<p>Bush-bashing has just become a mindless knee-jerk reaction among young people.</p>
<p>The Americans that died were in the armed forces. They DO NOT have a choice over whether they want to go to Iraq or not.
If Bush ordered an invasion of Canada, the troops would do it.
Bush is the one who invaded and didn't even have enough troops for a secure occupation. </p>
<p>I wonder what his new plan will be.</p>
<p>and Fides, a lot of people, regardless of age, bash Bush.</p>
<p>the Bush Administration is indirectly responsible for many deaths though. by ending the ba'athist rule they opened a pandora's box. Iraq is in a civil war because of the invasion (and largely because the British and French after WWI don't know how to draw borders properly) and suicide bombing, etc. is only a symptom of that. Is Bush responsible for the religious tensions that boil in Iraq? No, but he is responsible for the instability.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bush-bashing has just become a mindless knee-jerk reaction among young people.
[/quote]
Most conservatives don't even like Bush anymore. I honestly don't understand how you could support a man like Bush throughout all of the turmoil he has gotten our country into. The people who criticize the government are the true patriots, not the blind-patriotism that was spurred during the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.</p>
<p>I want to see how this affects South Park. They cut him out of the show for a while, but will he return to hell to continue his love affair Satan? We'll all have to watch and find out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bush-bashing has just become a mindless knee-jerk reaction among young people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Young Democrats and Republicans, mind you. The standard line for a young conservative is, "I'm conservative, but it's not like I support Bush".</p>
<p>They're just afraid of the persecution that would follow an open approval of Bush. Nobody wants to be unpopular, especially young people.</p>
<p>Me, I don't give a damn. I f-ing LOVE Bush. You can hate me all you want.</p>
<p>Ha, come to my university if you want to see folks supporting Bush. I swear Ruston is why he still has as high an approval rating as he does.</p>
<p>Personally, I'm pretty neutral since I think there are definitely worse people that could be in charge right now. Sure he's made some mistakes, but honestly, his presidency has been nothing but easy so I can't really blame him. He's definitely gotten an unfair shake at things.</p>
<p>And people, the folks in the military know full well what they are signing up for. That argument may have worked back when the war first started (even then, though, they knew the risks), but people continue to enlist so you can't say that they didn't get a choice in the matter.</p>
<p>Well, I just like to remind some that Saddam's reign of terror in the 80s was fully supported by the U.S. Administration and other western "democracies" because Saddam was "anti-Iran/communism." Also keep in mind that the nerve gases, biological weapons and other munitions used in the killing of innocent Iraqis in the 1980s were provided by the United States government as well. I'm simply surprised that they never brought this up during Saddam's so-called "fair trial."</p>
<p>I feel bad for saddam. All he did was murder hundreds of people. Why did he have to die? Im sure with a little bit of counciling and rehab, he couldve come to see his wrong ways and wouldve morphed into a better person. Maybe we couldve reinstated him as the dictator of Iraq and he wouldve loved the US after we taught him a very good lesson. Then, he couldve ended the violence in Iraq by simply talking to the people. Yeah, putting him to death was wrong, just wrong. Im going to write my senative y el presidente. I feel sick over the whole situation. Im gonna go puke up my dinner now by sticking my fingers down my throat. That really tortures me! Didnt saddam torture people? thats no reason to kill him. I want to cry.</p>
<p>name somethings that BUSH has done that was good ina way for America. and I mean something good that is not a normal part of his job title as a president.</p>
<p>for God's sake, the most powerful man in the world can't give a decent speech without stuttering.</p>
<p>Id like to see you become president. I hate how everyone always says NAME ONE GOOD THING! </p>
<p>Ok. I'll name one good thing then. He once went to a baseball game in which poor kids were allowed to attend for free. He went there and talked to the kids individually. That was not part of his job as president. He took time out of his busy schedule to talk to a bunch of poor kids. So "ina way," that5 was good for America because it shows he cares about kids. Every other good thing is part of his job as president. There are more things. If you want to know, just post another bashing comment. Oh, and you should know that bush was elected in 2004. He cant be that bad, can he?</p>
<p>
[quote]
They're just afraid of the persecution that would follow an open approval of Bush. Nobody wants to be unpopular, especially young people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If young people are against a president who will undoubtedly become infamous in history out of "peer pressure" and "looking cool" (you sound like an after school special), then we need some more of that in our older population.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Id like to see you become president.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Soyeahiknow is not a son of a Nazi-affiliated, Saudi-associating, Yale-admission-buying American clan, so no, he or she'll probably never become president, as you much as you'd like to see it.</p>
<p>shastarasta: The fact that he took time out of his schedule to talk to poor kids reflects more on his aversion to work than to his concern for the poor.
