 Poll
|
| Question: | Is The President of the USA is doing a good job?
| Yes | |    0 (0%) |
| No | | 5 (100%) |
| Don't care | | 0 (0%) |
| | | | Total Votes: 5 | |
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The President of The United States. (Read 1765 times) |
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
 |
The President of The United States.
« on: 2007-07-06 16:57:59 » |
 |
I know that a few of you really don't like him, but I would just lke to know what view the majority here holds on him.
I would say that this president sucks on illegal immigration, after war clean-up, speaking, spending (like a drunk sailor), and many other things.
However, I like his tax breaks and the Judges he put on the Supreme court. But last I heard the Senate had a lower poll rating than the president. Which is sad because Bush was at around 25% (the Senate was at a 14% approval rating.) I myself think we should kick the whole group outta there.
But then he is making the World itself a better place by stopping Communism before it gets to out of hand.
Bass
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
 
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #1 on: 2007-07-06 18:38:53 » |
|
Quote from: Bass on 2007-07-06 16:57:59
...But then he is making the World itself a better place by stopping Communism before it gets to out of hand...
|
[Cletus] "Arleen I thought you wuz in Eye-Rack stopping 9/11".
[Blunderov] After the end of the Cold War everybody seems to have forgtotten that China is still a communist state. Make no mistake about that. Just because they have chosen to outplay the West at it's own game doesn't mean they have changed their red communist spots for festive little capitalist ones. Not to mention that the USA of today bears more than a passing resemblance to the USSR of yore.
The world has become a complicated place.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #2 on: 2007-07-07 03:47:40 » |
|
I'm not sure how the US is defending anybody but am sure that if it is, that it won't be able to afford doing so for much longer. In my opinion, the world is not made safer (or less safe) by "stopping communism" (or capitalism) if either could be found.
I suggest that this article is soundbiteology; mere jingoism designed to capture the attention of the masses. Both communism and capitalism are economic theories too esoteric for most to follow and as history suggests, unimplementable to any significant degree. Certainly neither communism nor capitalism have been implemented to any major degree in any country since the early 1900s. Pretending that the currently expiring from self-inflicted wounds, legally defended oligarchy in the USA is capitalism, is as delusional as to assume that the collapse of the USSR, due in no small way to financial machinations by the USA, spoke to the effectiveness, or otherwise, of communism. Any such articulations require such radical simplifications that they fail to be useful and in my experience, fail to be meaningful.
By most measures, China is the worlds most effective capitalist state today (measured on an economic basis), despite a Maoist political stance (and Maoism is of course a modified form of communism) and Cuba is the world's most effective communist state (measured on a QOL basis) despite half-a century of American machinations against it.
How exactly Bush is supposed to be "stopping communism" by trading with the first to the extent that China owns more of the Americas than do Americans, while not dealing with Cuba in any mentionable way whatsoever; while at the same time we support our previous communist enemies in Afghanistan and almost certainly cause the instantiation of government lead by The Shining Path in Nepal by closing off avenues for aid to reach that desperate county is not stated; and I suggest cannot be rationally explained.
Something in the Koolaid perhaps?
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #3 on: 2007-07-09 09:30:40 » |
|
PS The Bush judges seem to me mealy mouthed hypocrites, overturning established case law while protesting they are not; resorting to ever more outrageous reaching, along with very iffy interpretation (previously an anathema to most Republicans) to make their assertions; blatantly ignoring both reason and the constitution to reach "conservative" (ie pro the status quo unless it relates to ant-racial or anti-trust regulations when they cannot dispose of them fast enough to the great disservice of all Americans) decisions in a purely partisan fashion and short of impeachment, unenvisaged deaths or a constitutional assembly override, looking set to do so for at least the next 30 years. Which is BTW, exactly what I predicted the consequence of a Bush victory would be, back in 1999. Sometimes I hate being proved right.
