September 11th and George Bush
 

Okay it's September the 11th and 2 years since the attack on the twin towers. My question is how successful, do you feel, has George Bushes war or terror been? Also what do you feel he could have done to make it a success?

My own view is it has been a complete failure. He bombed the shíte out of Afghanistan and failed to kill Bin Laden (although he did wipe out the training camps). He waged war against Iraq because of so-called weapons of mass destruction of which I think we can all agree there were none, which resulted in a further escalation of hatred towards the west (and drew the UK into the hatred as well). The US is now faces with a Northern Ireland typed situation in Iraq with an ever-increasing body bag count.

Bosch after 11september good work!:D ;)
also forgot one source of terrorism!:( :mad:

he did what he could. I don't think in erality he had many options.

People u.s.a dont like bosch politics!

Uh-huh - the Bosch politics on their current range of washing machines and microwaves are probably not liked by the people. I can see where problems may arise.....

Re: September 11th and George Bush
 

Bush had some small 'successes': destruction of training camps in Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban and Hussein dictatorships.

But at the same time the US invaded two nations without UN commitment. That is very dictator-like as well. The UN and their weapon inspectors were right: no weapons of mass destruction. And if the reason was to free the people of their regimes, there are a lot more other countries to go...

Mr. Bush jr. invaded for the wrong reasons and this will have a long term negative effect in the Arabic countries and the rest of the world. It will certainly not stop terrorist organizations from attacking the US.
I agree. (Haven't you voted yourself yet?)

UK

i don't think he's fought terror. barely at all. the roadmap in israel/palestine is a noble effort, but i think they might be being too forceful.

other than that, he's found scapegoats that the US's mighty army can more conveniently and traditionally fight. instead of having a war on terror, he's having a war on (at first) "countries that harbour terrorists", then the iraq thing was "we were going to attack them anyway, so we might as well accuse them of terrorist links anyway".

:hang:

i really hope something is being done about terrorism. i do understand that real actions against terrorism, we might not hear about, at least for a while. i just wish we didn't also hear all these things that have nothing to do with terror being branded with the US governments fashionable excuse.

Cleared out two countries, caught Neither of the Supposed Puppet Masters. Dr Liebstrom will not be happy (2DTV.com) The english love George Bush, hes such an idiot hehe.

Anyway killed 5000 people but at least those old dirty oversized council flats are down, not you can build something worth looking at, and maybe do it properly rather then aluminium and plaster board and no supports, i mean Der.

Personally, living in new york have having been here during 9/11 I like to say that I don't feel he has done enough. I mean security has been upped, and I bet there are a lot of terroist activities that we the general public don't hear about, and that's alright, but I still don't feel completely safe in the Airports.

Bush has been useless.

Bin laden and saddam are still alive.

And i say most Americans are afread to fly.

And that WMD stuff was B.s.

In 2001 I did a 2 month trip from Alaska to New York with my girlfriend. On Sep.11 we were in Manhattan, 25 blocks away from WTC, on our way to visit it. We never saw it all happen, but we have seen the devastation at 100 meters from there a few hours later. A very strange end of a holiday, but that didn't stop us from taking a plane back to The Netherlands. While nail clippers were not allowed on board, nobody said anything about a 8" by 12" picture frame with glass(!) in my hand luggage. Could have made some useful knives out of that! Eventhough I felt very safe and still do.

Mr. Bush won't change anything about airport safety. Certainly not with international warfare without UN commitment. It's short term politics. :down:

UK

A terrorism expert on BBC News put it very well "the world have not seen as much terrorism as after mr Bush declared his war on it"

Frankly i don't get it, the very nature of terrorism is that it's used when you face an enemy that is so superior to you, that you can't fight the war with "conventional" means..... So how can Mr Bush ever think he can win this war? moreover setting out a policy that turns even his NATO allies against him, how can he expect that it won't create more hatred against the US in the middle east?

Anyway, my condolences to all those people who lost their loved ones, in the rubble of the WTC two years ago.

1. Not completely useless; he did oust Saddam from power, granted our soldiers are still being killed.

2. I'm not afraid to fly, I don't know about anyone else here.

3. Saddam was originally assembling parts and materials to make WMD; he most likely had them destroyed before the Inspectors came into the country.

