Jump to content

George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

Andrew
 Share

Recommended Posts

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

hindsight is 20/20

i get sick of listening to people say they wouldnt have supported the war if they knew that blah blah blah....

yea and if i could time travel i would go back in time and buy Polaroid and Microsoft stock.  But i cant.

Fact is we were all pissed, we all wanted war, we got war, and now its time to figure out how to end it.  Stop pointing the goddamn fingers and just deal with the problem....which btw would have come about even if the democrats had been in power..... 9-11 was a never before seen tragedy and we are living in the consequences of it.

This pointless finger pointing about who broke the vase is silly.  If Kerry had been president he would have gone to war too.  There was no way around this.

We were all pissed, but we all did not want war. And we must "point fingers" because we're deep into the mess here and removing the leadership that caused it, and perhaps may cause further damage, is essential to moving on. And I'd like to hear your reasoning on how we would've been in the same mess if democats were in power. Kerry wasn't running in 2000, Al Gore was. Would he have gone to war with false information, mislead the public on what is really going on, etc? I highly disagree.
GUNWOUNDS

GUNWOUNDS

Posted
Posted

it wasnt "intentional false information" ........ George Bush isnt some evil f*ck.... he simply was given data from intelligence officers and he acted on it.  Quick action needed to be taken, people were pissed, people wanted retaliation.  We didnt have 10 years to sit around and analyze 9-11 before deciding to make a war decision.  George Bush did what he felt he had to do.    Gore would have done the same.  It was another Pearl harbor, and we all had the same pearl harbor mentality.  If Democrats were so against the war, they had plenty of opportunities to try to sandbag the war from day one.... but they didnt... they all stood right behind the president and said WE'RE WITH YA GEORGE.  Only after Bush became a 2nd term lame duck, and only after the sectarian violence started to erupt did the democrats (and whoever else) start to bellyache with their bullsh!t 20/20 hindsight.

Hindsight is 20/20

Also... this war isnt ending anytime soon.  Once this war got underway and officials realized that Iraq could potentially be turned into an oil source, the whole game changed.  You see what people dont understand is that this war isnt about freeing iraqis anymore.... its about oil now... and 3 things have to be achieved.

#1 An iraqi government has to be formed that can sign international contracts. (with US)

#2 The same government has to also has to possess the ability to pass laws regarding national oil resources. (giving US contracts)

#3 The ground has to be secured so that American oil companies can move in and start construction of facilities.

#1 and #2 is accomplished..... #3 is the problem.  Those U.S. soldiers arent leaving Iraq until the ground is secured so that the oil companies can complete construction of their facilities and start putting those contracts to use.

Its not about the Iraqis anymore.... its about the oil... and whether its the repubs or the dems.... the soldiers are staying till we get our oil source.

Guns

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

Again, what are your reasons that Gore would have done the same and gone to full-fledged war, or anyone else in place of Bush? The government declares that Iraq had nothing to do with 09/11. The entire Republican campaign for 2000 was that they would institute the Iraq Liberation Act to its fullest, removing Saddam from power and installing a democracy in Iraq. Attacking Iraq had been a plan for Republicans before 09/11. Therefore, bringing up that 09/11 pissed us off and we were all gung-ho for war is irrelevant as they already planned for a war in Iraq. Gore does not have deep tie-ins with oil companies, nor does he have a father who failed to take Saddam out in the early 90s. Gore would've had no reason to go to war with Iraq.

And of course most democrats probably went along with Bush (although it wasn't as if they had any say in it, I believe the Republicans had the house and senate). If democrats went against Bush at that time, according to the false information that somehow linked Iraq with 09/11, they would've been seen as unpatriotic, and would've been political downfall. But that's only because Bush brought it to the Congress and to the public.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Maybe everyone wanted war because of all the lies the Bush administration fed everyone?

Maybe people actually believed the administration that Iraq was going to blow up the USA.

Point is the administration lied the whole time. Therefore if people knew before hand that they were lying they probably would not support the war.

9/11 finger was pointed to Afghanistan. Maybe afghan was too easy of a target so they needed to invade another country as well to apease people looking for arab revenge. Hell, in my province weeks after 9/11 some guy in a pickup truck chased down some arab looking family because he thought they were terrorists. (white people make up 95% of my province). That shows the mentality of some people.

War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems

The simulation had 3 times as many troops in Iraq as well, and it still had problems with it.

I remember in a Macleans (or Times?) magazine that said 300,000 troops were needed to occupy Iraq before the war started.

Oh and Saddam was sentenced to death today.

Even American tourists (I think 3% or so) wonder about what other countries think of their politics/foreign policy when deciding where to go. Whether they will be accepted or not (that's probably why they all pretend to be Canadians and get the Canadian patches :P).

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
  • Author
Posted

CIA acknowledges Bush signed secret directive on interrogating terror suspect

The contents of the documents were not revealed, but one of them is "a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees," the civil liberties union said, based on its review of published accounts.

So Bush denied they were torturing anyone, then it was just the other countries that were doing it for them, now it comes out that he signed off on allowing torture...

[sarcasm]

This is obviously the democrats fault. What did they know about this and why didn't they do anything about it? And Kerry hates the troops so it is his fault as well.

[/sarcasm]

If you didn't get the sarcasm part, the 1st/2nd sentence is what repubs said when Foley was ousted as a child predator, and the second one is about Kerry screwing up a joke.

