I have a question to all the Liberals who seem to think G. bush sucks and that they know everything...?

Question

If a democratic president were to take over tomorrow and george bush be removed, what would this democratic president do with N. Korea and Iraq? Pulling out troops is not an option and neither is nuclear war. So... I waiting....

Pulling out of Iraq is not an option because then total anarchy would break out. It is not too organized now, I will admit, but if anyone remembers anything about american history from high school, we did not have a stable, constituational governemnt until almost 20 years after we won the revolutionary war!!! Iraq is going to be a place of turmoil for a while, but the people in Iraq are now free and what we do for democracy is fight, for our right, to live free.

Answer 1

You tell those LIBERALS. good for you

Answer 2

First of all, the problem that our country is currently facing is an identity crisis. George W. Bush as President of the United States is pretty much a joke at this point. He gets almost no respect from people all over the world, even in countries like Canada and England, which are supposed to be close allies. Any new president, dem or republican would have the chance to bring a change of tone so to speak, and he would be given a chance to provide a different vision for the world, and may advance our standing in the world as it has clearly been eroded.

Unfortunately, you are right about Iraq, we cant just leave, because it would destablize the region to the point of anarchy. Now you know why Saddam wasn't removed from power after the first Gulf War. He had that country on lockdown, and now that we took him out, it's a friggin hornet's nest. We need to quickly get a government set up there that gets the respect of the Iraqi people, and that will also "play ball" with us, as well. We made this crappy bed, now we have to sleep in it. I hope, however, that you can see what poor judgement was used going into this war, and that it was a total mistake. Saddam was a bad man, for sure...but there are more dangerous men in the world than Saddam.

Answer 3

Regardless of what party is in office, the people have been freed from an awful leader. If our people were being shot and starved, etc., I would hope some strong nation would come to our rescue. And not spend years arguing "we should....no we shouldn't help". Look at it from their eyes.We have no idea what they had to go through. Yet all we seem to do is gripe and complain about everything. If the president could bring world peace or cure cancer, some folks would sneer and complain that it wasn't done yesterday, or that too many mice were killed while finding a cure, ( mice are more important than we humans are ya know), or that jobs were lost due to the lack of need for weapons and weapon factories. After all, if the President worked out world peace, it's gotta be his fault if every little thing isn't just perfect. THAT'S RIDICULOUS!!! Surely we understand that whatever is done there will be whole HERD of angry people screaming before words even leave his mouth. This is true for either party. We Americans, I'm afraid, have become much less caring and understanding of other Americans (not to mention a major drop in love of country) than in earlier generations I believe. The "I" generation. We must realize that there are wicked people in this world and sometimes we have to get tough. I still recall 9-11, and those folks would stop at nothing to destroy us. If we turn the other cheek.. or leave, they'll not stop until we are destroyed. That will continue unless we defend our selves and other people that need our help.Anyway, if people in this country would try to unite and help work through problems, rather than resorting to blame and anger...our country might have a chance to survive. God has always blessed this Great Nation, but we....yes, you and I, are destroying it.....And the rest of the world is sitting back loving it.

Answer 4

If George Bush were removed, the world would be too darn busy celebrating to even care to fight anymore. Funny, if we had a new president, why wouldn't pulling the troops be an option? Is it because the guy you evidently support, made a mistake and occupied Iraq for no reason, and if this hypothetical Democrat President took over, the only way to make George look good is to restrict him from removing the troops? Face it, Bush never belonged in the Oval office and has shamed America for being there. I stand by our troops 100%, they will give all to protect you and me, even thought I do not support the war. I do support them. To answer your question, when Bush took the office, you or no one ever told him what his limits were yet in your question you limit the Democratic President. Not fair, but then again, if you support Bush, I can see why.

Answer 5

Well I will have to disagree with most of your question, not because a democrat would do any better, because they won't, it is becuase in the history of not only Iraq but the middle east as a whole, there has never been any form of freedoms. It is very hard for democracy to establish itself when freedom has never been felt.

IF you remember your U.S. histroy correctly, the colonies were fairly autonmous under England. They had there own elected representative body in each colony, and they taxed themselves as they saw fit. It was only after the Seven Years' War, that England demanded the colonies conform to parliament and summit to the taxes that England thought the colonies should pay to defer the cost England amassed during that war.

The colonies saw this as an attack on their personal liberties, so it was very easy for the American colonists to revolt against what they saw as oppression from England. Freedom of one form or another existed within these colonies for about one-hundred years when the Revolutionary War started.

Once the constution was ratified in 1787 and George Washington was elected president in 1788 this country was established, only FIVE YEARS AFTER THE TREAY OF PARIS WAS SIGNED IN 1783. Even during those five years, New Yorkers, Virginians, South Carolians, all of them seen themselves as Americans, and did not attempt to kill, maim, or injury one another while the process sorted itself out.

So yes I will agree in one aspect only, the democrats do not just as the republicans do not have a plan for Iraq that will work. You are fooling yourself if you think the main goal was democracy for Iraq. That is the side issue everyone hangs their hat on, and for the Iraqis sake I hope it can happen, otherwise this will be another South Vietnam or maybe even Lebanon of the 1980's. Pulling the troops not a good idea unless Iraq can govern itself, nuclear war never an opition! So I will wait like you and see what happens and hope for the best for our troops and for the Iraqis themselves.

