i don't know about you but i do not like george w. bush... i think he is the worst prez..
fighting iraqies for what? oil? money? i like to hear everyones opinion!!

if michael moore is to be believed (and frankly the footage kind of speaks for itself) the Bin Laden family are pretty pleased with him.

lol nice image groo2k

to answer your question, yes I like him....

FYI: this discussion has been beaten to death on 'Bush, Behind or Against Him'.

Hehe, I agree, this is a double topic. I already opend a topic about bush, maybe check that one, because you can see a lot of people's opinions!

I beleive that the only reason America was attacked by terrorists on Sept 11 is because the terrorists saw Bush come into office and decided it was the best time to strike...

i don't either like or dislike the man ... but after 9-11 what response did the world expect?
but i think that they tried to fight saddam on the cheap and it has backfired on them

michael moore...thats just one side of the story, before i go on, i want to say that personally i dont hate him or love him, every president has faults, they are only human...(i also think we blame bush for everything the bureaucracy is doing, not just his actions, but lets not get into that) back to moore...that is only one opinion.....

Every one knows my opinion on bush.

ya :)

Check the other topic.

ok you dont want to get me on the politics issue because ill go on and on and have different views that reflect mostly religiously so i'll just say this W. is a stupid man and had no reason to go to Iraq because they had nothing to do with osama benladen W went I think for the oil or finish something Bush senior started in 91 or whatever (which is the year i was born so i dont really know or remeber from class what happened). and W didn't fairly win the election ..crap im already going on and on. No i dont like W Bush.

michael moores documentary has some truth in it, but dont take everything for face value. Alot was taken out of context.
For instance someone may quote me as having said
"I hate peanut butter"
when I could have said
"I hate peanut butter with nuts in it"

hehe food for thought

On that note, I agree with G-dubbaya to some extent and disagree somewhat as well. Agree that troops should not be pulled out of Iraq, dont particulary agree with his economic related decisions. Our country first, this is his job. But at the same time terrorism is a real threat that should be taken care of. Maybe we need a double presidency haha.

ya hes a bad president.

no, no,.. bad bush!
i think he's a friggin idiot; some of his decisions/ideas seem good at first thought, but then looking at hte details, you realize he's lubing up for another go at screwin the middle/lower classes; as they noted numerous times during the DNC, he's a divider, not a uniter

Hmm... Well I'm not too fond of Dubbya Bush or the way he's handled the obstacles that have been thrown at him thus far, but I like the band "Bush". Wow, that didn't help much did it?

no i dont think so

..wait.. we're talkin about the president bush ya?.. not the OTHER bush.. ..no.. not the former.. the OTHER bush.. oh.. we are talking about GW?.. nevermind then..

Well I dont agree with everything about George W. (as Noobguy says) BUT, I agree with much less about Kerry. So you have to pick the lesser of two evils, which is clearly Bush.
And im just curious why Kerry thinks he has more experience than Bush, when Bush has been president of the United States for 4 years??

YES BUT HE HAD BEEN THE BAD PREZ... besides kerry seems to know what he is doing...

tony by that logic, bush shouldnt have been elected over gore (8yr vp)

you should explain your thoughts on why you like less about kerry

and? Bush didnt claim to have more experience than Mr Clinton.

If i was a democrac, i would admit that Kerry does seem to be pretty good, at least better than Clinton (which isnt hard to be).
People just love to bust on Bush, but they forget he was put in in a very tough time (set up by Clinton) and there were a lot of things to deal with. And hm....Why did people make fun of Bush because he was "a cowboy from texas"??? Does that mean anything? And Now Kerry has a "cowboy" of his own, so what is the difference? (even if that did matter)

you still havent explained why you say kerry is the greater of two evils and we need to choose bush, the lesser

sometimes it seems that it doesn't matter who the president it, some people are going to hate him, some are going to love him. i usually don't get in to politics but bush does tend to get on my bad side because my husband fought in Iraq and went through a lot of problems that we are still battling today. i know that isn't necessarily bush's fault, but since he's the president everything gets pinned on him. on the other side, how many people really take a look at all the other stuff he is doing? think about the things he do that benefit our country. everyone focuses too much on iraq.

