Americans

[juggernaut17]

Ok this is annoying the hell out of me. The ignorance of the people who say India and China will surpass the United States is ridiculous. Although their GDP increase is greater than the US it will overheat.

India: Horrendous infrastructure. Can't fix it because in too much dept.
China: Poor infrastructure, Pollution.

The corporations have always been moving around Asia finding the cheap work, eventually they will leave those two. Because of those reasons. And plus the communism in China is going to last.

And please, those who are bold enough, tell me why Bush sucks. Please. I will gladly shoot you down.

[feiterman]

Ok this is annoying the hell out of me. The ignorance of the people who say India and China will surpass the United States is ridiculous. Although their GDP increase is greater than the US it will overheat.

India: Horrendous infrastructure. Can't fix it because in too much dept.
China: Poor infrastructure, Pollution.

The corporations have always been moving around Asia finding the cheap work, eventually they will leave those two. Because of those reasons. And plus the communism in China is going to last.

And please, those who are bold enough, tell me why Bush sucks. Please. I will gladly shoot you down.

All thought i like Bush he has made some mistakes dude like hmm lets start with how he has handled Iraq, the whole middle east situation, the oil problem , the economy, the defect. But i do give him some props for not yet deciding to attack N. Korea, which would be very stupid

[feiterman]

How is America remotely the best at practically eveything? I could name a hundred things of the top of my head they are not #1 in. The just have the strongest economy and military, which tend to come hand in hand in the modern world anyway.

Feiterman, its hardly a war. Calling that a war is disgracing the names of soldiers who have died in worthy wars and battles which have been fought for a real purpose. No discredit to the people wh olost their lives in Iraq, but that is like Unriggable said, a police action. It was a war until Baghdad fell, which was in about a month wasn it? Since then its been keeping the calm and fighting insurgency, ie, police action.

Call it what you wish, but it is still a conflict on the miltary scale whic impacts both Americas and the worlds economy, and the man who started this conflict hopefully had a plan to end it, so changing the man who has the plan really isnt smart

[Titanic]

How is America remotely the best at practically eveything? I could name a hundred things of the top of my head they are not #1 in. The just have the strongest economy and military, which tend to come hand in hand in the modern world anyway.

Feiterman, its hardly a war. Calling that a war is disgracing the names of soldiers who have died in worthy wars and battles which have been fought for a real purpose. No discredit to the people wh olost their lives in Iraq, but that is like Unriggable said, a police action. It was a war until Baghdad fell, which was in about a month wasn it? Since then its been keeping the calm and fighting insurgency, ie, police action.

Call it what you wish, but it is still a conflict on the miltary scale whic impacts both Americas and the worlds economy, and the man who started this conflict hopefully had a plan to end it, so changing the man who has the plan really isnt smart

Lol, he dusn have a plan to end it. The Inquiry into Iraq said talkto Iran and Syria, and reduce troop numbers in Iraq. He does the exact fcking opposite. Sorry, but this is not a war. The war ended after a month. You have a fcking shite leader. He cannot present (which any world leader should have a natural skill in), he employs rubbish people (Rumsfeld, Condi to an extent), he is natually dumb (he called Africa a country), he cant find the door (in that China video), he disrespects other world leaders (G8 Summit in 2006), he makes terrible decisions (Iraq, going to Camp David after 9/11, New Orleans). To put it basically, he is not a natual politian or natural leader. The leader of any strong nation should be a natural born politician and leader, and he clearly is not. Why you idiots re-elected him is beyond me. The Daily Mirror's headline the day summed up the mood outside of USA - "How could 55,713,412 be so dumb?".

[feiterman]

How is America remotely the best at practically eveything? I could name a hundred things of the top of my head they are not #1 in. The just have the strongest economy and military, which tend to come hand in hand in the modern world anyway.

Feiterman, its hardly a war. Calling that a war is disgracing the names of soldiers who have died in worthy wars and battles which have been fought for a real purpose. No discredit to the people wh olost their lives in Iraq, but that is like Unriggable said, a police action. It was a war until Baghdad fell, which was in about a month wasn it? Since then its been keeping the calm and fighting insurgency, ie, police action.

Call it what you wish, but it is still a conflict on the miltary scale whic impacts both Americas and the worlds economy, and the man who started this conflict hopefully had a plan to end it, so changing the man who has the plan really isnt smart

Lol, he dusn have a plan to end it. The Inquiry into Iraq said talkto Iran and Syria, and reduce troop numbers in Iraq. He does the exact fcking opposite. Sorry, but this is not a war. The war ended after a month. You have a fcking shite leader. He cannot present (which any world leader should have a natural skill in), he employs rubbish people (Rumsfeld, Condi to an extent), he is natually dumb (he called Africa a country), he cant find the door (in that China video), he disrespects other world leaders (G8 Summit in 2006), he makes terrible decisions (Iraq, going to Camp David after 9/11, New Orleans). To put it basically, he is not a natual politian or natural leader. The leader of any strong nation should be a natural born politician and leader, and he clearly is not. Why you idiots re-elected him is beyond me. The Daily Mirror's headline the day summed up the mood outside of USA - "How could 55,713,412 be so dumb?".

