I know some people would rather have a separate forum section for political threads,
outside of chit-chat. Maybe that's a good idea.
I'm posting my thoughts on things because the more feedback I get from people,
the more convinced I get that I'm not crazy but the world is (currently).
And if we want a better world (in the future), it's up to us.

Sometimes I don't want anything to do with politics.
Sometimes I think it's very important.
Every now and then I think about it for a while, but what gets me most is how faulty the system is (in most countries).
So much money is wasted. So much useless paperwork.

And I think there's a problem with politicians and diplomats:
Maybe they're TOO EXPERIENCED, TOO ABLE, TOO CUNNING at the art of conversation.
They influence (de-eufemised: manipulate) people with sweet talk, empty promises, and lies.
There's another problem in the system, that makes the first problem worst:
People vote for such 'charismatic' individuals.
(some very clear examples of this are actors like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger)
They like seeing their face, hearing them speak.

Maybe politics are SUPPOSED to be factual ('boring'):
NO PICTURES, NO VOICE, JUST TEXT
NO BUSH, NO KERRY, JUST POLITICAL ISSUES, SOLUTIONS, AND ARGUMENTS
Do you want to watch Bush on tv, or your country run properly?

It's funny how the word CAUTION draws a person in

I agree with you about people voting on the grounds of liking someone as opposed to if they can do the job...But you kinda get that everywhere you go in life.

They make it all sound good (before elections), but if you look back, you see they often didn't do what they said they would; Bush sure didn't..

We all know Bill Clinton is a good liar.
You can take my word for it, or learn the hard way:
Lies don't get you out of trouble;
they only get you deeper in trouble.

According to studies, body language plays a big part in charisma - but what does body language have to do with politics?

I believe in the Peter Principle.

Unfortunately we don't have laws in place that will put politicians in jail if they lie...I wonder who makes the laws

I guess so.
But maybe it's more important to make sure someone is fit for the job if he wants to run a country.
Yet the irony is popular politicians are usually much more charismatic than common people.
It's easy to like Clinton. Maybe too easy.
That doesn't say much about his intentions or capabilities.

I don't think I'd heard of that before;
here's the definition:

Sounds logical.
But then who should take the top positions?
Or should those be taken out of the system?

Clinton was one of the most likable presidents ever next to JFK...and if JFK wasn't assassinated...would people like him as much?

Lol...how true. It drew me.



Just my opinion, but I didn't think Clinton wasn't very likeable. I muched prefer Jimmy Carter over Clinton. He was more down to earth, although he may not have had enough initiative to get what he wanted.

They're pretty advanced at detecting lies nowadays, with several techniques and devices;
but they mostly use those on criminals (and maybe the CIA uses them too).
Why don't they use those at every press conference?

Yeah...you're right...Jimmy Carter is one very very very nice guy.

No politician would agree to that I bet

It seems like society is so used to all the lies they (we) just put up with it...The only tool we have to fight it is vote for who we think has lied the least.

Yes Jimmy Carter will (or should) go down in history as the only president that was MUCH more effective after he was president. That man has done more for humanity then any other president and still actively continues to this day fighting for equality and human rights at the age of 80.

Yes we all know politicians lie...I think once they step in the city of Washington DC its like something posseses them (most of the time big corporations) and they forget they are there representing the people not special interests.

Yes Bill Clinton lied we all know that but there is nobody and I mean NOBODY (as far as presidents) better at lying, spinning and just downright skewing the truth as G W Bush.

Quoting myself again to clarify why I said what I said:
I mentioned American examples because they are well-known.
I don't hate America;
I just don't want it to screw up the world.

With people who are so easy to like (and trust) and/or who are so adept at lying,
we just don't know if they have their own agenda.
But good intentions are important for people in power to have.
Hitler was quite a successful politician, a charismatic leader (Fűhrer)..

Propaganda has not disappeared after WWII;
we've seen that with the 'proof' of weapons of mass destruction.

Being a politician myself, I could go on for hours and hours....but I won't

To strt: Alex, when you say politics, you actually just mean the political area now do you? Couse politics is much more than that

I don't think you are covering the whole political area when you focus on 'the president' or 'the prime minister' or 'the king'. As you know very well Alex, Balkenende (to name another example, closer to our home) doesn't run the Netherlands...........he's just the face of the political area in the Netherlands (and a lot of people are very gratefull for that ).

