Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    Something tells me the coalition was a little hasty. I personally feel they should have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to finish their job. How does Bush expect support when his actions are not only unilateral, but unprecedented in their stupidity.
    didn't know that having the support of over 40 countries is called unilateral...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY)
    didn't know that having the support of over 40 countries is called unilateral...
    It's true that Bush had that size coalition right after 9/11. But he managed to almost completely destroy it. You cannot say that the coalition is that size and strength now.

    And even if he did have over 40 countries ready to sign up to help, his plan was to lead the group in a dictorial way, not to work together with his potential allies. Just think what a senisible president would have done with that opportunity to work with somewhere like Pakistan in order to deal with terrorism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    I believe he is referring to the WMDs. He is right, both Bush and Blair stated widely that there were WMDs and that there was a great deal of evidence of them. Now they come up shorthanded.

    Something tells me the coalition was a little hasty. I personally feel they should have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to finish their job. How does Bush expect support when his actions are not only unilateral, but unprecedented in their stupidity.
    The best evidence showing WMDs existed is that fact that he used them before. He gassed thousands of Kurds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Hythlodaeus*)
    But he managed to almost completely destroy it.
    how?

    And even if he did have over 40 countries ready to sign up to help, his plan was to lead the group in a dictorial way, not to work together with his potential allies. Just think what a senisible president would have done with that opportunity to work with somewhere like Pakistan in order to deal with terrorism.
    im all ears.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Hythlodaeus*)
    It's true that Bush had that size coalition right after 9/11. But he managed to almost completely destroy it. You cannot say that the coalition is that size and strength now.
    From the outset the coalition was nothing more than a convenient tool for the US to trot out when faced with questions over why they had not been able to create real support from influential nations, the coalition did not contain a single arab nation - despite the US claim that the US was meant to create stability in the middle east - stability being one of the key aims of the Arab League ironically, the coalition lacked the support of the majority of the UN Security council. With the exception of Britian, Spain (for a while) and Italy (against the wishes of the vast majority of Italians) the coalition was made up of 'tin pot' (to quote Yes Minister ) nations and those who desperatley require the support of the US (Israel anyone), and nations hoping for greater aid (Pakistan that great beacon of democracy). And whilst I disagree with the idea that Bush has managed to destroy this coalition he has managed to further anatagonise those nations that did not support the war with self-serving policies over the reconstruction of Iraq (Why were Halliburton offered a one billion dollar contract without any other companies being able to bid????)
    (Original post by *Hythlodaeus*)
    And even if he did have over 40 countries ready to sign up to help, his plan was to lead the group in a dictorial way, not to work together with his potential allies. Just think what a senisible president would have done with that opportunity to work with somewhere like Pakistan in order to deal with terrorism.
    Im not sure what you are suggesting here, perhaps that Bush bullied these nations into supporting his Iraq policy....this I do not agree with as these nations are able to make their own decions, the question is whether they supported the US becasue they believed that Sadamm posed a threat to their countries or world security or whether there support was forthcoming because they wanted to buddy-up with the all powereful US.

    There has also I believe some co operation between the US and Pakistan in hunting terrorists including Ossie in the Kyber Pass region, however to claim that this has been as productive as it maight have been is entitrely questionable - surely a more successful use of US forces would have been to concentrate on this hot-bed of terrorist recrutment and training rather than having to look realy, really, really hard for Al'queda operatives in Iraq and ironically creating more terrorists in the process
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Almost anybody would be better than Bush.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    I dont think there was a better president then FDR. JFK basicly saved the world from a nuclear war.
    JFK may have saved the world from a nuclear war, but he set in motion the plan to bomb what was seen as a third world nation into the stone age, and drop more bombs on it than were dropped in the whole of WW2. I've never really understood the hero worship of JFK, to be honest I know as a Brit, I probably can't understand his effect on America fully but... he was weak domestically, at least Johnson started his Great Society Plan(where was JFK's New Frontier) and had to rely on his brother a bit too much. He also very very narrowly won the 1960 election, and that was only by courting the African American vote which again didn't count for that much because only a few African Americans could actually vote before 1965!

    If I was an american voter, I'd support Kerry and Edwards, but I also like to see Hillary Clinton running for President next.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by socialist cook)
    JFK may have saved the world from a nuclear war, but he set in motion the plan to bomb what was seen as a third world nation into the stone age, and drop more bombs on it than were dropped in the whole of WW2. I've never really understood the hero worship of JFK, to be honest I know as a Brit, I probably can't understand his effect on America fully but... he was weak domestically, at least Johnson started his Great Society Plan(where was JFK's New Frontier) and had to rely on his brother a bit too much. He also very very narrowly won the 1960 election, and that was only by courting the African American vote which again didn't count for that much because only a few African Americans could actually vote before 1965!