PPS The tax credits have - and will continue - to cause more harm to the US economy and to all but the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans than any other stupid economic move by any previous administration of the last 80 years, as it couples deficit increases with structurally embedded inflation and an effective transfer of wealth to the already wealthy, resulting in fewer larger capital flows benefiting Americans less (in that fewer Americans touch the flows (which is why structural unemployment is soaring despite the 0.5 million effectives withdrawn from it, because of our foreign military adventures (another unaffordable insanity) as well as in the fact that over 20c in each dollar is now owned by foreign investors). For future fun, watch what happens when we have 500,000 psychotic job seekers added to the economy after we finally crawl home from our defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.69
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #4 on: 2007-07-11 15:24:15 » |
|
The comparison with congressional approval is not relevant, although it is a common desperate theme with right wing wackos these days. First of all you are comparing polling on the personality of one individual, against an entire and somewhat abstract institution. Congress almost(?) always polls lower as an institution than the personality in the White House. If one were to make a more relevant comparison, the more accurate poll would be "how do you feel about YOUR representative/senator, ___________?" (and name him or her for the person taking the poll), not "how do you feel about Congress?" . The rule of perception of politicians is very similar to that for attorneys. People usually like their own attorneys, its all those others who deserve to die. Likewise with representatives and senators.
Another thing to consider is that a significant percentage of those unfavorably viewing congress, view them so because they aren't impeaching Bush -- see our thread on Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi. http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=69;action=display;threadid=40254
I'm betting its been rare in the history of our Republic that Congress has had a greater than 50% approval rating, and probably even rarer (if ever) that it is approved of more than the president. Although it makes for a great straw man for anyone to run against, all politics being local it becomes irelevant for anything other than rhetorical purposes. Indeed some might see it as a function of Congress to collectively embody as an institution everything that people hate about politics. If you feel you must hate someone, . . . a collective "THEM", it may as well be Congress.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.69
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #5 on: 2007-07-11 15:45:56 » |
|
Incidentally, we already have a long standing poll on Bush's presidential approval on Church of Virus.
http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=45
Considering it takes into account Meridion ratings, it is a more accurate reflection of the enduring community attitude here. Some more fleeting personalities have entered their votes and no longer participate much here, if they ever really did. The results reflect that. Come to think of it, Bush polls here no better than Congress does with the general US voting public. Pretty damn low for a real individual person. Perhaps if you asked us "Do you approve of lawyers?" we might be able to yield lower results. Perhaps.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #6 on: 2007-07-11 18:36:11 » |
|
I find the ratings of people at http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=;action=rateIndex (and pick People), even more compelling. In a field of 223 people to date, and including such "negative luminaries" as Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler and Osama bin Laden, Bush deservedly weighs in as the worst of all of those rated.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #7 on: 2007-07-16 00:09:37 » |
|
Well, as much of a wacko as he may be, there must be some good he's done... surely. He can't be all bad. Its not like there has never been another president like him.
Take this for instance, Bush is trying to hellp the small buisnesses out so that our economy will countinue to grow and prosper for the better.
Bush backs minimum-wage hike, this is an article off of the internet that was Last Updated: 4:33 PM ET Dec 20, 2006. Here are a couple qoutes off of this article.
"President Bush on Wednesday offered his most explicit backing of a rise in the minimum wage."
"In a year-end White House news conference, Bush told reporters that he backed a $2.10 rise in the federal minimum wage over the next two years, but also reiterated a call that any boost be accompanied by relief to small businesses."
""I support pairing it with targeted tax and regulatory relief, to help these small businesses stay competitive and to help keep our economy growing," the president said. "I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats to help both small-business owners and workers when Congress convenes in January."
I know he gets alot of stick for his little war with Iraq, but it could also be said that Americans are liberators; obviously if dictators are terrorizing a country they're not just going to sit back and watch when they can do somthing.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #8 on: 2007-07-16 20:23:26 » |
|
[Bass] Well, as much of a wacko as he may be, there must be some good he's done... surely. He can't be all bad. Its not like there has never been another president like him.
[Hermit] Do you have something in mind or is this just wishful thinking?
