The_Future
Active member
oh yeah and i believe Bush had like a C average in college... that's real impressive :-/
Who here still supports bush?
- Thread starter Eleven
- Start date
Rez4frederick
Active member
You are a 16 year old high school kid, you dont know shit about whats really happening foo
Bush is the shittiest president ever, just because he doesnt own an oil company doesnt mean all of his buddies dont.
Bush is the shittiest president ever, just because he doesnt own an oil company doesnt mean all of his buddies dont.
Literature
Active member
On Iraq:
Comparing
Comparing
GreenStezz
Active member
Not me!!!
Literature
Active member
Crap.
On Iraq:
Comparing Iraq to Vietnam works fairly well, but it is more distant from Korea.
The beginning of the Korean war did go fairly well for the USA and the UN it dragged in as scantily clad cover for the enforcement of Trumans containment doctrine. However, all momentum was lost with the entrance of the Chinese, and the only real final achievement was to repulse the North Korean offensive back to the previous border. Yes, Kim Il Sung did start the war after Sec. of State Dean Rusk did not include South Korea in the countries covered under the USA's containment and nuclear umbrella, but most historians agree that this is simply an excuse for an invasion that Kim had wanted to do for a while. Korea shares some similarities in that it did have a large amount of guerilla warfare and lack of boundaries. However, the main difference lies in the outside help offered by the Chinese, which would be comparable to Iran mounting a counteroffensive to the US invasion once we had occupied the country.
The Iraq War is similar to the Vietnam war because of the nature of the war. The guerilla style employed by the insurgents in Iraq is very similar to the Vietcong and Vietminh in that they both effectively used civilian populations for help and cover and they fight without any sort of front, with pockets of resistance that constantly change. With Iraq, the US was the aggressor, and this is probably the case with the Gulf of Tonkin (from what I have read, it is very probable that some of the military actions reported by the US Navy could have been fabricated to give the US a reason to jump into war, but I am not clear on this point. A military official famously stated,"For all I know, we were shooting at whales out there").
In both cases, the country that was attacked was of dubious merit in a geopolitical sense, and in both cases the US administrations have failed to recognise that the schisms in the ideology that is being fought. In Vietnam, we failed to realize that Ho Chi Minh was primarily a nationalist, and could have been played against China and the Soviet Union. In invading Iraq, we toppled the ruling Sunni minority, which was in conflict with the ruling Shiite government in Iran. The democracy we introduced in Iraq allowed the Shittes to gain control, and now Iran has lost its focus on regional conflict and now has standoffs with the US.
From a foreign policy standpoint, Bush has had a very unilateral and Reaganesque stand the entire time. His rhetoric of "with us or against us" sets up a very black and white picture. This is mirrored in the "war on terror." Bush view terrorism as a monolithic organization that is out to get the United States and all it stands for. This is identical to Reagans view of communism during the 1980s. However, this attitude was proven incorrect with the opening of China by Nixon in 1972, which allowed the US to play the Chinese against the Russians, and add allies to our side. While the eventual fall of the USSR was primarily caused by economics (massive military spending to keep up with Reagan which overstrained the already weak economy), this use of other factions gave the USA a foothold in communism. This same mistake has been repeated with "terrorism." The USA has not reached out to gain allies because of our unilateral foreign policy, and we have failed to exploit the factions that lie between terrorist groups. An example lies in playing the Shea against the Sunnis (both branches of Islam), which has already been mentioned.
Personally, I view the occupation of Iraq will end much like the defeat of the French in Vietnam at Dienbienphu in 1955. While I feel immense compassion for the people of Iraq, I do believe that the eventual result of our invasion will not be democracy, but warring factions. Honestly, it seems that the sooner we pull out and let the Iraqis settle this for themselves, the sooner some sort of resolution to this mess will come. Saddam was a dictator,and acted as such. However, the majority of Iraqis were better off in terms of less violence and everyday luxuries such as running water and 24 hour electricity, both of which are not available to many ollowing our takeover, but were previously there under Saddam. The real lesson to be learned here is that you should not fuck with geopolitics if you do not have a very significant reason, and that the invasion of Iraq will probably be the biggest mistake that Bush has made.
