PEACE NEGOTIATOR: Is Keeping Bush In Power (or someone like him) A Healthy Thing For World Peace And Security?

Question

Question: "Because the President is guilty of high crimes and treason against the United States, its people, and its Constitution. He raises up (in the background) an army against nations friendly to the US and builds strength in nations around so called friendly nations . . . against China! Is keeping him in power a good or bad thing for the overall security and peace of this world?"

Is a criminal US President a liability for world peace?

If the future of China is democratic and if China is not a threat to America, why should President Bush do all he can to undermine China?

When we return to China, we hope to create a better world for the Chinese people. Why would he and his administration want to undermine us?

Governing a large nation is not an easy thing, so why make it hard for us? Refer to our links and see our position on politics that has existed for the last 130 years in America at http://chinatownhawaii.com

Are Americans that stubborn and blind ...

(to be continued)

.

Answer 1

If Bush or someone like Bush stays around there will NEVER be world peace.. only more wars --- Yes Americans can be VERY stubborn and blind and neglect to look at the real issues in life. Mainly because most Americans really don't care.

Answer 2

The question is bogus. If he weren't president, would there be world peace? No. Some other greedy smuck would pick up where he left off. What makes you think that when a major war isn't going on that there is world peace? Is it that people aren't doing anything because Bush is Bush or is it that people aren't doing anything because most don't want the burden even though not accepting the burden still affects them indirectly?



Ultimately what we have are people in a position of leadership that are suppose lead and make the transition of things in everyday life easier, such as survival. What is happening is exploitation of the leadership position due to greed, hence the creation of the rich. Where is our suffering coming from? Greed. Where does the world's suffering come from? Greed. Seems like most people that succumb to greed are homicidal and psychotic.



Lets say every country has one leader with its government, we can call the leader a parent. The parent takes care of us, which we can call us children. If the parent takes care of the children, then when the children grow up they will be strong and take care of the parent. But if the parent abuses/exploits the children, then children will end up leaving the parent when they grow up. History has shown this over and over again.



The thought behind this is that people are slaving day after day serving their leader, the rich, towards an unknown goal of fullfilling their own demise, which is true in any country. If everyone served each other, then there would be world peace because greed would be erraticated. Everyone's bare minimums would be met and the human race would be united unfathomably propelling technology and science.

Answer 3

Bush is definitely not a good thing for world peace. He is a war monger that wants to threaten all countries he cannot control. No, not all Americans are stubborn or blind, the majority of us feel he is an embarrassment to the US. His approval rating is at an all time low. We are glad to see him go in Jan 09. If the majority of the US had the authority to put him on trial or impeach him it would have happened. However, our system is not created like that. So, even though most Americans do not support his decisions and loathe his presidency we cannot do anything but elect a new democratic leader to clean up his economic and foreign relation mess.

Answer 4

As if the accusation has already been justifiably leveled, and all that remains is the trial! Your sheer audacity astounds me. I certainly don't want any President staying in office longer than two terms (thank God FDR died before he could mess up the country further -- experimenting with people's futures is not the purpose of government), but you, my friend, have gone completely over the falls. I find it amusing (on some level) that you're blaming all the chaos in China on the President, and acting as if that's the major concern in the modern world. Have you not noticed the rather large concentration of people in the Middle East who would love nothing better than to see us destroyed, metaphorically speaking? Have you paid no mind to Russia, which has over the past sixteen years slowly been transitioning from an old Communist state to what is quite simply a new one, while the world looks on impassively? Have you heard nothing of Iran, with whom Russia is attempting to build relations and whose leader speaks openly of destroying Western civilization (and nearly has the power to do it, despite the fact that his people hate him)? Of all the potential flashpoints in the world, you choose CHINA?! Certainly, we need to watch them, but I fail to see how they're of more importance than anything else in the world. I think under the circumstances Bush isn't strong enough of a leader, since his domestic policies are putting us on the track to socialism: if our economy fails, as socialist states inevitably will, so will the rest of the country. We will then be open to attack. If President Bush is re-elected (which you seem to be implying) -- well, let's put it this way: I don't trust anyone with that much power. Eventually he'd become entirely corrupt, and a lot of the things people like you are blaming him for will start to happen. This happens with any tyrant (ironically enough, though, it tends to happen more often when those tyrants claim to be instituting their domination for the good of their people), which is why there are Constitutionally defined limits on Presidential terms. If that were to happen, al Qaeda's goals of destroying us from within would be met entirely.



I have two further points, neither of which unfortunately is nearly as lengthy or detailed as the previous. The first is that you accuse President Bush of being a criminal; would you rather have a true criminal in office (namely Hillary Clinton), who would sell us out entirely if it gained her more power? The second: if you believe in these things so strongly, why don't you gather up a bunch of money and run for President? That way you'll have the opportunity to fix things, set them straight.

Answer 5

Bush is extremely right-wing but regardless of who is US President, the world will be unstable as long as there is no balance of power. The US has been the sole hegemon since the end of the Cold War, and that will always be a dangerous situation.

Answer 6

Whether it is good or bad to the people, you and me are nothing to do in either keeping Bush and other leaders like him,or could do anything to make them out of their First Citizenship.



If any case you want to make up, please send the information to the law makers and political representatives of the elected parliament?Congress so that at least an attempt to discuss these issues can happen,

Answer 7

Only until the next election, then Al Gore should set things right, cheers.

Answer 8

deaf and dumb only