George Bush

moomaster2000 · Post by **moomaster2000** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:13 am

s.xkitten wrote:where is the "fucking hate him" option?

Is this what you meant to say?

-ShadySoul- · Post by **-ShadySoul-** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:13 am

Unit_2 wrote:hes not the best pres. but hes not the worst, he is doing a good job in iraq.

i wouldnt say he is doing a good job there
he is not exactly controlling it, and more soldiers keep on dying.
If you decide to take over a country, at least try to keep it under ur command. Life is just like CC.

Jamie · Post by **Jamie** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:33 am

He's the anti christ, oh no wait, at one point people are supposed to like the anti christ. Guess he's just a stupid moron who shouldn't be running a McDonalds, let alone a country.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:36 am

Jamie wrote:He's the anti christ, oh no wait, at one point people are supposed to like the anti christ. Guess he's just a stupid moron who shouldn't be running a McDonalds, let alone a country.

Are you interested in your family tree, because you've got crushes on them?

HayesA · Post by **HayesA** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:48 am

I don't like him. at all.

Jamie · Post by **Jamie** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:25 am

reverend_kyle wrote:
Jamie wrote:He's the anti christ, oh no wait, at one point people are supposed to like the anti christ. Guess he's just a stupid moron who shouldn't be running a McDonalds, let alone a country.
Are you interested in your family tree, because you've got crushes on them?

What is that suppose to mean??

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:54 am

moomaster2000 wrote:

O.O

THAT bad?

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:56 am

I couldn't decide between "great" and "greatest".

dcowboys055 · Post by **dcowboys055** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:19 am

ahaha!! I love Colbert.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:22 am

Bush (and with that I include his administration, his close advisers etc.) is a very shrewd politician. He took a big gamble with Iraq and Afghanistan, and it was a gamble which could well have been pulled off. If it had worked it would have put America in a much stronger position and cemented them in place as a the sole hegemon and global hyperpower in a changeable world, making it all the harder for China, India or a resurgent Russia to take their place in the coming century. I obviously don't agree with his foreign policy choices, hell no, but if I was a politician looking to strengthen my countries position in the world by any means I would probably have made the same choice. If we'd had an easy time of it in Iraq he'd have been hailed as a successful wartime leader, a strong president and he'd have been able to carry that agenda over into war with Iran, creating a stronger Israel and cementing American hegemony in the middle east. I'm still not sure whether the man himself knows what is going on, but his advisers certainly do and thats just the same.

Nephilim · Post by **Nephilim** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:58 am

but guis, do you honestly think they looked at iraq/iran/the middle east and said to themselves, "ya, we can rein this sucker in"? seriously, if that was the plan, to get a foothold there and eventually control/greatly influence the region, their underestimation of insurgency and mideastern religious/political power struggles is pretty much obscene. i don't really know, i'm so cynical i think they were just trying to make several billion for the military industrial complex and whatever cronies could commit graft and line their pockets. and try to control some oil. whatever else happened to anyone here, there, or round the world, they don't give a f*ck. bastards.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:02 am

Guiscard, they could have "pulled off" that in Afghanistan relatively easily, but for some reason, once the Taliban were out, very little money and personnel went that way. If they had concentrated on Afghanistan instead of heading straight into a second war there could already be one more relatively stable, budding democracy in the world, the government of which would always know that they're ultimately only in place because the USA went to war against the former regime.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:13 am

Yep, the bush supporters sure are open-minded (see poll).

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:15 am

unriggable wrote:Yep, the bush supporters sure are open-minded (see poll).

Personally, I think he isn't that great, but not the worst either. I have to agree with luns (I think it was) and say average.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:21 am

Yeah, blatantly ignoring the constitution isn't that bad.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:51 am

muy_thaiguy wrote:
unriggable wrote:Yep, the bush supporters sure are open-minded (see poll).
Personally, I think he isn't that great, but not the worst either. I have to agree with luns (I think it was) and say average.

Wrong!