I could talk about other mistakes such as NCLB, the destruction of natural resources and the government departments that oversee them, the horrible economic policies, but I really think I have typed enough.
On Iraq:
Comparing Iraq to Vietnam works fairly well, but it is more distant from Korea.
The beginning of the Korean war did go fairly well for the USA and the UN it dragged in as scantily clad cover for the enforcement of Trumans containment doctrine. However, all momentum was lost with the entrance of the Chinese, and the only real final achievement was to repulse the North Korean offensive back to the previous border. Yes, Kim Il Sung did start the war after Sec. of State Dean Rusk did not include South Korea in the countries covered under the USA's containment and nuclear umbrella, but most historians agree that this is simply an excuse for an invasion that Kim had wanted to do for a while. Korea shares some similarities in that it did have a large amount of guerilla warfare and lack of boundaries. However, the main difference lies in the outside help offered by the Chinese, which would be comparable to Iran mounting a counteroffensive to the US invasion once we had occupied the country.
The Iraq War is similar to the Vietnam war because of the nature of the war. The guerilla style employed by the insurgents in Iraq is very similar to the Vietcong and Vietminh in that they both effectively used civilian populations for help and cover and they fight without any sort of front, with pockets of resistance that constantly change. With Iraq, the US was the aggressor, and this is probably the case with the Gulf of Tonkin (from what I have read, it is very probable that some of the military actions reported by the US Navy could have been fabricated to give the US a reason to jump into war, but I am not clear on this point. A military official famously stated,"For all I know, we were shooting at whales out there").
In both cases, the country that was attacked was of dubious merit in a geopolitical sense, and in both cases the US administrations have failed to recognise that the schisms in the ideology that is being fought. In Vietnam, we failed to realize that Ho Chi Minh was primarily a nationalist, and could have been played against China and the Soviet Union. In invading Iraq, we toppled the ruling Sunni minority, which was in conflict with the ruling Shiite government in Iran. The democracy we introduced in Iraq allowed the Shittes to gain control, and now Iran has lost its focus on regional conflict and now has standoffs with the US.
From a foreign policy standpoint, Bush has had a very unilateral and Reaganesque stand the entire time. His rhetoric of "with us or against us" sets up a very black and white picture. This is mirrored in the "war on terror." Bush view terrorism as a monolithic organization that is out to get the United States and all it stands for. This is identical to Reagans view of communism during the 1980s. However, this attitude was proven incorrect with the opening of China by Nixon in 1972, which allowed the US to play the Chinese against the Russians, and add allies to our side. While the eventual fall of the USSR was primarily caused by economics (massive military spending to keep up with Reagan which overstrained the already weak economy), this use of other factions gave the USA a foothold in communism. This same mistake has been repeated with "terrorism." The USA has not reached out to gain allies because of our unilateral foreign policy, and we have failed to exploit the factions that lie between terrorist groups. An example lies in playing the Shea against the Sunnis (both branches of Islam), which has already been mentioned.
Personally, I view the occupation of Iraq will end much like the defeat of the French in Vietnam at Dienbienphu in 1955. While I feel immense compassion for the people of Iraq, I do believe that the eventual result of our invasion will not be democracy, but warring factions. Honestly, it seems that the sooner we pull out and let the Iraqis settle this for themselves, the sooner some sort of resolution to this mess will come. Saddam was a dictator,and acted as such. However, the majority of Iraqis were better off in terms of less violence and everyday luxuries such as running water and 24 hour electricity, both of which are not available to many ollowing our takeover, but were previously there under Saddam. The real lesson to be learned here is that you should not fuck with geopolitics if you do not have a very significant reason, and that the invasion of Iraq will probably be the biggest mistake that Bush has made.
I could talk about other mistakes such as NCLB, the destruction of natural resources and the government departments that oversee them, the horrible economic policies, but I really think I have typed enough.
gregor
Active member
Some points, not necessarily dissagreeing with you.
