what do you think Bush can do differently?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_Pedro69

Senior member
Jan 18, 2005
259
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Pedro69
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Pedro69
other link
Still no mention of Bush...:p
Who represents America to them?
I think you'd get the same result with any other leader in the whitehouse as Iraq and NK have very little global effect...as the poll was on "danger to world peace".
The US is pretty much the only nation with enough influence to affect anything on the global stage.

You took the poll on the US, as a poll on Bush ("millions of other people around the world who can't stand him? Many see him as much more lunatic and dangerous then North Korea")

The poll did not mention Bush...you made that up on your own perceptions.
Admit your comments are misdirected please.


Ok I see what you are trying. You couldn't get me on the other issues and now you try to take my words aparts to find something. Interesting.

You still owe me an answer. Who represents America to them? You know the answer.



Have a :cookie: and good night kid.

Edit: I will also stop here as this discussion anyway is offtopic. No reason to thread crap (that means me too)
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
id be great if he focused on where all that iraq reconstruction money went.
make the soldiers and their lack of armor a more public story, which would then probably get worked on much faster.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Pedro69
Ok I see what you are trying. You couldn't get me on the other issues and now you try to take my words aparts to find something. Interesting.

You still owe me an answer. Who represents America to them? You know the answer.

Have a :cookie: and good night kid.
Is this guy kidding? :confused:

If you want to naively put words in people's mouth, go nuts, but you look like an idiot.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Pedro69
Please read my edit
You are against thread crapping now...:roll:
Remember that for next time you jump into a thread, buddy.

But yeah, I've made my points known, no need to go futher.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: EatSpam
He could start by pulling troops home from Iraq and placing them on the Mexican border.
I'd rather US troops in Europe for that.
Lower troop counts in Iraq would probably make things less stable at the moment...
I'm not expecting good things out of Iraq regardless of what we do. I'd rather pull our troops home before any more get killed on a lost cause. Bringing the troops home from Europe is a good idea too...don't need them there anymore. Germany can defend themselves from the nonexistant Soviet threat.
I disagree.
Your country unilaterally invaded Iraq and you owe it to them to create stability in their nation as the majority of the people have no control over this aspect of their lives.

Bringing US troops home at this point in time would be inhumane and counterproductive to the mission as radicals will just take over the country and will become ten times worse than it was under Saddam.

You break it, you buy it. Sorry.
At least countries like Canada who were against the war are helping with aid and reconstruction.

Sigh, it wasn't unilateral. There are only 3 countries on earth capable of getting a force ready to attack Iraq in the timeframe we wanted to. France, United Kingdom and the United States. France obviously didn't participate, and the US and UK were the two countries that invaded initially. We had agreements with 30 something countries when the war began to send troops after we defeated Saddam, and they did. That's not unilateral.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Sigh, it wasn't unilateral. There are only 3 countries on earth capable of getting a force ready to attack Iraq in the timeframe we wanted to. France, United Kingdom and the United States. France obviously didn't participate, and the US and UK were the two countries that invaded initially. We had agreements with 30 something countries when the war began to send troops after we defeated Saddam, and they did. That's not unilateral.
It wasn't unilateral on paper...
Look at capital investment and troop count...then you will see it was effectively unilaterial. That word was too exclusive, but no need to nitpick something so close to being correct.
 

NeenerNeener

Senior member
Jun 8, 2005
414
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: EatSpam
He could start by pulling troops home from Iraq and placing them on the Mexican border.
I'd rather US troops in Europe for that.
Lower troop counts in Iraq would probably make things less stable at the moment...
I'm not expecting good things out of Iraq regardless of what we do. I'd rather pull our troops home before any more get killed on a lost cause. Bringing the troops home from Europe is a good idea too...don't need them there anymore. Germany can defend themselves from the nonexistant Soviet threat.
I disagree.
Your country unilaterally invaded Iraq and you owe it to them to create stability in their nation as the majority of the people have no control over this aspect of their lives.

Bringing US troops home at this point in time would be inhumane and counterproductive to the mission as radicals will just take over the country and will become ten times worse than it was under Saddam.

You break it, you buy it. Sorry.
At least countries like Canada who were against the war are helping with aid and reconstruction.

Sigh, it wasn't unilateral. There are only 3 countries on earth capable of getting a force ready to attack Iraq in the timeframe we wanted to. France, United Kingdom and the United States. France obviously didn't participate, and the US and UK were the two countries that invaded initially. We had agreements with 30 something countries when the war began to send troops after we defeated Saddam, and they did. That's not unilateral.

Assuming that needed to be THE TIMEFRAME. Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. The Project for A New American Century wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 saying that we needed to invade Iraq. We didn't. Iraq didn't do anything.
 

NeenerNeener

Senior member
Jun 8, 2005
414
0
0
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: EatSpam
He could start by pulling troops home from Iraq and placing them on the Mexican border.
I'd rather US troops in Europe for that.
Lower troop counts in Iraq would probably make things less stable at the moment...

Originally posted by: sandorski
Resign
The people voted for him, that's a bit of a harsh comment.

Some of the more radical leftists have so much hatred they are unable/don't want to come up with concrete suggestions. Whatever Bush does, they take the opposite side. :disgust: Kudos to the rest of them though

But to answer the OP:
Start pulling out of Iraq
Less contracts for Haliburton
Push forward alternative energy solutions and drilling the ANWR
Roll back at least 1 of his tax cuts

They voted for Nixon too(Voters). Hell, maybe those who voted for bush should Resign with him!
Nixon was to be impeached. You can try that with Bush if you like.

