[ratzaroony]

i hait bush cuz hes idiot lolz

Well, I think Mr Bush can spell "hate" and would say "he's an idiot" not "hes idiot"

Yea... Bush is the idiot....


Bush is a good leader. Sure, he made some mistakes, but he does what he thinks is right and he sticks to his beliefs. I think Democratic Senator Zell Miller put it best.

"He's not a slick talker but he's a straight shooter, and where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words"

Maybe I'm just a small town Ohio boy, but I feel the same way.

[Roadtoad6]

Bush is a good leader. Sure, he made some mistakes, but he does what he thinks is right and he sticks to his beliefs. I think Democratic Senator Zell Miller put it best.

"He's not a slick talker but he's a straight shooter, and where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words"

^ What I believe wrapped up in a nice, concise nutshell.

[Kaezion]

straight shooter meaning someone who sends young men and women to die in a faraway land for a cause which has proven futile so far? yes, then i'd say Bush is quite the straight shooter.

none of you can doubt me when i say that Bush would have opposed the war with every fiber of his whole being had even one of his two daughters been in the army.

[Jarik C-Bol]

you have no idea how close i just came to snaping and flameing the heck out of this topic...

firstly, i dont think any of use have any right to say if Bush is a good or bad president, we have no idea how hard his job realy is.
second, as for the war, he was not the only one who decided to go to war, he has lots of advisors and people around him who would be pressureing him to go to war (its not like he woke up and said "i think i'll have a war for breakfast")
thirdly, no, that is NOT what straight shooter means. it means he does not dope around the subject, he trys to go out and get things done. this war. if we had done the UN thing, we would still be decideing if we whould go, and a very cold hearted dictator would still be executeing his own people. (we know that sadam did that, go look it up)
fourthly, I dont think its fair at all to drag his family and personaly life into this at all, who cares if he would have decided difrently if his children where in the military, THEY WHERE NOT so it make no difrence.
personaly, i dont like a lot of the decisions he's made, I was hopeing that we would not go to war, but once we did, i back the decision 100%, we start something, we need to finish it. even if i dont agree with the president, i will back him. why? because this country works best when we suport our leaders, and stop being so selfish bout what happens. and realize that we as individuals are not the centers of the universe.

[Fabolous]

Jarik is a true american

[Jarik C-Bol]

No, Jarik is tired of people fighting about moronic stuff like this.

[Zziggywolf5]

I'm with Jarik.
He knows what he's saying...

By the way, why is this in the Study Hall?

This post has been edited by ziggywolf5: 08 August 2005 - 11:28 PM

[Roadtoad6]

By the way, why is this in the Study Hall?

^ I kinda wondered that myself. This probably would be more at home in the Debate Forum.

[Kaezion]

you have no idea how close i just came to snaping and flameing the heck out of this topic...

firstly, i dont think any of use have any right to say if Bush is a good or bad president, we have no idea how hard his job realy is.
second, as for the war, he was not the only one who decided to go to war, he has lots of advisors and people around him who would be pressureing him to go to war (its not like he woke up and said "i think i'll have a war for breakfast")
thirdly, no, that is NOT what straight shooter means. it means he does not dope around the subject, he trys to go out and get things done. this war. if we had done the UN thing, we would still be decideing if we whould go, and a very cold hearted dictator would still be executeing his own people. (we know that sadam did that, go look it up)
fourthly, I dont think its fair at all to drag his family and personaly life into this at all, who cares if he would have decided difrently if his children where in the military, THEY WHERE NOT so it make no difrence.
personaly, i dont like a lot of the decisions he's made, I was hopeing that we would not go to war, but once we did, i back the decision 100%, we start something, we need to finish it. even if i dont agree with the president, i will back him. why? because this country works best when we suport our leaders, and stop being so selfish bout what happens. and realize that we as individuals are not the centers of the universe.

i'm sure America would have turned out better if people had backed Nixon 100% for the Watergate scandal that his administration brought on. you must remember, America survived (politically) until now not because people unquestioningly backed the leaders, but because people actually stopped to think about whether the leader's leading them in the right direction.
and yes, i do think we should consider his personal life (or "drag them into this" as you might say), at least in the context of the war. why? because the war touches countless families at a personal level. Bush is only human, as are any of us. do you really think that he would have supported the war, or gave into the pressure from his staff, WHATEVER it may be that caused him to initiate this war - if his own children were in the army and that they stood a risk of dying? maybe you don't get this - if it were one (or more) of your family members - or even you - out in the battlefield not knowing when they'd die, would you really support Bush's backing of the war like this? what i'm trying to make you understand, is that Bush has it easy COMPARED TO the families whose children might die or are already dead. the primary objective of a nation's leader is to have the people's concerns in mind. while Bush might think that this is the right thing to do, he's missing a key point, and that is the emotional suffering that this war has caused at home. and what did we get in return for all the suffering? no WMD, and a feeble attempt at establishing a democracy within a nation that will never be able to support that kind of government. you disagree? think about the conditions of colonial America where democracy had flourished from the start, and think about the conditions of present-day Iraq. colonial America was strongly united in their self-interest. what do i mean? it was in each own individual's interests to see Britain overthrown and democracy established, because then they wouldn't have to be leaking money to the British monarch, who had full authority over them. in Iraq, the different political parties are literally killing each other to get ahead in terms of leadership positions. the fact that most of the people there are Muslim doesn't help - before you call me a racist, consider this: we are the infidels, invading THEIR country. that's all there is to it in their points of view. the radical ones go out and do the killing, while the civilians, although not involved in the killings themselves, are reluctant to give up the terrorists. do you think any such nation plagued by such violent political strife and so opposed to what we're trying to do in there will support democracy? then, it seems, that this war has been futile. yes, we caught saddam. but like i said, democracy is not going to succeed in Iraq, and a new dictatorship will probably rise to power - what will we be able to say then?

so we've established that this war hasn't accomplished jack in return for all the emotional suffering that many of its citizens go through. so what's the point i'm trying to make here? Bush probably knows that he screwed up bigtime. he's hoping to redeem this war's failure by finding WMDs, and/or establishing a democracy. but, democracy isn't going to work. so until he finds these WMDs, it can be assumed that he's actually dragging this war on in the hopes of finding something that'll wipe this smirch off of his administration, while people (who have families back home) die out in the battlefield. he takes human lives - the same human lives that he's supposed to prioritize - too lightly.

again, this country has flourished BECAUSE people have been selfish about what decisions their leader makes. everyone tries to do what's best for themselves, and it turns out that in the end, it improves society as a whole. the idea of the individual submitting to the state is actually the principle behind communism.

feel free to enlighten me, as i'm sure that i know very little on politics. i've done my best to reason this out to the best of my ability.

[Jarik C-Bol]

you have good points, but i guess i was a little vague on what i ment.
when i say i support 100%, i mean now. I was against the war, i still am (but if i somhow have to go, i will) but now that we have entered the war, oposeing it wont do a lick of good, its not like we can just turn it off, we have resources and people there, and there ae a substantial number of people there who apreeciate our presence. granted, we are an invader, and there are many who dont want us there, but at this point, i am backing 100% finishing the war as best we can. that may involve staying a while, it may involve figureing out how to withdraw, i dont know, i'm not a stratagist on that level.
as for the colonial america comparison, the main thing i look at is the difrence between them and us is that we had esentialy a unified grup wanting freedom. in Iraq, there are at lest 3 individual groups, each with a difrent idea of freedom, Iraq was created out of nothing by the british after the world wars, and it lumped 3 warring tribes into one. not a ideal situation in any way. so out bringing democracy is bound to have a lot of bumps in the road, if we suceed at all (i'm not saying thats the best option, other countrys function fin in non-democratic governments).

as for taking human lives, it amazes me the difrences we have from only 60 odd years ago. in the world wars we lost sometimes thousands of people a day on both sides. the american death toll in the iraq war has yet to reach 500 at the last i had heard, and yet we act like we have lost a world whenever we lose a single soldier. more people die in car axidents every day in america than die every day in the war. granted, human life is sacred and should not be thrown away, but when people talk about all the people lost in the war, i can only think of all the inocent people killed under the regeme of Sadam.

i dont beleive that people should submit to the will of the gov, but that is just what the people of iraq where doing before we entered the war. It is agreed, that by removeing Sadam from power, iraq has been given at least a chance to stablize and become a country where people can live in peace, which would not have happend with sadam in power.
in my eyes, entering the war was the lesser of two evils. Bush is human like the rest of us, and is efected by pressure from other leaders, and cannnot be expected to make the absolute best decision all the time. hopefuly he also learns from what mistakes he makes and is able to make even better decisions next time. you cant please everyone, but you can try your best, thats what his job is.

[Kaezion]

fair enough - i understand where you're coming from.

however, i must say that i disagree with you on how best to finish the war. this war can never BE finished in terms of what you're saying. look - democracy IS GOING TO LOSE in Iraq. there are bombings here and there - people are too scared to vote, and the candidate that DOES get voted for president gets assassinated the next day.
why is democracy going to lose? because the different tribes/parties aren't going to live with the decisions they don't like. in America, democracy flourishes because people disagree - and out of these disagreements, the best idea/decision (the one that appeals to the most people) makes it out alive, so to speak. however, consider this - however much someone disagrees with the decisions that are being made, he/she's not going to go and start assassinating political figures (well, there have been incidents of this, but not NEARLY as frequently as the bombings in Iraq take place). this is precisely what is keeping democracy from succeeding in Iraq. the people have a right to disagree with decisions, but they take it too far and start killing other people over it.
therefore, there are two ways of "finishing" this war. either Bush takes his hands off and apologizes to Iraq for messing with their system, or stations soldiers indefinitely in Iraq to keep the bombings at bay and at least try to maintain order there. neither of these options are appealing - the first option will inevitably lead to another dictatorship rising in Iraq, and the second option means that more of our soldiers keep dying.
the second option, however, is not much of an option - Iraq will not stand for prolonged US occupation, and neither will the rest of the world, including the US. families at home don't want to see their children die.
the only option, then, is the first. yes, a dictatorship will rise. yes, America's political reputation will be ruined. however, it can't be helped - Bush has backed himself into a corner with this one. if Bush tries to "finish" this war, then he's going to end up establishing a frail government that's probably going to be overthrown the same day that US forces leave Iraq. and this failure isn't going to look good for America - it's going to paint the US as some kind of impotent meddler. therefore, EITHER WAY a dictatorship will rise in Iraq, and EITHER WAY the US's political reputation will be ruined. the difference? if Bush apologizes and takes his hands off, it'll at least show that America has the guts to say when it has made a mistake and also respects the sovereignty of other nations.

again, i've reasoned this out with what little knowledge i have of politics.

edit:
also - Bush's role as President of the United States is to have its best interests at heart. it might sound cruel, but the people in Iraq have nothing to do with the people in the US. IF Iraq had started a war with another nation, then yes, the US does have a right to intervene as it might cause a fluctuation in the global economy that would probably be harmful to us. and the US did PRECISELY that in the Gulf War. the same goes for WWII - the nations were actually starting to attack the US itself, and therefore, however many American lives were lost, it became necessary for the US to enter the war. but now, Iraq wasn't actually doing anything to its neighboring nations - Bush started the war on his assumption that Iraq had WMDs, which he seems to have much trouble finding any of. on a humanitarian view, maybe it had been the lesser of two evils, as the US has deposed a ruler who had killed countless lives and would have continued to. however, spending American lives and resources to destroy a foreign government - one that had been decidedly evil, but yet was not interfering with any other nation - has been a foolish gesture in terms of logic and duty.

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 10 August 2005 - 04:36 AM

[Darkness]

Err, a bit off topic... But...

firstly, i dont think any of use have any right to say if Bush is a good or bad president, we have no idea how hard his job realy is.

I was the president in a past life

By the way, why is this in the Study Hall?

^ I kinda wondered that myself. This probably would be more at home in the Debate Forum.

Yeah, so the real reason of this post was to say it's moved to Debate Forum

*moved*

[Jarik C-Bol]

I pretty much agree with you, there is no way that Democracy will suceeed in Iraq. (i have some personal beleifs as to why, but they are beside the point atm)
as for america looking like a medler, you're absolutely right, but we've been that medler for over 50 years now. we meddled in the politics of vietnam before we got there, we meddled witk Korea, we've actualy destroyed several democratic governments because a few people in high places thought that it would make them a little $. the US gov has been corupt and sticking its fingers in other peoples business for decades now, under almost a dozen presidents. we trained BinLaden, we trained almost all the terrorists out there. It was part of an operation to overthrow a standing government in the middle east. we colected up all the radical religious people we could find there, and tought them to fight. they overthrough the gov, and the US came out looking like a rose, because on the surface, we never even touched the country. but it fell apart. when we trained those people, they actualy told the people training them that when they finished here, they would come after the US. we cant stop it because its not an army we can fight, its a group of people we created to be loose and semi-disorganized but functional. imposible to fight, because there is no core gorup to atack. just like we wanted. we finaly actualy made a perfect weapon, and it hates our guts.

as for the logic and duty of destryoying the old iraqi gov, i think that we as civilians have very little information as to the things that it was involved in. we do know that they did have a nuclear weapons program, they HAVE found equipment used for making weapons grade uranium. (remember?, the scientist had it buried in his back yard, told teh soldiers he had been ordered to get rid of it when the war started). the iraqi Gov had a lot more going on for it behind the curtans than we raly can tell from our point of view, a lot of evidence sugests that.

so all in all, i agree with you. the reasons given to the public for entering this war were the wrong ones. so far, we have found no ACTUAL WMD, but we have found evidence that they were trying to produce them. if Iraq had produced Nuclear weapons, it would have been only a matter of time before they were used.
the only thing i dissagree with you on is that a dictator WILL rise when we finaly get out of iraq. as far as i can tell, this is specualtion. ('course, isn't this all speculation lol) by some stroke of luck, iraq may stableize when we leave. it may not of course, and then you will be right, but at the moment, a lot of things are posible.
overall, i think the war has been a waste of our people and money and time but on a certan level, like i said before, we have provided iraq with the oprotunity to settle down. when we leave, it will be the entire iraqi nations responsibility to look after themselfs and prevent a dictator from riseing. i think they may be able to do it, its just a matter of time, and teth US figureing out the best way to withdraw.

[Hax the Cook]

I've been watching this, and I must say, at first I was on frty's side, but after that last post by him I changed my mind. Like base said, do some reasearch, dont call base dull becasue you are more than dull, you are patheticly stupid. I was against bush too, but that doesn't make me want to yell at him for every little thing he does (and doesn't do).

[Pendragon205]

at least bush is better than kerry