Now, I'm not being all gung-ho America right now, but I do live here, I love this damn country, and I've got to say something. Give the guy some leeway. He's the leader of the freeworld, wether or not people want that it's not their decision. That's a really big job to handle and it puts a lot of weight on a mans shoulders, so give the guy a break.

no way! argh! the leader of the free world is an ex-alcoholic religious fanatic with a speech impairment and an IQ below 60? DAMN! we're screwed!

I just hope Giscard d'Estaing get's his draft for the European Constitution through the European Pairlament, so we can get a strong European President to rely on instead...... Our politicans might be boring over here, but at least they've got a brain. :rolleyes:

the annoying thing is that the only part of that that isn't true is the IQ bit.

I'm not saying he was intelligent, or a good person, just that he has a lot of resposibilities bearing down on him.

I agree he had to do something. Not one citizen in the US would have accepted a lack of response from any president. The question is if his revenge should have been implemented the way he did. Shouldn't he have waited for international partners or was the invasion as urgent as he suggested?

UK

If he had waited, the story would go cold, thus removing the action in Iraq as an Election wildcard, wich seems to have backfired anyway.

Maby I'm just synical

I just sit back and compare Bush to Clinton.......Bush=total success compared to clinton! hpw the hell did clinton even stay in office?
Bush truly works his ass off! And he doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for foreign aid, he wants to cut expenses in the government, where money is wasted! I tihnk that's great......I wasn't too hot for President Bush when he got elected but...over the years I've done a LOT of reading on the Pres. and watched a lot of MSNBC and all that news stuff...he actually does a very very god job! I hope he gets a second term

because, of course, when he says that he'll cut costs in government, he won't just take it away from more worthy causes.

I'd like to see a president spend 87 billion on education, or homeless people, or getting people jobs. you know something that could do this country some GOOD.

he did all he could, he's still doin stuff too

first of all he is spending shit loads on al of hose things....second of all...stop bitching about the money the war cost! I'm sure we're a lot happier now than we'd be with a nuclear warhead dropping in each of our cities!
At least our troops know what we're fighting for, cause it seems all america knows how to do now is bitch and moan if the government isn't lining our pockets!

So what your saying is that the whole thing (Afghanistan included) was all about revenge? If that is so then ANY Country that supported his actions/directions would be guilty of war crimes under International law.

*Sighs* Sadly this is about nothing else than Oil. Afghanistan Followed by Iraq.
Afghanistan had to be 'Changed' not because of Terroism, but because the 'Oil' which is in the North East and Is to be delived to the South West and The Taliban (Remember that the U.S.A. supported there rise to power, during the Invasion of Afghanistan in the late 70's early 80's by the then former U.S.S.R.).
Once there it was to go through ...well Iraq, as that is the next Country and also the easiest Country to take it through 'Logistically'.
I'm not denying that Hussein and The Taliban were horrific regimes, they were and disgustingly so, but to do what has happened in the last say Three years by ALL sides is the more disgusting to me.
I watched a rather disturbing program/documetory (Made in the States) About a chap who died at the Towers on 9/11 (Weird how thats the U.S. National emergency No.[?]) This guy was the Head of Security at The Trade Center, a former F.B.I. agent who had been tracking and investigating Bin-Laden for some twenty years. He had finally left the F.B.I. after 'In-House Politics' froze him out of the Investagation. In 1998-9 however he had warned, via Interrogation Intelligence, (i.E. Thats where he got the information), that, the 'Hijacking' of 'Commercial Airliners'for 'Suicide Missions' was being planned and was in such an 'Advance' state that 'Pilots' were allready being 'Trained' at U.S. Pilot Training Schools.
The questions that this Documentory raise give me the greatest cause for concern.

If what, this program says is true then How much was known? and if the question that arises from that is "Then just how much and willing are you going to be to allow these acts to happen, when it is quite clear that It could have been stopped?"

It's that which sickens me the most I think, that people who could have stopped this from happening, didn't and why? Because of there own petty Ego's.


