George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[Anathema]

Patton disliked communism a good deal more then fascism and wanted to enlist the Germans for a campaign against USSR, but that's it.

Wanting to fight commies ≠ wanting to commit genocide

And before you start making more analogies to WW2, at that time they at least had good reasons to carpet bomb the enemy. For one thing the Germans started with this strategy themselves, and it was a total war so every means needed to be used to demoralize the enemy. I may not like it, but I can understand it given the situation. Your blatant indiference about loss of life is disturbing.

[Grimbringer]

I'm willing to die, for family and country.  I hold those close that are my friends, and those that aren't have no real value.

Events can morally desensitise you, in a world of indifference one cannot afford certain value's or feelings especially for a people a world apart.

 

Example: You where walking out to get your mail, and your neighbor stepped into the street to come talk to you. Suddenly he is struck and killed by a truck.  The impact would be clear.  Say this happened 3 more times. The impact on your mental state wouldn't be so strong.

You still know its wrong but it wouldn't bother you so bad.

So with my thought on that in place, I'd honestly tell you, bombs are to expensive, use gas.

Are you telling me that you would have problems sleeping if we eradicated the middle east?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Holy Sh!t.... hahaha... finally someone who makes ME look liberal.  *Passes Ceremonial Emprworm torch to Grimbringer*.  The Muadib has returned.

On a more serious note i can understand your desensitization to violence from you being a soldier out in the field.  You have seen things people on this forum will never see.   However i do not favor genocide... i prefer low yield tactical nuclear warheads.  Ala Israeli style (its what they want to do to Iran).  I believe in crippling the enemy.... and i believe we should drop tactical nukes on Iran's facilities and on afghan terror camps.... but killing every single woman, child, and grandma is a bit much.  I mean someone has to be there to run Haliburton's Oil refineries for 14 cents an hour. And the whole point of crushing your enemies and driving them before you is so you can hear the lamentation of their women.... or atleast thats what Conan the Barbarian said.  That cant happen if their all dead.   And if we nuked all third world countries we would lose all of Microsoft's tech support and Nike's shoe manufacturing. Imagine people running around in their barefeet screaming that they cant save their files.  It'd be a mess.

To backup my point.... refer to this detailed diagram of the world map showing key contributions of culture to the world, and why we cant afford to commit genocide.  http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/8673/worldmapbigum8.jpg

[GUNWOUNDS]

Now what you''re proposing is this Grimbringer  http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/912/deadyv5.jpg  And i'm not sure how well that would work out.

[Megashrap]

Tactical nukes would accomplish the job on Iran's facilities. Isolated tactical air-bursts would probably do a better job than any bombs or gas or modern missiles combined. Not that I'm all for nukes, but speaking rather on modern day weaponry to get the job done efficiently. When people hear the word nuke, they automatically imagine the Hiroshima bomb footage, but in modern day small tactical warheads, they would work very well on such structures. I mean damn, if your going to extremes here, thats a much better option than spraying Raid all over the world.

Nice paint work Gun.

[Anathema]

Tactical nukes would accomplish the job on Iran's facilities.

Conventional bombs could do the trick well enough. In geopolitics, using atomics if you don't have to is definitely not done.

I'm willing to die' date=' for family and country.  [b']I hold those close that are my friends, and those that aren't have no real value.

I strongly disagree, for one thing I don't think that a persons worth is dependent on my afffection.

It's obvious that I won't be able to convince you, so let's just leave it at that.

[Grimbringer]

Hey

I am a lunatic but i am not crazy, if you dropped a tactical nuclear warhead ever time you found a terrorist training facility I think the entire world would be glowing green, besides who wants to tow a big bertha cannon around.  I'm totally against the use of nuclear weapons.  VX nerve gas would work fine ;)

[Megashrap]

Conventional bombs could do the trick well enough. In geopolitics, using atomics if you don't have to is definitely not done.

I agree with that, what I was getting at was more of a worse case scenario.  But a fully functioning

Nuclear facility hit by conventional bombs or a nuke..anyway you look at it it equals a nice Little radioactive patch of soil.

