall Plan and the 60 year long deployment of American forces in Europe.

In answer to this thread; I'd give Bush a 7/10. He's got the wrong stance on the borders and has failed in using his power to cut govt programs, but those are my only real beefs with him.

Rebuilding a nation is a long, arduous process. It will require many years and billions of dollars.


And that is the number two reason I am against it.

I'd give him a 7.5

He's cut (or tried to cut) our taxes, freeing up more money for us to invest, which is/was crucial after 9/11 tore the Dow a new one.

The economy was going down anyway prior to Bush's win in 2000, due to overinflated tech stocks (resulting in the tech bust).... we're well on our way to economic recovery (in fact, we're just fine).

The Middle East is an extremely important region. I don't think we can just sit here and twittle our thumbs while a tyrant oppresses people. We could be elsewhere, true, but to get a chance to kill terrorists and remove a despotic regime which serves 20% of its people (probably less) at the same time is too good an opportunity to pass up. Iraq still might end in civil war, with the 80% fighting the 20%, but it also might end up in a stable democracy where people have the right to vote, where there is the rule of law, etc. In such a case, Iraq could become a model for other middle eastern countries to follow should they ever want to become representative democracies/republics.

That said, we could be prosecuting the war better.

The Patriot Act has its pros and cons and seems to boil down to the freedom vs. security (and whom does it really affect? You? Me? The guy down the street?) argument. Can we be free if we're under constant threat from domestic terrorism? Should anyone, suspected terrorist or not, be subject to detainment without trial? etc.

Trade is a concern... we export products that are hit with huge tariffs... should we hit imports with commensurately huge tariffs? Should "free trade" be free on both sides to really be considered "free"?

What about outsourcing of jobs? Should the government be able to control private enterprise... would this be too great a breach of free enterprise/capitalism?

We endured one of our greatest tragedies during his first year in office, an unjustified attack which killed thousands of civilians. Rather than sit back and take the punch, Bush decided that America should fight back.

Would you have wanted to be President Bush? I sure as hell am glad I wasn't the prez in that circumstance. Imagine the pressure. I think that all things considered, given all that he's had to deal with, he's done okay.

But, you cannot deny that becuase of our presence there, suicide bombers and other hostile actions take place daily.
So all in all...what good have we really done there?



That's true, it's a downside to occupation of a land which has several individuals who believe that you are the Great Satan. But, in my opinion, it is much better than a state-sanctioned execution of political dissenters...at least the murderers are viewed as criminals for once, instead of a legitimate, sovreign government.

Although I don't agree with President Bush on everything, I do believe he is doing a very good job.

I think he should do more to protect out borders and stop illegal immigration. I think more needs to be done to round up and deport illegal immigrants or place very heavy fines on those companies that employ them.

I might be for a guest worker program but no one who is here illegally should be eligible for guest worker status unless they return home and apply.

I think he has done a very good job with the war and the economy.

Although I don't agree with President Bush on everything, I do believe he is doing a very good job.

I think he should do more to protect out borders and stop illegal immigration. I think more needs to be done to round up and deport illegal immigrants or place very heavy fines on those companies that employ them.

I might be for a guest worker program but no one who is here illegally should be eligible for guest worker status unless they return home and apply.

I think he has done a very good job with the war and the economy.

Seconded. Wouldn't mind seeing smaller government, lower debt.

That's true, it's a downside to occupation of a land which has several individuals who believe that you are the Great Satan. But, in my opinion, it is much better than a state-sanctioned execution of political dissenters...at least the murderers are viewed as criminals for once, instead of a legitimate, sovreign government.


Dead children in the streets, are dead children, regardless of whos killing them.

Dead children in the streets, are dead children, regardless of whos killing them.



I'd say a nation where the murderers are viewed as criminals is much better than a nation where murderers are accepted. Of course, we do live in the country where infanticide is legal :(

Although I don't agree with President Bush on everything, I do believe he is doing a very good job.

I think he should do more to protect out borders and stop illegal immigration. I think more needs to be done to round up and deport illegal immigrants or place very heavy fines on those companies that employ them.

I might be for a guest worker program but no one who is here illegally should be eligible for guest worker status unless they return home and apply.

I think he has done a very good job with the war and the economy.




Amen. Why legitimize an illegal method when they could simply go through customs and apply for citizenship? I was flabbergasted when I heard of his proposal.

