George W. Bush

[QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="moptopskate"]

[QUOTE="darklord888"][QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]Overcriticized and underappreciated...though he hasn't done the best job.moptopskate

WW2 was around 6 years. Iraq war started 4 years ago. six>four.

We weren't in WW2 right from the get go. Remember, it took us getting attacked at Pearl Harbo to really get us involved....

Around six years long..Still, Its longer than the Iraq war

No it isn't. And also, we have been involved in the war for a good 5 years now, almost 6.

[QUOTE="moptopskate"][QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="moptopskate"]

[QUOTE="darklord888"][QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]Overcriticized and underappreciated...though he hasn't done the best job.Thechaninator

WW2 was around 6 years. Iraq war started 4 years ago. six>four.

We weren't in WW2 right from the get go. Remember, it took us getting attacked at Pearl Harbo to really get us involved....

Around six years long..Still, Its longer than the Iraq war

No it isn't. And also, we have been involved in the war for a good 5 years now, almost 6.

OMG, mop, open a freakin book, you participated really late in WWII, Iraq is nowa longer war to y'all that WWII was.

Hes the worst we've ever had.Aidenfury19

now, that is a great first post. (no sarcasm here, im serious)

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]

I really can't expess my thoughts about Mr. Bush without using... colorful language.

And every speech he gives should be put on Comedy Central.

Quadrifoglio

:lol:

it is! or do you not watch the daily show?

[QUOTE="Rekunta"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

"Body armor for Iraqi Veterans was slow to arrive and heavily armored or retrofitted vehicles have been slow to arrive in Iraq no doubt causing more casualties then need be." This war already features the lowest casualty rate in American history.

Oleg_Huzwog

In regards to your underlined response:

I have heard this response numerous times, as my father is an ardent Bush supporter. So what if it's the lowest casualty rate in American History? That justification makes me sick. So we're supposed to wait until the required amount of lives have been wasted until it's deemed necessary to equip them properly? It's justified because the death numbers aren't high relative to other wars? Give that response to a family that has lost a son or daughter over there.

How much body armor is considered adequate? I won't pretend to know the answer, and neither should you. All I know is that the casualty count has been incredibly low, which implies that they were well equipped.

Don't try that bullcrap of "ask a family member who lost someone." Allowing emotions to enter a debate (especially one about war) is never a good idea.

And WMDs were actually found and SOME progress is being made, but I just don't think we need to be there much longer. It's about time to go home.

AlternatingCaps

Around six years long..Still, Its longer than the Iraq war

moptopskate

And we were only really involved for a bit under four.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

"Body armor for Iraqi Veterans was slow to arrive and heavily armored or retrofitted vehicles have been slow to arrive in Iraq no doubt causing more casualties then need be." This war already features the lowest casualty rate in American history.

Oleg_Huzwog

In regards to your underlined response:

I have heard this response numerous times, as my father is an ardent Bush supporter. So what if it's the lowest casualty rate in American History? That justification makes me sick. So we're supposed to wait until the required amount of lives have been wasted until it's deemed necessary to equip them properly? It's justified because the death numbers aren't high relative to other wars? Give that response to a family that has lost a son or daughter over there.

How much body armor is considered adequate? I won't pretend to know the answer, and neither should you. All I know is that the casualty count has been incredibly low, which implies that they were well equipped.

Don't try that bullcrap of "ask a family member who lost someone." Allowing emotions to enter a debate (especially one about war) is never a good idea.

How much BA is considered adequate? I don't know, go ask many of the soldiers over there who had to go out and buy their own.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9524109

http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2004/04/04/features/0404040051.txt

I would like to think at least some body armor is a requisite piece of equipment for a soldier.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

How much body armor is considered adequate? I won't pretend to know the answer, and neither should you. All I know is that the casualty count has been incredibly low, which implies that they were well equipped.

Don't try that bullcrap of "ask a family member who lost someone." Allowing emotions to enter a debate (especially one about war) is never a good idea.

H3llstrike

Ummm... isn't a high injury to death ratio a good thing? Doesn't that mean there's a low death to injury ratio? I too know veterans who were injured (my own brother took a piece of shrapnel in his leg).

And no, my logic is not to stay because it's not high casualty rates. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about staying or leaving.

[QUOTE="AlternatingCaps"]

And WMDs were actually found and SOME progress is being made, but I just don't think we need to be there much longer. It's about time to go home.

