Bush and the Iraq war

[ponybilt]

Luke, your last point certainly has a ring of truth. Language evolves and changes and it is this administration that's the first to apply "terrorism" by the current to a whole host of actions -- before and after the fact -- whether or not it fits the definition.

And yet, even if we do lump dictatorial atrocities committed on its own people into the definition, then yes, the US is guilty of a wide array of terroristic atrocities resulting in some of the problems we see today.

Iran had a popularly elected president (democratic by the standards of the US), and yet we overthroew the government, installed the Shah of Iran (who tortured and killed his own citizens, not unliek Saddam Hussein), which led to civil uprisings and Iran reverting to a fundamental Islamic state that is apparently part of some evil-axis-something-or-another.

We destroyed a 150-year-old democracy in Chile in order to install a general that tortured and killed citizens.

We overthrew the democratically-elected Fiji government to install a sadistic general.

Yada yada. We make our bed and then denied to sleep in it. Very sad.

 

[KinkGuy]

Let us not forget who aided or at the very least, helped orchestrate Saddam's rise to power and his first years in power. Who initially supplied him with money, weapons, technology and the support he had right up until he invaded Iran? The U.S. Iraq had "favored nation" status I believe? Who's to blame here? Are we going to invade the 80-odd other countries under the control of vicious dictators? Well, if they have oil, and it benefits the House of Saud, maybe.

 

[Max]

Just a brief contribution from an Englishman who is in the US for two or three weeks this month. It happens that although I have been travelling around quite a bit, for most of the time I have been in very conservative and Republican areas in the midwest.

What has struck me very powerfully is the seemingly almost universal support for the war in Iraq. Almost every conversation on the subject seems to go exactly in the opposite direction from a similar discussion in London, for instance. They show a very different point of view from the general balance of opinion on this thread.

The distance between the US (or quite a big chunk of it) and western Europe (and other parts of the developed world too) seems to be getting wider all the time ... I can't help thinking that with a likely Bush victory (am I right?) there will in the end be trouble in one way or another.

 

[LuckyLuke]

Originally posted by Max@Sep 22 2004, 01:40 PM
Just a brief contribution from an Englishman who is in the US for two or three weeks this month. It happens that although I have been travelling around quite a bit, for most of the time I have been in very conservative and Republican areas in the midwest.

What has struck me very powerfully is the seemingly almost universal support for the war in Iraq. Almost every conversation on the subject seems to go exactly in the opposite direction from a similar discussion in London, for instance. They show a very different point of view from the general balance of opinion on this thread.

The distance between the US (or quite a big chunk of it) and western Europe (and other parts of the developed world too) seems to be getting wider all the time ... I can't help thinking that with a likely Bush victory (am I right?) there will in the end be trouble in one way or another.

[post=257030]Quoted post[/post]​

I hear ya Max. I live in Canada (Toronto to be exact) and the whole topic of Bush and Iraq is treated mostly as a bad joke by almost everyone around here. You can say anything about Bush or Iraq and other people will get the joke. But I spend quite a bit of my day speaking with American clients and boy-oh-boy that's a topic to be avoided like the plague because those people say things to me that just blow my mind. I have to fight not to say, "is Rush Limbaugh your cousin or something?", since I don't want to annoy our clients (and get my ass fired).

Another interesting American political phenomena, is the way that I know the political affiliation of almost EVERY American client that I deal with. That is to say, these people always announce to you whether they are registered Republicans or Democrats. Freakin' weird if you ask me, since I haven't a clue how most of my own co-workers vote. But I suppose it is helpful to me since it enables me to self-censor my conversations with them appropriately. Perhaps that's the key purpose of such announcements?

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Max@Sep 22 2004, 05:40 AM
The distance between the US (or quite a big chunk of it) and western Europe (and other parts of the developed world too) seems to be getting wider all the time

[post=257030]Quoted post[/post]​

Are we talking geopolitics or geology? Aw hell, it's true for both.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@Sep 21 2004, 07:21 PM
Well, if they have oil, and it benefits the House of Saud, maybe.

[post=257002]Quoted post[/post]​

Not to mention Israeli extremists. It's funny because they were bitching about Clinton and China; Bush's connections to Israel and Saudi Arabia make Clinton's Chinese connections look like someone who once had an order of beef and broccoli.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Originally posted by LuckyLuke@Sep 22 2004, 03:26 PM

Another interesting American political phenomena, is the way that I know the political affiliation of almost EVERY American client that I deal with. That is to say, these people always announce to you whether they are registered Republicans or Democrats.

[post=257045]Quoted post[/post]​

Yup. And every one of them has got a strong opinion on Iraq. Far fewer of them can actually find Iraq on a map.

SG

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by ponybilt@Sep 21 2004, 07:17 PM

And yet, even if we do lump dictatorial atrocities committed on its own people into the definition, then yes, the US is guilty of a wide array of terroristic atrocities resulting in some of the problems we see today.

