At what point does the Bush presidency become intolerable?

[kieofwoo]

that comment does not make any sense

the UN are a group of nations that vote on issues

the members of the UN voted that they did not wish to go to war with Iraq

their authority was undermined when the USA and UK decided to go against what the UN has decided

[Roody]

Originally posted by kieofwoo
that comment does not make any sense

the UN are a group of nations that vote on issues

the members of the UN voted that they did not wish to go to war with Iraq

their authority was undermined when the USA and UK decided to go against what the UN has decided

I still disagree and I believe my remarks do make sense. Numerous resolutions were made by the U.N. yet they continually failed to enforce those resolutions. Had the U.N. backed up their own resolutions the U.S. and the U.K. wouldn't have had to go it alone.

[Leatherneck]

What's to say about the UN? They are a bunch of spineless whimps that could care less about the USA. Why should most countries care about us anyway. Most hate us, just like most hate Bill Gates. We are a monopoly of sorts and plenty are envious.

[nepenthe]

Originally posted by Bouncer
What rules are you referring to?

Seriously, what rules?

Iraq's rules? Iran's rules? North Korea's rules?

Pick a country please. Or perhaps you'd favor europe's rules? You know, the same rules that permitted a wholesale slaughter in the Balkans for FOUR YEARS before a finger was lifted to stop the genocide, pardon, "ethnic cleansing" (and only because the US backed it up militarily).

So please, whose rules?

Why the US rules? Because apparently, whether we like it or not they seem to be the only ones willing to actually DO something by way of setting rules down and enforcing them.

I mean, do you think ANY other nation would've gone in to topple Al-Queda and the Taliban if the US hadn't? Even though they were a threat to ALL western nations?

Personally, I don't think so. No one did so until the US did.

/shrug

The US does not WANT to be the worlds police. We are, in effect, being FORCED to be the worlds police because no one else seems to give a damn.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

The guise of ethics or destiny is always what an aggressor uses to justify their actions. The Taliban were not on our list of threats to national security, al-qaeda was. Had they not attacked us on our soil, they might still be living their high lives knocking down Buddha statues with the Mullah. The US is notorious for dragging feet until it is in our national best interest. The US is also notorious for supporting dictatorships and oppressive monarchies, whether or not the replacement is kinder or more ethical.
I like being on the winning team, but why pretend that we it all out of ethics and not self indulgence.

shant,
david

[AceFireball]

Originally posted by bigmo66
What's to say about the UN? They are a bunch of spineless whimps that could care less about the USA. Why should most countries care about us anyway. Most hate us, just like most hate Bill Gates. We are a monopoly of sorts and plenty are envious.

i agree 100%, Im sick of Bush this Bush that, everyone is makin him out to b soo bad when all he has done is gone to war with terrorism to fight our right to be free and live to enjoy it!! If we had another president who didnt start a campagin against terror the terrorists groups would see our weakness and continue to attack..that is all I have to say..thank you for tuning in

[nepenthe]

Originally posted by AceFireball
i agree 100%, Im sick of Bush this Bush that, everyone is makin him out to b soo bad when all he has done is gone to war with terrorism to fight our right to be free and live to enjoy it!! If we had another president who didnt start a campagin against terror the terrorists groups would see our weakness and continue to attack..that is all I have to say..thank you for tuning in

Well, like I said to torsten. It is a matter of what "facts" you wish to emphasize.

[Bouncer]

"The guise of ethics or destiny is always what an aggressor uses to justify their actions."

True, but a bit rhetorical as it's also what a defender uses to justify their actions.

"The Taliban were not on our list of threats to national security, al-qaeda was."

Given that they are interchangeable to a degree that's like saying the Nazi's were anti-jewish but the Wehrmacht was not.

"Had they not attacked us on our soil, they might still be living their high lives knocking down Buddha statues with the Mullah."

True, we had nothing to gain and everything to lose, and of course, we wouldn't want to upset the europeans or UN by invading.

The US is notorious for dragging feet until it is in our national best interest."

Not necessarily true. The US engages in a number of humanitarian operations that are not of any specific benefit to the US. Further, we got involved in the Balkans when we had no particular national interest at stake.

"The US is also notorious for supporting dictatorships and oppressive monarchies, whether or not the replacement is kinder or more ethical."

