Phoenix Network Forums

Puffball wrote:Oh, you just got to love Bush, in all his riddled English and espionage-esque administration.

The problem with President Bush is that he is sucking up to the conservative Christians by implimenting policies that reflect his beliefs, regardless of the fact that hindus, budhists, mudlisms, etc, live in the US as well. He does with his attempt to ammend the banning of gay marriage to the constitution, establishing the Bible as an education resource in public schools, and even tried to force muslims to use the Bible instead of the koran in the construction stages of Iraq's judiciary system.

But to respond to Tim:

If his wars lower the oil price then all is good, fuel prices are outrageous at the moment, $1.25/ltr is way too much. We were paying 70-80 cents per litre a few months ago.
On the other hand, I agree totally with the war on Iraq sure the reasons they gave didn't pay off but the threat was neutrilized, the dictator was removed and the nation can slowly move towards a totally free nation with the securities and rights you expect in any 21st century nation like the US or UK. This is where many of the very religious, ethic countrys bother me like in Afganistan where they weren't allowed to have music on the radio stations while the Taliban was in power was attrocious.
So yeh, I guess I do support Bush, I agree with his ideas on doing something about problems rather than pissing around and trying to find a "diplomatic" resolution, especially when you're dealing with people like Sudam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, etc.

Thats the problem, you don't want to evade a country, regardless of the dictator, just for your own country's economical interests. Going in for oil would just further depict Americans as pigs. The problem is, with Iraq, that it is so much so a third world country, it would take probably 50 years or more for it to be anywhere on the level of the UK, let alone the US.

Bush really isn't getting much done by just "getting things done and not pissing around". Why? Because his decision are impulsive and these more, slower, 'diplomatic' resolutions, you could say, are really just better strategy. For instance, it wasn't a good strategy to go into a war, regardless of weapons, arrest of a dictator, and so on, you have to spend billions on repairing the country. Now that we have to deal with getting out, the best thing to do is go with these more "diplomatic" solutions.

Oh, and you want to know what happened to Saddam Hussein? The US government, due to high political stamina damage, quietly released Hussein from prison without much public attention whatsoever.

You could say we accomplished nothing by going to war and "getting things done".

jujurevenge wrote:Bush, Bush, Bush...
Lets just say he is an evil man, and so is/was his father.

OperationSundevil wrote:I think Bush is better than that other guy he ran against...