Bush Administration's Job

[loynokid]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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 ,

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by 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 ,

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[loynokid]

Originally Posted by 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...

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by loynokid

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]

Originally Posted by loynokid

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

110% on the dot!!

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....

[sonar732]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

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

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, 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 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.)
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, 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 camps inside Afghanistan, 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, 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, or members of al-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.