Do you honestly think Bush is/was a good president?

[Michael217]

Do you honestly think George W. Bush is/was a good president?

This is supposed to be a fun poll so no bashing or flaming. :57:

edit: I voted NO of course. This is a multiple choice poll. You can see who voted for what by clicking on the numbers on the right side of the poll results.

[tricia1228]

Yes I do think he was a good president.

[rico fan =D]

I'm not American so i don't know

[Rockin_Miley]

I dont listen to politics and i hadnt listened to what he changed or 'fixed'..
so since all i have to go off is "he SUCKED! mccains gonna be just like him!" i cant judge. :)

[lemonlime]

He historically isn't the worst, but he's definitely in the bottom 5 and I think his policies did nothing to benefit this country in the 8 years he was President

[NancyDrew]

Haha! I'm not going to say. Someone knows how I would respond, but that's how it's going to remain. Politics never mix well. It's like the JB and Miley thread. Oh, boy. Just saying, I disagree with at least one person on this thread!! :57:

[SaintSaturn]

WTF 4 people said yes?! Seriously people?

[eizy12306]

wtf? HECK NO

[dontwalkaway]

no.... we're trillions of dollars in debt and have our soldiers in a country that never threatened us where we also managed to cause civil war and put hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs. nuff said.

[pinkpolkadots96]

i know everyone is like "wtf no!!." and personally,
i dont think he was all that amazing a president,
but i definitely think that americans will look back
on him and see that he was nottt that horrible.
he was okay.

[dontwalkaway]

i don't think i will ever look back and think he was just okay.
he is arguably the worst US president of all time.
and definitely one of the stupidest.

[LukkiStar]

I think he was awful.
Trillions of dollars of debt.
The highest gas prices America gas ever seen.
Economic crisis.
An unecesary war.
Has he really done anything GOOD?!

[smiley_smiley_miley]

To be totally honest, he was kinda bad.
But not the worst.

[PinkRubberDuckie]

i know everyone is like "wtf no!!." and personally,
i dont think he was all that amazing a president,
but i definitely think that americans will look back
on him and see that he was nottt that horrible.
he was okay.

i agree with isabelleee!

[miley_smiles923]

id call myself crazy if i said yes he was

[( soulmates )]

I think that the USA is screwed up anyway. Occasionally I wonder what another person
would have done in Bush's role, and if the situation could have been handled any better,
or if he genuinely did okay.
However, the role of president also comes with the role of scapegoat. Therefor, I
am utterly and completely ignorant so I cannot judge.

[sweet_smile]

Bahaha.
NO.
Dude,some people lost houses,the economy is down,some honest good caring family has no shelter or food and Bush gets all the effin money?
I can't wait till a democratic comes in and changes this...

[mileycyrusisluv]

Yes. he could have been better. But I like him, so I have to day yes

[sweet_smile]

I think he was awful.
Trillions of dollars of debt.
The highest gas prices America gas ever seen.
Economic crisis.
An unecesary war.
Has he really done anything GOOD?!

For once,I agree with her!


{{sorry for double post!I just saw this.}}

[LukkiStar]

i don't think i will ever look back and think he was just okay.
he is arguably the worst US president of all time.
and definitely one of the stupidest.
I completely agree with you.

[SaintSaturn]

The fact that someone like Bush who can barely read or put a sentence together can get elected TWICE because he claims to be a Christian who opposes abortion is really scary. I'm sorry but we are living in the past in the United States. We need to open our eyes and realize that gay people getting married does not mean we are doomed, and we should be focusing on REAL issues.

[SmileyMiley11]

He wasn't the worst, but he wasn't the best president
we've ever had, so he's okay[:

[dontwalkaway]

people should focus on the issues that will affect them. if you don't like gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. if you don't like abortion then don't get one. however, the economic crisis WILL change the lives of all but half a percentage of the united states, and should really be a decisive factor in this election. not moral issues, standard living issues.

[freakyfn3]

i dont think he was good
but i also dont think he was bad
i dont agree with many of his ideals and policies and i think he has made some bad choices
but the important thing to me is that he acted on the things that he thought were right (even if everyone else disagreed) and for that i respect him.
too many politicians are all talk.

[lolqueen101]

yeah.

[pinkpolkadots96]

The fact that someone like Bush who can barely read or put a sentence together can get elected TWICE because he claims to be a Christian who opposes abortion is really scary. I'm sorry but we are living in the past in the United States. We need to open our eyes and realize that gay people getting married does not mean we are doomed, and we should be focusing on REAL issues.
nicely put.

[smilez]

I chose "i'm a spineless twit who refuses to take a side"
because...
at first, he was good as president, but then coming towards the end, he kinda...sucked...no offense. i mean, im 100% republican...but this guy just lost it about two years into his 2nd term.

[sharp_as-a_tick]

Ew, I don't like GB at all.

[eizy12306]

I agree with the people that listed reasons he was bad.
I mean honestly, the people that said he was good, why
do you think he was a good president?
he was by far the worst.

^^ and the post above about 9/11,
i actually don't think this war should have gone
on for 8 years. how insane. i think it was a stupid
choice to go to war anyways

[k pitcher]

NO.
How was he possibly a good president?
How? I don't see any reason at all that he was a good president.
He's an idiot. He can't pronounce "nuclear" and can barely put 2 and 2 together.
The country is in a horrible economic deficit and Bush has done no good whatsoever.

An unecesary war!? Have you seriously forgotten what happened September 11 2001?Wow.
Have you seriously got no clue that 9/11 and the war are unrelated?
Iraq isn't responsible for the terrorist attacks.
Al-Qaeda attacked us, which is no reason for us to invade Iraq.
Most of the attackers were Saudis, although Saudia Arabia itself had nothing to do with the attack.
It was all a lie, Bush even admitted Iraq and the war on terror were not related to 9/11.
Get the facts straight.
The war in Iraq is to "rebuild" Iraq and to change their governmental system, though they don't want a change.
If you're going to defend Bush and his stupid war plan, then at least defend it with facts.

