Who Hates Bush?

[GarzaUK]

Id like to point out that Bush was as popular as Jonhson and Nixon during the Vietnam war. But as far as international politics go, yes the world hates Bush. This is because Bush ONLY represents the AMERICAN view of the world, actually only half of it.

Half of America does not equal half of the world.

By the way Laos and Cambodia (Pol Pot) only turned to communism cos the US bombed them to the ground.

 

[Fu_chick]

Half of America does not equal half of the world.

Who said it did?

 

[Soviet_Guy]

I'm going to go make a very well balanced poll of greatest U.S. Presidents, and both Bush', Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Nixon will not be included, so people, give me 10 options for greatest U.S. Presidents.

 

[LaMidRighter]

They know that Saddam and his sons are gone and they have a great opportunity, as witnessed by American civillians, in the acts of voters that braved death on their way to the voter's booths. They, just like us, look forward to the day that we don't have to be there anymore and that day will come sooner than some people think.

The Iraqis had a great idea for the vote, the ink on the finger to prove they recieved their one vote, I personally believe that we should do that here in the states as well. Also, I was watching the financial news a few months back and saw that the Iraq stock market jumped up 600 points the first day of trading, not bad at all, I really believe they are a people who will do fine if we just give them a good head start.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Id like to point out that Bush was as popular as Jonhson and Nixon during the Vietnam war. But as far as international politics go, yes the world hates Bush. This is because Bush ONLY represents the AMERICAN view of the world, actually only half of it.

To tell you the truth Garza, Nam killed Johnson's presidency, he decided not to run for re-elect because his popularity rating dropped to basement levels because of the war, Nixon gained approval after his election because he promised to end the conflict.

Half of America does not equal half of the world.

That's true, but if we waited for the world's opinion to do things nothing would get done, also, more than half of those who actually voted did so for President Bush, more like 53% and about 4 million more than for Kerry or the third party candidates.

 

[GarzaUK]

That's true, but if we waited for the world's opinion to do things nothing would get done, also, more than half of those who actually voted did so for President Bush, more like 53% and about 4 million more than for Kerry or the third party candidates.

Have you ever given a slightest consideration that the world is right, not an elected President with all the falliblities of a human being.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Have you ever given a slightest consideration that the world is right, not an elected President with all the falliblities of a human being.

We as a country can be wrong, no doubt, but one thing to consider is the fact that the world is full of countries with differing opinions and agendas many of which clash with each other, needless to say, if something does need to get done quickly, how then to do it waiting for hundreds of different agendas to be filled satisfactorily the "oil for food" scandal was an example of what happens when major players are fighting something based on an illigitimate investment or back alley deals. Also, one must remember why WWII was as bloody as became, appeasement of an immediate threat allowing him to gain momentum, this in the name of building a peaceful consensus worldwide.
I am not saying that we should always throw up the middle finger to the rest of the world, for matters that can wait I think building friendly relationships based on consenting opinion are worth a discussion, sometimes, however, all nations sometimes just have to do what's necessary.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Sorry, I really didn't answer the question. Also, I think sometimes the world is right and sometimes it's wrong, and sometimes there is little time to figure out who is right.

 

[ShamMol]

The polls I referred to was an attempt to say that polls are only useful to the individual that takes them for a certain agenda.

Going there and taking a poll in the Sunni area that largely wishes that they were still experiencing the "superiority over others" that Saddam provided them, hardly reflects a country that is largely not Sunni. News media reports much in the same manner.

From Basra to Fallujah, to Baghdad, to most of the of Al-Anbar Province, and everything South of Najaf you will find that the majority share a different attitude. You will also find the absence of reporters.

I have no agenda. I have no donkeys or elephants or any other animal to the left and under my name. I have no authority to make decisions on where our country deploys us. I have no wish to push any political party's self serving interests. I'm just a guy that knows the difference between right and wrong. Saddam's regime was wrong. We were wrong in waiting so long to do something. Anything else that an individual will shout from a self-righteous soap box, only serves an individual's agenda. The large majority of freed Iraqi's don't care about any of this. They know that Saddam and his sons are gone and they have a great opportunity, as witnessed by American civillians, in the acts of voters that braved death on their way to the voter's booths. They, just like us, look forward to the day that we don't have to be there anymore and that day will come sooner than some people think.

This comment is to Squak-I can't trust something without proof, and while a first hand account is nice, I usually like something more concrete. I took it in, but in the end, I really do want the polls he was talking about. I have so much respect for the MC because one of my best friends is going into it.

