Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: George Bush

  1. #1 George Bush 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    I think Bush felt nothing could be done until Saddam Hussein was taken out. Saddam was the big bully going back to 1990 and the invasion of Kuwait. It is easy now since Saddam was taken out to say that he was no threat, but he was a real presence before 2003. The Bush administration seriously thought he had nuclear weapons. They called it weapons of mass destruction, which is a silly phrase because biological weapons are not going to do widespread damage. It is atomic and hydrogen bombs that we have to concern ourselves with. Ironically, it has turned out that Iran is the nuclear threat, not Iraq. I know our military is stretched thin. That concerns me too. It sickens me everytime I read of another American soldier killed. Bush has only a little more than 2 years left. I am not sure what he is going to do. The only way we can go after Iran is by bombing their nuclear plants. We can not invade. Iran is far too expansive. But bombing nuclear sites would be a way of going back on the offensive. Right now, we are doing nothing. The American media attacks Bush to the point that I believe they would like to see the downfall of their own country. I know the media votes Democratic and that there is an election coming. But, again, this is not Vietnam. John Kerry opens his mouth and he talks like it is 1971. Bob Woodward keeps writing about Watergate. Jane Fonda is an old woman trying to make a comeback. This all stems from the 9/11 attacks. We can not sit idle and let our country be destroyed. Someone has got to have the guts to get up and go after these people. That someone has been George Bush.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: George Bush 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    I think Bush felt nothing could be done until Saddam Hussein was taken out. Saddam was the big bully going back to 1990 and the invasion of Kuwait.
    And was actively supported by the US administration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    It is easy now since Saddam was taken out to say that he was no threat, but he was a real presence before 2003.
    and a good friend of the US administration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    The Bush administration seriously thought he had nuclear weapons.
    The bush adminstration serously thought that there were many gullible americans like you who would believe anything he said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    They called it weapons of mass destruction, which is a silly phrase because biological weapons are not going to do widespread damage.
    And they had none.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    It is atomic and hydrogen bombs that we have to concern ourselves with. Ironically, it has turned out that Iran is the nuclear threat, not Iraq.
    Not surprisingly it turns out that the US is the nuclear threat not Iraq. Iran has no nuclear weapons and is many years away from making them. However for the gullible americans like you Iran is an excellent scapegoat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    I know our military is stretched thin. That concerns me too. It sickens me everytime I read of another American soldier killed.
    I can't say I feel the same about the death of a US mercenary. I feel you have not paid the proper price for all the misery you caused in the world. I do feel sickened about the death of a few hundred thousand Iraqis.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    Bush has only a little more than 2 years left. I am not sure what he is going to do.
    I'm sure he will pass a law that will entitle him to stay longer so gullible americans like you feel safe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    The only way we can go after Iran is by bombing their nuclear plants. We can not invade. Iran is far too expansive. But bombing nuclear sites would be a way of going back on the offensive. Right now, we are doing nothing.
    No worries, you are still killing iraqis and afghans and creating new hotbeds for terrorists to multiply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    The American media attacks Bush to the point that I believe they would like to see the downfall of their own country. I know the media votes Democratic and that there is an election coming. But, again, this is not Vietnam. John Kerry opens his mouth and he talks like it is 1971. Bob Woodward keeps writing about Watergate. Jane Fonda is an old woman trying to make a comeback. This all stems from the 9/11 attacks. We can not sit idle and let our country be destroyed. Someone has got to have the guts to get up and go after these people. That someone has been George Bush.
    Maybe you should apply the same logic you applied to Iraq to the US. Bomb the US back to the stone age so you can rebuild it to a democratic ideal and sell the price assets to bush's buddies.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Guest
    I think you will get very little sympathy for Mr Bush. The tragedy is the death and destruction on all sides. The chinese and Russians were once a far greater threat than Iraq ever was or could be, and demonstrably so, No invasion there, but of course if it's a little guy, Vietnam, Grenada, Beruit, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc then wade in with your big fist, test the effectiveness of your new weapons, whilst praying to your God. Bloody hypocracy, you are digging a bloody big hole for yourselves and needlessly killing your young men and non-combatants. If you must spend your time writing, do the world a favour and write to your president.
    And yes our own Mr Blair is equally as bad as bush.

    The day after 9/11 you should have dropped a small thermo-nuclear on Kabul or Baghdad and then swore blind that "they were making one and it went up in their faces". You missed the opportunity - less people would have died in the long run, Bin laden would be dead, all your soldiers would still be alive. and the message would have been unequivocal.
    Bush screwed it up again!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Bush? Sympathy? They don't go together in the same sentence. The most common excuse is "he's doing the best anybody would in his situation". Oh? You mean anybody in his situation would sign stupid laws and remove more freedoms from ignorant americans? Or..y'know...have someone tamper with the electronic voting systems.