agree that people often focus on bashing bush because of Iraq and economic issues. but at the same time, these are MAJOR topics. probably the most important in american society at the moment, and the world. therefore, I dont believe they can be focused on too much. I'm sorry about your problems and your husbands negative experience in Iraq. I wish your family well.

would you like to state your reasons, john? if not, you have posted a highly immature topic. maybe you just like stirring up conflict.
i like bush, especially when i compare him to kerry. kerry uses his medals to gain favor. has anyone ever heard the phrase "heroes don't shout"? he also acts a different part for everyone. one minute, he doesn't like something to gain favor with the ones who don't like it. the next, he likes it to gain favor with the ones who do.

haha, agreed. But who even remebers Cery..(or wait was it Kerry?) anymore?

lol, yes... I hate to bring up the election after my HUGE debate with Anthony, lol, but I really do favor bush, i think it was a great outcome that he won the race, I dont even think I could begin thinking of where this country would be with Kerry in the seat.

gloat as you may, luckily evil in this country has been restricted to 8 yr terms

lol, Anthony.

i find it amusing that people who can't even vote for the next 6 years are posting on this forum(no offense burningice) i mean, yeah i am only 16 and i dont really give a flying rat's private parts about what the president is doing, or should i say congress and the rest of those 435 guys, btw, i intend no malice in this post at all, i type this with a laugh, i just think that this whole thing is a lot of bad luck that has to be delt with and is getting blamed on just one guy instead of the legions of monkeys at typewriters working constantly to keep this country afloat. and to answer the question, i do support President Bush, but i am not going to argue against anybody else, besides what i just wrote ; )
-brad

Big World, Big Problems, No Man Or Women Will Ever Solve Them. I'm just thankful that i got to live my life in the United States of America, It's been a real trip. Dwight.

Amen

I'm a democrat, as are my parents, but it's not like the fact that my parents don't like Bush is the same reason I don't...I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and I really despise the people who say that nothing that movie showed actually happened. They have real footage and everything...People just don't want to accept the truths.

that movie is the biggest contrument of truth on the planet...people that belive it can be swayed like leaves in the breeze

...say like the bending of the truth of the Bush administration? Or, say, the people who believe that Fox News is the gospel truth?

Has anyone seen FahrenHYPE 9/11? I heard it was supposed to exploit the misleadings of heit 9/11, can't hurt to try it?

I do like Bush, and I think the problem people have with him is, what we all wanted (to go into Iraq) he did. Then when it got rough, everyone wants to back out, and -as we did in Somalia, we pulled out without completing the objective, and we lost credibility for ourselves- you can't just pull out whenever, and leave a country in shambles.

He did what he thought was in our best interest at first when we went in, and didn't think pulling out was in our best interest.

it's fair and reasonable to say that Michael Moore's films generally are very emotive and even exploitive but even if only a tiny fraction of the content of Farenheit 9/11 is to be taken at face value it's still incredibly damning.

Frankly most people in Europe are still in shock he was relelected given some of the more undisputable evidence presented against him. As far as republican zeal goes - just because you don't like what your hearing doesn't mean to say it isn't true.

bush will go down in history as a former president, right or wrong...
micheal moore will be forgotten shortly, tinseltown has always been one thing, tinseltown!

Let’s just say I look at it this way. Any time a leader or a country tells another person or country how to live and what to do with their lives, belongings and how to think. That country or leader becomes imperialistic leadership or country! Did we ask Iraq if they wanted a democratic system? No we told them!

When you take the freedom away of another country or ask them to throw away there beliefs, you now become a concurring dictator ship.
Bush was not elected because he was the better choice; he was elected because he had better PR people.
Kerry was not necessarily the better choice. His PR sucked!

It’s not a race for the future of the country any more. It’s now a popularity contest. Don’t we have enough with the actors that are in Hollywood who get paid 20 to 25 million a movie for pretending? Who do you think writes most of the presidential speeches Presidents for years have been using Hollywood P.R. people.

and if you forget your funny script there's always those natty little wireless communication packs - sorry geometrically creased jackets - to prompt your during those awkward laps of brain function moments in live debates.

Hate to break it to you prism, Iraq was not free, so we took nothing from them. They couldn't ask for help... who living in those contitions wouldn't want to be free?