Aidenfury19

Around six years long..Still, Its longer than the Iraq war

moptopskate

And we were only really involved for a bit under four.

[QUOTE="H3llstrike"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

How much body armor is considered adequate? I won't pretend to know the answer, and neither should you. All I know is that the casualty count has been incredibly low, which implies that they were well equipped.

Don't try that bullcrap of "ask a family member who lost someone." Allowing emotions to enter a debate (especially one about war) is never a good idea.

Oleg_Huzwog

Ummm... isn't a high injury to death ratio a good thing? Doesn't that mean there's a low death to injury ratio? I too know veterans who were injured (my own brother took a piece of shrapnel in his leg).

And no, my logic is not to stay because it's not high casualty rates. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about staying or leaving.

Always in a mood for a good laugh! :D

Now, seriously, i don't think i can say much about him. I don't know him personally. I don't like what he shows to be, or his choices though. But then again, he is not the president. All his friends and him are. They all rule the country.

He does have an annoying accent. And scary. And yes, every speech he makes could be put on the daily show. Wanna know why? Because You Don't Now Bush. Oh yea, baby. That's right. 100% pleasure flavored, baby.

What the... I'm strange today. Very strange! :|

But, to be true to my conspiracy theorist nature, i don't think he president of nothing. Not at all. He looks too much of a doll (in the "i control you" sense, not the other sense. Yes, you know what i'm talking about. That's right, you do) for me. NWO FTW!

He broke the international Laws that govern the international relations by going against the principle of non-use of violence, and by using the "preemptive war" argument, which is what you can call a hole, a flaw in the UN principles, to attack another country upon arguments (weapons of mass destruction) that were never proved, and all that, against the will of the UN, which represents all the States of this planet.

Yeah, a really good President, indeed.

kalossimitar

no one wanna counter or at least reply to this??? No wonder, its reality and proves your President to be a warmonger.

Bush is the worst person in the history of the United States. Hitler = Bush. Same **** different ---holeD9-THC

i'm not a big fan of GW Bush or his policies, but he is not close to being similar to Hitler That's a ridiculous comparison.

Sorry if I offended you that's not my intention. It's good and Bad low death rate but an extremely high seriously injured rate. Almost 30,000 solders have been seriously wounded i.e. leg blown off lose of an arm very serious life altering injuries. What this means is the insurgent attacks have been the most deadly attacks on our forces in any war. You can't just look at the overall death count.H3llstrike

No offense taken. :)

"insurgent attacks have been the most deadly attacks on our forces in any war." Sorry dude, but this is just wrong. Civil War, WW I, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, American Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, and Philippine War have all tallied more U.S. deaths than Iraq. If we were to include injuries, then Iraq would still lag far behind the first six in that list.

[QUOTE="D9-THC"]Bush is the worst person in the history of the United States. Hitler = Bush. Same **** different ---holesonicare

i'm not a big fan of GW Bush or his policies, but he is not close to being similar to Hitler That's a ridiculous comparison.

Yeah, Bush is much more efficient and sneaky in his plan to conquer the world. Its like comparing an athlete to an average jock.

There was none found and if there was any their are definitely gone now. That's a distraction, We overthrew Saddam and his baathist regime, I was for that but what now? The violence is down there government is up and running, their army is expanding very rapidly so Mission accomplished right? I say it's time to leave and we need to bolster our forces in Afghanistan quickly and expand the hunt for Bin laden now not later when their is another 9/11 in which it will be to late I fear. I'm not just blaming Bush, I think blame goes around for both sides. I don't believe either side has the best interest of the people that's why I'm an independent not a tool for either side.H3llstrike

Oh, the democrats definitely LET themselves be manipulated, but I've never supported the Iraq War. Afganistan? Good, thats what we needed to focus on but Iraq was always a distraction and targeted corporate giveaway..the dishonesty part certainly didn't help. I'm of the opinion Iraq needs to become three countries again.

[QUOTE="D9-THC"]Bush is the worst person in the history of the United States. Hitler = Bush. Same **** different ---holesonicare

i'm not a big fan of GW Bush or his policies, but he is not close to being similar to Hitler That's a ridiculous comparison.

