2004 Re-Elections [a.k.a. Is Bush a Good President?]

[eleanor]

[size=1] My family was talking about the Bush administration and the re-election in 2004 today, so I just thought I would like to talk about it on OtakuBoards. In my honest opinion, I think we would've been better off if George W. Bush hadn't been elected. In respect, I don't like saying presidents are 'bad' presidents, because just the job of being the president comes with hard work, stress, and respect. I respect Bush, but I still think he's a bad president economy-wise. [I really don't know much about Iraq, and Iraq isn't the topic of this thread, so don't bring it up much.]

Personally, I think we need someone like Clinton back to get us back on track. =_=

So...spill your opinions.[/size]

[Raiha]

[color=royalblue]Well, he's good if you compare him to someone like...oh.... .... Dwight Eisinhower. He's awful if you compare him to Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. But I don't see too much bad with him. It's easy to blame the .com bubble popping and the awful economy all on him. But if you think about it, it would've happened sooner or later. And if Al Gore, god forbid, was our president, we would've blamed him. Same with anybody else. We Americans always need somebody to blame.

....this war on Iraq....oh, sorry, [b]Terrorism[/b], is rather ...damaging. Like the majority of the population, I have no idea where he's going with this besides downhill. Like my mother, I feel he has a hidden agenda, or he's got something new he's going to pull out of the *** ten seconds before we impeach him. But I'm not sure exactly what he has in mind. So I can't say.

And that's all I can think of at the moment, I'm sure Alex will inspire me to say more.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Welp at the moment you're in a war where you are losing troops every day for no real reason at all, the current administration lied constantly about the situation and an array of other situations. They are also giving out "help money" to other countries while their own states can't even afford to burn off to prevent fires. World sentiment is currently against America, even Britain is 37% against and they are the states "strongest" allies.

I don't think they are doing to bad a job, do you?

[edit] Raiha is it really hidden? I think not, in fact it's been known about for over ten years now. Have a look for information (or the original) of a white paper by Paul Wolfowitz on where he believed America should stand in the eastern world. (Btw just to note Paul is a neo-con very close to the top of the white house with his best mates Dick, Donald and you guessed it good old Bush. :P)

(My 1500's post!)

[wrist cutter]

I only hate Bush because everyone else is doing it.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

I'm not quite the political guru I sometimes wish to be. I am however and unemployed member of America, a military spouse and a pro-choice liberal who likes the idea of same sex marriages.
I didn't vote for Bush back in 2000, I'm not voting for him next year. I will now try to sway you with my reasoning:laugh:
BUsh declared a war on Iraq back in March a month after he declared the war over. To me the war over means that you send most of teh troops home because the danger is over and the majority of the country's population has accepted or at least tolerated the occupation of foreign troops. This [i]didn't[/i] happen prior to a cease fire and no imformed member of America or any other nation for that matter sees that as well.
Also, Bush budgeted incorrectly for this 'War on Terrorism' so now he wants to make some cuts somewhere else. Where will he make them hmm-how about the disabled Veteran's funding? We don't need that, what do they need help with anyway? (do you sense the sarcasm coming out of my mouth yet?) So now with more disabled vets being created during this 'cease fire' in Iraq, he's going to cut that out so we can make more disabled vets in Iraq. Ooh boy, you've gotta love the irony folks!
Not to mention all the fun laws he's trying to pass which are coming closer to over-turning Roe vs Wade and the fact that he really doesn't like the idea of homosexuality so you can just forget about everyone's civil rights.
In my personal opinion, Bush should've just stayed in Texas, as govenor-maybe he could've run against Bessie in the Senate. But someone should get him out of the White House before he begins repealing Roe vs Wade completely or gets rid of the G.I Bill for Christ Sakes!

[Mitch]

[size=1]"De axes of weevils herbers treeists! Wuh knead to cum dung und beet de commpoopists. De herber treeists! A-woken Amoricah, de cuntry kneads actiun, condom plate dat fer uh sexund. Wuh can't not stand round, erect actun us kneaded!

