Hello.
What do you think about american president?
its interesting.
tell me please.
i think he's gotten himself into a mess he doesn't have enough time to get out of. he is an interesting figure, a president who has had the biggest difference in approval ratings than any other, from post-9/11 with near 90% and now dwindling at 40%.
Quote from: rtili think he's gotten himself into a mess he doesn't have enough time to get out of. he is an interesting figure, a president who has had the biggest difference in approval ratings than any other, from post-9/11 with near 90% and now dwindling at 40%.
Heh, I like this answer. No mindless bashing or praising going on here.
I think what his presidency has done is demonstrate that the American society has no sense of proportion, nor patience, any more. So far in Iraq 2700+ US personell have died. The country was conquered in weeks. Honestly, that is blindingly fast and with very few casualties. In fact, the death rate in Iraq is lower than the murder rate in Washington D.C. (50 per 100,000 vs. 60 per 100,000). So more people die in our nation's capital per year than in Iraq, even though Iraq is a highly tumultuous place (to put it mildly). But apparently this is a "horribly mismanaged failure." It doesn't seem that way to me. Though, where the failure is now is the inability of the US to make notable progress. The straight military side was easy. But, the US was not prepared for the deep-seated passions that drive the conflicts there. Our mentality is different from their's, and so it is difficult for the US to approach the problem in the best way.
There were also unforeseen obstacles, such as a sizable portion of the Iraqi military giving up their uniforms but keeping their weapons (they started the insurgency). And it was underestimated the influence of Iran. I think that regardless of who was in charge we would be in the exact same situation in Iraq. And the US population would still think it's a miserable failure (mostly from watching TV news).
I think Bush got the short end of the stick very quickly in his administration. He came into office and two months later the stockmarket took a down turn (which was a result of the previous administration). He worked with the Democrats on the "No Child Left Behind" education program. He largely gave the Democrats what they wanted, and then they turn around and call the whole program a horrible failure (even though it was their idea). The most troubling thing of this presidency is the sharp increase in executive powers with a corresponding increase in opaqueness in government. The executive branch now has more power with less judicial oversight than ever before. The biggest problem with this is that that extra power won't go away for a very long time. Governmental power is ever expanding, never contracting. To change it, we would have to find a politician willing to limit his own power, and with the megalomaniacs we have in congress I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Wow, excellent points made.
bush should get his butt off of the office and let a real man or women do it right
bush never cares about the USA and its ppl
Quote from: T-Bonesbush never cares about the USA and its ppl
Perhaps you should state facts instead of make wild accusations that, once subjected to a miniscule amount of logic, utterly fail.
yes bush never cares about the USA and its ppl. apparently he also hates black people. extreme claims cannot stand by themselves. make some points. back them up with evidence or reasoning. if you don't know how to debate then don't speak because all it does is make your opinion less important.
Quote from: Scotsmanyes bush never cares about the USA and its ppl. apparently he also hates black people.
Don't forget Hispanics, the elderly, children, and even kittens.
Quote from: IrishmanDon't forget Hispanics, the elderly, children, and even kittens.
bush is racesse lol
Quote from: athingyes lets fill this page with random Bush thrashing because it's really cool to make points and not back them up
back up??? wat r u talkin bout i will kick ur butt spamer
u dont deserve being in the back alleys
Physical threats? Through the internet?
He's refering to your earlier post where you made a claim, but provided no reasoning behind it.
Quote from: athinglisten to what Irishman has to say he's a smart guy
i agree sorry athing i was mad at some1
Well, as long as everything is clear we can move on. Does anyone have any particular issues they'd like to raise?
what is bush's veiw on the war does he think its a joke
Quote from: T-Boneswhat is bush's veiw on the war does he think its a joke
I think he takes it very seriously.
He's not going to apologize for anything, he's going to always make it sound like he's in control of the situation. I can only remember two instances in American history of a president admitting they made a mistake. And they had nothing to do with war.
Bush is very concerned about democracy in the Middle East. A lot Americans are not, but he is. If Americans want to blame anyone for bieng in this war, they should mostly blame themselves for all the blind fury they had after 9/11. If you were to ask anyone post-9/11 about a war almost anyone would have said go for it. It's not hard for anyone to recognize with a little research that the Middle East's past is a very bloody one, and they are resolute when it comes to their enemies. Anyone with the right knowledge should have known this war was going to last at least half a decade. The only time America has done something swift and easy was the Gulf War. We had one thing to do and we did it. It involved a simple maneuver and the mere presence of troops. What we're dealing with here is several nations and scores of religious sects. No president can deal with that in one swoop.
Also, in the Gulf War we didn't have to set up a government and deal with the radically different world view of the Middle East. Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom (such a stupid name) both went through remarkably quickly, in terms of the military operations. This one is more drawn out because of the additional load of rebuilding the country in such a way that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.