[Hermit] There seems to be near unanimity amongst historians that nobody in the history of the US has been as bad for the country and its image except possibly George the III, insane king of England. Who would you nominate?
[Bass] Take this for instance, Bush is trying to hellp the small buisnesses out so that our economy will countinue to grow and prosper for the better.
[Hermit] The US has collapsed under Bush. The dollar has halved in value. Somebody receiving a rebate of $300 has seen their tax increased by $500 because of category creep. We have tripled the National Debt and lost even a pretence of balance on foreign trade. If it were not for the illegal foreign wars we are losing, which is tying up 500,000 to 1 million people, and the 2 million plus we currently have incarcerated, it would be evident to everyone that unemployment is at its highest level ever. Add to this the fact that the jobs the administration are claiming to have created are invariably more hours for less pay in service industries. No substitute for manufacturing at all.
[Hermit] So what grew and prospered?
...
[Bass] I know he gets alot of stick for his little war with Iraq, but it could also be said that Americans are liberators; obviously if dictators are terrorizing a country they're not just going to sit back and watch when they can do somthing.
[Hermit] It is not "a little war." It is a million plus surplus deaths, the most advanced secular country in the Middle East destroyed and its people thrown into penury. It is the entire regional stability demolished. It is the UN turned into a zero credibility American puppet. It is a war debt we will probably never pay off. It is a blatant case of neocolonialism that has (along with our attempts to overthrow elected governments in Palestine, Lebanon and Iran) destroyed our pretence of being interested in democracy.
[Hermit] Liberators? Only in inverted newspeak. Saddam killed, exiled and terrorised far fewer Iraqis in 25 years than we have done in 4.5 years - and the pace is escalating. We are the terrorists, Bass. Wait till the Middle East responds to us in kind. Remember that the population of Iraq was over 25 million when we illegally chased the weapons inspectors out and sent our army in to satisfy our arrogance. Assuming that Middle Easterners could impact us in about the same ratio as the 3 to 4 million death and exile numbers have impacted on Iraq, the US would need to see 30 to 60 million deaths and displacements - and a destroyed economy - to be in an equivalent situation. Of course, the brutal - and illegal - Clinton sanctions and attacks were nearly as bad, causing between 1 and 2 million surplus deaths on top of the second Gulf War deaths.
[Hermit] Although even with those sanctions, Iraq under Saddam Hussein remained stable, produced more oil, made more electricity, supplied her people with much more food than it does under US misrule. And all for much less money. Which has to say something about the relative efficiencies of George Bush and Saddam Hussein. Of course, the US hanged him after the most farcical pretense to justice we have seen in decades. And now we cannot even find a strongman to takeover the mess we have created.
[Hermit] Try and visualize all this as it impacts on real people - and then explain what perversion of the thought process you are using to think of us as "liberators."
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #9 on: 2007-07-17 11:58:03 » |
|
[Hermit: Courtesy of the greatest news source (and satirical writing that rivals Swift) in the USA, a reminder of what was said before Bush took office. With hindsight, it can be seen that the Onion is as competent at prophecy as it is at satire. The title is a masterpiece]
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'
Source: The Onion
Authors:
Dated: 2001-01-17
Dateline: Washington, DC
Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.
Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: "That's hardly my area of expertise."
Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.
Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."
"Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."
Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."
The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.
"Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."
"For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."
An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.
"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."
"You have no idea what it's like to be black and enfranchised," said Marlon Hastings, one of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents whose votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election. "George W. Bush understands the pain of enfranchisement, and ever since Election Day, he has fought tirelessly to make sure it never happens to my people again."
Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.
"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
"The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #10 on: 2007-07-17 13:05:38 » |
|
Thats quite the inauguration Hermit.
But these sound like the words of a dictator. Did Bush really say these things or is somebody actually putting his presidency into words. If he really did say these things then how and why did the people vote for him? To me The Onion makes it sound as if Bush was born for the destruction of the State. And how come I've never heard this speech until now?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #11 on: 2007-07-17 13:20:50 » |
|
This is a piece of satire*, most notable because it was published just before Bush was inaugurated and correctly predicted many of the disastrous results of his appointment as president over the expressed wishes of the voters of the United States.