Now onto the Sgt. I respect the fact you just want to give us information and while it is valuable in a sense, it also has to be taken with a grain of salt. If you have been to Iraq, you see some serious stuff that can sway you either way and no matter how unbaised you believe you are, it affects you in ways you can't understand. I think that what you said about the Iraqis being better off without the regime is completely correct. I however don't think that we are the people that should have done it, at least not then. We went in not for those reasons, but for a completely different reason, one that later turned to be invalid. Do I think that some Iraqis want us there (especially the government in power)-yes. Do I think that the Iraqis have in the back of their mind, do I need them?-yes. But do I also think they want us out-yes. I think your views are clouded by those you met and remember, and I don't have that same experience, so I will never be able to see it in the same way you do.

 

[GarzaUK]

No doubt the UK and France made some mistakes during WW2, same as the US I believe. Funny America in, WW1, WW2, and this war was brought about in an attack.

You have to understand that Europe was not complaining that you invade Iraq, it is the arrogance that you showed, the "We can go it alone" phase. Which backfired sice Condi Rice and GWB ended up on our doorstep sucking up to us. I believe GWB had FRENCH FRIES with Chirac lol lol. That's politics. :roll:

 

[anomaly]

I don't hate the man, I hate the leader. I'm sure that Mr. Bush is a friendly guy back on his ranch, but he's a terrible politician. Mr. Bush is probably a nice person...it's just that many nice people are simply idiots.

 

[ShamMol]

I don't hate the man, I hate the leader. I'm sure that Mr. Bush is a friendly guy back on his ranch, but he's a terrible politician. Mr. Bush is probably a nice person...it's just that many nice people are simply idiots.

Yeah, exactly. I would love to sit down and talk to him, grab a beer, talk baseball, but he enfuriates me as a leader with his being arrogant and his policies.

 

[MSgt]

Sham, maybe my views are clouded, because of my experiences. I could say the same for you for your lack of experience.

This has been what has "clouded" me...

1993 (4 months) Somalia (Humanitarian and Combat Missions)
1993 (2 months) Saudi/Kuwait (Training and Security Missions)
1994 (Two weeks) Haiti (Combat/Protection Mission)
1994 (3 months) Cuba (Humanitarian Missions)
1998 (1 month) Puerto Rico/Cuba/Dominican Republic/Haiti
(Humanitarian Missions)
2002 (1 month) Egypt (Traning)
2003 (5 months) Iraq (War)
2004 (8 months) Iraq (Combat/Humanitarion/Security Missions)


I don't bring this up for petty gloat. It is certainly furthest from my intention and I do not believe in the "glories" of combat. I've seen enough to make me sick of it, however, it is my job for our government and country. I believe it is as important as our teachers, civil servants and any other role that people practice that benefits our Nation. I only bring it up to show that American Government is not the evil that others would have us believe. In my experiences, there is only two things. Right and wrong. The news media that has the habit of looking for the tragedy in everything will always paint the ugly picture for civillians to see. Most of my experiences has been to aid Muslims. Whatever benefits that our country receives from said missions, is due to our risking our own involvement. All political soap boxes of "all for oil", "all for revenge", "all for arrogance", and "all for money" doesn't matter. These are surface facts that offer some people a chance to redicule the morality of what we do. There are two ways to look at our nation. Why is it that so many prefer to look at it through it's BS politics and sh*t stained goggles? In the end, and with out all of the self-serving crap that all nations practice, people need help. America is always in the lead and most of the time, we are alone.

 

[Squawker]

He appeals to the worst in people. He appeals to their fears and predjudices, instead of their love and caring. Just look at the justification for the war in Iraq. It wasn't "Saddam Hussein is killing his own civilians, and people there are living in poverty, and we cannot just sit back and watch that happen." No, it was "Weapons of mass destruction! Be afraid! Be very afraid!"

No, it was a combination of things but this is the only one the left paid any attention to because they could point fingers.

And he also brings out egos, and with that, hatred. In 1996 in Clinton vs. Dole almost no one cared. Only a very few on the far right or far left even really gave a ****.

That’s a new one I hadn’t heard before.

Now Bush has split everyone into two groups, those who agree with him and are so damn convinced that they're right, and thus everyone else is wrong, stupid, unpatriotic, or sinners, and those who disagree with him, and are so damn convinced that everyone else is wrong, stupid, arrogant, rash, and uneducated, when if fact neither are right.