This is an important point. To many other countries, firing a cruise missile into a building full of people from hundreds of miles away IS terrorism. When Palestinians find their homes bulldozed by Israeli tanks, they consider THAT terrorism. By this I don't mean that they're right, only that when they hear President Bush talk about "terrorists" and "evildoers," they think he must be talking about himself. Whether you believe in Bush's policies or not, many of his actions and words have created an enormous disconnect that makes us more disliked around the world. And they've also emboldened extremists that find it that much easier to equate us with Israeli commandos knocking down Arab doors. Even otherwise friendly nations find it harder and harder to support our position. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden has wanted for years and Bush -- intentionally or not -- has helped make it happen.

There's also the common myth that we're fighting "terrorists," not Muslims. The enemies are totalitarian Muslim extremists, with terrorism merely being their method, as others have mentioned above. It is not a war against the entire religion of Islam, as many westerners and Arabs alike realize. What Bush should have said -- but due to his constant struggle with the English language probably couldn't articulate anyway -- is that the war can't be won by us alone. It's the people in these Muslim nations that tolerate extremists that ultimately have to win it for themselves. But this is a complex, nuanced position, isn't it? It wouldn't do for Bush to adopt forward-thinking positions when he can act like a tough guy instead.

Not that John Kerry has put forth an impressive alternate plan either. But the devil we don't know is pretty tempting at this point. I'm not one of those Bush-bashers who claim that he's the cause of all the world's problems or that he's an idiot or an empty suit. I just don't think he knows what he's doing.

 

[madame_zora]

Agreed, Aloofman. Not knowing what he's doing is a pretty terrifying poisition to me for the leader of the free world, though. I used to think he was a complete idiot because of his lack of language skills, but I have amended my view to believe he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but what little intelligence he does have, he uses for selfish purposes. The focus with which he wants to "get Saddam Hussein" is almost maniacal, and the whole world must pay for his obsession with doing what his daddy couldn't. Ahh well, perhaps the polls will be wrong and the American people aren't even dumber than him- but I doubt it.

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Sep 23 2004, 11:51 AM
The focus with which he wants to "get Saddam Hussein" is almost maniacal, and the whole world must pay for his obsession with doing what his daddy couldn't. Ahh well, perhaps the polls will be wrong and the American people aren't even dumber than him- but I doubt it.

[post=257225]Quoted post[/post]​

M.Z. !!!!!! You're home !!!!!! Good to hear from you again. What happened to "getting Bin Laden?" Oh, that's right, the bush-saud-chaney white house is saving that for a few days prior to the dumb asses going to the polls.....sniff, sniff......wow, this all stinks.

 

[jonb]

Oh, if you want to laugh about Bush, go to http://www.dubyaspeak.com

That being said, it's strange that someone with so many ties to energy would be ignorant enough to support cold fusion:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-04w.html

What's next? NASA studying astrology?

 

[madame_zora]

I don't think it's ignorance so much as money. NASA might as well study astrology- they're not gonna get money for much more out of this administration.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Well, I suppose the moon base project will be delayed once again!

BTW, welcome become Zora!

 

[madame_zora]

Thanx, Orca. Nice to be back amoung the friendlies here. I was having withdrawals when my computer died, so good to be back again.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

The addiction was too strong, huh?

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by jonb@Sep 24 2004, 09:58 PM
What's next? NASA studying astrology?

[post=257379]Quoted post[/post]​

Astrology would make a equally strong science offering for offspring of the evangelical right and complement Creation Science.....errr, Fantasy.

jay

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by jay_too@Oct 1 2004, 11:45 AM
Astrology would make a equally strong science offering for offspring of the evangelical right and complement Creation Science.....errr, Fantasy.

jay

[post=258057]Quoted post[/post]​

Hey, what about The Bell Curve? We can add phrenology to that list.

Pop science is generally lousy. But they could at least tell the difference between a hypothesis which is logical, parsimonious, testable, and hasn't been disproven yet; and one which isn't any of those.

 

[LuckyLuke]

Originally posted by jonb@Oct 2 2004, 04:45 AM
Pop science is generally lousy. But they could at least tell the difference between a hypothesis which is logical, parsimonious, testable, and hasn't been disproven yet; and one which isn't any of those.

[post=258101]Quoted post[/post]​

It has nothing to do with being unable to tell a difference, it has everything to do with being unwilling to make that distinction.

 

[jonb]

Even worse are the ads for all these different medicines. Now patients come in and ask the doctor about drugs they don't really need, thus proving the flaw of free enterprise.

 

[madame_zora]

Yeah, it's not bad enough that doctors get kickbacks from certain drug companies for prescribing their medicines, but now the ads have people trying to diagnose themselves, not even knowing what the medications do, just because the ads are intriguing. We are such sheep. Now the FDA says that only a "drug" can cure a "disease", so if something is labeled a "disease", only an FDA approved drug can legally advertise that it "cures" it, even acid reflux (disease), emotional disorders, etc. so now any natural remedy can't advertise that it can be used for these things. What a great scam, wish I'd have thought of it.