2. You shouldnt believe that the sole reason Bush wants to invade Iran is to protect America from nuclear arms. It is most certainly to do with the immensly rich oilfields of Iran. Same with Iraq, same with the Hellmand province of Afganistan. The west has controlled or wanted to control most of the oil fields in the area since the British empire. It certainly doesnt want to lose them. This is the main reason the middle east hates us.
5. America has been in debt since Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by the big banker families.
7. Its the oil industry that is controlling Bush not the other way round.
2. You shouldnt believe that the sole reason Bush wants to invade Iran is to protect America from nuclear arms. It is most certainly to do with the immensly rich oilfields of Iran. Same with Iraq, same with the Hellmand province of Afganistan. The west has controlled or wanted to control most of the oil fields in the area since the British empire. It certainly doesnt want to lose them. This is the main reason the middle east hates us.
5. America has been in debt since Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by the big banker families.
7. Its the oil industry that is controlling Bush not the other way round.
Rez4frederick
Active member
Holy shit Dave (Guddgulf) , nice post. Where did you learn all of that ?lol
Literature
Active member
This is what happens when you pay attention in high level history courses....
Gavajabra2
Active member
Saying just because I'm 16 means I have no idea what I'm talking about is completely ignorant, I follow up on this shit.
Gavajabra2
Active member
Ok FDR (One of the top presidents) flunked out of Columbia Law School.
SkiForEver
Member
hopefully no one except all them hicks
mysterymanjgj
Member
our economy?? huge surplus to a huge defecit since bush has been in office, the worst value for the dollar in the past century. balls to go to afghanistan?? there was no reason to attack any part of afghanistan except for the caves that osama was possibly hiding in but we tore the country apart. admitting mistakes by the bush administration?? never has there been a greater oxymoron. like me to dissect any more of your BLIND arguments feel free to post some more.
keystoner1
Active member
im soooooooo sorry i am not a grammar nazi yet i dont think an NS thread matters as much as other shit.
1. Thats shit, Congress was under Republican control until that last election and now notice how they are making bills with withdrawal schedules. Which Bush will not support
2. Im sure you are told the unbiased truth u dumbfuck. think about it im betting they know as much or more than our governemtn. Maybe they are like Iraq and have WMD's. And we are the U.S. just accuses people and doesn't do things such as talks when a democratic solution would work better than sanctions or shit.
3. I don't expect them to but i don't think the U.S. ever will either. Look at it, we have power and we know it. Who would give that up? nobody. Also how would you fell if you knew that you could be vaporized by another country by the puch of a button.
4. I'm sorry but i don;t think the defense budget needed to be much higher. Also a war is rediculous and notice how from when Clinton left office to now we have gone from a surplus to a huge debt.
5. Cheney. he is soooo involved with Hallinurton it isn't even funny. Also notice how gas prices go up even when the oil isn't in very short supply.
6. Iran and North Korea. Ok i understand both have horrible leaders who i would love not to be in power. However, Bush pisses them off by labeling them the "Axis of Evil" and by sanctioning them. How would that not be picking a fight i mean call a person evil and sanction them for something you have a ton of. That makes sense.
1. Thats shit, Congress was under Republican control until that last election and now notice how they are making bills with withdrawal schedules. Which Bush will not support
2. Im sure you are told the unbiased truth u dumbfuck. think about it im betting they know as much or more than our governemtn. Maybe they are like Iraq and have WMD's. And we are the U.S. just accuses people and doesn't do things such as talks when a democratic solution would work better than sanctions or shit.
3. I don't expect them to but i don't think the U.S. ever will either. Look at it, we have power and we know it. Who would give that up? nobody. Also how would you fell if you knew that you could be vaporized by another country by the puch of a button.
4. I'm sorry but i don;t think the defense budget needed to be much higher. Also a war is rediculous and notice how from when Clinton left office to now we have gone from a surplus to a huge debt.
5. Cheney. he is soooo involved with Hallinurton it isn't even funny. Also notice how gas prices go up even when the oil isn't in very short supply.
6. Iran and North Korea. Ok i understand both have horrible leaders who i would love not to be in power. However, Bush pisses them off by labeling them the "Axis of Evil" and by sanctioning them. How would that not be picking a fight i mean call a person evil and sanction them for something you have a ton of. That makes sense.