[dontwalkaway]

An unecesary war!? Have you seriously forgotten what happened September 11 2001?iraq did not invade or attack us


blimey people don't you keep up with the news at least once a year?

[k pitcher]

iraq did not invade or attack us


blimey people don't you keep up with the news at least once a year?Thank you. :S

[YouKnowYouLoveMe]

please do not insult people on here, or this will be closed.
no one knows everything on politics, so if you know someone has said something incorrect,
than be polite and say, Oh well actually this happened. And do this without being rude.

I think Bush has been a good president.
I do agree that he handled 9/11 extremely well.
Everyone was patriotic during that time, and EVERYONE LOVED HIM!
So something to think about.
You cannot judge him based soley on the Iraq War.
There is more that he does than that.
Actually most presidents during wartime were not liked, even though they were fantastic presidents.
And people's opinions on him right now doesn't make him a good or bad president.
People hated Abraham Lincoln while he was in office

[piratesofthecaribbeanjess]

Hahahahahaha!!!! so funny....heck no i hate GB....

[miley_smiles923]

the things besides 9/11 and the war arent good either though
iraq never attacked us, by now they dont want our help, how long have we been there with like no progress? 5 years right?
and now we're in debt, people are losing their homes, lives, family members, etc.
if bush was a good president he wouldnt have gotten us to where we are now.
people are killing themselves and their families just because of the economy and theyre losing everything they have, we wouldnt have that happen if it werent for bush spending all of our money in iraq.

and allison no ones been insulting in here that ive seen, theyre stating facts and opinions.

by the way, we arent in the same position as lincoln was so you cant really compare him to bush at all.

[eizy12306]

believe me, before 9/11 everyone i knew, including my family,
hated GB. even now. I think I'll have to have a party when hes
not our president anymore. =]

[piratesofthecaribbeanjess]

lol thats funny

[SaintSaturn]

I love seeing people with shirts that say "not my president" with a picture of Bush. Just today I saw a bumper sticker that listed his last day in office followed by an exclamation point. I'm actually really excited for this moron to leave office,

I heard some lady who is an Obama supporter on the news put it so perfectly. She said,
"My granddaughter just turned ten years old. Her whole life, all she has known is war and a broken America. I really want her to experience four years of peace and prosperity."

[Marauder]

I'm not American so i don't know
thats was my honest choice

[MaDeInChYnNa]

if i say yes then i would be lying. if i said no then i would lie again. heecckkk no sums it up. look at our economy then tell me if he was good or not. yeah other presidents were worse but he wouldn't be in my top ten best presidents ever.

[Frumpy]

iraq did not invade or attack us


blimey people don't you keep up with the news at least once a year?

Must a country attack another for war to be declared? If so, let's make a list of wars that, even with your level of ineptitude, you'd know.

- The Revolutionary War (That's right, we wouldn't even be a country!)
- The War of 1812 (Unless impressment is attacking. It isn't.)
- Germany under Wilhelm
- Nazi Germany
- Korea
- Vietnam

There's a simple rundown of major wars the US was involved in that wouldn't have occurred. Had they not, the United States wouldn't be a free country, we wouldn't be a world power, and the majority of Asia would be communist! Rethink your idea of war.

[Michael217]

Must a country attack another for war to be declared? If so, let's make a list of wars that, even with your level of ineptitude, you'd know.

- The Revolutionary War (That's right, we wouldn't even be a country!)
- The War of 1812 (Unless impressment is attacking. It isn't.)
- Germany under Wilhelm
- Nazi Germany
- Korea
- Vietnam

There's a simple rundown of major wars the US was involved in that wouldn't have occurred. Had they not, the United States wouldn't be a free country, we wouldn't be a world power, and the majority of Asia would be communist! Rethink your idea of war.

Uhm....what exactly is your point? It seems you are trying to prove that there was a suitable reason for attacking Iraq. Given, the wars you mentioned did not involve having a foreign country attack America, but there were substantial and just reasons for America's involvement in them. These include the fight for national independence and for the rights of the new nation, the preservation of Europe and the prevention of a Nazi empire, and the attempt to slow the advance of Communism in Asia. All these reasons were clearly substantiated and just.

Now, I would like you to give me a substantial and just reason for America's involvement in the war in Iraq. I don't want to get into any heated debates. I would just like to know if there were any real substantial reasons for America to have gone into Iraq. Perhaps I'm just not aware of any of them. ;) :57:

[Backstroker495]

i know everyone is like "wtf no!!." and personally,
i dont think he was all that amazing a president,
but i definitely think that americans will look back
on him and see that he was nottt that horrible.
he was okay.
i completely agree with you, isabelle

[summer]

what i will say is, i think people have blamed him a LITTLE too much for this country's downfall. this country was headed downward anyway, and it's not like he, one person, could save the entire economy. Sure he didn't help it much, so i won't say he was a GOOD pres, but i kind of feel bad for him, seeing as though the whole country hates him and blames him for everything.

[piratesofthecaribbeanjess]

u got a point, u can't blame for everything...he was the worest pres...but oh well

[dontwalkaway]

Must a country attack another for war to be declared? If so, let's make a list of wars that, even with your level of ineptitude, you'd know.