Satire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Satire (from Latin satura, not from the Greek figure satyr[1]) is a literary genre, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to bring about improvement.[2] It is used in graphic arts and performing arts as well. Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner.
Satire is to be distinguished from parody, which sticks to the form of the piece being mocked. The similarity to comedy is that "in satire, irony is militant"[3].
Satire usually has a definite target, which may be a person or group of people, an idea or attitude, an institution or a social practice. It is found in many artistic forms of expression, including literature, plays, commentary, and media such as song lyrics. Often the target is examined by being held up for ridicule, typically in the hope of shaming it into reform. A very common, almost defining feature of satire is a strong vein of irony or sarcasm. Also, parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are devices frequently used in satirical speech and writing – but it is strictly a misuse of the word to describe as "satire" works without an ironic (or sarcastic) undercurrent of mock-approval. Satirical writing or drama often professes to approve values that are the diametric opposite of what the satirist actually wishes to promote.
(...)
Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #12 on: 2007-07-19 01:42:16 » |
|
Forgive my earlier, laconic post, I couldn't spare much time. But now that I've got some free time I have a few more thoughts to share.
Yes Bush has ruined things for us but then we have had plenty of presidents ruin things in and for the United States of America. The Democrates have sex Scandals, and the Republicans have Abusive Powers (or think they are above the laws). We have Nixon (Republican) with the Watergate Scandal, and Clinton with the Sex Scandal. And I know we have had a couple of presidents who have had a poor President Rating.
[Hermit] It is not "a little war." It is a million plus surplus deaths, the most advanced secular country in the Middle East destroyed and its people thrown into penury. It is the entire regional stability demolished. It is the UN turned into a zero credibility American puppet. It is a war debt we will probably never pay off. It is a blatant case of neocolonialism that has (along with our attempts to overthrow elected governments in Palestine, Lebanon and Iran) destroyed our pretence of being interested in democracy.
[Bass] Fair enough. But since we are over there don't you think its better to see it through now with what the country is trying to do overseas? The war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and trying to get Osama Bin Laden, and bring him to Justice. Whats the alternative, I mean realistically? Some say the war is about religion, others that its about oil. I've even heard some say that it was primarily a strategic and tactical move for america to gain a military foothold in the middle east and secure the likes of Iran, Korea and even Russia. To be honest, I don't know. There are simply to many lies and insanities in this vast web for almost all of it to make the slightest bit of sense.
However, now that we are there, we need to stay until things get sorted. My cousin Darren was out there, he's told me what it's like now, how horrible it is. Saddam was an evil, evil, abhorrent man, but he at least managed to keep a lid on the conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites. We let it out, because we went to war with absolutely no post-war strategy. And it's a tragedy, for Iraq most of all. More than 100 people died there yesterday, and the West hardly batted an eyelid. We need to stay, and help Iraq get back on its feet. Repay for the damage we've done with our own blood.
But you aren't going to find a lot of people that disagree with going into Afghanistan; Iraq however is a lot tougher. Did George Bush willfully deceive us? The federal government simply didn't do all of their homework on the facts before going into the country. But, realistically, the regime of Saddam Hussein should have ended in the early 90's. Three presidents chose not to take appropriate action, and now there are consequences.
If Iraq is able to pull together and form a self-sustaining government, then it was not all bad, however.
We probably aren't going to find Osama. He could very possibly be dead, or in the mountains of Pakistan. No president elected in 2008 is going to invade Pakistan, with their second term on the line.
Really though, North Korea. What makes it sting is that while the U.S. fights enemies with marginal threat, North Korea still stands and grows. North Korea is not something that can be put off for years, that is what is urgent.
Thats all I can think of right now.
