i would definately say George W. Bush. hes ruining our contacts with other countries.

Name one thing that he has done to hurt our relations with other countries. And remember, this has to be outside of his normal duties as President, because, remember, the President, and George W. Bush are two different entities.



This is coming from a non-American. If you would talk to military personal, who study the war in Iraq, you would see that they have very different views on how things are going.


Last Edit: Dec 22, 2006 0:56:24 GMT by Mithras

I'll name a minor one. He locked up prisoners from Iraq in an American Cuban base, without allowing the prisoners go through trial, and that's against the constitution.

I remember two of my favorite quote from Bush which still make me laugh:

"NASA's top priority is still outer space."
"Majority of our imports come from outside of the country."

Probably George Bush. America would probably do better without him waging war in Iraq without a definiate proof that it is the best for the people. Instead, he has ignited a huge civil war that still continues right even as we speak.

I'd go for Chris...nah

Actually, you're wrong. Congress never officially declared it as war.

George W. Bush is the President. The President is an entity. Ergo, George W. Bush is THE entity. Who said they are 2 different entities? I had simply stated that Scorpion said that we could do without George W. Bush - he did not say we could do without a President --- No country can do without an executive head of government. And so he implied that another could replace George Bush as the President. That logic does not pre-suppose the separation of the person and position as different entities.

Now onto George W. Bush - he has done a lot to irreparably damage the international community for decades to come --- and NO I am not american -- but I am from Asia and am fully aware of Why George W. Bush invaded Iraq in the first place --- The whole crusade against weapons of biological warfare is a sham --- The ONLY THING ON his mind is how to control the OIL from the middle-east -- that's it. And he's not even a good President - what with a large number of Americans themselves protesting his moves.

But on the other hand -- I do support a lot of what George W. Bush has done in this part of the world --- agreed that He is after all President of USA and NOT PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD and consequently has no business continuously meddling in the affairs of other countries --- however, I totally support his war against terrorism that is spawned primarily in the middle-east. While leaders from other countries continue to twiddle their thumbs and seek refuge in diplomacy -- George Bush took on a more aggresive approach. Had it not been for him --- Afghanistan would still be living in the dark ages under the bloody Taliban. Had it not been for him, Saddam Hussain would never pay for genocide and the atrocities he committed on innocent people. Even now, presence of American troops in the region partially stabilizes the equilibrium between order and chaos. I think George Bush's work should not be totally invalidated by his misguidedness and lack of clearcut foresight --- He has done a lot to fight terror --- and I think other countries should band together and follow suit. Cos Terrorism is fucking ugly.

Enlighten me as to where in the Constitution it says you cannot hold foreign enemies in prison without a trial.

That I shall.

Hebeus Corpus- A person is entitled to a trial, bail, or to be set free.

Now, since the prisoners/criminals are in US property, and they want to be set free (which I'm sure they do), they have the right to a trial.

If you plan on backfire repeating the words "foreign enemies," all the warheads from WWII, for example Hideko Tojo, had to go through a trial, along with the rest of the captured WWII POWs.

They aren't citizens, therefore the Constitution does not apply.

Did you even read my example? You don't necessarily need to be a citizen in order for the Constitution to apply to you. The Constitution and all the bills immediately apply to you after you enter US territory. Logically, the US Base in Cuba is US territory. More so, as my example of WWII given above, all of the Nazi soldiers and warheads were put in trial. Were they citizens of the US? No.

^^ Makes sense.

Don't necessarily? You mean that sometimes it can and sometimes it can't? So like, if it helps your argument, it will apply, but otherwise, fuck 'em, right? An enemy terrorist does not have free speech, does not have the right to bear arms, does not get anything. If the government chooses to give them a trial, it's their choice. Keep in mind, the UN has rules as well which may mimic the Constitution at times, but is not the same. Therefore, if there is a trial, it's because of the UN's rules, not the US's.

I think the world could probably go without... whatever that one lady is, who's always at funerals saying, "Thank God for dead soldiers."