Re: Giving George W. Bush His Due on Democracy
 

I wish people would attempt to not nessesarily agree with everything Bush has done, because the guy in the article obviously doesn't agree with everything Bush has done. I just wish that people would accept that he is our president and he has made some tough decisions and has made some mistakes, but he is getting something done instead of simply perpetuating the same problems and trying to ignore them.

Nobody looks at what a positive impact is being made in Iraq. They only look at everything possible to scrutinize about. Why doesn't anyone who replied to this post admit that, while they still disagree with the war, they realize things are going better? Why can't most people who are against Bush at least acknowledge that things are at the very least turning around for the better in the Middle East? I have already said that I support the war, but I can admit that I don't support everything Bush does. Some people don't have any ability to think for themselves and instead will be totally manipulated by everything their parents/ the media/ their friends, think.

Re: Giving George W. Bush His Due on Democracy
 

I did say that there are positives.

I just don't believe that they justify the bad things. Yeah, things in Iraq aren't super ****ty. They're just ****ty now. Excuse me for not springing an errection over it.

The second part of your post is, well, retarded. You say that nobody looks at the positive aspects of the war, even though Bush just won the majority vote. There are definate political sides in the media, and even though both thrive off of the violence and negativity surrounding the war in Iraq, there's a spin in both directions.

Your generalization of everyone who disagrees with Bush as collectively ignoring the advancements in the middle east can't be taken as anything but ignorance. Where are you taking this from?

Re: Giving George W. Bush His Due on Democracy
 

From observation. Look at the political threads on these threads and try to see ANY admission of success by Bush on ANYTHING by the GT leftists. We conservatives have agreed to mistakes made by him on many occassions.

Speaking of ignorance, I suspect from your posts that your main reason why you are against the war is because of the loss of life. Well lets crunch some numbers. There was a conversation held here a while back where it pointed out that in the first year of occupation, 11,000 Iraqi's died as the result of US involvement in the first year of occupation. Lets disregard that after analyzing the numbers given the vast majority of deaths occured with no US military involvement at all. Lets just give those numbers 100% validity. Hell, lets round it off to an even 15,000 the first year.

It is conservatively estimated that 1,500,000 Iraqis were killed in Iraq by Saddam's government through, torture, murder or the long land grab war with Iran during his 30 year tenure as "President for Life". Thats 50,000 Iraqis a year killed.

So, in this respect, the US's involvement has saved 35,000 lives a year, and that was just in the first and most violent year of occupation.

Now I don't want to hear an angry response to this. These are numbers and hard to refute. I just want to hear those that constantly belittle Bush's every move THAT THIS IS A GOOD THING. THATS IT. JUST ADMIT THAT 35,000 LESS PEOPLE DYING IS A GOOD THING WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO QUALIFY IT OR RATIONALIZE WHY ITS STILL A BAD THING BECAUSE OF BLAHHBITY BLAH BLAH. JUST ADMIT IT.

I'll sit here and hold my breath.

Re: Giving George W. Bush His Due on Democracy
 

Gas is that high because of a lot of different reasons. Some have to do with instability in the Middle Eastern area which has some to do with the Iraq war, but it is also problems in more stable regions like Saudi Arabia. It also has to do with the fact that the oil supply curve can't keep going up exponentially, but that is too big a topic to get into now.

I don't understand. I thought most people didn't want us to be going into Iraq for oil because that is wrong. "Imperialism at its worst". Now, when gas is getting expensive, you ask why it isn't cheaper since we won the war? Ai yiy yiy...

You cannot guarantee anything about who would have been a better president. You think Kerry would have been more in tune with your needs? Just because he didn't have the oil companies backing him doesn't mean he wasn't in bed with his own special interests. Kerry had as much crap on his plate as Bush. At least Bush stands for something and, although he has his issues, I think he stands for something, and he's not afraid to stand up for those issues.

Re: Giving George W. Bush His Due on Democracy
 

This just proves that the cycle of life is actually evident. The fact that we're yet again arguing about Iraq War and Bush's foreign policies, proves it. Cycle has always been defined as a never-changing, repetition of events.

An article was posted about Bush and the accomplishments he's done amidst all of the scrutiny and left wing malice. Yet, we find a way to spark another argument about Goerge W. Bush. I'll have to agree with a lot of people in this thread.

Many people attack Bush's policies and his decision to go to war, and whether his intentions were genuine or for oil. But the simple factors of GAS prices will inevitably fabricate another momentous debate on WHY they are rising. As one of my colleagues said,
"I guess we didn't go to war for the oil...."

And Strangler, you have just earned my respect for looking beyond what is in front of your face. A great example is Patch Adams when a man saw 7 fingers, but they thought he was crazy.... Has he not said, "Look beyond the answer." I would not have understood him. Strangler, your play with numbers intrigues me and has greatly swayed my outlook on whether the war was for good or for worse. Of course WAR in general is summed up as a bad thing considering casualties and unnecessary bloodshed. But the way you put it, that there were a lot more casualties before the War w/ Iraq.... it totally makes sense.

A lot of our disputes are fueled by what the media feeds us. And we all have argued about what the media thrives on. We can't go face to face with our leaders and other leaders and get the scoop from them. We watch the news, and get our spin on things. Our debates are driven by what we know from news and media. So, in the end we all either are far left or far right, considering if we were all left or all right, the balance beam would topple over, and we certainly cannot have a world without balance.

Without war, there would be no peace. Without hate, there would be no love. So how would be define these things if there were none? Consider a world without war and total happiness. Would there still be a word PEACE? If there were a world without hate, would the word LOVE or LIKE still exist?

Disputes and debates are driven by the media today, and what we believe. There is no exact or accurate way of changing ones thinking....Sometimes I miss being a baby where ignorance was bliss.

Hard to say about life these days.

Re: Giving George W. Bush His Due on Democracy
 

If you do your homework, which I know you won't, you will see that the dollar per gallon value on gas right now is cheaper then it has been in our history. Grant it, it's more expensive now then 2 years ago, there are numerous things that need to be taken into consideration. If gas prices were such a problem, then people wouldn't be driving.