The War on Anything That Moves

[Ravenstorture]

I need some people's opinions. I am not sure on what, exactly, but I know there are a few of you who are American, and I would just LOVE to know what you think about your president. Seemingly as he got the job with only 46% of the country's approval, which I think is a bit odd.
It came to my attention as soon as he had been instated that George W. Bush wanted a war.
And then, he got one.
Now it looks as if he is milking it for all it's got, and since the people of america are very good, innocent people, I was wondering what you all thought about this. It's not good having someone like Bush, the ex-Govenor of Texas, the Land of Public Executions, suddenly running not just the USA, but what looks to be the planet.
Personally, I don't like texas and I don't like George W. Bush. Texas, however, seems to have improved somewhat since the move of govenor. But USA is falling.
I am starting to really dislike the USA, and am blaming it on it's president. So can I have your feedback?

(Don't get me wrong, it's not you I don't like, it's him.)

[Guest cloricus]

I am not an American but as long as American keeps to them selves and don?t start any wars that could involve me fighting for them in the near future, I really wouldn?t care. (Eg Bush attacking Iraq)

And one other thing. People get over the 9:11 thing it?s getting annoying - You (America) started the conflict over 10 years ago, consider your selves lucky that they haven?t done more.

[PiroMunkie]

[color=indigo]Bush is a laughing stock and a half, lol. I cannot say I [i]hate[/i] him, I could really care less. He is just way too easy to make fun of. :p So far we have not been taken over yet during this war, so I guess he is doing a good job.

I think it is funny how all countries hate America. Not like funny as in I don't understand why they hate us, but funny as in "haha, you're right!" America is really dumb. I was at concert not long ago and there was an Australian band there and they could not stop talking bad about the U.S. And everyone in the crowd cheered like there was no tomorrow. Though the band did give us some respect because even though we have the most F-ed up system in the world, we are the only ones who can actually do something about it. :p[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

For I am a Democrat, although not one of those die-hard ones, I don't like Bush. I think he's an idiot who should have never won. But I think you are basing your opinion of the nation off of what you may hear by the media or online.

As far as what he's done for the US, not much can be said. He's kinda been busy dealing with this anti-terrorism campain, which has a) taking away priorities to other things and b) made him spend a hell of alot of money.... which leads us to more debt and not living up to what he can do to help America... He did send people a tax return of $300 or whatever... which then backfired... people didn't spend it... in fact only 18% of the people spent it. This is not Bush's fault... from an economists point of view... give more people money, they are going to spend it... thats how economists think, and thats what Bush was planning on.... that, however didn't happen, and ofcourse 9/11 rolls in and now it's all gone and hit the fan.... He simply couldn't have expected this, and now we are still rebuilding from it. Overall, the economy is coming out of the recession and the country will hopfully start improving....

Which bring me to my next question: What exactly do you sidlike about the US now that Bush is president? I honestly can't think of one that thats horridly wrong with this country that has to deal with Bush's actions and not the actions of ourselves.

[RicoTranzrig]

A lot of people didn't put much faith in Bush from the start...even though he's not the best president in American history, he's also not the worst...There's nothing to really blame George W. about...now the war against terrorism is something I worry about sometimes. It's a confusing war and it could take much longer than expected...how far can the networks of terrorism go if it's hit home (U.S. that is.)? But I think Bush as learned a valuable lesson as well...politics isn't a game...our people wanted the best for our country, that's why Gore won the popular vote...but the electoral college changed all of that.

It's not just Bush though who needs to wake up and realize that he could lead us to destruction...the people who represent Bush are slipping up as well...