I'd say a nation where the murderers are viewed as criminals is much better than a nation where murderers are accepted. Of course, we do live in the country where infanticide is legal :(


My point is that becuase of US military occupation, the number of suicide bombers, and daily attacks in Iraq has skyrocketed, and innocent people are the ones who take the brunt of the fallout.

Killing children in Iraq was illegal before we got there.

Dead children in the streets, are dead children, regardless of whos killing them.

You took the words right out of mouth.

Once again, they didn’t ask for our help!

First off...I'd like to keep this from turning into a an anti-Bush thread.
There are plenty of those....and I support every one of them...
so...no need for another.

What I want to know is this:

Since Bush took office, has your perception of him, and the job he is doing, changed at all?

In other words, has your opinion of him gotten better?
Worse?

Are you pleased with his performance, or do you find yourself not liking his policies?

Obviously, if your not a Bush supporter, this thread aint for you..as we already know you hate the mans pukey guts.

Smashing good question. This is by no way flamebait so whomever turns it into it should be beaten.

First off, I was Republican when Bush first took off. I am now a conservative, because I have become very upset with the party, especially in the wake of Schivo.

When Bush first took office, I said "Give the Man a Chance." ENRON came out and so and so fourth but nothing stuck and I didn't buy any of it. Then there was 9.11 and, as a NY'er, I have to say I was impressed with how he handled it, especially when he came to ground zero, gave a speech, and said "Come and get us!" Then a month later we turned Afghanistan and Bin Laden's Al Qaida upside down with fewer sorties than we ever have used. I was impressed.

However, since then I have felt disallusioned. I am not against the war in Iraq but it has been fought kind of half-assed, in ways. There are reports of soldiers without enough armor, us making mistakes like using HMMWVs, defense cuts, Strykers not being ready for service but used anyway, and general mistakes. Furthermore some of his policies, like immigration have annoying me and the latest with Schivo has really ticked me off.

Republicans were always the party of little gov't involvement in personal lives. Once they turned her into a political football I saw that change and it annoyed me. Furthermore the incompetitence of Bush's cabinet has annoyed me, especially with the idiocy that Rumsfeld has embraced (no need for carriers, defense cuts, degrading our abilities to fight a single FRONT war and so on). GITMO or Abu Ghraib doesn't bother me but DON'T TAKE PICTURES YOU MORONS. These are terrorists and when you release terrorists they don't go back to a defeated army, they go back to being terrorists, exactly why they should stay at GITMO.

That's my opinion on the matter, in a nutshell.

I don’t think Mexicans and Canadians are evil. I think most Canadians don’t want to move to the US, or else they would. As for the Mexicans, they cause a lot of crime, but those are the same people who commit crimes back in Mexico. We need strong boarder security to keep criminals and terrorists out. I support boarder security because then we know who is here. Right now we have millions of undocumented aliens, and that is what causes the problems. The documented ones do just fine, and provide vital labor. It’s the undocumented ones who cause financial problems because they are afraid to attend English classes and things like that for fear of being caught.

and like Beglock said... libertarians are more likely to open the boarder then close it.. They are hardly representative of you if you feel we should have tougher tighter controls. I would be open to open boarders, but not with mexico's current economic/social conditions, and CERTINATLY not with the outragous retoric and actions mexico has been persuing against the US.

Personally, my support for Bush has only exponentially increased over the last 5 years... at first he was just the alternative to Gore (thank god). But he has consitently shown himself to be able to compromise with both the right and left, and in my eyes has made all the right (and very difficult decisions) given the circumstances infront of him, Iraq included. today i would give him an 8 out of 10.

And while the issue of outing a CIA agent is pressing and should be investiaged.. and if wrong doing found prosecution to the fullest extent, today there is no evidence of anything, and to suggest Rove should be fired absent wrong doing is not only obsured but shown for what it really is.. partisan dribble. May as well be clammering for Clintons impeachment

My point is that becuase of US military occupation, the number of suicide bombers, and daily attacks in Iraq has skyrocketed, and innocent people are the ones who take the brunt of the fallout.

Killing children in Iraq was illegal before we got there.



But killing political dissenters, those who Saddam did not favor, etc. was legal. If I had to choose between the Iraq of then and the Iraq of today, I would choose the current one.

