Bush junior 2nd Term!

[Will]

Here's a challenge Freddyites:-

If you were George W Bush what would you have done after Sept 11th (apart from 'kill myself... HAHHAHA etc...') Also, explain how this would have helped prevent further terrorist attacks AND/OR prevent new threats.

I'd not have invaded a country that Al-Queda hated, for a start. Invading Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror. It has increased resentment of the US in the Middle East, for no obvious benefit. Unless you own Halliburton, or various other US firms which are working on the "rebuilding" contracts.

 

[Driwen]

Here's a challenge Freddyites:-

If you were George W Bush what would you have done after Sept 11th (apart from 'kill myself... HAHHAHA etc...') Also, explain how this would have helped prevent further terrorist attacks AND/OR prevent new threats.

attacking Taliban was a reasonable good response. However attacking Iraq hasn't helped fighting terrorrists or atleast it wont for some time (a free and democratic Iraq might help turn the middle east to be more democratic and hopefully a little less anti-west). And I believe Bush plan/lack of plan to rebuild Iraq after the war is/was wrong.

Anyway its hard to say what I would do, as I dont have all the info Bush had and has and we are now talking after events have taken place, so its easier to criticise acts with knowledge that was gained after Bush had to make a decision. Allthough I allways thought going to war with Iraq was risky, because I was unsure what would happen after Saddam was removed (wether it was possible to get the public to support the coalition troops in maintaining order and how the surrounding countries would respond).

bah: was abit slow in typing (+I had to do something mid typing). Seems most people agree that the war in Iraq wasnt smart and I actually think most Americans would agree, except for the fact that you cant change any of that. So someone has to go on.
One benefit might come out of having Bush as US president though and thats that the EU countries might be more united than if Kerry was president. Allthough I guess no UK citizen will see that as good.

 

[Turamber]

One benefit might come out of having Bush as US president though and thats that the EU countries might be more united than if Kerry was president. Allthough I guess no UK citizen will see that as good.

Not sure what you mean by this ... In a recent survey 81% of the UK population said that they wanted Bush out of office and there is certainly a growing feeling that Blair has turned into Bush's favourite pet. Also last time I checked we are a member of the EU.

 

[oblimov]

the majority of EU voted for kerry last i heard

after sept 11th i would probably have stopped screwing over small countries and treating them like shit tbh

America has always trodden on the arab world and treated em like cack, its no wonder they have so many people willing to kill themselves to attack what the see as the ultimate enemy

 

[oblimov]

btw notice who voted for bush

Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, West Virginia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Colorado and Nevada.


And who voted for kerry


Minnesota, Vermont, Delaware, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, California, Washington, New Hampshire, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin and Hawaii.


I think its clear to say that the south won this one

 

[nath]

Actually, if you look it's the more mainland states that went for Bush - the east and west coast were Kerrys.

 

[dysfunction]

Bush won then as Kerry has admitted defeat...


:kissit: to M. Moore

 

[Tom]

the majority of EU voted for kerry last i heard

after sept 11th i would probably have stopped screwing over small countries and treating them like shit tbh

America has always trodden on the arab world and treated em like cack, its no wonder they have so many people willing to kill themselves to attack what the see as the ultimate enemy

Treating them like shit? Look at the massive natural wealth they have. By now they should be prosperous advanced nations, instead they're still mired in their inability to run a country with any semblance of civilised behaviour. Thats nobody's fault but their own.

And no, America hasn't always trodden on the arab world, in fact I doubt you could say it ever has. Just because a bunch of extremist nutters go around committing atrocities in the name of their religion, firstly against their own people, and now against westerners, doesn't give you the moral authority to start insulting a democratic nation like the US. What are they guilty of? Seeking to instill peace and democracy in the region instead of Theocracies and Dictatorships - OMG THEY SUCK.

 

[Cyfr]

Bush won then as Kerry has admitted defeat...


:kissit: to M. Moore

*Watchs moore flash a few million $ in dysfunctions face *

He has 4 more years to make documentarys!

 

[Driwen]

Not sure what you mean by this ... In a recent survey 81% of the UK population said that they wanted Bush out of office and there is certainly a growing feeling that Blair has turned into Bush's favourite pet. Also last time I checked we are a member of the EU.

What I mean is that because most of Europe wants Bush out, it could force the EU countries to become more united to create atleast on certain subjects a strong voice against Bush. Off course this doesnt have to happen and Bush could split the EU like it was just before the war in Iraq.

And from what I have seen from most UK citizens is that they dont really like the EU, so thats why I said that a more united EU might not be good from UK position. As I doubt that is what you want.

 

[Bodhi]

Can I just take this opportunity to say


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


HA

HA


Have that you leftie scum.