- The Revolutionary War (That's right, we wouldn't even be a country!)
- The War of 1812 (Unless impressment is attacking. It isn't.)
- Germany under Wilhelm
- Nazi Germany
- Korea
- Vietnam

There's a simple rundown of major wars the US was involved in that wouldn't have occurred. Had they not, the United States wouldn't be a free country, we wouldn't be a world power, and the majority of Asia would be communist! Rethink your idea of war.i was responding to her saying "an unneccesary war?! have you forgotten what happened on september eleventh?!" as if what happened then was the reason we went into iraq. technically our mission was to remove the corrupt government there; it didn't have anything to do with 9/11 in particular.

and i'm sure you're bursting with anger over an internet debate, but comments like "even with your ineptitude" aren't appreciated, thanks

[SaintSaturn]

Must a country attack another for war to be declared? If so, let's make a list of wars that, even with your level of ineptitude, you'd know.

- The Revolutionary War (That's right, we wouldn't even be a country!)
- The War of 1812 (Unless impressment is attacking. It isn't.)
- Germany under Wilhelm
- Nazi Germany
- Korea
- Vietnam

There's a simple rundown of major wars the US was involved in that wouldn't have occurred. Had they not, the United States wouldn't be a free country, we wouldn't be a world power, and the majority of Asia would be communist! Rethink your idea of war.


:lol:


I'm sorry but the fact that you had WW11 and Vietnam in the same list of
"necessary" wars is just.......

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Oh and has anyone read/heard of the book What Happened by former Press Secretary Scott McClellan? I just finished it and it is shocking the amount of corruption in the Bush administration. This is coming from someone who supported Bush, and defended him daily.

[NancyDrew]

It was a necessary war.

[dontwalkaway]

It was a necessary war.do go on

[NancyDrew]

Which war are you thinking I'm talking about?

[dontwalkaway]

Which war are you thinking I'm talking about?iraq....?
or vietnam....?

[PinkRubberDuckie]

Vietnam was technically not declared.
The last declared war was WW2.
It has to be declared by Congress, and the only one that has is WW2.

[NancyDrew]

Well, I have points for both. I'm not to sure about Vietnam, but that war did not have to be lost. Crappy leadership led to a lot of the problems.

[Frumpy]

i was responding to her saying "an unneccesary war?! have you forgotten what happened on september eleventh?!" as if what happened then was the reason we went into iraq. technically our mission was to remove the corrupt government there; it didn't have anything to do with 9/11 in particular.

and i'm sure you're bursting with anger over an internet debate, but comments like "even with your ineptitude" aren't appreciated, thanks

You're right, I didn't have t quote you, I'm not talking to anyone in specific.

My point is that the Iraq war was just as necessary as those other wars. The problem (as in Vietnam) is ignorance back at home. People think we "lost" Vietnam and are "losing" Iraq. That's simply not true. Iraq and Vietnam cannot be won by military action alone. In both, the enemy blends in with everyone else. They're both called insurgencies for a reason. Every reason for going to Iraq was well accepted, even my democratic congressman and women. 9/11 was just as good a reason as any. Muslim extremists exist in Afghanistan, Iraq, and others. Limiting a war to nationality, when the group you're attacking doesn't even hold a single common one, is a stupid plan. That's why it's called the war on terrorism. Your plan seems to be attack Afghanistan, attempt to eliminate al-Qaeda and the Taliban and if they retreat anywhere else (Iraq), say "Dang, we lost 'em." That's not how war works.

[NancyDrew]

I completely agree. There are a lot of reasons why the Iraqi War was necessary. At least I don't feel so outnumbered! :lol:

[k pitcher]

I completely agree. There are a lot of reasons why the Iraqi War was necessary. At least I don't feel so outnumbered! :lol:I disagree about that.

[NancyDrew]

Could you be more specific?

[SaintSaturn]

You're right, I didn't have t quote you, I'm not talking to anyone in specific.

My point is that the Iraq war was just as necessary as those other wars. The problem (as in Vietnam) is ignorance back at home. People think we "lost" Vietnam and are "losing" Iraq. That's simply not true. Iraq and Vietnam cannot be won by military action alone. In both, the enemy blends in with everyone else. They're both called insurgencies for a reason. Every reason for going to Iraq was well accepted, even my democratic congressman and women. 9/11 was just as good a reason as any. Muslim extremists exist in Afghanistan, Iraq, and others. Limiting a war to nationality, when the group you're attacking doesn't even hold a single common one, is a stupid plan. That's why it's called the war on terrorism. Your plan seems to be attack Afghanistan, attempt to eliminate al-Qaeda and the Taliban and if they retreat anywhere else (Iraq), say "Dang, we lost 'em." That's not how war works.

"So let's just pick some random Middle-Eastern country (Iraq), make up some stuff about WMDs to scare the hell out of people and gain support, take out a dictator, and shoot at some people that might be members of Al-Qaeda while we are at it. Then we will stand on a boat in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign and confuse everyone. People will start to realize that things aren't really improving, and our men and women will continue to die. When people start asking why we are still in Iraq, we will tell them 'we can't stay until Iraq is stable, duh' and then when they ask for a timeline we will call accuse them of giving up and accepting defeat.
LET'S DO IT!!!"

[Frumpy]

"So let's just pick some random Middle-Eastern country (Iraq), make up some stuff about WMDs to scare the hell out of people and gain support, take out a dictator, and shoot at some people that might be members of Al-Qaeda while we are at it. Then we will stand on a boat in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign and confuse everyone. People will start to realize that things aren't really improving, and our men and women will continue to die. When people start asking why we are still in Iraq, we will tell them 'we can't stay until Iraq is stable, duh' and then when they ask for a timeline we will call accuse them of giving up and accepting defeat.
LET'S DO IT!!!"

