[Izar]

Since I am taking AP Us hsitory with some AP Government with it, and a Intro to Business class that also teaches some economics, I've found some things that may enlighten your mind. :P

For some odd reason, everyone has this crazy idea that Bush is the one that has declared war in Iraq. Congress shares control over the military with the president and has the authority to DECLARE WAR and provide funding for soldiers and weapons, but the president serves as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Meaning: The president DOES NOT and CANNOT declare war, nor does he decide the funding of the troops. That's one thing I see Bush-bashers deal with. They say "he can jsut pull the roops out of Iraq." He cannot unless he has permission from congress. Congress can jsut simply take them out, but doesn't. However, presidents have sent armed forces into hostile situations in other countries to protect U.S., but that is not an actual "war," they are "conflicts." The War on Terror, Korean War, and Vietnam War are these.

Some people have also said that Kerry won the election by popular vote. But let's get two things strait: Not only did Kerry lose by popular vote, but the popular vote does not matter. I remember telling this to Andross when I said the Electoral College votes for the president, and our votes just show the will of the people, meaning, we do not elect the president. But to get the electoral college strait, here's what it is:

As most Americans have learned in school, We do not directly elect our presidents and vice presidents. We elect "electors" who make up the Electoral College and cast the electoral votes. Ever wonder what they mean by "winning" states. ANY employee of the federal government is prohibited from serving as electors. Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the state becomes that state's electors — so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a state wins all the electors of that state. (The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska, where two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each congressional district.) Colorado may change its system of allocation with Amendment 36 on the state's ballot this year.

help From: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/st...d=199823&page=1

Many people are angry at Bush for not putting enoguh troops in Louisiana. The thing is, the President CANNOT just send troops to a state. He must FIRST ask for persmission from the state and then give the state some troops.

Bush-Bashers constanly say stuff like "Bush is giving himself too much power." Well, seems to me like you are trying to give him powers he can't preform and use it against him.

by the way, If I would of found the old iraqi war topic, I would have jsut posted it there, but it's gone past at least page 4-5, at least I couldn't find it. :P

[MysticWarrior]

You have NO IDEA how long I've been shouting to people, "ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR! NOT BUSH!"

[Izar]

I completely agree with you, but i have a feeling Andross will post.

And why are people so strait forward about it? "He can do it, but why doesn't he?" Sheesh.

[Andross]

Why the hell did you drag me into this? I never said anything about Kerry winning the popular vote in my memory (because he didn't). If I remember correctly, I've only ever stated that Gore won the popular vote in '00 - neither am I so stupid as to not know how the electoral college works. That sly bit of condescending attitude I picked up hopefully wasn't intended :P

[Lightning Star]

ah, FINALLY. seriously, I couldn't agree more with you, Izar. its like that lady, who was blaming bush for her son getting killed. Its like, "dude, your son went into the military WHILE we were at war. War isn't some kind of ballet, its combat, and you have a chance of getting killed." seriously. People these days blame bush for meteroites falling from the sky and landing on their big toe. <-sarcasm.

[Andross]

On an additional note, I think I'm mistaken as a Bush basher because I have a general attitude of dislike for the guy. Yes that's true; but why the hell does that mean that all my reasons for not liking him can't change? Facts and opinions change based upon the circumstances; and mine have changed to where I'm sick of Bush repeating himself over and over. There's never a straight answer out of anyone these days *sigh*

[Izar]

Andross, on Oct 7 2005, 09:35 PM, said:

Why the hell did you drag me into this? I never said anything about Kerry winning the popular vote in my memory (because he didn't). If I remember correctly, I've only ever stated that Gore won the popular vote in '00 - neither am I so stupid as to not know how the electoral college works. That sly bit of condescending attitude I picked up hopefully wasn't intended :P

I never said that you said it was by popular vote or whatever. I was implying that I remember telling you the sentence after. Read it again. I remeber having telling you about the electoral college, and how you said "So you are telling me we don't elect our own president?" or something of the sort. If you want me to find It, I'm prety sure it's here somewhere. Nor did I drag you into this. I saw you on, so I knew you were going to post because you do bash bush alot.

[Andross]

Go find it. Because I am certain that I NEVER said such a thing. Absolute joey dung. I know how the election process works, and that statement is a flat-footed insult to my intelligence.

EDIT: LOL!!!!!!! I WAS SUCH AN ASSHOLE BACK THEN!!! :P :P :D

No, seriously, I was looking through the topic on the 04 Election, damn, I told some people off big time XDDDD

[Izar]

Then it is noted:

Search Says it's in one of these topics:
Dictatorships
Poll: Bush Or Kerry
Poll: Who's Stronger?

