is the president losing the confidence of the american people?

Discussion in 'Community' started by jefhatfield, Oct 20, 2002.

  1. Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #1
    when september 11th came, the president stood up to the job and impressed a whole nation, or at least many of us, including me, a gore supporter

    but as time went on, the economy floundered more, there have been corporate scandals, osama is still at large, we may attack iraq on not so solid terms, and now there is this crisis in the making with north korea

    i have to ask george w bush, what he heck happened?

    thoughts?
     
  2. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #2
    I just have a counter-question...

    Why are we so quick to judge these days?

    The economy, as discussed in another thread is not entirely the president's fault. In fact, it is far from it.

    Notice also when the Democrats took control of the Senate, how everything seemed to stop. No more legislation was passed, etc.. ;) :p

    I also don't see the Korea thing as a "crisis." It could be a lot worse. All North Korea has done is merely confirm what the United States has suspected for years.
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    In response to hitman...

    I'm not quick to judge. You're right that a lot of what has happenned has been out of the president's control. But I've never liked Bush. Not after Sept. 11th, not ever.

    I think he and his administration have made some serious mistakes in the handling of affairs (both domestic and abroad) before and after 9/11. I don't like their stance on Iraq. I don't like the way they have handled the N Korean situation from the start of the administration. From the get-go Bush was against the nuclear agreement with N Korea--the only potentially effective agreement we've practically EVER had with N Korea.

    And now we see a critical rift in policy between the administration's handling of Iraq and North Korea. Acknowledging the fact that the situations are much different, there is still a great amount of inconsistancy between the handling of the two.

    I feel that George W greatly ignored world politics and diplomacy before 9/11. And now I feel he is handling the situations we are presented with very poorly. We have an opportunity right now to garner support from our international allies and the world at large by joining the world community, acting in a way that benefits the world (not just our own interests) and addressing the situations in this world that present REAL and PRESSING threats to ourselves and other countries. This administration doesn't seem to want to take advantage of these opportunities and instead is acting in ways that have been drawing the ire of the international community for decades.

    Anyone else getting scared by the fact that a large population of the earth HATES us?? I am. Maybe we should do something about that. Prevent the creation of more Bin Laden types. (We are currently training and will probably arm some of the native people in mid east to fight against Iraq if necessary. Does this sound familiar to anyone??? I'll give a shiny nickel to the first person who can identify the historical similarity.) And start living with the international community, not in spite of it.

    Taft
     
  4. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    IMO Bush seems to think that because he is the President of the only Super Power left, he is now in charge of the world, and has the authority to tell other nations what to do, what not to do, and what they are allowed to do. This is not the case. I think he needs to learn that the world does not bow at his feet and that his way is not the only way by a long shot.
    This is another thing, I don't want to start a flame war here, but, it seems that many of the American people were ignorant of how the rest of the world felt about the US, not everyone loves them and wants to follow in their footsteps all the time. It seems to have come as some what of a shock that anyone would dare to attack the US like they did, and that there were those that so did not agree with their ways that they would go to such an extreme to make their point.

    Edited for typo.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #5
    I wouldn't say he's losing our confidence. I think that things are just returning to normal. He couldn't coast with a 75% approval rating forever. Now that it's been a while since 9/11 people are just more likely to make comments on party lines again.
     
  6. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #6
    It is reminiscent of Vietnam.

    The training of the local resistance movements is one of the true missions of the Special Forces. To be honest, I see nothing wrong with that.

    I highly doubt we will bog ourselves down in another limited conflict. Knowing our President, it's all or nothing...



    Perhaps they hate what we stand for. Some of the people who "hate us" would take our freedoms and our rights away in a heartbeat.

    "We fight to protect the right to protest the fighting."

    It's a bit of a paradox.
     
  7. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #7
    I'm not so sure about being the only super power left...

    There is still China...
     
  8. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #8
    Maybe, but for financial and military supremesy I'd say the US has it.
     
  9. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #9


    Well with the way our economy is going...who the hell knows.. ;) :p

    I'd have to agree overall; however, in that specific region (i.e. the South Pacific,) China still has an extremely strong influence.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #10
    I was actually referring to Bin Laden. We trained and armed him against the Russians during the cold war. And I do see something wrong with this. Its a matter of advancing your own agenda through a third party. Then, once OUR goals have been acheived we back out of the region, leaving those we once supported hanging in the wind.

    We similarly aided Saddam against the Iranians (when Saddam did those horrible things to the Kurds). We have quite a history of backing some not-so-nice people to advance our own agenda. That doesn't seem right to me.

