Really. Regardless of how this whole Iraq thing turns out, our policy on attacking before we are attacked...sucks! Protect us from home...don't let them get us here. Don't go picking fights in someone elses neighborhood. And enought already with the antirights movement...give us freedom...
2006-06-22 03:12:55 · 29 answers · asked by Foo Man Ju 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes, true but Bush's motto is give me freedom to go in search of more oil where no man has gone before! He needs to go alright and I hope we make it to 2008 and after that he can go to ####
2006-06-22 03:16:11 · answer #1 · answered by ₦âħí»€G 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not really, I mean, I hate Bush as a president, but it is only because hie perspective is a bit off. Kinda like Michael Jackson, he isn't a realistic person either. But that doesn't make him bad, just someone that has some crazy ideas.
Ok, attacking before we are attacked, sometimes the best defense is a good offense. He waited until we were attacked before attacking anyone... after 9/11 we struck Afghanistan. We should have stopped there but Bush really did THINK they had the weapons. I hate Bush as our president, but if someone tried to kill my father I wouldn't have much to say to you other than you have one chance to think about doing something wrong before I take you out.
On protecting our hom he created Homeland Security, sure it has some problems but I don't know how well I would have done on a limited budget. It has been 5 years since the last attack on our soil, whether we stopped some or not.
I don't agree with us going into Iraq, but Bush isn't the first president to go into a country he shouldn't have. Reagan gave Afghanistan most of the weapons they used against us.
I'm not going to sit here and say whether gays should be allowed to be married or not. But everyone has an opinion on it, just so happens that the Republicans believe gays should not be married. It's their perrogative to feel that way, they couldn't impose their will if they weren't elected. Maybe it is the democrats' fault for not voting...
2006-06-22 10:37:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You demonstrate a lack of understanding of the nature of terrorism, the fundamentals of warfare, and the basic sequence of events.
We were attacked first... remember something about some airplanes and tall buildings?
Ever heard of the USS Cole?
Or our embassies in Africa?
Ever hear the term "Islamic Jihad" ? Ever look it up to see what it means?
Ever check out the translated version of the daily news from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, or a dozen other countries?
Here's a summary:
- They declared war on the United States. Formally, with repeated public announcements. The nature of this war is "to the death" by their definition.
- They continue to fund raise, recruit, train, and attack us, our allies and our civilians.
- A basic tenet of warfare: fight at the time and place of _your_ choice, not the enemy's.
2006-06-22 10:22:05 · answer #3 · answered by scott.braden 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are many who support George Bush, and there are many who disagree with certain policies. The great thing about a democracy is that it's up to the people to decide who should lead them. In this instance, the majority selected President Bush. For those who are unhappy they must choose to exercise their right to vote during the next election. Until then, we must support the administration and be active citizens.
2006-06-22 10:19:19 · answer #4 · answered by indianalee 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes
We used to be able to think of ourselves as the 'good guys'. Helping others, not attacking a country because Daddy didn't do it right the first time. We've been driven into tremendous debt and Americans are hated worldwide. Yeah right, he's been great for this country. Send him hunting with Cheney, then send Cheney for a ride with Billy Joel.
2006-06-22 10:18:16 · answer #5 · answered by uhohwhoopsbroken63 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you can look at it that way, but there are some reasons why one might want George Bush in.... i dont know why im arguing it this way.. .truly i want him out, but to have stability in the world, you can't have the largest economical power, rapidly change government, just because of not enough support for a war from other countries. you have to look at it that the US has many trade partners, and a change in policy maker, could make or break these trading partners, which could thus affect your life, in the way that they might charge more for the necessities that you need, causing your cost of living to rise.
war is bad, but stability...
2006-06-22 10:19:12 · answer #6 · answered by ryanprague1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree, it would give me great pleasure to see George Bush and his war lords dragged down the white house steps in hand cuffs and leg irons to be shipped to the Hague to go on trial for their part in their crimes against humanity. He does need to go and answer these charges.
2006-06-22 10:21:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush is just a puppet with a very limited grasp of reality he just mouths policies others decide for him so
DON'T HATE THE PLAYER HATE THE GAME
2006-06-29 08:10:55 · answer #8 · answered by gwaz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well Dubya's notion of spreading peace and democracy through wars is a bit frightening I would say. Hope he doesn't want peace in the entire world!
2006-06-24 14:33:58 · answer #9 · answered by HeavenlyBull 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well...only two more years of George W. Bush, start the countdown!
2006-06-22 11:09:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