I guess that's more or less the same for Bush. Of course he surrounds himself with people who have more or less the same opinion as he has, but it's not him who takes all the decisions, even though that may look that way. He can't know everything about everthing (I know, this one is to easy, but if someone wants to kick him in....be my guest ). Talking about the Dutch situation: the decisions Balkenende makes are already handed to him by his staff, he just has to put his name underneath it.............

Charismatic persons? Hmm, I don't think there's much wrong with them. Look at Reagan (God bless his soul), he was friends with everybode, got along with all the great names in the world, and could start conversations. He had a well educated administration behind him. I for one would love to see a government like that: a charismatic person, who appeals to people, who get things done just by smiling ( allright....a little bit of exaggeration here ) and a well trained, experienced and educated team behind him (or her).

Whatever we may think, or like to think: It's not Bush himself personally alone who said: I'm going to send some soldiers to Irak, let's play war.............whatever role he may have played in the desicion, it wasn't his to make alone........he's a president, he's not a dictator, nor the owner of America.

Politics......hmm, always avoid talking religion and politics my dad learned me


BTW: I read a signature somewhere on this forum from someone stating that the only thing he/she disliked more than spellingfault were grammarfaults....I hope that person never ends op on a foreignforum

Of course Bush doesnt make the decisions alone, however he does surround himself with "like" people and IF the Senate is controlled by his party who happens to be Republican (as it is now) then they in most cases do not cross party lines. When I refer to "Bush" I am refering to his administration as a whole, which I believe he is responsible for since he picks and chooses for the most part who he will surround himself with.

I dont know why when it seems anyone refers to G W Bush as a liar, others think they call him that because of Iraq. For me it goes FAR beyond that. I still think he lied about Iraq, but he lied about SO many things as governor of Texas and then when running for republican nominee for president(does anyone even remember what Bush and his crew did to John McCain?) and then president. It's G W Bush's whole life and his political career I am referring to when I call him a liar.

The bottom line the president IS the one responsible as Harry S Truman once said "The buck stops here"

I believe bush took the right to vote away with cheating the system.



Bush personally himself sent the soldiers to Iraq. He went against the majority vote not to send the troops to iraq. Thanks to his dear old dad, when he was in office made a loophole law that allowed him to do so.



Will sombody please tell him that!

Amen to that!

I had to change the quote because it's not just for me,
its for everyone.

Yes I understand

I visited your bushfreecountdown.
I might post a couple of cartoons I made later.

Oh yes I would like to see them...if you have a website PM me I can cross link with you if you want

Here is the link to the cartoons I made of bush.


http://www.angeltowns2.com/members/profit/bush.htm

bush the butcher of Baghdad with blood still fresh on his hands has thrown Iraqi into chaos since starting his illegal immoral and totally unjustifiable war that was opposed by the UN and most of the world. This invasion was a terrorist attack and completely unprovoked. It was also on false pretenses. bush lied about the reason to go to war on numerous occasions. There are no WOMD, there never were any except in this madmans perverse fantasies. The country is far more unstable under his tyrancy and the killings and bomb blasts appear to be practically a daily event. Not content with wrecking his own economy back home he has destroyed the economies of both Afghanistan and Iraq. He has also ruined and polluted the environment in both countries. Also under the bush regime the United States human rights record has taken a savage blow. People are held without trial for years on end while being systimatically abused and violated of their human rights. Candice Rice, or whatever her name is, the new secretary of state stated the US would lead the world in democracy and freedom but its more like colonialism and torture. bush killed at least 25 times MORE in Iraqi than bin laden did on sept 11 so whose the biggest terrorist? Well over 1000 military personnel have been slaughtered defending bush's lies. If sadam hussein can be held to account for his crimes he allegedly committed then why not bush? Why can't bush be tried for crimes against humanity such as genoicide, torture and other war crimes and be treated with the severity of the full force of the law like he so richly deserves? Seems like double standards and one rule for one and another rule for another.

