If we had a different president, would we be at war right now?
454140
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! I personally think Bush started all this
407492
No that is like asking if I would invade my neighbors home because I was afraid of them... makes no sense to me. But then again this is a Republican administration and they are known for their war mongering ideas... it is certainly not over yet and I will along with many others be looking forward to the day of change.....
983869
You bet.  This is why a woman president would be bad; we'd have a new war once a month.
1080139
Being that the US is the premiere world power, it is incumbent that the US is the police state, so to speak, for the rest of the world.  Changing presidents will not change that.
644624
Yes, because he wouldn't molly coddle to the left, he would just get the job done. We would have finished the war in Iraq. He wouldn't care about collateral damage. I bet the terrorists could still hide in the shadows, but Ted would still get them all.
868684
The killings will continue if he is dead or not.  We invaded their country.  If another country invaded us to take out our evil president whom we do not like, do you think our country would stop fighting back from the take over and let them dictate to us on how we should run it?
1155113
Nope. it's fun being the president because you can stir up a hornet's nest and then run like hell when they attack. Same thing with LBJ and Vietnam. He charged into the war blinded by his own agendas and when it came time to run for office, he spilt. The war will have to continue when the next president steps in. America is too deep into it now. I think now it's a matter of sticking it out until the end or tucking tail and running from it.
338125
NO!  There is no way that any other president could possibly have screwed things up worse than he has.  \n\nWe're fighting two wars right now, our resources are vastly over-extended, and now they're talking about bombing Iran.  Talk about incompetent.  Anyone know why the American Colonies were able to defeat a country that at the time had about the most powerful military in the world?  England was busy fighting France, that's why!  It doesn't matter how powerful you are, you can still lose to a little guy if your resources are over-extended.\n\nThen there was the whole Hurricane Katrina thing.  You know, the thing where Bush said there was no way anyone could know the levees would overflow, and then a few days later the media got hold of a tape of him being told the levees would overflow.\n\nAnd there's the minor detail that he's turned an unprecedented budget surplus into an unprecedented budget deficit, and yet continues to simultaneously increase spending and decrease taxes.  Any five year old can tell you that's not the way to reduce the deficit.\n\nOh, and he's managed to turn unprecedented international support after 9/11 into hatred and ridicule.\n\nAnd have we completely forgotten Enron?  I doubt that was the only instance of the government screwing over the public to increase profits for themselves and their rich friend.s\n\nHe's also refused to do anything to slow the destruction of the environment, and in some cases has even relaxed existing limits.\n\nHe's made several attempts to channel government funds to Christian organizations, which is a clear violation of the first amendment.\n\nHe's also appointed judges who seem rather inclined to set civil rights back to the stone age.  There was even that one guy who was literally a Nazi.  As in he fought for Germany in World War II kind of a Nazi.\n\nI could go on, but it's nearly 3 in the morning and I have a paper to write.
448871
No Offense to any of your political standings but I feel this fascist Bush will run our country into the ground. We are not able to fight a war started on the basis that they hit us first. Yes, terrorists are bad but you can't get them. So in retaliation this Bush figure comes with his plastic-cored Army men and starts this preemptive strike. \nOther than 9/11 and his crazed belief that Saddam is building nukes, he has no reason to invade another land. \n\nThere are things that can or cannot be solved by diplomacy. Obviously Bush felt the urge to just go in and exercises his 2nd Amendment to the fullest extent and shoot people up. This was a very poor thing to do as a president, because now as we are pulled into this war we risk the possibility that alliances will be formed and we will be caught in another war we might lose. \n\nTo basically summarize everything, my answer is yes.
651956
No. Unless you call our president and vice president, then yes. They are just about as dangerous as a million of them. Each one of them.
486012
We'd be so much better off! He isn't perfect by any means but Iraq never would have happened and I believe neither would 9-11. \nThe environment certainly would have been better off!\nHow many people would be alive today if Bush hadn't been in?\nThousands-many thousands!
828
i wouldn't because even though he has done somethings that americans would be against. he still is a good president because even though september 11 hit he did what he had to. so i would chose him or some person that would be brave enough to deal with the conflicts we have to go through every day.
213630
Yes, and we would be swabbing even more blood from our own soil.\nBush may be making mistakes but I will stand behind his mistakes over the INACTION of a Liberal Government.\n\nLiberals are the biggest head-in-the-sand "birds" out there.\nThey got their heads so deep in their "A$$ES" there is really no way they can make educated sensible world decisions.  They are too busy hating the government they should be standing behind.
334727
pissed off has a point this is what our president is doing.  first if i was president i would focus more of my attension on what is going on in this country, and less of what is going on in other country.  i would work on lowering gas prices back down to 1.00 a gal.  like it used to be.  i would do this by having treatys not war with other countries.  If the countries leader was a dictator like sadam then i would aproach the un about putting a stop to his term and electing another official who could do the job better.  not war.  if people were killed in mass genocide then i would focus 10% of tax money on catching the dirty critter.  maybe buy a supply of viagra to spray over the country were said criminal is and wait for the little dik heds to pop up.  i would make it to were not only poverty income level has asistance with medical bills but everyone would would be covered.  i would pass a law to were if someone under the adult age did something wrong enough to be arrested they would spend jail time without there parents coming and bailing them out maybe they wouldnt do it again,  and after the time served there record would be fresh so they have a chance of getting a job when they become adults.  i would visit schools and try to set a positive example of leadership so the next generation of presidents would be good god fearing leaders instead of all knowing dictators.  i could go on and on, about what i would do.  but just know i would think less about myself and other countries and more about the people i am presiding for
624106
With Bush in office...probably. He seems to use any excuse to go to war with anyone.
845225
Great question, Alex.\n\nI think most Americana's would.  I know that I would, for sure.  But then I believe that if my country is at war, I need to stand behind the troops and my president.  It doesn't really matter if I agree or not, I still need to be supportive. \n\n\nopen4one---LMAO!
1104064
I totally agree with you. our president has caused us nothing but trouble and when he gets us out  of trouble he puts us right back in to worse trouble. we went to war with Iraq for no reason cause we thought they had WMD's but they don't! if we attacked all countries cause we thought they had WMD's this world would be underground! lets just get to the truth lets impeach bush!!!!!!!!!!