Abed Hunni, a stooped, whiskered man who walked an hour with his wife to reach a polling site in Musayyib. "God is generous to give us this day," he said. In the past, "we were all scared of Saddam, but we could only drop the ballots in the boxes, we could to nothing - Saddam would kill us," said Abdullah al-Seddei, an elcetion worker in Musayyib. "Now everyone can vote for anyway."

When Saddam was in power if you didn't vote for him, you'd be killed. And where did we ask them to throw away their beliefs?

76% of the military voted Bush - they are over there and they well know what's going on there.

Well said Miraculous. and thanks for using FACTS not speculation like some left-wings on here....

I know that they where not free. But if you look at the history of the Arab nations you will see that they where offered many new suggestion for liberty.
Our problem is now that we are their. And we will never be able to leave, do to the insurgents.

There are far too many tribes. Which by the way are mostly made up of desert nomads?
They have there own laws. So how do you tell so many cultures to give up there beliefs and way of life’s with out civil war.

As far as the troops in Iraq, I know a few and they and many others are wondering why they are there. They feel that they are loosing the fight!
This war is now being called bushes Vietnam. That is being said by congress and the senate.
How many children and families were killed in the name of democracy? How many Americans will die in the attempt for freedom, when there own people will not stand up to the insurgents themselves?

The United States did not become a free nation by letting some one else fight the war. Yes we asked for help. But what freedom would we have achieved if we would had stood on the side line and said have at it.
The biggest weapon that the insurgents have is the fear that they project on the people of Iraq.
If you truly want freedom, you don’t stand by and watch them kill the troops, you band together and walk over and take the weapons away. They can only Kill so many before you stop them.

You can’t make an omelet unless you break some eggs.
The same stands in war. You can’t fight a battle with out a few or many deaths. This is not our war even though we have interest their manly oil and control of the ports.
I have seen too many wars go by in my life time. I am tire of watching kids go to war to die. Then we pull out to see the country get taken over by another insurgent while we bury or children and wonder what it was for.

Don’t tell me it can’t be done. The Alamo was manned by 128 men, woman and children and they held off over 12,000 Mexican soldiers. For I believe three days before they feel. Now what do you think a nation can do to stop oppression.
Maybe stop bickering and join together and stand up to the terrine.

How can you complain about the war, and then say that we need to stop bickering and join together and stand up?
The war was 100% necessary for the welfare of US. A no, it had nothing to do with oil. It had to do with "dismantaling an atomic bomb" (no pun-intended). We are being very sucseful in that. The Iraqi elections!!! Do you people realize what a break through that was? From going from utter oppresion from Sadam to having their own election? Guys, this is progress; whether you want to look truth in the face or not.
In know a few people in the mititary myself, who say that news has construed the war completely, and its not as bad as they show it to be. Guess what. its a war, people are going to die, Duh. People that know they are going to die and are willing to give their life for their country. But what backing to they have for their life? People back home saying how dumb the war is? How much a waste of time it is? No, I don't think thats how they wish their lives to be spent.
How many military troops do you see complaining about the war? Very few. And the sissys that do shouldnt have joined the military to begin with. We have plenty men who are willing to fight for the country, not sit in their cribs and complain about it.

Prism what are we taking away from them, all I see is us giving them freedom, to most people, the ultimate way of life.

They cannot unite and fight, Saddam didn't let them have their own firearms, the same thing Hitler did (lets not make that mistake again and let another Clinton in.. more info on this subject www.clintongunban.com) without physical power, they can do nothing, Saddam does not consider their wishes.

And the United States did become free (thank you France) due to someone else fighting our war. Iraqis are stepping up to the plate now that they know the punishments are no longer there (such can be found on the internet... they are truly horrific and really hit home how bad it was there, Saddam had explosives attached to people and just blew them up man... and much worse - I am sorry for them.)

You cannot seriously deny the fact progress is being made (for the better) over there?

Another thing we aren't their for the oil, do you ever stop to consider gas prices being nearly 2 dollars a gallon... (sounds like we should steal more to me lol) that's why I believe we aren't taking it... besides the lack of evidence to PROVE it you know?

If there is anything else I can try to clear up for you, you know where to post it.

oh god i thought we managed to lay this terminal thread to rest months ago because of its relentless circular motion - looks like its off and running again.

I suggest all of you who say that the Iraqi's need an American way of life, take a philosophy course.
Do you think you are "free" in the USA? Maybe you should step back and take another look at things.

