Is Bush the worse US President ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

If your wish comes to pass, you'll have a whole set of countries to bitch about, but the U.S. won't be one of them.

How 'bout that? :whistling

---

Don't worry, I'll find something to bitch about. :yup:

---

Thanks for confirming that.

he did alot during his presidency and the time to come. i support the republican views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by utunes

he did alot during his presidency and the time to come. i support the republican views.

---

Better get behind me, then. :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by utunes

i support the republican views.

---

Which republican views?

The ones that agree with Bush or the ones that disagree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by utunes

he did alot during his presidency and the time to come. i support the republican views.

---

Curious turn of phrase.

Is he not still in his Presidency and surely what is to come is as yet unknown?

Or am I just being picky? :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Or am I just being picky? :dabs:

---

You are but isn't that what makes you a god amongst accountants?

simple yes

[youtube]-tinPGVEjZg[/youtube]

Not a good sign for jnr. :unsure:

I totally voted for Satan.

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

[youtube]-tinPGVEjZg[/youtube]

Not a good sign for jnr. :unsure:

---

That's just silly. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

That's just silly. :dry:

---

That Bush was chosen as the villain of 2006 or that some people actually believe in Satan?

Erm...could you tell me where the US is on the map ..have we discovered it yet..?

As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief. I suppose if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan then all those terrorists would be farmers and not concerned with the US. WAKE UP! I would rather take the fight to them than have them bring it back to us. In case you hadn't noticed most of the Iraqi's are happy to have us there. The ones that aren't hate the US and the Freedom that we stand for. The Middle East has never been stable, and it won't be until the terrorists are gone. Even though I disagree with you I am proud to be serving in the worlds greatest military to defend your right to voice your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

In case you hadn't noticed most of the Iraqi's are happy to have us there.

---

I can assure this has been overlooked, as the media are loathe to report it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief. I suppose if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan then all those terrorists would be farmers and not concerned with the US. WAKE UP! I would rather take the fight to them than have them bring it back to us. In case you hadn't noticed most of the Iraqi's are happy to have us there. The ones that aren't hate the US and the Freedom that we stand for. The Middle East has never been stable, and it won't be until the terrorists are gone. Even though I disagree with you I am proud to be serving in the worlds greatest military to defend your right to voice your opinion.

---

Why did the US troops go into Iraq? What Did Iraq have to do with those that attacked us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief. I suppose if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan then all those terrorists would be farmers and not concerned with the US. WAKE UP! I would rather take the fight to them than have them bring it back to us. In case you hadn't noticed most of the Iraqi's are happy to have us there. The ones that aren't hate the US and the Freedom that we stand for. The Middle East has never been stable, and it won't be until the terrorists are gone. Even though I disagree with you I am proud to be serving in the worlds greatest military to defend your right to voice your opinion.

---

Fair enough. You serve as our decoys then.

Just by showing up in Iraq you believe you have most of the terrorist preoccupied. Good show.

It seems everyone fighting you in Iraq is not from Iraq then. Tell me, if America were divided in following Bush and he committed some atrocities, would those loyal to Bush fight against foreign "liberators"?

I imagine there'd be some that welcome the foreigners and those that wouldn't. You would call those against the foreigners, terrorists.

Both sides seem to want serve up those up to camera that are either waving the American flag or cursing it.

I figure you don't have the slightest idea what would make an Iraqi take up arms against coalition soldiers. There probably isn't one reason for all.

If some foreigners came in my country and for whatever reason killed my wife and kids, I'd wanna fuck them up too.

I talked to friend of mine from high school who just got back from Iraq and asked him how he feels about the reasons we went to war.

He said he has never thought about it and just wants to get the job done (whatever he does). I even pressed him on it and he pretty much said the same thing. Typical military which is not a bad thing.

I also asked him if he knew anyone that died over there.

He said no. Who knows, that might make a difference in how he thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

[youtube]-tinPGVEjZg[/youtube]

Not a good sign for jnr. :unsure:

---

That's just silly. :dry:

---

Yeah, where the fuck is Cristiano Ronaldo in that list?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Yeah, where the fuck is Cristiano Ronaldo in that list?

---

He seems pretty villainous........I googled his name to find out who he is and got this when I tried to open the link :unsure:
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8252/huhxg1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief.

---

People like you aren't the solution to the problem ... you ARE the problem, and you talk a load of bollocks.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

That's just silly. :dry:

---

That Bush was chosen as the villain of 2006 or that some people actually believe in Satan?

---

:lol:

Hardly surprising though. Saddam spent all of 2006 in jail and we are not even sure if OBL is still alive. Rumsfeld must be a tad disappointed he didn't make a showing though. :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

That Bush was chosen as the villain of 2006 or that some people actually believe in Satan?

---

:lol:

Hardly surprising though. Saddam spent all of 2006 in jail and we are not even sure if OBL is still alive. Rumsfeld must be a tad disappointed he didn't make a showing though. :shifty:

---

Rumsfeld got 2%, which even though a low number, at least makes him more villainous than Satan, so he doesn't feel totally dejected ;)

Here's a couple of runners up congratulating each other on the effort

http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

The one with the mustache has decided not to enter next years competition.:shifty:

worst ever... hmm. that's a tough one. if not worst ever, GWB should at least rate alongside the worst. there's plenty others that share one fault or another with him. but it's a relatively short list of u.s. presidents who've managed to be so wrong in every aspect. not only visibly corrupt, not only ineffective, not only bumbling, not only ignorant, not only chronically unprepared for emergencies, not only self-righteous & stubborn to the point of complete foolishness... but ALL of those things. that's a very tall order to fill.

i mean, there are some redeeming values one could mention about a lot of the controversial presidents. lincoln preserved the union, jimmy carter was altruistic and as straight an arrow as you're likely to find among the 43 we've had so far, LBJ did some alright work on the domestic side, nixon eventually pulled out of vietnam & got onto speaking terms with the people's republic, etc etc. one needs to look back at least several decades and even to the 19th century, to find presidents who are just so wrong, wrong, stupendously bad at leading/speaking/snacking, and all-around wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief.

