Does bush suck? Options

[WildGriffin]

I'm stealing this from someone. I'm not too sure, you can't really tell these things till after a term. But so far, he's on the road to suckage.

He sucked before he was prez., didnt he have a couple DWI's or DUI's or whatever the fark they're called? He also ditched his duties as a national guardsmen or whatever. And...he was a coke head.

So says my political bible written by a democratic satirist, "lies and the lying liars who tell them."

[Spirited Away]

he wasn't elected.

I think you meant he wasn't elected by the people...

because he was elected in his party as a candidate to run for presidency.

Alright then, if that's the rule that applies, maybe he shouldn't have invaded Iraq claiming that they had weapons of mass destruction, while there was NO proof!!!! Right honey? Innocent until proven guilty? Yes let's not get hypocritical now...

But I thought there were proofs that he supported terrorists with money.

[WildGriffin]

But I thought there were proofs that he supported terrorists with money.

Nope, just false associations.

[Spirited Away]

Nope, just false associations.

Saddam supports terrorists when it suits his plans. He offers $25,000 payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers that can kill Israelis. And remember that Israelies are on friendly terms with the US.

In killing him, we've helped to uphold 17 United nations resolutions, which are international laws. He also killed millions of Iraqis.

[WildGriffin]

In killing him, we've helped to uphold 17 United nations resolutions, which are international laws.

There are over a thousand United Nations resolutions, i could probably uphold twice as many while picking my nose. He most likely broke many more, and as i recall the UN condemned Bush's actions.

Saddam supports terrorists when it suits his plans.

So do we, we helped Al Queda when they were fighting communists; which most defienetly suited America's plans at the time. I'm sure the Russians views them as "terrorists".

And remember that Israelies are on friendly terms with the US.

Not exactly friendly, more "tolerant". Anyways, being tolerant of a certain country doesn't mean said country becomes an extension of the U.S. Attributing Saddam's support of suicide bombers towards attacking Isrealies as an attack on America is a very very loose association. Actually, it's non-existent. Almost...a false association.

He also killed millions of Iraqis.

About 1.26 million by this guy's count, not quite "millions" but close. No doubt that Saddam was a mad man, but most of these deaths were from his on going wars. He executed about 9000, 2000 as political rivals and 7000 in "prison cleansings".

*i'll catch ya tomorrow, i gotta get some sleep. it's been a good day in arguements and such

[*NatiMarie*]

Bush does suck, we should have another president. Someone smart, someone loyal to their country, someone great and just has a great personality-->me.
=)
j/k
Yeah, I don't know. I don't like Bush because of the War of Iraq thing. I'm so proud of myself because I did a report on this and let me paste down some of what I wrote in my report. Yay! *feels smart for once*

The only person deciding for this war of Iraq, at this moment, is George Bush. His decision is based on the fear of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. The article called “The Blame Game”, by David Corn, states that George Bush “…claimed a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had said Iraq was six months away from producing a bomb,” (Corn 14). The awkwardness of this account is that no such report existed, and in 1998, the IAEA said that its inspectors “…destroyed the known components of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program,” (Corn 14). The question of this matter is why did Bush make this assumption without having the facts corrected? The U.S. senators are also questioning this decision of his. They are also doubtful of some of his decisions and whether it will lead to a better or worse future for fellow countries (i.e.: Iraq). In the article in Reuters entitled, “Senators Argue Over Iraq as Next Vietnam,” some of the U.S. senators were arguing if the conflict of Iraq was becoming the next Vietnam. Here it is shown how George Bush has the most power of decision and many even pointed out that Iraq was “George Bush’s Vietnam.”

[Spirited Away]

There are over a thousand United Nations resolutions, i could probably uphold twice as many while picking my nose. He most likely broke many more, and as i recall the UN condemned Bush's actions.

Dang, I digged my own grave arguing with you..

Haha, read this when you wake up then

The UN isn't a very good example, because I'm about to pound on them... they most likely condemmed Bush because they feared America's plans for those oil fields. Britain supports us though right? And Spain too in the begining.

As for Al Queda, I don't think America could've forsee what they'll be today. We also helped Saddam rise to power, but those were mistakes that we could not have predicted.

And as for Israel, we were on friendly terms, but lately it has turned to 'tolerant' in the news. But even though it is not an extension of the US, we still have relations with them because they're most likely the closest country we can call our ally in the Mid East. And as "allies" we need to 'back each other up'.

Anyway, see you tomorrow.

[Spirited Away]

Bush does suck, we should have another president. Someone smart, someone loyal to their country, someone great and just has a great personality-->me.
=)
j/k
Yeah, I don't know. I don't like Bush because of the War of Iraq thing. I'm so proud of myself because I did a report on this and let me paste down some of what I wrote in my report. Yay! *feels smart for once*

Even though I don't agree with your report, I like it.

[immersion31]

u ppl are blaming him for the iraq thingy, well, if 50 thousand americans died, wut else was he supposed to do, jus say "o wow that sucks" and not do nething? jus think that weeks after 9/11 americans wanted justice, and now wen we are doing it they dont want it ne more

[T00000]

u ppl are blaming him for the iraq thingy, well, if 50 thousand americans died, wut else was he supposed to do, jus say "o wow that sucks" and not do nething? jus think that weeks after 9/11 americans wanted justice, and now wen we are doing it they dont want it ne more

wow those who like bush should shoot you in the head and spit on you! you just totally embarassed your entire view. how old are you? 12? the IRAQ THINGY? well i am hoping i'm the first to inform you that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. NOTHING. most people on "your side" know this too!! shiiiiiiiiit haha shame on you

I'll tell you what he should have done. He should have captured the people responsible for this!! duhh... but Iraq? Mmmm.... unrelated.