Regards
Bass
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #13 on: 2007-07-19 09:27:46 » |
|
Bass, "we" are in Iraq and Afghanistan illegally, because even really, really good false pretexts remain illegitimate, and in any legal system, including Lex Talionis, the fruits of illegitimacy are also illegitimate. "Our" presence in these places inflames the environment (and the region), as well as providing legitimacy to the fight against "us". At this point intelligence indicates that practically all the opposition in Afghanistan (including all the "insurgents" from 3 months to 80 years old we are murdering in airstrikes) are Pushtun and affiliated tribes, and in Iraq, only about 1/20 of the "insurgents" (who are really the patriotic resistance in their eyes) are foreigners, and 12 of these are from Saudi Arabia, 4 from Yemen and the other 4 Syrian and Iranian. Yet we only hear of Iran or Syria. Are we going to attack Saudi Arabia and Yemen next, or does our dependence on them mean that they get a clean pass? The complete absence of effective reporting (only partially because the environment is too dangerous for reporters), combined with the idiocies of the congress and senate critters and the anti-Islamic malevolence and Israeli agenda in the Whitehouse are highly likely to lead us into further illegal wars of aggression in the near future. Is this a good thing?
Lets say you break into a house to steal the house owner's belongings (it doesn't have to be oil). Halfway through you see the owner coming home. Do you run out of the back door and hope nobody catches you, or do you set up an ambush in the hope of murdering them? The idiocy of remaining in a situation where nobody can win anything (except a deferral of the war crimes trials perhaps), but where thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of others are killed every month, and militants, American and Islamic are taught how to fight more nastily and hate more thoroughly is exactly equivalent to the latter case.
Ask yourself what "we" are doing there. What do you think is going to be "finished" by staying there (except for any lingering respect for the USA)? We have already wasted and committed to wasting over 2 trillion dollars without taking reparations into account (and a war crimes trial would undoubtedly award in excess of a trillion dollars in reparations for what we have "achieved" to date), and increased global "terrorism" and the number of "terrorists" intending to cause the US and UK damage by several hundred percent. I think we have also guaranteed the collapse of the Military dictatorship in Pakistan, which wouldn't be a bad thing only it is bound to be replaced by something far worse - which will of course be nuclear armed; as well as having contributed (along with the EU's blatantly bigoted exclusion of Turkey) to the downfall of the century old secular government of Turkey and its replacement with a radical Islamic government. As a final own goal, we have practically guaranteed that Israel is going to get into an all but unwinnable fight where we cannot intervene - and where the result will be the release by the Israelis of real "WMDs" (being nuclear and biological weapons, both of which Israel has in abundance). Finally we have effectively handed control of our Middle East foreign policy to Israel, irrespective of who is in the Whitehouse, because if Israel threatens to attack a third party, the US then is in the predicament that it needs to preemptively target the same party lest Israel trigger total chaos and $500/barrel oil with a consequent collapse of the International monetary system and western economies.
All this together with the undoubted lies of commission and omission used by the administration to get us into the wars they wanted - and the utter malfeasance demonstrated by Congress in their failure to resist them, combine to condemn us in the eyes of the world. This, combined with the scrapping of the US constitution in all but form in the face of a minor threat, may well result in the recognition of the fact that the Republic is no more (and perhaps hasn't been for a very long time.) What it ought to result in is an International Court putting our leaders on trial for waging wars of aggression and war crimes. While I no longer approve of capital punishment, the only appropriate alternative would be to sentence them to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole - hopefully in somewhere more humane than the prisons where we have been torturing people from around the globe including, from growing evidence, American citizens.
Do you really think that more murders and the continuing sacrifice of American servicemen and mercenaries (we now have more mercenaries in Iran than soldiers) however misguided they are (e.g. surveys indicate that over 70% of American servicemen continue to believe the Administrations lie that Iraq was involved in Q'aeda's 9/11 attacks despite the findings of every credible investigation that this is a blatant lie fabricated by the Whitehouse as part of massaging the facts to justify their invasion).
