Bush: Hate Him or Love Him (split from UK terror thread)

[ryan]

Originally Posted by Leah

If you don't think Bush is incompetent you haven't been watching. The man is dumb and incapable of running a country...or a toaster oven for that matter. Have you heard him speak? My favorite example of Bush's ignorance is this "Is our children learning?" HELLO how ironic that the president of a world super power can't seem to use proper grammar...or even notice when he's wrong... how ironic that that president, seemingly fighting a war against terror and nuclear weapons, can't manage to say "nuclear weapons" without mispronunciations. It makes me a little scared that my IQ is higher than that of the man that holds my future in his hands.

and how old are you?
how well are you politically informed?

i cannot stand random people who try to slam the president because their friends do or because its the "in" thing to do.
those same people couldn't argue political issues if their life depended on it because they rely on others for their biased information.
it's like going to michael moore for information on gun control...why bother?

that's not meant to be an attack on you, but general people like those described above.

[ryan]

and i didn't read any of the replies below hers...SOMEONE BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH.

sorta.

[acliff]

Originally Posted by Leah

Do you think that just because the amount of deaths for civilians is low it makes it okay? Do you think gang raping a 14 year old girl and murdering her parents and sister in front of her is okay?

Eh? That phrase in isolation seems like you're jumping topic there.

A few fun things for you to think about.
In any war there are going to be civilian casualties, especially if the enemy are using good tactics and hiding their troops in civilian areas, hospitals and schools. What would you do if the entire stockpile of rockets to be launched at your home were 'hidden' under a school in enemy territory, and were going to be launched tomorrow? The US army is doing everything they can to minimise civilian death, and to that aim they are doing very well.

A 'leave them be' attitude against terrorism and insurgency will not work. Even if Al Qaeda are not 100% of a population, where else would you fight them? In Walmart? Ignoring the action of terrorists would work, if they were the type of people who were in it just for the thrill of it. Unfortunately they will keep at it until they are stopped.
Independent of terrorism, we should have just left a genocidal dictator in control of a country where he regularly condemned people to die for opposing him, and torturing the olympic team before and after the olympics if they did not perform well. That is a perfectly suitable candidate for a leader of a country.

I'm sure you'll agree that many country leaders are fucked up. Some are very much more fucked up and dangerous than others.

I'm afraid your complaint about taxes doesn't fall to very sympathetic british ears, as we pay ALOT more tax for everything. Also I'm afraid your comment about your family members in service (I wish them safety and wellbeing from the bottom of my heart) will skew your opinions as much as watching reports on the news.

[acliff]

Originally Posted by Leonie

Moreover, he has proven himself to be less than grammatically capable, and sorely lacking in the "quick response in case of an emergency" department. He's not the worst, but he's a clown alright.

If you're referring to the currently Israel Lebanon 'crisis', what makes you think that wasn't entirely planned and intentional?

[acliff]

[quote=allied_assult]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

Yeah...terrorists didn't exist before Bush came along.

They most certainly did. Bush wasn't the president when the World Trade Center was attacked the first time. I like the man and the terrorists are the ones that attacked us. So, it's not necessarily his fault we went to war. Plus, if we wouldn't have avenged what happened to the Trade Center in 2001 we would have gotten attacked again and again and the U.S. would have been a much worse to live.

Welcome to the wonderfully 'difficult to grasp' concept of sarcasm.

[allied_assult]

Haha. Oops. I should read everything before i post something

[Leah]

Though everything you say is completely true and accurate it doesn't make it okay. I don't think that Saddam's genocide on his citizens was okay either, I think how Bush handled this whole situation was wrong though. The reason people say "none of this happened when Clinton was in office" doesn't mean they didn't know of the terrorist attacks. I'm pretty sure we all remember the attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. But Clinton handled it better he left fewer people angry and he kept his country as loyal to him as possible. When running a country it's a big deal to keep your country happy. Bush on the other hand doesn't handle the terrorist threats/attacks well because though he may try his best in those fields he does not try his best to do what is best for his own country.
And Of COURSE my views are biased. Wouldn't yours be? If everytime someone left the house you didn't know whether they'd be back again? If in every email they sent they told you about someone they had to shoot? or a friend that died? And that has NOTHING to do with media influence and it doesn't even relate to it because often when the media reports what's happened they weren't actually there, and they didn't actually have to fire a gun.

[Liam]

The only thing wrong with the US-led invasions in the wake of the September 11 attacks was the lack of contingency planning. Having arguably the most powerful military in the world (I'm going out on a limb and saying that the Chinese and possibly the Russians have a stronger military) doesn't mean you don't need to plan for the bumps in the road. Everyone knew that resistance to an invasion from regular military forces would be relatively weak and that insurgency and resistance fighters would pose a greater threat to Coalition forces after the 'victory' announcement, yet it would outwardly appear that no great effort went into planning for it.

