Bush Administration's Job

[loynokid]

What does everyone think of Bushe's job on the war on terror?

[waste gate]

There have not been any terrorist attacks on the US since September 11, 2001, so in my estimation he is doing a good job.

[CCIP]

That depends on what 'War on Terror' presupposes. If the war was intended to kick certain specific terrorists out of certain specific places and take down Saddam along with them, then it still hasn't reached it's goal completely though is part-way there. If it was intended to reduce the number of terrorists and anti-American elements in the world, then it resoundlingly flopped and needs to be completely redirected. :hmm:

I do believe America became safer on some counts, no doubt, but the war created completely new liabilities and destabilized the situation in the middle east more severely than the Bush administration is willing to admit.

[Tchocky]

This thread should be interesting :hmm:
Here's a spanner; isn't the concept of a "war on terror" a bit of a stretch?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1997397,00.html
Just an idea.

There have not been any terrorist attacks on the US since September 11, 2001, so in my estimation he is doing a good job.

I have a rock in my pocket that protects me from tigers

[elite_hunter_sh3]

the sept 11 attacks you have to admit were evil, that was crossing the line. i heard from my cousin shes in university and when she went down to new york on a university field trip (shes into international politics) she visited the world trade center gorund zero, and what was very odd she said when she got there there was a errie feeling in the air and she had cold shivers down her spine, her friends also said the same thing, they knew that this place is a grave of close to 3000 people, she was freaked out by it and they left after about 5 min walking around.


Bush aint doing a good job, sure there havent been terror attacks agaisnt US soil but there ave been terror attacks in madrid and london and tokyo (sarin gas attack), hes striing up problems with iran and north korea.

[Bort]

If I could only relate to you in words what an awful job this administration is doing with the GWOT I would, but in the interests of my blood pressure I will suffice to say he has passed Warren G. Harding in my book as worst President of all time.:nope:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

If I could only relate to you in words what an awful job this administration is doing with the GWOT I would, but in the interests of my blood pressure I will suffice to say he has passed Warren G. Harding in my book as worst President of all time.:nope:


110% on the dot!!:up:

[fatty]

I voted "not acceptable" but would have preferred an option for "mediocre" or "okay."

We all agree that no terrorist attacks have taken place, but fears about terrorism are still prominent. And after all, isn't the point of terrorism to terrorize?

I think this has in part been agitated by the administration through a lack of candidacy, but also through the public's tendancy to interpret successes (e.g. terror suspect arrests) as failures. The more security the public gets, the more they want, and the more alarmed they are at the fact that there are still terrorists operating in the West. This is the "homeland security dilemma."

An interesting paper on this written by a former professor of mine is here (http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/FP%20Harvey%20Homeland%20Security%20June06.pdf).

[ASWnut101]

Bush aint doing a good job, sure there havent been terror attacks agaisnt US soil but there ave been terror attacks in madrid and london and tokyo (sarin gas attack), hes striing up problems with iran and north korea.


Unless you're talking about the first Bush, the Sarin attacks were before GWB's time.


I voted "Yes, doing an acceptable job."

[TteFAboB]

He hasn't done more than his obligation.

[loynokid]

Thanks for all the feedback. I expect this thread to grow as there is a lot of interest in this subject in the world today. Thanks again all. :up:

[geetrue]

Just twenty-two (22) more months and the next president will be able to blame President Bush for everything ...

American armed forces are in Iraq and Afganistan and we have Iran surrounded.

The enemy has attacked Spain and India and they look like fools in England and we are suppose to be afraid ...



"Faith and fear are a lot alike ..."

"In the small moment of time that it takes to replace each other"

"Click"

"They are just alike ..."


President Bush is doing better than what Gore or Kerry would've done ... :yep:

[loynokid]

Just twenty-two (22) more months and the next president will be able to blame President Bush for everything ...

American armed forces are in Iraq and Afganistan and we have Iran surrounded.

The enemy has attacked Spain and India and they look like fools in England and we are suppose to be afraid ...



"Faith and fear are a lot alike ..."

"In the small moment of time that it takes to replace each other"

"Click"

"They are just alike ..."

President Bush is doing better than what Gore or Kerry would've done ... :yep:

Right on 100%

[loynokid]

If I could only relate to you in words what an awful job this administration is doing with the GWOT I would, but in the interests of my blood pressure I will suffice to say he has passed Warren G. Harding in my book as worst President of all time.:nope:

110% on the dot!!:up:


Crazy libs.... lol

[Tchocky]

President Bush is doing better than what Gore or Kerry would've done ... :yep:
Right on 100%

Um, conjecture anyone?

[loynokid]

President Bush is doing better than what Gore or Kerry would've done ... :yep:
Right on 100%
Um, conjecture anyone?

you are a very good debater, and you stand up for what you think is right. This is what makes america great everyone, the way we can have much differing opinions as you have seen between me and tchocky and debate them and disagree. Believe me, horrible places like Iraq and North Korea have one opinion, and if you disagree with it, you are dead :yep:,

[Tchocky]

you are a very good debater, and you stand up for what you think is right. This is what makes america great everyone, the way we can have much differing opinions as you have seen between me and tchocky and debate them and disagree. Believe me, horrible places like Iraq and North Korea have one opinion, and if you disagree with it, you are dead :yep:,
Thanks, I guess. NK might be a single opinion state, but if you look at Iraq, "vociferous debate" is carried out daily.
Still, saying that Bush is "doing a better job than Gore or Kerry" isn't debating, or even argument. It's empty conjecture. I could say that King Zog of Albania would have beaten Arnie in the California recall election, but it wouldn't matter.
I'm not sure if it's what makes America "great", there are many other countries where people disagree in peace :-?. If thats the standard we apply, then "greatness" is devalued.

edit - not always free to speak, sometimes you have to keep it to a "free-speech zone"

[loynokid]

you are a very good debater, and you stand up for what you think is right. This is what makes america great everyone, the way we can have much differing opinions as you have seen between me and tchocky and debate them and disagree. Believe me, horrible places like Iraq and North Korea have one opinion, and if you disagree with it, you are dead :yep:,
Thanks, I guess. NK might be a single opinion state, but if you look at Iraq, "vociferous debate" is carried out daily.
Still, saying that Bush is "doing a better job than Gore or Kerry" isn't debating, or even argument. It's empty conjecture. I could say that King Zog of Albania would have beaten Arnie in the California recall election, but it wouldn't matter.
I'm not sure if it's what makes America "great", there are many other countries where people disagree in peace :-?. If thats the standard we apply, then "greatness" is devalued.

edit - not always free to speak, sometimes you have to keep it to a "free-speech zone"

Listen, i'm sorry i made a mistake, i was referring to a one-party state like iraq used to be. if you disagreed with the govenment then you were eliminated. I think you thought i was reffering to the new iraq wihtout saddam, and reading my post again it did sound like i was reffering to current iraq. Also i didnt say that bush is doing better than kerry or gore wouldve done. i agreed with that because that was my open and honest opinion. I personally am grateful that we can debate freely without having a fear that you could be harmed based on what you thought.

[Tchocky]

Listen, i'm sorry i made a mistake, i was referring to a one-party state like iraq used to be. if you disagreed with the govenment then you were eliminated. I think you thought i was reffering to the new iraq wihtout saddam, and reading my post again it did sound like i was reffering to current iraq. Also i didnt say that bush is doing better than kerry or gore wouldve done. i agreed with that because that was my open and honest opinion. I personally am grateful that we can debate freely without having a fear that you could be harmed based on what you thought.

No need to apologise, man. Talking about the old Iraq, you are very very right.
I know you didnt say that yourself about gore/kerry, I was reacting to the original statement, which was worthless.