That split happened a couple centuries ago so you can’t blame that on President Bush.

We used to be able to coexist with our opinions, but the whole mood in the culture of the US has turned into "Us against them" just because those who agree only seem to talk to those who also agree, and vise versa,

You can only have a civilized debate when name calling and personal insults are left out of it. Some true facts would be a good start.

and I can never forgive Bush for doing that to my country.

Where is your country?

 

[flip2]

I don't hate the man, I hate the leader. I'm sure that Mr. Bush is a friendly guy back on his ranch, but he's a terrible politician. Mr. Bush is probably a nice person...it's just that many nice people are simply idiots.

Terrible politician? Defeated a popular incumbent Democrat Governor Ann Richards in 1994. Re-elected handily, increasing Hispanic votes and African-American votes in 1998. 2000, won presidency. Won re-election, increasing votes in almost every category of voters. Won majority of votes, garnerd 10 million+ new votes from 2000. Can't be that bad of a politician.

 

[flip2]

No. That answer still doesn't make sense.

 

[flip2]

Like Hitler. The people loved him, and he turned the people against those that didn't.

Jon Stewart did an excellent, yet funny but true, commentary on the Daily Show the other night about people who reference Adolf Hitler to world leaders or events. I recommend you watch it. Jon Stewart, not exactly a Republican Hero, does make common sense a reality for people from both sides of the aisle. Referencing Adolf Hitler should only be used when referencing...follow me now....Adolf Hitler. In the words of Stewart, "Hitler spent 39 years building a reputation to be...Hitler." Your insinuation that Bush is like Hitler is ridiculous and insulting to those that died or survived during the Holocaust. Pick a better reference.

 

[flip2]

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but that doesn't make the analogy any less true.
Hitler used scapegoats
Bush uses scapegoats

Same argument can be used for any politician, world leader, and public official. What's your point?

Hitler declared a preemptive war
Bush declared a preemptive war

And have we forgotten September 11, 2001?

Hitler ruled by keeping the Germans scared and angry
Bush rules America by keeping the people scared and angry

Yes, millions and millions of Americans are hiding under their beds day in and day out. Yes, Bush was the one who attacked NYC, the Pentagon, the Embassies, the Barracks, the USS Cole, who trained al-Qaida cells and operatives, who gassed thousands, raped and tortured millions.

Hitler built his popularity off of an economic catastrophe
Bush built his popularity off of an economic catastrophe

Bush didn't build anything off an economic catastrophe. He won the 2000 election when the economy was slipping, and before 9/11/2001. It was his leadership that was always there that people recognized when the attacks occurred on our soil.

Need I go on?
Now I was just describing Bush as similar to Hitler in his style of ruling, and don't even pretend to be offended on a moral basis. You're just claiming to be offended so you don't have to explain how these similarities don't exist.

They don't exist. Again, watch The Daily Show's "A Relatively Closer Look" segment. Jon Stewart really drives the point home.

 

[flip2]

Hitler was a brilliant politician, as is Bush, and both had what one could call less than honorable ambitions.

So was Clinton, so was LBJ. Again, your reference to Hitler is outrageous and not even a comparison to anyone other than Hitler himself.

 

[salmonistic]

In my lifetime, and I go back to FDR, no president has been nearly as horrible as Bush. He has lied us in to a stupid war, toadied to the dingdong religiwacko right, ****ed up our economy, made us the hated nation of the world, surrounded himself with goons.....

And the response from the Democratic party has been to make Howard Dean the spokesman and face of the party. If Dean stays in that post, the Democratic party will lose more seats in congress in '06 and lose the presidency again in '08.

 

[Squawker]

Welcome to the Forum, Salmonistic. :2wave:

 

[Squawker]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in someone saying "The left were pointing fingers"? And if Bush was appealing to the best in people, then how come so much hatred of rage spewed out from both sides of the argument?

If you have read the threads in this forum, you would find that the people on the left are generally the ones spewing hate and rage.

Well I remember before he was elected when people of different beliefs could hang out, and no one found it weird. I also remember in Clinton vs. Dole, and even Bush vs. Gore the candidates making a point of complimenting their oppositions service to the country, instead of trying to discredit it.

The attacks from the left against Dole and Bush’s service to our country were some of the most vicious I have every seen. The left Defended Clinton’s lack of military service saying it didn’t matter that he was a draft dodger, remember that? You never heard President Bush say anything negative about the traitor Kerry, yet Kerry had to degrade Bush in every other speech he gave.