CorkWormTurn
Active member
I for one am for the brazilian, and will never be a bush supporter, no matter how fashions change.
Literature
Active member
If you want people to listen and if your argument means anything to you, grammar and attempting to spell correctly will give you more credibility with others.
1. The funding of the Iraq war was no doubt helped by having a Republican dominated congress. However, the issue is more complex. Bush, love him or hate him, has been successful in connecting funding for the war with "supporting the troops." To this end, it would probably be of an advantage of anti-war lawmakers to make funding bills much more specific, to cover areas such as armor for vehicles, medical supplies, and food; but not for bullets and bombs as examples.
2. I believe that talks with North Korea have been off and on for the past several years. Bush has been conducting 6 party talks, but actions on both sides have made the talks unsuccessful.
3. Why is this being debated? You placed both sides of the argument in your post, and I see no solution anytime soon, so leave it alone.
4. In this case, you are talking about two different things. The national budget can be either a surplus or a deficit, but that is left up to the discretion of the President. A "surplus" simply means that the budget drafted by the president is less than the total amount that the federal government brings in that fiscal year. A "deficit" is when the President decides that it is more important to keep the programs and go into debt than to cut them and create a balanced budget ( when the total income=the total spending) or a surplus. Clinton was president during a period of economic prosparity, and so it is not suprising that it was easy for him to maintain a surplus.
The second part of this is the National debt. This is the sum of all of the deficit spending that has occured since FDR took the USA off of the Gold Standard in the 1930s. Deficit spending occured to finance Vietnam and the Great Society programs under Johnson, under Nixon to finance Vietnam (which created the economic problems that Ford and Carter faced0, under Reagan to increase defense spending, and again under Bush Jr. for the same reason ( I don't remember about Bush Sr.). However, this national debt to other countries and entities is somewhere around 9 trillion, or about 7 times the average fiscal budget.
The argument that Bush has a deficit is correct, and that Clinton had a surplus, is correct. However, the national debt was there when Clinton was president, and this is really comparing apples and oranges.
5. The revolving door of government officials and high ranking positions with corperations exists throughout government, is a much bigger problem than just Cheney. The reason that gass prices increase like they are doing is because the oil and refining companies are allowed to get away with increasing prices, and they are making record profits doing it.
6. The real key with rogue nations like North Korea or Iran is preventing their creation in the first place. See my post above to see where we went wrong with both nations, but the real mistake that has been made is that we allowed this to happen, and now we are playing nuclear chicken with these countries.
1. The funding of the Iraq war was no doubt helped by having a Republican dominated congress. However, the issue is more complex. Bush, love him or hate him, has been successful in connecting funding for the war with "supporting the troops." To this end, it would probably be of an advantage of anti-war lawmakers to make funding bills much more specific, to cover areas such as armor for vehicles, medical supplies, and food; but not for bullets and bombs as examples.
2. I believe that talks with North Korea have been off and on for the past several years. Bush has been conducting 6 party talks, but actions on both sides have made the talks unsuccessful.
3. Why is this being debated? You placed both sides of the argument in your post, and I see no solution anytime soon, so leave it alone.
4. In this case, you are talking about two different things. The national budget can be either a surplus or a deficit, but that is left up to the discretion of the President. A "surplus" simply means that the budget drafted by the president is less than the total amount that the federal government brings in that fiscal year. A "deficit" is when the President decides that it is more important to keep the programs and go into debt than to cut them and create a balanced budget ( when the total income=the total spending) or a surplus. Clinton was president during a period of economic prosparity, and so it is not suprising that it was easy for him to maintain a surplus.
The second part of this is the National debt. This is the sum of all of the deficit spending that has occured since FDR took the USA off of the Gold Standard in the 1930s. Deficit spending occured to finance Vietnam and the Great Society programs under Johnson, under Nixon to finance Vietnam (which created the economic problems that Ford and Carter faced0, under Reagan to increase defense spending, and again under Bush Jr. for the same reason ( I don't remember about Bush Sr.). However, this national debt to other countries and entities is somewhere around 9 trillion, or about 7 times the average fiscal budget.