"Imac kneads ur hellp, erect actun us kneaded! Dey herber treeists! Dey 'ave Sand am Insane, 'e us bed man. Me adveesers toll me 'e kills 'is own peeples! Wuh can't not 'low dis, und stand round; erect actun us kneaded! Uh lick 't Omama Big Mama, 'e mutt 'ave gun tuh Imac, dere 'e mutt be freinds wuth Sand am Insane. Just 'magine Omama Big Mama und Sand am Insane cumiming tag ether! Ain't no good bitsness et al!

"Dud I saw dey axes o' weevils herber treeists? Oh, weight, uh dud, oh. Wey nud ta sung de natal atom! Pit ur hed on ur chest!

"Oh saw cun dey dee, de boo burting un are, und threw de nut, de floog wah stull dar! Oh saw?oh askew dis, dis ain't natral et al. Uh dung't oven knew de wads. Dumbit!

"Ainywoos, de axes of weevils err bud paces! De U.S. nud tah 'a' um in de bag, unh nud tah 'a' um condom plated dung ta da lats! Dey 'ave weep ons of max destunction! Snot wight, snot wight! Dey ain't spiffic nough, nah lage 'noug tah be de rulers o' dere cuntries. Ain't not wight! De US kneads tah do erect actun! Kneads tah stund toll!

"De axes o' weevils wuhll buh stooped! Amorica ain't not gonna bake none o' diss! De treeists ain't not gonna flee iropanes inta dah wurld tade sensors! Ain't wight, nor spiffic. Ain't gud! Dey nud tah saw dis! De US not gonna talk dis!

"My yellow Amoricas, we ain't gonna talk ut! Dust luke Murtin Luther Kung, we gonna 'ave a deem! We goona stoop axes o' weevils; an we goomba stoop treeists!

"Un jus' 'cause I's beeised, I gonna sung preyer fer de solders in de whirr:

"Durr Goo', Goo' bess Amorica, Goo' bess. Dey ain't none git none dat, an we goona chaw dem down! Goo' bass Amorica! Dat all. Crewious Gurge goota goo!"

As you can see, I find his whole Axis of Evil thing absolutely stupid, and I also see the invasion of Iraq as a good thing, but still only one of the referendums of 9/11. I also see that Bush is a lot like his father, and wants to settle what his father didn't settle in the first gulf war.

Economically, I don't know much. But I can tell you that our economy hasn't been doing as good as it could.

I actually think Al Gore would have been a better president. I wanted him to win the election; but it is obvious he didn't.

So Bush is an okay president, but from what I've observed, there have been much better.

As for getting reelected, I don't know. I hope he loses lol. We'll see.[/size]

[Transtic Nerve]

He's a terrible president, and if you can't figure out why he is, then you shouldn't be voting. If for some ungodly reason he gets reelected, I will lose all faith, more than I have already, in the American people. It's a damn shame his brother was elected as governor of Florida, and even worse shame he was "elected" president. They both have done nothing good for this country or their states.

[I, Colossus]

Ok. I'm honestly not going to follow the rest of this thread. But the economy is not Bush's fault. The economy is like anything else, it's not a constant. It goes up and down. Clinton happpened to come in on America while the economy was going up, thus he got praise. Bush happened get elected while the economy was going down, thus he got blamed.

That's really all I have to say, I don't follow as many issues as I should.

[b]Edit:[/b] Even now that its getting better, he still didn't do anything. It's just a cycle.

[Guest cloricus]

Shroom I find that to be far from the truth especially in a capitalistic country like America. There are methods of controlling the economy that each area of the market are aware of and follow, the government has it's own, eg give tax rebates to increase spending which lifts confidence and as far as I know the American government has several advisors that do just this and only this. Oh and for the record one of the ways to increase an economy is to go to war.

So in effect Bush's administration is in part responsible.

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shroom [/i]
[B]Ok. I'm honestly not going to follow the rest of this thread. But the economy is not Bush's fault. The economy is like anything else, it's not a constant. It goes up and down. Clinton happpened to come in on America while the economy was going up, thus he got praise. Bush happened get elected while the economy was going down, thus he got blamed. [/B][/QUOTE]

Shroom is basically correct. The government can partly control the economy but they do not have total control over it. The economy goes up down in cycles most of the time; there are good periods along with bad, though some are more extreme than others.

Really, it's the American people who have the most control over the American economy.

