2006-08-23 00:03:15 · 21 answers · asked by bato f 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Millions of citizens are rightly calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush due to his criminal and unethical policies. Bush is a cancer not only on the presidency but upon basic human decency. Any sane person, regardless how marginal they are, can see that Bush must go and the sooner the better. However, when Bush is gone the system that produced him will remain in place, as healthy and viable as ever. It will continue to bear a plentiful crop of poison fruit, perhaps even more sinister than Bush.
The majority of the people are toiling under the illusion that the moral abyss of American politics can be reformed and made to serve the people as well as the public interest. According to this line of reasoning, the malignancy is principally the result of a few bad apples mixed with the good. If they are correct, then removing the bad apples will affect a cure. Yet that has never been the case and it is not the case now. Otherwise, we would not be where we are today. Consider, for example, that America’s Middle East policy has remained essentially the same as it is today through eleven presidencies, consistently yielding the same results.
2006-08-23 00:07:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
From a Canadian's point of view, Bush doesn't appear to be a "man of peace". I think he took bad advice in the beginning of his administration and now has to deal with the cleanup. I don't think he's a monster or that his intentions are necessarily bad, but Americans are paying a high price for his learning curve.
I have to wonder what his position would be if his own girls were serving over there ... food for thought.
2006-08-23 07:13:04 · answer #2 · answered by Myrna B 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush is responding to attacks. Like the guy mentioned above, terrorist are the causes of all Bush's actions, more or less. The first to respond is always to blame. Like in a football game, guy spits on someone, then the guy who got spat on pushes the other guy. More often than not, the guy who pushed the spitter is the one to get blamed. It's life.
2006-08-23 07:16:37 · answer #3 · answered by John R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are joking or teasing the peace lovers?
Bush and peace are two opposite words.
2006-08-23 07:18:40 · answer #4 · answered by mushtaqehind 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The man has started 2 wars and is threatening North Korea and Iran...what do you think?
2006-08-23 08:19:18 · answer #5 · answered by denand2003 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are Islamic extremists men of peace? Are presidents like Saddam that commit genocide men of peace? Are groups like Hezbollah that randomly shoot rockets into civilian homes for many years men of peace?
No sane and reasonable person wants war but its people like the guys I just listed that cause people like Bush to act in response to them. As a world power, it's our responsibility to act against these people. Part of that duty means you get a lot of people angry at you for it, but it's worth the effort. If all you see is a President that wants to make war, then you're simply being naive.
2006-08-23 07:10:23 · answer #6 · answered by Me 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
ahah peace at home maybe but not around the world!
thats 4 sure!
2006-08-23 07:10:17 · answer #7 · answered by Blue_Dragon 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't say he is a man of war or peace.... he just has security issues. If he feels unsecure than he has to act on it..... Taliban was a threat, Saddam he thought was one, Iran is likely to be...and so is Korea. He could wait until they are really a problem or not....He just choose not to.
2006-08-23 07:29:50 · answer #8 · answered by targin1 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He is a man of God, who, I am sure, prefers peace over war. He did send the military to Afghanistan and to Iraq. He certainly is not a man of "peace at all costs."
2006-08-23 07:07:16 · answer #9 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes- he's just stuck with being the only world leader who will actually take a lead role in World affairs and DO something.
look at the "song-and-dance" Europe is doing now instead of sending peacekeeping troops to Lebanon.
2006-08-23 07:14:12 · answer #10 · answered by R J 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