We in the USA are not totally free, but not very often do I feel restrained from a lack of freedoms here, I don't believe any country will ever be totally free.

Besides freeing the Iraqi's from Saddams regime, how are we imposing our way of life on them?

[philcUK] "Frankly most people in Europe are still in shock he was relelected given some of the more undisputable evidence presented against him."
--the majority of the available communications to other continents are in the East and West coasts of the US or at least the major cities(both of which voted majority Kerry). Bush's strength came from the midwest and the lessly heard rural part of America. The urban areas have a thinking similar to most of Europe because (I think) of the having to deal with the problems that go along with many people in a smallish area. The rural areas of the US are different from this.
[prismmagic] "Bush was not elected because he was the better choice; he was elected because he had better PR people. Kerry was not necessarily the better choice. His PR sucked!"
-- I really don't like PR, I'd rather hear what the candidates actually feel and express so in their own words; but anyway...PR was not the dividing factor in this election, it was the issues themselves. Bush may have had better PR (and that's doubtful), but Kerry had the help from nearly every comedian (Bush is stupid, Kerry has a long face; these are not equal) and in the news(unintentional bias in the least...the news is on the East coast...see above)
[prismmagic] "And [the US] will never be able to leave, do to the insurgents]".
-false. when the Iraqi police forces are completed training and the new government is firmly in place we should and I pray will leave. With us gone things will calm, A) the 'kill Americans' factor will be gone, and B) the killing of fellow Iraqi's will continue to turn Iraqi public opinion further and further away from the insurgents.
[prismmagic] "There are far too many tribes. Which by the way are mostly made up of desert nomads? They have there own laws. So how do you tell so many cultures to give up there beliefs and way of life’s with out civil war."
--America will never survive there are far too many differing opinions, far too many states, etc. :P ...as long as all parts treat each other with some bit of respect and they believe in the democratic process, I don't think too many problems should come of this. An alternative would be something like making states out of the various cultural regions...which probably wouldn't have been a bad idea...but, we'll see where Iraq goes.
[prismmagic] "I am tired of watching kids go to war to die."
Too bad, war is a fact of life...to take away the part of us that makes war would be to take away that same part of us that strives to make something special for ourselves and have personal pride...to take away this would create a society much like Huxley's 'Brave New World' or Orwell's '1984'.
~~~~~~
[_Miraculous_] "Iraq was not free, so we took nothing from them. They couldn't ask for help... who living in those contitions wouldn't want to be free?"
-- We have indeed taken something from them; their complete independence from us if they wish to do so in the future. We have firmly planted ourselves and our corporations deep into the infrastructure of Iraq with US engineers. Instead of truly trying to help them by teaching/allowing Iraqi engineers to rebuild the infrastructure, we instead gave the money that could have been used give them greater independence to American corporations. (who by the way now have another place to outsource to in the near future)
[tbhockey] "The war was 100% necessary for the welfare of US"
-- No, it really wasn't. If you'd say 50% necessary, then maybe...the reason we went in, like it or not was because of the WMDs(and it was the only justified reason for us to go into a war{to defend our borders}). The fact that they indeed weren't there matters, but also doesn't; we had intelligence that supported our assertion and after an attack like 9/11, we figured it was better to be safe then sorry. However, going around and breaking up regimes we don't like just because they are cruel to their people or we just plain don't like them is not a justified reason to go to war.
[_Miraculous_] "all I see is us giving them freedom, to most people, the ultimate way of life"
--as prism said, we should've probably given them more choices...but I certainly don't know what went on during the first stages of the temporary government meetings, so perhaps they did come to democracy through the wants of the Iraqis. Doubtful, but whatever. Personally I think a set of tribal states with local control under a loose head gov't would be optimum, but that's just me....and more than that I don't live there.

I've written enough methinks...as long as people hate and love Bush this thread won't die.

"However, going around and breaking up regimes we don't like just because they are cruel to their people or we just plain don't like them is not a justified reason to go to war."

Who can deside what's right and wrong in this instance?

Your follow up to my comment, you say we have taken something from them, of course they are depending on us, if it weren't for us they would be as it's been for so long. So I don't think them depending on our support is taking something away from them... that's generous giving from us.

As long as they are kept trimmed nice and neat I love-em.

Mr. Bush is not fit to command a rubber duck around a bathtub, our country is on a collision course with the soap...