EDIT: I will admit that cloricus does make a good point, as well. War can increase the economy by increasing the amount of jobs available for people to have and whatnot.

[Guest TenshiKurai]

I would comment, but there are certain opinion which may incriminate me. To put this in legal terms, I think Bush is an idiot, who abuses the power given to him. This 'war' as he calls it is nothing more than childish 'ambition', in disguise as an attempt at world peace, and to protect the american people from 'terrorism'. You won't stop it by increasing it, for Gods' sake! Now he's just inflicting it on the innocent people of Iraq. Any child with half a brain would understand that! Typical Gun-toting Texan behavior. (note: I am not saying all Texans act like this, just refering to a common sereotype, which this Baka falls into) I am not a fan of the American current government, to put it lightly. But I don't think you need someone like Clinton either though... Try finding someone with a brain people! I mean there are more than a billion people in the US, one of you has to have a brain!
This is probably sounding horribly critical, and I mean it to be critical, but not against the citizens, but the so-called 'government', so I appologize if you took offense.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]It seems like the two biggest complaints against Bush are the war and the economy. I have yet to read a logical, slightly convincing post on why the war on Iraq is a bad thing, so I am going to discount that argument right away. The White House administration may have given flimsy reasoning towards war, but sometimes the ends do justify the means. If we were to pull out of Iraq right now we would be making the same mistakes we did during Desert Storm. So, needless to say, I am slightly unwilling to support a candidate that will remove our troops from Iraq.

The economy is fluctuating right now, fluctuating around in the toilet. I really think that Bush could do more to aid the economy, but it isn?t his fault that it is in the crapper. He was in office three months when it plummeted and since then we (America) have had the most massive terrorist attack of all time, had several natural disasters, and have gone to war. I really don?t expect our economy to be stellar. I do think it is odd how we tend to blame the president for our entire economy, but fail to hold congress accountable. I guess it is easier to hold one man accountable than a group of adult adolescents that won?t even show to vote on an education reform bill.

I don?t think that George Bush has been a bad president and I don?t think that he has been a good president. Whether or not Gore would have done a better job is absolutely pointless, Gore wasn?t elected. The real question is, can another candidate do a better job than Bush? I like John Edwards, I think he has the best stance of all the democratic candidates and I think he would be the least likely to remove troops from Iraq. However, the chances of him winning the primaries are slim and none. Right now I am not terribly impressed with any of the democratic front runners, least of all Howard Dean. If it comes down to Bush and Dean, as of right now my vote would be for Bush. There is still a little over a year until election time, so I guess there is still a lot that could occur that may sway my mind.
[/color]

[Vegitto4]

I'd have to agree with Cloud on this one. Yes, our economy isn't the best in the world, but it will get better eventually. Gas prices started going down(which is a good sign that the economy is slowly getting better, in my opinion. That's one of the only things I buy). Wow, the war is there. Unless your fighting, or can vote on it, dont complain. Then it's just annoying.

Dont automatically presume that Wolfowitz and Bush are best pals. They wouldn't be so if Cheaney wasn't so buddy buddy with him. Wolfowitz was the one that brought up Iraq. He is the one who wanted to finish what he started in the first place behind the first Bush. I just watched a documentary on both Bush's administrations in Government the other week. I found it a tad bit amusing.


I figure, he could maybe give it another try. If he get's elected, then w00t. If not, then I hope somebody does better.

All in all, he's been a fine president. Not good, not bad. Just kinda there. He's had more to deal with than Clintion did, and under the circumstances, I applaud him.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo]It seems like the two biggest complaints against Bush are the war and the economy. I have yet to read a logical, slightly convincing post on why the war on Iraq is a bad thing[/quote][/b]

Having American soldiers die for 2 men we can't even find.... Thats a bad thing. The administration lied to us about weapons of mass destruction.... none have yet to be found, yet on average, 2 soldiers die every day..... and for what cause? Hussein was also found to have no links to Osama Bin Laden or the 9/11 attacks, or any recent terrorism we've encountered. In fact the only logical thing to go into this war was for a humanitary cause to stop Hussien from killing Kurds... but they never mentioned that when we went into this war..... that and the whole oil thing. Which has obviously been a big part in the reasoning for the war... I purely think this war is based on revenge and the fact that Bush needed "something to do" because he doesn't want to deal with our slumpy economy or the fact he can't seem to find Osama Bin Laden.