Cool you did a great job I should hire you to do some for me

I added more to the website.

That's one view of the facts.
Even if you don't agree with this view,
be aware that many people around the world do see the facts in this way (or very similar).
To understand why they feel this way, imagine this:
How would you feel if a big army would bomb and invade YOUR country, with little respect for civilians,
claiming you were hiding weapons of mass destruction which aren't there, while you know the invader DOES have weapons of mass destruction, and is testing new weapons on your country?
In our country, most people voted against the war, but our government decided to join the fight anyway.

btw. I thought Rice was OUT when it was exposed that she had lied,
but Bush promoted her instead.

I don't just want to focus on the war, I'll post some more on politics later,
but WAR IS NASTY. We agreed we wouldn't do that anymore after WWII..

If you want to do things you can. Find A Way, my new saying. I am a bit like you Alex, I studied predictions and I studied international humanitarian law, I went to the UN Library and did a study on Human Rights. I wanted to find a way to ban nuclear weapons, I found a way thru protocols banning weapons like poison and fire (it could be argued radiation is a poison) There was a weapons treaty signed years ago. (the Hague Convention I think) I was on Sky News In England twice, once about war crimes and once about nuclear weapons with Robin Cook the English freign minister at the time although I didnt mention about my banning ideas. I just said that England having nuclear weapons there made it more of a target. A few months later they said they were taking some out of the submarines. About war crimes I quoted Nostradamus who said "they will live without law exempt from politics" I realised from that the answer was international law. Since then the International Criminal Court has started thanks God. I did one other thing. When I studied the Geneva Conventions I found a law that said that The Commander was responsible for what his troops do on the ground. I called CNN and told them this on their viewer comment line and said that a certain someone could be arrested on this. Guess what, 6 months later he was arrested and whats more they said they had decided to do it in January which was the month I called. (back in 1999) He was the first head of state arrested under this law. Did I help? I dont know. I dont know if CNN did anything with my call.
I also studeid nuclear civil defence.

I think Rice is a very intellegent woman..she received her doctorate when she was 24 I believe. I just have a problem with her very personal close ties to GW Bush. It is widely known she isnt married (they say she is married to her work) and spends her weekends with GW Bush and his family. Everyone knows how I feel about Bush so if C Rice is that close to Bush then well...thats good enough for me not to vote her in..lol Nevermind her ties to Chevron oil (they named an oil tanker after her). If she worked under any other president then any of the Bush's I would feel differently about her, but Bush is surrounded by people with major "oil" ties and that alone makes me wary.

EDITED to add: I was not surprised Bush promoted her after she lied...why shouldnt he? He lies or skews the truth and most likely thinks thats a good thing

I'd disagree with that. G W Bush is no worse or better than any other president we've recently had in the last century when it comes to lying. Aside from that, how good someone is at lying, spinning, or skewing the truth depends on how many people are fooled. If the people are fooled by a lie, it is the PEOPLE's fault for being fooled. There is only a few million people in the government, there are HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of voters.

If Bush was really that bad a president, he wouldn't have been able to get more votes than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE ENTIRE US HISTORY, not to mention be the first president in a long time to get more than 50 percent of the vote. If you want to blame someone, don't blame Bush.

Blame the the Democratic Party for failing to put in a winning candidate, running on a ABB (anybody but Bush) platform, for being SO liberal that they are out of touch with most Americans, and for being to afraid to take a stand on a controversial issue. THEY are the ones losing seats in the house and the senate. THEY are the ones that lost the house during the CLINTON YEARS.

I'm not a big fan of Bush, I'm really not, but I sure wouldn't want the bunch of obstructionists who call themselves Democrats to be running the country.

(ok now, I'm done with my rant for the day )

Maybe it's because Bush wasn't really accused of being a lier in the liberal media and by liberal democrats until after the Iraq war, and whenever the discussion of Bush being a lier comes up, Iraq always comes up as well. Don't forget Democrats DO have a motive in trying to make Bush look bad.

Funny you should call bush a butcher of Baghdad. I thought that was a title reserved mainly for Saddam and his two sons. It is true over 100,000 Iraqis died, but most of those were troops. Troop casualties and civilian casualties are two different things. Osama killed civilians. The Iraqis that died weren't civilians for the most part, and lets not forget that not all Iraqi deaths are innocent people. most of them were Iraqis that tried to kill US troops or were in Saddams military.