Or too old to be noted.

Now, this topic isn't about you, it's about Bush-Bashing, so lets get to the point:

It's pointless. Not only is there nothing anyone can do, but Bush has done everything within the confines of the Constitution.

[Andross]

I think people get that, but it's easier to vent frustrations on the internet than in life. It reminds of that one RvB PSA about differences between life and the internet :P

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

[kate]

Umm...just wondering, don't eat me alive or anything, cuz I don't know alot about Bush, but didn't the UN tell him not to go to war and he sorta said "well tough we're doing it anyways" well, not those words obviously...I don't even want to get onto the whole Iraq and Afghanistan thing though. Those wars imo are absolutely ridiculous. But if Bush had nothing to do with it, then kudos to him, I just wasn't aware he was against the war. Huh, how bout that.

[Andross]

UN inspectors found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction - one of the several reasons that the Bush administration was pushing for some sort of conflict with Iraq. However, the administration convinced Congress that there were more than enough reasons to go to war, aside from a single claim that no WMDs were found.

[kate]

Okay, mind telling me what those reasons were? I mean, I thought the point was that the USA felt threatened. But if there were no WMD's, why did they go?

[Andross]

There were also claims that Sadaam was planning on doing something like develop more WMDs, that Iraq was somehow linked to terrorist organizations or might be harboring them, and others were saying that it was high-time that Sadaam be brought to justice for his tyranny. Although the latter wasn't exactly the wording or a central reason, it was obviously a factor.

The gov't sought approval from UN to go to war with Iraq on these grounds so as to gain some financial and military backing, but were not granted such approval. They went anyway with the backing of maybe a handful of major nations (Britain, Spain, Italy among them).

[My Best Wishes]

They went for oil, in short. At least thats what the media down here made it out to be. I don't know how the US election system works, here it's everyone votes and the Party that got the most votes is in power. Again the media down here made it out to be that Bush decided the war and was in charge.

[Andross]

They definitely didn't go for oil, and the only way I can be sure of that is the fact that oil and gas prices still haven't gone down big time. In fact, in some places, gas prices have shot up above $4.

Bush was also the person who pushed for a war. Everyone understands Congress votes on it, but it was Bush and his administration that called for it in the first place.

[kate]

Oil prices went up because of what happened in Louisiana. You guys lost like a 1/4 of your oil because of the hurricanes. well, not a 1/4 of your oil, but your oil digging place thingies :P And if bush pushed for war, isn't he responsible for it? I mean, it's not like the war would've happened if he was against it. I think it's not entirely Bush's fault, because congress had a chance to say no, but he sure isn't innocent in the matter.

EDIT: I meant gas prices, don't mock my dyslexia :P

[Andross]

Oil prices haven't gone up. GAS prices have gone up. Oil prices have been steady at $60 a barrel about. Not only that, but we produce barely any oil in the first place. It's because refineries were hit in Texas and Louisiana that you may have been hearing stuff about gas prices, but certainly not oil (since most of that is imported in the first place).

[Someone Else]

Well, I don't know about you folks, but I just dislike the guy for such a stupid "war" on Iraq. I haven't researched much on the topic, let's just get that out of the way, but it's costing too much for us Tax Payers when there doesn't seem to be much point to it in the first place.

If I'm wrong, then by all means correct me. I like to learn. :P

[Luna]

No one asked the United States to act as police of the world.

We thought it was ok for them to get rid of Saddam but, there's no reason to stay there.

I'm probably going to be killed for saying this but that's basically what most of us feel. The End.

[Someone Else]

My own country is starting to piss me off too. =P

[Andross]

Sheba, on Oct 8 2005, 02:03 PM, said:

No one asked the United States to act as police of the world.

We thought it was ok for them to get rid of Saddam but, there's no reason to stay there.

I'm probably going to be killed for saying this but that's basically what most of us feel. The End.

There actually is reason to stay there, but most unfortunately, it is the result of our own doings - that is to say, the war in Iraq transformed it into a haven for terrorists, or at the least, acts of daily terrorism, when there was no real proof it had been a harbor of such organizations in the first place. Terrorism occurred on a daily basis, but not really to the extent of suicide bombers doing mass car runs into the market.

But it seems fruitless nonetheless, since if left alone, the place will likely implode, and by staying, more people in the Mid-East will continue to see the West as a grave and terrible evil.

Even though people are saying 'democracy will ensure a change,' it simply isn't true. A democracy it may be, but how it functions is dependent upon the society and culture it has been placed within. If it is a tribal, formally monarchial society, then there will be elections so that the majority have all the power, the president possesses the ability to rule absolutely at times, and laws are passed so as to discriminate against minorities/other ethnicities.