Just out of curiosity who the f*ck is your brilliant leader

[Titanic]

Tony Blair may not be "brillaint", but he has done his job very well for the past 10 years, and is much much better then Bush. The only real "mistake" he has made is Iraq but I'm supportive of intervention in Iraq so in my eyes he has been brilliant, but unfortunately the general public do not agree..

I cant remember who said this, but I think I read it in The Times or The Independant - "I find that when I'm listening to Tony Blair in a speech I am nodding along in agreement even if I don't actually agree to what he is saying." Thats how good a presenter he is, and he has made some exceptional speeches in the past (Labour Conference last year, EU Parliament in 2005, Education speech etc..)

How exactly is Bush an ideal candidate for President?

[Guiscard]

And please, those who are bold enough, tell me why Bush sucks. Please. I will gladly shoot you down.

*Imperialism

*Overt Political and Economic Hegemony

*Warmongering

*Human rights abuse

*Failure to obey or agree to international law

*Civil war in Iraq

*Destabilisation of the Middle East

*Crippling of Lebanon

*Encouraging terrorism

*Encouraging international religious divides

*Inadequate aid

*New Orleans

*Inability to actually form sentences

[Guiscard]

But i do give him some props for not yet deciding to attack N. Korea, which would be very stupid

PROPS? WTF? The natural state of the world should not be war. He shouldn't get props for deciding NOT to attack N Korea any more than he should for NOT attacking France or Germany. Iraq has been proven to be an unjustified and illegal war. N Korea would be too.

He hasn't attacked N Korea because it has no real advantage. If they become a nuclear power (perhaps already) they will be reigned in by China, who have nukes anyway (so it wouldn't neutralise a threat to invade Korea). There is no real benefit to having a client state (as was the plan for Iraq in the Middle East) in the region because China is so powerful (and growing). Economically its a wasteland so that doesn't matter.

The USA has never attacked a country to remove nuclear capability. Once countries gain Nuclear capability they won't be attacked. That's why they fight so hard to stop it, e.g. in Iran.

[Titanic]

I'm actually amazed there are people who still defend Bush and think he is a good president. The only good thing he has done is create a new category of himself in stand-up comedy.

[admiral217]

*Imperialism

*Overt Political and Economic Hegemony

*Warmongering

*Human rights abuse

*Failure to obey or agree to international law

*Civil war in Iraq

*Destabilisation of the Middle East

*Crippling of Lebanon

*Encouraging terrorism

*Encouraging international religious divides

*Inadequate aid

*New Orleans

*Inability to actually form sentences

Please, enlighten me as to how Bush has encouraged terrorism? That just doesn't make sense. The people who encourage terrorism are the terrorists who have twisted the idea of "jihad" into meaning a holy war. It doesn't have to mean a holy war, it can even mean just living a virtuous life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

just citing my source

[Aradhus]

Please, enlighten me as to how Bush has encouraged terrorism? That just doesn't make sense. The people who encourage terrorism are the terrorists who have twisted the idea of "jihad" into meaning a holy war. It doesn't have to mean a holy war, it can even mean just living a virtuous life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

just citing my source

You're a fucking idiot.

[Guiscard]

Please, enlighten me as to how Bush has encouraged terrorism? That just doesn't make sense. The people who encourage terrorism are the terrorists who have twisted the idea of "jihad" into meaning a holy war. It doesn't have to mean a holy war, it can even mean just living a virtuous life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

just citing my source

Ok. Firstly, terrorism does not equal Jihad only. There are plenty to Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists... Atheistic terrorists... Whatever.

But as for encouraging terrorism, I believe that through his rhetoric and through his actions he has made the world a more dangerous place. Sparking war in the Middle East has only cemented the cause of Islamic extremists who want to harm those they believe are trying to oppress them. The war in Iraq has been cited as the direct cause of bombings such as those in London on July 7th in which many innocent civilians lost their lives. If we had not been in Iraq Britain would not have been bombed. By waging this 'Holy War' against militant Islam, he has placed the USA and the UK as the direct opponents of the Muslim world as a whole, perhaps not in actual political terms but certainly in the minds of many Muslims experiencing discrimination and abuse by ignorant bigots world wide. There are ways of dealing with terrorists without making it a religious issue. The British experience with the IRA, although a long and bloody one, would have been made much worse if the Government had produced rhetoric labelling it a specifically religious conflict with the protestant 'us' on one side and the catholic 'them' on the other. Catholics in Britain would have been discriminated against, called 'terrorist' by ignorant bigots... Instead the issue of religion was deliberately downplayed and the conflict was managed without alienating the large and widespread Catholic community within Britain.

