auto-da-fe

OK. I will admit it.

Bush is a liar and a cheat. I have actually been thinking about this for some time now, and have recently come to this conclusion. Right about the time that I started this thread I was begining to feel this way, but I still want to know something:

After 9/11, when Bush came on the TV and said, Cool Hand Luke style, "We will find you, those who supported you, your friends, anyone else involved in this, and we will bring you to justice", I was of the opinion at the time that that was exactly what the US needed at exactly that moment. We needed to remember what a sleeping giant we truly were, and he did that for us. I personally think that is the reason why he enjoys his high approval ratings even now.

I don't think that there was some altruistic "liberation" motive for the war, but at the same time, I don't want to beleive that it was purely greed motivated.

Is it possible that he simply wanted to get re-elected, and he thought this might do it for him?

There are a lot of things about this that make me sick to my stomach. Haliburton seems like the biggest one, and it baffles me that there have not been any congressional oversight about it. I would think, if I were a democrat in power, I would be railing on this 24/7 until we got some sort of an explanation as to why they (Haliburton) didn't have to bid or compete for a contract that basically allows them to write their own money (either that, or we need to all go to work at Haliburton... talk about job security).

Anyway, what I want to know is why you think that Bush still has such high approval ratings? I am about the only person who has defended him on this debate, and I was mostly playing devil's advocate, just trying to get a few more perspectives before making up my mind (btw a big thanks to Ron for his invaluable input).

I will not vote for Bush in '04, and I cannot think of anything he could do to change my mind. I would rather have Clinton back, as the worst he ever did was lie about getting a blowjob, instead of lying about going to war.

Ron Garrett

Check my thread on the WSJ/NBC poll. In their latest poll those who voted for Bush in 2000 outnumbered those who voted for Gore by 3 to 2. If I did a survey where Dems outnumbered republicans 3-2 I'm sure we could get opposite results. I was actually shocked by how biased the sampling was, then I remembered it was for the WSJ.

brighid

It is possible, but how would that be any different from any other form of greed?

B

Wiploc

It's plain and simple alright, but why should we think it's true? Why is this the highest law of international morality, not trenchable by any other consideration?

Analogy: I say that parents should get to raise their own kids in the way they think is right. But can I extend that to say that it is a plain and simple fact that that no atrocities committed by parents against their own children can justify intervention by neighbors? I don't think so.


It's a nice ethic, but it's not the only ethic; and sometimes ethics conflict with each other. You haven't established that this is the king of all ethics. Does it somehow result in the best possible world, the greatest good for the greatest number? Or is there some other standard?

[sarcasm]And in any case, how did ethics get into this discussion? Does Bush have ethics? Does Saddam have ethics? Why should we be injecting ethics into a discussion of the behavior of people of that type?[/sarcasm]


This is the line that will be taken by those in favor of a status quo, people who don't want to be invaded and have no immediate plans to invade anyone else.


Which seems reasonable to me. Why should they trust the purity of other people's motives when they aren't all that pure themselves?


I love this line.


It would depend what standard you are judging us by, right? How about these:
1. we keep conquering other countries;
2. we interfere with our citizens' reproductive rights;
3. we are trying to usurp the powers of a free and self-governing people so as to subject them to a repressive theocracy; and
4. we are working to corner the world's oil supply so that we can extend that repressive theocracy to the rest of the world?

Would that work, do you think?



It's never applied equally. And one reason it keeps changing is that if you try to apply a law with perfect consistency you eventually discover a situation in which it results in injustice rather than justice. So the laws have to keep changing as the situations warrant.



I agree that the war was bad, that we have not been told the reason for it, and that it is horrifying that we jumped behind a war without asking the reason for it. But I don't see any broken mirrors. Next time a country doesn't want to be invaded and doesn't have any immediate plans to invade, it will argue that nations are sovereign. That's how we got that mirror last time around, and that's how we'll get it next time. It will be just as good next time.

You talk like the conquest of Iraq was precedent setting. In fact it is consistent with precedent set by all of history, and followed [sarcasm]slavishly[/sarcasm] by the US in the conquests of Panama, Grenada, and many others.