People determine how their democracy is characteristically, not the other way around.

[kate]

Hey, since I'm terribly misinformed, someone want to explain why there are troops in Afghanistan? and Sheba, you couldn't have said it better. "No one asked the United States to act as police of the world." Whoo, truer words were never spoken.

[Andross]

Because that's the country where Al Queda and the Taliban are - they made Afghanistan into a terrorist nation. So after 9/11, the decision was made to oust them and rebuild the country. Forces stationed there are not strong anymore, and are simply there to ensure peace and things move along smoothly still. As to what the progress has been, I'm not quite sure.

[kate]

Uh...huh. So...Iraq doesn't have a stable government yet, and they've decided to break down and rebuild a new country? where are they getting all the funding for this?? I heard that the costs to repair louisiana could be anywhere from 1-200billion dollars, yet Bush said it wouldn't cost the tax payers, cause they had room for it in the budget. You guys must be filthy rich, especially since I thought that america was in debt.

[Andross]

Huh? What are you talking about, in reference to "new country?" If you mean Afghanistan, that was way before Iraq...in addition, we aren't filthy rich, because whatever Bush is pointing to in reference to room in the budget to rebuild Louisiana, I haven't seen it.

You're taking gov't claims for truth, and if there's one thing I've learned about gov't, it's that they rarely tell the truth about the state of affairs, or at least they rarely know the proper truth or how things will turn out.

[Eugine]

Americans need to get point of views from non-Americans sometime and damn, everyone here HATES!!!!!! Bush down here with a passion. Yes, they bash Bush everyday. No one likes Bush... no one likes him.

But whatever, we can't change anything, only Americans can, and they elected him for a second term, so I guess they agree with his decisions.

[Andross]

Eugine, on Oct 9 2005, 09:38 AM, said:

Americans need to get point of views from non-Americans sometime and damn, everyone here HATES!!!!!! Bush down here with a passion. Yes, they bash Bush everyday. No one likes Bush... no one likes him.

But whatever, we can't change anything, only Americans can, and they elected him for a second term, so I guess they agree with his decisions.

Mind paying attention to statistics once in a while? Only 51% of Americans voted for Bush. That's in no way a suggestion that Americans as a whole gave him his second term, because there's almost half the nation that doesn't like him either.

[kate]

Y'know, up here we get a channel called cbc (canadian broadcasting channel) and normally on it's news it's just like "yah, things in louisiana and iraq and afghanistan are bad but america is trying it's hardest."
Then cbc went on strike, so we started getting british news to fill in, and they hate Bush with a fiery passion that will not die o.o
Honestly, they kept pointing out how he couldn't manage to correct things quickly, and how when england was bombed they were using the subway the next day, and arrested suspects within 24 hours, but america still hasn't found the people responsible for 9/11...it was pretty brutal. o.o

[Andross]

The Brits are angry at Blair and Bush, and they see Bush as the root of all causes for their problems, since they've been stuck in Iraq as well. So, that's my understanding of their anger.

[Ravenblade]

Yeah, Tony Blair seems to have come out of the War on Terror thing quite well in Britain though. I mean, he managed to get himself elected for a third term earlier this year. Sure, there were street protests and stuff at the time cos no one thought we had any need to go to war with Iraq but its all essentially forgotten now - Tony Blair is very wisely not mentioning anything about the war on terror outside of Britain anymore so he's gotten away with it.

Bush however does keep going on about it and yeah, all of Britain was up in arms when he got re-elected. Ive never seen our press so furious x_x;;

Honestly, I think we should withdraw from Iraq and leave the middle east to its own problems, but we cant because that would cause more problems for the people in the region than the invasion did in the first place.

Im a little distant from the whole scenario right now due to my current location, but i remember no particular bad feeling towards Tony Blair at the time i left England - no more than towards any other politician. Even this Bush bashing campaign is getting a tad cliche. Blair restored a lot of public confidence due to the Glen Eagles summit, especially since that's when london got hit. New policies towards "Preachers of hate" have also been welcomed.

As for Bush, the one thing i will say for him is that he is at least sticking to his guns. I assume that means he must be sure he's doing it for the right reasons.

On a final note though - the country that started the whole terrorism drive and whihc probably harbours the vast majority of Al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia. Not that i suggest for one second that the US should invade them but they arent gonna solve the problem with war, unless they invade Saudi IMO. War probably isnt the only solution though. Getting out of the middle east and apologising would work just as well i think.