[Ravenstorture]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]For I am a Democrat, although not one of those die-hard ones, I don't like Bush. I think he's an idiot who should have never won. But I think you are basing your opinion of the nation off of what you may hear by the media or online.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You're right, I am basing my opinion off what I hear from the media. And I do not entirely believe that what the media says is true, but I don't have anything else to go off. Which is why I asked you guys...:)

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo] No I am sorry, I will not get over 9/11!!! I am glad you feel that a bunch of people heading to work got what they deserved on September 11, just because the Americans started a conflict. FYI...America didn't start the conflict, they were pressured into building millitary bases on Muslim Holy ground by the United Nations, and especially the UK. However, since the US is the major financial backing of the UN, the US always seems to be a scape goat. Another point to make is that although the US doesn't always make the best choices (ie: Veitnam, and backing Isreal to the extreme extent that we do) we always tend to go in and fight for the little guy that is getting oppressed by a corrupt millitary or dictator.

Now, back to 9/11, before I talk about Bush, I could understand an attack on a government building or a millitary base, that ould seem justifiable. But crashing a bunch of planes into the world trade center and killing thousands of innocent hard working people is just plain cowardice. In my mind, the terrorists just gave us an excuse to occupy all hostile countries and exterminate every single terrorist.

Now, on to Bush. No he is not a great President. But he has handled the country extremely well since 9/11. Unfortunately, in my mind, all of the presidents that we have had since 1980 have been pathetic. Reagan probably sold arms to Iraq. Bush was great at foriegn relations, but was so unpopular in America due to a bad economy, that he was laughed out of office. Clinton was a good president, and might have done some real good for our nation if he could have stayed out of scandal for a couple years. Thank god that Al Gore isn't president, with all of his millitary strategim, the US would probably be getting bombed daily.

And one last comment on behalf of the US, say what you will, but people on average live a lot better then people elsewhere in the world[/color]

[Bluewizard]

I think Bush deserves more credit. I certainly think he is doing a better job in office right now than Gore would have done, and he did win fair and square by our voting system; it isn't his fault that the system is faulty and stupid. Although I was pro Nader, and I think he would have handled the situation better.

I think Bush is milking the war for all it's worth, but I don't think that is a bad thing. I think that this is just what the world needs right now. One thing that does piss me off is how everyone else is our lapdogs(no offense). I think you European people need to start thinking for yourselves rather than just standing behind us and nodding. (of course you people aren't really doing that; but your governments are, if you are European which I am guessing but oh well.):D

Anyway, no offense to anyone who is Jewish or strongly pro-Israeli, but I have thought that Isreal were, rmmm, acting a little bit of a bully on Palistine, and now they saw they're perfect oppurtunity to kill Palistine finaly, and we aren't letting them do it and hahaha. :laugh:

[Sui Generis]

Its pretty much like what Heaven Cloud is saying. The US is such a freakign contriversial country becuase we are doing what all these countries want but can't do. God we do stuff for Canada which makes the UK mad so we do something for the UK which ticks off a bucnh of terriost who come over here and blow thousands of innocent peole up, and you blame it all on us. ANd the ONE time in about 1 hundred years the US does something for themselves everyone country says its wrong.

The US HAS stuck its nose in places it doesn't belong, but realistically what country hasn't?! (Not tryign to brag or anything) But I just think that USA seems to be strong economical and militarial power that its easier to blame us than say...Australia or Kenya who are much smaller.

As of PResident Bush. I think he has done a great job. No he is not the greatest President on the face of the Earth but he has done a nice job not doing what the Americans wanted immediatly afterwards! If we got what we wanted that day all of the middle eastern countries would probbly have been knocked off teh map by nukes...He did a good job of controlling his own country, and telling these terriost organizations that we arn't gonna sit down and take a bombing on our own soil lightly. But this is all my opinion...I see both sides of this and I see where you all are comign from, but I support the US and Bush....

Food for Thought: Many people like me have stuck up for Bush from the beggininning, now some people are thinking many Americans are becoming Nationalists, such as the Germans were in WW2, I don't think any of us can truly comment on this who are Americans, because we don't know the whole truth, all we know is what they want us to....

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo] No I am sorry, I will not get over 9/11!!! I am glad you feel that a bunch of people heading to work got what they deserved on September 11, just because the Americans started a conflict. FYI...America didn't start the conflict, they were pressured into building millitary bases on Muslim Holy ground by the United Nations, and especially the UK. However, since the US is the major financial backing of the UN, the US always seems to be a scape goat. Another point to make is that although the US doesn't always make the best choices (ie: Veitnam, and backing Isreal to the extreme extent that we do) we always tend to go in and fight for the little guy that is getting oppressed by a corrupt millitary or dictator. [/quote][/b][/color]

[color=royalblue]Sorry, but that's absolute tripe.