He's a heavy spender. He's trigger happy. Two things that do not go together.

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:21 pm

Trigger happy?

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:37 pm

Nephilim wrote:but guis, do you honestly think they looked at iraq/iran/the middle east and said to themselves, "ya, we can rein this sucker in"? seriously, if that was the plan, to get a foothold there and eventually control/greatly influence the region, their underestimation of insurgency and mideastern religious/political power struggles is pretty much obscene. i don't really know, i'm so cynical i think they were just trying to make several billion for the military industrial complex and whatever cronies could commit graft and line their pockets. and try to control some oil. whatever else happened to anyone here, there, or round the world, they don't give a f*ck. bastards.

MeDeFe wrote:Guiscard, they could have "pulled off" that in Afghanistan relatively easily, but for some reason, once the Taliban were out, very little money and personnel went that way. If they had concentrated on Afghanistan instead of heading straight into a second war there could already be one more relatively stable, budding democracy in the world, the government of which would always know that they're ultimately only in place because the USA went to war against the former regime.

I'm not saying it was a wise choice whatsoever, don't get me wrong. It was a massive high stakes gamble, and we can see the disastrous results at the moment. Yes they could have 'pulled off' Afghanistan easily, but Iraq presented itself as a higher-stakes target and they tried to take advantage of that. Yes I do think they looked at Iraq and believed it was do-able. It WAS do-able, whatever BK Barunt spouts about Islamic peoples violently resisting the infidel in every case. If Bush had listened to other advisers, including those on our side of the pond, and retained the central features of the administration, the army and the police force, they would have been able to get by without plowing billions upon billions into the country, and more money could have been spent in Afghanistan. But then what would Afghanistan be compared to Iraq in terms of the American position internationally? The benefits of a stable Afghanistan are comparatively tiny when stood next to the potential of an American controlled Iraq. Afghanistan was a reactionary decision after 9/11, but Iraq was a much more calculated move which suffered from gross mismanagement. That isn't to say I think the cause is moral. I'm equally as cynical when it comes to corrupt, money-grubbing, power-hungry warhawk pseudo-morality. Both wars are wrong. End of story. BUT I understand the political gamble.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:38 pm

unriggable wrote:Wrong!

He's a heavy spender. He's trigger happy. Two things that do not go together.

Surely they have to go together...

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:48 pm

Guiscard wrote:
unriggable wrote:Wrong!

He's a heavy spender. He's trigger happy. Two things that do not go together.
Surely they have to go together...

You know what I mean.

Also one of the only rulers of any nation / town / whathaveyou that lowered taxes during war.

moomaster2000 · Post by **moomaster2000** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:58 pm

I really don't care =D. I was just trying to get people to hate each other. And anyways, any leader we have, someone is going to hate. So cut - yo - bitchin!

Carebian Knight · Post by **Carebian Knight** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:15 pm

If I had to put all the presidents in order from greatest to worst, I think Bush would be on the upper half of that list. I think he's doing fine, it's just that everyone wants to blame the president for the problems the country is facing, when in truth, most of it isn't his fault.

Both wars aren't stupid, Afghanistan is entirely understandable, I think Iraq needed to be dealt with, we probably could've waited until Afghanistan was done with, but that would've given Saddam time to prepare.

I think that Bush is slightly above average.

Anyone that wants to take me on with this feel free.

moomaster2000 · Post by **moomaster2000** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:22 am

yea. thats what i was gonna say =D I 100% Agree. Unless the country is a dictatorship or an anarchy, you cant blame it on the leader. If a player on a baseball team is doing bad, is it the coaches fault?

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:27 am

heres what happens

if a group is doing well the leader is praised

if a group is doing badly the leader is jeered

simple as that

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:09 am

Carebian Knight wrote:I think Iraq needed to be dealt with, we probably could've waited until Afghanistan was done with, but that would've given Saddam time to prepare.

What? Prepare? How would he have done that? They WERE prepared. They'd been provoking us for a decade. You don't do that without planning for consequences.