Busy schedule? It ought to be busy but it isn't. All those "working vacations" he takes - BS. Well, I guess the more he is on vacation, the less chance of him screwing up America.</p>
<p>But yes, he has done some good things: tax cuts!</p>
<p>Until the Gulf War of 1990-1991, we supported Saddam in all he did, including the chemical weapons and gassing of the Kurds and Persians. I wouldn't be usually for the death penalty, but if it has to be done, it should be applied equally. SO since we supported Saddam from about 1979-1991 (basically Reagan's admin) let's hang Rumsfield. Since he's a Christian like the rest of the Reagan people we'll feed them to the lions, old school Roman style.</p>
<pre><code> From a historical perspective, I believe Saddam wasn't extremely bad , LET ME FINISH before you jump the cannon. Let's compare America and the Brits on one side and Russia and Iraq on the other. The former industrialized earlier and subjugated their populations and distinct minorities in a previous era (Civil War, Enclosure Act, removal of peasants). Russia and Iraq did the same thing, but later because they industrialized later. So that's why Russia and Iraq look bad because they did it in a later time period where people were more aware of human rights, press, etc. Usually modernization is accompanied with repression and subjugation, so what are you going to do.
</code></pre>
<p>Shastarasta thats all well and good but come on is that what he will be remembered for? I could easily leave my home and talk to poor kids or go from my dorm room into west Philadelphia and offer the same message for children who are underprivileged. I want a president to do things that I cant do...to stabilize a region to stimulate peace, to HELP those who were affected by hurricane katrina (instead of sitting around like a tool with no plan of action where citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could not even be supplied with drinking water from the most powerful government in the world) or to actually FINISH what we started (what ever happened to Osama? what was the point of Iraq?) So in the end what would you rather have?</p>
<p>Hanging on a holy day?!?!?!?! That's just wrong. I'm shocked that a country founded on the principles of liberty, freedom (which includes that of religion) and democracy would do something like that. That's just....wrong. I can't find any other way to put it. Bush should admit that yes we ****ed up in Iraq because we did and start over. We can't stay the course. If we do stay the course, we're going to run out of money without accomplishing anything.</p>
<p>Changing the strategy doesn't guarentee that the whole thing will go any faster, but staying the course is a guarentee of failure. And changing and failing is a risk that I'd be willing to take.</p>
<p>"Hanging on a holy day?!?!?!?! That's just wrong. I'm shocked that a country founded on the principles of liberty, freedom (which includes that of religion) and democracy would do something like that. That's just....wrong. I can't find any other way to put it."</p>
<p>Tell that to the Iraqi people. They're the ones who hung him -- and danced for joy afterward.</p>
<p>I think the fact that the whole execution was performed by Iraqis was only a symoblic or "ceremonious" procedure. The whole world knows that Saddam was under close U.S. monitor all the way until the last hours of his life. The building in which Saddam was hanged was guarded by (surprise! surprise!) U.S. troops and within the proximity of CIA supervision as well. </p>
<p>Furthermore, around 6 am of December 30, 2006, the United States (proudly...) became the first AND only nation in the world to issue an official "pre-prepared" statement hailing the ultimate death penalty of Saddam Hussein. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the execution as we now see it is shown to be an ugly, degrading business, which is more reminiscent of a public hanging in the 18th Century than a considered act of 21st Century official justice...</p>
<p>not to mention that saddam was transported by a US envoy when he was "handed over"...so yeah the US had no part in this...</p>