Smashing good question. This is by no way flamebait so whomever turns it into it should be beaten.

First off, I was Republican when Bush first took off. I am now a conservative, because I have become very upset with the party, especially in the wake of Schivo.

When Bush first took office, I said "Give the Man a Chance." ENRON came out and so and so fourth but nothing stuck and I didn't buy any of it. Then there was 9.11 and, as a NY'er, I have to say I was impressed with how he handled it, especially when he came to ground zero, gave a speech, and said "Come and get us!" Then a month later we turned Afghanistan and Bin Laden's Al Qaida upside down with fewer sorties than we ever have used. I was impressed.

However, since then I have felt disallusioned. I am not against the war in Iraq but it has been fought kind of half-assed, in ways. There are reports of soldiers without enough armor, us making mistakes like using HMMWVs, defense cuts, Strykers not being ready for service but used anyway, and general mistakes. Furthermore some of his policies, like immigration have annoying me and the latest with Schivo has really ticked me off.

Republicans were always the party of little gov't involvement in personal lives. Once they turned her into a political football I saw that change and it annoyed me. Furthermore the incompetitence of Bush's cabinet has annoyed me, especially with the idiocy that Rumsfeld has embraced (no need for carriers, defense cuts, degrading our abilities to fight a single FRONT war and so on). GITMO or Abu Ghraib doesn't bother me but DON'T TAKE PICTURES YOU MORONS. These are terrorists and when you release terrorists they don't go back to a defeated army, they go back to being terrorists, exactly why they should stay at GITMO.

That's my opinion on the matter, in a nutshell.

Thanks for your response.
Its not hard to tell, especially if youve ever read any of my posts, that im an avid anti-bush kinda guy, but I wanted to make thread to help me understand why some of his supporters, feel the way they do.

I dont want to make this thread into a Bush-Basher, becuase theres plenty of those, and If I want to rant against him, I can do it in any of those.

I want to know if any republicans are questioning his actions as President, and what those actions are, and how they feel about him now.

So far, the answer seems to be that many of those who did support him fully, are begininng to question his motives, and even the ones who still support him 100%, do not agree with all he is doing.

What I want to know..is why?

and like Beglock said... libertarians are more likely to open the boarder then close it.. They are hardly representative of you if you feel we should have tougher tighter controls.

Yeah, but you know what? You don’t have to agree with every tenant of an ideology to follow it. No political ideology is perfect, anyway. What I consider to be the two most notable beliefs of Libertarians is they are for getting the government out of people's private lives and they are for a free market. The corporatist authoritarians of the Republican party stand for neither. Maybe they did once, but not anymore.

When Bush first took office, I said "Give the Man a Chance." ENRON came out and so and so fourth but nothing stuck and I didn't buy any of it. Then there was 9.11 and, as a NY'er, I have to say I was impressed with how he handled it, especially when he came to ground zero, gave a speech, and said "Come and get us!" Then a month later we turned Afghanistan and Bin Laden's Al Qaida upside down with fewer sorties than we ever have used. I was impressed.

However, since then I have felt disallusioned. I am not against the war in Iraq but it has been fought kind of half-assed, in ways. There are reports of soldiers without enough armor, us making mistakes like using HMMWVs, defense cuts, Strykers not being ready for service but used anyway, and general mistakes. Furthermore some of his policies, like immigration have annoying me and the latest with Schivo has really ticked me off.

Republicans were always the party of little gov't involvement in personal lives. Once they turned her into a political football I saw that change and it annoyed me. Furthermore the incompetitence of Bush's cabinet has annoyed me, especially with the idiocy that Rumsfeld has embraced (no need for carriers, defense cuts, degrading our abilities to fight a single FRONT war and so on). GITMO or Abu Ghraib doesn't bother me but DON'T TAKE PICTURES YOU MORONS. These are terrorists and when you release terrorists they don't go back to a defeated army, they go back to being terrorists, exactly why they should stay at GITMO.

That's my opinion on the matter, in a nutshell.

interesting ... I myself am a republican in NY and now sway more conservative while i still consider myself republican... but I take a far different view on things. Immigration is an issue neither democrats nor republicans are prepared to address... but I agree with you this issue has been botched. You want to talk about funding for the military ? why are democrats voting against it ? Its an issue of the Congress not of the President. how are carriers gonna help us fight terrorists ? Rumsfeld has support a renovation and refocusing of our military, billions are now being pumped into robotics, and experts expect within 10 years the core of our military will be robots.

