George Bush Comes In Third

B

benny

Dryer sheet wannabe
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
24
Seems to me that some here might be mildly interested in how some Canadians feel. Others here won't care one way or the other I imagine.

quote:

Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061103/bush_poll_061103/20061103?hub=World
 
He is going to be ticked off he didn't rate higher.
Of course, he does have two years left.
 
Zathras said:
He is going to be ticked off he didn't rate higher.
Of course, he does have two years left.
Click to expand...

He did particularly well in the UK having secured top honours.

Quote: The most pessimistic responses came from Britain, where 69 per cent of people said American foreign policy has made the world less safe since 2001. In fact, British respondents said Bush poses an even greater danger than Kim Jong Il.
 
[quote='max' ]
He did particularly well in the UK having secured top honours.

Quote: The most pessimistic responses came from Britain, where 69 per cent of people said American foreign policy has made the world less safe since 2001. In fact, British respondents said Bush poses an even greater danger than Kim Jong Il.
[/quote]

And for the Brits, he probably does.... I remember being over in Europe and someone said that THEY should have a vote for the American president as he (the president) has more influence over his(the guy's) life than his own Prime Minister...
 
[quote='max' ]
Seems to me that some here might be mildly interested in how some Canadians feel.
[/quote]

not really ;)...is this maximillion posting again...
 
[quote='max' ]
Seems to me that some here might be mildly interested in how some Canadians feel. Others here won't care one way or the other I imagine.

quote:

Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061103/bush_poll_061103/20061103?hub=World

B*** S***! America is #1 at everything ;)

[/quote]
 
[quote='max' ]
Seems to me that some here might be mildly interested in how some Canadians feel.[/quote]

No Max. This isn't new news. I'd be mighty disappointed if Amercans were anxiously awaiting inputs from "some Canadians" to determine their political outlook.
 
youbet said:
No Max. This isn't new news. I'd be mighty disappointed if Amercans were anxiously awaiting inputs from "some Canadians" to determine their political outlook.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you on this point.

Nonetheless my guess is that many Americans must be asking themselves serious questions about their president who will be in office another two years. And probably amongst that group would be every second poster/lurker here since Bush got in by the narrowest of margins in both 2000 and in 2004.

Whether Bush deserves the dubious distinction is really besides the point. It all boils down to perception.
 
[quote='max' ]
Nonetheless my guess is that many Americans must be asking themselves serious questions about their president
[/quote]

Many Americans ask themselves serious questions about every president.
Every time I like one, I find plenty of others that don't. Every time I don't like one, I find plenty of others that do.

Our current president will be gone in two years and most likely significantly handicapped after next weeks elections change the control of Congress. While bashing him is fun, it really is time to start thinking about what's next, less about what we don't like today and more about what we do want in the future.
 
IIRC Reagan was said to be the dumbest person alive and was making the world less safe by pushing the Russians. We see how that turned out.
 
[quote='max' ]
I tend to agree with you on this point.

Nonetheless my guess is that many Americans must be asking themselves serious questions about their president who will be in office another two years. And probably amongst that group would be every second poster/lurker here since Bush got in by the narrowest of margins in both 2000 and in 2004.

Whether Bush deserves the dubious distinction is really besides the point. It all boils down to perception.
[/quote]

Well put.
 
[quote='max' ]Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth. [/quote]
Well, heck, in this widely-regarded and highly credible poll Bush beat his nearest competitor by nearly a 5:1 margin, and Jong-Il only came in sixth!

http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/shop/html/weasel_poll_results_2006.html
 
Some here may recall the 1964 campaign. Goldwater supposedly would, if elected, have been a threat to world peace. Unlike George Bush he never made it as president so we shall never know.

From wikipedia:

A campaign advertisement, known popularly as Daisy, shown only once, filmed a child, a young girl, counting daisy petals, from one to ten. Immediately following this scene, a voiceover counted down: ten, nine, eight, ... three, two, one. The child's face was shown as a still photograph followed by images of nuclear explosions and mushroom clouds. The campaign advertisement ended with a plea to vote for Johnson, seemingly implying that Goldwater would start a nuclear war if he won. The advertisement, which featured only a few spoken words of narrative and relied on imagery for its emotional impact, was one of the most provocative moments in American political campaign history, and many analysts credit it as being the birth of the modern style of "negative political ads" on television. The ad only aired once, and was immediately pulled. (Goldwater called Johnson personally and threatened to sue him.)
 