The economy is bad because of a few things. The 9/11 attacks, and Bush's economic policy. We WERE coming out of a depression, but that all changed after everyone got "affraid" and Bush gave all that money back to everyone, no to mention tax cuts for the rich, and so on. Put it this way, the economy might be in a slump because of some cycle, but Bush has only made it worse with his economic policies. WHich has made the economy worse and not helping it recover.... All he's said about the economy is "spend your money"... lol How pathetic. And then he goes off and ignores the problem hoping it to get better and it hasn't. He said we couldn't just ignore Saddam hussien or he'll get worse... well instead he ignored out economy, and looks where his advice got us.

His job as president is to deal with his country first and foremost, and an overseas war about seemingly nothing and ignoring our economy is not doing that job at all. He's lied several times to the American people, he took it in his own hands after the world disagreed to go ahead with the use of force on Iraq, gaining us potential enemies in powerful countries, not to mention having the rest of the Muslim world hate us even more. I see nothing good coming from this presidency...

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B][/b]

Having American soldiers die for 2 men we can't even find.... Thats a bad thing. The administration lied to us about weapons of mass destruction.... none have yet to be found, yet on average, 2 soldiers die every day..... and for what cause? Hussein was also found to have no links to Osama Bin Laden or the 9/11 attacks, or any recent terrorism we've encountered. In fact the only logical thing to go into this war was for a humanitary cause to stop Hussien from killing Kurds... but they never mentioned that when we went into this war..... that and the whole oil thing. Which has obviously been a big part in the reasoning for the war... I purely think this war is based on revenge and the fact that Bush needed "something to do" because he doesn't want to deal with our slumpy economy or the fact he can't seem to find Osama Bin Laden.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Again, it just seems like the difference of opinion. First off, TN, I don?t expect you to support Bush, especially since you are a pacifist. I really doubt that you would support the war for any reason, even if the White House administration didn?t muddle through the reasoning. I still think that Saddam harbored weapons of mass destruction, and I think it is good that the sick, murdering SOB is out of power. I think the war was and is worth it. Personally, I don?t give a damn what the Muslim community thinks of the US, as long as they are able to make up their own minds about America and aren?t being force fed anti-US opinions by terrorists. That is what Saddam was, that is what Bin Laden was, terrorists.

As for how I feel about the president ignoring the economy because of the war, I agree that Bush could be doing a better job with the economy. However, if American?s as a whole have to sacrifice a triple latte a week so an oppressed nation can possibly be free than so be it.

There is a lot that Bush isn?t doing right, or at least isn?t improving. America?s educational system is in shambles, the affirmative action bill needs to be seriously reevaluated, and social security [b]has[/b] to be revamped before it dwindles into nothing. These are the issues I would like to see candidates address, but they aren?t. All they are whining about is the validity behind a war that we are already involved in.
[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]I'm not even American, but I will throw my hat into the ring anyway, since Cloricus already has.

In terms of the war in Iraq, I won't even comment. If anyone has read my lengthy posts on the subject, you'll understand my viewpoint and you'll have read my in-depth reasoning on it.

The biggest problem surrounding the war isn't what President Bush is doing; it's the misinformation that exists, particularly on the part of anti-war campaigners. It's fine to be anti-war. Hell, I'm anti-war myself. Who would be "pro-war"? The label itself is a stupid one. The question isn't whether one likes or wants war, but whether or not war is necessary -- a tool at your disposal in a given situation. I'm already moving away from my point, so I won't continue with that.

If I were American, the question is whether or not I'd vote for Bush, in contrast to the current Democrat candidates.

Well, for me, it's not so much a question of Bush being some amazing leader -- it's a question of the Democrats having such an awful field of contenders. They're a sloppy and unprofessional bunch. They're all over the place on such a wide variety of issues. The front runner, Howard Dean, is hard for me to place. I've seen him interviewed a couple of times...and while he [i]is[/i] an intelligent person, who seems to have a grasp of the issues, he also seems to be a supremely arrogant person who doesn't [i]really[/i] have a clear agenda on various issues.

