Ok well, my teacher braught up this question in my social studies class about George Washington and how presidents can set precidents.

-Is it possible for a president to be great but still unpopular??
(You have to really think about it)

Take George Washington for example, he was a great president but later became unpopular with citizens. He was great because he was the 1st president and didn't have any other former president to look back on and learn from there mistakes. He was the president that made a great cabinet and kick started American buisinesses. But when it came to war he began to become unpopular. Because the British were destroying our ships when the British and French were at war. But he decided to do nothing about it which made people start to hate him.


Now, lets reflect this on George Bush's actions and discuss how you think he's doing. Is he unpopular, or will this war pay off years from now.

Although I hate to say it, maybe the war in Iraq will turn out for the better good. Better to have Iraq on the path to prosperity now rather than let them remain in the state they were in before we invaded.

But if we don't give Iraq significant aid after defeating them, like the Marshall Plan type of aid, then I'd be resentful.

Iraq? Aid? Desert Storm?

lt's kind of hard to not do anything about 9/11, but we would go into Iraq, that was a good time for it.

Well, look at the British occupation of India. Every will agree that was an unethical thing, but almost all experts will agree that if it weren't for that, India would be a third-world country right now.

It will be. It's kind of like the Vietnam War. People are criticizing it and sh*t. But like the Vietnam War, the War in Iraq will stop terrorism from penetrating the United States like the Vietnam War stopped communism from penetrating us. Most people don't know this, but again, it's the ignorance setting in.

Terrorism is not the biggest thing about the Iraq War. It will probably help to modernize (and Westernize) Iraq, which will serve much more purposes in the long run than just defeating terrorism.

And just how do you suggest that terrorism will "penetrate" the United States? Assuming that you mean that terrorism will gain support in the United States among citizens, that's not very likely. Sure there are a few nutjobs running around supporting terrorism, but that's just nutjobs. In third-world countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, the poverty and lack of education create conditions where the average citizen can be brainwashed into believing anything. Over here, people are much more independent thinkers. And even for the ones that don't think on their own, they get much more anti-terrorist propaganda than pro-terrorist propaganda anyways. Much more. Like attacking the United States is going to gain the support of citizens of the United States anyways.

Same thing with the communism. So much of the United States had been brainwashed over the absolute evils of communism (you seem to be one of them too) that the only way it was going to dominate the United States was through military conquest. And that wasn't too likely either, with the strength of the United States and the division of the communist powers.

Terrorism is a pretty big thing. Even the news agrees, and the news can't be biased. They refer to the Iraq War as the "War on Terror". And if it modernizes and Westernizes Iraq, that's hella good. Hell, two birds with one stone, motherfucker.

Terrorism will penetrate the United States if we don't use all our forces against them (hyperbole, motherfucker, not 100%, just a lot).

Again, this is like racism, there is not only bad racism, just as there is not only bad brainwashing. I mean, generally, brainwashing is bad. But this is the good kind. We have been taught by the past that the only race communism can exist peacefully among is the Japanese. With everyone else, it simply DOES NOT work!

News can't be biased? I doubt it is much different in the US than it is here but television shows compete for ratings, and now-a-days, bias is becoming more common place with the desire to show more exciting or dramatic news. Eg: not showing any of the benefits of the Iraq war or overshadowing them with the devastation caused by the war.

Obviously a misused and inappropiate hyperbole if you have to mention that it is, no matter how dumb you think anyone else may be

News ≠ you.

The terrorism is a big thing right now. But it won't be very significant in history. The 9/11 attacks managed to kill only a few thousand Americans. That is minor. In the year 2000, about 20,000 people were killed by STDs, while 43,000 were killed in automobile accidents. And while car accidents and diseases are around every year, terrorist attacks are isolated incidents in the United States. It might be different elsewhere, but do terrorists attacks get remembered all that well in history? Meanwhile, modernization and development of a nation is a big deal, and will have a significant lasting impact on the future.

Terrorism is prominent only among the poor and uneducated. As countries develop, terrorism declines. You haven't answered my previous rebuttal.

For one thing, we'll never know whether or not communism might've worked with the other nations because none of them were actually communist for very long before some nutjob came, stole power away, created a personality cult, and screwed everything up. For another thing, why not let people reason stuff out for themselves? Oh wait. That probably would not work so well.

It did not become significant because WE, the AMERICANS, stopped it. If we had just stood by and let it happen, it would become big. You're a fucking idiot for doing this. Again, you are trying to change the course of history by letting terrorism happen. If we just pull out of Iraq now, terrorism WILL become a problem.

Exactly, you just proved my point, motherfucker. If we westernize Iraq, the terrorism will stop. What are you? Some sort of terrorist-fanboy?

You mentioned futility before to me Don't worry, if he doesn't answer, it's probably because even his perspective can't see it as wrong, congratulate yourself on an undeniable statement

No, it's because he was too lazy to restate his statement, fuckhead.

Should he have to? Since when do you have to say something twice just to get an answer

I've had to do it a lot.

This is what that last argument sounded like:

someone else: "*good point*, therefore you are gay"
you: "no, you're gay"

No, you're all gay
/me senses flame war, gets out teh mod sticks*

*Refers to my ability to mod. Not intended to be insulting. Average weight lost is 3.86 lbs. Results may very.

Bill Clinton was a great President, and very unpopular. For instance, he was great because he was quite possibly the best President of the latter half of the 20th century. But he was unpopular because people hate him for receiving oral sex from Lewinsky. Personally, I think he's a great man, but he's unpopular among people I know.

Stop Necromancing.