What do you think of Mr. BUsh?

[Theredlemming]

So who likes Bush?or doesn't?

the red lemming

[Theredlemming]

Sorry hadn't read the second page didn't realise it had just been asked http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

the red lemming

[Knight_Yellow]

i think this is

A. retarded.

B. in the wrong forum

c. did i say retarded?

[Furunculus]

concurs.

[Lord Of Storms]

Well guys being a JP redlemming does not have access to other forums, and the question is a valid one, so lets ease up and be civil...LOS

[chris]

personally, i like him. I think he is a very good, and in my case welcome addition to the white house. I look at it this way, What would have happened if Gore had been in office and Sep. 11th, and the war in Iraq. First off we would not have attacked Iraq, and more likely than not, not attack AFghanistan. Most of you are thinking, and this is bad becuase. Well this is my own personal opion, I figure, I will trust Bush, that he knew somehting i didn't when attacking Iraq. Most of us sit on our buts and get our news from CNN, ABC, or some other news place, mabey even the net. We don't know what he knew, we cannot rationally denounce him, when we don't know what he knew. If Gore was in office, we would have another Vietnam on our hands. Politicians running the war. Plus he is ocnservative, and I like what he is doing. I wish it was faster in bringing the USA to its old self, but thats our fault, not his.

[Papewaio]

Can someone join the dots on this one.

What did Iraq have to so with 9/11?

Have the Taliban been removed?

Are the Opium crops in Afghanistan larger then ever?

Are more troops dying in the 'police action' side of the invasion then the actually 'war' side of the invasion of Iraq?

Which Vice President was the CEO of a company that is getting billion dollar deals without any competition in the restructure of Iraq?

[Hetman_Koronny]

*bows*
My two cents on the topic...


Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 26 2003,19:43)]What did Iraq have to so with 9/11?

Not being the direct cause for 9/11 Iraq supported terrorists for many years. Nuff said.


Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 26 2003,19:43)]Have the Taliban been removed?
'Removing' Taliban is a process that will take much more time than it could be devoted to date. But I got your point: occupying Iraq does hardly contribute to the idea.


Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 26 2003,19:43)]Are the Opium crops in Afghanistan larger then ever?

They grow cannabis I think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif . Whatever people say you have to run the country's economy somehow... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif No, seriously, I don't really know about this one.


Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 26 2003,19:43)]Are more troops dying in the 'police action' side of the invasion then the actually 'war' side of the invasion of Iraq?

That is really sad truth. But if I was to simplify the thing I would compare it to M:TW game. If you conqure the province and withdraw from it soon afterward you're likely to have a rebelion. Well, Iraq war is not a game but the mechanism is similar.
Please note that I am aware of the fact that the Americans are deriving enormous economical profits from occupation and that is the actuall reason for the US soldiers dying everyday.


Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 26 2003,19:43)]Which Vice President was the CEO of a company that is getting billion dollar deals without any competition in the restructure of Iraq?
Big guns... Well, that correspondes with what I've written above I think. The world of politics is really dirty... *shakes his head*

*bows*

[el_slapper]

Your 1st point is wrong. Saddam NEVER supported any kind of terrorism. Other than its own police in its own country. The guy is/was selfish enough not to help anyone else.

Other that that Iraqi thing, Bush is not defending what makes America strong(liberties above all), is spending more than he earns, finances its friends above all, and behaves as if the rest of the world should bend before its greatness. Exactly what I reproach to Chirac too.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Hetman_Koronny @ Nov. 27 2003,03:48)]They grow cannabis I think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif . Whatever people say you have to run the country's economy somehow... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif No, seriously, I don't really know about this one.
They do grow oppium poppies , these then are exported westwards and are turned into heroin usually just before they reach Europe. According to recent reviews poppy cultivation has increased dramatically in observed territories and , given the montainous terrain and areas where no car access exists , its a monocultivation in unobserved ones. The Taliban regime had had some success in reducing poppy cultivation but now its on a steep rise.
One of the reasons is that the Afghani 'government' promised to subsidise farmers to burn their poppy cultivation and grow wheat and other products ,the money however never arrived to the vast majority of farmers , to cover their debts they resumed poppy cultivation which is multiple times more profitable.

[Rivelin]

el_slapper
Your 1st point is wrong. Saddam NEVER supported any kind of terrorism. Other than its own police in its own country. The guy is/was selfish enough not to help anyone else.

[B]
Ermm I don't think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, but didn't he give bounties to the families of suicide bombers.

[dwarven_eagle]

Quote[/b] (el_slapper @ Nov. 27 2003,05:07)]Your 1st point is wrong. Saddam NEVER supported any kind of terrorism. Other than its own police in its own country. The guy is/was selfish enough not to help anyone else.