 

[GekuL]

Look on the bright side moore-mongers. You don't need to find anything original to say for the next 4 years.

 

[Catsby]

Not gone to war with Iraq, not set up/used guantanamo bay. Not coined the term "Illegal Combatants".

Catsby notes that your policies are somewhat similar to the looser Kerry's.

 

[Mofo8]

Mmmhhh... so Kerry conceded defeat before the provisional ballots or the uncounted absentee ballots were toted up? That's a bit silly, and I'd be a bit pissed off with him if I was a voter who knew my vote hadn't been counted.

Some of the tactics in this election (by both sides) have been a bit shocking for the so-called "land of the free" and "greatest democracy on earth".

Party workers phoning African American voters and telling them: they didn't have to vote, that they had been selected to vote by phone this year, that Republicans were to cast their votes on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday, that if you had parking tickets you couldn't vote. Also there were cases where votes had been registered on the electronic voting machines at 7am in the morning, before voting started.

Four years ago the Republicans won when the majority of the country voted Democrat and the result had to be decided by the courts.

This year I'd hoped for a reverse of that, with Bush winning a slight majority overall but losing Ohio 'cause of the provisional/absentee ballots. That would have been funny.

It's said that people get the government they deserve, but I feel sorry for the other half of America, an of course for the rest of the world. If I lived in Iran or North Korea (or Fallujah tbh), I'd start digging a shelter and hoarding supplies.

My only hope is that Tony Blair will feel the backlash of this next year, although I'm not sure who you lot in England have as an alternative. At least we Scots have a third credible party to vote for in the shape of the SNP and aren't limited to a choice between Tory and Labour.

 

[Tesla Monkor]

The one thing that really suprised me in the US election system is that the voting isn't organised by a neutral party. The polling stations are manned by political parties. (As a neutral UN Controller noted.)

Every other country on the planet has a neutral party to take care of offices and paperwork.

 

[Tesla Monkor]

Can I just take this opportunity to say HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have that you leftie scum.

I just feel sorry for a country that votes a man like Bush for a second term. And I think most of the planet agrees with that point of view.

But hey, enjoy your victory. Everyone else thinks that America has gone mad.

 

[Herbal]

Treating them like shit? Look at the massive natural wealth they have. By now they should be prosperous advanced nations, instead they're still mired in their inability to run a country with any semblance of civilised behaviour. Thats nobody's fault but their own.

And no, America hasn't always trodden on the arab world, in fact I doubt you could say it ever has. Just because a bunch of extremist nutters go around committing atrocities in the name of their religion, firstly against their own people, and now against westerners, doesn't give you the moral authority to start insulting a democratic nation like the US. What are they guilty of? Seeking to instill peace and democracy in the region instead of Theocracies and Dictatorships - OMG THEY SUCK.

Yes and how did they go about installing this wonderfull democracy? Why by killing 100k+ (so far) civilians thank god for the united states of america!


Lets face it there is and was alot more countries worse off than iraq (sudan for one) is the us invading these other countries to install democracy? Hell no because theres no oil....

 

[old.user4556]

I can't believe he's in again, i really can't

 

[Tom]

Yes and how did they go about installing this wonderfull democracy? Why by killing 100k+ (so far) civilians thank god for the united states of america!


Lets face it there is and was alot more countries worse off than iraq (sudan for one) is the us invading these other countries to install democracy? Hell no because theres no oil....

100 000 civilians? Most estimates are 10-30 000, so just because 'The Lancet' estimates its 100 000, thats now a fact, not to be questioned?

And whats wrong with invading a country that controls a highly valuable world commodity, but is ruled by a despicable person who ignores UN resolutions (the same UN people seem to value so highly when arguing against the war?) You'll be the first to complain when you can't afford to heat your house up in the winter. Or when you go shopping, and everything has doubled in price.

 

[Paradroid]

China?

The SS-N-22 Sunburn.

The UK hosts several US military bases, including Faslane nuclear sub facility. I don't think that the US would/could launch a first-strike from the UK in a pre-emptive war, but the UK would be an instant target once a war starts.

If you were George W Bush what would you have done after Sept 11th (apart from 'kill myself... HAHHAHA etc...') Also, explain how this would have helped prevent further terrorist attacks AND/OR prevent new threats.

I would have changed my foreign policy. Since the 70's a neo-conservative philosophy has dominated the US, and that would stop. There's nothing wrong with adopting a mission statement with romantic ideals attached, but it's not like that in reality. The US say they want to change every country into a democracy. They say that, but they lie - they're more than happy to deal with dictatorships if it's a good relationship. The idea being that a democratic country will probably be against terrorism, thereby making the US safer. This whole policy has proven to be a pile of horse-shit, as we've seen, the US actively supports (with black ops, money, guns, training etc) friendly groups within countries irrespective of their particular political stance (Venezuela, Chile). It's a front for extortion isn't it?

