Bush approval rating tracker

[Cornerthree]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm

Look at last five years...

That war in Afghanistan, pulled his ratings to the top...

[Zoom]

Yeah well, Americans felt that it was the best thing to do.. same with Iraq war... both announcements of going to war pulled his ratings up. Apart from that, nothing exciting...

[Steve [The Spiderman]]

It's funny though because now everyone hates him for the war. People are so fucking dumb!

[Indy]

It's funny though because now everyone hates him for the war. People are so fucking dumb!

The people that were for it in the first place were dumb. I've been against it since the day it started, and so have millions of other people.

[Steve [The Spiderman]]

Either way, people would still hate Bush if he didn't go to war. They would be saying, "See, he can't even defend his country," and so forth. No matter what he chose, he would have been crucified. I think going to war was a better approach then just letting our people get attacked by terrorists. Now, Bush may have had hidden agendas (oil and such) but would you rather let the thousands of people die in 9/11 for naught? Would you rather show the terrorists that your country is to cowardly to fight back? I think not.

[Indy]

I'm not going to get in to this debate once again. But since you've typed all that out, I'll make one post on the subject.

First of all, when Osama Bin Laden was recruiting people who would carry out his 9/11 plans, I guarantee what he said to them is very close to what you are saying. He probably said we can't let all these attacks that have been taking place on our soil, killing thousands of our people happen without retaliation. We have to strike back, hence 9/11. Not to mention the fact that the main military strike was on Iraq, not on the taliban, and that we never captured and killed Bin Laden. I think we look kind of silly right now, not strong. We've gone to war and killed over 300,000 innocent civilians in Iraq (and that's a modest number) and we have no idea what has happened to Bin Laden or where he is. Does that show strength? I definitley don't think so. Do you think that makes our military look like the best in the world?

[Oznogrd]

When our president announced "we're gonna go on a crusade" after the events of 9/11...i knew we were in deep shit. Then the war on terror was announced. Here is my question. How can you win a war on an abstract subject? the war on terror also apparently only applies to middle eastern terror...do you guys how many terrorists there are in the latin american countries? Or in Africa? hell even in asia for that matter? terrorism will always be around against a world superpower. The entirety of the world isnt going to like you just because you have more nukes than them. But anyway, If W. had told me the Iraq war wasnt so much a war as our doing a duty as a world super power and ending a despotic tyrant's rule...i would've been fine. But he knew the American people wouldnt go for that so we spun it a bit "we have connections to 9/11 and WMD's" in Iraq...and guess what? still havent found anything but a fucking smoking gun....and of course, i believe the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, Not afghan or Iraqi....yet we arent attacking them. The best offense is a good defense guys...i'm all for homeland security and better surveillance of terrorist activities, but we officially pissed off the world by saying "fuck you" to the UN and going to Iraq...the only people on our side are the people not brave enough to challenge us.

On a sidenote: the UN is practically useless...all talk, no execution....

[Indy]

and of course, i believe the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, Not afghan or Iraqi....yet we arent attacking them.

That's not really a belief, its a fact, and there's a reason we didn't attack Saudi Arabia.

[Oznogrd]

the i believe was more of a statement of i "i know its true but republicans i know deny it"...*starts a church lady from SNL impression* could it be.....Oil???

[cyanide]

That's not really a belief, its a fact, and there's a reason we didn't attack Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure, but it has something to do with money, oil, or business?

I'm thinking the leaders of Iraq and the States didn't get on good terms in the aforementioned areas.

[Axel]

Saudi Arabia is the most oil rich country in the world. No way would Bush jeopardize such an important connection... although unbeknowest to most Americans, Argentina is our country's biggest oil supplier.

[Steve [The Spiderman]]

Illini, I totally agree with what you are saying about winning war on an abstract idea. It really can't be done; even if you were to kill all the terrorists or people with similar ideas, more would come along.

[benji]

although unbeknowest to most Americans, Argentina is our country's biggest oil supplier.

It's probably unbeknownest because it's not our biggest foreign oil supplier. Canada is. Followed by Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. I don't think Argentina is even in the top 50. I know it's not in the top 25.

Anyway...how about some more truth.

The "War on Terror" has never been a war on an "abstract idea" look at the firestorm when Bush recently noted that it was on Islamofascists. It's always been a war against Islamism. Debating semantics doesn't negate the justification of any war. We called the first world war "The War To End All Wars" before we had that second one pop-up.

-There were never "attacks taking place on our soil, killing thousands" for the people bin Laden recruited. The largest killing of muslims in the last few decades has been by muslims (Iran-Iraq War, Kuwaiti Invasion and The Hussein Massacres head the list) and bin Laden wasn't declaring war on them anymore.
-300,000 innocent civilians WERE killed in Iraq, by Saddam Hussein. But that was prior to the 2003 operation. Let's clarify that number post-operation because "Iraq Body Count" which includes terrorist attacks puts the number below 50,000.
-We know where bin Laden is, he's in the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, if he isn't dead. We haven't seen the fucking guy in years, his "number two" does all the video tapes.
-It is true that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's, but that doesn't mean we should attack their country. If some Aussie shoots a bunch of people in Germany, should Germany attack Australia? Saudi Arabia does support Islamism, but it wasn't harboring al Qaeda members like Afghanistan and Iraq.

The case for ending the war in Iraq in 2003 was this:
Saddam had violated 17 UN Resolutions, the sanctions were beginning to collapse, he possessed WMD programs and had in the past protected WMDs themselves, he had invaded two of his neighbors, he massacred on his own soil, supported terrorism, harbored terrorists including al Qaeda members (even put one on the government payroll!), in a post-9/11 world it could no longer be accepted to leave him in power with sanctions collapsing allowing him to restart WMD programs.

If Saddam had not been toppled in 2003, he would be joining NK and Iran in going nuclear within the few years. We would still be in Afghanistan (this time with Iran sending all it's forces over that border instead of splitting them) bumming around there.

Even if bin Laden was/is captured/killed, it is nothing more than a symbolic victory. He's long left being the operational head of al Qaeda (ever since it stopped sucking) and with his finances gone he's little more than a figurehead (that you don't even see anymore) for them. His capture/death doesn't end the war against Islamism, anymore than Stalin's death ended the Cold War. With the Taliban toppled and bin Laden captured, there's still Iraq, Iran and Syria out there.

Because of the decision to end the war in Iraq in 2003, there's one less on the list today.