If he becomes the candidate, I'd vote for Bush.

Bush is also probably one of the most misunderstood politicians that I've seen. His biggest critics are also the [b]most[/b] ignorant about his policies. I'm not even American, and I know far more about his domestic and international policies than many anti-Bush Americans I've spoken to. It's a sad state of affairs in that regard.

I mean, people often talk about Bush being stupid. But he isn't stupid. He's actually a very clever politician. Obviously that doesn't come across because his demeanour tends to be more warm and playful, rather than intelligent and clinically accurate. His words in speeches are rarely particularly clever or intelligent, but by the same token, they aren't designed to be. They are [i]designed[/i] to be digested by your average Joe. Surely that is obvious.

But of course, people will call him stupid and so on because there isn't much substance there. It's an easy attack. It requires no effort to call someone an idiot. It requires far more effort to systematically point out where their policies have gone wrong.

In my discussions with Cloricus about the war, I believe that I have (on at least two occasions), pointed out how and where Cloricus has misinterpreted the current situation. But having read my thorough rebuttals, his position hasn't changed. He's chanting the same silly, adolescent, regurgitated political stuff that he's been chanting all along.

It makes me wonder why I bother. Some people have decided to hate Bush regardless of his policies.

I disagree with Bush on many issues. I believe that some of his social commentary is absolutely backward, in terms of how conservative it is. But at the same time, I'm not going to rip the man to shreds on ignorant and baseless grounds. I know what he stands for and I know what his intentions are. I'm not going to paint him as the devil just because I'm somewhat different, ideologically speaking.[/color]

[Dagger]

I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but at the same time, I honestly don't think that any of the Democratic candidates would make a better President than he. Since I consider myself to be fairly liberal, this is a rather depressing realization. I feel lucky that I'm not old enough to vote; if I were, I know I'd probably end up agonizing over what to do, and would most likely never come to a satisfactory decision.

As others have stated, the poor economy isn't entirely Bush's fault. But I do disagree with his tax cuts, and I find it frankly amazing that our nation could have gone directly from having a sizeable budget surplus to accumulating an enormous deficit.

Howard Dean seems poised to take the Democratic nomination. The only problem with this is that the tremendous media hype surrounding Dean's campaign has succeeded only in drowning out his actual goals and agenda. Although I make an effort to follow the news, I've learned very little about his positions on various issues.

The Democrats are determined to continue squabbling amongst themselves, rather than focus on creating a powerful, cohesive message that can appeal to the average voter. Bush, at least, has opinions of his own. The Democratic candidates aren't pro- anything; they're merely anti- everything that he represents.

~Dagger~

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo]Personally, I don?t give a damn what the Muslim community thinks of the US, as long as they are able to make up their own minds about America and aren?t being force fed anti-US opinions by terrorists. That is what Saddam was, that is what Bin Laden was, terrorists.[/color][/quote][/b]

Saddam is far from any type of terrorist. Murderer, yes, terrorist no. He hasn't planted any bombs to blow up people. He hasn't flown planes into the world trade centers... he had nothing to do with any of that.... the only thing Saddam has done was kill Kurds.... and that was something that has been going on for many many years, not something since Saddam came in.

Now about what you said about the Muslim community... Would you give a damn if your mother was one of the people killed in the trade centers because of what the Muslim community thinks of the US? How about later on if you are face to face with a Muslim with a gun and your american and he doesn't like Americans.... and therefor he shoots you... because of what he thinks of American.... you'd care then wouldn't you?

The Muslims were such peaceful people once... and then "we" just had to go and start crusades with them... and take their land away.... I couldn't imagine why they are so god damn upset.

Oh yeah I forgot to also mention the Patriot Act.... NO one should serve under a president who even remotely came close to oking this bill.... how can anyone support a man who takes your freedoms away.... shame....

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]

Saddam is far from any type of terrorist. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Didn't Saddam ambush political leaders and blow things up when he took over power? There was even a movie made about it.

