• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Is Bush a weak leader?

Now then my question si fairlly simple; is Bush a strong leader; he certinally tires to be at leas,t but rubs off on me as being too reliant on other to be a trully strogn leader, or, by contrst is he just an out and out weak leader (which is my own opinion)

To call Bush a "weak leader" implies that he first is a leader. He isn't.
 
BasketCase said:
Nuff of a leader to get the nation behind him for two invasions. :goodjob:

Therefore something must be wrong about the country's system. why can it wage a war so easily ?

How can a country goes around murdering other country's population ? and get away.
 
It is amazing to see many ertwhile supporters of Bush now turn against him.

People really have to find out the hard way, before they see the obvious.

.
 
Ramius75 said:
Therefore something must be wrong about the country's system. why can it wage a war so easily ?

How can a country goes around murdering other country's population ? and get away.
There are two possible reasons: either nobody is willing to prevent us from doing so, or nobody is able to prevent us from doing so.

Most likely it's both.

Going back to that topmost line there: what is it about war that makes one war right and another wrong? For example, why was it okay for Saddam to be killing people as long as he did it inside his own borders? (I personally don't think it was "okay"--that part is just for the sake of argument)
 
BasketCase said:
Nuff of a leader to get the nation behind him for two invasions. :goodjob:
'All you have to do is identify an enemy and tell the people their way of life is under threat' - remind you of any famous Germans? ;)

You know hyping a country in to mass hysteria against another is really not very hard. In fact, after 9/11 he would have had a hard time not going to war. :lol:

But back on topic....

I think he a veneer that is crumbling. I doubt many US presidents have had full control over their lives, but this one probably the least of all.
 
BasketCase said:
Nuff of a leader to get the nation behind him for two invasions. :goodjob:

Bush didn't do crap to get the nation behind him. Al-Qaeda did all the work for him.
 
BasketCase said:
Going back to that topmost line there: what is it about war that makes one war right and another wrong? For example, why was it okay for Saddam to be killing people as long as he did it inside his own borders? (I personally don't think it was "okay"--that part is just for the sake of argument)
What makes this dictator the one to go for?

No-one said it was "ok" for Saddam to do what he did - but I would say it's equally bad for Bush to invade a soverign nation while the rest of the world is trying to solve the issue diplomatically. In fact, it is downright hypocritical of the US since they put him in power (he is a CIA trained assassin sent by the bloody US in the first place!!), they funded him against Iran, and they supplied him with Chemical weapons.

To be honest Basket case, if you were going to try and pretend it's about removing Saddam because of the "bad things" he did, the US could have picked at least 20 or 30 other dictators more deserving, including many US-allies.

But go on. Don't let reality interfere with todays lame ass excuses. :)
 
anarres said:
What makes this dictator the one to go for?
Simple. We have enough military strength to eliminate one or two. No matter which one or two we choose, somebody will ask the above question.

Your rescue chopper flies over a hundred drowning New Orleans citizens. You can pick up five. Picking up five is better than picking up none.
anarres said:
In fact, it is downright hypocritical of the US since they put him in power
A previous administration did that. Holding the current administration responsible for putting Saddam in power is like attacking present-day Germany in retaliation for the Holocaust. The people who did it are bye-bye. Gone. Out of office. You're kicking a dead horse.
 
Germany still carries the blame for the holocaust.

Your argument that time changes anything is invalid.

America is still responsible for many of the enemies she now faces.
.
 
BasketCase said:
Simple. We have enough military strength to eliminate one or two. No matter which one or two we choose, somebody will ask the above question.
OMG, you really believe this don't you? :(

So....

Out of 20 or 30 dictators, you HAPPENED to choose the one you set up and funded, who now hates you and won't sell you oil. Oh yeah, he just *happens* to be sitting on a nice juicy oil reserve.

And of course now you **happen** to choose this guy the rest of the world won't accept your oh-so-trustable foreign policy decisions?

Un huh. Carry on, nothing to see here... :lol:
 
BasketCase said:
No, they do not.

And on what authority do you seek to challenge me on this?

You are wrong - Germany still exterminated all those Poles/Russians/Jews.

America still created all her current enemies in the coldwar.

Don't argue with me on this. You know I am right.

.
 