[QUOTE="kalossimitar"]

He broke the international Laws that govern the international relations by going against the principle of non-use of violence, and by using the "preemptive war" argument, which is what you can call a hole, a flaw in the UN principles, to attack another country upon arguments (weapons of mass destruction) that were never proved, and all that, against the will of the UN, which represents all the States of this planet.

Yeah, a really good President, indeed.

kalossimitar

no one wanna counter or at least reply to this??? No wonder, its reality and proves your President to be a warmonger.

[QUOTE="H3llstrike"]Sorry if I offended you that's not my intention. It's good and Bad low death rate but an extremely high seriously injured rate. Almost 30,000 solders have been seriously wounded i.e. leg blown off lose of an arm very serious life altering injuries. What this means is the insurgent attacks have been the most deadly attacks on our forces in any war. You can't just look at the overall death count.Oleg_Huzwog

No offense taken. :)

"insurgent attacks have been the most deadly attacks on our forces in any war." Sorry dude, but this is just wrong. Civil War, WW I, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, American Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, and Philippine War have all tallied more U.S. deaths than Iraq. If we were to include injuries, then Iraq would still lag far behind the first six in that list.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="D9-THC"]Bush is the worst person in the history of the United States. Hitler = Bush. Same **** different ---holekalossimitar

i'm not a big fan of GW Bush or his policies, but he is not close to being similar to Hitler That's a ridiculous comparison.

Yeah, Bush is much more efficient and sneaky in his plan to conquer the world. Its like comparing an athlete to an average jock.

An athlete to a... whatever man. I'm not ok today. :P

But Bush is NOT like Hitler he at least told us what he wanted to do. Bush is more secret. And much more dangerous.

I can't stand him. He acts like a spoiled kid who's had everything handed tohim on a silver plater. He's also the dumbest presedent I ever heard speak. Listen to Bush speak and thenlisten to Clinton. Clinton could talk circles around Bush.jdc6305

Injury to death ratio in Iraq is the highest of any war this has been widely reported in the news check it your self. just heard this the other day and have heard this repeatedly in the news check for yourself. Believe me I would never claim it as fact if it wasn't true. It's not my opinion. I just wanted to say one thing else. You said what else should we do for Vengeance for 9/11 since we have toppled both regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should get the damn Terrorist leaders that are responsible for 3000 people dieing. Bin laden should be 1 on our to do list and AL- Zarwhai 2 everything else is a distraction in my opinion!H3llstrike

Once again, this is a GOOD thing.

I wonder how different the world would be if the president were Al Gore.BranKetra

Not that much different.

I think he's the funniest character on Robot Chicken.ElArab

Anyone who thinks Bush is the worst president needs to stop watching Loose Change and start reading History Books.reddevilyi

Who would you say is worse? Grant, Hoover, Jefferson?

I don't like him just because he brought about the whole attitude of "if you don't agree with me you are unpatriotic." Disagreeing withgovernment is a fundamental American characteristic.lupinelope

Who would you say is worse? Grant, Hoover, Jefferson?Aidenfury19

According to these scholarly rankings (whatever that means), Van Buren, Hayes, Bush Sr., Arthur, Hoover, Carter, Ford, B. Harrison, Coolidge, Nixon, Garfield, Taylor, Tyler, Fillmore, Grant, W.H. Harrison, A. Johnson, Pierce, Buchanan, and Harding.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on who ranks higher than who, but it does seem like historians view Bush as a fairly average President.

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]Who would you say is worse? Grant, Hoover, Jefferson?Oleg_Huzwog

According to (whatever that means), Van Buren, Hayes, Bush Sr., Arthur, Hoover, Carter, Ford, B. Harrison, Coolidge, Nixon, Garfield, Taylor, Tyler, Fillmore, Grant, W.H. Harrison, A. Johnson, Pierce, Buchanan, and Harding.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on who ranks higher than who, but it does seem like historians view Bush as a fairly average President.

Do you have the methodology and numbers that were used to tally that? Hes done more to damage our world reputation, economy, security, and civil liberties than any president in the last couple of decades at least.

EDIT: Nevermind, I don't consider that valid. For one the 2000 poll was around when people were still basically giving the guy reach-arounds and the 2005 poll gave republicans and democrats equal weight..how about they actually tally the weight of the different historians equally? Theres no other way for Clinton to receive a lower rating than Bush.

The Worst President in History?

The Worst President in History?