    Overall, there is no way a republican is being voted in again. I'll shoot people before they do it. Here is a slogan you see in a lot of suthern states:

    Had enough? Vote democrat!

    While democrats aren't SAVIOURS they aren't republicans. I for one would rather the lower and middle class get more attention than the already-rich-as-hell upper class. Or didn't you know republicans only favore them? Bushes "Tax Breaks" are a perfect example of this.

    Overall, when americans vote in some idiot that only has a..
    After obtaining an MBA from Harvard University (Bush is the only US President to serve holding a Master of Business Administration degree
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
    ..we are in serious trouble.

    Gee, we really voted in someone who was qualified. NOT. And do I also have to mention bushes obvious profit-gains from these record oil prices? And not to mention the fact he ended up "inspecting" a certain business (I forget which), came back after a week, and said there was no problems (such as embesselment). This business in question had so many records that it would take an entire team more than a month to check.

    And bush...someone unqualified for record checks...says they're fine after only a week?
    Btw: Prize to the person that can find the source on that story for me. I think it was on MSNBC.

    EDIT: I also forgot to mention bushes stances on certain things like gay marriage. Sarcasm alert
    Gee...he is totally not bringing religious bias into the government.End sarcasm alert

    What the hell happened to separation of church and state?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    34
    I agree, Spurious, with your opinion toward bush. But I dont agree with calling our soldiers mercinaries. They have little say who they fight or when. Say that when the Selected Service act is readopted.
    "When you eliminate the inpossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbbable, must be the truth"- Sherlock Holmes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    I still consider it a nasty property of dictatures to make nuclear weapons. It is different with a working democraty. It might take atleast a while before those bomb eachother and you can talk to the democraty and expect it to listen. Dicts have to much temperament. If they say "we have termonuclear weapons", then beat the stuffing out of them. That should teach them if common sence doesn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    JIM; i couldn't agree more. his story or legacy will be written many years from now including the pro and con results. this will give him a place in history, few achieve.

    i was so grateful, after 9/11 that he was the president and really had all the right people already in place for what was to come.

    Saddam was supported during the Iran/Iraq war. it would have been hard for Americans to support Iran. friend???

    jeromy; better get your guns ready. i see no Democrat that is electable and only a few Republicans.

    others;
    i am concerned so much is said about "rights", when discussion of Iran, Iraq or any dictatorial nation is mentioned in the same story line. its like we would get some back if OBL or Saddam were running things.

    more US deaths for freeing 50 million people, building two semi-democratic and free countries and preventing untold future deaths.??

    the continuous deaths of the innocents in Iraq is not from the US forces.
    its those poor mistreated lunatics supported by OBL types or from such outstanding countries as Iran.

    i wonder just how many attacks on free societies, it will take to make people understand, there is an enemy out there that has said..."kill all that are not Muslim, even the Muslim that support them". this attitude has no place in todays society or has it for five hundred years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    i wonder just how many attacks on free societies, it will take to make people understand, there is an enemy out there ......
    "I have seen the enemy and he is us."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    i wonder just how many attacks on free societies, it will take to make people understand, there is an enemy out there ......
    "I have seen the enemy and he is us."
    if this implies, we brought 9-11 on ourselves that is simply sick.

    we have a very serious world problem brewing and any passive attitude will no longer work. Bush as taken action, supported by all those that claim they did not and has stuck to his program. for the 50 million additional free peoples and the hopes of most the remaining 6.5 billion, this is a good thing that history will honor the man, in ways he or you cannot currently imagine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    "I have seen the enemy and he is us."
    if this implies, we brought 9-11 on ourselves that is simply sick.
    Well, that was not my intention per se. However, if you fail to recognise the role played by the actions of the US in fomenting a view of the the US that varies from distaste to outright, deep seated hatred, then there is little hope for you. Our actions, no matter how motivated, breed reactions.

    Your protestations of innocence are remeniscent of a motorist who kills a pedestrian and ascribes the occurence to an accident - "I mean I just lost control of the car." As if that was some form of excuse.

