We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
President Bush's SZ Approval Rating
Topic Started: Dec 27 2006, 03:57 PM (1,874 Views)
.Ryu
Member
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Wrong. We invaded Iraq because we suspected they had nuclear weapons or plans to make them, and sell them to terrorists. Although they never did any of that.

You can't really be sure of that. The UN gave Saddam so much time with just sanctioning them, they had time to move any technology or materials they had for building Weapons of Mass Destruction. Also, keep in mind that nuclear weapons isn't the only type of Weapons of Mass Destruction, you have chemical and biological weapons as well. We do know that he had poison gas, proven by the killings of many back in the 80's.

So, while they might have not found nuclear weapons, there could've been chemical and/or biological agents; but the bias of media failed to let that be known. While that may not be likely, it could have happened. While there is the possibility that they didn't have any type of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the time of US invasion, you cannot rule it out that they did, but moved it before it could be found.

I'm not attacking your view, I'm just pointing something out. Plus, I was bored.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
0uTk4sT
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
If they had moved them, then someone still knows where they are. Assuming that a high up Sunni knows the location of them, then why haven't used them against the Shiites? Sure, they could have moved them, but they most likely never had them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alithia
Member Avatar
.trust.
[ *  *  *  * ]
Astheria
Dec 28 2006, 04:21 AM
nymetsfan25
Dec 27 2006, 06:15 PM
Astheria
Dec 27 2006, 06:46 PM
This thread made me laugh out loud (literally).

You're asking a bunch of 12-15 year olds, most who haven't had a job let alone pay taxes, support themselves, or see life after high school, what their approval rating of our president is... all you're going to get is the answer the media wants them to have.

Believe it or not, although so far this is only a small sample of the "voters" here, the approval ratings are somewhat similar. 39% of adults approve George Bush's role as President, compared to 31% (so far) here, so it has some relevance.

This isn't personal, just something I'd like to share with you. 85% of statistics are made up (think about that one), and statistics is the only science where you can prove yourself right and wrong simultaneously with the same numbers. Just something to chew on. ^_^

As for my opinion, I don't necessarily agree with some things that he has done, but riddle-me-this:

  • No president in recent years has had the number of calamities happen in their tenure as he has - 9/11, Katrina, The Asian Tsunami relief effort, border problems, gas inflation, a receding stockmarket as the tech boom has died down. That's not counting the added tension of war and global terrorism.
  • No president ever has had to fight an enemy who hides behind women and children, underground, and who uses one of the world's largest religions as their motif. Anyone who says that the problem can be solved by talks and agreements is a downright idiot - these people blow themselves up on innocent citizens, suicide bomb skyscrapers with hijacked airliners, and even though the majority of thier religion rejects them, they claim a holy war.
I could go on and on but I know I have better things to do tonight, so I leave you with this:

Would John Kerry or Al Gore have done a better job than him? No.

That said, as much as people may disagree with him, because of political staticness that only democrats and republicans are dominant enough to receive the votes of the uniformed we had no better choice.

Thats really what I wanted to say on the matter as well. :santa1:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dyssomnia
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Choosing between John Kerry and George Bush was trying to choose the lesser of two evils. They weren't the best of candidates for the Presidential race.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Astheria
 
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
0uTk4sT
Dec 29 2006, 06:29 PM
If they had moved them, then someone still knows where they are. Assuming that a high up Sunni knows the location of them, then why haven't used them against the Shiites? Sure, they could have moved them, but they most likely never had them.

Using them would mean that our media would have to cover it and that would prove Bush correct and then we wouldn't have people crying that the war is the worst decision ever and to pull out ASAP... which is what they want us to do. It's easy logic.

Oddly enough, they found traces of chemicals during the war that are typical of nuclear production, but that made the news for like... a day or two then was forgotten about since no 'actual' weapon was found.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8