True, but what the US seeks is regionwide stability, not nirvana. Dictatorships trend to be more stable for the four year periods that mark US Foreign Policy.

"I like being on the winning team, but why pretend that we it all out of ethics and not self indulgence."

I see it as being neither. Or rather, I see it as being more complicated than either viewpoint.

As always, a pleasure David.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[nepenthe]

Tom,

Thank you for the response.

Defenders will more often play the victim card. An aggressor might seek to sell its acumen (i.e. Kuwait was part of Iraq at one time).

I do not see al-qaeda, an international terrorist organization and the Taliban, the former fundamentalist (and ally) ruling faction of Afghanistan as that similar. I do not believe that the 1930's German model applies. As I see it, it would be the same as invading SA in order to demolish the militant Wahhabists.

The Europeans had no real reason to concern themselves with Afghanistan, however any country with a substantial Buddhist or Dravidian population might.

The US did little to stop Pol Pot or the Hutu/Tutsi massacres. Our condemnation of Chinese human right issues are vapor in the face of "favored trading nation" status. More often than not, the US foreign policy supports whatever government offers the best access to it resources. Despotisms are most often best suited for said goal.

I concur that it is seldom a simple answer. However, it is what is preached to the laity and printed in the every man's history book that is considered the truth. <shrugs>

shant,
david

[UnitedWeStand]

Once upon a time Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
Who is really to blame for all the problems in the world?
Courious Adventerous Groups?
Religous Activists?
Non-Partisan Voters?
Risk Takers?
You?

The thread topic reads .. at what point does the bush presidency become intolerable?
When someone has no tolerance, in what the President of the United States Of America has produced, destroyed, and whitewashed by using words of Peace, Prospurity, Freedom.
Surely, many people will disagree with anothers view point on Peace, prospurity, and freedom; as these words have been redefined several times. Nothing is more "talked-about" right now in the world since the start of Gulf War II.
United States invasion of iraq (which is far from our homeland), in an attempt to protect the United States and surrounding countries, has proved to be an attempt to improve something, perhaps mankind? life? even though many will refuse to see things as they really are. Rather, believe the eye of the beholder.


Ever heard the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it."? If we followed that saying as a policy, then we would be lighting our homes with candles still. Much less, have no reason to look for an alternative, because the candle idea worked.
However, looking at any purpose of the war in Iraq, most definately something is being accomplished.

Leaving this, as a point, which needs to be improved. I shall add my view.

George Bush is a Leader of United States. Without a little bit of war, the United States would be walked all over. The United States of America is looked at as a Superpower by many, Now its just a matter of making it a truth to the rest of the world. A superpower has a responsiblity. GWB is however only one man.

GWB is much like a president of any company. Decisions are really made by all the people under him, but he gets the credit and the blame.
Whether your friends are fighting for something, or you are fighting for something, or just looking at things happen. Even if this Bush Presidency is successful, and tolerable for you, its also hitting home in some way.

The Bush Presidency is very tolerable for me, its actually made me more conscious and alert in my ways of handling money, and protective of my investments.




Blessed art thou,


Brandon

[Roody]

Originally posted by kieofwoo

There are no links between Hussein and Bin Laden.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01

[jayyy]

Here's what Noam Chomsky, widely considered one of the most respected intellectuals alive today, has to say about the Bush Administration's motives for invading Iraq. He actually doesn't agree that oil is the principle motive, but its a very interesting read.

Its very long, but just in case anyone wants to check it out-



TERROR WAR


Atilio A. Boron: Looking at the recent US policies in Iraq, What do you think was the real goal behind this war?

Noam Chomsky: Well, we can be quite confident on one thing. The reasons we are given can't possibly be the reasons. And we know that, because they are internally contradictory. So one day, Bush and Powell would claim that "the single question," as they put it, is whether Iraq would disarm and the next day they would say it doesn´t matter whether Iraq disarms because they will go on and invade anyway. And the next day would be that if Saddam and his group get out then the problem will be solved; and then, the next day for example, at the Azores, at the summit when they made an ultimatum to the United Nations, they said that even if Saddam and his group get out they would go on and invade anyway. And they went on like that. When people give you contradictory reasons every time they speak, all they are saying is: "don't believe a word I say" . So we can dismiss the official reasons.