[loynokid]

Listen, i'm sorry i made a mistake, i was referring to a one-party state like iraq used to be. if you disagreed with the govenment then you were eliminated. I think you thought i was reffering to the new iraq wihtout saddam, and reading my post again it did sound like i was reffering to current iraq. Also i didnt say that bush is doing better than kerry or gore wouldve done. i agreed with that because that was my open and honest opinion. I personally am grateful that we can debate freely without having a fear that you could be harmed based on what you thought.
No need to apologise, man. Talking about the old Iraq, you are very very right.
I know you didnt say that yourself about gore/kerry, I was reacting to the original statement, which was worthless.


In the liberal mindset, yes it would be...

[Tchocky]

No need to apologise, man. Talking about the old Iraq, you are very very right.
I know you didnt say that yourself about gore/kerry, I was reacting to the original statement, which was worthless.

In the liberal mindset, yes it would be...

A thousand times, NO. You've missed my point.

Simply put: "President Bush is doing better than what Gore or Kerry would've done ..." - there's no way any of us can know how either Kerry or Gore would handle things. When Gore was running, the "war on Terror" hadn't begun, and Kerry's campaign position was a complete mess. So, guessing what they would have done is just that, guessing. Geetrue's post doesnt mean anything, regardless of politics.

[CptSimFreak]

Since I don’t know USA’s internal global politics, economy and actual reasons for actions, I can only say that I don’t know. I cannot judge anything from Media since that information source is flawed. And since 'Dear Mr. President' doesn’t talk about his reasons to me, it’s rather pointless to discuss his performance since I’m not very informed. And by that time I am, more than 20-30 years will pass…

[Subnuts]

In the liberal mindset, yes it would be...

So, do conservatives have supernatural powers that allow them to extrapolate historical events in alternate universes? :doh:

[baggygreen]

I voted for an acceptable job done.

I think personally he handled the attacks of 2001 in a much better manner than others may've. The removal of the Taliban I support, and I'll continue to do so. their administration shamelessly supported the organisation behind the attacks, and as such were accomplices, so the decision to persecute them was justified.

I also think that had Libya woken up to itself, there would be troops there for their support of terrorism.

Afghanistan openly aligned themselves with groups attacking the US - as far as i'm concerned this made them a valid target. Particularly so, where you are facing an ideology rather than an army. By removing the financial and military backings of the ideology (ie countries acting as havens, etc) you hit at them the best way possible. I feel that as 'evidence' of Iran sponsoring terror activities grows, the path will be laid down for a strike against Iran, from both east and west.

Iraq, i think it was a daft move based on apparently poor evidence (what people need to understand is that the info available at the time is what ppl use to decide), but i also think that it was perhaps a pre-ordained idea. This harkens back to the state-sponsored terror idea, that hittting the states sponsoring terrorism is the best way for a convential army to make war against the ideology. There is always the option of going through, killing everyone that may or may not have ties to terror, but that is impractible and would no doubt start civil wars through the west!

So, so sum up my rambling, i think he's done well, not excellently but well enough. i feel that he's moved well enough against sponsors of terror thus far, and despite the many errors made in iraq he's still going ok. Who knows, in 20 years we might look back and say what a brilliant strategic move it was taking iraq... or we may not. but thats how i think for now:)

[loynokid]

I voted for an acceptable job done.

I think personally he handled the attacks of 2001 in a much better manner than others may've. The removal of the Taliban I support, and I'll continue to do so. their administration shamelessly supported the organisation behind the attacks, and as such were accomplices, so the decision to persecute them was justified.

I also think that had Libya woken up to itself, there would be troops there for their support of terrorism.

Afghanistan openly aligned themselves with groups attacking the US - as far as i'm concerned this made them a valid target. Particularly so, where you are facing an ideology rather than an army. By removing the financial and military backings of the ideology (ie countries acting as havens, etc) you hit at them the best way possible. I feel that as 'evidence' of Iran sponsoring terror activities grows, the path will be laid down for a strike against Iran, from both east and west.

Iraq, i think it was a daft move based on apparently poor evidence (what people need to understand is that the info available at the time is what ppl use to decide), but i also think that it was perhaps a pre-ordained idea. This harkens back to the state-sponsored terror idea, that hittting the states sponsoring terrorism is the best way for a convential army to make war against the ideology. There is always the option of going through, killing everyone that may or may not have ties to terror, but that is impractible and would no doubt start civil wars through the west!

So, so sum up my rambling, i think he's done well, not excellently but well enough. i feel that he's moved well enough against sponsors of terror thus far, and despite the many errors made in iraq he's still going ok. Who knows, in 20 years we might look back and say what a brilliant strategic move it was taking iraq... or we may not. but thats how i think for now:)


I agree. I think he has made some mistakes but i am glad that he is running our armed forces as compared to someone like gore or kerry (sorry tchochy.. lol) All in all he has been doing pretty good, no matter what people want to say about it. Also one thing to think about. Before we invaded Iraq, everyone thought they had WMD's including saddam. It turns out that his generals were lying to him. I think there was more than enough credible evidence to go into iraq and take out saddam. it might have been a bad decision looking back on it now, but we cant pull out, we have to win and finish the job there. Also somthing to think about, think that bush went into iraq as a starting point on the war on terror. I am guesstimating that this war on "terror" was supposed to go on for at least 10 to 20 years. Iraq is a pretty central location within the middle east and now since we might have to invade iran, it might be good that we have military control over iraq right now.

[Sailor Steve]

110% on the dot!!:up:
I just hope you're political savvy is better than your understanding of percentages.

[dean_acheson]

Bush aint doing a good job, sure there havent been terror attacks agaisnt US soil but there ave been terror attacks in madrid and london and tokyo (sarin gas attack), hes striing up problems with iran and north korea.[/quote]


Yeah, we all know that PRK and Iran weren't really problems before 2001.... :roll:

[sonar732]

Bush aint doing a good job, sure there havent been terror attacks agaisnt US soil but there ave been terror attacks in madrid and london and tokyo (sarin gas attack), hes striing up problems with iran and north korea.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html)

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982–1991 Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-WTC1), killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0882060) and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0001455).)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-TERRORISM5), were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-TERROR-QAEDA) camps inside Afghanistan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107264), were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-OSAMABINLADEN), who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-OSAMABINLADEN), or members of al-Qaeda (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-TERROR-QAEDA) terrorist network.

[baggygreen]

sonar i think i've missed the point of your post...:hmm:

[Boris]

I think the point is, terrorism has been going on for years.

[geetrue]

I think what sonar732 posted should be a billboard to make people think ...

Those crazy people don't like American's, they don't like jokes about their God, they don't like our cheerleaders wearing hardly anything at football games, they don't like our investment industry, they don't like our surperior arms industry, they don't like our level of freedoms, they don't like me posting anything negative about their trying to take over the world, they don't like us period ...
no smiley here

[loynokid]

I think what sonar732 posted should be a billboard to make people think ...

Those crazy people don't like American's, they don't like jokes about their God, they don't like our cheerleaders wearing hardly anything at football games, they don't like our investment industry, they don't like our surperior arms industry, they don't like our level of freedoms, they don't like me posting anything negative about their trying to take over the world, they don't like us period ...
no smiley here


I concur. :up:

[baggygreen]

I think the point is, terrorism has been going on for years.:damn: god im good sometimes. its about the one possible reason behind his list i hadnt thought of.:damn:

[sonar732]

I was trying to make a few points out of my post.

