Question about George W Bush

landberkdoten wrote: I f**king hate his guts

Well leave them on the side of the plate, dear, and just eat the spam

Bush is just a ...but his dogs and his father political family are a threat to humanity!

And a less known daddy too...

 

W (stands for Warmonger) is absolutely worst politician ever in the history of terrible politicians (including his dad).  I hate my country mainly because of what he has turned it into.  His smugness alone should raise everyone's eyebrows and how people can't see the stupidity that eminates from those beady eyes is way beyond me. 

I can't believe anyone would vote for him, even my dog would realise his stupidity!!!

What really annoyed me is the "dont believe the lies" moto he was using against kerry, how can he even talk about other people lying????!!!??!?

spectral wrote: gdub411 - are you serious?  There is no way Bush can be compared to Winston Churchill.  Churchill is probably one of the world's greatest ever leaders; Bush is just a prick who can't even speak properly.

Spectral,

It would do you wonders to pick up a book every once in a while. They have these things called "words", you link them together and they make sentences. Link those together and they make paragraphs from which a thought or idea emanates.

The purpose of this diatribe is to get you acquainted with The Ultra Secret. This was a sensitive code the Germans used during WW2 and thought was unbreakable. However, the code was broken early in the war. Here's the clincher...the Germans targeted several British cities for the purpose of terror bombing. Churchill was informed of this beforehand and let the cities be bombed without providing advance notice. First because he didn't want the Germans to suspect their code had been broken. Second, he knew that the British would react with rightous indignation at the terror bombings and this in turn would strengthen their resolve against the Germans.

Earlier in his career as Lord of the Admiralty during WW!, he was responsible for the Dardannelles fiasco and was forced to resign.

In a nutshell, Churchill was certaintly a formidable fellow but not one of "the greatest leaders". He was first and formost, a politician. He dealt with the world's realities which unfortunately don't have anything to do with the rosy sentiments much of us would like to aspire to.

 

 

 

 

Spectral,

Wishfull British thinking...

If the Battle of Britain had been lost it would have meant the invasion of Great Britain and Germany's consolidation of it's European conquest by the end of 1940. Pearl Harbor was still a year away and whatever Churchill knew or not, would have been of no consequence as he would have either been shot or at least imprisoned.

The war was won on two front's. First Hitler's invasion of Russia created a second front he could ill afford to mantain, fighting a greater maniac than himself . Seconf the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which they misintrepreted as a "Knock out" blow, only served to wake up the sleeping giant who would eventually pound the Axis into the ground.

As far as Dubya is concerned, he was shrewd enough to get Blair up to his ears in Iraq. So who's the least intelligent of the two?

 

PLEASE, Churchill leading the allies to victory!!!!

That's rich, the next thing you'll be babbling is how great Montgomery was? That's what I love about the British, firmly entrenched in the 18th century.

As far as your statement of "Bush leading the US into a second Vietnam", the conditions are very different. Your sweeping statements are as vacous as your illusion that the British had remotely anything to do with the U.S. winning WW2. At best, England was a good launching pad for the U.S. to take the war to the Germans. Englands role in WW2 after the U.S. entry was ancillary at best. Specially in their failure to capture Caen after the Normandy invasion and Montgomery's muck up of Market Garden. 

Ok so your not British, your certaintly not very well informed.

The current state of this poll isn't even remotely an indicator of the publics general sentiment. On the contrary, the majority of the people on this site are 22 years or younger. They have little practical working experience, are living under their parents roof and would have difficulty differentiating between their elbow and their chin.

As far as current world instability is concerned, what are you talking about? If there is any instability, it's certainly due to each countries abilty or inabilty to deal with their internal problems.

The U.S. foreign policy is clear, we will not have a repeat of 9/11. Now if you think trying to create a democracy in a region known for oppression, human rights transgressions not to mention their treatment of women is not right...then my friend you have no remedy.

Gleam wrote:
"Your sweeping statements are as vacous as your
illusion that the British had remotely anything to do
with the U.S. winning WW2. At best, England was a
good launching pad for the U.S. to take the war to the
Germans. Englands role in WW2 after the U.S. entry
was ancillary at best."



That's an interesting statement. I suppose the
"Russians" contributions to the effort were "ancillary
at best." I just don't get it, I guess.



Spectral Wrote:
"The poll is a good indication of world public opinion
toward the US.  Face facts, the majority of the world
hate you."



I hope you don't mean me, personally.