US: "Give us cheap oil ya bass! Let us exploit your markets too! All your people could be our consumers!",
(Elected) President of Target Country: "...erm , fuck off?"
US: "No? Right!...wait there..."
(*regime change*)
US: "Thanks for the cheap oil, dicks!"
Newly elected President of the Democratic Republic (with a free market economy): "Would you like fries with that?"

The US political system is too far corrupted for any integrity anymore imho. Corporations have too much clout.




Oh, and 4 more years of Bush?

...the companies will be very pleased.

 

[Herbal]

100 000 civilians? Most estimates are 10-30 000, so just because 'The Lancet' estimates its 100 000, thats now a fact, not to be questioned?

And whats wrong with invading a country that controls a highly valuable world commodity, but is ruled by a despicable person who ignores UN resolutions (the same UN people seem to value so highly when arguing against the war?) You'll be the first to complain when you can't afford to heat your house up in the winter. Or when you go shopping, and everything has doubled in price.

10-30k is still to much when a snipers bullet would have done, as for not affording to heat up my house iraq has produced next to no oil for the last 10 years and wont produce a decent amount till the country is secured in what 5? 10? years.

Tom dont kid yourself this wasnt about democracy or terrorism there's a ton of countries in worse positions this was about oil pure and simple. Lets look at the two countries bush and blair have invaded so far to "fight terrorism" iraq (huge oil supply) and afganistan (the door way to oil in the area, within a few weeks of the new american approved government taking power guess what? Yup thats right they gave permision for a us oil giant to build a pipepline accross the country!)

Instead of going after osama etc with a knife (ie using cia/nsa and special forces to kill him) bush chose a sledge hammer 500k+ troops which by the way also secured some of the worlds most important/wealth producing oil regions coincidence i think not... Oh not to mention hes still failed to kill osama in the process.

Lots of countries fund terrorism/have no democracy at all (burma, pakistan, sudan) alot of them commit mass genocide (rwanda) does/has us rushed to there aid ....... no. The us/uk couldnt give two shits about the suffering of innocent people/ethnic minorities , hell the uk still sells military hardware (hawker jets) to the indonesian government which has buchered thousands of people in east temor over the past decade. I dont see the us preparing to invade the above countries even though they have performed much larger scale attrocities.


This isnt about morals its about green backs always has been always will

 

[Tom]

So, you recommend the use of snipers instead of bombs? Sorry, but if I'm a military commander, surrounding a town with troops, and the only way to kill the enemy is either a) send my men in or b) bomb them, I'm going to choose b) every time, because that way, less of my men get killed. Its extremely difficult to storm a house and kill just one gunman without any injuries to your own men, let alone a militia, in a town full of buildings.

I know this is about oil, of course it is, the USA is an empire in everything but name, and its out to do what every other empire over the last two thousand years has done - improve it's lot. You watch oil prices over the next five to ten years. You'll see.

And for your information, Afghanistan was possibly one of the most repressive horrific barbaric societies in the world. They were actively funding terrorism, they made no attempt to hide the fact, so I think Bush did the right thing, and eliminated them. I don't however agree with the treatment of 'detainees' in Cuba, I think thats a horrible human rights violation, and hardly does us any favours.

 

[Herbal]

So, you recommend the use of snipers instead of bombs? Sorry, but if I'm a military commander, surrounding a town with troops, and the only way to kill the enemy is either a) send my men in or b) bomb them, I'm going to choose b) every time, because that way, less of my men get killed. Its extremely difficult to storm a house and kill just one gunman without any injuries to your own men, let alone a militia, in a town full of buildings.

I know this is about oil, of course it is, the USA is an empire in everything but name, and its out to do what every other empire over the last two thousand years has done - improve it's lot. You watch oil prices over the next five to ten years. You'll see.

And for your information, Afghanistan was possibly one of the most repressive horrific barbaric societies in the world. They were actively funding terrorism, they made no attempt to hide the fact, so I think Bush did the right thing, and eliminated them. I don't however agree with the treatment of 'detainees' in Cuba, I think thats a horrible human rights violation, and hardly does us any favours.

option b hum cost billions 1k+ dead us troops (so far) 10-30k (minimum so far) civilians killed but it secures the ALL important oil

Or option a might take er,might lose 30-50 troops/spies cost a few million , civilian casualties next to 0, but no oil.


Tom why do you think they went option b over option a, seriously?

And yes i agree the regime in afganistan was horrific and needed to be removed, but and heres where i have the problem theres tens of other countries that are in the same situation will the us be saving those countries, nope not unless they have alot of valuable resources.

