I personally don't and would like to apologize to all those who are not American citizens for our president Mr. Bush. The way I see it the list of blunders is long and the list of accomplishments short. In the history of our country old two wars have lasted this long, the first being the Revolutionary War and the second being the Vietnam War which was in fact not actually a war but a military police action.

I support his decisions. But, I have never met a democrat who has supported any republican action.

I am indeed a republican, apparently the only republican on this forum.

It's all a matter of perspective, perspective being essentialy facts magnified or ignored due to opinion.

However, I think he means well. I think he has good intentions when he carried out his foreign policy blunders, which were caused by the fact that he he listens too closely to his advisors, who are only in it for the petroleum and arms industries.

On the other hand, I disagree with President Bush on his socially conservative domestic policy. I'm a firm believer in the concept of personal liberty and individual rights, and it seems to me that Bush's domestic actions are flying fully in the face of individual liberty.

A what? By that logic, America's involvement in World War Two could be described as 'a little tiff to stop those bastard Nips bombing us'.

I'm no supporter of American actions involving Vietnam, but it needs to be said: The Vietnam War started as a Civil War for independence from the French in the 1950s. This started after Vietnam was colonised by the Japanese during World War Two, at the end of which there was a massive famine in which between 400,000 and 2 million died. Having left most of Indochina to fend for itself during the war, the French colonists returned in the fifties to reclaim their land. Ho Chi Minh, the Communist general, led the independence front to victory. The country was divided into the communist North and the 'democratic' South.

At this time, the US had a policy of 'containment', meaning they'd leave existing Communist states as they were, but would intervene if communism started to spread. This policy meant that, even when Hungary tried to rebel against the Soviet Union in 1955-56 and was utterly crushed, the US did not intervene, but when communism spread through Korea, they did- thus helping to create the modern North/South Korea. This also lead to various battles in Cuba. So it was in keeping with this policy, however misguided that was, to 'assist' the South Vietnamese in stopping the spread of communism. The US acted, apparently on a plea from the South Vietnamese president (which never happened), to help him get rid of the communists.

So calling it a 'military police action' is not only an understatement, it's inaccurate.

As for George W Bush, he's inherited a pretty lousy international policy from Reagan and many other presidents before him, despite Clinton's best efforts to clean it up (and, in the case of the Rwandan Genocide, failing). He's also inherited a conservative Congress. I'd also doubt his qualifications to lead the country, but there he is anyway. At best he's a laugh who's going to be replaced next November; at worst he's a destructive, conservative, neo-economic-liberal who's started a ridiculous war and is only harming his own country and relations with many others.

But the point is, if all you use for news source is the news media, it's no wonder you dislike Bush. They make him seem a lot worse than he is. When you look at the big picture, Bush has not been as bad as he's been made out to be. Sure he's not the best president ever but he certainly isn't the worst.

Bush is far from perfect but I feel he's worlds better than Mr. NY Under Water and Project Longface.

I don't hate Bush. It's sort of like annoying little kids. They're annoying and they're trouble and sometimes they do things that really hurt others, but you just can't hate them. They're not intelligent or mature enough to know otherwise. I don't hate him. He was a cheerleader at Yale. He was a good speaker (it's ironic that he reminds me of Obama in that respect). America elected him, and it's our fault.

And I think if things don't go well next year, come a few years from now, even his haters will be begging for him back.

2. If we're going to ask for a deceased president back, why settle for Nixon when somebody better than him came along called Ronald Reagan? Nixon was a half @$$ Republican and president and Ford was worse. So people wanted change and elected Carter and he basically goes and takes a bad situation and made it worse. So, 1980, the country is in bad shape, the draft is partially back thanks to Carter, and they are seriously talking about bringing it back all the way. God only knows if we'd still be here if Carter had gotten a second term. Luckily, we voted him out and voted in one of the best presidents known to history. Sure, people will try and attack him using lies and deceit, but, thats all those attacks are, lies.

So I as you, why would we ask or Nixon back when we got Reagan to ask back? Both are dead so, neither is happening.

As for Bush, I only said if things don't go well next year. If he's followed by a better president, or even 2 presidents later is followed by somebody better, then there'll be no need to ask for him back. But it looks like we're stuck with somebody worse than Bush no matter what. Let's just pray it isn't one of THOSE two or this country is in for a rough ride that'll make Bush's reign seem peaceful.

1. Bush is better than Nixon and history WILL show this, least unbiased history will.

Why? Elaborate, if you're going to make a large statement like this. I disagree, but I don't know how to counter, because I don't understand your defense of this statement.

Two words: Patriot Act.

Tell me again how that is a good thing - remember the lovely thing that the United States was built on called the Constitution.

I will repeat my previous sentiment- If you have something to hide, your phone really ought to be tapped. Too many people who aren't good at breaking the law get away with it.

But how do you know who has something to hide if no one's investigated it, or if they aren't suspected of anything? Might as well tap everyone's line just in case they happen to be up to something illegal. Oh dear, but that falls dangerously close to assuming everyone's guilty until proven innocent, which is a breach of human rights and possibly (I haven't read the thing in a long time) of the beloved US constitution. Not to mention, a lot of criminals would be savvy enough to use untraceable pre-paid mobile lines.

You're guilty until proven innocent until you pay bail.

Haha

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)