Satirical arguments really do nothing to help your point. That "made up" intelligence about WMDs was apparently good enough that over three times as many senators voted yea than nay. Why do the terrorists have to be al-Qaeda? There are plenty of Islamic extremist groups that mirror their sentiments. Despite what you may think, things are improving in Iraq.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Iraq_war_casualties_-_6-24-08.jpg

The surge brought a drastic drop in deaths of US troops. The situation over there is improving whether you like it or not. Announcing a timeline is an absolutely idiotic idea. Why would any fundamentalist group waste their time when they could just wait until we all leave and then begin a civil war? It would be akin to giving a timeline on the invasion of Normandy. Might as well have given a position as well!

[SaintSaturn]

The fact of the matter is the Iraq war was started based off bad inteligence. So you think because several senators voted for the war it somehow justifies the mistake?
The fact that there are so many extremist groups, as you stated, should be a dead giveaway that this war was going to take a very long time. Please explain to me how the removal of Suddam Hussein helped us narrow down our scope on the real enemy. As we were taking control of Iraq, members of al-Qaeda were safely plotting to catch us off guard and attack us. I really urge you to read Scott McClellan's book. I know you will probobly dismiss it right away and say that he only did it to make a profit, but he makes a lot of sense. He was there when war plans were set in place. He witnessed the plans to deceive the American people. I'm not denying the fact that violence is decreasing in Iraq, but all it takes is one serious attack on our forces there to plunge us into several more years of fighting.

Since you seem to support the war so strongly maybe you can answer a question for me. When do you think we should leave Iraq?

And about the sarcasm in my last post, it's late and I am getting tired of reading through such negative posts. And I know that you will say that the satire is just as negative, I am aware. Sometimes I just like to be a jerk.

[Frumpy]

The fact of the matter is the Iraq war was started based off bad inteligence. So you think because several senators voted for the war it somehow justifies the mistake?
The fact that there are so many extremist groups, as you stated, should be a dead giveaway that this war was going to take a very long time. Please explain to me how the removal of Suddam Hussein helped us narrow down our scope on the real enemy. As we were taking control of Iraq, members of al-Qaeda were safely plotting to catch us off guard and attack us. I really urge you to read Scott McClellan's book. I know you will probobly dismiss it right away and say that he only did it to make a profit, but he makes a lot of sense. He was there when war plans were set in place. He witnessed the plans to deceive the American people. I'm not denying the fact that violence is decreasing in Iraq, but all it takes is one serious attack on our forces there to plunge us into several more years of fighting.

Since you seem to support the war so strongly maybe you can answer a question for me. When do you think we should leave Iraq?

And about the sarcasm in my last post, it's late and I am getting tired of reading through such negative posts. And I know that you will say that the satire is just as negative, I am aware. Sometimes I just like to be a jerk.

No, I don't think several senators can justify the "mistake", because I don't think it's a mistake. The war is going to take a long time. So what? Time shouldn't be a factor in war; it's a weakness if it is. McClellan never expressly stated that Bush lied, because he didn't. Garnering support for all wars involves a certain amount of "propaganda".

As for your question, I think we should leave Iraq when we win. That is, Iraq has a self-sufficient defense force, and the terrorist threat is all but eliminated.

[Rockin_Miley]

bushy bushy bush bush.

[destinydreamer]

let me think. NO.

he did no good for the country whatsoever

[thinklikepink]

well ild have to say no...im not amrican, but knowing all the bad things hes done for america and the world...and knowing hes the most unpopular president ever... and i was so shocked he evan got voted in last election....not to mention the pink song lol haha (just had to add that ) :P

[SaintSaturn]

No, I don't think several senators can justify the "mistake", because I don't think it's a mistake. The war is going to take a long time. So what? Time shouldn't be a factor in war; it's a weakness if it is. McClellan never expressly stated that Bush lied, because he didn't. Garnering support for all wars involves a certain amount of "propaganda".

As for your question, I think we should leave Iraq when we win. That is, Iraq has a self-sufficient defense force, and the terrorist threat is all but eliminated.

If your reason for declaring war is that the enemy has something like WMDs, and they don't, that is a mistake. It's as simple as that. How am I supposed to feel good about a war when we started it based off something not true? War should be a last resort. The reason so many people oppose the war is simple. They all see that many alternatives could have been implemented, or at least better planning/leadership was needed.

Have you read McClellan's book?

Dude I'm sorry but I don't feel comfortable fighting in the middle east until the terrorist threat is eliminated. In case you didn't realize it, they have been fighting over there since the beginning of time.

[Rockin_Miley]

oo its getting heated. o.o

[Frumpy]

If your reason for declaring war is that the enemy has something like WMDs, and they don't, that is a mistake. It's as simple as that. How am I supposed to feel good about a war when we started it based off something not true? War should be a last resort. The reason so many people oppose the war is simple. They all see that many alternatives could have been implemented, or at least better planning/leadership was needed.

Have you read McClellan's book?

Dude I'm sorry but I don't feel comfortable fighting in the middle east until the terrorist threat is eliminated. In case you didn't realize it, they have been fighting over there since the beginning of time.

Saddam was smart enough to know that he couldn't win the war. The simple answer is that he moved the WMDs. Most likely to Turkey. I see no other reason why he'd have facilities for making them and then not make them...

[Michael217]

Saddam was smart enough to know that he couldn't win the war. The simple answer is that he moved the WMDs. Most likely to Turkey. I see no other reason why he'd have facilities for making them and then not make them...

Please give us some concrete proof to support your claims. We want nothing but FACTS. Perhaps those facilities were donations from Russia or China, or maybe they just wanted to create nuclear power generation. ;)

[YouKnowYouLoveMe]

If your reason for declaring war is that the enemy has something like WMDs, and they don't, that is a mistake. It's as simple as that. How am I supposed to feel good about a war when we started it based off something not true? War should be a last resort. The reason so many people oppose the war is simple. They all see that many alternatives could have been implemented, or at least better planning/leadership was needed.