I'm with you in opposing our promiscuous conquest of other countries. My problem is that I don't see that your Kantian analysis has any weight. You have picked one rule that has benefits in some situations, and you have declared it to be inviolable based on nothing in particular. I would certainly argue for restraint when it comes to attacking other countries, but I can hardly argue that we should never do it.
crc

Zanthor

agree with some of your points, but wouldnt you say that China is really the true ' sleeping Giant' of this current day and age, like you were a few decades ago?? - like who knows what they, CHINA, are really capable of? if provoked by You, beyond reason and endurance?
surely Nth Korea/Iran/Saudi etc are but small potatoes?, merely a hinderance to your big game of world domination? that you seem to currently aspire to?
China? ( they got the weapons, they got the numbers, - now, where have i heard those words before? - oh yeah, it was Jim Morrison, the DOORS. track - Five to One, sure, he was speaking of Vietnam, wasted lifes, but it could just as easily apply to right now huh?
for all its allmighty 'shock and awe' crappo, perhaps America doesnt even begin to guess just what it is really facing up to?
its not just a personal wish, just another possible future scenario..
seems to me, America needs to make more friends on this planet, not just placate and be surville to Israel surely?? , or continue on its present course of- devil take all, we dont care just how many enemies we make, we can handle it, the death and destruction a la our totally dominant cruise missiles, we can/will inflict upon all others with our new criteria of pre-emptive warfare, on those we choose to think may harbour future, futile, thoughts of opposing us, its all just one breath away from the living and the dead., eternity by a hairs breath, at the flick of a switch, your switch only, which is just fine and dandy so long as its always for/by you alone huh?, the 'safe, secure allmighty' USA, and so long as its just 'the enemy' that is on the recieving end of your WMD inflicted death, it wont be you that perishes, no siree, no, not you, you sit safe and secure, well fed, whilst the 'enemy' starves, and its too bad, sucker. you scream at them, -"do you like our Depleted Uranium,? - we just done gone soaked your country in it, insidious DU, ( you cant see it, taste it, smell it, but its gonna get you, for sure, we made certain of that!!! once again - just in case we didnt do enough overkill the 1st time round, a decade ago, so? - just how is your DNA? - slightly warped and bent? - ah so, just as it should be... stuffed! by us , he he. ( snicker ) we got you knackered, yes sirree, ( spoken with a southern GWB, texan drawl, for sure..)
- like, the USA alone has got WMD,with which they alone could lay this whole world waste, if they had to/wanted to, but its mainly other peoples neighborhoods, that you are after right now, right? like you say to yourselfs, if we want to or so choose to, (and you do want to, often enough, right? _ - you easily say to your supposed enemies, " we will come at you, with our full might, even more so, should you even think of opposing or resisting us, or even if you simply have something we want, we will lay you and your country low, so low, you wont ever have water or food, untill/unless we choose to give it to you..
but hey, dont forget, above all else, we are the good guys, right?
in God we trust.. you dont count. not one bit. for you are not - one of us.. or 'for us' therefore you must be against us, perhaps we should get Indian ppl to come down try control you? - may prove 'cheaper' huh?
yeah right.. ( sic )"