Clinton never had to deal with any sort of attack on the scale of those Bush faced in 2001, so the whole point of Clinton possibly handling the attacks better is moot. Don't pretend otherwise.

IQ has nothing to do with the ability to lead a country. Do you know exactly what Bush's IQ might be? I have an IQ of 152, does that make me a better leader than Bush? Should I be sworn into office straight away? Don't judge a man on his apparent inability to make a convincing speech. John Howard is hardly the most convincing man on the lecturn and he is the most successful Prime Minister our country has had for a long time. Our economy is going gangbusters, inflation is more or less under control, taxes are widely regarded as fairly moderate and our standard of living has never been better. All the while we are making valid and important contributions to the war effort, but I wouldn't expect anyone (except maybe the Brits) to have any sort of handle on what our military is doing.

Listen to Haz children. He might come across as a bit of a clown but the man is intelligent and educated, and holds well formed opinions on political topics.

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by acliff

If you're referring to the currently Israel Lebanon 'crisis', what makes you think that wasn't entirely planned and intentional?

No, I was talking about New Orleans.

[acliff]

Originally Posted by Leonie

No, I was talking about New Orleans.

Sad to say, but I'm certain if it was a particularly high priority, a faster reaction would have been seen. In hindsight it would have been rather helpful if better hurricane protection was in place before, but not everywhere can be like Florida.

[kingdumbass]

It's too bad all of them folks in New Orleans weren't embryos....
Bush would have helped them immediately!

You know -- cuz he's PRO-LIFE.

That means you've got to protect the unborn. Of course, once you're born, you're on your own!

[Hazzle]

Warning this post is a fucking essay:

Yeah as a world super power we have a pretty good economy compared to other countries but have you checked out the exchange rates lately?

Yes. But do you realise the causes of that have little to do with Bush? People will blame Bush's tax cuts and the war for the increased deficit but in fact the trade deficit is caused largely by the fact more Americans need to buy more American-made products instead of buying cheap alternatives from abroad. Hence the tax cuts, designed to fuel the domestic economy.

Hello? Your fuel prices are high but you have to recognize the difference in the way our countries are built. London is close together, has an underground, and taxis running throughout. In my country there are very few cities like that. Where I live everything is spread out and we use cars to get every place we need to go. Think about how cost effective it would be to add a subway to a city that spread apart? Thus we use alot of fuel.

Understood but your fuel prices are still a quarter of ours. Perhaps if you could build cars that didn't guzzle petrol, your fuel crisis wouldn't be so bad. You can blame the geography all you want, but US cars are just as bad at fuel consumption anywhere in the world. Ironic, given you lot invented the damn thing.

The US is a market economy, the more we need the more we get. The more there is the cheaper it is.

So? I presume you mean the more fuel you use, the more you get, the more you get, the cheaper it is? Explaining the difference in price? So what? You may buy more, but as you so eloquently pointed out, in a market economy that means it costs you less. So where's the concern about fuel prices? Your price per gallon as a %age of GDP is lower than ours, I'd venture a guess.

Now another flaw I see is this...where do you think Bush gets the money for his war? where do you think he got the money to pay for the clean up of NYC? From our TAXES. He lowered the taxes the wealthy people have to pay significantly not that of the middle or lower classes of our country.

No, he gets it by increasing borrowing. This myth that taxation is paying for the war is just that, a myth. Equally, how the does one lower the taxes of the wealthy alone? Wealthy people get the most out of the tax system as they can afford to hire good tax lawyers and accountants to take advantage of loopholes. But lowering tax is lowering tax, and it's a lovely cop-out used by left wingers whenever a tax cut happens that it favours the wealthy. Bollocks. The wealthiest are usually getting the best out of the tax system anyway, it's the poorest that aren't, and who benefit from a cut. The whole rationale behind the cuts was to give people more money to spend, thereby fuelling the economy, it makes no sense for the cuts to favour the wealthy.

Excuse me but last time I checked Al Qaeda does not make up 100% of the Iraqi population so why wage war on the soil of a country who does not want us there? If waging a war like that isn't unnecessary I don't know what is. It's unnecessary to everyone involved just because we were attacked doesn't make it any less unnecessary. Enough people died win the towers fell, we don't need more to die over there. Freeing Iraq from the clutches of Saddam? Yay good plan but not when our president has enough problems to deal with in his OWN COUNTRY. Last time I checked Osama Bin Ladden was the one who decided it would be fun to knock down our towers. So what business do we have in Iraq? We're pulling regiments from Afghanistan but...(I'm really not sure about this one) isn't that a plausible place for him to be? Didn't we get news that he was there?