And the actual reasons I think are not very obscure. First of all, there´s a long standing interest. That does not account for the timing but it does account for the interest. And that is that Iraq has the second large oil reserves in the World and controlling Iraqi oil and even ending up probably with military bases in Iraq will place the United States in an extremely strong position to dominate the global energy system even more than it does today. That's a very powerful lever of world control, quite apart from the profits that comes from it. And the US probably doesn't intend to access the oil of Iraq; it intends to use primarily safer Atlantic basin resources for itself (Western Hemisphere, West Africa). But to control the oil has been a leading principle of US foreign policies since the Second World War, and Iraq is particularly significant in this respect. So that's a long standing interest. On the other hand it doesn't explain the timing.

If you want to look at the timing, I think that it became quite clear that the massive propaganda for the war began in September of last year, September 2002. Before that there was a condemnation of Iraq but no effort to whip people into war fever. So we asked what else happened then September 2002. Well, two important things happened. One was the opening of the mid term congressional campaign, and the Bush´s campaign manager, Karl Rove, was very clearly explaining what should be obvious to anybody anyway: that they could not possible enter the campaign with a focus on social and economic issues. The reason is that they are carrying out policies which are quite harmful to the general population and favorable to an extremely narrow sector of corporate power and the corrupt sectors as well, and they can't face the electorate on that. As he pointed out, if we can make the primary issue national security then we will be able win because people will -you know- flock to power if they feel frightened. And that is second nature to these people; that's the way they have ran the country -right through the 1980´s- with very unpopular domestic programs but accustomed to press into the panic button -Nicaragua, Grenada, crime, one thing after another. And Rove also pointed out that something similar would be needed for the presidential election.

And that's true and what they want do is not just to stay in office but they would like to institutionalize the very regressive program put forward domestically, a program which will basically unravel whatever is left of New Deal social democratic systems and turn the country almost completely into a passive undemocratic society, controlled totally by high concentration of capitals. This means slashing public medical assistance, social security; probably schools; and increasing state power. These people are not conservatives, they brought the country into a federal deficit with the largest increase in federal spending in 20 years, that is since their last term in office- and huge tax cuts for the rich, and they want to institutionalize these programs. They are seeking a "fiscal train wreck" that will make it impossible to fund the programs. They know they cannot face an election declaring that they want to destroy very popular programs, but they can throw up their hands in despair and say, "What can we do, there's no money," after they have made sure there would be no money by huge tax cuts for the rich and sharp increase in spending for military (including high tech industry) and other programs beneficial to corporate power and the wealthy. So that's the second, that's the domestic factor and in fact, there was a spectacular propaganda achievement on that. After the government-media propaganda campaign began in September they succeeded in convincing a majority of the population very quickly that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and even that Iraq was responsible for September 11th. I mean, there is not a grain of truth in all that, but by now majority of the population believes those things and those attitudes are correlated strongly with the commitment to war, which is understandable. If people think they are threatened with destruction by an enemy who´s already attacked them it is {delete "all"} likely that they'll go to war. In effect, if you look at the press today they describe soldiers as saying: "we are here for revenge - you know- because they blew up the World Trade Center, they will attack us", or something. Well, these beliefs are completely unique to the United States.

I mean: no one in the World believes anything like this. In Kuwait and Iran people hate Saddam Hussein, but they are not afraid of him, they know they're the weakest country in the region. In any event the government-media propaganda campaign worked brilliantly as the population was frightened and to a large extent it was willing to support the war despite the fact that there was a lot of opposition. And that's the second factor.

And there was a third factor which was even more important. In September the government announced the national security strategy. That is not completely without precedent, but it is quite new as a formulation of state policy. What is stated is that we are tearing the entire system of the international law to shreds, the end of UN charter, and that we are going to carry out an aggressive war -which we will call {delete "it"} "preventive"- and at any time we choose and that we will rule the world by force. In addition, we will assure that there is never any challenge to our domination because we are so overwhelmingly powerful in military force that we will simply crush any potential challenge.

Well, you know, that caused shudders around the world, including the foreign policy elite at home which was appalled by this. I mean it is not that things like that haven't been heard in the past. Of course they had, but it had never been formulated as an official national policy . I suspect you will have to go back to Hitler to find an analogy to that. Now, when you propose new norms in the international behavior and new policies you have to illustrate it, you have to get people to understand that you mean it. Also you have to have what a Harvard historian called an "exemplary war", a war of example, which shows that we really mean what we say.