1st was to associate how he mentioned the sarin gas episode in Tokyo by a religous cult in 1995 with President G.W. Bush....not W.J. Clinton. You'd think the young people of today who are more computer savy would google stuff before posting???:roll:

2nd is "stringing up problems with iran and north korea"...funny, I thought we've always had issues with Iran since '79 and North Korea since...um...'53? Don't forget with North Korea...Clinton administration brokered a deal with them to stop their nuke program and they laughed at us. We are back at the table again.:roll::roll:

3rd is right on the mark with what y'all posted. It's not like terrorism has just begun...shoot...even his own country was a haven for their own type of terrorism during their civil war...I can remember seeing film of snipers killing journalist or...dare we say it...motars lobbed into an open food market at the busiest time.

EDIT: To go further on the Yugoslavia situation, it makes me sick that NATO decided to interviene when Milosovic threatened U.N. madated safe havens, but yet is sitting on their a**es when it comes to regions now like Darfur.

[dean_acheson]

Sonar,
My point was the same as yours in my post above yours. I'm afraid that I am just a bit too lazy to point out the obvious sometimes, or draw up timelines. I used to enjoy doing such things, but as I get older, it isn't as much fun..... :roll:

I like the President, that is possibly because I am old enough to remember the last one, and motivated enough to read about the jack@## that was President in '79 and know how he handled the situation. Bush might make mistakes, but at least he is attempting to say, if you bomb us, we will bomb you back, and he isn't embarrassed by being an American, which is more than I can say for Carter or Clinton.

Then again, I am a jingoistic hillbilly w/o the surperior reasoning ability of my old big-city buddies that I met in law school.

[geetrue]

Your alright Dean, I don't care what Jimmy said about you ... lol

You don't still hold it against him for those helicopters crashing into each other out in the middle of no where
(therefore aborting their mission) do you?

[3Jane]

If I could only relate to you in words what an awful job this administration is doing with the GWOT I would, but in the interests of my blood pressure I will suffice to say he has passed Warren G. Harding in my book as worst President of all time.:nope:

110% on the dot!!:up:

I might be wrong about this, but as I understand it, it was Harding's brother-inlaw who was corrupt, abusing his possition. Harding was just not best suited to the job, I hesitate to use the word incompetant as I'm not sure he was or not.

[sonar732]

I'll admit that I'm not happy with the current administration right now either. However, the country is at the point that no matter who gets elected, there will be a change of direction regarding our foreign policy.

It has taken almost 2 terms of the Bush White House to convince the North Koreans to come to the table...after they either attempted or did, detonate a bomb. The attempt to negotiate with Iran keeps failing as our Russian counterparts keep giving them money and consultants on their nuke program...sadly enough, I see the next administration having no choice but to take military action on this one as evident by the newest complaint of the west needs to abandon our own nuke programs.

[geetrue]

It has taken almost 2 terms of the Bush White House to convince the North Koreans to come to the table...after they either attempted or did, detonate a bomb. The attempt to negotiate with Iran keeps failing as our Russian counterparts keep giving them money and consultants on their nuke program...sadly enough, I see the next administration having no choice but to take military action on this one as evident by the newest complaint of the west needs to abandon our own nuke programs.

Not only money for their nuke program, but for their "missile self defense program" also ... which raises some concerns for what is going to be put on top of said missile. :cry:

[baggygreen]

Isnt the self defence missile program merely an anti-air missile?

I was under the impression it was:doh:

[August]

Your alright Dean, I don't care what Jimmy said about you ... lol

You don't still hold it against him for those helicopters crashing into each other out in the middle of no where
(therefore aborting their mission) do you?

He ought to. The way Carter set up the mission, bypassing regular command channels and cobbling the force together without giving them a chance to train/prepare, failure was almost guarenteed.

[Dowly]

No terrorist attacks in US after 9/11. :hmm:

Why the terrorists should travel all the way to the USA, when they can kidnap, torture and behead americans on their own soil?

Bush is a poohead. :yep:

[geetrue]

No terrorist attacks in US after 9/11. :hmm:

Why the terrorists should travel all the way to the USA, when they can kidnap, torture and behead americans on their own soil?

Bush is a poohead. :yep:

What's the score on American's vs their own countrymen being beheaded ...

one in a thousand ... no smiley

[TteFAboB]

No terrorist attacks in US after 9/11. :hmm:

Why the terrorists should travel all the way to the USA, when they can kidnap, torture and behead americans on their own soil?

Why aren't them attacking American embassies in foreign territory?

Interesting that when dealing with Bush and terrorists, only Bush is insulted, nobody remembers those fine humanists, the terrorists.

[Tchocky]

Doesnt it go without saying that terrorism is a repulsive tactic?

[baggygreen]

"Doesnt it go without saying that terrorism is a repulsive tactic?"

not necessarily. I've attended the Australian National University, one of the very best in the world (particularly for Int. Rels). The amount of pure and utter BS that comes outta the mouths of some of these people makes you wonder why they dont open up a gardening store, with free manure for every customer!

If you attend one of their meetings, you'll hear that evil is performed wholly and solely by western govts, and you will see videos of Glorious and Wonderful attacks against troopsand civilians by these Noble, Brave and Magnaminous men.:damn: (just to clarify, by "these men" i refer to terrorists)

[geetrue]

"Doesnt it go without saying that terrorism is a repulsive tactic?"

not necessarily. I've attended the Australian National University, one of the very best in the world (particularly for Int. Rels). The amount of pure and utter BS that comes outta the mouths of some of these people makes you wonder why they dont open up a gardening store, with free manure for every customer!

If you attend one of their meetings, you'll hear that evil is performed wholly and solely by western govts, and you will see videos of Glorious and Wonderful attacks against troopsand civilians by these Noble, Brave and Magnaminous men.:damn:

I'm trying not to understand what you said, but unfortunately I think I do ...

How sad ... :cry:

[baggygreen]

Gotta be careful disagreeing with some people there, students in particular but also a couple of lecturers (lecturers will fail you...:nope: )

I remember one winters day a couple of years ago, very nearly causing an all-in down in union court (a big open thoroughfare).

Approached by some students from the Socialist Alternative to attend their big protest against howard and the war, i told em i am not stupid enough to think that pulling troops out means we'll (the west) never be attacked again and in many respects i think that howard is one of the greatest leaders we've had. I interjected the abusive tirade which followed with the comment "and you know, i think that bush is doin a pretty good job". Wasnt that fun to watch! red faces, people screaming at me, throwing stuff... i stood there and said, once they'd finished, that their reaction is why they'll never get any credibility with anyone and that the beauty of our election process means they can vote against howard no problems!

Hmm, wasnt that slightly OT....

point is, there are several particularly extreme groups at the university, and that there some lecturers agree with them. Disappointing, really

[Tchocky]

Approached by some students from the Socialist Alternative to attend their big protest against howard and the war, i told em i am not stupid enough to think that pulling troops out means we'll (the west) never be attacked again and in many respects i think that howard is one of the greatest leaders we've had. I interjected the abusive tirade which followed with the comment "and you know, i think that bush is doin a pretty good job". Wasnt that fun to watch! red faces, people screaming at me, throwing stuff... i stood there and said, once they'd finished, that their reaction is why they'll never get any credibility with anyone and that the beauty of our election process means they can vote against howard no problems!

You called them stupid, their reaction was over the top but not without cause...

[geetrue]

My grandfather said, "That when you get angry ... you lose your ability to love people"

[loynokid]

My grandfather said, "That when you get angry ... you lose your ability to love people"

Hmmm... now that's is something to think about :hmm:

[dean_acheson]

Baggy,
I went to American University, in DC, where I earned a JD in law and a MA in international affairs, and was there on 9/11.

It wasn't a week before the faculty and majority of the student body had decided that the terrorists were not at fault, but the United States, since we are an imperialist power. That is the midset of the acadamy in this country, for the most part. The poor terrorists are just reacting to all the horrible things that the United States have done to them.