Other that that Iraqi thing, Bush is not defending what makes America strong(liberties above all), is spending more than he earns, finances its friends above all, and behaves as if the rest of the world should bend before its greatness. Exactly what I reproach to Chirac too.
Just to add something...
I don't know if Saddam supported terrorism or not but he did help neighboring countries, but oddly not his own.
You say he is spending more than he earns More like what the USA earns, Bush doesn't earn very much (you'd be supprised) But the war is costly liek any other war but besides money there's all the casulties (not just the dead)

Some of you might have heard about Landstuhl Hospital or Ramstein Air Base (where all casulties or dead guys go before they're shipped to the states. Well, my mom wks at Landstuhl and takes care of these guys w/ gaping holes in their arms an dlegs abd shrapnal all over (it's NASTY)

[Kekvit Irae]

If I ever vote, which I dont, my vote is going toward Bush.
Think of it this way, would you had rather have the person who invented the internet running the country? *snicker*

[lanky316]

Quote[/b] (chris @ Nov. 26 2003,19:34)]personally, i like him. I think he is a very good, and in my case welcome addition to the white house. I look at it this way, What would have happened if Gore had been in office and Sep. 11th, and the war in Iraq.
It is likely 11/9 would never have happened. One of the things Gore was most in favour of was increasing security on domestic flights to the same level of international flights meaning the hijacking couldn't have happened so easily.

That said on to Bush, he is a very poor leader and is in essence a puppet. He is trying to make everyone believe these stories and as bad as Saddam is supposed to have been (although all we've ever heard from him is biased propoganda, he may have some good policies, for example it is fact women were given more freedom then most arab countries and Iraq was at the forfront of science (the latter only until GW1)) there was no evidence in any of the things Bush and Blair claimed he was responsible for.

As a result of that he has gone in to another country with no real reason (it is likely it was oil in order to try saving the US national debt) and against the decision of the UN (I'm clueless on Blairs reasons for wanting in, the UK has masses of problems of it's own without trying to start large international wars). Since then there have been atrocities commited against people such as the placing of illegal combatants in concentration camps and the shootings at an Afghan wedding due to the fact troops were not briefed on local custom (Not Bush's fault the commanders should have done something). Things that could easily be constituted as war crimes and make him look worse then he makes himself.

As far as a politicaian goes, look no further then this. Mr Bush has managed to turn the US, from one of the most sympathised nations after 11/9 into one of the most hated in arounmd 2 years. I'm sure people don't care what people think of them but lets put it simply, its the sort of thing that could create another 11/9 and I can guaruntee that nobody wants that as this time Bush's (and Blairs) actions on behalf of the people of America are likely to make things far worse.

[FoundationII]

I think Bush is a very aggresive over-confident president.
First: He attacked Iraq with only a suspicion it had weapons of mass destruction (the UNO inspectors searched for them and watch them being destroyed for about 10 years and they were confident they were all destroyed 5 years ago)
Second: The US troops didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
Third: He attacked Iraq when the UNO forbid him.
Last: He encourages the American press to mainly write good things that happen to the Americans and the bad things of the other countries.

[Kekvit Irae]

Quote[/b] (FoundationII @ Dec. 01 2003,10:32)]Last: He encourages the American press to mainly write good things that happen to the Americans and the bad things of the other countries.
That's hardly new. Ever watch newsreels of WWII and how biased they were toward their own country?

[FoundationII]

I didn't watch them but I'm sure you're right

[Lord Rom]

I respect someone who defends his people... even if its not popular. Sadaam definitly supported terrorists, and could have given them some serious weapons if left in power. I have no respect for those leaders who ignore terrorism or retreat from them.

[discovery1]

I think our president is a pious man doing what he believes is best for his country. However, I do not think that that makes put for the fact that he is not doing such a good job of domestic and foreign policy. While I think he handed the immediate aftermath of 9/11 rather well, with the apparent victories in Afghanistan, although the Taliban are still free, they are fairly powerless. Me thinks he seriously blundered Iraq though. I find it highly unlikely that Saddam would harbor terrorists that just might be a threat to his power. Also, Saddam almost certainly had its WMD teeth removed prior to the Second Gulf War. Also, why Bush didn't use a humanitarian case against Saddam is beyond me. It would have almost certainly been approved by the UN. Now we are stuck fighting a small but determined group of guerria soldiers who are slowly sapping American will to be involved, even though if we abondon Iraq to the other foreign influences(and don't tell that the terrorists that entered Iraq during the war haven't all left) we will have another Iran, although one that would doubless be less of a threat than it. And on the domestic front, I'm still angry over the steel tariff and (150 billion dollar) farm subsidy. That and tax cuts that may or may not be the most effective way revamping the economy, with most going to those significantly richer than I.