    Taft
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #11
    Some of them, many of them hate both us and eveything we stand for. And about the people who would take away our freedom and rights in a heartbeat, many of them have never known freedom or rights such as we have had all of our life.

    And, from my standpoint, protecting our freedom and our rights has very little to do with the upcoming Iraq conflict. If I really thought that Iraq was a serious and immenant threat to us, I would have less of a problem with military intervention. Now North Korea, on tthe other hand....

    Taft
     
  12. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #12

    It is also a case of utilizing the support you have in the country in which you are fighting. To recall the Afganistan scenario, we supported the Mujaden until the Soviets were defeated, much like the Soviets who supported the NVA and VC in Vietnam. In those cases, both the United States and the Soviet Union followed through on their financial and military support. Once the goals were met, we pulled out of the region, yes; however our purpose in Afganistan was not to "empire build." We merely wanted to keep the Soviets out; therefore our mission in the region was complete. What the Afgans did with their own country was no longer any of our concern. What they did with that support was up to them. Therefore, I fail to see how we "left them hanging in the wind." Had we done more, we would have been accused of "empire building;" accusations already being leveled at the war in Afganistan.

    You do have a vaild point. Many times over, America has either been blind to the evils or has chosen not to recognize them in order to advance our own agenda. We were short-sighted and refused to recognize the possible threat Saddam would later pose both to us and the region. However, the Iranians did recieve weapons from us as well, in the form of 10 F-14 aircraft.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Vector

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    #13
    They are a substantial power, but are not technically considered a super power. According to several politics and government classes i have taken a country must have a large standing army with modern arms (nukes) and have a strong industrial based economy. China has the military aspect, but the majority of its economy and workforce is based on agriculture. So technically they are not a super power; however, in a military sense they should be considered as such.
     
  14. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #14
    But would you hold that against them, or use it to justify their actions? Are they jealous, or do they wish that we would suffer as much as they do under such repressive regimes?

    I agree, I fail to see how any conflict with Iraq has to do with protecting our rights and freedom. They do not pose a major threat to us; however they are a serious danger to the region, including Israel.

    The only possible action that I could see happening in Korea, is a last ditch attack by the North. Their economy has been failing for years and famine has become common-place. In contrast, the South has one of the strongest economies in Asia. Apart from the economic divide, I do not see any reason why the North would attack the South, or any country for that matter...

    Unless of course they are just plain nuts and have nothing left to lose... ;)
     
  15. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #15
    That too is another issue...

    Can China maintain it's military might on an agrarian based economy?
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #16
    To explain their actions. I could never justify those actions, but I think I can make a reasonable examination of the events leading up to the action, giving that action a "reason" or cause.

    I don't think that people hate us out of jealousy or by comparing their miserable way of life to ours. I think they view us as evil because of the overwhelming effect we have on their countries and our interferance in their lives, countries and economies. They see us as an evil empire. That is my perception of why people hate us.

    Taft
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Vector

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    #17
    They have been able to so far, but i do not know whether they can do this indefinitly. I think they are trying to industrialize more, but right now around 40% of there population are farmers (i cannot remember the exact figure but i think it is close to that if not more).
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #18
    While on the surface, I'd agree with your analysis, I think it goes deeper. I think many of those who were used to fight against the Soviets, felt exactly that way: used. I think we really used them in a situation that was much bigger than their concerns, to do our dirty work. Rather than make a human resource commitment to the conflict, we used the locals, who may not have had a good reason to participate in the Soviet vs US conflict in the first place.

    Don't get me wrong, the Soviets were as much at fault in this. But I think both powers were simply using the local population. We were using them to play our game of world domination. Communism vs. capatalism.

    Taft
     
  19. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #19
    I agree to an extent.

    It is true that the people we supported in Afganistan had little concern in the overriding capitalism vs communism conflict. They were merely concerned with their own immediate issues with the Soviets. So yes, in that sense we used the opposition to the Soviets in Afganistan.

    But one must also consider that they opposed the Soviets as much as we did, just for different reasons. They wanted to be free; we wanted to stop Soviet expansionism.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    A cardboard box.
    #20
    Heh

    Bush didn't lose my support, he never had it! Honestly, hes being given unconsitutional power by the new resouyltion on Iraq, and probably just wants their oil to "Ensure the security of the nation". :rolleyes: Plus the fact he's all for big buisness.

    /me spits
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Bakersfield, CA
    #21
    The reason people hate us.

