to trade him in for?
A lot of evil, crazy leaders with executing other human beings constantly on their minds. Would you rather have Putin, Hussein, Iran's president, North koreas dictator?
2006-11-30
16:29:36
·
22 answers
·
asked by
Paul S
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
dstr bush is going after evil minded wackos who would love to see America wiped off the face of the map. he isn't going after good human beings. Get a clue.
2006-11-30
16:37:50 ·
update #1
DSTR Iraqi's are killing other Iraqis mainly due to the fact that they believe differently than what they do.
Are Americans just killing every Iraqi person they see? Again, get a clue.
2006-11-30
16:48:05 ·
update #2
Todd I appreciate you disagreeing in a positve manner.
2006-11-30
17:24:11 ·
update #3
Elway-what other country's leaders come to your mind that would be good? I'm only thinking the World is sick and now they want America gone. Wo to answer my question-who is a better leader, one you would trade Bush for-you spoiled American.
2006-11-30
17:47:04 ·
update #4
I like President Bush,I don't agree with him 100%,ie,immigration and spending like a drunken sailor but we couldnt have had a better man in office for the war.He doesnt take any crap and he stands his grounds and he is an honest man.I wouldnt even want to think of what we would be like if Snore Gore or Fairy Kerry had been in office.GO USA.
2006-11-30 16:36:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by halfbright 5
·
8⤊
7⤋
I really don't desire another leader from another country. I would like our current one to show some humility and admit when he's wrong. Obviously, that is a lost cause when talking about George Bush. I would like him to "get a clue," as you put it, and recognize that the unbelievable mess in Iraq has become a vicious civil war. Everyone else but him and 17% of our entire population understands that is exactly what is happening, but God forbid Dubya stop with the stubborn insane rhetoric and take a different course of action. Every day over there this mess is escalating and building to a flash point, and our soldiers are stuck in the middle of it. BTW, why were your only choices for other world leaders those of despots and dictators? I guess it was supposed to make the question sound more menacing and grim. All those names did was remind that Bush is a dictator-wanna-be.
EDIT: Can't you read? I said I didn't want any other country's world leaders. I just pointed out that instead of including names of world leaders from progressive countries like Canada, Australia and the UK, you chose the worst you could think of. One thing I am not is a spoiled American. I served my country, did you? I have a right as an American not to like the policies of our current Administration and that demogogue that sits in the Oval Office.
2006-11-30 17:39:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Let us all take a moment to be grateful that our country (or your fellow country on earth,) is not in the hands of someone who wants to eliminate the ability for the people to live a a free people.
Now back to bashing him. He doesn't always want to obey the constitution, and while I believe that he wants the people of the U.S. and the people of Iraq as a whole to live with liberty, the idea of rights is that they apply to everyone, including people at Guantanimo Bay.
There are some world leaders, even of nice countries to live in, who I would have a hard time preferring to him, but its too bad if he is the best we can do. There are better leaders out there.
I would take James Monroe over Bush, but he's dead. He knew how to stand up for what he believed in WITHOUT telling people he wanted their regimes overthrown.
(Balls of steel? There is so much evidence that he does what Cheney tells him to...And if Cheney had balls of steel he would have run himself instead of earning the president's trust and running things that way. Not that its bad to take advice from someone you trust, or to influence policy by persuading someone above you, but I really don't think that he's the best we could hope for as a foreign policy leader, nor do I think that "balls of steel" are a good thing when you are in charge of compromises. You should appear to have them maybe, but not actually.)
2006-11-30 17:16:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Todd R 1
·
3⤊
2⤋
Angela Merkel from Germany and Tony Blair from the U.K. would be my picks. John Howard from Australia is kind of like Bush but a little smarter, so I'd go with him, too. New Zealand's Helen Clark has done a good job peacekeeping both abroad, in the Solomon Islands, and at home, bringing the Orcs and the Sheep to the bargaining table. Finland's Tarja Halonen kind of looks like Conan O'Brien.
Chile's Michelle Bachelet is kind of a MILF.
2006-11-30 22:46:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jeff S. 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
Oh thats really undemanding to respond to, have you ever offered a television at your residence? have you ever watched it lately? the lots are being brainwashed with the aid of a communist time table. no longer something yet propaganda. you won't be able to assert you hate Bush even if the help the warring parties contained in the field at the same time as Bush is thier boss. Liberals imagine they could have it both procedures. this does no longer paintings contained in the genuine international. maximum of that is delusional pie contained in the sky dreaming. each of the solutions i have seen the following so a procedures seem derived from politically suited speaking factors. I purely were given with the help of reviewing a question the following about what percentage countrys the US has invaded, it change into contained in the resolved section, and no one were given the answer proper, because they do no longer coach this in authorities colleges, the purely usa that the US has INVADED change into the accomplice States of u . s . a . contained in the previous due 1800's, all of the different wars were no longer invasions yet efforts to repel aggression compared usa. imagine about it. maximum little ones at present aren't to any extent further even conscious that the southern states change into once an fullyyt different usa from the US.
2016-11-28 03:04:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
YOU--would have been the man if you would have ran. ANYONE other than GWB. When I first noted his nomination I feared for the existence of my very being. I thought to myself, "What a f@@kin weasel, how in the h-e double chopsticks!!" and nothing he's done has served to my or any other non-upper echelon persons well being. What part of 665,000 dead people + American casualties and deaths don't you understand? Be comforted in knowing that you can write to him while he's serving his prison term.
2006-11-30 16:43:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by scottyurb 5
·
4⤊
3⤋
Mr Bush is a coward and an incompetent fool, he has turned a tragic event into a wild goose chase and an avoidable quagmire, the Presidents of Canada or New Zealand and any western European world leader would be preferable to this miserable failure.
2006-11-30 16:39:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by egg_zaktly 3
·
6⤊
6⤋
I am not the most intelligent person but I would like a president that is. The people with reason to see both sides of an issue. I am not going to bad mouth Bush but I will say maybe we could have found a smart guy to run our country.
2006-11-30 16:36:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Pablo 6
·
6⤊
6⤋
I would have a lot less against Bush if he did not treat the Constitution so casually. the fact that he doesn't hold the document in respect speaks for his character
2006-11-30 16:43:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ford Prefect 7
·
5⤊
3⤋
I'd trade him at this point for anyone from the United States with a brain, common sense, educated anywhere besides Yale, and one who values human life.
2006-11-30 16:41:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