Answer 6

The greatest thing the United States government could do is pull it's troops out of Iraq, accept responsibility for tragedy of an unjustified war, and help Iraq's people recover. For the Bush Administration to admit it's grave mistakes and surrender it's PRIDE (remember the 7 deadly in the Christian doctrine?) would give the United States a chance to redeem itself to the rest of the world for it's unjust actions. To twist reality the way the Bush Administration did is unforgivable. And think about the fact that the mastermind behind "911" is still free. Thank GWB for that. He is the one that let his "agenda" put our safety at risk by not focusing on the true threat. If Bin Laden pulls of another attack on our soil, the U. S. Government will be responsible due to it's loss of focus on capturing him.
North Korea is justified in it's paranoia. If I were a leader of a small country and observed the world's greatest Nation unjustly attack a country, I would be building up a defense. I don't believe that they are going to attack us, but they think that we are going to attack them. Do the math. (I agree that North Korea's people are suppressed, but we play into their leader's hands by giving him justification for his paranoia. We give him the means to convince his people that we are a threat. This can be changed with the sharing of knowledge and compassion.) Iran is viewing us the same way. And there may be others.
I don't think any leader, Republican or Democrat, can fix this mess. But we, as a nation, can. All of us together have a voice louder than the Government, and our actions can bring about change. We can show the world that we are indeed a caring, loving people by stopping this war, bringing Bin Laden to justice, and set a good example to the rest of the world by doing what is truly right. And we should do this with the support of the rest of the world. This would be the true victory. To continue the path taken is destruction of our future.
Call me unpatriotic if you wish. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I am a free man. My loyalties are to all, including you.
Call me weak if you so choose. Just keep in mind that it any fool can commit an act of violence. Only a strong person can overcome his/her pride. Can you overcome yours?
"...I waiting...."

Answer 7

In the first place, if being liberal means respecting difference, allowing for healthy discussion and TRUE freedom of speech, letting women decide what to do with their own bodies, not jailing someone because he 'may look' like a terrorist, acting reasonably about polluting the world and quit plundering earth like there's no tomorrow, then DAMN STRAIGHT I AM LIBERAL!

Now that I said that, I feel much better.

A smart president -which may not be a democrat- would take all the steps necessary to turn the hellhole Emperor George II created in Iraq into a reasonably well-ran country, rather than worrying about 'winning the war.' To win that war George W.'s cronies would have to wipe out the entire Iraqi population--no armed might can neutralize the resentment against a foreign power sprouting roots in your country. Sad thing is, he might get away with it, given the control of his corporate pals on the media...

And about North Korea, well, there's only so much pressure a rocky peninsula with little farmland can sustain before having to give in in order to eat. That maniac Kim Jong-Il might have the fifth largest army in the world and ballistic missiles, but a smart president would persuade China, Russia and Pakistan to quit backing him and use their support -and the rest of the world's- to institute very harsh economic sanctions and penalties against his regime.

Now, is George Jr. a smart president?

Answer 8

I doubt a democratic president would make much of a difference, Clinton went into office making promises and he caved in to the CIA, large corporations and the so called liberal media. the only reason we are in Iraq in the first place is for their oil (try reading Michael Parenti since YOU think you know everything). If the government told the truth instead of saying we are bringing democracy to Iraq...blah blah blah!! Why not say "We invaded Iraq because large corporations want to make millions more dollars" Iraq is a society that is 5000 years old, they dont need to be taught anything by the US. "Democracy" is an alias for imperialism. It would be nice if we learned about imperialism in high school or college, or from the so-called liberal media. And by the way, I am not affiliated with either major party, I am an independent and I dont know everything but I do know that war doesnt work...and I love you neo-conservatioves who say that anyone with an opinion different from theirs should go live in Iraq and we are free...WHO is free? Only the rich are free.

Answer 9

We are changing to a new world order where military power is not the only deciding element. The US is no longer dominant on the economic front; both China and India are quickly growing and will catch up to the US. In addition, Americans are spending more money than they earn in order to keep up their current standard of living. Unless Americans find new sources of income, eventually the American standard of living will go down. When this happens, Americans will be very unhappy, and will blame whatever party is in power.

If there is any difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, it is just that Democrats are less warlike, while the Republicans have become a party of warlovers. (You can read the link below to see how Newt Gingrich would like to wage war to solve all of America's problems.)

Answer 10

What a bunch of crapola. Pulling out of Iraq is certainly an option. We are not the police, babysitters, guards, teachers or any thing else you can think of for the world. We had no business there in the first place now did we? N. Korea is backed by China and they are going to do what they want anyway. If we end up in war with them then so be it. We're probably all going to war anyway while we back Israel which is what we should do...
So... now I waiting also too.

Answer 11

A Democrat as President might not do anything different at this point in North Korea or in Iraq. But a Democrat as President probably wouldn't have gotten us to the same state in the first place.

But my biggest beefs with Bush aren't his foreign policy (although his idea of foreign policy leadership is telling everyone "Do what I do because we know best"), but with his domestic policy, and the belief that the national debt is not something that anyone needs to worry about.

But I also don't like his belief that seperation of Church and State is for losers, that gays shouldn't be able to enjoy the protections of marriage, and his beliefs on abortion, civil rights, the environment and, really, just about everything he says, short of "hello".

I have plenty of other reasons to not like Bush than North Korea or Iraq.