Lovely. Most of the IR professors I have had the enjoyment of having to listen to would also tell you with a straight face, that the United States and the Soviet Union were equally at fault for the Cold War.

Not to be a total jerk, but when the ex-hippie crowd retire from the acadamy, I won't be too upset.

[geetrue]

I hope this is not OT, but this topic is about Bush and Bush is an American and well here goes ...

I finally figured out the "Cold War" we didn't understand each other ... WWII and Korea and Vietnam all contributed to not understanding each other.

After Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall, we started understanding each other ... Germany got their brothers and sisters back, Mr. Reagan got some respect for America back and moving ahead 27 years we now pay Russia to destroy nuclear warheads and are willing to help them with old nuclear submarine disposal's ...

Progress of understanding each other ended the "Cold War"

[baggygreen]

Not to be a total jerk, but when the ex-hippie crowd retire from the acadamy, I won't be too upset.Quoted for absolute freaking truth!:rock:

[Fish]

"Doesnt it go without saying that terrorism is a repulsive tactic?"

not necessarily. I've attended the Australian National University, one of the very best in the world (particularly for Int. Rels). The amount of pure and utter BS that comes outta the mouths of some of these people makes you wonder why they dont open up a gardening store, with free manure for every customer!

If you attend one of their meetings, you'll hear that evil is performed wholly and solely by western govts, and you will see videos of Glorious and Wonderful attacks against troopsand civilians by these Noble, Brave and Magnaminous men.:damn:

I'm trying not to understand what you said, but unfortunately I think I do ...

How sad ... :cry:

Students, at least here, are left by nature, .......... till they start earning money, then they shift massively to the right (still left in your eyes, I think).

[bradclark1]

Students, at least here, are left by nature, .......... till they start earning money, then they shift massively to the right (still left in your eyes, I think).
I believe thats the way of the world. :D

[tycho102]

destabilized the situation in the middle east

This is the only good thing so far in the "War on Terror". It's like pitting all the Columbian and Mexican drug cartels against each other in the "War on Drugs".

Hot, hot, hot druggie on druggie action.

[CCIP]

destabilized the situation in the middle east
This is the only good thing so far in the "War on Terror". It's like pitting all the Columbian and Mexican drug cartels against each other in the "War on Drugs".

Hot, hot, hot druggie on druggie action.

I wouldn't call it a good thing per se, though, since as with drug cartels having civvies caught up in the crossfire, the Middle East instability always has a potential to spill over onto others (ignoring the fact that a lot of innocents are caught up in it). And that's not to mention the surging oil prices.

Ironically, however, Bush has not only destabilized the situation but also now has to account for keeping it under control. If he wanted "hot raghead on raghead action" - pull the troops out of Iraq and pull the carriers out of the Persian Gulf and THEN watch what happens. :dead:

[geetrue]

Ironically, however, Bush has not only destabilized the situation but also now has to account for keeping it under control. If he wanted "hot raghead on raghead action" - pull the troops out of Iraq and pull the carriers out of the Persian Gulf and THEN watch what happens. :dead:

A little birdy told me that the USS Stennis isn't over there to go on liberty ... :cool:

By the way Battle Carrier Croup Stennis is now on station waiting for Iran to find out why we call the FA-18 a Hornet ... :know:

[ASWnut101]

By the way Battle Carrier Croup Stennis is now on station waiting for Iran to find out why we call the FA-18 a Hornet ... :know:


So what, we've got Stennis, Eisenhower, and isn't there another set to arrive there? And then you have whatever is backing up Operation Sea Dragon, or is that still off the Big E? (which the Sea Dragon operation alone is probably enough to take on two times what the Iranian navy is:rock:)

[U-533]

Its not just Bush's "War on Terror"...

Its everyone who wishes to live in a world not ruled by fear of another mans religion, "War on Terror".

Right now most Muslims in America have no fear of Terrorist cause if for some reason the Terrorist win... then Muslims here have no worries until the rules start to invade their happy go lucky life here in America...

Think about it.... whats going to happen if the Muslim Terrorist win?
Women will be set back decades in human rights issues.
Dress codes will be enforced by execution.
The list is end less of the freedoms that will be lost......

:roll:

Bush's war on terror...Please...

What about the free peoples war on terror?

Is that going well enough yet?

We sit here at our computers keyboards and screens and type out all manner of solutions we wish to see and lay blame where we wish it to be ....:hmm:

Its our war ... if you like it or not ...so we need to look in the mirror.:sunny:

[geetrue]

Its not just Bush's "War on Terror"...

Its everyone who wishes to live in a world not ruled by fear of another mans religion, "War on Terror".

Right now most Muslims in America have no fear of Terrorist cause if for some reason the Terrorist win... then Muslims here have no worries until the rules start to invade their happy go lucky life here in America...

Think about it.... whats going to happen if the Muslim Terrorist win?
Women will be set back decades in human rights issues.
Dress codes will be enforced by execution.
The list is end less of the freedoms that will be lost......

:roll:

Bush's war on terror...Please...

What about the free peoples war on terror?

Is that going well enough yet?

We sit here at our computers keyboards and screens and type out all manner of solutions we wish to see and lay blame where we wish it to be ....:hmm:

Its our war ... if you like it or not ...so we need to look in the mirror.:sunny:

I looked in the mirror, but I needed a shave. So, I prayed instead and I saw President Bush kicking some butts without
the Democrat's approval ... :up:

St Pattrick's Day and SH4 go together ...:smug:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Baggy,
I went to American University, in DC, where I earned a JD in law and a MA in international affairs, and was there on 9/11.

It wasn't a week before the faculty and majority of the student body had decided that the terrorists were not at fault, but the United States, since we are an imperialist power. That is the midset of the acadamy in this country, for the most part. The poor terrorists are just reacting to all the horrible things that the United States have done to them.

Lovely. Most of the IR professors I have had the enjoyment of having to listen to would also tell you with a straight face, that the United States and the Soviet Union were equally at fault for the Cold War.

Not to be a total jerk, but when the ex-hippie crowd retire from the acadamy, I won't be too upset.

Yep. Most of the IR classes I took I spent a good deal of my time rolling my eyes. IMO, it is a crime how many of my classes (I am a Political Science major) have been professors preaching.

PD

[CCIP]

I don't think the terrorists can "win" in the sense that you mean. Terrorism is a limited tactic and is aimed at instilling fear and producing dissent; it can't, by default, 'win' an entire inter-cultural struggle as you suggest. A "win" in this particular scenario would be not by terrorists but by at least a very large Muslim coalition which is yet to form; in fact as the disorder in the ME suggests, such a coalition is far, far from anything. Additionally, any wars fought against US or US-supported states by Muslim countries ended in disasters for them.

I don't think 'war' is the measure to solving them. It's much more a cultural than violent issue, and let's not bring violence into it. Asserting a strong tradition of secular government at home is the best that could be done in the West; Bush has not done a good job of that and, at points, seemed to turn it into a holy war of some sort.

I'm personally convinced that no "war against" will ever really succeed. In that case we need to define what Bush's war was for. Was it a war for American security? If so its success is marginal and has not really been tested yet. Was it a war for Iraqi/Afghani freedom/democracy? If so, it's a pretty big failure so far; democracy as a means for itself means nothing - and conditions cannot be argued to have improved (you got rid of Saddam/Taleban, but have you really made their lives better? I would argue that while there's some obvious big improvements, there are also big down-points, so the net result, especially in Iraq, is quite negative).