The argument that Bush has a deficit is correct, and that Clinton had a surplus, is correct. However, the national debt was there when Clinton was president, and this is really comparing apples and oranges.
5. The revolving door of government officials and high ranking positions with corperations exists throughout government, is a much bigger problem than just Cheney. The reason that gass prices increase like they are doing is because the oil and refining companies are allowed to get away with increasing prices, and they are making record profits doing it.
6. The real key with rogue nations like North Korea or Iran is preventing their creation in the first place. See my post above to see where we went wrong with both nations, but the real mistake that has been made is that we allowed this to happen, and now we are playing nuclear chicken with these countries.
1080grindMan
Member
like bush said in 2001 when the world trade center was attacked, "A good leader sticks to there plans." Bush has been keeping to his plans ever since which makes him a true loyal president.
Gavajabra2
Active member
Thanks.
almostaskier
Active member
whoa whoa whoa, Saddam was a shiite, he oppressed the sunnis even though they were the majority. The sunnis are the ones who have found new influence, not the shiites.
skier_dude_1831
Active member
no me gusta george bush
Literature
Active member
According to religioustolerance.org, Shiites make up 63% of the religion in Iraq, with Sunnis making up 34%.
According to About, the Shiites are a minority (http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_husseinsadam.htm), which conflicts the above figures. This source also states that Saddam oppressed the Shiites, but does not state that he was a Sunni.
Saddam was the leader of the Baath party (spelling of this can be any number of things), which promotes secularism (http://www.iraqinews.com/party_baath_party.shtml).
Based on this little bit of research, Saddam was not religious himself, but oppressed the Shiites because they were/are the leading religion in Iraq.
According to About, the Shiites are a minority (http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_husseinsadam.htm), which conflicts the above figures. This source also states that Saddam oppressed the Shiites, but does not state that he was a Sunni.
Saddam was the leader of the Baath party (spelling of this can be any number of things), which promotes secularism (http://www.iraqinews.com/party_baath_party.shtml).
Based on this little bit of research, Saddam was not religious himself, but oppressed the Shiites because they were/are the leading religion in Iraq.
steezmonger
Member
Haha, Saddam was Shite.
bhill2.0
Active member
seems like this whole thread should be yes or no but its not haha
i still think he holds it down. fuck all these hippies, we needa fuck someone up, they wrecked our shit and almost killed my father soo lets go jihad on there asses.
I mean when the 9/11 thing happened everyone was like ZOMG BOOM HEADSHOT THESE MUTHA FUCKAS now were like a war? fuck that , lets put daisys in guns and start a gay commando.
i still think he holds it down. fuck all these hippies, we needa fuck someone up, they wrecked our shit and almost killed my father soo lets go jihad on there asses.
I mean when the 9/11 thing happened everyone was like ZOMG BOOM HEADSHOT THESE MUTHA FUCKAS now were like a war? fuck that , lets put daisys in guns and start a gay commando.
bhill2.0
Active member
sorry mang, im not really into all this political bullshit yet, i still wanna live my life a little care free. i just dont get how kids get all political and like bitch all the time about bush, if you dont like the country get the fuck out, if they bomb us, everybodys gonna get fucked. like tony yayo said " he who fears in death is in denial". Live and Let be.
now im expecting kids to be like ZOMG you need politics because it can change your life for the better. whatever bro
now im expecting kids to be like ZOMG you need politics because it can change your life for the better. whatever bro
Tolz
Active member
i've decided to give up on politics. yeah, i voted for bush cuz i thought he'd do a better job than the alternative, but sometimes i wish i had never voted. i hate politics; one - people get way too hyped up about it and two - no one will ever make everyone happy. they should just stop trying...
SirFryanator
Active member
In case you haven't studied the American government at all we have checks and balances he didn't make all the decisions, just the military ones. Look at our economy. It's going up. But it's probably not because of him.
He's a figurehead, albeit a figurehead who is the commander in chief of our millitary.
I'm conservative but I was never a huge fan of him at all, but now with him resisting a timetable for withdrawal from the war...I can't wait until some change occurs. A liberal president would probably be ok for America for the next election.
He's a figurehead, albeit a figurehead who is the commander in chief of our millitary.
