POLL: Is Bush a Moron?

Remove all ads!

Hey, Amaster! You ever heard of M.A.D.? It stands for Mutually Assured Destructions and it happens to countries who don't realize the futility of nuclear war. And *as I stated before,* terrorists and terrorism groups are not afraid of using them, but countries who want to be around more than 47 minutes after they launch a first strike attack against the US are.

 

Slim, you're absolutely right about what would happen to a country using nukes on the US. the problem is people are willing to do things they know will hurt them, or even kill them. I refer you to the Cuban Missile Crisis, any of the Berlin Crises, etc. Or maybe the tensions between India/Pakistan. Or cocaine users.

I don't think it's more likely than me getting hit by 12 lightning bolts simultaneously, but if you ASSUME it will never happen, then chances are someone will notice you're not guarding against it and take advantage, much to your sorrow.

{keep in mind, saddam just has to provide the nuke to someone else to be dangerous, not neccesarily have his own people use it}

[ August 30, 2002, 07:03: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

@Christopher Lee

Not only does Sodomy Insane have chemical weapons, he has used them in the past. Against the Kurds in his own country and against Iran. All of this is BEFORE the Persian Gulf War.

Did all of this happen before you were born or still in diapers? If so, fine. But do a little research before you spout. You dismiss something just because the US says it is so, but accept it because the UN corroborates it (a sorry display of ignorance).

Saddams use of chemical weapons is well documented outside the US. Since any corroborating source I would provide would be from the US, you should feel free to seek out other sources.

 

Slim, I agree with you about MAD. The problem comes when Saddam no longer has anything to lose. This is why I feel invading Iraq is sublimely stupid: we invade, defeat the Republican Guard and anything else Saddam throws at us. Saddam realizes he cannot win, that he is going to die or be captured no matter what he does. Now, there is damn near no chance that he can launch anything capable of actually striking the United States...so he attacks someone else he hates. ISRAEL. He could deluge them with missiles with biological or chemical payloads, leaving them weakened and still surrounded by hostile nation-states (as well as damned upset with the US, I'll assure you). Worst-case scenario: Israel invaded. Absolute worst case scenario: Israel decides the only way to defend themselves is to use one weapon no Arab state could match...their nukes.

Now, this is the worst possible thing that could happen and therefore quite unlikely. But any of that happening, from the missile attacks on Israel to a panicked Israel going too far, would be catastrophic.

 

I agree with the deviant mage entirely. Attacking Iraq makes others targets.

 

Correct. What's driving this is paranoia, as evidenced in the editorials I've read recently in several magazines. Whether this paranoia is justified remains to be seen.

 

I voted yes.

President Bush smells of poo.
And is wife is just a great big moo.
There are better presidents in the loo.
Coo coo ca choo.

Thank you, i rest my case.

 

Well surly Bush has better things to do then declare war on them. I agree that Saddam should die and all but there is probably a much better way than blowing the living sh*t out of his country.

 

Sprite i think Hitler had a mental disease. Something like megalomania combined with paranoid schizophrenia. He has written a book (in a prison) before he has been elected. And that book "mein Kampf" is total nonsense. As he was leader of Germany everybody had to buy that book, but only 4 or 5 % of the Germans did read that book, so nobody instead of Himmler and Göring and some others knew how ill Hitler was. This book is forbidden in Germany now, i think it's because otherwise the Neonazis might read it and get shocked by the realization that Hitler was a moron.
My grandmas father called him "the painter from Austria". He wasn't german.
While he was leading this country it mutated to a Police State. As it's easier to influence children, most of them had to be members of the "Hitlerjugend". Which was organized brain washing. Adults even had to fear that there children denounce them to the police if they made a joke about Hitler or listened to foreign music.
If someone wanted to be part of the Nazisystem he had to have an "Ariernachweis". Hitler and his helpers not only killed foreigners but a lot of germans too.
And yes i hope this won't happen to us any more.
(Back to topic)
But maybe it'll happen to USA?
I wonder if the Americans have actually voted for Bush. Anyone here who voted for him?

 

Even if someone voted for him it's not their fault, i think he fooled us all. Whenever i saw him on TV before he ws elected he seemed perfectly normal.

 

I've read through everything on this thread, two things to say.
Bush is the avatar and completeness of idiocy.