[admiral217]

Ok. Firstly, terrorism does not equal Jihad only. There are plenty to Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists... Atheistic terrorists... Whatever.

But as for encouraging terrorism, I believe that through his rhetoric and through his actions he has made the world a more dangerous place. Sparking war in the Middle East has only cemented the cause of Islamic extremists who want to harm those they believe are trying to oppress them. The war in Iraq has been cited as the direct cause of bombings such as those in London on July 7th in which many innocent civilians lost their lives. If we had not been in Iraq Britain would not have been bombed. By waging this 'Holy War' against militant Islam, he has placed the USA and the UK as the direct opponents of the Muslim world as a whole, perhaps not in actual political terms but certainly in the minds of many Muslims experiencing discrimination and abuse by ignorant bigots world wide. There are ways of dealing with terrorists without making it a religious issue. The British experience with the IRA, although a long and bloody one, would have been made much worse if the Government had produced rhetoric labelling it a specifically religious conflict with the protestant 'us' on one side and the catholic 'them' on the other. Catholics in Britain would have been discriminated against, called 'terrorist' by ignorant bigots... Instead the issue of religion was deliberately downplayed and the conflict was managed without alienating the large and widespread Catholic community within Britain.

Yes, I agree that we must not play up the religious issues, and I know that muslims are not the only terrorists. I am only asserting that today's terrorist leaders have twisted the idea of jihad to encompass killing innocent people for reward in the afterlife.

[Guiscard]

I'm not arguing that, but how does it mean Bush doesn't encourage terrorism? The two things are not mutually exclusive.

[admiral217]

I was just trying to clarify why you believed that. I haven't really formulated an opinion on it yet so I wanted to hear your reasoning. The jihad thing was extra.

[Guiscard]

And now you've heard my reasoning?

[juggernaut17]

Please, enlighten me as to how Bush has encouraged terrorism? That just doesn't make sense. The people who encourage terrorism are the terrorists who have twisted the idea of "jihad" into meaning a holy war. It doesn't have to mean a holy war, it can even mean just living a virtuous life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

just citing my source

Ok. Firstly, terrorism does not equal Jihad only. There are plenty to Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists... Atheistic terrorists... Whatever.

But as for encouraging terrorism, I believe that through his rhetoric and through his actions he has made the world a more dangerous place. Sparking war in the Middle East has only cemented the cause of Islamic extremists who want to harm those they believe are trying to oppress them. The war in Iraq has been cited as the direct cause of bombings such as those in London on July 7th in which many innocent civilians lost their lives. If we had not been in Iraq Britain would not have been bombed. By waging this 'Holy War' against militant Islam, he has placed the USA and the UK as the direct opponents of the Muslim world as a whole, perhaps not in actual political terms but certainly in the minds of many Muslims experiencing discrimination and abuse by ignorant bigots world wide. There are ways of dealing with terrorists without making it a religious issue. The British experience with the IRA, although a long and bloody one, would have been made much worse if the Government had produced rhetoric labelling it a specifically religious conflict with the protestant 'us' on one side and the catholic 'them' on the other. Catholics in Britain would have been discriminated against, called 'terrorist' by ignorant bigots... Instead the issue of religion was deliberately downplayed and the conflict was managed without alienating the large and widespread Catholic community within Britain.

Sorry, but your a f*ucking idiot. If you invade a country, are you going to call it a mistake because they fought back? Thats exactly what the terrorists are doing. Hitting us where it hurts. And these liberal P*ussys are saying that losing a single man makes a war unjustified. When we invaded Normany, and our men gun mowed down by the machine guns, did we turn around and go home? No. We fought through it. And thats what we need to do here. If you think a passifistic approach to terrorism is valid, you are vastly misstaken.

[Aradhus]

Dumbfuck. Would you like to buy a clue? I supply them at reasonable prices.

[admiral217]

Sorry, but your a f*ucking idiot. If you invade a country, are you going to call it a mistake because they fought back? Thats exactly what the terrorists are doing. Hitting us where it hurts. And these liberal P*ussys are saying that losing a single man makes a war unjustified. When we invaded Normany, and our men gun mowed down by the machine guns, did we turn around and go home? No. We fought through it. And thats what we need to do here. If you think a passifistic approach to terrorism is valid, you are vastly misstaken.