VX nerve gas would work fine ;)

"All of the V-agents are persistent agents, meaning that these agents do not degrade or wash away easily, and can therefore remain on clothes and other surfaces for long periods. In use, this allows the V-agents to be used to blanket terrain to guide or curtail the movement of enemy ground forces. The consistency of these agents is similar to oil; as a result, the contact hazard for V-agents is primarily - but not exclusively - dermal." Wiki.

You have got to be kidding me, how is using that particular chemical weapon any lesser an evil than a nuke? Other than the fact that one leaves radioactivity and the other leaves it's chemical residue. Which btw are both oderless and colorless.

[Grimbringer]

Well, to tell you the truth, all i've been doing the past posts are repeating myself. 

I'm kind of tired of it, All i'm saying is and have been saying there is no way to cure this cancer in the middle east without systematically destroying the whole place.  Its been the way it has for  the past 1000 years.

I do not think leaving this place will solve the problem, pulling troops out will only inflame the situation.  Most communities in iraq, house violent millita.  There are a few who I would spare but my list is very short.

[Khan]

So when do you hand the list to the whitehouse...?

[Grimbringer]

Appearantly the already have it.

lol

[Andrew]

Back on topic:

Bush to request more than $100,000,000,000 to finance The Iraq and Afghanistan war this year

Interestingly Canada has a national debt of $500 billion. So in perspective/theory, the US could have paid off Canada's debt by now. The US has 8 trillion in debt (and the wars will cost 1 trillion). It's good to be spending money outside of the country. Maybe the war is the best way George could get the American economy out of a recession. Wars have been known to stimulate economies. ;)

[Grimbringer]

I have to agree with Andrew on this matter, War bring economical growth.

- Increases the job market

- Increases national production

The great world war brought America out of the depression.

I do have to say losing a war isnt good for your economy. LOL

Our national debt is monsterious. I wish i could go the far in debt.

[Andrew]

And every year they keep raising the roof of amount of debt allowed, so they basically don't care about how much debt they create.

[Andrew]

Audit: Anti-terror case data flawed

Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.

Wow! The government thinks that marriage fraud and immigration violations are related to terrorism.

Way to make numbers up to scare the public to gain support to invade countries that have nothing to do with terrorism. (Actually the agency responsible probably did this to increase their budget)

Look behind you, omg terrorists are peaking in your window right now!!1!

[Khan]

omg terrorists are peaking in your window right now!!1!

And they're with their 'wives'!!!

[Andrew]

Picture of what Bush has done ;)

W.W.G.W.B.D?

[Sneakgab]

Concerning the whole ''carpet bomb'' the middle east thing. Shouldn't common sense atleast be taken into account (along with scale). The terrorists and militia there are only so much of a problem. I don't know the numbers, but are the deaths and suffering caused by middle eastern inspired violence that much worse than crime,plague,e.t.c? It seems more cost-efficient (in terms of good done, among other things) to spends trillions of dollars on things that directly help reduce suffering such as working on cures,rebuilding,education,e.t.c. Supposedly the amount of money used up by the Iraq war was in the trillions.

I was under the impression that terrorism and the like are small scale activities.

To summarise: though I have no numbers, it simply seems that massacring the middle east would not in the end (after everything is ''budgeted) have an overall result of saving lives, money or doing any good.

This is probably the main reason why this carpet bombing suggestion seems like the wrong way to go to most on this forum, unless my ''translation'' of others views is incorrect, in which case any one is welcome to make me stand corrected.

[Andrew]

Bush's approval rating at 28%

Q: How low can he go?

A: Who cares? He is The Decider and as of May 2, 2007, he is now the The Commander Guy

[Egeides]

Did anyone ever thought of puting a minimum or something?... ::)

[Andrew]

Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency

When the next national emergency occurs, bush will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government.

Have fun with that Americans.

EDIT:

Carter: Bush's presidency has been 'worst in history'

[Kiyouta]

Of course he's the worst president in 100 years; he let poor Madeline get knicked :(

[Dunenewt]

All this talk of Bush, yet no-one's blaming Cheney...are they afraid?

[Egeides]

Madeline? I don't know of Madeline.. Bush has to do with that??

Cheney is behind. It is leaders who represent, it's easier to get every more-or-less informed person to see the top guy I guess.

[Dunenewt]

I didn't realise until just now that Edric had already posted that picture. :(