Hey wow! I commented on this last year lol:-)

[_Miraculous_] "Who can decide what's right and wrong in this instance?"
-- I'm a strict believer in not doing something unless the benefits outnumber the losses. In the hypothetical let's say that we just went in to save Iraq from Hussein. No WMDs, no terrorist connections, etc. This day and age if an nation is going to attack especially when nearly alone you can expect that nation to lose a lot(mainly because guerilla warfare has proven quite effective, but also in 'global integrety'). If decided to go to war under this hypothesis we would lose lives, many in fact...perhaps as many as Hussein killed in his stay. Anyway the point is the moment one nation starts to see another nation's people as equals in a governmental sense is the moment those nation's people become more important that our own. A national government is to take care of it's own people first and help others when it can.
[_Miraculous_] "So I don't think them depending on our support is taking something away from them... that's generous giving from us. "
True, but our tax dollars our going into corporations who are being paid to drill for oil(which will give them money). We are depriving Iraqis from chances to make good money doing something that needs to be done anyway (in their own country). It will be quite a while until these profiting corporations get out of Iraq and stop feeding money away from what should be the Iraqis...if ever.

So we drilled oil shafts with no intention to hand them back over to them? If so I was unaware of that. I know a lot of people for some reason believe that's why Bush went to Iraq in the first place. Personally, I haven't heard a bit of that from the mainstream news (which is clearly bias liberals) about us taking oil. There love for bashing Bush I think if it were so, that we were in fact taking oil, they'd be on the case.

Well our government has clearly handed out grants and contracts out to Halliburton and such. The statement that the oil and other corporation won't be leaving and will be taking money away from Iraqis is merely a suppostion by myself. However, it's quite likely that after setting up 'shop' Halliburton, etc will continue to own them, but Iraqis would actually do most of the work. However, since it's a Halliburton (or whatever) plant some of the money outflow will undoubtedly flow to the US headquarters, the execs and managers will be Americans, etc. If instead the corporations wouldn't have been given a 'landgrab' by our government the Iraqis would have more choice for what would be going on.

My main concern with Iraq and the US now is the fact that the Pentagon has started construction of no less than 12 permanent military bases in Iraq. This has obviously been a long term goal as it gives the US considerable leverage over the region, ensures a virtually constant cheap source of crude oil manufactur and will make them less reliant on the Saudi's. This can only lead to long term trouble and unrest in the region as it will be seen as a major threat by Iraq's islamic neighbours. Furthermore, if and when a freely elected democratic government does eventually take charge of the country, what happens if they turn around to the state department and tells them to leave and close all of their bases. Do you seriously think that will happen? I dont - I think that the more likely scenario would be another sudden regime change with a more US friendly CIA trained government in power.

No-one seems terribly interested in doing anything to get those 150,000 troops out of there anytime soon...

No one wants the troops over there any longer then absolutely necessary.

and yet it appears that a large number of them are to be based there on a permanent basis....

It appears? Where did you hear that?

Brett, as usual, your dialectic amazes and amuses me. I'm wondering if debating with you is even worth the struggle haha

Nope!!... as an answer to this thread;-)

well Darryl, obviously that's not true.

The Pentagon announced the base construction program recently so unless they are planning on leaving them unmanned its a fair assumption to make that a significant military personnel presence will be maintained there.

Edit: heres the quotes from the department of defense:

"Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.

As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East and intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners.

"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the coalition in Iraq, said the military engineers are trying to prepare for any eventuality. "This is a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East," Kimmitt said. "[But] the engineering vision is well ahead of the policy vision. What the engineers are saying now is: Let's not be behind the policy decision. Let's make this place ready so we can address policy options." To that end, the U.S. plans to operate from former Iraqi bases in Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk and in areas near Nasiriyah, near Tikrit, near Fallujah and between Irbil and Kirkuk.

There also are plans to renovate and enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul, and rebuild 70 miles of road on the main route for U.S. troops headed north. Dollar figures have not been released. The Defense Department plans to build the bases under its own contracts separate from the State Department and its Embassy in Baghdad."

Phil were did you read this at. If it is an artical E-mail it to me please.