Well, I don't really think the current action in Iraq can be considered even close to the Normandy campaign. Also, how exactly will killing everyone who resists us help at all? Won't that just make everyone who doesn't already hate us pissed and set up another generation of Iraqi children to be terrorists? With your logic we would just turn the whole Middle East into a giant plate of glass.

[Titanic]

Bush has been the best promoter of terrorism in the recent years, even more then Osama. Because of his complete fck up of Iraq, which could have turned out to be a good strategic move if he did it proerly, he has made terrorism more widespread and popular, especially with the younger age group. Before Iraq, there was almost nobody who opposed the war in Afghanistan, but now the peace protestors want troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan whilst we actually stand a good chance of succeeding in Afghanistan and creating a stable and vibrant political and economic situation in the country.

[UHaveAnEmergency]

I am an American.

I am a Republican.

Support our Troops.

"I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?"
-George W. Bush-

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."
-George W. Bush-

[feiterman]

Tony Blair may not be "brillaint", but he has done his job very well for the past 10 years, and is much much better then Bush. The only real "mistake" he has made is Iraq but I'm supportive of intervention in Iraq so in my eyes he has been brilliant, but unfortunately the general public do not agree..

I cant remember who said this, but I think I read it in The Times or The Independant - "I find that when I'm listening to Tony Blair in a speech I am nodding along in agreement even if I don't actually agree to what he is saying." Thats how good a presenter he is, and he has made some exceptional speeches in the past (Labour Conference last year, EU Parliament in 2005, Education speech etc..)

How exactly is Bush an ideal candidate for President?

OOO please although I like Tony Blair is is just America's bitch, which means he is Bush's bitch

[feiterman]

But i do give him some props for not yet deciding to attack N. Korea, which would be very stupid

PROPS? WTF? The natural state of the world should not be war. He shouldn't get props for deciding NOT to attack N Korea any more than he should for NOT attacking France or Germany. Iraq has been proven to be an unjustified and illegal war. N Korea would be too.

He hasn't attacked N Korea because it has no real advantage. If they become a nuclear power (perhaps already) they will be reigned in by China, who have nukes anyway (so it wouldn't neutralise a threat to invade Korea). There is no real benefit to having a client state (as was the plan for Iraq in the Middle East) in the region because China is so powerful (and growing). Economically its a wasteland so that doesn't matter.

The USA has never attacked a country to remove nuclear capability. Once countries gain Nuclear capability they won't be attacked. That's why they fight so hard to stop it, e.g. in Iran.

Look you have to give props to Bush for not attacking N. Korea , because according to everyone on this site he is a complete f*cking idiot, so him not attacking a country that he probably wants to, deserves a clap from me

[feiterman]

Please, enlighten me as to how Bush has encouraged terrorism? That just doesn't make sense. The people who encourage terrorism are the terrorists who have twisted the idea of "jihad" into meaning a holy war. It doesn't have to mean a holy war, it can even mean just living a virtuous life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

just citing my source

Ok. Firstly, terrorism does not equal Jihad only. There are plenty to Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists... Atheistic terrorists... Whatever.

But as for encouraging terrorism, I believe that through his rhetoric and through his actions he has made the world a more dangerous place. Sparking war in the Middle East has only cemented the cause of Islamic extremists who want to harm those they believe are trying to oppress them. The war in Iraq has been cited as the direct cause of bombings such as those in London on July 7th in which many innocent civilians lost their lives. If we had not been in Iraq Britain would not have been bombed. By waging this 'Holy War' against militant Islam, he has placed the USA and the UK as the direct opponents of the Muslim world as a whole, perhaps not in actual political terms but certainly in the minds of many Muslims experiencing discrimination and abuse by ignorant bigots world wide. There are ways of dealing with terrorists without making it a religious issue. The British experience with the IRA, although a long and bloody one, would have been made much worse if the Government had produced rhetoric labelling it a specifically religious conflict with the protestant 'us' on one side and the catholic 'them' on the other. Catholics in Britain would have been discriminated against, called 'terrorist' by ignorant bigots... Instead the issue of religion was deliberately downplayed and the conflict was managed without alienating the large and widespread Catholic community within Britain.

Sorry, but your a f*ucking idiot. If you invade a country, are you going to call it a mistake because they fought back? Thats exactly what the terrorists are doing. Hitting us where it hurts. And these liberal P*ussys are saying that losing a single man makes a war unjustified. When we invaded Normany, and our men gun mowed down by the machine guns, did we turn around and go home? No. We fought through it. And thats what we need to do here. If you think a passifistic approach to terrorism is valid, you are vastly misstaken.

Please don't open your mouth again, never compare WW2 to Iraq ever again asswipe, although i agree with point at the end about terrorism.

[hulmey]

LETS FUCKING attack IRAN and get our boys home....