The United States Government loves to make out that it is always fighting for a higher good and that it's always "defending the little guy".

The USA has military bases in the Middle East in order to protect its oil interests and to keep hostile nations in check.

The US presence in that part of the world has absolutely nothing to do with the UK or the United Nations. Being an American, I can fully understand why you'd see it that way.

But for those of us in other countries, we get to see both sides of the story. On the one hand, we can see how the United States builds its own powers and then exercizes them for good purposes -- but those good purposes (ie: defending Kuwait against Iraq), are often based upon something else (ie: making sure that US oil interests in the Middle East were protected).

It's very easy, in the case of Afghanistan, to say "just look what the US did! They saved all those people from their oppressors!".

That's rubbish.

If the USA truly cared about such things, it would have removed the Taliban years ago.

So of course, it gets done now simply because it's in America's interest to do so.

Do you see what I'm saying? When you have such massive global powers, you can either choose to ingore the world or to keep to your responsibility.

The USA done a fine balancing act of doing both -- but sometimes the selective involvement is unacceptable and even sometimes "un-American".

A great example is with East Timor. When the violence was erupting there, the Indonesian military not only stood by and let it happen, but they [i]encouraged[/i] the violence by distributing weapons and whatnot to the militia in the region.

Many innocent people died.

Now at this point, Australia could see what was happening (as we are a neighbour of East Timor). We did the right thing -- we immediately informed the United Nations of the situation and then we sent in our own armed forces to protect the population there. At the same time, Indonesia pulled its own forces out in disgrace.

We realized that a full-time peacekeeping effort would be required. And this was where the USA had an obligation to assist (because of various treaties we have signed with them).

But needless to say, because it wasn't "in US interest", the USA was reluctant to do anything about it.

So the Australian Government had to drag the USA kicking and screaming to East Timor so that it would be brought to their attention and that they would exercize responsibilities which they themselves had signed into legislation.

My long-winded point, is that as an American, it's very easy to see things with rose coloured glasses.

What you don't understand, is that the USA often does not exercize its powers responsibly.

September 11 is unacceptable and should [i]never[/i] have happened. But don't fool yourself into thinking that America is all-righteous and never does anything which could influence other nations/groups to have legitimate concerns about its actions.[QUOTE][B][color=indigo]

Now, back to 9/11, before I talk about Bush, I could understand an attack on a government building or a millitary base, that ould seem justifiable. But crashing a bunch of planes into the world trade center and killing thousands of innocent hard working people is just plain cowardice. In my mind, the terrorists just gave us an excuse to occupy all hostile countries and exterminate every single terrorist. [/color][/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]I agree. This was not the way to solve the issue and it will only cause terrorist groups/hosting nations to face International justice.

This is why Australia also has forces in Afghanistan. It's not a matter of occupation or threatening, it's a matter of physically removing violent groups from the face of the Earth.[/color][QUOTE][B]

Now, on to Bush. No he is not a great President. But he has handled the country extremely well since 9/11. Unfortunately, in my mind, all of the presidents that we have had since 1980 have been pathetic. Reagan probably sold arms to Iraq. Bush was great at foriegn relations, but was so unpopular in America due to a bad economy, that he was laughed out of office. Clinton was a good president, and might have done some real good for our nation if he could have stayed out of scandal for a couple years. Thank god that Al Gore isn't president, with all of his millitary strategim, the US would probably be getting bombed daily.[/QUOTE][/b][/color]

[color=royalblue]Bush has focused on the war on terror and done very little for the United States itself. I don't think anyone would argue that.

Al Gore is no worse than Bush. He would have done nothing differently -- when you have been attacked, it's very easy for the President to say the right things and get full support. It's natural and it is expected to happen.