[NatoBoy]

ya i dont like bush...he waged a war against iraq and totally killed our economy, many ppl are losing jobs and getting layed off from their work. not able to support their child becuz of no job..

[azndragn]

i think everyone should just leave him alone....he is the president of the united states of america.....whether u voted for him or not....he is president.....he is doing his job.....some people may not like it...thats just tough.....what would u rather have him do? sit in his office and do nothing at all? i dont get it.....this nation will never be pleased....alwayse wanting something more and always critiquing other people...why cant people stop judging others? that is God's job....not yours

[strice]

Actually, i would rather have him do nothing at all. its like a kid with a toy he's trying to fix but only making it worse.

[T00000]

Actually, i would rather have him do nothing at all. its like a kid with a toy he's trying to fix but only making it worse.

haha exactly. smart man i like you!

[WildGriffin]

why cant people stop judging others? that is God's job....not yours

It's not God's job to choose our leaders, it's been shown not to be his job to punish people (that just leads to alot of waiting), and I don't think any government has the mandate of heaven; so God doesn't fit into the equation.

this nation will never be pleased....alwayse wanting something more and always critiquing other people...

Yeah, this nation does want more. It wants to better itself and the current president we have isn't exactly helping that. Well maybe he's helping it grow in some ways, but not the right ways. Being overly content with your government is a good way to pave a road towards oppression.

[onenonly101]

This is my opinion.

Bush does not suck. People want to blame him for the failing economy, look up the facts it was failing before he got into office. It was going to happening no matter what. The defecit. Every president has a defecit during his turn. That is just the way things are. First off, it is not Bush. Bush is a face for us to look at. The peioke behind him are the ones who make the decisions. His cabinent, OUR representatvie that WE vote into office. If you want to say someone sucks, go call up your representative and tell him/her that. That would make much more sense than blaming it all on Bush.

[juliar]

Alright then, if that's the rule that applies, maybe he shouldn't have invaded Iraq claiming that they had weapons of mass destruction, while there was NO proof!!!! Right honey? Innocent until proven guilty? Yes let's not get hypocritical now...

Ahh, jsut got one.
But he FIRST sent in the U.N. officers to inspect, and Saddam refused to allow them in certain areas, therefore he probably had them.

[juliar]

[Sorry for the double post.]
In times of danger, Bush took a policy of precautions. If we had waited for Saddam to attack us with biological and nuclear weapons, we would probably blame him even more for that. He's trying to do his job and keep the country safe.

Man it's hard to take a viewpoint which I don't agree very much with. But hey, as kryo said, i take too many anti-US stands.

[WildGriffin]

But he FIRST sent in the U.N. officers to inspect, and Saddam refused to allow them in certain areas, therefore he probably had them.

Faulty logic, perhaps Saddam didn't want them all up in his shiznit? Anywho, Saddam let them search later on, like for 2 months before the war and they found nothing...they didnt even find WMD components. Saddam is a hard man to work with, but we still didn't find anything indicating that he had WMDs.

In times of danger, Bush took a policy of precautions. If we had waited for Saddam to attack us with biological and nuclear weapons, we would probably blame him even more for that. He's trying to do his job and keep the country safe.

Dont' let yourself get confused, we knew he didn't have the capabilities to get his WMDs over here even if he did have them. We were worried that he would attack other countries close to him with them. So it wasn't exactly us defending ourselves, is was more us playing international police....to a made up threat pushed around by some drunk with an agenda.

[juliar]

Dont' let yourself get confused, we knew he didn't have the capabilities to get his WMDs over here even if he did have them. We were worried that he would attack other countries close to him with them. So it wasn't exactly us defending ourselves, is was more us playing international police....to a made up threat pushed around by some drunk with an agenda.

Someone has to be international police, don't they? Such as, if on the road some drunk guy was swerving, but didn't hit anyone yet, and the police was right behind them, wouldn't they stop the drunk one? The same is here. Saddam is FLAUNTING that he has WMDs, or so I heard. Obviously Bush would need to check up on this, and if he refuses to turn over his "shiznit", we must take a precaution and attack before they do.
And didn't they have chemical/biological weapons? Not sure.

[*Kathleen*]

Just to add to that, Julia, if we don't watch out for the countries around us, we'd get sucked in anyways, and it could've turned out to be a worse outcome.

[WildGriffin]

Someone has to be international police, don't they?

That's the problem. The world didn't elect us international police, we just keeping forceing what we want on other's. The world wants the UN as the international police...but we keep going against there wishes.

And Kim Jong is flaunting his WMDs alot louder then Saddam ever did and has about the same credibility, so that argument is lost.

[*Kathleen*]

That's the problem. The world didn't elect us international police, we just keeping forceing what we want on other's. The world wants the UN as the international police...but we keep going against there wishes.

Yes, but what if they do something wrong?

[onenonly101]

Someone has to be international police, don't they?

the thing is we are being selective international police. We help those who benefits us, of course people are more willing to help someone who will benefit them, but that shouldn't be our motive

[WildGriffin]

Yes, but what if they do something wrong?

Hey, if i could set up a plan for world functionality, i'd be a leader. But the point is the UN didnt doing anything wrong and going to war with Iraq wasn't the solution to the non-existent problem.

[*Kathleen*]

Yes, but they've never liked us...of course they're just going to shrug their shoulders when it comes to the inspections.