Peter Boulding wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:05:04 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion
in
> lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> <48285CA0.B639A02E@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
> >What exactly are these people so mad at Bush about?
>
> As I said, by "these" people you mean *most* people.
>
Most people don't follow politics.
> And the obvious answer
> is "what's *not* to be mad about?"
>
Apparently, Republican == bad.
> The enormous harm he has done in terms of
> discrediting democracy,
>
That's an utterly insane comment. Bush has given his presidency to
try to solve the problems of not just the Middle East but even
edging into sub-Saharan Africa. How is that hurting democracy?
> damaging human and civil rights,
>
It appears not to matter that Bush removed Saddam from power, a
monster who caused the death of millions of people and damaged
human and civil rights in extreme ways.
> advocating torture,
> further destabilising the Middle East,
>
The Middle East has been in stagnation and that stagnation gave us
9/11.
> destroying America's reputation and
> credibility;
>
Really? So acting boldly destroys one's reputation and credibility?
I think that Bush restored America's reputation and credibility.
The US is seen now as a country willing to act. Of course, if
Oblame-O is in power, that's out the window.
> and his abject failure to address crises in the environment,
>
The only real way to deal with pollution is a full scale nuclear
power build out. Bush has pushed in that direction, helping India
towards that goal. Did you know that many high land lakes in the
Western United States are polluted with mercury because of China's
coal burning?
> job ex****ts, deregulated finance, competition from the Tiger Economies,
New
>
The US has fairly low unemployment, especially in a slowdown. How
are the Tiger Economies doing?
> Orleans, etc., are obvious;
>
New Orleans is a mess because Democrats run Louisiana and New
Orleans. Also, even though Americans saw the mess, they figured
that it was covered before they could cover it. They don't believe
that if it's a local disaster or if it's far away like in Sumatra.
> Bush has managed to discredit every creed he has
> embraced - including Christianity.
>
By doing what?
> And what good has done? Most people can't see *any*.
>
I think he's been a great president with the foresight and the will
to act. I hope whoever takes over is similarly capable. The world
doesn't need a return to Clinton.
> >It amazes me
> >that "Iraq" could be such a big deal. How is Iraq different than
> >Panama, Granada, the Balkans?
>
> The Balkans, like Gulf 1, had widespread international sup****t
>
There were at least as many countries involved in Bush's 2003 Iraq
effort as were in the Balkans one under Clinton.
> and did not
> reek of military or economic imperialism.
>
What has happened is that people like you are just decided that the
Middle East is off limits for some reason. Even though the Middle
East is the centre of the universe when it comes to risk of future
conflict, especially 9/11 type conflict.
> The prime motive was to ensure the
> continuation of stability in Western Europe and in this NATO was fairly
> successful.
>
You think that's more im****tant than figuring out the Middle East?
We don't have a Europe like before WWI. Europeans aren't going to
go to war with each other because some Serb gets a rash on his ass.
But I bet that Arabs and others in the Middle East would for a lot
less.
> Iraq is in some ways very similar to Panama, except in scale; in both
cases
> the US turned against its own man as soon as the level of embarrassment
he
> was causing outweighed his usefulness.
>
When was Saddam the US' "own man"? When was that? The US has been
fighting with Saddam since 1990. That doesn't even count the USS
Stark. Whose missiles and warplanes were used in that attack?
> Granada is said to be the only occasion on which Reagan's people were
unable
> to persuade him out of a piece of real dumbass stupidity, but was on
such a
> tiny scale that no-one other than Clint Eastwood bothered very much.
>
How was it stupid to free some people on an island?
> The list of reasons why Iraq stands out from the rest is long and has
been
> gone over endlessly; if you haven't cottoned on by now it's unlikely
that
> you ever will.
>
Of course I won't cotton to it when there really is no different
except that this time it's a Republican.
> Suffice it to say that it was a war of choice, not necessity;
>
ALL the examples were that. Of course when was the last time the US
(or the UK) was invaded? The Falklands was a "war of choice".
Sometimes you just don't take crap.
> that it poured fuel onto the flames of the Middle East instead of
dousing
> them;
>
But it didn't. Progress has been made in nearby countries that had
not been made in eight years of Clinton. Iraq is serious pressure
on these regimes. Especially on Saudi.
> that it played totally into the hands of religious fundamentalists
> everywhere;
>
If Iraq becomes a democracy, that will screw religious extremists.
I keep explaining this and people like you seem not to get it: Iraq
isn't one sect, it's at least two. That means that fundamentalism
can't work.
> and (this is the only part that wasn't widely predicted) that
> its execution was ****ed up so badly that the resulting disaster is on a
par
> with that now being precipitated by the Burmese generals,
>
Burma could be much better if it was democratic. But that's what
Iraq is. Basically Burma is a country where a Saddam is still in
charge.
> not to mention the
> massive damage it has done to the global - and especially the US -
economy.
>
I have no idea what you mean by that. How has Iraq damaged the US
economy?
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
|