[Sea of Time]

I don't see how they're getting out of there though. This is Vietnam all over again. Now Afghanistinian troops are resurfacing while insurgents in Iraq are still at battle. I think they are trying to make too much happen.

As for Bush bashing, why not? We know it's not all his fault for what's happening but how can you not bash a guy who literally said "more better"?

[Izar]

The UN is NOT our governement, meaning, their laws do not control us. If The US wansted to go to war with China, it does NOT have to ask the UN to do so (I don't know if china part of the UN, I'm just using it as an example). The UN is more of a league of countries that are allied and will not go to war with each other.

And Andross, it's not 51%, it was more like 60%. I read it off some business site. If it was only 51%, then John Kerry would not have stupidly dropped the race like that.

And kate, Bush HAS found the people responsible for 9/11. THINK AFGHANISTAN.

I think Bush Bashing is stupid because hello, could you do better? I highly doubt it for a number of reasons. 1: You never know a situation till you're in it. 2: He's musch more expirienced. There's more, But I gotta go soon...

He did a great job as Govenor of Texas, but when he becomes president, the crap the democrats put on him sinks into everyone.

And before you ask, I AM NOT REPUBLICAN.

[Eugine]

We know Izar. No one can control America but then they always want to control other countries. *Vomits*

[Andross]

Izar, on Oct 10 2005, 05:01 PM, said:

And Andross, it's not 51%, it was more like 60%. I read it off some business site. If it was only 51%, then John Kerry would not have stupidly dropped the race like that.

You're acting flippin' annoying right now. You could at least give a link and do the research, but anyway:

http://www.cnn.com/E.../pages/results/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/polit...elections/2004/
http://www.usatoday....tions/front.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden...lection%2C_2004

And John Kerry conceded because it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to gain enough electoral votes to beat Bush after Bush took Ohio, as not only this pushed Bush above 270, but that means that even if Kerry won all remaining states, he would not have beaten Bush (and you're claiming I don't know the Electoral College?). If you are denying that, then you are simply rejecting the fact.

Now, please, point me to where it claims that Bush had 60% of the nation's vote.

[Izar]

Clam Down, I read it on a British site, get off your case and quit complaining boy. :P

Anyways, why I think Bush Bashing is terrible: It's Pointless, not like it's gunna do anything. Like that stupid lady trying to taggle bush for her son's death when he VOLUNTEERED to go to Iraq.

[Andross]

Izar, you're the one who brought up the percentage issue, not me, so please, don't condescend me for defending my original statement.

[Izar]

Dont condesend me for defending mine. And you brought up the 51%, and THEN I said 60%, so you brought it up first to be technical.

ANYWAYS, lets get back on topic now.

[Eugine]

Why do both of you always have to outsmart each other? Izar you create really lame arguements with Andross these days and Andross you are becoming too arrogant. Lay lo.

[Andross]

How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.

[Ravenblade]

So, yeah, ANYWAYS..

The UN is essentially pointless if the largest countries ignore it like what happened over Iraq. If the UN disagreed with you, it should have imposed sanctions - it didnt though because the US puts more money into it than anyone else. That's called corruption and buying power children. (Not that im saying for one second that sanctions would have made any difference to anyone)

What Bush wants to be careful about is North Korea. If you invade it, you will lose. There is no way even Britain will follow you into that nightmare waiting to happen. Hopefully Bush is now finished with the wars, because another one will be disasterous for the west. The US certainly isnt invincible nowadays - i dont actually think you could defeat China anymore...not on their territory anyway.

[Eugine]

I think the USA could defeat any country. I just think they do it with grace and they really really care about human lives. I've seen it, I know it. The USA is the worlds supporter. Every country I know depends on the USA yet we critize them so much. Watch what happened in Pakistan, the USA helped the most already as far as I know.

[Laharl]

Bush now claims "God told me to invade Iraq" well along those lines, rihgt he's dug himself it **** now, it was god's fault not mine.

[Ravenblade]

Um, the US is NOT famous for taking care of human lives. They blewup a red cross outpost in Afghanistan!! x_X;; They have a horrible reputation in Europe. And not to antagonise but they lost to China in the Korean War and lost to Vietnam also. They werent being careful of human lives in Vietnam!

Its not the issue anyway - they cant afford another war and niether can the rest of us.

[Eugine]

That really don't matter Raven. I'm sure they did it accidently or had a reason. The USA is the Caribbean's supporter. We get like 80% and yes, a known fact of our resources from USA. England is soppose to be our mother country yet they don't do **** for us, they play this "quiet" country who doesn't do crap.

The American government isn't selfish, they give alot and God will bless them with everything he got. Even if they access how much they give, they always give the most and the most times.