[Kekvit Irae]

If we back out of Iraq, one of several things could happen:

1. The Iraqi-led government can stablize and be a free country (post-war Afghanistan).
2. The country will destablize in the power-vacuum created by the departure of the US forces (Somalia, post-Jan 27 1991). Look at Somalia now; it's the same it was ten years ago.
3. We get another Iran. Two Irans are far worse than one, no matter how weak the second is.

Until we can manage to accomplish the first of the list, we cannot withdraw our forces. If we do, the deaths of the American soldiers will be in vain.

[discovery1]

Actually, I think that the Afghani govenrment is not very strong and it carrys little power in areas were the colition troops do not patrol. Along the Iranian border is an excellent example of a place were warlords stil hold power, centered on the city of Herot, I think.

[mbrasher1]

There was no direct connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. See http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utiliti....8D1B52B (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=798D1B52B)

People who dislike Bush or the US are being blinded into thinking that Saddam was a mere authoritarian or something. He was a bloody murderer, and I am glad that he is gone.

That said, looking at how aggressively Bush has moved against Iraq -- against the wished of 1/3 of the US and 2/3 of the rest of the world -- it is hard to see how he is weak or a puppet. Far from it. People dislike him precisely because he took action where others did not see the need.

It depends on who the Democrats nominate as to whether I will vote for him again. I kind of feel though that the Democrats believed their own rhetoric about the US NEVER taking action when we think it is in our interests -- just like the Republicans believed their rhetoric against nation-building in Haiti, Somalia, etc tho that is preciely what we are doing in Iraq. Can anyone honestly believe that the UN should be the moral arbiter of US policy? Or even a poll of Europeans?

Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to have the Euros shoulder to shoulder. But if they couldn't get their act together in Bosnia, how can we expect any clarity from them further afield in the Middle East?? Doesn't Bush have a Princess or two he can marry into the European royal families? maybe we should get our emissaries on that....

So count me as leaning Bush, but listening to alternatives.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] ]
People who dislike Bush or the US are being blinded into thinking that Saddam was a mere authoritarian or something. He was a bloody murderer, and I am glad that he is gone.

As opposed to Mr bush who never killed anybody? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
How can one support one bloody murderer and not support the other? unless there is ' when we kill them they appreciate it' argument...
I cant undestand how you punish Shaddam for killing 3000 Kurds by killing 9000 Iraqis...



Quote[/b] ] That said, looking at how aggressively Bush has moved against Iraq -- against the wished of 1/3 of the US and 2/3 of the rest of the world -- it is hard to see how he is weak or a puppet. Far from it. People dislike him precisely because he took action where others did not see the need.

he acted on the interests of various large corporations that finance his party. 9.000 innocents died but some stockholders in the weapons and construction industries will take some nice fat dividents. The price was to destroy America's public image for the decades to come. How does being a puppet of corporations actually make him brave?

[TheViking]

Quote[/b] (Theredlemming @ Nov. 26 2003,18:41)]So who likes Bush?or doesn't?

the red lemming
i think the ignorant people in US likes him while the rest of us dont like him.

[mbrasher1]

The US went into Iraq to benefit corporations? If you could see me rolling eyes. . .

If the US (and British, among others) decision to go to war was based on self-interest, I cannot see it. Not political (Bush has risked his heretofore safe reelection bid on a Iraq gamble). Not economic (the US is spending $87 billion in Iraq -- hardly an economic win -- infact, it is unpopular with most voters).

Bush can be criticized on alot of things, but fantasies about oil and Halliburton are the delusions of people who have already made up their minds without regard to the facts.

Really. Think about it: people are suggesting that Bush invaded Iraq to destroy it so that Halliburton could rebuild it? It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

[el_slapper]

Commentaire[/b] (mbrasher1 @ Dec. 12 2003,09:54)]The US went into Iraq to benefit corporations? If you could see me rolling eyes. . .

If the US (and British, among others) decision to go to war was based on self-interest, I cannot see it. Not political (Bush has risked his heretofore safe reelection bid on a Iraq gamble). Not economic (the US is spending $87 billion in Iraq -- hardly an economic win -- infact, it is unpopular with most voters).

Bush can be criticized on alot of things, but fantasies about oil and Halliburton are the delusions of people who have already made up their minds without regard to the facts.

Really. Think about it: people are suggesting that Bush invaded Iraq to destroy it so that Halliburton could rebuild it? It doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Hey, wake up it is YOUR money, YOUR taxes, that are being stolen from your pocket by Halliburton I do not say it was the intent, I say it is the result.

Anyone can emit hypothesis about the real motives of the attacks. I won't because I know I don't know, to quote Mr Rumsfeld. OTOH, I can easily judge the results. Wich are Iraqis don't have any petrol anymore to feed their cars, while refineries work at full. And wich are, the American taxpayer pays money & the American soldier pays blood for the happy shareholder.

This are facts.