I don't remember the specifics...but terrorists create terror. They hurt innocent people. As far as I know, that's what Saddam has been doing for the last thirty years.[/color]

[dark king]

although he is not my president, i think he is not a good prsisent.
he leads people into wars that are really unneccesary.
this war is more like his payback.
i`m even doubting if it wasn`t him who planned the 11sept attack.
but if that is true or not.
it happened and it suits him well.
but i see some simularity with other maniacs of elder rules.
the rule can get with the iron fist, covered under patriotism.
millions of dollars to spend on war, the victory will deliver very good benefits to him.
but the stupidity he posesses, ohw i won`t even go there.
but i think he lacks serious leadership, wich will show after this **** is over, i love democracy.

[eleanor]

[size=1] The theory that end of wars [the 'war' on Iraq isn't even officially a war.] brings many jobs and a better economy is false. The only war that has brought us that result is World War II, and you can't base everything on one war.

Bush sent in American troops to 'liberate' Iraq, since he has the power, and everybody thought the aftermath of getting Sadam out of office wouldn't be as expensive. Some smart people did, but many people didn't. So while Bush has just abandoned the WMD plan and is asking for more money, he's doing nothing to help the economy. Personally, I think he doesn't care much for low-class people. [Did you know most people called to war are almost always low-class people?]

Another thing I'm frustrated about is the nine Justices. Right now, it's evenly split between conservatists and liberalists, but three of the Justices are talking about retirement, and you KNOW Bush is going to pick three conservatists. So whenever a case about helping low-class people comes up, the rich white people will always get the upper hand now. *walks away*

EDIT: The rich, white people have always had the upper hand. [/size]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote]Saddam is far from any type of terrorist. Murderer, yes, terrorist no. He hasn't planted any bombs to blow up people. He hasn't flown planes into the world trade centers... he had nothing to do with any of that.... the only thing Saddam has done was kill Kurds.... and that was something that has been going on for many, many years, not something since Saddam came in. [/quote]

[color=indigo]About a year and a half before Saddam invaded Kuwait (you may be a terrorist if the word ?invade? is part of your political agenda) he released mustard gas in a government office building in Al Abraq, killing over two hundred and fifty people. I would think that would be a pretty decent example of terrorism, especially since he claimed responsibility. [/color]

[quote]Now about what you said about the Muslim community... Would you give a damn if your mother was one of the people killed in the trade centers because of what the Muslim community thinks of the US? How about later on if you are face to face with a Muslim with a gun and your American and he doesn't like Americans.... and therefore he shoots you... because of what he thinks of American.... you'd care then wouldn't you? [/quote]

[color=indigo]No. I am more intelligent than to blame a set culture for the indiscretions of a small community. Unfortunately many Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan have been programmed to hate Americans and they have little if no linear rationale behind their actions.

The fact is people all over the world hate America. The difference between the people in Australia that hate America and the Afghanis that hate America is that Australians aren?t crashing airplanes into our buildings.

So to put it simply, I?ll never care if people hate America for logical or even illogical reasons. Our army is not around to placate other countries and make them our buddies; it is around to ensure that our way of life is protected. I think America?s track record for building allies out of enemies more than speaks for itself. [/color]

[quote]The Muslims were such peaceful people once... and then "we" just had to go and start crusades with them... and take their land away.... I couldn't imagine why they are so god damn upset.[/quote]

[color=indigo]I don?t understand why the Muslim community would be upset about the Crusades, at least not at the US. We had nothing to do with the Crusades. I don?t think that even the most fanatical of Muslims hates the US because of the Crusades, they have plenty of other reasons to dislike us.[/color]

Edit: Dagger, what is your point? I strayed off topic a bit, granted, but I didn't need a history lesson that isn't accurate. The reason why we are attacked by middle eastern terrorists is because we (the US) have a constant habbit of muddling in their affairs and exploiting their economies. We have chosen sides in civil wars and supplied weapons to further our own agendas. That is why terrorists hate us, not because of the Crusades. Sure Bin Laden might reference the Crusades and the injustice that occured at the hands of the infidels, but never once has a terrorrist bombed us because America had anything to do with the Crusades. Sorry to be so harsh but jeez, use some common sense

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo]No. I am more intelligent than to blame a set culture for the indiscretions of a small community. Unfortunately many Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan have been programmed to hate Americans and they have little if no linear rationale behind their actions.

So to put it simply, I?ll never care if people hate America for logical or even illogical reasons. Our army is not around to placate other countries and make them our buddies; it is around to ensure that our way of life is protected. I think America?s track record for building allies out of enemies more than speaks for itself.