I like what zendari said here for the most part. There definitely needs to be some plan for an exit of Iraq, not just some "waiting for something to happen. I'll know it when I see it.". Seems like since Bush's recent comments he feels like pulling out is considered "a retreat". I wonder, though, based on our lessons from Vietnam, where we heard things from presidents like "I don't want to be the first president to lose a war", if he hasn't gotten too wrapped up in the "wartime president" thing. Or if he thinks it's the wild west out there and once enough "shootouts" have taken place, that the movie will be over. Or even perhaps, possibly, that there are interest groups there who don't want us to pull out.

The "less contracts for halliburton" comment is right on in my opinion. What is it 25% of our Iraqi funding bill that just passed that is going to contractors? Some of these dudes are just plain mercenaries who get paid over six figures to do a job that the grunts next to him aren't making squat for doing. Their loyalty is to money, not the country. Besides, reconstruction used to be done by the Army corp of engineers, not halliburton or subsidiarys like CACI or TITAN. The military used to be self-sufficient, cooking their own meals not relying on contractors that pay (and I heard this in congress on C-SPAN) forty bucks for a case of coke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Less dependency on the middle east will come from a more energy independent America. While I work at a DOE contracted, energy research company, I would still say that there are all kinds of ways to use technologies that we ALREADY HAVE to use alternative energies to fuel a good chunk of our energy demand. Think of how far a few hundred billion would have taken us there!

I don't like the ANWR drilling thing because it seems like more of the same.

Finally, dear God! Why the hell does he keep cutting taxes while we are at war? Geez!!!!

Zendari, I'm not trying to kiss your a$$ here, but good suggestions. Plus, your avatar's kinda hot. (wink, wink) :)

 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: EatSpam
He could start by pulling troops home from Iraq and placing them on the Mexican border.
I'd rather US troops in Europe for that.
Lower troop counts in Iraq would probably make things less stable at the moment...
I'm not expecting good things out of Iraq regardless of what we do. I'd rather pull our troops home before any more get killed on a lost cause. Bringing the troops home from Europe is a good idea too...don't need them there anymore. Germany can defend themselves from the nonexistant Soviet threat.
I disagree.
Your country unilaterally invaded Iraq and you owe it to them to create stability in their nation as the majority of the people have no control over this aspect of their lives.

Bringing US troops home at this point in time would be inhumane and counterproductive to the mission as radicals will just take over the country and will become ten times worse than it was under Saddam.

You break it, you buy it. Sorry.
At least countries like Canada who were against the war are helping with aid and reconstruction.

Sigh, it wasn't unilateral. There are only 3 countries on earth capable of getting a force ready to attack Iraq in the timeframe we wanted to. France, United Kingdom and the United States. France obviously didn't participate, and the US and UK were the two countries that invaded initially. We had agreements with 30 something countries when the war began to send troops after we defeated Saddam, and they did. That's not unilateral.

Assuming that needed to be THE TIMEFRAME. Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. The Project for A New American Century wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 saying that we needed to invade Iraq. We didn't. Iraq didn't do anything.

What's your point? It still wasn't unilateral...
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
What's your point? It still wasn't unilateral...
Iraq war casualties: US accounts for 90%+
Fiscal Costs: US = $178b, UK = $800m (US$), therefore US = 99%+
Troops: US = 86%+

It was practically unilateral ntdz...not worth arguing over :p
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: ntdz
What's your point? It still wasn't unilateral...
Iraq war casualties: US accounts for 90%+
Fiscal Costs: US = $178b, UK = $800m (US$), therefore US = 99%+
Troops: US = 86%+

It was practically unilateral ntdz...not worth arguing over :p

I'm not saying we haven't done most of the work in Iraq, we have no doubt. But we didn't exactly go to war without other countries' support. Sure, France and Germany didn't approve, but they are two countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but over half of Europe signed a letter of support for the Iraq war.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Pedro69
Some of the more radical leftists have so much hatred they are unable/don't want to come up with concrete suggestions. Whatever Bush does, they take the opposite side. :disgust: Kudos to the rest of them though


So how would you categorize the millions of other people around the world who can't stand him? Many see him as much more lunatic and dangerous then North Korea. Link

Are the also all radical leftist? Could it be a worldwide Leftist Conspiracy?:roll:
LMK when Bush becomes President of Europe, until then their opinion isn't worth sh*t.
 

oculus

Member
Jun 17, 2005
118
0
0
What can Bush do differently? Oh, the list your could write!

1) End the War on Drugs (War on Personal Freedom / War on Ourselves)

2) Advocate for education funding for civics courses for all

3) Hold more press conferences and speak directly with congress on a more regular basis, including debates.

4) Change his speechwriters so that his statements include at least a little real content, and doesn't speak down to us like we're children.

5) Sever ties with Saudi Arabia and push for them to improve their record on human rights and personal freedom.

6) Advocate spending tax dollars on the research for alternative and renewable energy sources.

 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Bush called himself a uniter not a divider, but since being in office, all he has done is unite the Democrats against him and unite the rest of the world against us.

I'd like him to behaving in a way which is divisive to the rest of the world. Stop nomninating radical judges. Stop nominating nutbags like Bolton to diplomatic posts.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: BBond
Resign.

awaiting him and his buddies war crimal trials in the hauge of course.

Step 1. Resign.

Step 2. Prosecution.

Step 3. Rendition their sorry, murdering, torturing a$$es to Abu Ghraib where their former prisoners will be their guards.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Was there any evidence implicating Rummy or GWB in promoting the Abu Ghraib tortures?
I wouldn't think they would be held accountable in such a micro situation.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Was there any evidence implicating Rummy or GWB in promoting the Abu Ghraib tortures?
I wouldn't think they would be held accountable in such a micro situation.

Bush had Gonzales dream up the excuses for torture. But I forgot. When Bush leads, leaders aren't responsible for the results of their decisions.