How can anyone condone using an atomic bomb, seiously?

 

This reminds me of a novel:

"Dr. Bush and Mr. Moron"

Though I'm certain BOTH are the SAME person.

 

Hiya! So far 52 europeans/nonamericans say that GW Bush is indeed a moron or an idiot and five say that he is not. Ok I loose the bet so far. All I can say is that Bush wins this new hair style. http://www.gotlaughs.com/funpages/mobush.cfm

Another "All I can say" is; hang in there Dude Bush. At least there can't be any sexscandals with you.

[ September 14, 2002, 03:28: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Bush is sadly far worse than a simple moron - he could well be the initiator of nuclear war. Certainly he is the most dangerous and unstable man to have run America (well at east been forefronted as running America...) in my lifetime. He wasn't even DEMOCRATICALLY voted in (dimpled chads, anyone?)...

To sum up how certainly 99% of people outside the USA (and probably at least 49% within) think of Bush - check out http://www.drparsons.fsnet.co.uk/georg.html

He talks of other countries 'oppression' and problems, bt he can't admit his own - 10% of the world population creating 90% of the polution, American Coorporations values plummetting with questionable accounting... economically the country has been even harder than physically.

America's government whines for allies to aid them in the motiveless invasion of another nation... yet in 1982 did they help the UK RECLAIM sovereign territory from the Argies? No.

I have no problem with the American people at large; I have friends there, I have worked with American colleagues and all of those I have met and known have been very optimistic friendly people. However, the people must look further than their own CNN style news to see the whole WORLDWIDE picture - the way Europe, Asia, Japan and the Middle-East...

REMEMBER, most of the mainly Islamic nations in the Middle-East are ALLIES - Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan... and Saudi Arabia (perhaps the most hardcore islamic nation in the world, increasingly moreso than Iran - which may soon have a 'liberal' overthrow). Iraq compared to these is relatively liberal! The Iraqi people at large do not deserve to die any more than the average American people.

Let's hope that Bush sticks with the UN rulings WHATEVER their decisions eventually are.

Remember, so far Saddam Hussain has played all the right media moves by saying and doing almost nothing! I have no love for him for sure, but he is certainly smarter than Bush (who isn't?)...

 

Ah, yes, now that the sex scandals have been brought up, I remember the way the Republican party kept using the sex thing against Clinton. I never cared about that. If Bill Clinton wanted to bang an intern (and a butt-ugly one at that) in his spare time, it was *his* problem.

Now it seems George Bush Jr. wants to start a nuclear war with Saddam Hussein, and that´s *everyone´s* problem. A full scale nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Iraq would have dire consequences for the entire world! What in the hell is he thinking?

I don´t know if George W. Bush is a moron, but he sure is acting like one.

But yeah, I do agree the possibilities of there being any sex scandals with him are low to non-existant.

[ September 14, 2002, 04:34: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

 

I hope you will forgive me, as this is the first time I have ever posted to a topic without reading all the replies, but 115 -- sheesh.

George Bush is the president of my country, and as such should be accorded a higher level of respect than this. Is he wrong? Yes. About absolutely *everything* in life? Yes! But a *moron*? Please.

Your mama.

 

All of you "enlightened" liberals should really for once try making an argument without resorting to name calling. Do I mind that you disagree with Bush? Of course not, that's your right. But to call him a moron? Can you actually say for a fact that he's dumb, or are you just doing it because you don't agree with him and you don't feel like forming an actual argument?

This is why debating politics in this country is so annoying. Rather than actually debate, instead people pull out the name calling. That's why Bush is a moron, Tom DeLay is dangerous, and Colin Powell is an "Uncle Tom" (Al Gore's campaign manager actually said that!).

Why have debate when you can hurl insults like children?

 

But we have had a debate, its just that there was some namecalling inbetween the actual debating

 

Hitler was gay, but that was highly taboo in those days, so he had to opress those feelings resulting in paranoia and schizophrenia.

So if anyone is gay, listen to Kooran, and we can all prevent WWIII.

BTW, maybe Bush is gay!! now that would be a scandal

[ September 15, 2002, 06:55: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

@Acragas -- I believe one of the reasons that the campaigns resorted to name-calling was because the candidates essentially agreed on most topics. That left the race one of personality...which was sad, considering the two guys involved.