And we have to choose the right target. The target has to have several properties. First it has to be completely defenseless. No one would attack anybody who might be able to defend themselves, that would be not prudent. Iraq meets that perfectly : it is the weakest country in the region, it's been devastated by sanctions and almost completely disarmed and the US knows every inch of the Iraq territory by satellite surveillance and overflights, and more recently U-2 flights. So, yes, Irak it is extremely weak and satisfied the first condition.

And secondly, it has to be important. So there will be no point invading Burundi, you know, for example, it has to be a country worthwhile controlling, owning, and Iraq has that property too. It´s, as mentioned, the second largest oil producer in the world. So it's perfect example and a perfect case for this exemplary war, intending to put the world on notice saying that this is what we´re going do, any time we choose. We have the power. We have declared that {delete "there"} our goal is domination by force and that no challenge will be accepted. We've showed you what we are intending to do and be ready for the next. We will proceed on to the next operation. Those various conditions fold together and they make a war a very reasonable choice in taking to a test some principles.

[jayyy]

hey torsten-

Won't be around for a few days to read answers, but as promised by PM, heres the answer to your prior question. Its really long, and I had to cut myself short because this question is so broad it can't really be handled on posts like this. But heres as much as I got-

I still don't think the plight to end terrorism was the real reason the Bush administration insisted on invading Iraq. But I'll leave that aspect of the argument up to the very insightful speech by Noam Chomsky above.

As for what other measures can be taken to solve the problem of terrorism- The short answer is that I don't know how to end terrorist attacks on the US. I don't think anyone either than the hardest of extremists on either side claim to know.

But I suppose the first thing I would say is- Whether it involves waging war against country after country in the middle east or not, How can anyone be sure there really is a simple, clear-cut, actionable way to abolish terrorism in the first place? I've met a lot of Americans who feel that the US, with its secret service and superior weapons, can ultimately hunt all these people down and bring them to justice.
But historically terrorism has always been a much more difficult problem than that, regardless of the resources of those being terrorized. The United Kingdom saw terrorist attacks from the IRA for the better part of a century. This started before world war II, remember, when the UK was the dominant world power. And No-one questioned the prowess of the British secret service, undoubtedly the best in the world at the time. But there was a limit to what they could do. Altogether thousands died at the IRAs hands, if I'm not mistaken.
The Israeli army is considered the best-trained and troop-by-troop the most capable in the world. I'm not a military buff, but if I'm not mistaken US troops are often trained by Israel, so it can't be said the US army knows something about dealing with these situations that theirs doesn't. Bouncer can come in if I'm wrong, but I doubt even he will try to throw their competence into question.
But even with the financial support of the US, even with a citizenry trained for attacks, even with a stockpile of open-secret nuclear weapons to deter attackers, for all the attacks that they manage to thwart, Israel sees terror bombings on what seems to be a weekly basis.
The reason for this is that if someone has the will to die for an attack, there is very little you can do to stop them. I haven't read any terrorist expert that claims otherwise. They deal with the preventative, with what to do after an attack. None of them claim they have any idea how to stop these things from happening in the first place. All you really need to wage a terrorist attack is a ford truck and some fertilizer. It doesn't matter how wealthy the states is- military might in and of itself just isn't going to cut it this time.