[CCIP]

Lovely. Most of the IR professors I have had the enjoyment of having to listen to would also tell you with a straight face, that the United States and the Soviet Union were equally at fault for the Cold War.
I'd love to hear a convincing argument against that stance (equal fault). I couldn't take any with a straight face so far myself (mostly because reasons given were ideological rather than factual in basis).

In another thread perhaps.

[geetrue]

Somethings wrong with everyone (well not everyone) waiting for the terroist to strike America again to prove President Bush's war on terror was wrong.

Heck, they are already doing that ... :roll:

[CCIP]

Somethings wrong with everyone (well not everyone) waiting for the terroist to strike America again to prove President Bush's war on terror was wrong.

Heck, they are already doing that ... :roll:
I don't think that's neccesarily true and I think most reasonable people will acknowledge that, even Bush aside, there would be something incredibly wrong with the country as a whole if anti-terror security was not significantly improved after 9/11 - and no doubt it was improved. If anything, Bush could rather be blamed for not improving it sooner and preventing 9/11.

At what cost, and to what extent has it been efficient abroad however, is questionable.

Likewise, it's in the nature of terrorism to never be 100% avoidable, it's one of the reasons the tactic works. I don't think another terrorist attack would really prove anything against Bush, to be honest; it'd just prove the fact that "War on Terror", like "War on Drugs" in the sense that the administration seems to be pushing it is a bit of a fallacy - it's a war of containment rather than a war of annihilation.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I voted not acceptable. I think he did a great job immediately after 9/11 showing a strong response. I think things have gone just a wee bit downhill since then. But what did we expect when we elected an aristocratic, C average dilettante who had to cling to his father's coat tails to get anywhere in life. That being said, I don't think Gore or Kerry would have done much better. Bush is at least reliable when it comes to national defense, and in these times that certainly means something.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Lovely. Most of the IR professors I have had the enjoyment of having to listen to would also tell you with a straight face, that the United States and the Soviet Union were equally at fault for the Cold War.
I'd love to hear a convincing argument against that stance (equal fault). I couldn't take any with a straight face so far myself (mostly because reasons given were ideological rather than factual in basis).

In another thread perhaps.
I don't necessarily agree/disagree with that. I just believe that having credentials to teach at a university level should not be a license to preach one's own views. Sure, to let students know what your views are is perfectly acceptable. But to design one's curriculum arround perpetuating one's own ideology is completely unacceptable to me. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. :)

PD

[U-533]

I don't necessarily agree/disagree with that. I just believe that having credentials to teach at a university level should not be a license to preach one's own views. Sure, to let students know what your views are is perfectly acceptable. But to design one's curriculum arround perpetuating one's own ideology is completely unacceptable to me. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. :)

PD

You said a mouthfull there PD:up: :up: :up:
:sunny:

[loynokid]

Its not just Bush's "War on Terror"...

Its everyone who wishes to live in a world not ruled by fear of another mans religion, "War on Terror".

Right now most Muslims in America have no fear of Terrorist cause if for some reason the Terrorist win... then Muslims here have no worries until the rules start to invade their happy go lucky life here in America...

Think about it.... whats going to happen if the Muslim Terrorist win?
Women will be set back decades in human rights issues.
Dress codes will be enforced by execution.
The list is end less of the freedoms that will be lost......

:roll:

Bush's war on terror...Please...

What about the free peoples war on terror?

Is that going well enough yet?

We sit here at our computers keyboards and screens and type out all manner of solutions we wish to see and lay blame where we wish it to be ....:hmm:

Its our war ... if you like it or not ...so we need to look in the mirror.:sunny:

I looked in the mirror, but I needed a shave. So, I prayed instead and I saw President Bush kicking some butts without
the Democrat's approval ... :up:

St Pattrick's Day and SH4 go together ...:smug:



Right on, great drive... :D

[dean_acheson]

Your alright Dean, I don't care what Jimmy said about you ... lol

You don't still hold it against him for those helicopters crashing into each other out in the middle of no where
(therefore aborting their mission) do you?


Yes, maybe because I am feeling a bit froggy today, but here are two jacka##es of historical purportions.

I wouldn't dream of saything that about a former President and Secretary of State normally, but giving aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war is tantamont to the big "T" word. I can not begin to imagine this type of politicized rhetoric coming from a Franklin Roosevelt or a Harry Truman at a sitting President.

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=88008

It isn't really all the stupid ideas about the world that Carter espoused during his Presidency that causes me to really dislike him. I mean, I don't like George McGovern either, but Carter WAS the Presdient and being so, he shouldn't feel free to run around spouting about how horrible the current administation is. The old rule is that ex-Presidents are not allowed to be openly hostile to whomever the current administration is, espically when it comes to foreign policy.

The elder Bush was certainly no fan of President Clinton, but he sure didn't say anything about him publically until Clinton started to get involved in the 2000 campaign, and making comments on candidate Bush Jr., at which point Bush Sr. said that if Mr. Clinton did not cease and desist, the elder Bush would lay out his feelings vis-a-vis Mr. Clinton's foreign policy "successes" and Mr. Clinton's actions which has sullied the office fo the Presidency. I just state this as an example of the unwritten rule about former Presidents making public comments like Carter has a horrible penchant for.

Please don't respond that Carter is now a private citizen and is allowed to make any comment he would like. No one who is President ever returns to the simple status as the rest of us, they will always be a former holder of the most important job in the United States of America, and should act as such.

[Iceman]

The only president he can be compared to I think is Roosevelt in they're reactions to a castrophe...They both ho humed along business as usual until the horrors of terrorisim and war fell in they're laps.They re-acted like normal human beings do when threatened ..fight/or flight....we fight.If anything Bush has had to try to walk a tighter thinner rope in regards to the current situation in that ..people keep trying to find the "END" solution...there is not one..it will not end ..ever.As the Muslim purpose it seems to me if I read correctly the Koran..in that they're prupose is to subjegate the entire world by any means neccessary and intentional viloence....this is unacceptable.

He that is evil let him be evil still, he that is righteous let him be righteous still.Behold he cometh quickly to give every man his due reward.

[geetrue]

If anything Bush has had to try to walk a tighter thinner rope in regards to the current situation in that ..people keep trying to find the "END" solution...there is not one..it will not end ..ever.As the Muslim purpose it seems to me if I read correctly the Koran..in that they're prupose is to subjegate the entire world by any means neccessary and intentional viloence....this is unacceptable.

He that is evil let him be evil still, he that is righteous let him be righteous still.Behold he cometh quickly to give every man his due reward.

If you hear this more and more ... it's probably from faithful believers ... :yep:

St Matthew 24:3-8

Jesus answered them, "Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’ and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.

[loynokid]

The only president he can be compared to I think is Roosevelt in they're reactions to a castrophe...They both ho humed along business as usual until the horrors of terrorisim and war fell in they're laps.They re-acted like normal human beings do when threatened ..fight/or flight....we fight.If anything Bush has had to try to walk a tighter thinner rope in regards to the current situation in that ..people keep trying to find the "END" solution...there is not one..it will not end ..ever.As the Muslim purpose it seems to me if I read correctly the Koran..in that they're prupose is to subjegate the entire world by any means neccessary and intentional viloence....this is unacceptable.

He that is evil let him be evil still, he that is righteous let him be righteous still.Behold he cometh quickly to give every man his due reward.


The only way that the radical muslim terrorists can beat us, is if we have a pessimistic attitude. We all need to have a positive outlook and get a stiff upper lip, in the words of AC/DC. I believe that good and free men, will eventually beat the terrorist jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda. I think that good will eventually prevail, and i think we all should
:yep: :yep:

[Ishmael]

Abysmal & impeachable.

We have a president who called for a return of integrity to office presiding over the most corrupt administration since the Harding & Grant administrations.

