*Which president has alienated nearly all of US allies? *What president claimed that Afghanistan had a \"Free Election\" when it turn out that most of the country is still under control of the Taliban and Warlords? *Which president told the American people that their \"Economy is trong and getting stronger\" dispite the fact that all studies show just the opposite? *Which president invaded a country because he claimed they had WMDs and were not obeying the rules laid out by the UN and in doing so, did not obey the rules of the UN and then \"flip-flopped\" on the reasons for going to war when there were no WMDs? *Under what president have we had the largest national debt created, highest rises in health care cost, worst changes in our educational system, highest increase in College tuition (25% in last to years) and also was the only president to loss jobs in the last seventy years? *What president attacked the same country as his father, a former president, who\'s father instucted him not to attack unilaterally just as Kerry has been saying (Funny Bush and Kerry do agree on something. That George W. doesn\'t know how to run a country)? *Which president had a GPA of 2.0 and was called by his professors a \"compulsive liar and a spoiled brat\"?
but you americans know thzat already. the Other is just as bad, but, unfortunately for those whom see that, he doesn\'t look so bad. well.. he is.
Dont forget to add that he was kicked out of the Air National Guard (which he got into because of his dad, a congressman at the time) and that while Kerry was getting politically active, Bush was being a failure-in-life drunk.
That doesnt say anything to me... in fact, that draws me futher away from him. I despise Christianity... I hate it more than just about anything on this planet. He needs to be reminded of the separation of church and state.
I Hope kerry wins, but if the last election is anything to go by, it wouldnt suprise me if bush pulls it off somehow anyway! I just think its funny that they advertise the fact that afghanistan had a democratic and fair election even when America didnt I aint american by the way, im irish, but ive been looking at that sneaky lookin prik of a man, bush,for long enough now, wot id do to get a hold of him for 5mins Your media is unbelievable too, its got yee thinking that yee are under attack all the time Fear can do strange things to people! and as for the weapons of mass destruction? who the hell do ye think gave em to em in the first place? who put saddam in power from day 1? and i think america would have the most weapons of mass destruction on the planet obviously, and as they showed in hiroshima, they are willing to use em! I am not anti-american, but i am anti-bush! Just my opinion! CWL
I totally agree, the president has made terrorism look like such a huge deal through the media. He got his ass handed to him in the debate about issues regarding the united states. He has scared people into believing they need to re-elect him so they can be safe from terrorists.
When the Bush Administration\'s geopolitical, national-interest, and anti-terrorism justifications for the Iraq war collapsed, it groped for an argument from altruism: postwar chaos, violence, enemployment, and brownouts notwithstanding, the war has purchased freedoms for the people of Iraq which they could not have had without Saddam\'s fall. That is true. But a sad and ironic consequence of this war is that its fumbling prosecution has undermined its only even arguably meritorious rationale - and, as a further consequence, the salience of idealism in American foreign policy has been likewise undermined. Foreign-policy idealism has taken many forms - Wilson\'s aborted world federalism, Carter\'s human-rights jawboning, and Reagan\'s flirtation with total nuclear disarmament, among others. The failed armed intervention in Somalia and the successful ones in the Balkans are other examples. The neoconservative version ascendant in the Bush Administration, post-9/11, draws partly on these strains. There is surely idealistic purpose envisioning a Middle East finally relieved of its autocracies and dictatorships. Yet the Bush Administration\'s adventure in Iraq is so gravely flawed and its credibility so badly damaged that in the future, faced with yet another moral dilemma abroad, it can be expected to retreat, a victim of its own Iraq Syndrome.
Wait..are you saying dropping those atomic bombs was a bad thing?!?! Dropping those bombs saved lives. Somthing like 120,000 died because of the bombs. Yet, around 500,000 or more would have died had we invaded the mainland. They were training women with bamboo sticks. Women were throwing their children off cliffs, and then jumping off after them after defeat in the philipines. They were planning on moving all POW\'s into the japanese mainland, had we not dropped those bombs, all those men would be dead. It\'s quite easy for you to sit here and preach your indignation, but you would have quite a different perspective if you were in the bataan death march, if you were a POW subjected to torture, or if you were simply an enlisted man, stuck in a fox-hole wondering if you\'ll ever see your family again. Look at it any way you want, but those bombs saved lives!!!
they saved american lives, didn\'t save any civilians in hiroshima... I think most people that are against American using the bomb in WWII, are against it because of all the civilians lives lost.
Correction: Saved american lives. Over a course of just five years (1945-1950), the bomb on hiroshima killed around 200,000 lives. Another 140,000 died in Nagasaki. [SIZE=+2px][/SIZE] Countless more were added to that list because of radiation sickness and other elements (no home, food, water, medical attention, etc). Bombs, killing, wars, and fighting solve nothing... they prevent more obligations in the future. Wars are the easy way for politicians to solve the shit they created... they send soldiers to \"fight for their country\", rather than actually doing something worthwhile and meaningful like making peace.
Correction- Japanese estimates put the death count of both bombs at 240,000 - to date. the initial death count of the bombs was 100,000- 110,000 Make peace?! How do you make peace with a country that declared war on you? Maybe the french should have made peace with the germans. Had we invaded the japanese mainland we would have invaded Kyushu, the Japanese and American casualties during the campaign for Kyushu would have been staggering. At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour. On Kyushu the odds would be three to two in favour of the Japanese, with 790,000 enemy defenders against 550,000 Americans. This time the bulk of the Japanese defenders would not be the poorly trained and ill-equipped labour battalions that the Americans had faced in the earlier campaigns. Every foot of Japanese soil would have been paid for, twice over, by both Japanese and American lives Had we invaded, and continued with the B-29 Bombing most of the country would be leveled, much like germany was. We only had to level two cities this way. \"Wars are the easy way for politicians to solve the shit they created\" Yeah..war has never solved anything..except for facism, and to some extent slavery. So what your saying is that it was roosevelt\'s fault we were at war with japan? As I said though, it saved japanese lives, and MORE IMPORTANTLY American lives. I could care less how many japanese died because of those two bombs, we were at war with them. A war they started. But what the fuck do you care, you wouldn\'t have had to live through it..would you? As I said, it\'s quite easy for you to sit here and bitch about the actions taken by our military but you would have quite a different perspective if you were actually there, and instead of dropping two bombs to end the war, you have to take the entire country inch by inch, where your very survival would be a fucking miracle. Go fuck yourself dude.
Thanks for letting me prove you\'re uneducated. Damn straight I\'m going to get pissed about this. You\'re basically saying that even though more people would have died if we invaded the mainland, we should have done it ..because it wouldn\'t have \"Saved american lives.\" While you would rather do somthing that would send over 300,000 americans to their deaths. You would look back at history and KNOWING that the atomic bomb would cause LESS casualties would go with a land invasion? That mentality is just sick, and it proves your utter ignorance of World War 2. Go read a book, man!!
Now, wait, why would I agree with sending troops anywhere if I am against war? I never said I would agree with that. Dont put words into my mouth, please.
.....right...we\'re just gonna bring them home and forget about the whole thing... do you have a brain???
But the difference is that we saved military lives, those who\'s job it is to fight and who have accepted that they may be in the line of fire, in exchange for the lives of thousands of families; men, women, and children. Civilians. That\'s the difference. The majority of the country was already leveled before the atomic bombs were dropped. Why do you think the atomic bombs went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instead of, say, Tokyo? Because there wasn\'t much left of cities like Tokyo (gotta love the firebombing). Coincidentally this is one of the reasons Japan went on to become a power in the Western World. Everything was gone, they could start over from almost scratch.