Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    Why Gladiator?
    well i thought the Hun hoards coming out of the forest was rather apporiate
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    well i thought the Hun hoards coming out of the forest was rather apporiate
    yeah i can see where your coming from now, what about in Lord of the Rings and all those dead soldiers start fighting.....almost cacked maself on that bit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    yeah i can see where your coming from now, what about in Lord of the Rings and all those dead soldiers start fighting.....almost cacked maself on that bit.
    lol, anyway you are yet to say what you think is so bad about america/bush?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    lol, anyway you are yet to say what you think is so bad about america/bush?
    touche.......I think America's gone from bad to worse with him. He very rash, and, in my opinion, made some very bad mistakes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    touche.......I think America's gone from bad to worse with him. He very rash, and, in my opinion, made some very bad mistakes.
    I don't think their polices have changed that much in terms of FP for about 40 years now personally. I mean the destruction in Vietnam was far worse than either Iraq or Afghanistan.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I don't think their polices have changed that much in terms of FP for about 40 years now personally. I mean the destruction in Vietnam was far worse than either Iraq or Afghanistan.
    true true, but then again, they claimed they had sufficiant evidnece for vietnam didnt they?

    There was really no excuse for the Irag war except Saddam and Terroists
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    true true, but then again, they claimed they had sufficiant evidnece for vietnam didnt they?

    There was really no excuse for the Irag war except Saddam and Terroists
    I wasnt talking about reasons altho even then the Gulf of Tonkin was sketchy, basically they killed about 2 million citizeans in Vietnam which is nothing compared to the mear 10,000 in Iraq.

    Also I think the war on terror is justified by 9/11 personally but i agree with you on Iraq
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I wasnt talking about reasons altho even then the Gulf of Tonkin was sketchy, basically they killed about 2 million citizeans in Vietnam which is nothing compared to the mear 10,000 in Iraq.

    Also I think the war on terror is justified by 9/11 personally but i agree with you on Iraq
    Yeah, I cry all the time when these 'Why did the Twin towers Collapse' progs on

    It makes me so sad, that people can do that. Of all things, I think Bush handled that well
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    Yeah, I cry all the time when these 'Why did the Twin towers Collapse' progs on

    It makes me so sad, that people can do that. Of all things, I think Bush handled that well
    lol you started this thread ****ging him off and now you say he handled it well, I wasn't expecting you to say that
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    lol you started this thread ****ging him off and now you say he handled it well, I wasn't expecting you to say that
    As I'd say if I was philosophical 'I'm a girl of many layers,'

    No, I think he's a poor president but considering everything that happened about 9/11 i think he handled it much better that i thought he might have.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    As I'd say if I was philosophical 'I'm a girl of many layers,'

    No, I think he's a poor president but considering everything that happened about 9/11 i think he handled it much better that i thought he might have.
    [email protected] the philiosphical
    what do you think other than iraq he has done badly?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    [email protected] the philiosphical
    what do you think other than iraq he has done badly?
    errr........he hasn't got a very good dress sense?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    errr........he hasn't got a very good dress sense?
    lol i think you might have to do better to convice ppl you are right, the things i think he has done badly is increase the federal defecit (america's debt), supported Israel to much, ignored Zimbarwae when he tackled problems in Iraq for a similar reason to the problems there and generally increased tension on the international stage
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    Oh my God, I see them too!

    cue the line ' I see dead people'

    Oh well......turns out you were right after all

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3779583.stm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Col-C)
    Oh well......turns out you were right after all

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3779583.stm
    harsh! :eek:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My main problem with Bush is his non-election as president.

    Then ofcourse the whole mystery surrounding his very great friendship with the saudi royal family, combined with the majority (90%+) of 9.11 terrorists being saudis, combined with Osama being part of saudi royal familly, combined with extracting a load of Saudi Royal family from USA via private jet while no one else could fly, despite intelligence officials wanting more time to question these people... the relatives of the man who has been branded as the master mind behind 9.11

    Then ofcourse his extensive media propoganda using a lack of evidence and general suggestions to link Hussein to Al-qaeda, and convince over 50% of the public poled that such a connection did infact exist.

    Then ofcourse going to war for the wrong reasons (and with more than 50% opposition to war in the US! only when they actually went to war did support for the war rise above 50%)

    Then change the original reasons to "liberating iraq" in the hope everyone would forget about the WMD's.

    BUT

    The Republicans and democrats are in the pockets of the same people and corporations. Most of the significant giants donate large amounts of money to BOTH parties election campaigns.

    The Democrats are pure bullsh*t there's so many things they could have roasted bush over, they could have had most of the media hounding him, they could have continually tormented and confronted Bush. But they didn't, and you could be forgiven for forgetting that the US Democrats even exist, they did nothing. If i were american then i'm not sure i'd want to be ruled by such quiet weaklings either.

    In conclusion there's not that much to say against Bush that can't be said about any other leader, Clinton was no golden boy, apart from the war... from what i know, Bush & Clinton had reasonably similar policies (even the democrats won't tax the rich).

