Pro-War non-Americans, what's your opinion of Bush?

[Gangerolf]

He's not too bad. He needs to go more easy on the biblical rhetoric though.

[Amesjustin]

Biblical rhetoric? Such as?

[Gangerolf]

for instance he uses the words "god", "good" and "evil" alot in his speeches. I don't think many european leaders would do that.

[Pekka]

Absolutely. It is seen as.. I'm not going to say bad, but maybe a little.. to be completely honest, dangerous. Not in a way that people would be scared, but.. it makes people back here more in their toes.

[August Borms]

Bush disgusts me because he's a christian fundamentalist (and a moron)
I'm rather apathic towards this war, I guess it's the good thing to do but...

[DanS]

Christian fundamentalist? Nah, that's way overplayed in Euroland.

[Worthingtons]

'Nah, history has shown that when a Bush wins a war, he gets voted out because people care more about their retirement funds than military success.'

That may have been the Case last time Sava but things have Changed. While Americans no doubt like thier money , the good people of America have witness terrorism first hand, and will want a Good president who will fight the problem rather than pussies who'll back away and end up with planes flying into thier buildings again!

So long as Bush keeps things steady and leaves a touch more work (war) to do before his next re-election he'll be safe.

Even here in the UK, where many people hate Blair and think he's an arrogant idiot , many people will change thier minds once we've liberated Iraq,buttfurked the Korean's, eradicated Iran and made Britain safe from Terror.

[GePap]

If come Nov. 2004 there are still substantial American forces in Iraq getting sniped at now or then and the economy is still were it is, Bush will not last. Notice how Bush II got only a 12% spike in popularity over the war and is at 70somehting percent, while his father got something like a 25% jump and was at 89-90% during his war.

Bush has been to divisive, and dems. have not forgotten 2000. You can expect republicans to be steadfast, but independent do care a lot about their pocketbooks.

[Worthingtons]

I dont mean Iraq! crikey, if we're still in Iraq come the next general election here Maybe even the Liberal Democrats could make it into power

What i mean is that Bush sucessfully get's rid of the Iraqi threat (while using the oil to turn around the economy), removes the threat in North Korea but perhaps has a couple of bit's and pieces elsewhere for his reelection... he'll do fine

[GePap]

Remove the NK threat? How? By negotiations? If he does it like that, he won;t get much credit, given his "Kim Yong Il is evil" and 'I hate him so much routine", and a war is simply out of the question, cause the NK aren;t the Iraqis.

as for

while using the oil to turn around the economy),

Substantial Iraqi oil supplies wil not flow for a ferw more months, and even then, they will not make that huge an impact on world prices, sicne it will take many years for Iraq's oil production to get up to what it was before the first gulf war even. There are many more ills top the economy than just energy prices.

[Zero]

I for one would miss bush in the white house. Presidential speech would become lot more boring....

[Imran Siddiqui]

A lot of Democrats believe that 2004 will be like 1992. They forget one thing. Bush I didn't lose in 1992, rather Bill Clinton won (if you follow). The Democrats were lucky to have one of the best politicians in American history running. And then a myth has built up over Bush 1 screwed up. I seriously have doubts that Bush would have lost in 1992 if anyone other than Clinton ran.

[Worthingtons]

Aye!! That's true, for a democrat Clinton was Brilliant!!

[AnnC]

Originally posted by Amesjustin Being an American, I won't vote in your poll as you requested, but I think non-Americans will find it interesting to note that I am utterly embarassed that that moron is the head of our country.

I second that.

Originally posted by CerberusIV: The sooner the US gets a different President, the sooner the rest of the planet will stop thinking "you want to be taken seriously and you elected him!!!"

We didn't elect him. He lost the popular vote by 500,000. The combined vote count of Democrats and Independents/third-parties was 52%, so the majority did not vote for him. And it's quite possible that he lost the Florida electoral vote as well, but we'll never know since a proper state-wide recount was not done.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by AnnC


I second that.

It's just no fun when we agree on something.

We didn't elect him. He lost the popular vote by 500,000. The combined vote count of Democrats and Independents/third-parties was 52%, so the majority did not vote for him. And it's quite possible that he lost the Florida electoral vote as well, but we'll never know since a proper state-wide recount was not done.

Trouble is, that's the ass-backward third-world standard election system we still have, so he won - he just won as a result of a very dodgy, primitive, inconsistent system. México, of all places, has a more accurate, nationally consistent election system than the US does.