but hey, its ok, its called ' reconstuction, of your country. too bad if some more of you die, or some more of our drones/worker bees die in the meantime, or cause you to hate us more, we dont feel your pain, no siree.. and we sure can spare a few more of our working class ppl, we commit them to war, from afar, at the drop of a hat, or a silver dollar, they hardly seem to matter at all, cept maybe for the propoganda worth of thier passings from this world, its just the way it is..
and so it goes, for its only wealth and position that matters, like,
the aristocracy of this country, as in all others, are all oblivious to the common ppl's suffering., it matters not. to them, so long as the $$$ value of their stocks and shares prosper. for Gods sake, real money and power is at stake here, dont the common plebs realise this simple fact?
the blood of the ppl is food to them, the rich, they feed on it, its thier right, they are stronger than all others.
they say,
dont you see common ppl, from what ever country you hail from, your deaths benefit only us, for we are control freaks, and that all other ppl's are expendable?
yeah, the Govt got no worries, unlike you poor folk.. you die all at our bidding, and we tax every move you make, we monitor everything, nothing is hidden or sacred no more, not no hows, we see everthing you do. its called technology progress, and we have put it to good use, monitoring your every move..
now, how can we make you serve us , pay us better, the wealth, superanuation, perks, tax benefits we get amounts to really obscene big bucks, and we have set them all aside for ourselfs, our wealth would make SADDAMS piitance look like something from the poor side of town.
be sure of this simple fact, no-one , but no-one rivals the current wests politicians aspirations of greed and power and wealth.
they continue to say, with impumity,
" now poor sod, common person, now die quietly wont you? - give your life willingly for our good, do not protest, it only causes 'unrest' amongst the other poor ppl, when you do and we will not tolerate it., its treason, you could be punished, ostracised even, now, you dont want that do you??? !!
when you go, shut the door quietly behindf you, we would prefer not to even have to recognise you once existed. when you are quiet, perhaps even before then, we will be even more convinced than right now, that you dont matter one bit, we will just take your oil, your water, after all its only natural, our WMD, are greater than yours, we WILL take all you got, dominate you, beyond all belief, just coz we want to, and we think we are better and more 'rightous' than you, its not your fault, you couldnt help not being born in our 'democracy' but we will educate you in the correct way of how things should be, or annihalate you, doesnt much matter which to us, the end result will be the same,. we will get richer, you will get poorer, same as in our democratic capatilist state, wealth is there for the grabbing.. monopolising, no problem, doesnt bother us one bit. the WMD, you thought you had, you thought gave you a measure of strength, its all just illusion, we created them many years ago, they were allready obsolete as WMD when we sold them to you, they were allready 'old hat; to us, we created them and then we discarded them as being inferior, we had suits of protection at our disposal that allready made thier use near irrelevant, what the WMD we got nowdays, at our disposa lmakes even the Napalm we used in vietnam look like beginners grade WMD warfare.. what we have is power you could only begin to dream of, we own your ass and your oil, surely its not that hard to grasp, or understand, its as simple as that, we is greedy, plain and simple, our needs for energy are huge?."

is that about how it stands worldwide, courtesy of the great USA right now?
or is it just a dream. and all is illusion. the oil still flows, and the blood we paid, is minute in comparison to thiers huh?
the weapons they discarded/destroyed a long time ago, in the vain hope it would appease the wrath of the allmighty USA, or nullify your desire for domination over them, was just thier pissing in the wind, whatever they did to please you was practically irrelevant anyhows, right from the start, you demanded all thier pride. more than they wanted to, or could give you, they perhaps felt you would always come back on them, destroy them, just as you intended all along?? nothing they could ever do would be enough to satisfy your greed?

Zanthor

auto-da-fe

wow, what a rambling post.... im not even sure how to reply to it other than this:

The line from Five to One is "They got the guns, but, We got the numbers. Make take a week, and it, may take longer"

other than that...

Zanthor

no prob mate, take any point you want, see if you can focus on it, get a clearer picture than i could, expand it, i was just pullin ideas down from the ethernet. seeing if i could get any to gel, but the common underlying thought is, most of the world sees the USA alone as the main aggressors, the rest of the world as puppets, that the strings of which, USA seems to be trying to gather together to pull to co-erce, control, purely for and at the USA's benefit and pleasure.
plz, do try to correct me if you think i am wrong in this assessment
Zan,

Zanthor

oops. dble post
Zan,

auto-da-fe

That I understand.

I do think that to some extent, the US is trying to either a) directly control different parts of the world, or b) influence to a great degree other parts of the world, but not directly control it. Either way it goes, I beleive that you cannot say it is the ENTIRE world, as there will always be certain countries we leave alone (Britan, China, India, Russia, etc.). I beleive that manifest destiny will eventually make another go around in the American political scene, though I'm not sure it will ever succesfully be implemented again.

Really though, I would like to know more about the way the rest of the world views the US as a whole and the individual citizens of the US.

What are your opinions on that?

brighid

At least from what I read in foreign newspaper and here from a number of different foreign friends the current American Administration is seen a the typical, American stereotype: arrogant, ignorant, and without regard for anyone else. Add to that that GW Bush is seen as more of a world threat then 10 Sadaam's! Thankfully man foreigners that I know seperate Americans from GWB and his administration, but on the flip side there are many so angered by American action (and the support the US Citizens seem to give GWB) that they will not make this distinction. GWB is seen as doing more damage diplomatically, politically and economically then any other president or all combined.

Many parts of the world were with us after the Sept. 11th attrocities. We had their sympathy and support in the palm of our hands. We could have moved many mountains with the right approach, but instead arrogant, single-minded, biased politics has destroyed all that and given rise to a global anti-Americanism that we have never seen the likes of. Hopefully this will change, but not with the current policy of deceit, denial, and secrecy.

Brighid