We have the "business" president who turned budget surpluses into raging deficits financed by a possible future adversary.

We have a "war & security" president who was so focused on regime change in Iraq that he

1. Ignored the warnings on al qaeda and an attack here and failed to prevent the attack that occured on his watch.

2. Failed to finish the job in securing Afghanistan before ginning up his war of choice in Iraq and failed to send enough troops to secure order in either place. So now we have a civil war in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban with safe havens in Pakistan and billions in opium smuggling money to finance their offensives.

3. Ignores the fact that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are from the Sunni insurgency and rattles sabres at Iran while building forces for an attack on that country.

4. Has not secured this nation's borders because his corporate friends want cheap labor.

We have an "oil" president totally in thrall to the Saudi royal family and his oil company friends to the point of allowing them to formulate national energy policy with the VP and blocks any attempt to shine a light of inquiry on those meetings.

We have a "regular guy" president who only cares about tax cuts for his wealthy friends while gutting the social safety net and killing the middle class of this country.

We have an "ownership" president who has never taken responsibility for any of his myriad of mistakes.

We have a "freedom" president who has systematically deconstructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the pursuit of the so-called "unitary executive" ammassing for himself dictatorial powers. Simultaneously, he has caused to be appointed to key positions as U.S. Attorneys political hacks who owe their loyalty to his regime, not the constitution they are sworn to uphold. Now under US law, the president can declare anybody anywhere at any time an "enemy combatant", citizen or not, and confine & torture them with no redress or right of appeal. He can declare martial law at his whim, nationalize National guard troops from any state without permission from that state's governor and send them to other states under federal control without the permission of the destination's governor.

We have a "defense" president who has systematically run our Army & Marines into the ground and now seems intent on doing the same with the Navy & Air Force in Iran. At the same time, he hires mercenary armies from Blackwater, CACI, SAIC and their ilk to patrol US disaster areas, seizing legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

What this president has done is to strengthen, at every opportunity, corporate and executive government power in secret and lie and smear any and all who oppose his efforts. What is acheived with this concentration of corporate/government power?
From my readings, that is the classic definition of Fascism.

[geetrue]

Have you considered going to work for the New York Times, Ishmael?

Isn't this a great country we live in?

Only 90 mintues till happy hour ... :lol:

[ASWnut101]

Abysmal & impeachable.

We have a president who called for a return of integrity to office presiding over the most corrupt administration since the Harding & Grant administrations.

More corrupt than Nixon? Right...:roll:

We have the "business" president who turned budget surpluses into raging deficits financed by a possible future adversary.

Who? What "future Advesary?"

We have a "war & security" president who was so focused on regime change in Iraq that he

1. Ignored the warnings on al qaeda and an attack here and failed to prevent the attack that occured on his watch.

All the information he got was that there was an impending attack by al-queda. It didn't describe in detail exactly how.

2. Failed to finish the job in securing Afghanistan before ginning up his war of choice in Iraq and failed to send enough troops to secure order in either place. So now we have a civil war in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban with safe havens in Pakistan and billions in opium smuggling money to finance their offensives.

Then why are there not any news reports from Afghanistan of "Attacks on US troops?" All we have there are SOF forces backed by mobilized units of Marines (Using mainly helicopters) and the Air Force. The SOF teams are working with the new Afghani government and ex-northern alliance forces to defeat the A-Q. And what do you suggest we do with Pakistan?

3. Ignores the fact that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are from the Sunni insurgency and rattles sabres at Iran while building forces for an attack on that country.

We are NOT building forces to ATTACK Iran. It is a defensive force, almost exclusively naval forces. Bush is not going to attack anything when he knows he has less than two years left in office.

4. Has not secured this nation's borders because his corporate friends want cheap labor.

At least he did SOMETHING about it.

We have an "oil" president totally in thrall to the Saudi royal family and his oil company friends to the point of allowing them to formulate national energy policy with the VP and blocks any attempt to shine a light of inquiry on those meetings.

Says who?

We have a "regular guy" president who only cares about tax cuts for his wealthy friends while gutting the social safety net and killing the middle class of this country.

I've got PLENTY of tax cuts. I'm middle class.

We have an "ownership" president who has never taken responsibility for any of his myriad of mistakes.

Such as? And even then, I can say the same for many of presidents.

We have a "freedom" president who has systematically deconstructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the pursuit of the so-called "unitary executive" ammassing for himself dictatorial powers.

Last time I checked, (which happened to be yestarday), That was the ACLU.

...Now under US law, the president can declare anybody anywhere at any time an "enemy combatant", citizen or not, and confine & torture them with no redress or right of appeal. He can declare martial law at his whim, nationalize National guard troops from any state without permission from that state's governor and send them to other states under federal control without the permission of the destination's governor.

It was called the "Homeland Security Act." It does NOT allow him to declare any random person a terrorist. He can only do so to take action after enough intercepted communications can be collected that the person can be determined to be a ginuine threat to the US.

We have a "defense" president who has systematically run our Army & Marines into the ground and now seems intent on doing the same with the Navy & Air Force in Iran.

Run the military into the ground? He's trying to INCREASE defense spending by the billion! That's funding for technology for the troops, not against them.

At the same time, he hires mercenary armies from Blackwater, CACI, SAIC and their ilk to patrol US disaster areas, seizing legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

The siezing of firearms was ordered by Ray Negan. And what is so wrong with Private Operatives? They allow the troops to focus more on one thing, and not what they PO's are defending. P.S.: The siezing of firearms was conducted by the Police of New Orleans.

What this president has done is to strengthen, at every opportunity, corporate and executive government power in secret and lie and smear any and all who oppose his efforts. What is acheived with this concentration of corporate/government power?

What corporate power? You DO know that there is a left run congress right now, right?

From my readings, that is the classic definition of Fascism.

That's nice.

:dead: :dead:

[loynokid]

Abysmal & impeachable.

We have a president who called for a return of integrity to office presiding over the most corrupt administration since the Harding & Grant administrations.

We have the "business" president who turned budget surpluses into raging deficits financed by a possible future adversary.

We have a "war & security" president who was so focused on regime change in Iraq that he

1. Ignored the warnings on al qaeda and an attack here and failed to prevent the attack that occured on his watch.

2. Failed to finish the job in securing Afghanistan before ginning up his war of choice in Iraq and failed to send enough troops to secure order in either place. So now we have a civil war in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban with safe havens in Pakistan and billions in opium smuggling money to finance their offensives.

3. Ignores the fact that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are from the Sunni insurgency and rattles sabres at Iran while building forces for an attack on that country.

4. Has not secured this nation's borders because his corporate friends want cheap labor.

We have an "oil" president totally in thrall to the Saudi royal family and his oil company friends to the point of allowing them to formulate national energy policy with the VP and blocks any attempt to shine a light of inquiry on those meetings.

We have a "regular guy" president who only cares about tax cuts for his wealthy friends while gutting the social safety net and killing the middle class of this country.

We have an "ownership" president who has never taken responsibility for any of his myriad of mistakes.

We have a "freedom" president who has systematically deconstructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the pursuit of the so-called "unitary executive" ammassing for himself dictatorial powers. Simultaneously, he has caused to be appointed to key positions as U.S. Attorneys political hacks who owe their loyalty to his regime, not the constitution they are sworn to uphold. Now under US law, the president can declare anybody anywhere at any time an "enemy combatant", citizen or not, and confine & torture them with no redress or right of appeal. He can declare martial law at his whim, nationalize National guard troops from any state without permission from that state's governor and send them to other states under federal control without the permission of the destination's governor.