China as far as I can see is frankly a selfish country. How could you possibly defend China after all they are going to invade Taiwan any time just because they want independence! When the Caribbean countries wanted independence from the "motherland England" they gave us, with a fight of course, but they deffinetly didn't try to surpress us, they didn't come with anything like "Support us or die" they fought it democratically. I think the people should decide who governs them and the people of Taiwan want independence. Also, about the Korean war, how could you daresay support Korea (if you're talking about N. Korea) they are frankly just as selfish as China.

So yes, the USA does barge in on other people's problem, this sometimes create problems or solves them. But downright, they help others in need 10x more than alot of the other developed countries.

Raven, I personally think you are just bashing the USA, they are a great country, please don't take out your grudge on them because they don't agree with your liking. They are a great country.

[Izar]

laharl the slayer, on Oct 11 2005, 05:39 AM, said:

Bush now claims "God told me to invade Iraq" well along those lines, rihgt he's dug himself it **** now, it was god's fault not mine.

Shove that down somebody's throt. He never said that.

We got a marine to come to our class that went to school here. Volunteers to iraq have their pay doubled, and the people of Iraq want us there.

[Andross]

I thought this would be most relevant here:

"The questionnaire that she filled out is an important questionnaire, and obviously they will address the questions that the senators have in the questionnaire - or as a result of the answers to the questions in the questionairre." Bush on Harriet Miers' questionnaire which was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee

:silence:

[Sea of Time]

He did say that God told him to invade though. I saw it on t.v. and on the internet. It was from the french, how can you not trust the french!

[Eugine]

I heard he did it also. All I can say is that God don't put you in battles you can't win, so if God what *send him* he'd of win it or atleast be doing something good accross there.

[Golden Djinn13]

The number of killed U.S soldiers in Iraq has reached 2,000, while above 15,000 are wounded. Thanks Bush :wacko:

[Sea of Time]

Afghanistan is kind of waking up now too. They're troops are reforming again. Has anyone else heard of this?

[Someone Else]

Sea_of_Time, on Oct 25 2005, 11:28 AM, said:

He did say that God told him to invade though. I saw it on t.v. and on the internet. It was from the french, how can you not trust the french!

He also said that God wanted him to be president. Heard it on live TV a year or two ago.

:wacko:

HA-HA-HA!!

I'm agnostic if you need to know.

[Andross]

Err, I'm not a fan of Bush, but I don't believe he actually said (in literalist terms) that God "told him to."

[Someone Else]

Not what I heard, or saw.

I don't know how accurate this is, but here's an article on it:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1075950,00.html

[kate]

I'm sorry, this is just all the funniest thing ever. First of all, and this goes way back, but Izar, you said that bush had found the people responsible for 9/11...afghanistan. Now umm...I pretty certain that the entirety of afghanistan did not join together and plan 9/11...even if the people responsible are in afghanistan that's hardly a reason to blame afghanistan.
And eugine, you said england is supposedly your "mother country" and what has it done for you lately? Well, remember that nice little war you guys had a looong while back? The one where you fought for your independence from britain? Yah, amazingly enough, you won that. So they don't owe you squat. They're our mother country, so back off...umm please :P and yes, i'm waaay too lazy to actually quote these things. And hey, I've got no problem with Bush when he does stuff to his own country. It's when he sticks his nose in other people's business that I start having a problem. And let's face it, the war in Iraq? One word: oil. Maybe they should be a little nicer to their albertan budies or we'll start shipping ours off to china. :P

And guys, it's starting to get a little hot in here. Let's all be nice and friendly or someone's gonna come along and shut it down...and that would be bad. Everything I say is just my opinion, please remember that.

[Eugine]

Well Kate, even if you fought for our independence, every country does that. Even America fought for there own!

I still think that the country which brought us up could atleast help us (since we are an under-developed country) rather than a supposedly outsider.

Oh yeah, England's busy over other stuff...

[Izar]

Eugine, on Oct 25 2005, 01:39 PM, said:

I heard he did it also. All I can say is that God don't put you in battles you can't win, so if God what *send him* he'd of win it or atleast be doing something good accross there.

I meant the second part, and I never heard the first part eitther.

Also, I found something I don't agree on, if I didn't say earlier. Bush doesn't want a tax on Oil (Wont effect us, just the profits of the oil company[they pay] as they monopolize/Oligarize things). Legally, the US can do that, but Bush used to work for oil companies, so he thinks it will not do too good, but I like the tax, it brings more money to the government.

I hate politics, but some people said I should join... Not something I'd easily shift to.

And Kate, he's Eugine is not American, as he said in terms.