What Political Party Do You Align Yourself With?

Yes, but IF Bush supported the instant withdrawl from Iraq (I'm not saying that it's the right thing to do, just IF), then don't you think the country would pay heed in some way? Or is Bush just a powerless figurehead?

not really. remember the first election?? GORE was elected by the common people. nice try really.....

not really, APFAq. remember the first election?? GORE was elected by the common people. nice try really.....

Perhaps Gore was, but remember that Bush was elected overwhelmingly by both the electoral college and the popular vote this time. And all of this after the war in Iraq. Remember, he is not the reason we are in Iraq, although he made the decision to bring it before congress, Congress decided to go to war.
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLICANS!

along with that, bush only one because of his brother in florida. If it were not for florida bush would not have won. If the electoral votes went to gore than bush would have been screwed. Plus we would have probably been better of with gore. He is now more successful than bush, ceo of few companies including apple and etc.

Yeah, I can see how without Florida Bush "would have been screwed" as you so eloquently put it. I'm curious how it was just "because of his brother," but very well. But remember, there was a reason that there was a tussle over Florida, and that was because Gore "was screwed" because he didn't get Florida, smarty-pants. That's the beauty of the electoral college, you have to have enough votes and if you don't, you have to keep on going to the next state until you do or your opponent does. It was a close race, but the better man for the job was in the White House when push came to shove. Its great that Gore is the CEO of Apple, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't do the same thing Clinton did with the USS Cole. Cry and say to the world at large, "please don't do that again, we'll play nice, we promise." That's what is so much better about Bush, he doesn't live or die by the poll (like billy did), he's doing what is right, no matter what corrupt news anchor is trying to bring him down this week.

Ares wrote:That's what is so much better about Bush, he doesn't live or die by the poll (like billy did), he's doing what is right, no matter what corrupt news anchor is trying to bring him down this week.

oh my so much to debate.

1) "he doesn't live or die by the poll" : so we should let him make decisions that only 1/3 of America believes in?? he is supposed to be a representative of the people, not only who voted for him, and if he is allowed the right to do as only he wishes why doesn't he just replace democracy with dictatorship in all of his "speeches"?
2) Democrat or Republican, Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents in our history and certainly since World War II. Numerous statistics, like the fact that he had an average of a 57% approval rating, proves that he did so much for this country that is overlooked because of Monica Lewinsky. He did not live or die by the poll, he just tried to fairly represent America, and if that means doing what the country wants him to do as well as balancing this with his own personal judgment, fine.
3) What is right? war is right? violence is right? even if we needed to go in at first (and I'm by no means saying that we did), we certainly have no need to be in Iraq now. We let Bush lead us to believe that we were fighting terrorism, when in fact we were fulfilling his father's dreams. And, before this is brought up, I know that even Clinton had said that force in Iraq was needed, but why us? We have enough problems in our own country to be going on with.
4) The news rarely criticizes Bush directly. I live in Massachusetts, and I don't even hear anything like that.

annalyce wrote:3) What is right? war is right? violence is right? even if we needed to go in at first (and I'm by no means saying that we did), we certainly have no need to be in Iraq now. We let Bush lead us to believe that we were fighting terrorism, when in fact we were fulfilling his father's dreams. And, before this is brought up, I know that even Clinton had said that force in Iraq was needed, but why us? We have enough problems in our own country to be going on with.

You're right... War and violence isn't right. But, I think that Iraqi war was a good cause because when I thought of Iraq, before the war, I'd only see suicides, people dying, women being treated like dump, and Saddam Hussein murdering his own people recklessly. If that wasn't good enough, there were terrorists in the country and I didn't see any action Hussein or any of the officials taking actions against that. Also, when 9/11 attacks happened, I remember Saddam Hussein declaring that he would wage war against the U.S. if it tried to "interfere" with his country (I saw from the news).

How can people leave such country alone with people being murdered and no equality is given to anyone...? (Well, not Saddam and his acolytes...) It was a good thing that U.S. did this because first of all, I see U.S. as a leading nation (I'm not trying to be biased) since everywhere I look, so many countries hate U.S. Look at this country, it helped rebuild Germany after World War II, helped contribute in building the railroads and trains in Russia, helped North Korea by sending foods and supplies to the starving citizens, currently donates millions and millions of dollars to people suffering from starvation and AIDS in third-world countries, and much, much more. And Bush is doing what's right. Even though people hate him so much, they shouldn't blame him. After all, Bush was elected by the people and they didn't hate him back then. It was their choice, so why criticize the person who they chose as their leader?

AP_Work_R wrote: But, I think that Iraqi war was a good cause because when I thought of Iraq, before the war, I'd only see suicides, people dying, women being treated like dump, and Saddam Hussein murdering his own people recklessly. If that wasn't good enough, there were terrorists in the country and I didn't see any action Hussein or any of the officials taking actions against that. Also, when 9/11 attacks happened, I remember Saddam Hussein declaring that he would wage war against the U.S. if it tried to "interfere" with his country (I saw from the news).

