|
enjoytheclimb
Jan 26, 2003, 4:24 PM
Post #1 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 8
|
what do you americans really think about W.Bush and his war politics. In europe, exspecially in Germany we donīt like him at all and canīt understand his argumentations to fight Irak. Is it just for the oil or does he tell you another reason.
do the americans support his politics?
|
|
|
|
|
climbingbetty22
Jan 26, 2003, 4:29 PM
Post #2 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 1538
|
some do and some don't. he claims to also be pursuing this as part of his campaign against terrorism. I'm with you guys in Europe, I think he has his head stuck up his @$$ and that he's just picking a fight because it increased daddy's approval ratings, and with the state of the economy, he's pretty desperate to do something that will make him look good for the next election. but that's my opinion. alot of people oppose the action because they aren't thrilled about the possiblity of starting WWIII with an insane dictator with nukes and an urge to use them. however, there are alot of americans who feel this action is necessary to defend ourselves after 9/11
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 26, 2003, 5:00 PM
Post #3 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
enjoytheclimb,
This is an interesting situation and more complex that most of GW's pundits would like you to believe. I personally do not think the timing of this potential "war" (if it occurs) is good. Whatever limited assistance we are getting from the moderate Arab states in our war on terrorism, will likely diminish, particularly if Israel becomes involved.
So, I would prefer that the US get further along in its efforts against the "9/11" terror organizations before taking on Saddam.
On the other hand, particularly since you are German, you should appreciate the merits of "taking out" a nut case like Saddam before he has rearmed to an extent that he is a lethal threat to the entire mid-east.
Consider how history may have been different if Great Britain and the rest of the Versailles signatories did not follow a policy of appeasement throughout the 1930s.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
Jan 26, 2003, 5:11 PM
Post #4 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
All this talk of war is absolutely disgusting to anyone with half a brain and half a heart. The idea that the U.S. has the right to cause mass destruction and terror in the name of surpressing it is so hypocritical that I don't even have to say it.
This has been planned for years. And I agree with Curt, being from Germany you proabally can see the benefit of taking out a madman, but which one? Who's the real madman here? The kid who's family funded the Nazi's has my vote.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 26, 2003, 5:29 PM
Post #5 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
micronut,
"All this talk of war is absolutely disgusting to anyone with half a brain..."
You clearly do not meet your own criteria.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Jan 26, 2003, 5:55 PM
Post #6 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
http://www.animal.discovery.com/...llery/dead_horse.gif
Someone found the dead horse! Gather sticks everyone, that we may beat it again for old times' sake.
Enjoy: you're new, so no hard feelings, but this has been hashed over SO many times. If you go back ten or twenty pages you'll find a lot of the threads. I recommend reading them through and adding to the one you like best.
I also recommend giving Part I and Part II a read as they deal with the topic, though aren't stated as such.
[ This Message was edited by: diarmid on 2003-01-26 09:56 ]
[ This Message was edited by: diarmid on 2003-01-26 09:57 ]
|
|
|
|
|
josephine
Jan 26, 2003, 6:33 PM
Post #7 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2002
Posts: 5794
|
^
Ohhhh,that poor horsy!
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
Jan 26, 2003, 6:39 PM
Post #8 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
Whats the point in having an army if you don't use it?
|
|
|
|
|
goingtohellquick
Jan 26, 2003, 7:07 PM
Post #9 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 996
|
i dont like him because of his wilderness views. i dont care about war. i even would fight if i was defending MY OWN country other then enforcing something that someone else should take care of. people that it would more reddily effect. i dont like how he always trys to get envolved with other countries crap.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jan 26, 2003, 7:18 PM
Post #10 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
I think it's nothing but a "Wag The Dog" scenario. He's doing the same thing his Dad did. Not much for the country, but as much as he can for himself.
To go to war is BS. There is no need for it and don't be confused, when we do (and we will), it will have nothing to do with September 11th, and all about oil control and power.