If Al Gore had been President, he'd have said the same comforting words and everyone would have flocked behind him like sheep too -- that's just how it works. It's a case of "the moment making the man".[QUOTE][B][color=indigo]

And one last comment on behalf of the US, say what you will, but people on average live a lot better then people elsewhere in the world[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]Australia has the highest quality living conditions on Earth.

One of the main reasons for this is probably that Australia isn't in the same position as the US, in the sense of always [i]needing[/i] to clean up the messes it makes, or in the sense of being so prominent on the world stage.

But I think there are a few basic things about the culture/society here which make anything less unacceptable.[/color]

[Blue Heaven]

[QUOTE]all of the middle eastern countries would probbly have been knocked off teh map by nukes...[/QUOTE] You want to use h-bombs so its not a nuclear waste land. BUt anyway I don't see whats wrong with Bush. He handeld the situation in a good way and brought nationalism thorought the whole country. America is probrably stronger as a country than it ever has been.

[Kent]

taliban was cutting off hands for stealing.
no tv. no computer. no food. no running water. just a well some distance (by foot) away.
if we dont want war, the rest of the world isnt just gonna go... ok thats it, no more war... sorry bub. the world is f'd up and its not gonna change when you turn your back on an oppresive, racist, absolutist group of religious leaders controlling an entire country.
there are people in france that believe no plane hit the pentagon my aunt was working at up until a few months before the 11th.
act like your a smart, political type, but the world is still moving and their are still millions of bad dudes with guns.
i hope george keeps it straight but truth is.. we up hold the geneva conventions rules... they dont. the world is messed up but if you just complain about how bad this place is, i'd just say your a damn fool for not recognizing a good thing when youve got it. republicans care about the planet. republicans dont enjoy human suffering.
stop the cool thing to do crap and be a realist.
you dont have all that long to do it.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo] I wish I could say something to contradict what James stated earlier, but, unfortunately, for the most part he is right on the money. I love my country, and therefore, when an attack on 9/11 was made I blindly rushed in to defend the US's honor. While nothing I said was untruthful in anyway, James is also truthful in what he said. The US mostly gets involved in conflicts that effect them for selfish reasons, and we do mess up quite frequently.

However, about taking out the Taliban early on, here is why the US as well as countless other countries didn't take them out. The Taliban, until a couple of years ago, has been a very popular "orginization" amongst Afghanastan, they have also been a natural ally against Iraq and they have helped keep OPEC in check, which had benefited all of our nations, including Australia.

And we do tend to support the common people, although we do mess up like we did in East Timor, the USA stepped in and gave tons of millitary support and aid to Morrocco, Kenya, the Phillipines, Turkey, and Madagascar in the last ten years. Unfortunatly we have also had a lot of half a**ed attempts like Somalia and Kuwait which stick out like a needle.

As for Americans not knowing the falicies of there country, you must be mistaken. We are one of the few countries in the world that is slandered daily by their own media...as bad as the UK and Aussie papers destroy the US, our own Washington Post and New York Times do an equally "good job" on us. That is why so many Americans are disenchanted by there own country, we tend not to air that positives about ourselves, like the press does in Australia and the UK (they do, I know I'll glance at there papers on the net from time to time). [/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo]

As for Americans not knowing the falicies of there country, you must be mistaken. We are one of the few countries in the world that is slandered daily by their own media...as bad as the UK and Aussie papers destroy the US, our own Washington Post and New York Times do an equally "good job" on us. That is why so many Americans are disenchanted by there own country, we tend not to air that positives about ourselves, like the press does in Australia and the UK (they do, I know I'll glance at there papers on the net from time to time). [/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]There are always a wide variety of views involved. And you make some great points.

But in truth, the local media here is far more critical of the Government. It doesn't matter who is in power (or what political party they belong to), but it is very rare that the mass-media in Australia will praise the Government.

The USA, by contrast, has more visible divisions when it comes to politics.

Furthermore, I would disagree with your statement "as bad as the UK and Aussie papers destroy the US" -- that's simply not the case.

You will get the odd columnist who will write something scathing -- but that happens all over the world.