1) Iraqis don't want us there? Odd that, since the US approval rating in Iraq has shot up and the Iraqi president has thanked the US for freeing the country. Numerous soldiers have given accounts of being thanked in the streets. Iraqi blogs (you should look some up) tell the story of a country pleased to be rid of Saddam. Not saying EVERY Iraqi wants the coalition there, but enough seem to, based on the many many facts available. So that's a media myth if ever there was one.

2) Your understanding of the "we were attacked" scenario is flawed. It was the first attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. The reason you were attacked at Pearl Harbor was because of the US isolation policy and your failure to engage the world. 9/11 was caused by the same inaction. You're utterly failing to grasp the significance here. The towers falling was symbolic; America needed to stop thinking the world's problems didn't affect her, and Iraq was a festering problem that America had ignored as it didn't need to worry anymore (Kuwaiti oil was getting through fine). It was time to engage, and Bush did that. It's easy saying "enough people died when the towers fell" but until you understand WHY they fell, geopolitically, you can't understand why the war is necessary. Without it, another 9/11 was begging to happen.

3) Noone but the media connected Al Queda with Iraq. Bush never used that as an argument for the war. The most telling reason was that the man was a dictator. A little understanding of geopolitics is necessary here. The Middle East is FULL of dictators. It's easy to say that Saddam wasn't the only dictator, or even the worst, but Mugabe (for example) is hardly the biggest problem in Africa. Removing Kim Jong-il would have less of a geopolitical effect on the region because China (increasingly liberal thanks to capitalism, America's secret weapon in the War on Terror) and Japan are the power players in Asia. The geopolitical rammifications of a democratic Iraq could potentially mean an end to the Palestinian conflict (though I don't hold out any hope). Democracy has a habit of spreading like a rash. Even Iran has liberalised a lot recently, since the Iraqi invasion. I wonder why...

4) The "he has enough problems in his own country" mentality is what got you attacked in the first place. Burying your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist does you no favours.

5) OBL was in Afghanistan, originally, but there's nothing to suggest he's still there. Even if he is, the withdrawal of US troops doesn't make a difference as the US regiments are being replaced by Nato troops. Heaven forbid Bush try and get more US troops back home to be with their families...

[kingdumbass]

I'm going out on a limb and say that the Chinese and possibly the Russians have a stronger military

That's hysterical!

[Pygmalion]

I don't care for Bush, he practically dictates Autralian politics because our government is content sucking his redneck knob.
Thats really all I have to say.

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by acliff

Sad to say, but I'm certain if it was a particularly high priority, a faster reaction would have been seen. In hindsight it would have been rather helpful if better hurricane protection was in place before, but not everywhere can be like Florida.

I didn't mean that either. I meant that in the event of a large number of people losing their homes, their possessions and their pets, he could have sent help a tad quicker. If the reason for tardiness was the lack of priority, then that in itself is enough to fault Bush.

[Liam]

Originally Posted by kingdumbass

That's hysterical!

I love how the one contentious line in my post gets jumped on by someone with the old fashioned invincibility complex but the rest is left alone because nobody can argue with it without appearing downright foolish.

Let me put it in an analogy that even you could understand: One man with a high tech rifle, against 7 with some form of low tech weapon - a Kalashnikov or something similar. Who wins? If you tell me you believe the man with the high tech rifle will win, you are an idiot.

Do yourself a favour and do some research before you attempt to argue with someone who has studied the area for the last 10 years.

[acliff]

Originally Posted by Liam

I love how the one contentious line in my post gets jumped on by someone with the old fashioned invincibility complex but the rest is left alone because nobody can argue with it without appearing downright foolish.

Let me put it in an analogy that even you could understand: One man with a high tech rifle, against 7 with some form of low tech weapon - a Kalashnikov or something similar. Who wins? If you tell me you believe the man with the high tech rifle will win, you are an idiot.

Do yourself a favour and do some research before you attempt to argue with someone who has studied the area for the last 10 years.

Also, its not like China or Russia are technologically deficient. In addition to having superior numbers, they both have pretty powerful airforces and nuclear capabilities. Having many many spy satellites each helps them somewhat also.

[kingdumbass]

Oh, MY APOLOGIES, Mr. IQ of 152....
In modern warfare, numbers do not matter as much as they used to. If the US and China were to REALLY go head-to-head in some third-party's territory (for instance, Taiwan), the US would win. There's simply no question about it. Same goes for Russia (this is assuming no one went nuclear).