When First You Look in the Mirror, You See What You Are. When you Look Again, You see Who you Are

How really Sad our World is some times, How Sick......:(

The man was and is an ASSHOLE ! To equate Iraq with 911 is just such a leap of logic I cannot even go there! And I live in New York, and don't feel one bit safer! I think 911 was just an excuse for the military-industrial complex (an old term, I know) to go after Iraq's oil and usurp their sovereignty!:hang:

In my view, Bush was quite hypocritcal in his response. I understand why he employed military operations in Afghanistan because it was one of bin Laden's main bases of operations, but he still to this day has not confronted Saudi Arabia. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, yet no real action was taken against the Saudi government, which ,indirectly if not directly, has funded terrorist operations including Al Qaeda.

Well Saudi sells the US oil, sure its not the number 1 supplyer. But we still get quite a bit from them, and if we stop getting the oil, who knows what will happen, the oil companys would start charging $2.50 for a gallon of gasoline.


Maybe b/ you are watching the most conserative news networks out there? And seeing Bush is as well conserative, they would agree with him, and "fudge" the numbers a little bit, to make him seem more favorable?

As for the economy and this "war on terrorism" (HA! That is such a worthless term, how can we have war on a verb?). I dont belive has has done too much well. But I dont really have the right to say what he could have done better, seeing I do not yet fully know all of the little international politics going on "under the table".
But I just have a feeling that the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq was basicly useless. The Taliban are now gaining more power in Afgan, and Iraq is total chaos. Anyways, didnt the US support the "murderus regimes" in the past? That seems a little hypocritcal now.
Iraq didnt have any "WMD". Sure they would have wanted to make them, but what laws says they can not? Sure, it may not be a good thing, but why stop Iraq, when we go and supply Israil with them to fight and kill the Palisinians? hypocricy? Maybe.

Now for the home front. The president doenst have much control over the economy. So I can not fully blame him for it. But, I dont think he gave tax cuts to the right people (the lower class would go out and spend the money from tax cuts right away, wile the rich would most likly just save it and not spend it, and not help the consumer economy out).
On the "Secuirty" topic, Airport security is a joke. Some people manages to steal some airports Server computers, in a restricted access room, and rolled it right past securty. Wile they stop passagners from carrying shavers and nail clipers. And this "Total... err... "Terrorist Information Awareness" Program what was going to be put into place, wow... the government was about to go all out and become "Big Brother" from 1984. And this Patriot act is a pile of crap! We have right in place to protect people for a reason. If you take way some peoples rights, what would stop you from taking away EVERYONES rights?

The Bush pary is not the best in my opinion. Not good at all.

3 things I have to say:

- Terrorism is not a verb.
- MSNBC is liberal. The only conservative show on MSNBC is Scarborough Country.
- Why the hell would Iraq have 25 Scud missiles? For shits and giggles?

Also, if all of you people disagree so much with what Bush has done, what would YOU have done after 9/11 if you were president. Please elaborate and name all the countries you would attack and acknowledge the consequences of your actions. I'd like to see how this turns out.

Exactly my thinking. People bitch about how Bush handled this, but they never figure, Gee, what would I do in his position, and how well would it turn out?

Yep with all those WMDs that Iraq has I'd be scared shitless too *sigh*

As for the cost, give me a $20 sack of weed, Bush, Saddam, and a peace pipe and I'm sure I could solve this thing.

I bet if the Iraqi had realy had those WMD's, Bush wouldn't have attacked - this is what's happening in North Korea. They pose a real threat, and might possibly allready have weapons that can reach Alaska. But a war against North Korea would cost too many cassualies and become a PR nightmare for the Bush administration.... So they keep their hands away from it - Same thing would have been the case for Iraq if they had been a real threat.

And IMO Saddam was a much better leader (in relative terms) than Kim Chong-il ever was. Talk about a lunatic...

Hussein is no saint, mind you. He would kill members of his administration on almost a daily basis....good leader my ass.

Ego's and revenge are not so far off I guess. And why do you think it's the US that doesn't support the International Court of Law for War Crimes in The Hague?Ah, now it's all down to a few missiles with a reach of 100 miles! A real threat! Do you know how many missiles (with nucleair heads) the US have? Should we all attack the US now, especially with a president that seems to be a danger?

UK