Have you read McClellan's book?

Dude I'm sorry but I don't feel comfortable fighting in the middle east until the terrorist threat is eliminated. In case you didn't realize it, they have been fighting over there since the beginning of time.

I'm sorry how could we have gone to war based on something being not true?
What wasn't true?

The president cannot go to war without Congress's approval. That right is given to Congress under the consitution. So obviously there was a legit reason for going to war, otherwise it would have been vetoed.

Also think about it. If we DIDNT go to war, everyone would have hated bush for not going and defending us. So either way he loses, just like any other president dealing with a war.

[Michael217]

I'm sorry how could we have gone to war based on something being not true?
What wasn't true?

The president cannot go to war without Congress's approval. That right is given to Congress under the consitution. So obviously there was a legit reason for going to war, otherwise it would have been vetoed.

Also think about it. If we DIDNT go to war, everyone would have hated bush for not going and defending us. So either way he loses, just like any other president dealing with a war.

Perhaps Congress was given faulty or even false information and were thus deceived into thinking that there was a substantial reason for approving the war.

May I kindly ask how Bush defended the US by going to Iraq. I don't recall Iraq threatening to do anything to America. If I remember correctly, Al-Qaeda was the one responsible for September 11, and they were being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is why the war in Afghanistan is justified. What about Iraq? Before America invaded Iraq, Al-Qaeda was not even present there. After America invaded it, Muslim resentment of America was further fomented, and Al-Qaeda was thus able to recruit even more people from Iraq. In effect, the war in Iraq just gave Al-Qaeda the opportunity to recruit more people from a fresh source.

[Frumpy]

Perhaps Congress was given faulty or even false information and were thus deceived into thinking that there was a substantial reason for approving the war.

May I kindly ask how Bush defended the US by going to Iraq. I don't recall Iraq threatening to do anything to America. If I remember correctly, Al-Qaeda was the one responsible for September 11, and they were being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is why the war in Afghanistan is justified. What about Iraq? Before America invaded Iraq, Al-Qaeda was not even present there. After America invaded it, Muslim resentment of America was further fomented, and Al-Qaeda was thus able to recruit even more people from Iraq. In effect, the war in Iraq just gave Al-Qaeda the opportunity to recruit more people from a fresh source.

Wars are not always fought in defense of a country. Very rarely, actually. I can count the number of wars the US has fought in actual defense of the country on one hand.

[HannahMontana_9]

no.

[Michael217]

Wars are not always fought in defense of a country. Very rarely, actually. I can count the number of wars the US has fought in actual defense of the country on one hand.

So now I ask you, for what substantial and just reason was the war in Iraq fought?

[Frumpy]

So now I ask you, for what substantial and just reason was the war in Iraq fought for?

Strong evidence of WMDs, despite what people think. Saddam's genocidal rule. Protection of some of the world's most dense oil fields. And, simply, the presence of terrorists.

[freakyfn3]

I'm sorry how could we have gone to war based on something being not true?
What wasn't true?

The president cannot go to war without Congress's approval. That right is given to Congress under the consitution. So obviously there was a legit reason for going to war, otherwise it would have been vetoed.

Also think about it. If we DIDNT go to war, everyone would have hated bush for not going and defending us. So either way he loses, just like any other president dealing with a war.

the power to declare war is held by the US congress . what we are doing in Iraq is technically not a war. instead it is a police action (this is not the first time a police action has been called a war. just look at what we did in vietnam and korea). the reason it is not a war is because congress did not approve of a war in iraq. Instead of declaring war on iraq congress approved of using military force on anti-american terrorists. their intention when approving the use of military force in the middle east was not to attack iraq and remove its goverment but instead to search the middle east for terrorist groups especially those groups involved in the 9/11 attack.

[Michael217]

Strong evidence of WMDs, despite what people think. Saddam's genocidal rule. Protection of some of the world's most dense oil fields. And, simply, the presence of terrorists.

International investigation has proven that the WMDs do not exist. If America just wanted to free Iraq from Saddam, why are American soldiers still there? Protection of oil fields from what? From Middle-Eastern businessmen and governments? Bush and some others just wanted their own oil. What do you mean by, "the presence of terrorists"? Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before America invaded it. As a result of the invasion, they have now established a strong presence in Iraq. Therefore, the war in Iraq is the reason terrorists are now present in that country.

[Frumpy]

International investigation has proven that the WMDs do not exist. If America just wanted to free Iraq from Saddam, why are American soldiers still there? Protection of oil fields from what? From Middle-Eastern businessmen and governments? Bush and some others just wanted their own oil. What do you mean by, "the presence of terrorists"? Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before America invaded it. As a result of the invasion, they have now established a strong presence in Iraq. Therefore, the war in Iraq is the reason terrorists are now present in that country.

The WMDs could and probably do still exist. Most likely in Turkey. American soldiers are there to quell the civil war and rid the country of terrorists. They're there to protect the oil fields from said terrorists. The oil coming out of these fields doesn't go to Bush, or the US like people think. It goes to OPEC, who distributes it as usual. There were always religious fundamentalists (terrorists) in Iraq. The influx of more is, if anything, a good thing. Fighting them in a centralized area is much easier than spreading our forces throughout the entire Middle East.

[Michael217]

The WMDs could and probably do still exist. Most likely in Turkey. American soldiers are there to quell the civil war and rid the country of terrorists. They're there to protect the oil fields from said terrorists. The oil coming out of these fields doesn't go to Bush, or the US like people think. It goes to OPEC, who distributes it as usual. There were always religious fundamentalists (terrorists) in Iraq. The influx of more is, if anything, a good thing. Fighting them in a centralized area is much easier than spreading our forces throughout the entire Middle East.