The only reason why you think Bush lied under false pretenses is because you think WMDs were the ONLY reason we went to war. I think bush was wrong on his belief about WMDs, but even Bush said he still would have gone to war even if there weren't any WMDs. He just would have gone about it a bit differently.

Fact of the matter is that they listed MANY reasons for going to war, not just WMDs. For one, the war was completely within international law, and if it wasn't other nations would have taken it up in the UN. Secondly, it was a matter of UN credability. Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN, and sanctions weren't gonna work because of the OIL-FOR-FOOD scandal which (surprise surprise) France, Russia, and Germany were involved in (so THAT's why they didn't support the war....hmmm). If Saddam was allowed to get away with disobeying UN resolutions, the UN would lose credability and thus become useless in dealing with other rogue nations.

Frankly, I think we should have gone to war long ago with Saddam, specifically in 1998 when Saddam kicked out the inspectors from his country. We should have done what Bush did and threaten to invade Iraq if Saddam didn't let them right back in. Too bad CLINTON was too much of a wimp and too occupied with his own scandals to care much about Iraq.

Also, Bush didnt wreck the economies of Afganistan and Iraq. The Taliban did it to Afganistan (actually it was in shambles for decades), and Saddam and sanctions combined destroyed the Iraq economy. Even though the country is unstable now, and you will always have instability when you overthrow a dictator, but it won't be that way in 5 years time. Ultimately, Iraq will be better off than it was under Saddem, and this will hopefully spur the people in other middle eastern countries to have democracies in their own nations.

REAL democratic elections are happening now in Iraq, and collin powel even made some comments about decreasing the number of troops we have in Iraq in 6 months depending on how stable the country is (although he didnt give an exact timetable).

Once again I am NOT a democrat. I am a registered Independent. I never voted for Bush you know why? Because I did research I read and read before the election and I have facts to back up the reasons why I say he is a liar. It has nothing to do with mainstream media. If you stopped focusing on trying to deflect this conversation to "Democrats" and "Clinton" maybe you could be open minded enough to listen and learn about GW Bush. Apparently you arent open minded enough and feel bringing up Clinton and Democrats as a response to facts about GW Bush

I really havent seen much of any facts from you as far as Bush NOT lying. I have brought up plenty of ways he has lied and you have no response to that and really the WMD has nothing to do with it for me. I am talking about years of lying and misleading the American people including Texans when he was governor there.

How can you rationally defend someone who has consistantly lied or told 1/8ths truth(half truth isnt even close had to go alot lower then that)? Someone who has flushed the USA's reputation throughout the world down the toilet? How can you defend that? Just because you think he "isnt" a wimp like Clinton? Frankly I dont want or never would want a president that had 1/4 of a brain. One that would go off half cocked before thinking out a situation carefully. Funny how Bush seems to drag his behind on issues others think are very important like making Canadian drugs avaiable to Americans and stem cell research...but when its HIS agenda he goes off gung ho. Sorry but I cant understand why any rational person would defend GW Bush and his lies.

Trivia Question: How many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq ?????

0 most were Saudi Nationals

Exactly

Which is funny when bush supporters link the war in Iraq with 9/11

George W Bush Rock Ruless

He Save two Country from Dictatorship. Now Iraqis Have their First Democracy Election since 50 Years Old.


George W Bush You're Rock. For Those People calling Bush is Evil Man!!!

Shame of you. YOu don't want to think about the Future of Iraq

Right On!


Since we're on the topic of clinton.
I would like to say that the only thing clinton lied about(that I know of)
is cheating on his wife. That is not a worldly affair that is his affair.

David shame on you...you dont care about OUR country and what GW Bush has done to it....one day when you go to the library try something new read ...then maybe you will have a leg to stand on

Of course the US government refuses to release a civilian death count. If they did I am sure it wouldnt be accurate anyways. But as it stands now according to Iraq Body Count, the estimated civilian death toll is between 15563 and 17789.