    But i don't approve of Bush's war. By any of his reasons, there's a lot of other countries he should be attacking... but ofcourse he'll never attack a country that he really KNOWS have Nukes. And if the ruling monster has been US backed, then f*ck freedom and liberty, let these people be oppressed. And if there isn't oil in that country, or an oil pipeline daddy's friends want to build through that country (e.g. Afganistan), then f*ck having a war about it.

    Final conclusion the USA is screwed if they elect Democrats or Republicans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    btw i expect Vienna to appear any moment and start playing devils advocate as she always does Damn you should get an award girl!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    Yeah, bloody yanks.
    Ahem? I dont want to hear it. I think we have well established the fact the Bush is a terrible president, which i would agree to. And such threads breed anti-american posts, which i am willing to bet the americans on here, including myself do not want to see.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spc_K)
    My main problem with Bush is his non-election as president.
    The same applies to Kennedy, yet no-one seems to have a problem with him.

    Then ofcourse the whole mystery surrounding his very great friendship with the saudi royal family, combined with the majority (90%+) of 9.11 terrorists being saudis, combined with Osama being part of saudi royal familly, combined with extracting a load of Saudi Royal family from USA via private jet while no one else could fly, despite intelligence officials wanting more time to question these people... the relatives of the man who has been branded as the master mind behind 9.11
    Bin Laden's agenda was initially and still is to a large extent, to bring down the Saudi Royal family. The fact that 15 out of 21 of the 911 terrorists were Saudi was a calculated political moves. He could have put people from any nation on that plane, Algerians, Afghans, Iranis, ... even Britons!

    Yet he took Saudis. And that was precisely because he wanted to provoke the reaction you are displaying now: Blame the Saudi Royal family.

    By the way, the 15 had largely relatively umimportant positions. The other 6 were all more important for the operation, they had to know how to fly a plane etc.

    Bin Laden is not part of the Saudi Royal family. However, Bin Laden is a prominent family in Saudi-Arabia, and many members of that family are active in the US. The Bin Laden family is generally pro-Western, and Osama is just an exception.

    Then ofcourse his extensive media propoganda using a lack of evidence and general suggestions to link Hussein to Al-qaeda, and convince over 50% of the public poled that such a connection did infact exist.
    Granted. His spin-campaign was dishonest. But then again, this does not make him any different from other US presidents.

    Then ofcourse going to war for the wrong reasons (and with more than 50% opposition to war in the US! only when they actually went to war did support for the war rise above 50%)
    You don't know the actual reason for going to war. You only know what he said the reason was.
    The fact that he went to war without public backing (if what you say is true; I'd like to see some sources) is, if anything, a sign of brave leadership.

    Then change the original reasons to "liberating iraq" in the hope everyone would forget about the WMD's.
    Yep, that's true. But again, that's the kind of thing any US president (indeed any politician who wants to survive) does, when it turns out he was wrong.

    BUT

    The Republicans and democrats are in the pockets of the same people and corporations. Most of the significant giants donate large amounts of money to BOTH parties election campaigns.

    The Democrats are pure bullsh*t there's so many things they could have roasted bush over, they could have had most of the media hounding him, they could have continually tormented and confronted Bush. But they didn't, and you could be forgiven for forgetting that the US Democrats even exist, they did nothing. If i were american then i'm not sure i'd want to be ruled by such quiet weaklings either.

    In conclusion there's not that much to say against Bush that can't be said about any other leader, Clinton was no golden boy, apart from the war... from what i know, Bush & Clinton had reasonably similar policies (even the democrats won't tax the rich).
    Exactly. That's the point. Although Bush may not be an outstanding leader, his presidency is not "the worst in US history" or whatever people say.

    But i don't approve of Bush's war. By any of his reasons, there's a lot of other countries he should be attacking... but ofcourse he'll never attack a country that he really KNOWS have Nukes.
    What's wrong with that? Would you like Reagan to have attacked the USSR??

    And if the ruling monster has been US backed, then f*ck freedom and liberty, let these people be oppressed.
    What exactly are you referring to here? May I remind you that Saddam was initially US-backed, yet eventually, the US did not say: "f*ck freedom and liberty, let these people be oppressed."
    BTW, doesn't the attitude you're describing here, apply better to the French (Bush-bashers-in-chief)?
    And if there isn't oil in that country, or an oil pipeline daddy's friends want to build through that country (e.g. Afganistan), then f*ck having a war about it.

    Final conclusion the USA is screwed if they elect Democrats or Republicans.
    The oil argument is really cheap. If the US had really been after the Iraqi oil, they would have made peace with Saddam and made friends again with him.

    True, the oil is a nice side-effect for the US now the war is over, but you can't seriously pretend that it was the reason to go to war in the first place.

    In conclusion, I would say, that though he is not a GREAT president, though he has many flaws and though I'm not even sure I would vote for him this time, Bush is doing a relatively decent job.

    Certainly, this inane anti-Bush rhetoric won't get you very far and to be quite honest, it is very low. It degrades public debate and harms our critical sense. In the end, you're not doing the open society a favour by expressing irrational anti-Bush feelings.

    P.s. The chimp analogy was funny, when I hadn't heard it a million times already.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, gosh, I have now sparked off the birth of a political novel.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 7, 2004
Poll
The new Gillette ad. Is it:
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.