Bush Jr. is a failure like his father and if Jr. makes two terms (which he almost definitely won't), I vote we Americans pack up and leave.
|
|
|
|
|
goingtohellquick
Jan 26, 2003, 7:21 PM
Post #11 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 996
|
i agree.
all in favor of dislike and possible hate say i
|
|
|
|
|
amsam
Jan 26, 2003, 9:40 PM
Post #12 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 372
|
I've gotta agree with micronut on this one
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 26, 2003, 9:52 PM
Post #13 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
whose really running the country? i think gb sr. is pulling on dubyas heart strings.
i think that if it wasnt for 9/11, dubya would have been even less popular than his father.
consider that during his poppas term, this country was in the midst of the largest financial $#!&-storm since the great fall of wall street. everyone was harranguing sr. to do something about the economy, and he had no answers...bing,bang, boom...gulf war.
dubya was lost after he won the election. he spent so much effort "winning" the election that he was clueless as to what to do next. bing,bang,boom...9/11. tough words from our president, and concern for our fellow americans took over everything else, except the fear. dubyas promise to protect us and return the peace won him the highest favor of any president since kennedy.
ooops...cant find osama. in fact, cant even really prove it was him, beyond a reasonable doubt. without bias, he wouldnt have been convicted in a US court of law.
so, lets skin another cat. move BACK to sadam huessein. finish what daddy started in the name of the war on terrorism. ignore the political disasters that are being created, such as the re-hashing of Roe v. Wade. ignore the downward spiral of the economy. keep up with the tough words and pretending to protect us...low and behold, hes still popular.
if he can keep our minds and eyes off of what is really happening, and what is truly important (think n. korea, for a second) with alot of tough talk and little actions, he may just win over enough idiots to win a second term...his dumb-ass father did...
|
|
|
|
|
john1987
Jan 26, 2003, 10:10 PM
Post #14 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 613
|
I don't like George Bush very much but look at what who we had to choose from. While were on the subject anyone have any good George W. Bush quotes like:
"Is are children learning?"
"I know a lot about small businesses I was one"
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Jan 26, 2003, 10:18 PM
Post #15 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
First off, Micro - you always bring up this thing with the Bush's having backed the nazis. I have been researching and I can't find anything to substantiate your remark. This is at least my third time asking - where are you getting this tie in? Can you point me to some evidence of any kind or are you going to quote songs at me and run?
Bouldering: you are suggesting that the first Gulf war was set up by Bush Sr. to distract us from our economy? Seriously?
Also, the economy is not something you fix overnight or within a year or two. Any policies implemented take at least three years to start showing their worth. Our current economic situation has its root in the Clinton Administration.
As for Hussien - the guy uses nerve gas on his own people, which is why the UN set up the no-fly zones to begin with. His people starve and he builds an olympic complex. If he goes, I think Iraq will be better for it. As for going to war - we aren't at war and until we are I can't take a side as all of the evidence isn't presented. To sit and argue about a possibility is foolishness.
Have to run.
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Jan 27, 2003, 2:10 AM
Post #16 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
And I'm back.
In general these threads have one major theme: that GW. is 'at fault'. If you aren't a citizen of the US, I can nderstand how you might think that. For the rest of you, I hate to tell you that high school freshman have a better grasp of the way our government works than you do. Does the phrase 'seperation of powers' ring a bell? Ever seen a beurocracy at work? The president has, by himself, very little power. The 'government' has none what so ever. It is an idea; a concept. As such it doesn't 'exist'. The Congress and the HOR have power, but the laws that they pass can be attributed to sentors and congressman. You don't like the law that passed, write your senator. Write your congressman. Try laying blame where it really lies. Try giving it time to be put into affect.
Try looking a little further ahead and little deper into what is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
brianthew
Jan 27, 2003, 2:22 AM
Post #17 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 1820
|
*sigh*
It seems that all the political debates on this site now have a clear, decisive lefty swing (as in the political spectrum, goingtohellquick )...if good ol' jody was still around, he'd have this debate goin' full steam!
Personally, I agree with most of you guys...that GWB's (and, for the most part, his administration's in general; keep in mind the biggest strength of the GOP is unity and the ability to act as one party) motives for instigating this were are, for the most part, political. I get the feeling that the reason we're not taking this hard-line approach to N. Korea is that N. Korea actually would make a difficult opponent; it would cause a war similar to Vietnam with huge casualties for American forces. Iraq, on the other hand, is a easyish target...people don't like Saddam (most people remember the Gulf War) and his military isn't near the level of ours. We can bomb him to the stone age and there is little he can do about it, whereas N. Korea can actually fight back.
[ This Message was edited by: brianthew on 2003-01-26 18:29 ]
|
|
|
|
|
goingtohellquick
Jan 27, 2003, 2:24 AM
Post #18 of 18
(803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 996
|
hummm, lefty swing??? homosexuality of climbing??? i say no. hahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