The world cannot risk a country under a rogue state like Saddam because of the war on terror. This is a struggle for peace. This country is at risk from civil war and total anarchy. it is washed in blood. looks like a struggle against satan and from where I sit the americans are the good guys. why do I say this? Because of the murder taking place, that is satanic for sure.

Not much changed when Saddam was captured.
His people are still rebelling; they don't want to give up their power.
And after the "shock and awe" war was over, more people died on both sides;
you just don't bomb a country into peace - but into pieces.
There ARE better, positive, constructive ways to establish peace.


America is just more secretive with its murders. That doesn't make it less bad.
And in the war many civilians died too.

Its a war for democracy and to free the people. it is freeing a nation from dictatorship. This does not bode well for the future though. Man is living on borrowed time. Conflict and murder is a fact on this planet. Mass murders are common eg the civilians (jews) in WW2. The weapons just got bigger thats all. Its obvious what is going to happen. The terrorists will get their hands on WMD. I am glad I am older and had freedom from this. it will be a problem for the young people of today. They are going to have to learn skills like paramedical and farming etc. I went to the hospital yesterday. one male nurse looked like an angel. the nurses and doctors are the angels of the world.

I just dont think forcing your way of life on any country or people is the correct way to go about things.
I do not see the USA as the "good guys" as GW Bush would like to american people to think. It reminds me of early missionaries going to remote villages and pushing Christianity and "civilization" on "savages" because they felt it was for their better good. When in the end they brough disease and other "ways" of life that damaged these people beyond return.

We as American people during the revolutionary war we READY for freedom we fought for it....we wanted it at any cost. It is not the same in Iraq. Many embrace the idea of Saddam being gone but to drastically change their way of life I dont believe a majority are ok with that. I dont believe the Iraqi people are as hungry for what american government calls democracy. There are still many areas after 2 years of this invasion who dont have clean water or electricty that YES they had before. I am not saying in any way their life was better with Saddam...I cant honestly say I didnt not live thru it. Yet I can make my decisions based upon whats happening now and I dont believe I would want to live without electricity, clean water, having to wait for days in gasoline lines ....especially waiting in a country rich in oil.

I dont agree. I think Bush was pushed into this by advisors because I remember the push, push, push. Now thats its done they have to stay the course. I think it was the right decision, in the greater scheme of things. The worlds problems will never be solved however. There are other rogue states. Freedom has been worth fighting and dying for for many years. Many more will die from violence before the end of the earth. At the monent these warlords (thats what they are the ones planting the bombs etc) cannot be not challenged.

What a sweet thing to say. As a nurse practitioner, I'm going to take that as a huge complmnent.

Now, I'm backing out of this thread to only lurk again......

NO offense at all to you but GW Bush over the years has never been "pushed" into anything..lol
If it happened it happened the other way around Bush pushed others into things.

I still recommend everyone that has an opinion on this to at least have an open enough mind to not believe everything the government tells you or what they "produce" in the media. If any of you had read 1/4 of what I have read on The Bush family and especially GW Bush I think your eyes would be opened.

What baffles me is how many people chewed up and spit out other presidents for lying etc yet for some reason (I have no clue myself) people believe every word Bush says...one day maybe I will understand that

Sitting around criticising is not going to help at all. Its easy to be an armchair cowboy, not so easy to do the job. There are many problems that need solving. Criticising is not solving problems. A united nation will stand. A divided nation will fall. the US will never fall as long as they have a copy of the constitution somewhere. the only thing I have seen about George Bush I dont like is that he doesnt like gay marriages.

I disagree and I am not critisizing him. I am bringing to light things he has done which I am sure since you dont live in the USA you wouldnt even know about, unless you happen to read books/articles about Bush and or his cabinet.
A complacent people...ones that blindly follow the leader is what divides a country. I dont go around bring up facts because I dream these up...these things happened its fact and so we sit back like good patriotic americans and accept our fate? I dont think so..lol Not me.

Do you care about the world environment? (GW Bush is the worst president in decades as far as the evironment at home and worldwide) If you do then how can you support Bush. He pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty which aimed to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide...which 165 other nations signed in 2001

I could list more if you like...of course most effect strictly the USA

what about whitewater?