If the US is at war against Al Qaeda ..

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Eagler
what "ENTIRE WORLD" do you live in?
The ENTIRE WORLD has never been on the side of the US, not even close

It isn't about the ENTIRE WORLD it is what was/is best for the US and her allies .. and that sure isn't nancy and her boys

Allow me rephrase...  The entire first world.  Even France.
 
Better?

[Engine]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
It's also been said that Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers of all time.

And that Joseph Stalin's speeches were found to be very moving.

I'm more worried about the President that gives great speeches, to be honest. [/B]

Good point, but I still want one who has a vocabulary and knows how to use it. While the majority of us Americans may not shine with intellect, I'd at least hope we'd recognize a speech calling for ethnic cleansing.

[Elfie]

I don't really see what public speaking skills have to do with whether or not the President is doing a good job. I think folks get to hung up on that personally.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Don't give us that bull****.  Every single thing that has ever happened in america's history has divided the american people.  EVERY SINGLE THING.

LOL..

like 9/11.. like Pearl Harbor.... of course the split was 98%-2%.

fercryinoutloud.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Elfie
I don't really see what public speaking skills have to do with whether or not the President is doing a good job. I think folks get to hung up on that personally.

because charisma is part of being a good leader.  If you cannot motivate people to get behind your agenda you are not leading them.  

Stalin and Hitler were both mass murderers but also good leaders (and before I get pounced on I'm not saying good as in what they did was good but the fact that they were able to inspire people)

On the flip side I do not think you have to have the will of the people to do the right thing.  People are sheep and easily manipulated.

[Ack-Ack]

I think Reagan is the last great communicator this country has seen in the last 30 years.


ack-ack

[Brenjen]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
because charisma is part of being a good leader.  If you cannot motivate people to get behind your agenda you are not leading them.  

Stalin and Hitler were both mass murderers but also good leaders (and before I get pounced on I'm not saying good as in what they did was good but the fact that they were able to inspire people)

On the flip side I do not think you have to have the will of the people to do the right thing.  People are sheep and easily manipulated.

 Uncle Adolph was particularly suited to leadership until the syphilis ate his brain up. He turned Germany around & did it in short order. They were in need of a good leader as well as a competent one, unfortunately they got Hitler. I think Admiral Dönitz would have made a fine leader, too bad he only succeeded Hitler after the damage was done. But in the grand scheme of things Hitler was a baby when it came to slaughter, Stalin killed millions more & Mao - wow I think his total was something like 50 million more than Hitler & they were his own people at that.

 That is going by the generally accepted totals of 30 million for Hitler, 60 million for Stalin & 80 million (or more) for Mao.

[Yeager]

Bush has bungled this whole Iraq thing up so badly its pathetic eagler, as each day goes by a little bit more of me says "yeah, he sure effluffied that one up alright."  I'll give it till next spring (08) and if things haven't started to trend largely towards stability, then I will believe for sure that we are going to be in that Golly-geened country for another 20 years getting sniped and IED'd the entire time and even THEN that putrid garbage pit in the dessert is STILL going to be Golly-geened.  The only way to fix that mess is to bulldoze the entire region flat and start from scratch.

Sorry but thats just the way its looking.

[Ack-Ack]

There is no denying that this administration screwed up with the occupation of Iraq and the failures of the policies in Iraq and be directly attributed to the Bush Administration.  


ack-ack

[john9001]

the administration did not screw up the occupation of Iraq, it's the people that keep blowing things up that are screwing it up, if they were not blowing things up there would be no "occupation", our troops would be home and Iraq would be a peaceful country by now.

put the blame where it belongs.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by midnight Target
LOL..

like 9/11.. like Pearl Harbor.... of course the split was 98%-2%.

fercryinoutloud.

As much as you would like to say that I'm not right so as to use it as a weapon against Bush, you can't.  Even after 9/11, even after Pearl Harbor, there were those Americans who didn't want to go to war.

Trace every single event that ever happened back through history.  There was dissent and support for everything.

Even all the way back to the American Revolution and before that.  For example, during the American Revolution, the percentage of the population that wanted to break off and start a new country was roughly around 30%.  The rest were either loyalists, or those who didn't want to rock the boat (split pretty evenly for the difference).

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Yeager
Bush has bungled this whole Iraq thing up so badly its pathetic eagler, as each day goes by a little bit more of me says "yeah, he sure effluffied that one up alright."  I'll give it till next spring (08) and if things haven't started to trend largely towards stability, then I will believe for sure that we are going to be in that Golly-geened country for another 20 years getting sniped and IED'd the entire time and even THEN that putrid garbage pit in the dessert is STILL going to be Golly-geened.  The only way to fix that mess is to bulldoze the entire region flat and start from scratch.

Sorry but thats just the way its looking.

what exactly should have been done that would have prevented the cheekboness from acting they way they are today?

I do not think anything could have been done that would have prevented the "insurgents" and the natural hate these ppl seem to have for each other from rising to the surface and exploding in our faces just as it has done.

be sure to vote Hillary cause she'll fix everything your bumblin Bush has created ... just ask the majority who hold the same opinion as you.
or you can grab a spine sir

[Yeager]

You dont need to know the right answer to know the one you have is wrong.

Iraq as a nation, the United States and the rest of western civilization was better off with Saddam in power.  After watching the way these islamic cheekboness behave, I really believe Saddam was a stabilizing force.  A stabilization that we have not and will never be able to replace.  All we did was take out the sunnis (who had a tight grip on all the shiia nutsucks) and replace them with shiia nutsucks who are currently trying to get a grip on all the sunni cheekboness.  We should have stayed the hell out of that wretched mess.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
As much as you would like to say that I'm not right so as to use it as a weapon against Bush, you can't.  Even after 9/11, even after Pearl Harbor, there were those Americans who didn't want to go to war.

Trace every single event that ever happened back through history.  There was dissent and support for everything.

Even all the way back to the American Revolution and before that.  For example, during the American Revolution, the percentage of the population that wanted to break off and start a new country was roughly around 30%.  The rest were either loyalists, or those who didn't want to rock the boat (split pretty evenly for the difference).

Sooooo.

Your brilliant point is that there has never been a 100% consensus on anything?

heh.

[lasersailor184]

No, my brilliant point is that the country has been split pretty well for everything.  Support or dissent may shift back and forth 15% off the median, but 35% of people is still a lot.