  • 1 month later...
Andrew

Andrew

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Bush administration says Grand Canyon was created by Noahs Flood. Public Employees banned from using geolocial estimate.

Fundies are trying to get rid of science! They should really just wear earmuffs all the time so they don't get a brain aneurysms every time someone says something that conflicts with the bible.

OMG even

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

Believes in geology! They are obviously going to hell. How can it be 40,000,000 years old when the earth is only 10,000?

Egeides

Egeides

Posted
Posted

What? Are tou talking about my earmuffs Acriku? They're weird but I'm wearing them all the time.

Besides Acriku, I think we've collected something like $1,50 in our "New Year's atheist burning" collect, which should suffice to buy a lighter. When are you free?

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

What? Are tou talking about my earmuffs Acriku? They're weird but I'm wearing them all the time.

Besides Acriku, I think we've collected something like $1,50 in our "New Year's atheist burning" collect, which should suffice to buy a lighter. When are you free?

I'm the inflammable atheist, sorry - but we have one flammable atheist left in stock!
  • 2 weeks later...
Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Guess what Bush got himself for Christmas!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/4/1359/70219

Yes, that's right, more power! He can read your mail now. It's good to be the President.

Also, Gunwounds, I'd like to point out that millions of people took to the streets in early 2003 to try to prevent the invasion of Iraq. It is an utter lie and a cop-out to say that nobody expected the present mess or that the war had broad support. The invasion of Iraq was easily the most controversial American military decision in living memory.

GUNWOUNDS

GUNWOUNDS

Posted
Posted

Guess what Bush got himself for Christmas!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/4/1359/70219

Yes, that's right, more power! He can read your mail now. It's good to be the President.

Also, Gunwounds, I'd like to point out that millions of people took to the streets in early 2003 to try to prevent the invasion of Iraq. It is an utter lie and a cop-out to say that nobody expected the present mess or that the war had broad support. The invasion of Iraq was easily the most controversial American military decision in living memory.

Show me where "millions" took to the streets. Unless you're referring to Europeans.  Sure I'm sure millions of French took to the streets but i doubt that many americans protested.  I'd say far more poeple were in a furor to stomp a hole in the middle east after what happened on 9-11.  Afghanistan didnt satisfy most americans..... Iraq was definately the next target on most people's minds.  The only real resistance were the Germans and the French.  The americans, british, and the australians were for it as far as i can recall, altho it was many years ago.

To be honest i tihnk most people thought it would be a simple snapshut case like the previous Iraq war.

Gun

Darth Kwisatz

Darth Kwisatz

Posted
Posted

Afghanistan didnt satisfy most americans..... Iraq was definately the next target on most people's minds. 

And that is how the US surrendered all the international support, sympathy solidarity it won after 11/9.

GUNWOUNDS

GUNWOUNDS

Posted
Posted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war

Not exactly millions but lots of people demonstrated, even in America. Brits definitely weren't in favour of it.

from that link it apperars that only 350,000 americans protested the war.........

350,000/ 350,000,000 = 0.001% of Americans Protested.

0.001% ....Sorry, but I'm afraid thats not enough to stop a war from a majority of americans people seeing red.

gun

Megashrap

Megashrap

Posted
Posted

I sort of look at it this way. If the majority of Americans were willing to support the war to begin with, then why is it so hard to understand that we SHOULD be willing to at least finish (or at least try to finish) the plan for the war put forth in the begining. Or at the very least support what we(Americans) were all for at the start. I mean we all knew this was not going to be a short term agenda. We also knew troops would be killed. Congeress approved it, and so did the American majority. I don't agree with everything Bush does, don't get me wrong. But he is trying to go forth with what WE wanted done. And that is not just America. But thats just my own opinion.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I thought Bush's speech Wednesday and the democrats response were both hilarious.

Basicly both the republicans and democrats are blaming the Iraqis for the whole mess and it's their fault for not making a democratic army able to police itself early enough so American troops can leave Iraq.

I think they are forgetting they are the ones who invaded Iraq, destroyed the infrastructure and started a civil war. It's much easier to blame Iraqis for the problems Bush's administration (and democrat support) have caused.

VigilVirus

VigilVirus

Posted
Posted

I sort of look at it this way. If the majority of Americans were willing to support the war to begin with, then why is it so hard to understand that we SHOULD be willing to at least finish (or at least try to finish) the plan for the war put forth in the begining. Or at the very least support what we(Americans) were all for at the start. I mean we all knew this was not going to be a short term agenda. We also knew troops would be killed. Congeress approved it, and so did the American majority. I don't agree with everything Bush does, don't get me wrong. But he is trying to go forth with what WE wanted done. And that is not just America. But thats just my own opinion.

You forget that the war enjoyed major support, because most people believed that Iraq possessed WMDs and conspired with Al Qaeda to make 9/11 happen. Both of those assertions have been shown to be false.

GUNWOUNDS

GUNWOUNDS

Posted
Posted

You forget that the war enjoyed major support, because most people believed that Iraq possessed WMDs and conspired with Al Qaeda to make 9/11 happen. Both of those assertions have been shown to be false.

Ok, if you break down your neighbor's door because you thought your wife was in there, but you found she wasnt, then sure its time to leave.... but you should atleast fix the broken door first before you go.  Anything else would be irresponsible.  We're not done fixing the door, or even taught them how to fix their own door.

Gun

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.