Bush?

Do you like Bush

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 48.2%
  • No

    Votes: 13 23.2%
  • I wish Al Gore were in office

    Votes: 16 28.6%

  • Total voters
    56
Status
Not open for further replies.

redwolf

Spaceman
Yes, for the sake of the world and for the sake of the American people, Al Gore should have been in office. Democrats should always be preferred in government in America. Republicans appear to me to be too right winged and dare I say it, fundamental.

Really, is there any difference between fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Muslim belief (ok, perhaps Christians seem a bit more progressive, but I think that's more the result of our democracy)? I don't think so. That's why I thank god everyday I am an Athiest! :cool:

Also whilst I am on the American bashing bandwagon (apologies to my American cousins....), it seems to me that American democracy seems more like an Athenean oligarchy. I prefer Westminster democracy. Ahhhh, how I long for the days of King and Country...if only the British Empire ruled again... :D
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by redwolf
Yes, for the sake of the world and for the sake of the American people, Al Gore should have been in office. Democrats should always be preferred in government in America. Republicans appear to me to be too right winged and dare I say it, fundamental.
if you think things are fucked up now, they'd be a hell of a lot worse if Gore was in office. At least Bush is doing something. Gore wouldn't do shit
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Well Gore might do shit. :D Since Bush, despite being second guessed and made fun of, he has handled what's happened a lot better than I gather most of you would have if you were suddenly thrust into something like September 11. And for all the dumping people do on him, he hasn't done any dumping himself.
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Since Bush, despite being second guessed and made fun of, he has handled what's happened a lot better than I gather most of you would have if you were suddenly thrust into something like September 11.
hell yeah, he done a better job than i could. course if i were pres, the US would be at war with half the fucking world. good thing i don't have any political ambitions :)
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
I feel confident in Bush if only in the fact he isn't playing the fence game: sitting in the middle of public opinion so he doesn't kill his chance of re-election. I'd rather see a president doing something than double speaking about what he will do next term.
 

redwolf

Spaceman
Al Gore would have been more likely to deal with the underlying problems of terrorism, that being the poverty of third world nations, rather than trying to bomb them back to the stone age. I agree, most third world problems are their own doing, but when the US backs undemocractic governments (a la Iraq), the term hypocrite comes to mind.

Al Gore, through his Democratic administration, would have played on the worldwide sympathy for America after 11 September, instead of making insane 'axis of evil' claims.

Now you see why I think Bush, or more correctly, his administration, are dolts.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
I'm with redwolf on this one. Bush decided to just be agressive and point fingers instead of asking for help. Imagine if only he said America needed support from other countries! The entire world would come running to help... and then imagine the stronger support we might have gotten for a strike against Iraq due to earlier sympathy.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
You know, that's not a bad thought when you think about it. America could have called on the countries it helped in the past, such as Europe and Australia for World War II, and say that they need their help. But America seemed to feel that they should handle things themselves.
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by LeHah
Imagine if only he said America needed support from other countries! The entire world would come running to help... and then imagine the stronger support we might have gotten for a strike against Iraq due to earlier sympathy.
it wouldn't have mattered. France and Germany would still be doing their 'lets give the inspections more time' (like they need any more time) speaches. especially Germany. what's his face (german leader) was elected on the promise that they wouldn't support a strike on Iraq and France would be France
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by redwolf
Al Gore would have been more likely to deal with the underlying problems of terrorism, that being the poverty of third world nations, rather than trying to bomb them back to the stone age. I agree, most third world problems are their own doing, but when the US backs undemocractic governments (a la Iraq), the term hypocrite comes to mind.

Al Gore, through his Democratic administration, would have played on the worldwide sympathy for America after 11 September, instead of making insane 'axis of evil' claims.
I suppose Al Gore said on Sept 12th that's what he'd do? Hindsight is always 20/20, it's the ability to deal with it when it happens that counts.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by t.c.cgi
Hindsight is always 20/20, it's the ability to deal with it when it happens that counts.
How is bombing countries back to the stone age dealing with it? You'll never rid the world of terrorism that way (or any way for that matter).
 

Romale

Spaceman
your absolutly right, thats why were sending ground troops in this time and already letting companies bid on 900million dollar plan to rebuild schools, bridge's, hospitals, and critical infrastructor.
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by steampunk
How is bombing countries back to the stone age dealing with it? You'll never rid the world of terrorism that way (or any way for that matter).
well, since you said we won't get rid of terrorism, how will bombing countries back to the stone age hurt? since you said we won't get rid of terrorism, why should we spend billions of our dollars so some country can put out better educated and better funded terrorists? but your wrong. there is one way to get rid of terrorism. teach em not to fuck with us
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by steampunk
How is bombing countries back to the stone age dealing with it? You'll never rid the world of terrorism that way (or any way for that matter).
And what country are be bombing back to the stone age? If you're refering to Afghanistan, our military actions barely scratched their infrastructure, industry, or other things that would qualify them for stone age status. As a matter of fact I remember a lot of the fighting happening in the mountains away from the population centers, AGAINST TERRORIST GROUPS!

We said, "Hey, we just got the snot knocked out of us by some dusty terrorist! Lets end terrorism!"

We did a few things. First we attacked them financialy by freezing, etc, any assests we could get our hand on. Then we went after their fleshy footmen and, any guesses? Bombed them. Why? Because it's worked against other organized enemies. Just because they don't have a claim on land or a government per se, doesn't mean we can't bomb them.

What the hell are we supposed to do if a terrorist attacks, in your "Gore-inspired" opinion? Drop our pants, bend over, and say "More, please!" ???
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Well said, although I would probably use ground troops if I was fighting. Delta Force, Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, the Special Air Service if I was Tony Blair, Spetznaz for Russia, Black Dragons for Japan, Germany's Grenzschutzgruppe 9, France's Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale, Italian Nucleo Operativo Centrale di Sicurezza, Australia's Special Air Service Regiment, all the special forces around the world, to root out the mountains and perform unconventional warfare. Because it is unconventional war that is being waged on us, so we have to be unconventional as well in order to catch them.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Well said, although I would probably use ground troops... -snip- ...and perform unconventional warfare. Because it is unconventional war that is being waged on us, so we have to be unconventional as well in order to catch them.
I agree we should have been more focused on a ground war, but I wouldn't know about unconventional warfare. Why? Because you'd give credence to a second generation of terrorists. We want to get rid of them, not inspire their children.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Some of their children would already be inspired to make war on non believers, and some can't wait to go to the training camps. It's the same in Palastine, where children are taught, and they believe, that it's a great honor to be a suicide bomber against Israel.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Some of their children would already be inspired to make war on non believers, and some can't wait to go to the training camps. It's the same in Palastine, where children are taught, and they believe, that it's a great honor to be a suicide bomber against Israel.
Yeah, and it's the same in Australia, where children are taught, and they believe, that in Palastine children are taught, and they believe, that it's a great honor to be a suicide bomber against Israel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top