Many in the United States were in an uproar over Australia's handling of illegal immigrants, even though the USA's policies aren't particularly different in terms of border protection.

The simple fact is, the USA is in a position of power. The people of the USA have no [i]need[/i] to go out and know about other people around the world -- the other people come to them.

That is why Americans are, in general, so very ignorant of the rest of the world. And that is why you have so many Americans believing that America is the victim of a jealous world -- when that is, for the most part, not the case.

This isn't something that is necessarily directly the fault of the American people; it has just happened this way. That's how life is.

Australia, for example, is not only physically smaller than the USA, but it is also a country which has significant powers within the asian region...and also plays a major role in International situations. The main reason we aren't targetted as much is because we are [i]less[/i] ignorant about other societies -- we can't afford to have that luxury.

If the USA were smaller, it would by definition, need to be more "in touch" with its neighbours and the rest of the world. But the USA has that luxury, where people come to you...and you don't need to care about the rest of the planet.

But as I said, that's just the way it has unfolded through history. The only way it'll change is if the American education system begins to put more emphasis on International studies.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

And if the papers here mess up or have a very bias reporting we have a few programs on TV that check up on them. (eg. Media Watch)

[Adam]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]For I am a Democrat, although not one of those die-hard ones, I don't like Bush. I think he's an idiot who should have never won. But I think you are basing your opinion of the nation off of what you may hear by the media or online.

As far as what he's done for the US, not much can be said. He's kinda been busy dealing with this anti-terrorism campain, which has a) taking away priorities to other things and b) made him spend a hell of alot of money.... which leads us to more debt and not living up to what he can do to help America... He did send people a tax return of $300 or whatever... which then backfired... people didn't spend it... in fact only 18% of the people spent it. This is not Bush's fault... from an economists point of view... give more people money, they are going to spend it... thats how economists think, and thats what Bush was planning on.... that, however didn't happen, and ofcourse 9/11 rolls in and now it's all gone and hit the fan.... He simply couldn't have expected this, and now we are still rebuilding from it. Overall, the economy is coming out of the recession and the country will hopfully start improving....

Which bring me to my next question: What exactly do you sidlike about the US now that Bush is president? I honestly can't think of one that thats horridly wrong with this country that has to deal with Bush's actions and not the actions of ourselves. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually I do blame the $300 thing squarely on Bush and his administration. Lots of economists didn't like the $300 idea because it went to EVERYONE.

Poorer people would spend the $300 much more readily than richer ones. To someone making $100,000+ a year, what good really is $300 extra? They'd just put it in the bank. Plus I heard that the $300 was actually just a loan - that it needs to be paid back on tax day (Michael Moore said this in a lecture I heard).

That's all:), just econ speak.
-Adam

[(<AA>)]

Well, I'm not really Fit to speak here (bieng an Ignorant 13 year old, who never watches/reades any type of news)but, don't you think its Impossible for 1 person to run a whole country( Especially one like America?)? It's an awesome responsibility, and to make one wrong choice could cause devistation, maybe you should put your self in his shoes for a sec.

[Kent]

yea, you could say hes doing stuff alone but hes not really. anything he does alone has 90 days before he must give reason to congress. thats just one of the safeties that dont always work but do a good job.
dont forget we had a vietnam already and we dont want another. problem is people are so crazy they dont think. democrates are crazy haters of the goverment, but they dont recognize the pres. who got our boys out of nam was a republican, the one that got us in was a demo.

alcoholics who give it up, go the total oppisite once their away. all the sudden they think even the social or casual or occasional drink for anyone is horrible.

relize that politions like sen. dashel twist situations. not taking a side until they find the politically expedient choice.
god help us all.
cause with out the second amendent i woulnt be able to do it for myself.
i didnt mean to offend anyone.

