8 years - what do you think?

[jasdon11]

So, over the last 8 years of Bush rule, what do you think?

Is America safer now than it was 8 years ago?

Is the World safer?

Are you more affluent?

Do you think that the short term future is looking rosy?

Do you think the mid to long term is looking rosy?

Are you living in fear from; personal attack; terrorism; financial issues; your kids safety?

If Bush was eligible to be re-elected, would you vote for him?

Do you feel the US Government is as strong an institution as it was 8 years ago?

[sdsinc]

The answers are painfully obvious

[Carter]

I'm italian and the media here in Europe are all against the Bush administration.
I think Bush is a crap president, but Bush is not the only.
Berlusconi or Putin are the same s..t.

[jasdon11]

Originally Posted by Carter

I'm italian and the media here in Europe are all against the Bush administration.
I think Bush is a crap president, but it's not the only.
Berlusconi or Putin are the same s..t.

They're crap on a domestic level - Bush is the global master of crap!

[acronym007]

What you fail to see is the big picture. Sometimes the world needs a guy like Bush, sometimes a guy like Clinton. I didn't like Clinton but the economy was better. Clinton was and is a coward who ran from his country to not have to fight. Clinton allowed the mess to begin with terrorism, he didn't care about the world when he getting served in the oval office.

Bush comes in and takes out one the worst men in our time, a murderer. Saddam is gone and world is better. Saddam paid terrorist families in Israel to blow themselves up. During Saddam's reign many people died in Iraq and abroad. Like it or not Iraq was a major funding party and middle man to allot of terrorist actions, a supporting nation with allot of capital.

Saddam threatened the world and in his last days he was found hiding in a hole. WOW. Imagine the power he once had and he abused that power by killing his own people, supporting terrorism everywhere, and threating stability in the region. The world is better without him. It took Bush to get rid of him. Like Bush or not I think most would agree the world is better with Saddam in it.

I think Obama is going to win the election, not with my vote, but if in 8 years he does what Clinton did we will then need another guy to do the dirty work. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and Clinton and Obama are cowards, not fighters.

[jasdon11]

Originally Posted by acronym007

What you fail to see is the big picture. Sometimes the world needs a guy like Bush, sometimes a guy like Clinton. I didn't like Clinton but the economy was better. Clinton was and is a coward who ran from his country to not have to fight. Clinton allowed the mess to begin with terrorism, he didn't care about the world when he getting served in the oval office.

Bush comes in and takes out one the worst men in our time, a murderer. Saddam is gone and world is better. Saddam paid terrorist families in Israel to blow themselves up. During Saddam's reign many people died in Iraq and abroad. Like it or not Iraq was a major funding party and middle man to allot of terrorist actions, a supporting nation with allot of capital.

Saddam threatened the world and in his last days he was found hiding in a hole. WOW. Imagine the power he once had and he abused that power by killing his own people, supporting terrorism everywhere, and threating stability in the region. The world is better without him. It took Bush to get rid of him. Like Bush or not I think most would agree the world is better with Saddam in it.

I think Obama is going to win the election, not with my vote, but if in 8 years he does what Clinton did we will then need another guy to do the dirty work. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and Clinton and Obama are cowards, not fighters.

Don't kid yourself. Iraq was never about getting rid of 'Saddam the Dictator', it was about getting rid of 'Saddam the Dictator who was going to start using euros instead of dollars as payment for his oil...'. Do you realise what that meant? It meant total and catastrophic financial meltdown for the US. You would've have raging inflation, the dollar would be worth a tiny fraction of what it is - bankrupt; game over! Current crisis? Nothing in comparison.

Now, if the US had said, "we're going to invade Iraq to stop this guy doing this", I don't think they would've got a lot of support. "We're gonna invade Iraq to get rid of this evil dictator who is sponsoring terrorism...", now that sounds a lot better....and who'd stop them on those grounds?

Originally Posted by acronym007

Clinton was and is a coward who ran from his country to not have to fight.

Remind me - what military action has Bush Jr seen?

Originally Posted by acronym007

Bush comes in and takes out one the worst men in our time, a murderer. Saddam is gone and world is better. Saddam paid terrorist families in Israel to blow themselves up. During Saddam's reign many people died in Iraq and abroad.

I imagine that more people have died since his reign.

Originally Posted by acronym007

Like it or not Iraq was a major funding party and middle man to allot of terrorist actions, a supporting nation with allot of capital.

Or so you're told by the Government and their media. The same ones who had everyone believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. That's how accurate 'they' are...how truthful!

[Acro]

GW Bush: Idiot son of an a*hole. That covers 2 presidents.

[H2FC]

Make no mistake about it every major decision Bush made in office was made with his own benefit in mind.

He took the country to war because he was convinced that taking out a dictator and forcing democracy on a helpless country would place him in the history books as a great american president.

After he made up his mind to do this he had little regard for what it would cost in dollars, destruction and human lives. In his stubborn mind it was all about him and his legacy and thats why he has refused to end it without a clear and final victory....no matter what the cost and part of that cost is what we're seeing now in the near collapse of our economy....yet he still refuses to withdraw.