Enron and World com were the Clinton administrations falt not Bush

But killing political dissenters, those who Saddam did not favor, etc. was legal. If I had to choose between the Iraq of then and the Iraq of today, I would choose the current one.


I wont say that Saddams removal wasnt beneficial, however, I object strongly as how it was done, and question the results thereafter.

All in all...I dont think life has gotten better for the Iraqis.
As I said, dead children, are dead children.

Enron and World com were the Clinton administrations falt not Bush

Incorrect.

Ken Lay, CEO of Enron was found guilty of stealing nearly 100 million dollars of the employees money.....Bush pardoned him, becuase they were close freinds.

I wont say that Saddams removal wasnt beneficial, however, I object strongly as how it was done, and question the results thereafter.

All in all...I dont think life has gotten better for the Iraqis.
As I said, dead children, are dead children.



That's true, while political freedoms increased, the rate at which children were blown up also increased. Not that I'm one to dismiss such atrocities, but it was to be expected from savages.

That's true, while political freedoms increased, the rate at which children were blown up also increased. Not that I'm one to dismiss such atrocities, but it was to be expected from savages.


If thats true, then we are savages too.

You may be interested to know how many civillian casualties the US is responsible for in Iraq.

and experts expect within 10 years the core of our military will be robots.


Anybody else think this is scary? A soldier can refuse an order, but a properly programmed robot can’t.

If thats true, then we are savages too.

You may be interested to know how many civillian casualties the US is responsible for in Iraq.



Ours aren't intentional.

You may be interested to know how many civillian casualties the US is responsible for in Iraq.

Yes, I am interested to know, would you happen to know the statistics for those? Maybe you could enlighten all of us who don't. Unless of course your just spouting that off as if you know but really do not...But you would never do that right?

interesting ... I myself am a republican in NY and now sway more conservative while i still consider myself republican... but I take a far different view on things. Immigration is an issue neither democrats nor republicans are prepared to address... but I agree with you this issue has been botched. You want to talk about funding for the military ? why are democrats voting against it ? Its an issue of the Congress not of the President. how are carriers gonna help us fight terrorists ? Rumsfeld has support a renovation and refocusing of our military, billions are now being pumped into robotics, and experts expect within 10 years the core of our military will be robots.

Enron and World com were the Clinton administrations falt not Bush

Terrorism is not the only threat in the world. To think terrorism is the only threat we will face in the next 50 years is foolhearty. The DPRK alone isn't terrorism and without CVSGs there we're in deep trouble, very deep trouble. Rumselds main flaw is the man never thinks to the future. He thinks this war on terror is the end all, be all of global politics and that's the dumbest idea ever. Hell, China even has enough forces on the coast to warrant keeping them around.

Anybody else think this is scary? A soldier can refuse an order, but a properly programmed robot can’t.

I find that very frightening actually. Lol. What if some maniacal person were to just program all the robots against us!! Egad.

Think of the children!

Yes, I am interested to know, would you happen to know the statistics for those? Maybe you could enlighten all of us who don't. Unless of course your just spouting that off as if you know but really do not...But you would never do that right?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

They wouldn't be dead if we weren't there.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"--Mahatma Gandhi

Anybody else think this is scary? A soldier can refuse an order, but a properly programmed robot can’t.

No I do not. Humans have real intelligence, logic, a conscience, etc. Robots do not. They do what they are programmed to do. A robot cannot weigh whether an order is right or wrong by way of morals and take into account the bearing and situation and I do not believe AI will either because, after all, it is artificial (not real) intelligence.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

They wouldn't be dead if we weren't there.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"--Mahatma Gandhi

I will say though that when you look at that, take into account the body count as a result of Mr. Hussein, whether it was gassing the Kurds, the Iranians, killing Kuwaitis, or letting his sons do what they did best. Unfortunately nobody ever takes that into account. That site also talleys up the number of civilians killed from terrorist bombings, police dying from terrorist actions, and the like. Now there's no reason terrorist should be blowing up civilians as a result of our occupation.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

They wouldn't be dead if we weren't there.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"--Mahatma Gandhi



Actually, with his abuse of the oil-for-food program, they probably would be dead if we weren't there ;)

I will say though that when you look at that, take into account the body count as a result of Mr. Hussein, whether it was gassing the Kurds, the Iranians, killing Kuwaitis, or letting his sons do what they did best. Unfortunately nobody ever takes that into account.
So, you're saying it's better we kill 25,000+ Iraqis to stop a possible random attack on a few thousand?