We have a "defense" president who has systematically run our Army & Marines into the ground and now seems intent on doing the same with the Navy & Air Force in Iran. At the same time, he hires mercenary armies from Blackwater, CACI, SAIC and their ilk to patrol US disaster areas, seizing legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

What this president has done is to strengthen, at every opportunity, corporate and executive government power in secret and lie and smear any and all who oppose his efforts. What is acheived with this concentration of corporate/government power?
From my readings, that is the classic definition of Fascism.


this is 99% B.S., Im sorry for being so blunt, but this crap is not the truth! Bush has for one cut the deficit almost in half, cut taxes equally for EVERYONE, not secured the nations borders? didn't you hear about the multi-billion dollar fence he is building, didn't you hear about the big budget increases for border patrol agents?, And as for corruption and morral character... don't you remember Bill Clinton, and his monica lewinsky afair????, Ignored terrorist threats?, I didn't hear any of our dems in the house or senate foreseeing a terrorist attack in the near future! You really need to stay off of the far-left blogs and start really reasearching these things, and facsism, how can you possibly compare our current president to fascist dictators? And he dosen't wipe out anyone who is against him, look at our last election. A bunch of Dems just got voted into the Senate, is he killing them like Hitler would've done with his opposers?, no!, he is trying to work coopertively with them to come up with sensible solutions to this country's problems. Oh, come on, its just ridicules, i never thought anyone could believe any of these acusations, but I am obviously proved wrong.

P.S. If anyone thinks I am coming across as making personal attacks on this guy, then I am very sorry, but I am just trying to make a point, If it comes across as personal mudslinging, It wasn't meant to.

[loynokid]

Agree with ASWnut101,

Exactly couldn't be more right. I am very flustered with this crap about bush lying and such... :roll:

[Tchocky]

this is 99% B.S., Im sorry for being so blunt, but this crap is not the truth! Bush has for one cut the deficit almost in half, cut taxes equally for EVERYONE, Hmm. You're wrong there.
Budget surplus/deficit of the US
1992 - $290 billion deficit
2000 - $236 billion surplus [+ $526 billion]
2005 - $319 billion deficit [- $555 billion]
However, I think the usefulness of the deficit in a political argument is negligible. Borrowing is not always evil, and a surplus is certainly not always benficial. It depends on the economic environment of the time. And granted, Dubya may pull a trillion dollars out of a hat before '08.

You are half right on the tax cuts. As far as I remember, there were many more tax cuts for the rich, and fewer (but larger) cuts for the poor.

Ignored terrorist threats?, I didn't hear any of our dems in the house or senate foreseeing a terrorist attack in the near future! I don't think the House & Senate get the same intelligence briefings that the Prez does. Expecting them to have access to the same information is a little disingenuous. Anyone know this one? You really need to stay off of the far-left blogs and start really reasearching these things, and facsism, how can you possibly compare our current president to fascist dictators? And he dosen't wipe out anyone who is against him, look at our last election. A bunch of Dems just got voted into the Senate, is he killing them like Hitler would've done with his opposers?, no!, he is trying to work coopertively with them to come up with sensible solutions to this country's problems. Oh, come on, its just ridicules, i never thought anyone could believe any of these acusations, but I am obviously proved wrong. hmm, fascism is almost never used to describe a fascist, more to denigrate an enemy. Much in the same way that liberals are labelled communists by some, conservatives get called fascists. It helps no-one and stifles debate.
GW Bush displays authoritarianism rather than fascism, if you ask me. Rendition, unchallenged detention, warrantless surveillance, attempts to redefine torture, all hallmark the Immovable State rather than the Glorified State

[loynokid]

hmm, fascism is almost never used to describe a fascist, more to denigrate an enemy. Much in the same way that liberals are labelled communists by some, conservatives get called fascists. It helps no-one and stifles debate...
Now this much I would have to agree with, it does certainly stifle debate and gets us no where.

[loynokid]

Have you considered going to work for the New York Times, Ishmael?

Isn't this a great country we live in?

Only 90 mintues till happy hour ... :lol:



Lol... :lol::lol::lol:

[Ishmael]

Abysmal & impeachable.

We have a president who called for a return of integrity to office presiding over the most corrupt administration since the Harding & Grant administrations.

More corrupt than Nixon? Right...:roll:

Look at who was in Nixon & Ford's administrations: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kissinger. They were all there. A reminder, Grant, Harding & Nixon were Republican administrations. Also the latest development of US Attorneys being fired for no reason. Here's a link to that story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-blumenthal/domenici-and-wilson-invol_b_42591.html

We have the "business" president who turned budget surpluses into raging deficits financed by a possible future adversary.

Who? What "future Advesary?"


China, the ones who own our debt and fired a shot across our bows by dropping their stock exchange by 10% and Wall St. drops 400 points in a day.

We have a "war & security" president who was so focused on regime change in Iraq that he

1. Ignored the warnings on al qaeda and an attack here and failed to prevent the attack that occured on his watch.

All the information he got was that there was an impending attack by al-queda. It didn't describe in detail exactly how.

Wrong again. We know that Ramzi Yuseff planned using hijacked airplanes back in the mid-90's. We also know about the Presidential Daily Briefing from Aug. 2001 saying bin-laden determined to attack in US.

2. Failed to finish the job in securing Afghanistan before ginning up his war of choice in Iraq and failed to send enough troops to secure order in either place. So now we have a civil war in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban with safe havens in Pakistan and billions in opium smuggling money to finance their offensives.

Then why are there not any news reports from Afghanistan of "Attacks on US troops?" All we have there are SOF forces backed by mobilized units of Marines (Using mainly helicopters) and the Air Force. The SOF teams are working with the new Afghani government and ex-northern alliance forces to defeat the A-Q. And what do you suggest we do with Pakistan?

It's wintertime so the Pushtuns are marshalling their forces for the spring offensive. Also the recent carbombing during Cheney's visit and the car bombing in Kabul where film was seized that showed US troops firing indescriminately into crowds and traffic in the aftermath. Re: Pakistan: We're in a real bind there. But if I was going to support an attack on nuclear facilities, Pakistan's would be at the top of my list coinciding with incursions of US & NATO forces into Waziristan to stop the Pushtun threat on both sides of the border.

3. Ignores the fact that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are from the Sunni insurgency and rattles sabres at Iran while building forces for an attack on that country.

We are NOT building forces to ATTACK Iran. It is a defensive force, almost exclusively naval forces. Bush is not going to attack anything when he knows he has less than two years left in office.

Give it a few months. Read this interview by a Lt. col. who was in the Pentagon's Ofice of Special Plans:
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070227_pentagon_whistleblower_on_the_coming_war_ with_iran/


4. Has not secured this nation's borders because his corporate friends want cheap labor.

At least he did SOMETHING about it.

Ahh. Buy he hasn't. Are our borders, ports & chemical plants more secure now? The answer is No. Read this transcript of an interview with Michael Scheur, former head of the now-defunct Bin-Laden unit at CIA:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17240518/

We have an "oil" president totally in thrall to the Saudi royal family and his oil company friends to the point of allowing them to formulate national energy policy with the VP and blocks any attempt to shine a light of inquiry on those meetings.

Says who?

Look Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

and here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml


We have a "regular guy" president who only cares about tax cuts for his wealthy friends while gutting the social safety net and killing the middle class of this country.

I've got PLENTY of tax cuts. I'm middle class.

I would remind you that this is the first time in the history of the republic that a taxcut was passed during wartime. What happened to shared sacrifices for victory?

We have an "ownership" president who has never taken responsibility for any of his myriad of mistakes.

Such as? And even then, I can say the same for many of presidents.

True, many presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson & both Bushes have failed to take responsibility for thier actions & pardoned wrongdoers. the difference is that, in this instance, blood & treasure were lost.