[quote='max' ]
Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth.
[/quote]

Canadians can take comfort that the weapons of Kim Jong Il, Osama and Ahmadinejad are not pointed their way.

It strikes me that many of these same folks would have thought Winston Churchill the "most dangerous man" in the late 1930s, favoring the "dialog" of Neville Chamberlain instead.
 
3 Yrs to Go said:
Canadians can take comfort that the weapons of Kim Jong Il, Osama and Ahmadinejad are not pointed their way.

It strikes me that many of these same folks would have thought Winston Churchill the "most dangerous man" in the late 1930s, favoring the "dialog" of Neville Chamberlain instead.
Click to expand...

I can only agree with you in part.

Yes indeed Osama is and still is a clear threat. Not only to the Americans (9-11) but take a look at what Al Quaeda has done in other parts of the world, for instance London, Madrid, and Indonesia.

As for North Korea and Iran, if indeed there is a real threat, well time will tell. But then that is all in the realm of the potential.

Iraq BTW was supposed to have been a threat but the WMD never existed.

As to Churchill in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain was either naive or wanted to look the other way.

Also I would remind us all that the Americans did nothing to help but it took Pearl Harbour to get them going. And it wasn't even the Nazis that did the bombing but the Japs.

I cannot see the logic in your comparison.
 
Hey butthole: you going for ban #3? Or is it a higher #?
 
[quote='max' ]
Also I would remind us all that the Americans did nothing to help but it took Pearl Harbour to get them going. [/quote]

It's true that the Canadians declared war two years before the USA, but it was in name only.......

Canada was unprepared for war. The regular army of 4500 men, augmented by 51,000 partly-trained reservists, possessed virtually no modern equipment. The air force had fewer than 20 modern combat aircraft while the navy’s combat potential consisted of only six destroyers, the smallest class of ocean-going warships. It was a modest beginning.
 
youbet said:
It's true that the Canadians declared war two years before the USA, but it was in name only.......

Canada was unprepared for war. The regular army of 4500 men, augmented by 51,000 partly-trained reservists, possessed virtually no modern equipment. The air force had fewer than 20 modern combat aircraft while the navy’s combat potential consisted of only six destroyers, the smallest class of ocean-going warships. It was a modest beginning.
Click to expand...

Yes that is fact and lamentably even today Canada still doesn't spend anywhere near the money that is needed.
 
[quote='max' ]
I can only agree with you in part.

Yes indeed Osama is and still is a clear threat. Not only to the Americans (9-11) but take a look at what Al Quaeda has done in other parts of the world, for instance London, Madrid, and Indonesia.

As for North Korea and Iran, if indeed there is a real threat, well time will tell. But then that is all in the realm of the potential.

Iraq BTW was supposed to have been a threat but the WMD never existed.

As to Churchill in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain was either naive or wanted to look the other way.

Also I would remind us all that the Americans did nothing to help but it took Pearl Harbour to get them going. And it wasn't even the Nazis that did the bombing but the Japs.

I cannot see the logic in your comparison.
[/quote]


The comparison is apt.

"in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement" - as is true today.
 
3 Yrs to Go said:
The comparison is apt.

"in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement" - as is true today.
Click to expand...

It is one thing to justifiably protect oneself against a known threat, Al Quaeda for instance. It is quite another to get bogged down in Iraq (USA and UK). I still don't see where there is a prevailing climate of appeasement today. If so, then which nations are doing the appeasing?
 
[quote='max' ]
It is one thing to justifiably protect oneself against a known threat, Al Quaeda for instance. It is quite another to get bogged down in Iraq (USA and UK). I still don't see where there is a prevailing climate of appeasement today. If so, then which nations are doing the appeasing?
[/quote]

On appeasement. What price has Iran paid for defying the world on its nuclear program? What price has North Korea paid for detonating a nuclear device, besides some weak sanctions that China immediately claimed it would not enforce? Is talking endlessly until tyrants achieve their nuclear objectives not appeasement?

Iraq is another example of appeasement. History has shown that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. History also shows that Iraq spent ~10 years violating U.N. resolutions all the while seeing a steady erosion of the sanctions against his regime. History further shows that Iraq used its oil wealth to pay for leniency and support at the U.N . . . Iran, surly you were paying attention?