    I believe that the reason there is a lot of anger toward the US out there is this: We, as a nation, do not practice what we preach. Here in the US, our Police can't do a lot of things, because we have these pesky rights. Outside the US, our military does things to other people(s) without regard to human rights. If we are truly to believe that our way is the best way to run a nation, why don't we advocate it in our actions. Anybody remember the "Golden Rule?"

    As for Bush Jr. himself, well I never really liked him. Always thought he was a "Silver Spoon" type of a person. I'll bet he's never put in a "real" day's work before. I will also bet he has never been in a Paycheck to paycheck situation either.

    Things I don't like about Bush's administration:

    1) Signed the Steel Tarrifs (Horrible for the economy)

    2) Signed the 180% increase in the Farm Subsidies (which primarly goes to big corporate farmers like dupont, del monte, and such)

    3) Signed the un-Constitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill.

    4) Pro-Death Peanelty (as a Christian I cannot accept this)

    5) Hired John A$$Crap for Attny. Gen. Who has done nothing but infringe on the rights of American Citizens, and anyone who complaines is treasonous.

    This is all I can think of off the top of my head.
     
  22. thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #22
    Re: The reason people hate us.

    4) i am a christian and i agree with you 100 percent

    5) at first i didn't like the idea of a man whose religion/denomination is against dancing...my employee, a very holy man and interested in good deeds, belongs to a similar cult, and has strange beliefs like john ashcroft is allegedly a believer in

    but my employee, a highly intelligent and very well spoken individual would be able to hold the same type of job as ashcroft and not let his cultist beliefs get in the way of running a officially secular country where church is separated from state

    john ashcroft has done a good job as running the president's moderate platform and has not infringed any of his cultic beliefs to his job...what john ashcroft does on his own time is his own business, frankly

    overall, i say, in a nutshell, the gop is better at foreign policy and the democrats are better at domestic policy

    if there ever is a party that comes into the oval office with a solid skill for both, they will become the dominant party in the united states

    formerly strong parties like the progressives, the whigs, and the federalists no longer exist on the political landscape today
     
  23. macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #23
    as for the pro death penalty issue:

    gore is also pro-death penalty.

    i think bush is kind of a bafoon. but he's funny to listen to.

    but i don't think that the fact that he is from a wealthy family and whatnot can be held against him. you don't choose who your family is. you can't control it.. now of course, his lack of concern for the lower classes is a problem, but that can not 100% be "blamed" on him being from a rich family. plenty of rich people are concerned about the lower classes.

    also, i wouldn't really have much more respect for gore. we need some truly good people running the country for once....
     
  24. thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #24
    yes, i know gore is death penaly, too as well as clinton, george hw bush, and ronald reagan (though he didn't talk much about it)

    but that does not make the death penalty right in my mind...why are african americans far more likely (percentage wise) to get on death row when most of the killers are white? if the ratio of murderers, convictions, and executions were numercially fair, then we would have a different issue

    also, gore did not come from your average middle class family and he went to an ivy league school so i don't see how he would understand the average gardener, construction worker, file clerk, or mcdonald's worker any better than bush

    it's just that the democratic platform which is just left of center is a little more in touch with the pulse of the average working american than the just right of center republicans

    overall, i am happy that a republican or democrat has held the office opposed to an american independent or a marxist

    but being a free country with freedom of speech (thank god (or higher power) and thank our founding fathers), we have the possiblity to have a republican, democrat, marxist, or american independent in the white house

    we can all agree that it is a good thing that we do not have a one party dictatorship like marcos, the shah of iran, manuel noriega, or sadaam hussein

    god bless america

    and god bless the voters of america that we have the choice to go down a good path or bad path but still have it be our choice towards our recovery or our destruction

    freedom rules!

    rant over...

    not yet,

    mac rules!

    ...ok, rant over ;) :D
     
  25. macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #25
    1. not sure where you got that i was saying that gore being pro death penalty makes it right. i am anti-death penalty.

    2. i don't think it's like "become a democrat, become more concerned with common workers". it's more like if you are more concerned with the common worker, then you are a democrat (in theory)... though they are owned by the same corporations as the republicans...

    3. as for the possibility to have a marxist or independent in the white house (in this era). that's actually the problem. that isn't possible. they wouldn't be able to afford the campaigning... at least not enough to compete with the big 2.

    4. yeah, i'll agree we have it better than the one party dictatorships by all means.... but we have only 2 parties in the big elections basically. sure, there are some independents, and a few greens elected to some smaller offices... but we still don't have an equal election system...

    beer.
     

Share This Page