If you think the WMDs still exist and that they might be in Turkey, please give concrete evidence to support it.

What business does the US have with another country's civil war. Imagine how Americans would have felt if some foreign country came and interfered in the American Civil War. The members of OPEC should then be responsible for protecting their own oil. Why should the US risk the lives of its own soldiers and citizens to protect the oil of other countries?

I think Theodore Roosevelt said: "I would think no better of a man who loved not his own country more than the countries of other men than a man who loved not his own wife and mother more that the wives and mothers of other men." *I don't remember the exact words.

If America would just leave the Middle East alone, terrorists would not have much reason or incentive to attack America. The main reason they hate America so much is because she keeps interposing herself in their conflicts.

[Frumpy]

If you think the WMDs still exist and that they might be in Turkey, please give concrete evidence to support it.

What business does the US have with another country's civil war. Imagine how Americans would have felt if some foreign country came and interfered in the American Civil War. The members of OPEC should then be responsible for protecting their own oil. Why should the US risk the lives of its own soldiers and citizens to protect the oil of other countries?

I think Theodore Roosevelt said: "I would think no better of a man who loved not his own country more than the countries of other men than a man who loved not his own wife and mother more that the wives and mothers of other men." *I don't remember the exact words.

If America would just leave the Middle East alone, terrorists would not have much reason or incentive to attack America. The main reason they hate America so much is because she keeps interposing herself in their conflicts.

There is no concrete evidence. Just as there is no concrete evidence denying the existence of WMDs. We, along with other coalition forces are defending the oil because if OPEC did, it'd spark a region-wide Sunni, Shi'a civil war. Not just a sectionalized conflict. It's also a matter of our immense oil usage, but that's a problem for another discussion.
America cannot simply ignore the Middle East. Not after Carter's (arguably the worst president ever) idiotic meddling in the Soviet-Afghan war. Most current conflicts between the Middle East and the US can be traced back to him.

[Michael217]

There is no concrete evidence. Just as there is no concrete evidence denying the existence of WMDs. We, along with other coalition forces are defending the oil because if OPEC did, it'd spark a region-wide Sunni, Shi'a civil war. Not just a sectionalized conflict. It's also a matter of our immense oil usage, but that's a problem for another discussion.
America cannot simply ignore the Middle East. Not after Carter's (arguably the worst president ever) idiotic meddling in the Soviet-Afghan war. Most current conflicts between the Middle East and the US can be traced back to him.

Still, what gives the US the right to meddle in other countries' civil wars? I don't think Americans would have appreciated having a foreign country like Britain interfere in the American Civil War. You said it would affect America's oil supply. Well, that still does not give America the right to interfere in the conflicts of other nations. The US and other countries dependent on Middle Eastern oil should just develop ways to become independent of the oil in the Middle East.


The US should only be involved in Middle Eastern conflicts when there is a substantial and just reason for it. An example would be September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring those responsible for the attack. As long as America sticks to such a policy, terrorists will not have a legitimate reason for attacking or threatening America.

[Frumpy]

Still, what gives the US the right to meddle in other countries' civil wars? I don't think Americans would have appreciated having a foreign country like Britain interfere in the American Civil War. You said it would affect America's oil supply. Well, that still does not give America the right to interfere in the conflicts of other nations. The US and other countries dependent on Middle Eastern oil should just develop ways to become independent of the oil in the Middle East.


The US should only be involved in Middle Eastern conflicts when there is a substantial and just reason for it. An example would be September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring those responsible for the attack. As long as America sticks to such a policy, terrorists will not have a legitimate reason for attacking or threatening America.

The British were just about to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy, even France almost decided to enter the war. The only reason the British didn't was the immense unpopularity of slavery in Europe, and, as the British debated their decision, Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, effectively ending any intervention by European powers.

[Michael217]

The British were just about to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy, even France almost decided to enter the war. The only reason the British didn't was the immense unpopularity of slavery in Europe, and, as the British debated their decision, Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, effectively ending any intervention by European powers.

I know that. Moreover, you completely missed my point. What I'm saying is that Americans' would not have appreciated it at all if Britain/France interfered in the American Civil War. How would you feel if that actually took place?

Now, imagine how the countries in the Middle East feel when the UN and foreign countries like the US meddle in their civil wars. They're probably thinking something like, "It's none of your freaking business. Leave us alone." I guess this is the reason why they hate the West, particularly America, so much.

[Frumpy]

I know that. Moreover, you completely missed my point. What I'm saying is that Americans' would not have appreciated it at all if Britain/France interfered in the American Civil War. How would you feel if that actually took place?

Now, imagine how the countries in the Middle East feel when the UN and foreign countries like the US meddle in their civil wars. They're probably thinking something like, "It's none of your freaking business. Leave us alone." I guess this is the reason why they hate the West, particularly America, so much.

Perhaps the government hates it. Ask the people whose families were killed by Saddam for nothing other than their religious beliefs. It's our duty to get involved in, and stop, ethnic cleansing. Iraq just happened to harbor many other reasons to go to war.

[Michael217]

Who gave America the duty to stop ethnic cleansing by military action? America should just impose sanctions and stop trade with Iraq. Unfortunately, the WTO would not like that at all.

(edit: I made a mistake. It was the UN charter and not the WTO charter that was drafted by many Communists and socialists. However, the WTO regularly cooperates with the UN.)

So, are you saying that it is America's duty to risk the lives of its soldiers and the safety of its citizens in order to stop ethnic cleansing in a foreign country?

Let me repeat the quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "I would think no better of a man who loved not his own country more than other countries, than of a man who should love his own wife or mother no more than he loved the wives or mothers of other men."

If the Iraqi people wanted America to liberate them, why did they not greet the American troops as liberators? If you watch the news, you'll see that many Iraqis resent the US invasion of their country. They wish that America would just leave them alone.