The Gulf War was back in the beginning of 1991. Saddam Hussein had invaded neighboring Kuwait and refused to leave. So a NATO coalition (at the behest of other Middle East countries) went in and drove him out of Kuwait and then moved into Iraq. The NATO forces (led by the US) completely decimated the Iraqi forces. The Iraqis would surrender in droves. Once NATO was statisfied that Saddam had been dealt with, they pulled out. It was a rousing success for NATO forces; they suffered barely any casualties. I was only 4 and a half at the time, but I still remember being annoyed that my cartoons would be interrupted by the news.
Isn't NATO a ammunition manufacturer? I believe m16's use NATO 7.62 Caliber ammunition.
Quote from: athingI didnt read a single word of that
Well you sure told him
athing for the love of god stop spamming
Quote from: athingI didnt read a single word of that
You asked a question. I gave an answer. If your not going to read the answer, don't ask a question and waste my time.
And NATO stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Oranization." It's a military pact between western European and North American countries. Though, the scope of the countries involved has greatly expanded since the end of the Cold War. As ironic as it is, Russia is a member now.
Quote from: athingjesus christ I did read it ok cant any of you guys take a fucking joke?
Yes, because a joking tone is easily interpreted through an entirely textual medium. We had no way of knowing whether or not you were joking. The smilie appended at the end could have multiple interpretations, and so your intent became far less clear.
Quote from: athingok
well its rather hard to show sarcasm through the internet isn't it?
Yes, it can be.
My, my, my! that was quite the E-stoning! Bravo!
back to the subject, Bush no longer has credibility after katrina.
for the rest of them... every incumbent needs to be exiled from washington. both parties need to be desolved and our bureaucratic government ought to be destroyed. there comes a point where something is too broken to be fixed and our government has reached this point.
so you suggest what? Anarchy?
Quote from: MynameiscalledDisturbanceMy, my, my! that was quite the E-stoning! Bravo!
back to the subject, Bush no longer has credibility after katrina.
for the rest of them... every incumbent needs to be exiled from washington. both parties need to be desolved and our bureaucratic government ought to be destroyed. there comes a point where something is too broken to be fixed and our government has reached this point.
Isn't Katrina the fault of the government, while you are going on that maybe there are some problems here the state did not put enough emphasis on it and the governor wawsn't doing much, that was his state, he messed up. The president has 50 states and a war to watch out (wether that war was not neccessary or is neccessary is not the point). The governor didn't know what he was doing.
That's my oppinion but by now I have no idea as far as facts go, the media says one thing, another news channel says another, thier websites say this... By now I don't really care and I don't watch TV much as it is.
So by all means if I said something wrong let me know so I can get it straight.
I don't think Katrina was the "last straw" but rather just some new ammunition. There's not much one can do to prepare for a force-5 hurricane, but FEMA wasn't exactly very helpful afterwards. I think the primary loss of credibility came from the lack of biological/chemical/nuclear weapons in Iraq. When that fell through, it no longer mattered what Bush did, people just hated him.
lol u got a point irashmen
Quote from: T-Bonesbush is racesse lol
thats true i read about it in people.
Quote from: IrishmanIn fact, the death rate in Iraq is lower than the murder rate in Washington D.C. (50 per 100,000 vs. 60 per 100,000). So more people die in our nation's capital per year than in Iraq,
but your only thinking the american soldiers that have died, what about the people that live there, orall the other soldiers that died there, you realy have to think about all the sides.
I think Bush is trying to make the best of a complicated situation right now. Right now in Iraq the situation has evolved into complete chaos, with one crisis after another and the US not knowing for sure which one to handle first. Personally I don't see any end to this conflict, as the newly established democratic government and police force in Iraq have a weak influence against the more determined insurgency right now. They will probably need a lot more US support and won't be able to stand on their own two feet for at least another decade, maybe two.
One thing that strikes me about Bush is how obsessively he talks about terror, the war in Iraq, and the like. I mean sure terror is a significant worry for many, but it's not the full scope of our lives. We also have domestic issues to take care of such as health care, education reform, why the nations of the world are suddenly having hostile attitudes toward America. One of my biggest concerns is the budget problem. As one particular example, just look at the staggering amount of debt the US owes to China. And yet this administration has rarely vetoed a spending bill. Except in one notable case involving stem cell research, supposedly because it was a "form of murder."
I think Bush should think seriously about his administration's maniacal spending, and realize the US should start taking care of itself and do what it can to improve its situation as well as it apparently takes care of everyone else. Because when it comes time to sign bills, not every freakin' one is a good idea.
As for the Iraq conflict, right now it seems there are two solutions. One, the US retreats and the insurgency (which IMO will never really disappear) makes repeated attempts to overthrow the democratic government. Two, Bush finishes what he started and eliminates the insurgency's influence, at least in Iraq. But right now the former seems more likely to me than the latter.