---

People like you aren't the solution to the problem ... you ARE the problem, and you talk a load of bollocks.

---

I noticed your avatar says "Manchester United" so I am guessing that you are not an American anyway. President Bush is not your problem if this is the case. I suppose that you dislike Tony Blair as well since he is allies with President Bush. I may be part of the problem as you see it, but at least I have put myself in a position to make positive change instead of just criticizing the actions of the leaders. I was not happy with some of the choices that Bill Clinton made, but I still did my duty to the best of my ability and supported him as well, because if you don't support your leaders you send a message to the world and open yourself up to attackers. The decision to go into Iraq was made by President Bush and the members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) who had the same intelligence that President Bush had, so I wish people would quit blaming Bush solely for this.

Doing you duty? Wasn't that the excuse given by the guards at Abu Ghraib?

The soldiers I have respect for are those who, when they see their country and their president are wrong, refuse to take part. It's the sheep of this world that allow arseholes like Bush and his cohorts, including Blair, to ride roughshod over people's human rights in the name of US imperialism.

Oh, and by the way, what Bush does to your rights and freedoms is your problem, as soon as he steps outside the borders of the US he's everyone's problem. He's made the whole world unsafe, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

People like you aren't the solution to the problem ... you ARE the problem, and you talk a load of bollocks.

---

I noticed your avatar says "Manchester United" so I am guessing that you are not an American anyway. President Bush is not your problem if this is the case. I suppose that you dislike Tony Blair as well since he is allies with President Bush. I may be part of the problem as you see it, but at least I have put myself in a position to make positive change instead of just criticizing the actions of the leaders. I was not happy with some of the choices that Bill Clinton made, but I still did my duty to the best of my ability and supported him as well, because if you don't support your leaders you send a message to the world and open yourself up to attackers. The decision to go into Iraq was made by President Bush and the members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) who had the same intelligence that President Bush had, so I wish people would quit blaming Bush solely for this.

---

Okay now you sound like a brainless automaton. You do not blindly support your leaders. Don't get me wrong. I understand you must do your duty as a soldier but your thought process independent of that is another story.

Bush is the leader of our country so he gets blame just as Clinton would have.

I thought Clinton was shit for doing what it seemed was attacking Iraq when he was in the hot seat.

I will not blindly support a leader in an action that I think is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Doing you duty? Wasn't that the excuse given by the guards at Abu Ghraib?

The soldiers I have respect for are those who, when they see their country and their president are wrong, refuse to take part. It's the sheep of this world that allow arseholes like Bush and his cohorts, including Blair, to ride roughshod over people's human rights in the name of US imperialism.

Oh, and by the way, what Bush does to your rights and freedoms is your problem, as soon as he steps outside the borders of the US he's everyone's problem. He's made the whole world unsafe, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.

---

Soldiers are not that high up on the food chain to simply say know. The Iraq action is not erroneous. It's not like Bush ordered soldiers to rape and kill a bunch of women.:dry:

Even with my views now, if I was a soldier in Iraq, I'd be following orders unless they were erroneously wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

if I was a soldier in Iraq, I'd be following orders unless they were erroneously wrong.

---

Parse this, please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Doing you duty? Wasn't that the excuse given by the guards at Abu Ghraib?

The soldiers I have respect for are those who, when they see their country and their president are wrong, refuse to take part. It's the sheep of this world that allow arseholes like Bush and his cohorts, including Blair, to ride roughshod over people's human rights in the name of US imperialism.

Oh, and by the way, what Bush does to your rights and freedoms is your problem, as soon as he steps outside the borders of the US he's everyone's problem. He's made the whole world unsafe, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.

---

Based on your response I can plainly see that you have never served anything greater than yourself. The so called soldiers that refuse to take part if they feel the president is wrong are not soldiers. As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think. If President Bush is such a problem to you, then what are you doing about it, rather than just complaining on this forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think.

---

Baaa, baaa!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think.

---

Baaa, baaa!

---

Hmmm.

I have to admit I had not thought from the sheep's perspective.

Well stated by an obviously well-experienced shepherd. :naughty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think.

---

Baaa, baaa!

---

What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Baaa, baaa!

---

What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.

---

I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.

I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.

I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".

Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.

---

I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.

I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.

I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".

Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.

---

I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.

I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.

I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".

Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.

---

I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.

---

Fugs' post also does us the favor of recognizing that the choice to ignore an order does not occur in a vacuum, and that there are consequences to certain actions.

Anyone with a lick of sense knows the armed service is not where one goes to refine one's anarchic tendencies.

Square pegs need not apply, besides, somebody has to stay home and protest war and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

if I was a soldier in Iraq, I'd be following orders unless they were erroneously wrong.

---

Parse this, please?

---

Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.:lol: :lol:


"He used erroneously with wrong. OMG!":lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Parse this, please?

---

Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.:lol: :lol:

---

Oh, bullshit.

You leave "stuff" for everyone, everywhere.

:busyrod: in The Drawing Room ftw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgt_kermit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.

I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.

I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".

Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.

---

I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.

---

Good points, well presented.

Like I said, sometimes when I am confused about an issue I like to approach it in simplistic terms. Black and white if you will. We can then work on the grey areas and consider them in light of the parts with which we agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.:lol: :lol:

---

Oh, bullshit.

You leave "stuff" for everyone, everywhere.

---

Naw some are jus mistakes. Some aren't.

It all depends on my attention span.