OmegaEps

I met Wilentz, and I found his opinions extremely jaded. Not to mention his blatant liberal background.

[QUOTE="OmegaEps"]

The Worst President in History?

LukeAF24

I met Wilentz, and I found his opinions extremely jaded. Not to mention his blatant liberal background.

Well guess what, liberals have their **** about them more than self-proclaimed conservatives do right now, mostly everyone in the world is ahead of congressional "conservatives". "Liberals" meanwhile have become the fiscal conservatives.

Well guess what, liberals have their **** about them more than self-proclaimed conservatives do right now, mostly everyone in the world is ahead of congressional "conservatives". "Liberals" meanwhile have become the fiscal conservatives.

Aidenfury19

What does that have to do with anything I just said?

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

Well guess what, liberals have their **** about them more than self-proclaimed conservatives do right now, mostly everyone in the world is ahead of congressional "conservatives". "Liberals" meanwhile have become the fiscal conservatives.

LukeAF24

What does that have to do with anything I just said?

It has to do with the "blatant liberal background" jab. Most sane people would say an invasion without a real strategy is bad, or that overpaying for shoddy work is bad, or that drastically increasing spending while drastically decreasing income is bad, or that people without a good record hiding things from you is bad, or that explicitly exempting yourself from following the law should be punished, or that taking away rights without any proof of competence or effective increases in security is bad.

All of these things are Republican positions of recent and are considered a positive thing by many Republicans out there, even those who should know better and seeing as Republicans tend to applaud themselves as conservatives..its a fitting response to your attack on the person's character.

I don't understand how he squandered all of the world sympathy and support we had after 9/11. We went from the whole world feeling bad for us and offering help to everyone hating us. Even if he is not the worst president ever, we have the worst image in our history.

Also, we were supposed to be, and actually were for a while, a united country. Now because of careless policy we are more divided than we have been since the Vietnam war.

Do you have the methodology and numbers that were used to tally that? Hes done more to damage our world reputation, economy, security, and civil liberties than any president in the last couple of decades at least.

EDIT: Nevermind, I don't consider that valid. For one the 2000 poll was around when people were still basically giving the guy reach-arounds and the 2005 poll gave republicans and democrats equal weight..how about they actually tally the weight of the different historians equally? Theres no other way for Clinton to receive a lower rating than Bush.

Aidenfury19

Bush wasn't covered in the 2000 rankings, only the ones in 2002 and 2005. And I fail to see how seeking a balanced consensus between Republican- and Democratic-leaning historians in the 2005 rankings is a bad thing.

[QUOTE="reddevilyi"]Anyone who thinks Bush is the worst president needs to stop watching Loose Change and start reading History Books.Aidenfury19

Who would you say is worse? Grant, Hoover, Jefferson?

I don't like him just because he brought about the whole attitude of "if you don't agree with me you are unpatriotic." Disagreeing withgovernment is a fundamental American characteristic.lupinelope

Johson and Nixon were far worse than Bush.

Bush wasn't covered in the 2000 rankings, only the ones in 2002 and 2005. And I fail to see how seeking a balanced consensus between Republican- and Democratic-leaning historians in the 2005 rankings is a bad thing.

Oleg_Huzwog

Johson and Nixon were far worse than Bush.

reddevilyi

Can't say much about Johnson (Lyndon B, right?) but Nixon at this point wasn't even as bad as Bush has become. At least he had some comprehensible ideas about things, even if some of those were far from moral.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Bush wasn't covered in the 2000 rankings, only the ones in 2002 and 2005. And I fail to see how seeking a balanced consensus between Republican- and Democratic-leaning historians in the 2005 rankings is a bad thing.

Aidenfury19

Johson and Nixon were far worse than Bush.

reddevilyi

Can't say much about Johnson (Lyndon B, right?) but Nixon at this point wasn't even as bad as Bush has become. At least he had some comprehensible ideas about things, even if some of those were far from moral.

Nah, LBJ was ok. I meant Andrew Johnson.

[QUOTE="D9-THC"]Bush is the worst person in the history of the United States. Hitler = Bush. Same **** different ---holesonicare

i'm not a big fan of GW Bush or his policies, but he is not close to being similar to Hitler That's a ridiculous comparison.

Really?

The parallels are crazy...

Read This

Here is a small bit...sounds like Bush doesn't it? It's Hitler...

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.