He has tried a lot of things. Most incorrect. That's why most people can't stand the guy.
It might be morally right right for you but you're not the one making a decision.
Is Bush the worst U.S. president ever?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
It might be morally right right for you but you're not the one making a decision.
Thank you, i have also enjoyed this conversation and i also appreciate your opinions. There are Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans but these are the minority and i will continue to root for and hopefully in the future vote for the Conservative candidates
George Bush may be pro-life in some circles but he has killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and he has pretty much ruined the American economy. Suggesting that Bush's pro-life stance is reason to forgive his myriad other faults points out youthful ignorance.
I agree he has made some bad decisions but so has everyone and the things i believe to be morally correct should be that way for all Christians and/or Conservatives in my country, and some of these people do make the decisions
I didnt say that you should forgive him of all his other faults i was just pionting out something that he believes in that is good and just so that you realize that everything this man does is not a completely wrong decision
You will find, if the democrats win the election in november, they will bring the troops home, but they won't do it in 48 hours, it will be done in phases over a year or so, which is fine with me, bush has failed there, he can stay there for years and years and it won't change much , iraq has to find a way now to go it on their own, as if the u.s. don't leave they will continue to depend on them, and it will drag on and on for many years to come.
I totally disagree with what has happened there, but it has to end, it was a failed idea to
begin with, done for all the wrong reasons.
Yes but we cannot end it until we have built up the Iraqi security forces enough so that they are able to maintain stability and preventing a full blown civil war, then we can pull out wenever we want
well, his sons are gone, maybe he has a nephew or two around somewhere that could
be dressed up, and learn to wave his arm the right way, and have a statue built, then he
would be on his way to stardom and dictatorship.
And, as an afterthought, the statue could have 'the finger' pointed at bush.
They have been trying to build up the iraqi security forces for years, they will never be
standing on their own, till they are standing on their own, get out and that will happen, or not, but never while they have the u.s. dieing for them, instead of them dieing for
each other and their own country.
Bush isn't really as bad a guy as you guys are making him out to be. Sure he attacked Iraq but he did it because he had reason to believe that Saddam possesed weapons of mass destruction. It's like the cops entering someones propert because the have probable cause to believe the person could be doing something illegal. Bush did this for the safety of Western peoples everywhere and deserves to be thanked, in my opinion
many have sacrificed their lives for their country already some before even pulling on the uniform by being caught in a sucide blast outside police recruitment centers, terrorists or "insugents" frequently attck police and Iraqi army forces, classifying them as prime targets
No he didn't think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He said that publicly because that would stir the fear factor and get public support, but he dilberately mislead the public with that one.
For future reference McCaulley, when you eventually do get to vote, supporting a candidate on the basis of his stand on a single issue is not really practical, or a good idea. Voting's a serious business, you have to weigh a whole lot of things about candidates before deciding who to vote for, and you're very unlikely to have the option of picking one who agrees with you on everything. An issue like abortion might tip the balance for you in favour of one candidate over another, other things being more or less equal, but suppose, to go to an unlikely extreme, you had a pro-life candidate who also wanted* to nuke Tehran and Baghdad, reverse all the civil rights and status of women legislation of the last 40 years, cancel all social security, and make fundamentalist Methodism the official state religion with penalties for non-conformity. Would you vote for that candidate solely on the basis of his pro-life position if the other candidate was pro-choice but had a much more sensible view of the world otherwise?
*these selections are not random...
Last edited:
bush, cheney and friends planned to attack iraq long before any so-called wmd' info came
about. They also dismissed infomation from their sources in the government who told them there wasn't enough information to 'know' for certain that there was wmd's. That
report came out later. They cherry picked information, and went with whatever they
felt supported their claim, and dismissed all other. They had no right to attack another
country for probable cause, that's not good enough, many people have lost their lives since that blunder.
About 4000 americans and 100s of thousands of iraqis, bush should see the same fate
as saddam did, seems fair to me, it's totally his responsibility, and the buck stops with him.
Dexter Sinsiter, thank you for pointing that out to me, i will base any election i vote in on whether the candidate agrees with me on a mjority of opinions. As to you other two, What if Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction and George Bush didnt attack Iraq and SAddam nuked New York? that was what he had to onsider while deciding to attack Iraq, i think he picked the safest choice and he is still being criticized for it. But he would be criticized even more if he let a few million people die of a chemical bomb in New York city right?
I think Bush is far worse than we're making him out to be, not because he's a bad man himself, but because he's a dupe of people smarter and more ruthless than he is, he's just taking the fall for it. Look up the history of people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeldt and Paul Wolfowitz. They're the real drivers, and it's nothing like the cops entering someone's property because they have probable cause to believe illegal activities are going on. To do that legally, they first have to convince a judge and get a search warrant, which will restrict what they can do. Saddam Hussein was no threat to anybody but his own citizens, and I'd immediately agree he deserved to be taken down, but a unilateral invasion not supported by most of your allies or international organizations is not the way to do it.
You're pretty young so not seeing the bigger picture is understandable, I wouldn't have got it at 15 either, I didn't know enough history and neither do you yet, but if you're interested enough to come in here and talk about it, you probably will eventually. Read this for instance, and see if you can spot parallels in the behaviour of your country in the 19th and 21st centuries.
that's right, and they have ways of infiltrating the area where the uniforms are, which says that many of them are signing up for security, then betraying that promise, with
plans of their own. That will continue if the u.s. is there or not, doesn't matter.
They have to figure that out on their own, and hopefully that will happen soon.
McCain said he will be in favour of the u.s. staying there for another hundred years if they have to, tell that to the american mothers and fathers who will lose their sons and
daughters for a war that was started on false information.
I must first state that i plan on joining the military upon graduation from high school and so thats one less person for you too worry about. Also i would love to read your article and i will tomorrow after school, but ive no more time for i must be off to bed. I ehnjoyed talking with you guys and look forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow, but for now ive got to start thinking about my 10th grade honors english test tomorrow on Animal Farm,well, until tomorrow