I'm conservative but I was never a huge fan of him at all, but now with him resisting a timetable for withdrawal from the war...I can't wait until some change occurs. A liberal president would probably be ok for America for the next election.
Fuck you, people who use that "get the fuck out" want the US to become a land of unilateral support for a leader with no checks and balances of power. The voice of protest and disagreement is vital for any system of government, fuck all of you who think otherwise. Protest and a public voice was what made America a country. The behavior you suggest made Saddam's Iraq.
lushlaxstr
Active member
well at first i didnt mind bush, but as we started going further and further i decided i didnt want bush anymore because it kept getting in my teeth
Capt.Flannel
Active member
word - that natural floss ain't fun.
BandieBoy
Member
I'm so sick of all these liberals whining about Bush. Could you have done a better job? LOL That's a joke!
The bottom line is that if you don't support this government, if you don't support Bush you are guilty of treason in a time of war. More than ever we should support him because he IS our president whether you like him or not. Liberals need to shut up or move. My dad thinks that GOD, COUNTRY, PRESIDENT should be a motto and I have to agree with him.
The bottom line is that if you don't support this government, if you don't support Bush you are guilty of treason in a time of war. More than ever we should support him because he IS our president whether you like him or not. Liberals need to shut up or move. My dad thinks that GOD, COUNTRY, PRESIDENT should be a motto and I have to agree with him.
keystoner1
Active member
YAY! i agree i have almost gotten in fights with kids at school when they say if you don't like america get out. I hate to say it but one main reason i am here is cuz i love Colorado and i am wayyyyyy to young to leave if i wanted to
SirFryanator
Active member
I'm not a liberal and I'm not whining about him.
Come on. I support the soldiers and the president but not his decision making. No I could not have done a better job at millitary tactics.
Come on. I support the soldiers and the president but not his decision making. No I could not have done a better job at millitary tactics.
keystoner1
Active member
Fuck you. seriously Treason in a time of war grow some u bitch we don't have to support bush that would be totally unconstitutional people can protest as much as they want with no treason shit. you are an ignorant bitch. You should shut up and move to a place liek North Korea where everyone has to like the leader then you would be happy. And god should not be in that u must have gotten your ignorance from your father you are both idiots
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
how does everyone say he was a great president.....he let out precious nuclear secrets to the chinese....he lied.....he cheated on his wife and lied about it.....i dont mind if he cheated but wait till you are out of office to pull that shit
Ben.
Active member
jesus christ why does everyone bring this up. him cheating on his wife in no way had anything to do with his presidency, it was between his wife and him. bushs lies have gotten us into a war in iraq that costs bilions and kills thousands of young men and women. hmmm which is worse
Chunk*Unit
Member
Clinton fucked an intern,
Bush fucked a nation.
that's how I see it.
Bush fucked a nation.
that's how I see it.
bhill2.0
Active member
no..just no.
people who fucking bitch and complain behind there damn computer screens should getr the fuck out, ahhviously you can protest but hes the president, the majority voted him and thats that. your not gonna get him out of his office if hes not doing anything wrong so get over it.
things fucking happen, if your soo fucking sweet ass, you get in the big chair and make all the goddamn descions.
people who fucking bitch and complain behind there damn computer screens should getr the fuck out, ahhviously you can protest but hes the president, the majority voted him and thats that. your not gonna get him out of his office if hes not doing anything wrong so get over it.
things fucking happen, if your soo fucking sweet ass, you get in the big chair and make all the goddamn descions.
Not really, no. Our rulers are not absolute by any means. The voice of the critic is essential to any good government. I could bring up tons of social documentaries and writings on this, most notably 1984, but you probably aren't a fan of reading. Go watch V for Vendetta.
Rez4frederick
Active member
Bush is a little bitch. I can do a way better job. I don't support the government willingly(maybe when you have to pay your own taxes you might realize that, but your mommy and daddy pay for everything for you). You treat bush as if he is some sort of higher being, pfffffft. You think this war is legit? Then sign up for the army you pussy and put your life in danger over it. Seriously, wow its insane how brainwashed you are......
WoooOOOOoooOOOooo!