    If I was an american voter, I'd support Kerry and Edwards, but I also like to see Hillary Clinton running for President next.
    he got shot in the head making him a sort of martyr well not really but i'm sure you understand what i mean people tend to remember what was good about him
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    he got shot in the head making him a sort of martyr well not really but i'm sure you understand what i mean people tend to remember what was good about him
    Yes I know that, I just thought it was best to bring up the not so positive sides to him but also politically how he was weak and was elected very narrowly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Almost? Who would be worse????
    You never know...there might be that rare subspecies of humans who have acheived the unacheiveable, and have managed to make bigger fools out of themselves in public than Bush. (Who could forget the pretzel incident?).

    If Michael Jackson were president,for example, I think I would go into hiding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I think you all need to read the book, "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. The book explains alot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by firebladez777.5)
    You never know...there might be that rare subspecies of humans who have acheived the unacheiveable, and have managed to make bigger fools out of themselves in public than Bush. (Who could forget the pretzel incident?).
    Actually, the pretzel incident was in the privacy of his own home. I'm sure if you had security and staff living in your home with you, some of your mishaps moments would be noticed by others. Furthermore, criticizing someone for being accident-prone is a rather cheap shot.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by socialist cook)
    I've never really understood the hero worship of JFK, to be honest I know as a Brit, I probably can't understand his effect on America fully but... he was weak domestically, at least Johnson started his Great Society Plan(where was JFK's New Frontier) and had to rely on his brother a bit too much.
    The "Great Society Plan" is the epitome of everything wrong with liberalism/socialism. All the Great Society did was create dependency upon the government. It's a black hole that keeps sucking in more and more taxpayer dollars. Since 1962, several trillion dollars of taxpayer dollars have been spent on these programs that are supposed to help the poor and there have been no positive results. The ratio of poor people to well-off people is the same since its inception, making it a complete failure.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    a light aside
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kikzen)
    a light aside
    and another
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by firebladez777.5)
    Almost anybody would be better than Bush.
    for reasons you seem reluctant to give.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    for reasons you seem reluctant to give.
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t51821.html
    *hides*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t51821.html
    *hides*
    hehe, i know YOU are not short of ideas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ViennaI have seen numerous posts in which you point out that Kerrys foreign policy is, on the surface at least, very similar to that of Bushs, his domestic policy whilst admitedly being bland, unorginal middle-of-the-road centrist rhetoric does not have any elements which stand out to me as being particularly scary to conservatives and the majority of the US public believe that he would handle to the economy better....

    So why do you think he would be the wrong person person to vote for, is it becasue you think Bush is doing a good job as president or because you believe that Kerry would do a worse job? In essence would you support Bush to keep a good president in office or to prevent an even worse president?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    ViennaI have seen numerous posts in which you point out that Kerrys foreign policy is, on the surface at least, very similar to that of Bushs, his domestic policy whilst admitedly being bland, unorginal middle-of-the-road centrist rhetoric does not have any elements which stand out to me as being particularly scary to conservatives and the majority of the US public believe that he would handle to the economy better....

    So why do you think he would be the wrong person person to vote for, is it becasue you think Bush is doing a good job as president or because you believe that Kerry would do a worse job? In essence would you support Bush to keep a good president in office or to prevent an even worse president?
    William Safire in the Times this morning, sums up why I would hope most Americans think hard about actually voting for Kerry as opposed to voting against Bush,

    "On the death penalty, Bush is for and Kerry straddles. On abortion, Bush is against and Kerry straddles. On same-sex marriage, Bush is demonstrably against, while Kerry is rhetorically against but cleverly finds a policy resting place that allows him to straddle.

    It happens that I agree with Bush on the death penalty, prefer the Supreme Court compromises on abortion and disagree with him on a same-sex amendment. But in all cases, this president takes a stand and makes clear what it is. Bush is not trying to be, in the biblical phrase, all things to all men.

    Contrariwise, these Kerry straddles are troubling in one who aspires to trustworthy leadership."

    In short, Kerry's success in the polls has been because no one is actually aware of his policies. He doesnt come down one way or the other, giving the public little to disagree with. This was the case in the Democrat Primaries where non-action did wonders for his support. The problem in this respect is, if he takes a significant lead over Bush in the polls, and the media and public begin to see him as Kerry 'the President' and not Kerry 'the Democrat candidate', he'll need to stop the waffling and start answering questions. Polling figures show that this generally works against him.

    On a personal level, i take issue with Kerrys ideas of treating terrorism as a matter of law enforcement, putting security in the hands of the respective state departments and not homeland security.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.