My dream is that enough evidence can be gathered to convict and see him sentenced him for his crimes.

As for McCain, he also still refuses to withdraw from Iraq even while our economy collapses more every day.....and this idiot expects to be elected POTUS?.....unbelievable!

He's not fit to be a US Senator imo.

[Gregcyber]

Love Wins

[acronym007]

I guess these guys in this thread love terrorist. WOW!

Sad day when people think Saddam was good for the world.

Originally Posted by jasdon11

Don't kid yourself. Iraq was never about getting rid of 'Saddam the Dictator', it was about getting rid of 'Saddam the Dictator who was going to start using euros instead of dollars as payment for his oil...'. Do you realise what that meant? It meant total and catastrophic financial meltdown for the US. You would've have raging inflation, the dollar would be worth a tiny fraction of what it is - bankrupt; game over! Current crisis? Nothing in comparison.

Now, if the US had said, "we're going to invade Iraq to stop this guy doing this", I don't think they would've got a lot of support. "We're gonna invade Iraq to get rid of this evil dictator who is sponsoring terrorism...", now that sounds a lot better....and who'd stop them on those grounds?



Remind me - what military action has Bush Jr seen?



I imagine that more people have died since his reign.





Or so you're told by the Government and their media. The same ones who had everyone believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. That's how accurate 'they' are...how truthful!

I never stuck up for Bush, did you read my post? You people are blind with hate and anger. I simply said that the world was better without Saddam in it and it took Bush to do it. Hatred is blinding folks.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by acronym007

I simply said that the world was better without Saddam in it and it took Bush to do it. Hatred is blinding folks.

It did not have to take $10 billion a day, more than 4,000 dead us soldiers, more than 100,000 wounded, countless civilians slaughtered to accomplish that mission.

Hell, I forgot! Mission NOT accomplished.

[acronym007]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

It did not have to take $10 billion a day, more than 4,000 dead us soldiers, more than 100,000 wounded, countless civilians slaughtered to accomplish that mission.

Hell, I forgot! Mission NOT accomplished.

Who said it did? I will repeat since people can't read.... The world is better without Saddam in it.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by acronym007

Who said it did? I will repeat since people can't read.... The world is better without Saddam in it.

My only issue was the statement it took Bush to do it.

At such gigantic cost to human life and sacrifice.

Trust me, the world would be better without Osama but we got away from that mission thanks to Bush and an ill conceived war and invasion of Iraq.

$10 billion a day? For that kind of money someone could have easily been bribed to assassinate him and given refuge.

Or one well placed sniper team and one .50 cal rifle. Or good intel on the ground and one cruise missle.

[Gregcyber]

Love Wins

[Carter]

Originally Posted by acronym007

Who said it did? I will repeat since people can't read.... The world is better without Saddam in it.

There are 100 new Saddam in the world today and they live in peace killing peoples all day.

Where is the "sheriff" Bush?

**** politics. All politics.

[jasdon11]

Originally Posted by acronym007

I guess these guys in this thread love terrorist. WOW!

Don't love terroists - but at least I can recognise one.

Originally Posted by acronym007

Sad day when people think Saddam was good for the world.

I never said Saddam was good for the world, did you read my post?

Originally Posted by acronym007

I never stuck up for Bush, did you read my post? You people are blind with hate and anger. I simply said that the world was better without Saddam in it and it took Bush to do it. Hatred is blinding folks.

"You people"? Who are "you people"? Would that be people that don't see the world through your eyes?
No hatred here - I'm chilled. That's why I can see the picture clearly.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Gregcyber

UN has a law against assassinating leaders of the world.

Oops, actually hit the PM button.

The UN has a law against war crimes and torture of prisoners, all of which Bush has already granted a presidential pardon to himself and his entire administration.

[jasdon11]

Originally Posted by Gregcyber

UN has a law against assassinating leaders of the world.

Has plenty of laws that the US doesn't adhear to.

[acronym007]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

My only issue was the statement it took Bush to do it.

At such gigantic cost to human life and sacrifice.

Trust me, the world would be better without Osama but we got away from that mission thanks to Bush and an ill conceived war and invasion of Iraq.

$10 billion a day? For that kind of money someone could have easily been bribed to assassinate him and given refuge.

Or one well placed sniper team and one .50 cal rifle. Or good intel on the ground and one cruise missle.

Ok, I understand your position about Bush. Methods are one and people are another. I think Clinton had opportunity and missed it. My point is underlined, the world is an ugly place and at times it takes an ugly Marine or Ranger to kill a terrorist. Nobody likes ugly but it's needed. Bush might be a whatever you hate, this, that or the other thing. That's fine, people hating him or people hating his approach but it took Bush to do it. History shows it. I don't think an Obama would of done, or Gore, or anyone of those guys. So, we needed ugly to get ugly done. Saddam's gone, allot of the rest of the methods can be argued throughout history but Bush took out Saddam and Osama is in hiding. For that I am glad. I'll never defend the methods but I am glad Saddam is gone.

[Carter]

Hey man I don't hate Bush because he kill terrorist...I agree with this.
I hate him because he's an idiot.
But he's not the only idiot.