format_quote Originally Posted by
Skillganon
What's with the osama and bush comparison?
Well, actually anyone would make a better president than Bush. However, Obama is a senator in the United States legislation branch that is aiming to make changes that the previous presidents failed to go for. One perhaps being isolationism.
Wouldn't you support Obama if he is an isolationist? Isolationism is what everyone around the world wants Americans to consider. Because isolationism was the policy Americans had taken around the early 20th century, where they didn't do anything on a global scale and didn't involve themselves with the politics of another country.
I really do not think bush is an idiot he is bold and in the position to be so.
Oh trust me, Bush is much more than just an idiot. Bush is incompetent.
Just worry about the mass.
The mass? What do you mean by that?
I wonder when did one consider that bush was right to solve problem or the U.S was ever.
The vast majority of American's didn't approve of Bush's election into office. He became president, because of the electorial college. The electorial college is a small group of people that are supposively voted by the people to vote for them. So basically you have people voted for you and deciding for you. And these people can easily be swayed to vote for Bush just by giving each of them a tax cut and a bribe or two.
You see, you have to understand that the vast majority of Americans want to get rid of this cursive system. But until they can get someone into office that will get rid of this system and isn't pressured by big business corporations, you will never see another Theodore Roosevelt.
that is if one think that they where out there for humanitarian purpose with all those tanks and bombs.
Most Americans spend their time giving out donations to organizations that "supposively" promise to give it to the poor people in the Middle East, Central America, South America, Southeast Asia, or in Africa.
But you see those organizations are run by wealthy aristocrats that just want those innocent people's money and profit over these innocent children that aren't being taken cared for.
But you see the real problem lies in the American education system. Americans are raised and taught to think like imbeciles and have feelings just like everyone else. By doing this, the wealthy Americans can benefit from having the great teachers and providers. And at the same time, keep the poor Americans (which make up 80% of the population) from doing anything.
So you shouldn't be angry at these poor Americans that are being forced into paying for this war. You should be angry at Bush and those wealthy Americans that are benefiting off of this war.
America has its own problems that it should be focused on. Perhaps you should be preeching "help the poor Americans" rather than "kill all Americans."
It is really sad how messed up their country is and how their wealthy class citizens still benefit off of the poor.
America is suppose to be a 1st world country (at least that is the jealous tone Iran makes about it), but all of the poor Americans (80% of the people) live in a third world country like Iraq. To be honest, it is almost as bad as it is in India in a lot of ways.
People are not exactly stupid, the mistake is very much got to do with people thinking intelligent or posessing worldly knowledge is synonomous to truth and guidance and doing the right thing (and that is if they truly know).
The British don't know what the right thing is, but they are prideful enough to express their concerns as if they really do care.
But Britain has always been like this and but at least you can reason with them.
Yeah let the British do what they think is best, but advice them and enlighten them with what you think they should approach this situations they wish to be involved with.
I really do not think they are really religious or it is just an identity to hold on too and taken advantage off, nothing more. Unless in tiem od distress.
Well religion doesn't really have much to do about it. Catholics are very religious people, but they don't do anything.
The problem lies in how much they care about humanity and that is what the prophets were actually trying to provide us. They were trying to provide us with a moral sense what is right and wrong.
Most people just really aren't capable of caring about other people. George W. Bush, the king of Saudi Arabia, and many other individuals are very much the same within those regards.
Well one can pay by percentage.
How can the poor, which are the ones being forced to cough up two hundred and fifty million dollars a day be able to pay for anything?
I think just having the United States isolated and focused on its own problems without causing any more harm to the rest of the world would be the best solution. Otherwise, the extremely greedy business people from the United States are just going to mess up more countries around the world.
You think it might be allowing the Americans to get away with what they have done. But it isn't. You would be forcing the Americans to think in a manner that hurts them quite a lot. This my friend is enough punishment considering what is punishment to the Americans. Plus it will help out the suffering poor Americans and keep the greedy Americans from causing anymore harm.
The goverment was acting in the name of america and they have acted upon it supported him.
The government was thinking of the wealthy, while pretending to act for the good of America.
And not everyone in America supports their president. Alot of them of actively trying to find a means of assassinating their own president.
Trust me, they don't support him.
I frankly think they should pay compensation for their action
What action?
Should PBS be punished for openly criticizing the president?
Should MSNBC's Keith Overmann be punished for openly criticizing the president?
The United States uses its freedom of speech very actively against the president for a very long time.
The Americans are using every tactic they have to stop their president. But their president is just too incompetent. He wants to use their troops as police, instead of hunting down the actual terrorists and bringing a swift end to this conflict.
So they are 0 percent responsible for this war, except for the very wealthy and the very stupid. As a matter of fact, most Americans completely dislike any war at all ever since Vietnam. (The greatest American disappointment)
It is because of Vietnam that the neo-conservatives are able to keep their foot down onto the tirelessly protesting American majority.
and their should be people excempted from it by some criteria. The bulk of it should come out from the goverments own pocket and those private companies.
It should completely come out from the government, the private companies, and any American that ever supported the conflict. Especially anyone who is wealthy, because most Americans make less than ten dolars an hour.
I really don't give much credence to many politician, maybe kerry would of have done that but it maybe more to do because of a political move for vote than his actual intention, but I am not really in a position to know what his intention was so I have to take his word of it.