The Iraq war was never about WMD, at least not exclusively. WMD was a pretense for regime change in order to bring democracy to the Middle East - which was, and is, the real objective. It is was thought that by seeding democracy throughout the region we could eliminate the underlying conditions that produce suicidal terrorists, over the long-run. So, yes, the Iraq war was very much a part of a long-term strategy to end global terrorism.

And, incidentally, taking action to end an oppressive tyrannical regime should be applauded by freedom loving people everywhere (why is it not?). The sin of the U.S. was hubris for thinking it could accomplish this worthy objective on its own. The sin of the world for standing idle and watching it (and hoping for it to?) fail is far greater.
 
[quote='max' ]
Some here may recall the 1964 campaign. Goldwater supposedly would, if elected, have been a threat to world peace. Unlike George Bush he never made it as president so we shall never know.

From wikipedia:

A campaign advertisement, known popularly as Daisy, shown only once, filmed a child, a young girl, counting daisy petals, from one to ten. Immediately following this scene, a voiceover counted down: ten, nine, eight, ... three, two, one. The child's face was shown as a still photograph followed by images of nuclear explosions and mushroom clouds. The campaign advertisement ended with a plea to vote for Johnson, seemingly implying that Goldwater would start a nuclear war if he won. The advertisement, which featured only a few spoken words of narrative and relied on imagery for its emotional impact, was one of the most provocative moments in American political campaign history, and many analysts credit it as being the birth of the modern style of "negative political ads" on television. The ad only aired once, and was immediately pulled. (Goldwater called Johnson personally and threatened to sue him.)
[/quote]

I've seen that ad (which only means that I am older than dirt).
I supported Goldwater. I even have a photo (or maybe my first ex.
has it) showing me and Barry together at one of his campaign rallies.

JG
 
3 Yrs to Go said:
On appeasement. What price has Iran paid for defying the world on its nuclear program? What price has North Korea paid for detonating a nuclear device, besides some weak sanctions that China immediately claimed it would not enforce? Is talking endlessly until tyrants achieve their nuclear objectives not appeasement?

Iraq is another example of appeasement. History has shown that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. History also shows that Iraq spent ~10 years violating U.N. resolutions all the while seeing a steady erosion of the sanctions against his regime. History further shows that Iraq used its oil wealth to pay for leniency and support at the U.N . . . Iran, surly you were paying attention?

The Iraq war was never about WMD, at least not exclusively. WMD was a pretense for regime change in order to bring democracy to the Middle East - which was, and is, the real objective. It is was thought that by seeding democracy throughout the region we could eliminate the underlying conditions that produce suicidal terrorists, over the long-run. So, yes, the Iraq war was very much a part of a long-term strategy to end global terrorism.

And, incidentally, taking action to end an oppressive tyrannical regime should be applauded by freedom loving people everywhere (why is it not?). The sin of the U.S. was hubris for thinking it could accomplish this worthy objective on its own. The sin of the world for standing idle and watching it (and hoping for it to?) fail is far greater.
Click to expand...

Actually you do make quite a convincing case. I am not sure I would call it appeasement though. However if countries will not band together and collectively take concrete punitive measures, such as trade sanctions and ostacising rogue nations such as N. Korea and Iran, well that is not the ideal situation either.

On the other hand one can't simply go about bombing these countries back to the stone age can one? (To be clear, I am not saying this is US policy or thinking).

This is a very complex issue and so far no one seems to have come up with the answer.

But the policy towards Iraq had been an unmitigated disaster. I can't be all that sure of the original intent, and I can't believe that Tony Blair actually went along with it, but from my vantage point I see IRAQ becoming a repeat of Vietnam. Of course I would be glad to be proven wrong on this one.
 
Mr._johngalt said:
I've seen that ad (which only means that I am older than dirt).
I supported Goldwater. I even have a photo (or maybe my first ex.
has it) showing me and Barry together at one of his campaign rallies.

JG
Click to expand...

I can not recall exactly (since I was quite young back then) but if memory serves Barry Goldwater had picked a running mate, a military guy, who claimed he would not hesitate, if needs be, to use the A bomb.

I could be wrong here and stand to be corrected.
 
3 Yrs to Go said:
. . . "in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement" - as is true today.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any "climate of appeasement" related to terrorism or Bin Laden. I think there is a healthy fear of terrorism and a determination to defeat it.

I do think there are a lot of people who recognize that our involvement in the civil war in Iraq is not helping the war on terrorism at all. But the desire to leave Iraq is coming primarily from people who believe our involvement there is hurting our efforts to fight terrorism -- not from a climate of appeasement. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom