George help: What are your views on the war and George Bush? - Help.com

**** george bush.

what is the way?

the worst man who can make peace, but u know what it’s good for him that he is sitll trying
heheheh

my friends and I were jokeing the other day they when his presidency is over and he is a normal person again..that he is probably going to get beat up every time he steps out of his house.

I think it is a was for oil.

Murderous, Deadly, Expensive, Stupid.

I personally feel that he is doing an ok job. I believe that no matter who is in office we would be roughly in the same situation. His little quarks that most people feel make him “a moron” entertain me. Internets…haha

If Alan Greenspan said it was for oil then I think we can trust that it was.

Do you have any idea how much Europeans, and probably the rest of the world, look down on americans just because of that man?

Ugh! He has really messed things up for the USA …as most people in this country predicted he would. He should be fired! We need someone who will represent us in a postive light… someone who is thinking progressively and responding with alternatives. I am hoping we can get someone who will support education, job growth, environmental causes, advances in science, techonolgy and of course health - and someone who relates well with foreign leaders. Not someone who is supports his selfish business buddies at the top who rely on the destruction of other countries, using young people to fight a worthless fight, and consumers to pay for their high standards of living. :(

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/…

There has been some few good presidents in modern history. JFK was good domestically but dangerous for the world peace. Lyndon B didn’t leave many traces behind him, except for a lot of dead soldiers. Nixon may have been the bad guy domestically, but he was really good internationally. He ended the Vietnam war. Ford is easily forgotten but was fairly OK, taken his heavy task into account. Jimmy Carter - who was that? (Ah, the guy who lost some helicopters in the desert…). And Ronald R, the movie guy, what an impressive surprise! Bush senior… well, I guess he was so-so, at least in the foreign policy. But lousy back home (besides, he must have been bad in raising kids). I think Bill Clinton was a very good but unlucky guy, victim of his human weakness. But George W Bush manages to be really dangerous at the world scene and equally lousy back home! It makes the next election much easier - ANYBODY is better than him!

Then the war: Get the he** out of there! It was a good thing to go in and throw out Saddam, but he is out. Besides, USA was what made Saddam powerful in the first run. What happens now was only so foreseeable (and in print, years ago). Why does USA always have to turn good events into a failure?

I wanted to add an utube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg2woKWIEjM) but got the message “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.”

No surprise! It showed US soldiers, sitting in a safe nest, killing some guys in a field. The guys were unarmed and not shooting back, unaware of where the fire came from (one guy had been seen hiding something in a field, probably a rifle).
The US soldiers are taught that they are the heroes there (probably getting medals for it), but wasn’t those “freedom fighters” the real heroes, being shot like sitting ducks for their cause? There are various actors in Iraq, but that is domestic affairs. USA is the enemy of all sides, being an occupant. That is the essence of what USA is turning it into!

Yes Joy, you have all the rights to wonder.

And wars are unfortunately often a domestic affair. Throughout history, leaders have sought “a common enemy” to unite their own people and get support from them. The focus is then put on the war as a common task for everybody, and not on that the leader is lousy and should be replaced.

In addition, there are a lot of economic reasons. A war costs a lot of money but increases the economic turnover, so it is always impossible to calculate the real costs. The arms industry has a lot of lobbyists fighting for a continuation of the war, because a lot of companies earns a lot of money from it.

So all argumentation from the Administration is biased and should be seen as propaganda, where the real agenda is hidden.

Almost all wars, and almost all big economics are about this. Even support for the third world, like US Aid, are about this. If a billion is given as aid for a certain cause, most of it goes back to USA in terms of buying American goods, in terms of salaries to American expatriates and so on. Should the book-keeping be more honest, most of it should be booked as “domestic support”.

Yepp! You are right again.

I also think it will never happen. But the work for it must be there, because a lot of good things happen along that road!

So it is not corny and it shouldn’t be seen as a joke, because then we have lost.