[Frumpy]

Who gave America the duty to stop ethnic cleansing by military action? America should just impose sanctions and stop trade with Iraq. Unfortunately, the WTO would not like that at all.

(edit: I made a mistake. It was the UN charter and not the WTO charter that was drafted by many Communists and socialists. However, the WTO regularly cooperates with the UN.)

So, are you saying that it is America's duty to risk the lives of its soldiers and the safety of its citizens in order to stop ethnic cleansing in a foreign country?

Let me repeat the quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "I would think no better of a man who loved not his own country more than other countries, than of a man who should love his own wife or mother no more than he loved the wives or mothers of other men."

If the Iraqi people wanted America to liberate them, why did they not greet the American troops as liberators? If you watch the news, you'll see that many Iraqis resent the US invasion of their country. They wish that America would just leave them alone.

Yes, it is my opinion that it is the duty of the most powerful countries on earth to stop ethical injustices from occurring the world over. The people who didn't treat the US troops as liberators were almost always members of the Baath party who had nothing to worry about under Saddam anyway.

[SaintSaturn]

Perhaps the government hates it. Ask the people whose families were killed by Saddam for nothing other than their religious beliefs. It's our duty to get involved in, and stop, ethnic cleansing. Iraq just happened to harbor many other reasons to go to war.

So do you think we should intervene in Darfur?

[Michael217]

Yes, it is my opinion that it is the duty of the most powerful countries on earth to stop ethical injustices from occurring the world over. The people who didn't treat the US troops as liberators were almost always members of the Baath party who had nothing to worry about under Saddam anyway.

Do you think that it is the duty and right of the most powerful countries on earth to stop ethical injustices from occurring the world over through the use of military force? Ironically, the use of military force usually results in thousands of military and civilian casualties and much economic loss for both sides. You see it all happening right now.

In my opinion, the US should wait until a majority of a country's people actually cry out for foreign intervention. In this way, the US would have a substantial and just reason for intervening because the very people of that nation would grant the US the right to intervene in their conflict.

Can you prove that the people who didn't treat the US troops as liberators were almost always members of the Baath party? Can you give us concrete evidence to support this. It is a claim--is it not? Therefore, you're going to have to support it with facts.

I did not think that the Baath party had this many members. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZvdXP7zmEM&feature=related) It seems like the entire population of Sadr City (part of Baghdad) to me.



Off topic: :43::16::48::bat::29: Happy Halloween, everybody! :lol: :D Don't let our political differences ruin current or possible friendships. :03: :57:

[RavenRocks4Life]

I'm going to be one of those people who say "Yes, he was a good president".
Don't judge us because we just say yes, we all have different opinions.

[Frumpy]

So do you think we should intervene in Darfur?

Yep.

Do you think that it is the duty and right of the most powerful countries on earth to stop ethical injustices from occurring the world over through the use of military force? Ironically, the use of military force usually results in thousands of military and civilian casualties and much economic loss for both sides. You see it all happening right now.

In my opinion, the US should wait until a majority of a country's people actually cry out for foreign intervention. In this way, the US would have a substantial and just reason for intervening because the very people of that nation would grant the US the right to intervene in their conflict.

Can you prove that the people who didn't treat the US troops as liberators were almost always members of the Baath party? Can you give us concrete evidence to support this. It is a claim--is it not? Therefore, you're going to have to support it with facts.

I did not think that the Baath party had this many members. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZvdXP7zmEM&feature=related) It seems like the entire population of Sadr City (part of Baghdad) to me.



Off topic: :43::16::48::bat::29: Happy Halloween, everybody! :lol: :D Don't let our political differences ruin current or possible friendships. :03: :57:

Genocidal leaders aren't going to listen to anything but military force. Before even starting their ethnic cleansing, they know that 95% of the world is against them. They rely on other countries not intervening for fear of war; or some are just plain crazy like Hitler. Anyone who cried out against Saddam's reign was pretty much writing their own death sentence. You can't simply wait for 50.000~1% of the country to cry out because they won't.

The Baath party doesn't have many members now, though it's pretty obvious why; it's partially illegalized. It used to have a lot more -- under Saddam, anyone who wanted to progress into the higher echelons of work needed to be a member of the party, and many still are. Obviously, there is no proof of a high amount, anyone who declared their allegiance to the party would be arrested. People don't change party affiliations on a whim, however. The people protesting the US invasion either weren't persecuted under Saddam, or simply hate America as their religion tells them to, they're fundamentalists. Not a claim, simply common sense.

[NancyDrew]

Off topic: :43::16::48::bat::29: Happy Halloween, everybody! :lol: :D Don't let our political differences ruin current or possible friendships. :03: :57:

Hehe! I agree! :57:

[vanessaroxs14]

no Bush is horrible

[NancyDrew]

I love it how everyone is like no he's not or yes he is. lol. :P

[YouKnowYouLoveMe]

Hahaha same.

I think he was generally a good president.
I mean no president of ours has made all bad or all perfect decisions.
People make mistakes.

[SaintSaturn]

Yeah but some presidents like Bush make way bigger mistakes than others.

[Michael217]

Genocidal leaders aren't going to listen to anything but military force. Before even starting their ethnic cleansing, they know that 95% of the world is against them. They rely on other countries not intervening for fear of war; or some are just plain crazy like Hitler. Anyone who cried out against Saddam's reign was pretty much writing their own death sentence. You can't simply wait for 50.000~1% of the country to cry out because they won't.