Finally, Saddam Hussein was "evil" to his neighbors only while the US supported him. Unfortunately the full extent of our perfidy has probably been buried along with him (in other words, a major reason for invading Iraq - to murder Saddam Hussein and his inner circle to stop their mouths - has been achieved). No matter how much you think he deserved replacing, he killed far fewer Iraqis, and alleviated, rather than exacerbated their poverty. If he is to be condemned for his ability to pump oil, make electricity, feed people and maintain stability in a secular state where women had equality and children (according to UNESCO) were better off and had a better future than in any other Middle Eastern country (except Jewish children in Israel), then what does that say about us? No matter how much you might imagine that he "deserved" replacing, nobody gave you the right to do that? Or do you think that the Islamic states now have the "right" to replace Bush & Co? Can you simply not see your hypocrisy or do you just not care?
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The President of The United States.
« Reply #14 on: 2007-07-19 10:23:49 » |
|
PS:
We could have "had" bin Laden if we had wanted - by providing evidence of his crimes to an Afghan court - the Afghans offered extradition to Germany (despite no extradition treaty), if grounds to accept that bin Laden was guilty of a crime indictable under Afghan law were established in an extradition hearing before an Afghan court. Instead, we chose to invade and overthrow the Afghan government, replacing it with puppets from the same groups as we fought against when established by the Soviets, at a cost of billions to ourselves and despite the fact that the Afghans had attempted to cooperate with the US.
This should be contrasted to the US refusing to deliver Luis Posada Carriles to Cuba or Venezuela despite an American court finding that the evidence that he engaged in terrorism while employed by the CIA and while associated with Cuban exile groups (with close ties to the Bush family) compelling, and the existence of a valid extradition agreement with Venezuela.
So we could have had bin Laden had we sought him. But we didn't. We had at least two occasions when we happened across his spoor in Afghanistan. And chose not to commit resources to his capture, thus facilitating his escape. According to Bush, he wasn't even regarded as significant. One might ask why not. Perhaps for the same reasons that he is not on the FBI's most wanted list?
Now we are supporting the tattered remnants of a grubby coup in Pakistan (so much for our love of democracy) which has, under our savage ministrations, established the ungovernable mountainous regions as a new training grounds for al Q'aeda and friends. We are not able to work there, not only because of the geography, but also because our actions have made us into a feared and hated enemy in a region that previously regarded us well (remember that this was where the US worked to overthrow the relatively much more legitimate puppet governments established by the USSR in Afghanistan) by establishing radical Islam in the heart of what had been a secular state, and in a tribal area that has vendettas that have continued for millennia. Had we worked - as I advocated a few days after 9/11 - at establishing policing and aid missions - we would have spent a fraction of the money, made friends everywhere and could have had all of those involved in al Q'aeda and any other groups we wanted arrested and brought to trial - or their heads served on platters if that had suited us better.
Go back and read my Afghan Proposal. It dealt - comprehensively - with what we now have no way of repairing. But then, I have had the benefit of living and working with tribal societies and dealing with terrorism, insurgents and guerrillas from a military and security perspective. I am very knowledgeable about military history and a mountain climber, so being familiar with the terrain and the complete impossibility of effective military actions in such environments I knew that alternatives were needed. Which is how I knew that a military response was counterproductive, and an appropriate police/intelligence response the only sensible approach. What a pity the US couldn't find a few people with such knowledge and experience to talk to before practicing frottage on termite nests throughout the Middle East. Now, instead of dealing with the "terror threat" as the relatively insignificant probability it was, easily addressed in so far as it needed to be, by slightly improved aircraft security and greatly increased HUMINT efforts building informant networks, we have made half the world hate us and the other half fear us, while destroying our economy and social freedoms. Can you spell own goal?
Anything you may believe to the contrary is a result of the incompetent press and even more incompetent government misleading you, lying to you, feeding you with propaganda or just being stupidly wrong. Given the vast number of Internet resources available to anyone with a functional mind who is really interested in following what is happening, there is no excuse for ignorance on these matters. Further, granting that it is pure intellectual laziness to express opinions in the absence of research, the class of waffling in which you are engaging here makes you little better than Dees/Salamantis who at least has the excuse of diagnosable dementia for his ravings.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
