Warwick

How would you define the below post?

Bush�s place in history;
An excerpt from �The Decline and Fall of the US Empire, AD 2055:

�President Bush was from a long line of Kings who squandered their nations treasury on <blah, blah, blah>......"

I consider this a fantasy world.

Since it is not insulting to you, it must also not be an insult.

christ-on-a-stick

Um... a tongue-in-cheek speculation on how history may possibly look back on this disturbing chapter of our nation's history???

I don't think marduck is claiming to make any Nostradamus-like prophecies here...

Zar

Warwick,

To cite known history and caution against repeating it does not seem like fantasy to me, even if it is couched in satirical language. Indeed, you have been citing WW II as if it were freshly relevant to the current situation, so I don't see what the big deal is. On the other hand, blanket dismissals of a group by you ad hominem don't seem terribly compelling or legitimate. There is no escape from criticism for anyone who uses this approach, not just conservatives. Finally, to say that those who support the war and the war party share responsibility for whatever negative outcome their policies bring seems eminently fair. Again, you have done exactly that yourself when you said "You fail to comprehend the consequences of not going to war."

If you think you will reap rewards and accolades in the end for your beliefs, that is your prerogative, but surely you are not denying that a negative outcome can be blamed partly on you or those you support. This would fall under the aegis of "taking responsibility" that the "responsibility president" likes to champion.

John Hancock

Warwick

As a new user on this board you've not read my usual assertion that "warfare is capitalism with the gloves off". Maybe your standardized view point has failed you in knowing that the Bush family has always been proud of a family tree that connects them with England's King George III.

More importantly a reading of this essay could put this war and it's foolishness into a true historical perspective.

I hope reading all four pages will not place too great a strain on yourself.

Martin Buber

Jacey

How'd you know I live in New Orleans, and what's it like in Munchkin Land?

HaysooChreesto!

The thing is, if nothing is done now, then the situation in the ME will remain the same tomorrow and the day after, etc. Maybe another September 11th won't happen again for 5 or 10 more years, but maybe it will happen tomorrow.
The course of action the U.S. government is currently taking is in response to potential dangers that materialized in New York and D.C. 16 months ago. Before then, it seemed that we had the luxury of maintaining a status quo. Not anymore.

This isn't a "capitalist" war. As a matter of fact I won't address that-it's not worthy of a well reasoned response.

I'm not a fan of George Bush. I didn't vote for him. However, the responsibility of quelling Islamic Fundies has fallen squarely into his lap. It's a mean spirited and groundless position to assert that he wants this war for personal economic gain. He may not represent everyones political views, but that doesn't make the man an inhuman monster.
It would be easier to not go to war. It would be better for the economy and obviously much better diplomatically. It would be easy to take half measures and continue to ignore the dangers that Islam presents. We could just hope like hell that it doesn't happen again.

But I don't think those are viable [non] solutions. I don't believe that we can spend enough money, show enough good will, or some how make amends for real and perceived past wrongs to make these people stop hating us.
The time for being passive and patient is a luxury we no longer have.

Warwick

That was my first and only post about WWII and it was in a direct reply to a post about WWII.


Do you claim to have the answer of what will happen if we do not go to war?

There will be a negative outcome (e.g. terrorism) regardless of going to war or not. Some believe it will either reduce or increase the odds of more terrorism.

Zar

Very few people would be completely satisfied with the "status quo" of the Middle East, least of all those who live there. But saying this hardly means that the "final solution" envisioned by the military hawks and Likudniks will replace this with a better net scenario.

I sense a real level of impatience and exasperation that draws a great sense cathartic relief from the massive and shocking use of force to "solve" political problems in that region. I can understand to some extent why, using the detatched and highly abstract view of war we as a society tend embrace, it would be appealing to think we can "wipe the slate clean" by killing a lot of people. But I do not have much faith that this is going to work out like some people say it is. Furthermore, it does not seem morally acceptable to march around the world spreading your views by the sword, crusader-style, so insofar as anyone presents this as a "cause" I have to resist it.

John Hancock

Lamma and Warwick

You are both closed minded and have been highly propgandized by main stream United States Media. One thing that I'm convinced of is that I could always learn more and if someone screams at me to that he knows it all and I should jump he's lying.

Martin Buber

Zar

This is precisely what I do not believe. I think concentrating on al-Qaeda, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, N. Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian problem, among other things, will do more to slow terror and prevent danger to the U.S. than attacking Iraq (again). The CIA generally agrees with this, and so do many senior statesmen and members of the veteran high military command. How does the above view differ significantly from a temper tantrum or a killing spree fed by a vortex of fear?

I really don't buy the line that terrorism will happen at the same level regardless of our actions, so we may as well march across the globe attacking whomever we please, because it makes no difference. You will recall that most of the world heaped condolences on the U.S. right after 9/11 and offered cooperation. This hardly speaks to a world that will destroy the U.S. and burn it to the ground no matter what it does. The world is bigger than the "War on Terror" and a lot of bad things can happen with careless warmongering that may be attached to countries and states and regional security in their own right, on top of the issue of whether a terrorist group like al-Qaeda will attack again.