Mk, it doesn’t matter how hard hes trying. If a five year old was put into office, it wouldn’t matter how hard he/she tried, we would still be screwed. Bush is incompetent.
He didn’t run for the right reasons. He didn’t want to be come president to do good in the world. He ran to create a legacy for himself. He flat out said so to donald rumsfeld before he ran for office. He has no idea what the hell hes doing. Hes just a puppet for rumsfeld and cheney
He is incompetent
The war on iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. saddam was from iraq, bin laden is from Afghanistan.
Duhh.
We should have never gone to iraq. Its not our business and anyone who says theyre a threat to democracy, **** that its not like Hussein was gonna take over the world. He posed no threat to us, to Europe, or anywhere else. And as for him hurting his own people? Well iraq is comprised of thee completely different cultures. They should have been separate except for the fact that one of them would have had no oild for income. So they needed a dictator to keep them together. Cruel, but true. Well I guess now they’ll get a democracy established, and it may last, but at what cost? It was not worth it, and it was not america’s duty to intervene.

TheJDevi, I agree to most of it (except that Bin laden is from Saudi, he just hid in Afghanistan).

I also think that you SHOULD have gone to Iraq, together with other international forces. USA had a special obligation, because USA gave all that power and arms to Saddam in their fear of Iran. But they should have gone there only to throw out Saddam, possibly also to establish a safer environment for the Kurds. And they should have left while they were seen as savers and not attackers, long time ago.

Bush works for himself, and he is dangerous. There is another man in the other end, equally dangerous. Vladimir Putin of Russia is as dangerous and also working for himself, but luckily enough he has a firmer grip over his people. Otherwise he would involve more in international conflicts.

I support the president and the troops in what they are doing. Sure, I wish we weren’t over in Iraq, but I still support it.

http://www.poisonedminds.com/tests/dic/

I do not wish to opine further on a lost cost. If you’d like to see MY presidential platform, however, you may do so here:

http://help.com/post/114612-if-u-beca…

It can also now be found here because, apparently, I am an enormous egotist.

http://help.com/post/114896-this-is-m…

Haha, I’ve seen worse presidents. He’s not a genius (:P) but he’s trying. I can’t say I agree fully with what he’s doing, but I can’t complain. It’s not like I could do better!

I could and I mean that with the utmost sincerity.

I really can’t stand Bush, and I think the war never should have started because too many lives have been spent and we will probably be in debt for generations. Of course, how would we get out of it now? If I could vote, it would be to impeach him, and I’m surprised it didn’t happen already.

I probably couldn’t do much better, but there’s probably someone out there that can that should have run instead. By the way, did you know generations of Bushes have been in a secret society at Yale University called Skull and Bones, or the Order of Death? Also in there (this is where it gets a little creepy) were Condilisa Rice and John Kerry. That may not be a reason to be a bit untrusting to these people, but if the research I’ve done is true, it’s a little disturbing. Interesting topic.

heather* wrote:
I probably couldn’t do much better, but there’s probably someone out there that can that should have run instead. By the way, did you know generations of Bushes have been in a secret society at Yale University called Skull and Bones, or the Order of Death? Also in there (this is where it gets a little creepy) were Condilisa Rice and John Kerry. That may not be a reason to be a bit untrusting to these people, but if the research I’ve done is true, it’s a little disturbing. Interesting topic.

I’ve heard of this, but there’s no proof. It’s a conspiracy theory, at best.

It may be true, or not. I don’t bother so much, I expect fraternism to be involved in most governments anyway.

But I would really want a THOROUGH and independent investigation of all details around the rumours of Bin Laden connections with the administration. Including ties to the Bush family’s economic interests. And including the rumours of flying out Bin Laden family members during the days around 911. Such ties could be there and still “innocent” in the sense that the family is wealthy and should not neccessarily be blamed for one family member’s actions.

But I am chasing for the CIA weakness and ineffective way of handling warnings and signs, and I would like to know if they were burdened by having to take too much consideration to such links.

True and Skull and Bones doesn’t strike me as being all that much different than a regular fraternity, if not more secretive. Probably just a bunch of lads with diapers and paddles. Incidentally, I’d LOVE if those pictures suddenly surfaced.