Your "one man vs. seven" analogy is laughable in this case. It simply does not apply to the argument of whether the US or China is stronger. The United States outclasses China on almost every level. Of course one man with a high-tech rifle would lose to seven men with a low-tech rifle; what's that got to do with this discussion? By your logic, whoever has the highest active troop strength would win a war. So I guess that means North Korea is a superpower, huh? After 9/11, the US sent a relatively small force into Afghanistan, and yet we wiped out an entire Army. One Daisy Cutter bomb eliminated thousands of Taliban soldiers (many of whom, incidentally, were probably carrying Kalashnikovs).

As far as my failure to mention the rest of your post is concerned -- I did not do so because I don't have an argument there. I don't have any particular objection to the foreign policy of George W. Bush. It's his DOMESTIC policy that irks me. Whether or not his little adventure in Iraq will work out remains to be seen. At this point, it's a stricly academic argument.

And "years of study"??? It happens that I spent YEARS studying Eastern Europe, with a heavy emphasis on Russia, in particular. You want to get into Russia, bring it on.

[Liam]

Not sure if you want to get into an argument with someone who has relatives LIVING in Russia at present who are studying towards a PhD in Russian history, but anyway. I want to play World of Warcraft so I'll keep this brief.

How is the one man versus seven argument irrelevant? That is exactly the situation. Think back, if you will, to 1942. The Russians were totally outclassed, technologically and strategically, yet managed to break through at Stalingrad and begin pushing the Germans back. This is BEFORE the US got heavily involved in the European Theatre of War, so dont go trumpeting your contribution at that point. I'd ask you to exercise a little common sense when dragging North Korea into the argument; they clearly are little competition when it comes to conventional warfare. China and Russia are very, very different propositions altogether. Both, particularly the Russians, are technologically advanced, well equipped and very well led. The US main battle tank is *old* and is being hastily retrofitted with new equipment to keep it on a technological level with 'the old enemy'. The Russian T-90 and newer tanks are technological marvels, virtually immune to the shoulder launched rockets that plague other heavy tanks. Russian radars and surface to air missile systems (especially the S-300 long range system, known as SA-10 to the west) are widely regarded as the best in the world. I am a firm believer in air power winning wars and the Su-27, Su-33, MiG-29 and MiG-31 are all equal to or superior to the F-15 and F-16, in terms of radar detection range, track-while-scan capabilities, and ability to engage low flying cruise missiles. The Russian aircraft also accelerate faster than the F-15 and carry the formidable R-77 (AA-12) which is so damn good that it is unofficially known as AMRAAMski in the west. The Su-27 and MiG-29 are both capable of passing through zero airspeed without engine damage and operating from rough, hastily prepared frontline airstrips. This is a capability that is not present on ANY U.S frontline fighter aircraft. The next generation F-22 still cannot operate from that sort of airfield, neither can it pass through zero airspeed without engine flameouts. And the next generation Sukhoi S-37 is designed to combine the new technology like thrust vectoring and rear aspect fire control with the ability to operate from the front line. An army without air support isn't going to last long on a modern battlefield (in a war between comparable opponents) and this ability allows the Russian military to be more mobile than its US counterpart.

The Chinese can be considered to have the same abilities on a smaller scale. Any Russian technology they have has been cleared for export meaning the best stuff has been removed but the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Chinese offsets this.

Please note that me throwing my IQ in was only to demonstrate my point about IQ being irrelevant.

[deviljet88]

Few slightly off topic questions since I'm not entirely willing to be dragged into the actual topic about Bush, what with my entire lack of knowledge of anything political, or to the extent everyonelse claims... Anyway...

@Hazzle: Mainly just point 1...
"Odd that, since the US approval rating in Iraq has shot up and the Iraqi president has thanked the US for freeing the country"
Just wanted some clarification on who runs the approval rating polls and also if they actually have relevance etc. Many a time, one candidate had a majority vote in popularity polls, then the poor guy receives a landslide loss in the actual election. Also, not sure who the president for Iraq is, but do some people claim him to be a puppet, or that's only referring to Afghanistan?
"Soldiers and blogs"
Ratio of Iraqis that stayed inside in fear of rebels compared to Iraqis that came out to thank soldiers? Blogs is... I've got a generalised view of the academics and such, not a large majority of people, who can get access to a computer/net and would post their opinion on the medium. Under the impression that they can't exactly tell the whole story for the rest of the country. It'd be like myself trying to comment on how the Australian Aborigines are suffering in the Outback while living in a city...

@Liam: Stalingrad, don't they generally blame the weather and logistics too for the Axis loss? Plus it's uneven footing ground, one on defense with knowledge of own area and equipped to be at an optimum in it compared to the Germans. Then again, dumbass and yourself swinging off topic about lots of conventional war ranting... Terrorism escapes those bounds, no? "Air power winning wars". If only so in the current situation.

Yep, lots of bullpoop but wanted to ask a few questions. Sorry ^^