[MysticBabe]

my opinion is that, we are trying so hard to help other countries, when first we should be taking care of our country. we are rated 17th in the education system, when we used to be first. erm....and a bunch of other stuff i don't know about. but still, we're putting other people first. thats pretty good. and bush isn't so bad. one sub at our school, she is like so religious and is always giving us her thoughts on stuff and on some things she's right. Bush wasn't scared when the attacks happened, he was mad! and mad he should be. oh, when i read someone's comment on how we should get over the 911, i kinda agree, it is being over done, but be careful with what you say about that. there are people on this boards who lost someone in it. it could effect them.

[Ravenstorture]

Do you think that bush had anything to do with 911, perhaps?

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ravenstorture [/i]
[B]Do you think that bush had anything to do with 911, perhaps? [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]What on earth could President Bush have to do with 9/11?! :grumble: [/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[Please note that this is said in the most sarcastic nochant that you can think of. This is in no way meant to offend any one who was involved in 9/11 and is a reply to James and Ravenstortures post.]


Oh didn't you hear they think he phoned up his good ol' pal Osama and said. "Hay I just realized that America hates me, and that half the world hate America... We need a bit of a sympathy vote, what can ya' give me." -Bush "Well at the moment, all I have is this 1 dozen box of staved crazed weasels." -Osama "Ok I'll take that! ....But is there any thing else?" -Bush "Not yet but soon, say about 10 months." -Osama "Ok I think we can talk business" -Bush "Great talk later, double ya' Bush" -Osama.


[And yes, if any one asks I will remove this post immediately]

[Amphion]

Im still embarressed about blowing up over this last time so I will keep my cool this time.

I am American and I think we are too arrogant. We look at our selves as the leader of the world. We always go somewhere on peace keeping missions and get other troops involved. Now when we are attacked thats understandable, but for something that does not involve us, we should not get involved. Bush is by far not that best President we have had or will have. I do think he is handling our situatuion ok. Everytime we do one of this stupid peace missions it always seems to pull in trooops from many nations, They have nothing to do with it either. Those men are the ones dieing because American goverment pressures them into Keeping the Peace. We are not the world police.

Side note, Isnt it funny how America always wages war on anything. What I am trying to say is, We have the war on Drugs, the war on Terrorism, ect. ect. why do we not have the War on Hunger, War on Homelessness? To me those are worse then the war on drugs.

[James]

[color=royalblue]It'd be nice to have a "war on hunger", but I don't see it happening...

I know that International troops are involved in Afghanistan...and will probably be involved in other missions. The simple fact is, in many cases, the USA can't undergo major missions without International backup. That's just how it is.

And for the most part, it works out because the International community provides help to the USA when it needs help...and vice versa -- we'd expect the USA to assist us if we were in trouble.

I know that, for example, Australia/New Zealand/USA have the ANZUS treaty...which basically says that an attack on one member's soil is considered an attack on all three.

After September 11, Australia invoked the ANZUS treaty for the first time -- we reacted as if we ourselves had been attacked.

And that is why you have Australian amphibious battlecraft and water-to-air rocket launching vessels in the Persian Gulf.

I'm quite happy that Australia is playing a role...as we have in every major world war. We've always been a major part of the International Allies...and I am personally happy about it because I think that the cause is usually a just cause.

In this case, I think most countries agree that the Taliban/Al Qaeda needed to be removed...

Anyway, I'm kind of rambling here...but I think it's important to point out that the USA won't get help if others don't [i]want[/i] to help.

But the thing is, the USA, UK and Australia are the three major contributors to the campaign in Afghanistan...in addition to soldiers from 14 other nations.

It works out that way because we all have similar/common values...and because we stick together in order to protect our way of life.

So in a long winded way, I guess I'm saying that when other countries get involved, it's not always because of US-pressure. It's often for the simple reason that we share the same ideals as the United States.[/color]

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ravenstorture [/i]
[B]Do you think that bush had anything to do with 911, perhaps? [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I think what Ravenstorture means is like the whole FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracy...like they may have known about it going to happen, but allowed it to happen for a specific reason, then played dumb when it DID happen.

I very highly doubt Bush had anything to do with it, but it's a feasible theory. I don't think anyone from the US would ever want to destroy the WTC towers, so that's why I doubt him being involved.[/color]