So, you're saying it's better we kill 25,000+ Iraqis to stop a possible random attack on a few thousand?



A few thousand? The intelligence at the time suggested he was pursuing WMD-capability, and WMD's kill quite a bit more than "a few thousand".

I don't like Bush as much now as I did. In fact, I'm kind of getting tired of him. I'm still behind most major decisions he makes. He gained my support right after 9/11 when he spoke like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. He displayed leadership qualities that no person I know has. I trust in George Bush to get the job done if another attack took place, and God forbid it does, because I pity the perps.

My hat goes off to Bush for having the balls to stand up for what he believes in, In spite of incoming heat from critics. Anyone I know would back down.

A few thousand? The intelligence at the time suggested he was pursuing WMD-capability, and WMD's kill quite a bit more than "a few thousand".
Not really. It would still most likely be less than 25,000 if he did decide to attack his own people again, which was very unlikely. Wait, intelligence at the time suggested he was pursuing WMD-capability!? I thought we knew for a fact he had WMDs! I guess Big Brother was just lying to us. :eek:

Not really. It would still most likely be less than 25,000 if he did decide to attack his own people again, which was very unlikely. Wait, intelligence at the time suggested he was pursuing WMD-capability!? I thought we knew for a fact he had WMDs! I guess Big Brother was just lying to us. :eek:



The CIA is not omniscient, but when did bad intelligence = lying?

I don't like Bush as much now as I did. In fact, I'm kind of getting tired of him. I'm still behind most major decisions he makes. He gained my support right after 9/11 when he spoke like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. He displayed leadership qualities that no person I know has. I trust in George Bush to get the job done if another attack took place, and God forbid it does, because I pity the perps.

My hat goes off to Bush for having the balls to stand up for what he believes in, In spite of incoming heat from critics. Anyone I know would back down.

I think you hit the nail on the head on that one. Regardless of his policies, I respect the guy for his overall willingness to do what he thinks is right. Even if you don't like his decisions, at least you know what you're getting.

I think you hit the nail on the head on that one. Regardless of his policies, I respect the guy for his overall willingness to do what he thinks is right. Even if you don't like his decisions, at least you know what you're getting.



Believe it or not, I actually respect Howard Dean, however misguided he may be, for standing up for what he believes in :eek:

The CIA is not omniscient, but when did bad intelligence = lying?
Don't twist things around. You said intelligence at the time suggested he was trying to pursue WMD capablities while Bush said, along with Rumsfeld and his neocon friends, that we knew for a fact he had WMDs. Which is it?

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Don't twist things around. You said intelligence at the time suggested he was trying to pursue WMD capablities while Bush said, along with Rumsfeld and his neocon friends, that we knew for a fact he had WMDs. Which is it?

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."



I'm sure at the time he thought it was a fact. Like nearly everyone did.

I'm sure at the time he thought it was a fact. Like nearly everyone did.
...because intelligence at the time suggested he was trying to pursue WMD capabilities. How do you get "we know he has WMDs" from the aformentioned statement?

So, you're saying it's better we kill 25,000+ Iraqis to stop a possible random attack on a few thousand?

Not at all. You only posted what part of the quote you wanted to. The rest read that the website talleys those lost to terrorist placed bombs. Hell I'm not advocating 20k+ die but don't play Saddam up to be a fluffy bunny, he killed more than 20x that much.

I don't like Bush as much now as I did. In fact, I'm kind of getting tired of him. I'm still behind most major decisions he makes. He gained my support right after 9/11 when he spoke like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. He displayed leadership qualities that no person I know has. I trust in George Bush to get the job done if another attack took place, and God forbid it does, because I pity the perps.

My hat goes off to Bush for having the balls to stand up for what he believes in, In spite of incoming heat from critics. Anyone I know would back down.

So judging from your post, you like Bush a great deal.
But right off the bat, you say you dont like him as much as you used to.
Other than your tired of him, why?
Tired of him in what way?