Is it just me, or does it seem that Bush supporters have a Blood Lust for war?

Question

I was just reading the politics section, and I can't help but notice. The people with the most violent replies are supporting the failed Bush agenda.
Why is that?

POINT MADE?

Open questions in Politics
Is it just me, or does it seem that Bush supporters have a Blood Lust for war?

Why doesn't the U.S. just bomb every country they don't like & get it over with quickly?

Will the Dems place a rapist and felon back in the White House?/?

At what age do Liberals start betraying their country?

I posted my question, and the other open questions, listed above, speak volumes!

WOW!

but I cant say I'm surprised by the Bush factor.

Why are there so many posative bush supporters here, when poll's have them peg'd at about 35%?

WOW!

but I cant say I'm surprised by the Bush factor.

Why are there so many posative bush supporters here, when poll's have them peg'd at about 35%?

OK Somebody just posted something that I take SERIOUS offence to.

For the record, I served in the Canadian Armed Forces, as did my father and uncles.

Persian Gulf War Veteran
MBDR Ret.
4TH AD REGT ADATS DET COMD
JAVELIN DET COMD
SKY GUARD DET COMD


I SERVED!!

Actualy, everytime that Clinton went after a terrorist, republicans said he was doing combat , was to take attention away from the republicans acting shocked about clinton getting oral fornication.

funny that republicans were wasting time in congress about an oral service, considering that the people in the republican side were at the time guilty of the exact same offence?

need examp,les?

trust me, I can provide!

Answer 1

Yes. Bush (big smiles) "I'm a war president! I've got war on my mind."

Yes, there needed to be a reply to 9/11. But, NOTHING pointed to Iraq in any way that suggested they had anything to do with it.

Why do you people insist on using the wrong picture.

If I were a survivour of a victim of 9/11 I'd be suing Bush and his government. Didn't take long for the rich *** that recently bought the WTC to sue. He came out pretty well didn't he.

And, while we're here, why aren't all those firefighters who Bush commended as heroes not being properly taken care of. They are sick and they are dieing.

Answer 2

only against those who have sworn to destroy america\
I find it interesting that the while the results of the question " do you approve of bush " results in this week only a 29% percent approval rating, but no one ever reports why they say that.

I am a conservative in many ways, liberal in others and would fall into the 71% who do not approve of Bush. But to assume that everyone disapproves because they think we should not be in Iraq is an invalid assumption. I and I think many ohters disappove because we think we have been too weak and politically correct to send enough folks, weapons and destruction over there to actually win this thing.
So if the media would simply ask the rest of the question "why" they might be forced to say that the reason people disapprove varies because 29% of the population supports the war as is, 33% hate the war and say come home, and another 30% say they disapprove because they think we are not doing what it takes to win.


The other thing I find odd that is never talked about in the main news locations is that the very same same poll to the very same people that says bush only has a 29% approval rating says that the congress has only an 11% approval rating. Intresting that almost 3 times as many of us think the president is doing a good job as those who think congress is. Any answer as to why congress low ratings and this disparity is not shared with us in the same breath as the presidents #'s are?

If the wild conspiracy that the neocons control the president is true then the democratic party must have an assigned employees sitting in every office of the media editing the evening news. Yes bush is hawk and the media is leftist. But bush at least admits his agenda- the press simply refuses to admit that it has an agenda and hides between some acedmic theroy that says Jounelist are neutral - yeah right - and rumsfield hated the idea of overthrowing Saddam and the Pope secretly wishes he were a protestant.

Answer 3

Statement much? Bush has been a letdown, but i will tell you this- war sucks. It should be our last resort, however we reached last resort status well before we went into Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. We spent 14 months before going into Iraq, it should have been 14 minutes. I will agree that the application of our forces is misguided in Iraq. We're trying to play peacekeeper between multiple factions , which isn't a godo prospect. This needs to be done, and can be. Insteasd oof asking how soon can we get out, we should be asking how soon can we leave Iraq a free, stable nation- it is possible if we remove the use of the military and our national defense from being a political tool.

Answer 4

Americans change sides pretty quick. As far as the rest of the world knows, all of the Americans agreed in the begining to invade Afghanistan. Now, after 4-5 Years, nothing has happened good, so you guys want to say bad about Bush.

Answer 5

you can reply to this but Bush might have a 35% aapproval rating but the Democrats in the house and Senate have a much lower approval that is 11%. I would like to have our troops home in stead of in a war that we did not start. Bush had enough common sence to go after the terrorist. Clinton ran away like he did when it came for his time to serve. It's not that we love war it is because that we look at it as a nessary evil. It was evil men that started this war and like the old saying goes; Evil florishes when good men do nothing. Ben Laden is a evil person.

Answer 6

I'm in favor of national security. There are countries that want to bomb us as well, that should have been obvious on 9/11. Pretending that everyone just wants peace and the world isn't really a dangerous place is a dangerous ideology in itself. That kind of naivity will just lead to another 9/11, in which case I suppose the liberals will just blame it on the Jews or Bush instead of the real perps.

Answer 7

3 discrepancies in your question: The blood lust was fueled by terrorists on 9/11, you want to talk about violent replies...look at all those misguided leftist Democrats on this site calling for Bush to be shot or worse, and the Bush agenda hasn't "failed". Last time I looked Saddam has been hung, the Taliban doesn't rule Afghanistan, and we have lost over 3000 brave patirots in fighting in Iraq yet the terrorist scum have lost how many ? 10,000 ? That is no loss in my books, bub !

I suspect you have never served to defend this country. I have ...3 tours USMC, one of them Vietnam. When you can say you have done your bit like I and my brother vets have, then you can have some gravitas to run your mouth.

Answer 8

Perhaps you are overlooking the meaning of honor and duty. To surrender to an inferior enemy has not been how this country became a world power. our forefathers fought what others thought to be a lost cause to gain our freedom. If you had asked most of the population of the colonies about the outcome of the war of independence they would have told you the cause was lost. Washington and the generals made as many mistakes as those in uniform with stars make now. Lucky for us there was a hard core of patriots that keep trying to beat the odds and ended up winning. Maybe You are willing to give up but I am not and I have dodged bullets for what was a bad conflict back in Vietnam. It was not the troops on the ground that made the decisions but the politicians in Dc that caused that mess. Had we attacked invaded the north that country would be free. Look at the ups and down of WWI and WWII but this country keep going and won.

Answer 9

No blood lust for war. I believe if history proves anything that after terrorists strike, no response is the worst thing that you can do. Which is exactly what Bill Clinton did.

After each attack, Clinton did absolutely nothing. Then 9/11 happened, Bush decided along with Blair to go on Offense rather than wait for the next strike against an American or British target.

What socialist Democrats must do is examine the facts... Do you REALLY want another attack on U.S. soil? By taking the fight to them, you minimize the percentage chance dramatically. They are on their heels attempting to fight back rather than being on the offense and striking at will.

Nobody likes war. It's great for the economy, but nobody wants to send people to their death. Even when they go voluntarily.

Answer 10

Neo cons are uber capitalists. Capitalist fat cats like to make money...lots of it. War makes lots of money for uber capitalist fat cats. Yes. The people who support the neo con agenda want war.
And I guess, although he is actually a failed capitalist, Bush and his upper echelon supporters want war...or more specifically they want Bush to pursue a war agenda.
And if you listen carefully to what's being said these days, the war machine is already gearing up for Iran,
We should all be afraid, very afraid. This is not Iraq. This kind of aggression would result in a World War, the likes of which mankind has never seen.