Actually, I think I would have preferred invading Cuba or North Korea (in fact, just after Saddam got captured, a local radio show was taking votes on which dictator the listeners wanted to eliminate next. If I remember correctly, North Korea won, Iran came in second, and Cuba was third).

But hey, I'm not the President. :)

Eliminating the Taliban and Saddam is good enough results for me.
 
Curt, I don't think you're right, I think you're flat out

WRONG.

Grab any random German citzen of today and put him on trial for war crimes committed during World War II. Every last one of them will be found innocent, unless you get lucky and nab a German soldier who killed Jews back then and is still alive.

The people who committed the Holocaust are dead, except for a last few elderly stragglers who will soon die anyway. It's over. That whole era is gone. The Germany of today IS NOT TO BLAME.
 
BasketCase said:
Actually, I think I would have preferred invading Cuba or North Korea (in fact, just after Saddam got captured, a local radio show was taking votes on which dictator the listeners wanted to eliminate next. If I remember correctly, North Korea won, Iran came in second, and Cuba was third).

But hey, I'm not the President. :)

Eliminating the Taliban and Saddam is good enough results for me.

Heavens to murgatroid! :rolleyes:

The Taliban is far from knocked out. Ask any allied solder in Afghanistan.
Saddam is but a mafia leader, unimportant in the overall picture...

Future foes like China and Russia both act with impunity, and care little for
the opinions or aims of the USA, apart from their energy and mineral trade.

You have been sold a jingoistic pack of lies. Welcome to the real world.

Your fantasy vision of reality is both breath-taking and a very sad sign of our times.

:)
 
The Taliban got knocked off the throne in Afghanistan. Same deal: good enough for me.

As to China and Russia--what are we gonna do, INVADE them??? If invasion is a no-no, then of COURSE they're gonna act with impunity. When diplomacy fails, either you send in the troops or you go "okay, okay, do what you like" and let them kill people or pollute the environment or whatever.

Oh yeah, and by the way--present-day Germany isn't responsible for the Holocaust.
 
BasketCase said:
Curt, I don't think you're right, I think you're flat out

WRONG.

Grab any random German citzen of today and put him on trial for war crimes committed during World War II. Every last one of them will be found innocent, unless you get lucky and nab a German soldier who killed Jews back then and is still alive.

The people who committed the Holocaust are dead, except for a last few elderly stragglers who will soon die anyway. It's over. That whole era is gone. The Germany of today IS NOT TO BLAME.

I don't actually care what you think, or at what font size you state it.

(I can do vbcode too - WooYay! :rolleyes: )

You are wrong, because Germans accept that they exterminated and looted Europe in WW2.

Hence, why they have paid billions in reparations to many countries since the 1950s.
I am not saying put a current day German on trail, I am assigning blame, and
quite rightly.

Only 88-fixated neo-nazis in Germany would deny that their nation was
to blame for over 6 million Europeans being systematically wiped out...
Not to mention the countless millions generally in WW2.


Surely your limited synapses can wrap around this simple truth?

Germany done the crime, and done the time - But they still done it!
I am not saying we should hate the Germany or the USA for their past faults
and mistakes, but NEVER deny history and what it teaches us.

Your lack of understanding here and how it equates to your refusal to accept
that the USA meddled in other nation's affairs in the cold war just says it all.

You are hardly worth my time, since you are being incoherent and stubbornly blinkered.
 
BasketCase said:
The Taliban got knocked off the throne in Afghanistan. Same deal: good enough for me.

These guys still have regional power bases...And are regaining enclaves.

Obviously you haven't enough time to read the news.
But it would really save you from looking silly.

BasketCase said:
As to China and Russia--what are we gonna do, INVADE them??? If invasion is a no-no, then of COURSE they're gonna act with impunity. When diplomacy fails, either you send in the troops or you go "okay, okay, do what you like" and let them kill people or pollute the environment or whatever.

This is just so pathetic, it is laughable.
It take it you are some RTS-playing 16 year old?

BasketCase said:
Oh yeah, and by the way--present-day Germany isn't responsible for the Holocaust.

It's only you who are saying this.
And looking more blithely silly each time you repeat it.

;)
 
OK - Basket!

Enough on this off-topic debate.
We will both be banned at this rate.

Begin a thread on Germany's WW2 blame. I will give you the battle you want - !

And you will be educated!

:)
 
Top Bottom