True facts, as opposed to false facts? Sorry, just being a jerk.
I completely agree, and that's the problem with the way things are, as opposed to how they were. Politics were politics, and we all hated politicians, and it was ok to disagree, because we accepted it as just an opinion.

Perhaps you were not paying attention to all the details involved in the campaigns. Politics has always been and will always be a dividing factor in our societies around the world. Comparing Bush to Hitler is getting very old. I disregard any arguments when people use that line. It is just too immature and insulting to respond to. When you grow up, you will know the difference.

 

[Squawker]

Well I'm sorry, if you're that close minded, then you're really just not worth talking to.

I am closed minded? Madam, I suggest you get over yourself. If you wish to compare a US President to the likes of Hitler than let me suggest that Bill Clinton would be a better match. He invaded Kosovo for no reason what so ever. The reports of genocide and mass graves on a grand scale were totally false, so he lied about that. He ordered the massacre of US citizens in Waco and Ruby Ridge. He was directly responsible for allowing Bin Laden to remain free to attack our country and murder 3,000 innocent people. He raped and harassed women. He threatened and terrorized women who spoke out against him. He blamed everything on the Republicans to get his followers to hate them. He was a pathological liar who had grand illusions about himself. You can hate President Bush all you want, but there is not even one iota of resemblance between him and Hitler.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I hear about President Bush being divisive all of the time, but to tell you the truth, I find he has done his part in building consensus. One might ask "how can you say that?". Here are a few examples; No Child Left Behing Act was an initiative desired by the Kennedy camp, it went sour(so say the left) and then the left attacked Bush because it has not produced. Another example, Bush has spent more money than any conservative president in history which we conservatives disagree with, yet the left calls him cheap they in fact attacked Bush for scaling back benefits programs when in fact the budget was increased, just not so much as the left wanted. President Bush paid a lovely and very genuine tribute to the Clintons at their portrait unveiling at the white house, even though the Clintons attack him with vitriol in every sound bite they get. Instead of just using the Republican controlled bi-cameral legislature to push through S.S. privatization, the president is speaking to the people. I don't believe this is the mark of a divisive president.

 

[MSgt]

You people, Americans and all, have a very selective way of looking at the world and it's events. America and her Conservatives have destroyed the Nazis, Mussolini, Imperial Japan, the Soviets, Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam. It seems to me, the greatest defenders of freedom in practice in this world is not the liberal. During these liberations, you will find the liberal on the side line shouting "world peace".

Global Liberals would have the world believe that they are the ones that march for human rights. They are the ones that condemn evil doers everywhere. They are the ones that voice for peace.

If this is so, then where were they when the screams of torture victims pierced the prison walls under Saddam? Where are they when Iraq’s mass graves are discovered and opened? Where is the Left’s passionate sense of humanity when Islamic extremists behead the innocent—and videotape the event, to the glee of the Muslim world? The liberal's answer to these Islamist practices is that they are America’s fault…we’ve driven them to it, because we defend Israel. Where is the Left when the Sudanese Government conducted a campaign of genocide against the wretched of the earth in Darfur Province? Sure, there have been a few insignificant tears—but where are the demands for intervention?

Where were these great "voices of humanity" last year when a heat wave swept Europe, killing more than 25,000 of the elderly and unprotected (15,000 in glorious France alone). Had the Bush administration allowed over 25,000 elderly Americans to die, howls of outrage would have shaken the heavens. The Left would have reminded us all of the virtues of Euro-socialism and the evils of a marketplace society. With far higher temperatures routine in the U.S., such a massacre-by-neglect has never happened here and never will. The Left, as always, remained silent.

Competition is vital in a democracy. Without competition, every system falls apart. With honest competition, we all perform at a higher level. It’s a sad day for our country when the Left’s philosophy comes from Michael Moore. By obsessing about Iraq—where the United States and its allies performed a great and noble deed, however imperfect the day-to-day details—the Left has wordlessly agreed to let the rest of the world rot.

The truth is that our Left is so intellectually decrepit, so infected by dishonesty, so morally feeble that it has only breath enough to condemn American actions. No matter how many brown or black human beings suffer around the world—starved, ethnically cleansed, raped, tortured, murdered—it doesn’t count unless you can blame America.

President Bush is the leader of the Conservative world.