I don?t understand why the Muslim community would be upset about the Crusades, at least not at the US. We had nothing to do with the Crusades. I don?t think that even the most fanatical of Muslims hates the US because of the Crusades, they have plenty of other reasons to dislike us.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

You pretty much answered your own question, HC. Certain fanatical Muslims do still care about the Crusades. They harbor a hatred of the entire Western world--the United States is simply the focal point of that anathema, due mainly to its military might and fame. No, it makes little sense to use the Crusades as a potential justification for terrorism..... but then again, what about terrorism makes [i]any[/i] sense? It isn't something that most intelligent, rational people could ever truly understand.

I recognize that many Middle Eastern Muslims have suffered greatly throughout much of their lives. Some of them are brainwashed into following extremist religious sects, groups which the average worshiper of Islam would be horrified to identified with. For all I know, in a similar situation, I, too, might want to be a "martyr."

However, that is an explanation, not an excuse. Radical Islam cannot peacefully co-exist with the United States or the remainder of the Western world.

Terrorists' reasons for attacking us are often near-impossible to comprehend. The Crusades happened hundreds of years ago--but some Muslims speak of them as though they occurred just yesterday. When you come down to it, America is their easiest scapegoat.

~Dagger~

[Genkai]

Well, let's look at what he's done for us:

He's waged an illegal war on a third-world country. (I'm not saying I support Saddam Hussein or the regime that he created, and I think that there's a chance that what we did to Iraq might get better in the long run, if we play our cards right. The fact is, though, that the basis of the war in Iraq is that they were a threat to us. No proof of that. So it was an illegal war. Not to mention we were lied to about it.)

We need to create at least 2 million jobs in the next year ( I forge tif that's the exact statistic, but it's close) or we'll experience the worst economy since the depression.

Of course, Bush taught us that, in order to save trees, we have to CUT THEM DOWN! Naturally, we should give the wood to gigantic conglomerate companies so they can make even MORE money! Environment? Animals? Who needs them? Especially in the Ocean, why else would we pass bills that endager sendagered species even more? Fun times.

Wow, I wish I had my Anti_Bush notebook with me, I have tons of useful statistics in there, this is all by memory...

Well, as you might see, I don't like Bush to much. I don't find it admirable that he might lie to our country and go to war on that lie, pretending that it was truth. We'll see wat happens in 2004, because it seems that way too many people support him. Did you know that, in a recent study, 54% of people actually thought that we found WOMDs in Iraq? o_0 it's scary to think that that many people are so misled.

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]Some people have decided to hate Bush regardless of his policies. [/quote]
I know and that's stupid, they should hate him [i]because[/i] of his policies. Though if that was aimed at me I'd like to state that it's not Bush that I disagree with, it's the people who create his policies. I'm sure Bush is a great guy and I really wouldn't mind meeting him with a small disagreement of what he allows to happen.

James you point out holes in my arguments but hardly ever support it and when you do it's normally from bias sources and you do not present the "other side" of the argument so based on this and my access to large amounts of news sources on the internet plus analytical evidence on tv from people who are in Iraq I base my views. Their views haven't changed so neither have mine, I like to follow reality.

Also Saddam was a dictator, not a terrorist. I believe the average dictionary should support that? Though really we should keep off this topic considering it lowers Bushs "niceness factor" since there are several worse dictators in the world and he hasn't even thought about (or has rejected) the idea of "removing" them. This shows he?s not doing it for the people.

I hope to god that America has some one better than Bush other wise I fear for how such a good country America is could end up...

[added]

Heaven's Cloud's I think you need to take a history lesson, I'm not even American and I know the past events that caused the Muslim world to dislike America, they are simple. America screwed them over in the past and they are still doing it, Afghanistan is a reck now and Bush promised to fund them and help them which he hasn't done, oh wait he officially "forgot to". There are now new very strong people there that are extremely anti-American so now in stead of one osama bin laden you have three to replace him who are all pissed for a very good reason! The simplest way for America to fix this is not to go off and kill these people it's to go to them and see what they want changed because America is the aggressor here; it has been for over 40 years, so they are the ones that have to move on their position.