The situation may have been bad, but there are much worse in the world right now. We can never understand Middle Eastern culture because we were brought up so differently, and their ideals are so radically separate from ours that it isn't even fair to compare them. Therefore, women have always been treated in a subservient manner, but women still are here, albeit to a much lower extent.
Not to mention that everything you mentioned is also happening here. Suicides? Check. Dying? Check Check. Women being treated badly? Check (if not in normal society, look at the huge numbers of battered women). Terrorists? Check. Not doing much about it? Check. Threats if interfering in our country? CHECK.
I'm totally not saying that America is as bad or even close to as bad as Iraq was. I just want to make the point that America needs improving. And I'm not bashing democracy AT ALL, but our methods aren't perfect, and we shouldn't go around criticizing other people for not being mini-Americas.

AP_Work_R wrote: It was a good thing that U.S. did this because first of all, I see U.S. as a leading nation (I'm not trying to be biased) since everywhere I look, so many countries hate U.S. Look at this country, it helped rebuild Germany after World War II, helped contribute in building the railroads and trains in Russia, helped North Korea by sending foods and supplies to the starving citizens, currently donates millions and millions of dollars to people suffering from starvation and AIDS in third-world countries, and much, much more. And Bush is doing what's right. Even though people hate him so much, they shouldn't blame him. After all, Bush was elected by the people and they didn't hate him back then. It was their choice, so why criticize the person who they chose as their leader?

I agree that we are a leading nation. But first of all, does that mean every other nation isn't good enough? We are wasteful in energy and consumer goods, bully other nations around, and think that we are better than everyone else. I think that we should take pride in being a leading nation, but we shouldn't take advantage of this or think too much of it. Second of all, we don't donate nearly as much as other countries do, percentage and raw number wise.
The only people who should be blamed for Bush are who has voted for him. I couldn't vote, so I can say whatever I want. Most people I know (maybe this is the Massachusetts-liberal-thing, but whatever) didn't vote for Bush. They have a right to criticize what he does. Besides, criticism is one of the ways that America repels corruption, at least somewhat. We shouldn't be afraid to criticize our leaders' actions, or we would return to a monarchy.

annalyce wrote:The situation may have been bad, but there are much worse in the world right now. We can never understand Middle Eastern culture because we were brought up so differently, and their ideals are so radically separate from ours that it isn't even fair to compare them. Therefore, women have always been treated in a subservient manner, but women still are here, albeit to a much lower extent.
Not to mention that everything you mentioned is also happening here. Suicides? Check. Dying? Check Check. Women being treated badly? Check (if not in normal society, look at the huge numbers of battered women). Terrorists? Check. Not doing much about it? Check. Threats if interfering in our country? CHECK.
I'm totally not saying that America is as bad or even close to as bad as Iraq was. I just want to make the point that America needs improving. And I'm not bashing democracy AT ALL, but our methods aren't perfect, and we shouldn't go around criticizing other people for not being mini-Americas.

Um, no. Women aren't "treated in a subservient manner." You're not correctly comparing to U.S. to Iraq - even with huge numbers. Women here aren't treated like dump as they are in Iraq. Women over there can't vote, participate in any political activities, and are literally expected to take care of the house and children. What happens if they speak out? They get punished. Well, let's compare that to U.S. Can they vote? Yes. Can they participate in any political activities? Yes. Can they speak out for themselves without having to fear of being beaten for freedom of speech? YES.

And about suicides. I meant suicide bombers. My friend from Iraq experiences the fears of getting shot or bombed everyday. Why? Because down the street from where he lives, there are always explosions and bomb threats! How is that comparable to U.S? I rarely see suicide bombers in U.S. so how can you look from America's view and not from the Iraqi citizen's view? You just can't compare to their lives to yours.

annalyce wrote:I agree that we are a leading nation. But first of all, does that mean every other nation isn't good enough? We are wasteful in energy and consumer goods, bully other nations around, and think that we are better than everyone else. I think that we should take pride in being a leading nation, but we shouldn't take advantage of this or think too much of it. Second of all, we don't donate nearly as much as other countries do, percentage and raw number wise.

In what ways does U.S. bully other nations around? They have only advised and directed other nations and certainly not boss them around. Citizens also doesn't think they are better than anyone else. Why is expressing pride for one's country imply that they are "better" than everyone? I guess countries like North Korea, France, Russia, etc. think they are better than everyone.

annalyce wrote:The only people who should be blamed for Bush are who has voted for him. I couldn't vote, so I can say whatever I want. Most people I know (maybe this is the Massachusetts-liberal-thing, but whatever) didn't vote for Bush. They have a right to criticize what he does. Besides, criticism is one of the ways that America repels corruption, at least somewhat. We shouldn't be afraid to criticize our leaders' actions, or we would return to a monarchy.

That's true. Criticism contributes into the democracy America has. But you can't blame Bush for everything. The majority of the country picked him, so they should follow him. Look at it this way. Your parents make mistakes right? But do you criticize them for their false actions? If you get mad at your parents for their choices they made, would you want a set of new parents to make decisions? Of course not. Likewise, Bush (and I'm not implying that he's U.S.'s dad or anything :)) is the leader of this country and represents the American nation. So, when other countries look at America and criticizes Bush, and sees that his own nation despises him, what would they think? They'd probably say that America is pretty useless and pathetic. That's why so many countries hate U.S.