 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
History will show Clinton to be one of the worst presidents and Bush to one of the best. This poll is simply more proof that Apolyton is way left of center. Bill Clinton led a stock market bubble that started to deflate before he left office. Bush is trying to clean up the mess he left behind. Blaming him for the economy is like blaming him for the terrorist atacks on 9/11. He didn't start the war on terrorism it was imposed on him. But we can thank God that Clinton is out of office now. The military loathed him and the feeling was mutual. He was a clown and a disgrace to the office. God help us if his screwey wife gets elected and he becomes the "first man".
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
It is sad you posters all voted clinton.
While I do respect your opinions. International opinion seems like an important quality for a president does it not? I thought the same thing when I was younger. But as you get older, you realize what a president should be doing. Not pleasing other nations, but ensuring the their country continues to operate and does not get conquered.
|
I donīt see, that under Clinton the USA was in danger of being conquered.
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
But as an american, that is not a quality we care for. Call us selfish, call us what you will. What other countries don't realize, is there are many, many people in the world that want every single american dead. We are fighting for our lives here. We have to put the U.S. first on the list.
Therefore we need a president who does things good for the U.S. not the world. If the U.S. goes down, so does the rest of the world. So indirectly we are helping the rest of the world by ensuring the United States doesn't get annhilated by terrorists. Don't laugh it could happen. Before 9/11 no one thought that could happen either. |
But I think you fail to see, that it is also (and maybe more) the other way round. If the rest of the world goes down, so does the USA.
As for Terrorists on the other hand:
You have lost one Building Complex with a Death Toll of maybe 3300 People.
As a result you invaded Afghanistan and after estimates you caused a "collateral damage" (i.e. innocent civilians) of 3700
(see for example here: http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/2001/msg00235.html )
Compared to the Population size of 25 Million in Afghanistan you therefore killed a much larger percentage of the Civilian Population in Afghanistan than the Terrorists did in your own country.
So I would see it a bit overrated to equal the Terrorist Attack on the WTC with the impending downfall of the USA.
Also of course you would never have known what Clinton would have done as a response to 9/11/2001.
Maybe he also would have invaded Afghanistan but would have managed to maintain international support for America afterwards.
And maybe he would also have managed to establish a stable government in Afghanistan, which is one thing where Bush despite his promises has failed.
Hamid Karzai, the elected President, is a president whose power is confined to the city limits to Kabul.
Sadly the US-Forces within Afghanistan seem to just concentrate on searching for terrorists and not on supporting Karzai 
Just my Opinion on the matter. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
I chose clinton simply because he gave me hope in the nation. once bush can do that ill support him.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2003 00:52
|