Well many politicians are liars. Bush himself is a liar. He keeps telling the American people that they are going to have victory in this conflict for about three years. So Americans are suffering about as much as the people are in Iraq.
format_quote Originally Posted by Bush's Online Biography
Time magazine named George W. Bush as its Person of the Year for 2000 and 2004, hailing him as the most influential person for these two years. Bush began his presidency with approval ratings near 50%. In the time of national crisis following the September 11 attacks, Bush enjoyed approval ratings of greater than 85% (You can thank Al Queda for that), maintaining 80–90% approval for four months after the attacks. Since then, his approval ratings and approval of handling of domestic and foreign policy issues steadily dropped. Polls conducted in early 2006 showed an average of around 40% for Bush, up slightly from the previous September, but still historically low from a President coming off his State of the Union Address, which generally provides a boost. As of November 9, 2006, an average of major polls indicated that Bush's approval rating stood at 32.0%.
At the beginning of his first term, Bush was regarded by some as lacking legitimacy due to his narrow victory in Florida and the attendant controversy surrounding his electoral college victory, which included accusations of vote suppression and tampering. Activist and filmmaker Michael Moore's 2004 movie Fahrenheit 9/11 accused Bush of using public sentiments following 9/11 for political purposes and lying about the cause for war in Iraq.
Bush enjoyed strong support among Americans holding conservative views, as well as the military and those who support a military agenda. In the 2004 elections, 95-98% of the Republican electorate approved of him. This support waned, however, due mostly to Republicans' growing frustration with Bush on the issues of spending and illegal immigration. Many Republicans began criticizing Bush on his policies in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Territories.
A poll taken in mid-September 2006 found that 48 percent of Americans believed the war with Iraq had made the U.S. less safe, while 41 percent believed the war had made the U.S. safer from terrorism. Another poll showed that a majority of Americans, by a margin of 61 to 35 percent, believed that the United States was not better off because of Bush's policies.
From time to time, Bush's intellectual capacities were questioned by the news media and other politicians. Detractors tended to cite the various linguistic errors made by Bush during his public speeches (colloquially known as Bushisms). Bush's habit of mispronouncing words received much ridicule in the media and in popular culture. Even as early as the 2000 presidential debates, this was the subject of a Saturday Night Live sketch (see Strategery). He is not the only American president to be criticized for this.
At the conclusion of 2006, an AP-AOL News telephone poll of 1,004 adults found President George W. Bush to be both the top villain and hero of the year. The president was followed in the villain poll by Osama bin Laden, who took in 8 percent to Bush's 25 percent, Saddam Hussein (6 percent) and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (5 percent). In the hero poll, Bush's 13 percent was followed by: Soldiers/troops in Iraq (6 percent), Oprah Winfrey (3 percent), Barack Obama (3 percent) and Jesus Christ (3 percent).
An anti-Iraq War protester in London carries a placard calling Bush the "World's #1 Terrorist".
Bush has been widely criticized in the international community; he was targeted by the global anti-war and anti-globalization campaigns, and criticized for his foreign policy in general. Bush's policies were also the subject of heated criticism in the 2002 elections in Germany and the 2006 elections in Canada. Bush was openly condemned by current and former international leaders such as Gerhard Schröder, Jean Chrétien, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Romano Prodi, Paul Martin, and Hugo Chavez. Later in Bush's presidency, tensions arose between himself and Vladimir Putin, which has led to a cooling of their relationship. In the same time he has good relationship with Tony Blair, Vicente Fox and some other leaders of foreign countries. Diplomatic visits made by Bush were accompanied by large-scale protests.
I never said or think american people are all evil.
Well then I appologize for that blunder. But to be fair, perhaps you should practice on not presenting argument indicating your dislike against all Americans and instead just elaborate your dislike against specific Americans (like George W. Bush or Bill Gates).
Well some americans for abeting they can't plead insanity.
Well some Americans are insane, but that's only a small minority. (1 or 2 percent)
It mostly comes from lack of unbias education. The education and healthcare for Americans is worse than it is anywhere else around the world, except for the wealthy.
I was talking from a long term strategically and religiousely. First we need to have see that their is mainly two groups but one cannot say all the people in those group hold the same views, or that predominantly they hate each other, that will be oversimplification to do so. Their are other groups in between that may share some objective, goals and understanding. So it is not exactly because it is a sunni ad Shia thing but rather this label in more ways are used as a means to a way (other reason).
Yeah the Iraqi Turkmen want to be recognized. The Assyrians want to establish a tiny little Assyrian state. The Kurds want to be independent.
But these two groups do hate each other. However, you are right to say that a good majority of Shi'as and Sunnis can get along quite well together. But if there was a means to help ease the tensions between the extremists in these groups.
Next dividing the groups into segment makes the country weaker.
No not really. That is just some false allegation.
it is a well known policy of divide and rule tactic.
Well America is divided into a federal government much as what you said would make it weak. But they are handeling it quite strongly.
So I think you are confused or you just aren't really understand politics, like you said above.
Because first of all, Iraq is a made up country and it is already divided out into states. But these states don't really represent the people and that is why you are having this civil war.
This is like making Sudan and Egypt one country and Egyptians run the show, because they have more people and therefore can win the elections.
Secondly dividing them will more likely to have to opposite tactic of tribalism and in the long term or in the future more suffering.
You are going to have to elaborate better than that. First of all the Kurds are going to have their own seperate country, no matter what.
Let them have their own country.
Let the people be happy and have what they want, which is better representation in their government.