You cant say theyre doing it for moral reasons if those moral reasons only apply to countries where the us/uk will make alot of cash from invading...

 

[Turamber]

But hey, enjoy your victory. Everyone else thinks that America has gone mad.

Don't worry about it. McBodhi just likes to make outrageous statements, he doesn't have much clue about anything ... just that he wants to be different and "outrageous".

 

[dysfunction]

But hey, enjoy your victory. Everyone else thinks that America has gone mad.

I dont think so...

I think the split on who wanted Kerry and Bush was almost 50:50...

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1158167,00.html

 

[Driwen]

I dont think so...

I think the split on who wanted Kerry and Bush was almost 50:50...

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1158167,00.html

Thing is most presidents(atleast western ones) wont come out and say bah Bush won, now lets cut all ties with the US. He is the US president and saying you arent pleased to see him as president wont help you one bit.

Now I do know that Putin supported Bush, so he is pro Bush.

The kenyan vice president is obvious against,

the polish president might be happy to see Bush as president for his plans on facing terrorrism,

french foreign minister says nothing about Bush getting re-elected,

the former french foreign minister doesnt think Bush was the right choice

Swedish prime minister also says very little, except that Kerry threatened with trade obstacles and Bush hasnt. However he doesnt really go deeper into it.

Former British foreign secretary is against Bush

Spanish political analyst makes my point why most goverments wont say anything negative against Bush, as he says that the spanish prime minister has burned his fingers while doing this.

Palestinian envoy and the Hamas spokesman are against Bush.

Iraqi prime minister says nothing about Bush/kerry nor do the Isreali foreign minister, the Australian foreign minister nor the Japanese prime minister.
putin is happy and wanted Bush.

So that means Putin and possibly the Polish president as pro and the kenyan vice president, french and british former foreign minister, spanish prime minister, a Palestian envoy to Paris and the Hamas being against Bush. That isnt really 50-50, from those opinions it is 2 vs 5 (counting hamas and palestian envoy as the same) and I assume more people would have prefered Kerry to be elected, but wont say that so as not to ruin their relationship with Bush for nothing.

 

[Tom]

I know this is about oil, of course it is

You cant say theyre doing it for moral reasons if those moral reasons only apply to countries where the us/uk will make alot of cash from invading...

[Biff Tannen]HELLO? HELLO! HELLO?![/Biff Tannen]

 

[Jonaldo]

I just hope that in the very near future Tony Blair will develop the balls to not follow George Bush blindly into anything. We supported them in this war, now let them go about their global domination program alone, especially as it is already doomed to failure.

 

[Tinky]

The SS-N-22 Sunburn.

The UK hosts several US military bases, including Faslane nuclear sub facility. I don't think that the US would/could launch a first-strike from the UK in a pre-emptive war, but the UK would be an instant target once a war starts.

err, nope. Pretty much wrong there. There are certainly US and other nations submarines and surface vessels who visit there, but US facility ? Nope. Strategic class weapons aren't found outside the Continental US and nearby oceans. Faslane is UK. If you want to find out more read up on why the UK requires the ability for independant use of nuclear weapons rather than any dual key system. The UK would be an "instant" target in your scenario anyway, treaties and agreements kick in straight away - they have to it's the only way the prisoner dilemma works out with a decent score.

 

[Bodhi]

Thing is most presidents(atleast western ones) wont come out and say bah Bush won, now lets cut all ties with the US. He is the US president and saying you arent pleased to see him as president wont help you one bit.

Now I do know that Putin supported Bush, so he is pro Bush.

The kenyan vice president is obvious against,

the polish president might be happy to see Bush as president for his plans on facing terrorrism,

french foreign minister says nothing about Bush getting re-elected,

the former french foreign minister doesnt think Bush was the right choice

Swedish prime minister also says very little, except that Kerry threatened with trade obstacles and Bush hasnt. However he doesnt really go deeper into it.

Former British foreign secretary is against Bush

Spanish political analyst makes my point why most goverments wont say anything negative against Bush, as he says that the spanish prime minister has burned his fingers while doing this.

Palestinian envoy and the Hamas spokesman are against Bush.

Iraqi prime minister says nothing about Bush/kerry nor do the Isreali foreign minister, the Australian foreign minister nor the Japanese prime minister.
putin is happy and wanted Bush.

So that means Putin and possibly the Polish president as pro and the kenyan vice president, french and british former foreign minister, spanish prime minister, a Palestian envoy to Paris and the Hamas being against Bush. That isnt really 50-50, from those opinions it is 2 vs 5 (counting hamas and palestian envoy as the same) and I assume more people would have prefered Kerry to be elected, but wont say that so as not to ruin their relationship with Bush for nothing.

Yes, but his country voted him in again. So stop whining eh?