The Baath party doesn't have many members now, though it's pretty obvious why; it's partially illegalized. It used to have a lot more -- under Saddam, anyone who wanted to progress into the higher echelons of work needed to be a member of the party, and many still are. Obviously, there is no proof of a high amount, anyone who declared their allegiance to the party would be arrested. People don't change party affiliations on a whim, however. The people protesting the US invasion either weren't persecuted under Saddam, or simply hate America as their religion tells them to, they're fundamentalists. Not a claim, simply common sense.

So do you propose that the US should simply just assume that a country's citizens actually desire for foreign intervention?

Should the US then just step in uninvited to interfere in their affairs?

Furthermore, if it turns out that the people actually disapprove of foreign intervention, should the US then just say something like, "Oops, our bad."?

On the other hand, should the US just do what it is currently doing in Iraq today? That is, although it is clearly observed that the Iraqi people actually resent the US presence and desire for the withdrawal of US forces, the US has decided to stay longer--completely disregarding the wishes of the Iraqi people.

There's one more thing. With the advanced technology and communication of today's Information Age (aided by black markets, daring journalists, etc.), I'm quite certain a country's people will be able to voice their problems and complaints to the world and call for help one way or another.

[Frumpy]

So do you propose that the US should simply just assume that a country's citizens actually desire for foreign intervention?

Should the US then just step in uninvited to interfere in their affairs?

Furthermore, if it turns out that the people actually disapprove of foreign intervention, should the US then just say something like, "Oops, our bad."?

On the other hand, should the US just do what it is currently doing in Iraq today? That is, although it is clearly observed that the Iraqi people actually resent the US presence and desire for the withdrawal of US forces, the US has decided to stay longer--completely disregarding the wishes of the Iraqi people.

There's one more thing. With the advanced technology and communication of today's Information Age, I'm quite certain a country's people will be able to voice their problems and complaints to the world and call for help one way or another.

When a leader targets a group of people based on some defining characteristic, you can usually assume that someone somewhere wants help.

If members of that group then disapprove of the help they get, you might as well say "Oops, our bad.", yeah. If everything goes as planned all that should have happened is you most likely saved their life. Either there's something else influencing them, or they're just ungrateful idiots.

If all of Iraq wanted us to leave, sure. If the people who knew well enough what would happen with a pullout (intense civil war) were okay with it, then sure. By all means, leave. Let them kill one another. Not really our fault anymore, is it?

One side effect of all that technology is its ability to be traced. If given enough resources, literally everything can be traced. This is, of course, assuming that they have access to such technology. Few do in Iraq.

[Michael217]

When a leader targets a group of people based on some defining characteristic, you can usually assume that someone somewhere wants help.

If members of that group then disapprove of the help they get, you might as well say "Oops, our bad.", yeah. If everything goes as planned all that should have happened is you most likely saved their life. Either there's something else influencing them, or they're just ungrateful idiots.

If all of Iraq wanted us to leave, sure. If the people who knew well enough what would happen with a pullout (intense civil war) were okay with it, then sure. By all means, leave. Let them kill one another. Not really our fault anymore, is it?

One side effect of all that technology is its ability to be traced. If given enough resources, literally everything can be traced. This is, of course, assuming that they have access to such technology. Few do in Iraq.

I agree. However, military action does not seem to be a proper solution at all. It almost always results in thousands of military and civilian casualties and much damage to property. Moreover, the problem it was supposed to solve was only delayed since, as you said, a civil war will ensue if US forces withdraw. Bottom Line: The problem was not solved but only delayed.

Well, if the people are not grateful for foreign assistance, perhaps they did not even want it in the first place. You cannot force people to accept help. There are people who actually do not want any assistance no matter how tight their situation may be.

That's my point. It seems the Iraqi people want to allow a civil war to ensue. I do not think that they really mind having a civil war. I mean, they have been fighting each other for how many centuries already. It should not be any of America's business. It has nothing to do with America so she should just leave them alone. Think about it this way: If a civil war ensues (like the American Civil War) and one side wins (like the Union), perhaps the country will become more united or the people's differences might be resolved (like the US post Civil War).

Although I agree that few people in Iraq possess such technological means, at least there still are. It's not like no one in the world possesses an idea of the living conditions of such people.

[Frumpy]

It seems the Iraqi people want to allow a civil war to ensue.

If that's the case then fine, withdraw.

[ChelseaJB]

i say no but lately i've been thinking about his presidency and he wasn't given the easiest terms. i mean the twin towers? no one expected him to have to deal with that and i have to say that he did an okay job handling it

[YouKnowYouLoveMe]

Basically America can never do right by anyone.
If we don't step in and help, other countries are like wth why aren't you helping us?
And if we do help, they end up wanting us to leave

[LukkiStar]

I really don't think Iraq was wondering why isn't America helping us.
Yeah, they have problems, but so do loads of other countries over there and we're not helping them and they're better off without our help.
And America has our problems to deal with, and no one's helping us...

[V-ball Baby 101]

No

[Frumpy]

I really don't think Iraq was wondering why isn't America helping us.
Yeah, they have problems, but so do loads of other countries over there and we're not helping them and they're better off without our help.
And America has our problems to deal with, and no one's helping us...

Our problems aren't as serious as a genocidal leader with (likely) access to WMDs.

[LukkiStar]

That might be true, but it he still no reason for us to get involved.
And I believe Bush himself even said there were no weapons of mass destruction.

[Frumpy]

That might be true, but it he still no reason for us to get involved.
And I believe Bush himself even said there were no weapons of mass destruction.

He said "Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction". That's not saying there are none. Many people, myself included, believe there are WMDs, just not in Iraq. Saddam isn't stupid enough to let them be taken by the US.

[(sic)]

I think Bush did a phenominal job keeping our economy good for 7 years through 2 wars and the largest national tragedy in 200 years.

He is, after all, the reason I took a shard of metal to the chest.

[*~MileyCyrus#1Fan~*]

please don't bump old threads
- closed -