So to look at what the US is doing now, chiefly invasions of countries in the middle east- I'm sure by now you've heard about the warlords moving into Afghanistan in wake of the power vacuum created by the US invasion. I'm sure you've heard about al quaeda moving into Iraq more, not less, in wake of the invasion. The US itself suspects Al Queada in the attack on the UN, so you can't say I'm alone in claiming this. And the US, unable to fully finance the Iraq occupation due to its mounting federal deficit of 500 billion a year, is now pleading with the UN to send in international troops (after it went against the UN vote to invade, and after it failed to find the weapons that were supposed to justify the invasion in the first place, I can't help adding).
I keep reading bits and pieces that supposedly connect Iraq to al quaeda, about the bomb death of a known al quaeda sympathizer in that country, for example. These people can be found all over the middle east, the same way the types of right-wing extremists responsible for the Oklahoma city bombing can be found all over the US. There may be more al quaeda in the middle east than rightwing extremists in the US, but the point remains the same- they're everywhere, scattered throughout the population. Al quaeda has cells in at least 50 different countries, and in a good deal of those they're not even a visible minority, and receive a good deal of support from the general population. Sure, technically, its possible invading Iraq could give the US leverage in the middle east. But so could the invasion of Syria, or Palestine, or Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia is actually the country where both Bin Ladin and the 9/11 attackers came from, as a matter of fact, though the US's oil dealings has given them virtual impunity throughout this whole debacle.)
So what's next? Invade Syria, too? And Palestine? The entire middle east? You're in a 500 billion deficit as it is- Even if you slash every social program in existence, do you really think you can pay for the invasions of all those countries, to say nothing of the constant, never ending occupations of troops thereafter?
A lot of Americans feel that the US is accomplishing something out there, what with all those people on that deck of playing cards being captured. Has it not occurred to anyone that these people have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the US? Even the Bush administration hasn't tried to claim otherwise. Remember that chemical ali guy, whose hateful crime was gassing the kurds? The United States was Iraq's ally when that happened. They knew those things were happening in the 80's and did nothing. They supported them in doing that.

So all this considered, I would say that what the US is doing currently is having a marginal effect on curbing terrorism, at best. Its been argued that the invasions have intimidated arab governments into ceasing to tacitly support al quaeda (ie, looking the other way.) This is in itself useful, but I think you'll agree that it's a pretty impractical way of stopping the problem. It does nothing to eliminate Al Quaeda itself. If Al Quaeda can be alive, kicking and flooding into Iraq and Afghanistan, as many people, both pro and anti war now believe, how can it really be said these invasions have done anything to stamp them out? If they're not out yet, exactly when are they going to leave?

The US does have some advantages that the UK didn't and that Israel doesn't have. Its borders are surrounded by oceans on either side, and, (fairly or not, I won't argue this point), people of Arabic descent can be singled out for questioning. But these advantages are domestic. With the exception of the Patriot act and the call for its indefinite extension, (which, I might add, abolishes the liberties that made the US so great in the first place), the US, if you didn't know, is doing little on the domestic front. Most of the money and attention has been put into this war. Individual states have been told that they're "on their own", and received little in ways of federal funding.

My own take on this is that it would be useful to figure out, using a rational process of reasoning, precisely what it is these people want, and why they hate the united states. George Bush has said that "they hate our freedom". This is, of course, empty rhetoric, not logic. Everyone has motives for what they do, even evil people. Especially evil people. (btw- Beyond the complete lack of evidence, one of the clincher reasons why I don't think Hussein had a real connection to al quaeda is because while I'm sure he's happy to see their skyscrapers go down, he himself has nothing to gain by committing random acts of terror on the US. Al Quaeda is politically and religiously driven, say what you will about them, they are willing to die for what they believe in. If Hussein is ideologically driven, why was he the United States' ally throughout most of the 1980's? He is not a religious fanatic, he is far more cold and calculating than that. He has no scruples. Hussein cares only about himself and his own power. He's as much a muslim as Hitler was a Christian.)
What disturbs me about the US is how it has so far responded to this problem with war after war (many believe Syria is next; The Whitehouse's claims that the WMD may have been taken there seems to confirm this). Beyond the limitations of this approach that I've stated above, I think it says something about how the United States looks at the rest of the world and deals with its problems in general. It seems to think every problem can be taken care of by military might. What if the problem is more complicated than that this time? When is the united states going to stop thinking it can solve all its problems by bullying everyone else, and join the rest of the world?

[Roody]

Originally posted by jayyy
When is the united states going to stop thinking it can solve all its problems by bullying everyone else, and join the rest of the world?

Javvy you know as well as anyone that alot the actions of the last year and a half have been a big result of 9/11. If I remember correctly it was the terrorists being cowards by flying planes into buildings killing women, children and other innocent civilians that day. The United States didn't ask for that, nor do anything to warrant it. If protecting our own makes us bullies, then Im proud to be a bully.

[Roody]

Originally posted by kieofwoo
that comment does not make any sense

the UN are a group of nations that vote on issues

the members of the UN voted that they did not wish to go to war with Iraq

their authority was undermined when the USA and UK decided to go against what the UN has decided

It was undermined when the U.N. chose not to enforce their own resolutions.