We have a "freedom" president who has systematically deconstructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the pursuit of the so-called "unitary executive" ammassing for himself dictatorial powers.

Last time I checked, (which happened to be yestarday), That was the ACLU.

I refer not to just the Patriot Act but also to the Military Commissions Act. I also refer to the Attorney General of the United States redefining torture and claiming habeas corpus is not an inalienable right.

...Now under US law, the president can declare anybody anywhere at any time an "enemy combatant", citizen or not, and confine & torture them with no redress or right of appeal. He can declare martial law at his whim, nationalize National guard troops from any state without permission from that state's governor and send them to other states under federal control without the permission of the destination's governor.

It was called the "Homeland Security Act." It does NOT allow him to declare any random person a terrorist. He can only do so to take action after enough intercepted communications can be collected that the person can be determined to be a ginuine threat to the US.

No, but the Military Commissions Act does. It & the companion riders passed in the emergency military funding bills allows him to activate the National guard in one state bypassing local authorities and deploy them to other states without permission of local authorities. Besides, who determines who is a genuine threat to the US? The President.

We have a "defense" president who has systematically run our Army & Marines into the ground and now seems intent on doing the same with the Navy & Air Force in Iran.

Run the military into the ground? He's trying to INCREASE defense spending by the billion! That's funding for technology for the troops, not against them.

Look at the Pentagon's own estimates of troop strength & readiness if you don't believe me. Or just go to Walter Reed. Why then are we still not getting proper armor for our troops and equipment in Iraq after 5 years? Why is the Bush admin. so dead-set against Murtha's plan to ensure troops deploying receive adequate training in occupation & urban counter-insurgency warfare?

At the same time, he hires mercenary armies from Blackwater, CACI, SAIC and their ilk to patrol US disaster areas, seizing legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

The siezing of firearms was ordered by Ray Negan. And what is so wrong with Private Operatives? They allow the troops to focus more on one thing, and not what they PO's are defending. P.S.: The siezing of firearms was conducted by the Police of New Orleans.

I have a problem with private mercenary armies operating under contract to anybody. If you believe in law & order, then officers of the court and law are duly sworn to protect the constitution. Private armies owe their only alleigance to the people that pay them.

What this president has done is to strengthen, at every opportunity, corporate and executive government power in secret and lie and smear any and all who oppose his efforts. What is acheived with this concentration of corporate/government power?

What corporate power? You DO know that there is a left run congress right now, right?

How about the aforementioned energy task force meetings? How about a prescription drug plan written by the pharmaceutical corporations? the bankruptcy bill written by credit card corporations? The incredible waste & fraud in Iraqi reconstruction by Halliburton, Parsons, Bechtel et al? Read Seymour Hersh's latest piece in the New Yorker that alleges that reconstruction money is funding Sunni extremist groups like al-qaeda to counter Hezbollah.

From my readings, that is the classic definition of Fascism.

That's nice.

:dead: :dead:

Of course, none of this is new. It was all written up back in the 90's by the Project For a New American Century called "Clean Break. a New Strategy for Securing the Realm".

Here's the link:
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

Notice who was involved in formulating this plan & see where they are now.

I apologize for the lateness of my response but have been out of town for the past week. Also please note that wherever I can, I post links to articles buttressing my points.

Now I am truly sorry that you don't like it that I consider Bush, Cheney and the restof the Trotskyites liars but look at what they said & compare their words with their actions. The conclusion should be inescapable. So I will wait patiently for you to answer my responses. I sincerely hope I am proved wrong about my opinions. However, I have seen nothing that changes my opinions about them yet. If you do answer my responses, please include links to relevant facts to back your arguments.

[The Avon Lady]

Here's the link:
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
I've never heard of the IASPS until now. Don't recognize any of these names (http://www.iasps.org/staff.htm), either. I hope to read the article and comment later today. Dentist appointment coming up. :88)

[IRONxMortlock]

I voted that he is doing very poorly at fighting terrorism.

There is zero chance of winning this war. None. Never was, never will be. It doesn't matter who is in charge. Why? Firstly because by its very definition it will never work. You can't fight a war against a technique. By fighting a literal war against it you focus so much attention onto terrorism that end up doing exactly what the enemy wants you to do - giving them publicity and instilling fear. You achieve their goals.

Every terrorist killed becomes a martyr and every civilian wrongly arrested, tortured or killed provides 10 new recruits. How many civilians have died from TWOT? (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1433404.ece) When fought directly it is a like a Medusa's head. When you start turning your back on the fundamental corner stones of your society in order to fight it then you have truly lost for the terrorists have managed to destroy the most important concepts of liberty that you are trying to defend. Things like the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, extra-judicial killings, torture and imprisonment without charge are not the acts practised by a free country; these are the signs of tyranny. It also removes any credibility the United States and its allies may have had when they wage for under the guise of "creating freedom".

So how do you fight terrorism?

1. The answer is superior intelligence gathering and good old fashioned police work. Once you find them, you give them a fair trial like any other criminal. There's no need to make a big deal out of it, just keep plugging away in the background and their attacks will be kept to a minimum.

2. Before you go to war you learn about your enemy and why he fights. It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperilled in every single battle. You need to understand why normal people decide to join and fight for these fanatical organisations. You can bet your butt that they don't do it because "they hate freedom". As a hint you might want to consider the targets the 9/11 hijackers selected. They didn't attack the statue of liberty now did they?

3. You keep it in perspective. Even including the tragic events of 9/11, you are very unlikely to be killed by a terrorist attack. The chances for an American are about 1 in 8,000,000. You are more likely to be killed by a firearm during a legal intervention (1 in 1,000,000) or by a swarm of bees (1 in 5,000,000). Driving in your car offers you a 1 in 6,000 chance of death and even using stairs gives you 1 in 180,000. For those of you here who lived during the cold war you may remember how everyday we lived with the threat that some moron at a big desk in US or Russia might press that button and END ALL LIFE ON EARTH! Now THAT, is a threat. Have a look on google video for a movie called Threads for a lesson on how dire that threat truly was. Yet we survived without allowing the government to know our library borrowing habits, read out mail, listen to our telephone conversations (without a warrant) or imprison us indefinitely without charge or trial.

In summary: GWB on TWOT - Five Thumbs down :down::down::down::down::down:. He's created many, many more terrorists (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html) and in the process set up the machinery of a dictatorship in the what was previously one of the world's greatest democracies.
________
Gizele (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Gizele)

[Fish]

Open for critic?

Watch this video from John Pilger.

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

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pilger_breaking_the_silence_35mb.htm

[Skybird]

I voted that he is doing very poorly at fighting terrorism.

There is zero chance of winning this war. None. Never was, never will be. It doesn't matter ...
(...)
...machinery of a dictatorship in the what was previously one of the world's greatest democracies.

It seems I got a double...!? :lol:

I agree on all, have said the same many times before.

[jumpy]

Having skimmed this thread very quickly, I apologise if this has been mentioned before:

The actual question is a moot one - seeing as you cannot wage war on an abstract concept, or in this case a noun.

Bull****-bingo 1 - Bush 0 :lol:

What about a US led 'war on similes' or metaphores? Perhaps no such a good idea, if we get rid of them how will politicians couch unfavourable actions using evasive, suitably innert description fit for public consumption? :hmm:

In reality has the Bush administration removed the threat of terrorist activity from the world stage? No; if anything some aspects of the problem have undoubtedly been exacerbated by an as yet undefined quantity- suffice to say an unpopular war on two fronts with questionable means and motives is no good thing for public oppinon at home or hearts and minds overseas.
From their own borders? Perhaps for the time being.