    A mature society, especially one claiming a leadership position in the free world, should and must consider the implications of its actions and attitudes. This has been singularily lacking in the US for several decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    my post said it very clearly. your response is the reply of some one unable or unwilling to see the issue or some one that can see it but for reason takes the alternative view.

    i admit the governments of many free nations have a large Muslim population and need to cater to all their people. even here the republican party can write off 99% of Muslim voters. this in itself is part of my reasoning behind "world problem brewing" as the general Muslim populations are not in condemnation of there radical elements of the religion. what you infer as government or media hatred may not in fact be what is, at say the G-8 or other high official meetings. political beliefs are rarely personal and motivated with purpose. in the case of Bush, they are the same and an admirable trait though not good politics.

    sorry, but your analogy to an excuse is very much a reference to yourself.
    if i hit someone it would be my fault, accident or not. you excuse an action as one of a kid in a cookie jar, slap his hand and hope everyone still loves you or won't do it again. its just illogical.

    there has never been a more mature society then that of the world community today. I would like to think American's lead the way, in all ways and our actions are with the world in mind. the 20 or 30 attacks by radical elements on many different Nations or the continuing attacks on the Nation of Israel or the objections of these same factions against free nations in Iraq or Afghanistan are a systematic attack on mankind with a goal in mind. you may be the ignorant one if thinking objections by force to this attitude is not the mature manner of approach.

    as to decades of anything the US represents, i will take issue. you will have to point out one, other than common sense national reaction to an attack on the homeland or of an Allie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: George Bush 
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    The only way we can go after Iran is by bombing their nuclear plants. We can not invade. Iran is far too expansive. But bombing nuclear sites would be a way of going back on the offensive. Right now, we are doing nothing. The American media attacks Bush to the point that I believe they would like to see the downfall of their own country.
    Iraq and Afganistan, severally and jointly, are fairly large.

    You may not have noticed, but the U.S.A. just doesn't do offensive very well. I think that the last time we started a war that we won was in 1812. Given our track record, we should have engraved 'Freedom From Foreign Entanglements' on our money.

    If the American media had had enough balls to attack Bush before we entered this ill-conceived and poorly executed war, the entire world would have been better off.

    Bush is irrelevant.
    The powerless president of a failed government in an anarchic state snubbed him.
    State, local, and NIA governments are entering into economic agreements with a ruler who has called him a 'Devil'.

    The US is functionally irrelevant; the only power the nation has left is to spend the residue of its wealth as a consumer nation.

    Yes, the press is too blame, not for finally pointing out that Bush's testicles are somewhat more evident than is socially acceptable, but for not doing so before the people of this nation allowed its leader and his coterie to set us on this final self-destructive course.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Well, that was not my intention per se. However, if you fail to recognise the role played by the actions of the US in fomenting a view of the the US that varies from distaste to outright, deep seated hatred, then there is little hope for you. Our actions, no matter how motivated, breed reactions.

    A mature society, especially one claiming a leadership position in the free world, should and must consider the implications of its actions and attitudes. This has been singularily lacking in the US for several decades.
    Sir, you are both unfair and incorrect.

    You can not entirely blame individuals for their ignorance of the view and effect of U.S, policies abroad.
    A republic truly needs a free and independent press; here, we have Rupert Murdock, but no BBC.
    [Yes, we can get the World Service and NPR, but generally on small scratchy stations that play classical music 90% of the time; oddly, such stations fail to draw a wide audience.]
    We are not the first, nor we will be the last, to fall victim to the jingoism of our leaders.

    The US has not HAD a claim to a leadership position for more than several decades, roughly sixty years, and the populace and leaders most certainly did "consider the implications of its actions and attitudes" for most of that time, whether for good or ill.

    Frankly, a subject of the former empire that had significant influence in the partitioning of the Middle East that gave opportunity for the crisis should review his own nation's international history before denigrating the citizens of a much younger nation.

    And, yeah, that analogy was pitiful.

    [How have you been? We haven't posted in a while.]
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Overall, when americans vote in some idiot that only has a..
    After obtaining an MBA from Harvard University (Bush is the only US President to serve holding a Master of Business Administration degree
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
    ..we are in serious trouble.
    I take it you don't consider an MBA to be a very prestigious achievement?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    No. Not really. Especially for leading a country. However, to be frank, it probably depends more on the administrations intelligence than the president. And in that, we're thankful, since the entire country would've been nuked by now had it been under bush's intelligence alone.

    That being said, screw the whole administration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8
    Well a JD would probably be preferable for such a position, but I think an MBA means something in any leadership role. It provides for an overall understanding of the requirements needed to execute resources, manage large groups of individuals, deal with financial responsibilities, meet deadlines, coordinate business with others, group psychology, cultural differences (in relation to business practices), some legal (in relation to business practices), etc...

    So, ideally, I think someone who is a very good business mind could do well in a leadership position as president. I don't really understand Bush because he doesn't seem to grasp many of the attributes I would have thought he would have learned in business school. Most notably the handling of money - which Bush seems to do very poorly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    That being said, screw the whole administration.
    I agree, i'm looking forward to a change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •