Bush

Here are some books to read, then make an opinion fo the man.

Fortunate Son by Soft Skull Press.

9-11 The Big Lie

 

Bush wishes to legalise his actions by using the events that occured on the 11th of September as evidence. This tragedy was the USA's tragedy, not the world's tragedy. Its their problem, and one that has to be rectified. I won't pretend to understand how the Americans feel about Bush. Neither can anyone else but the Americans themselves really understand how it feels like to be attacked in such a way. If Holland/ Sweeden/Finland were to be bombed by terrorists for a reason other than something to do with supporting the USA, I don't think you would be so crictical of Bush's policy anymore. Singapore quarrels frequently with Malaysia over the issue of water (we don't have enough of it), and for some reason all Singaporeans think Malaysia is always wrong. Morality depends on the context of the situation in question. Personally, I don't think Bush's foreign policy is damaging the international community. Well, if he wants to displace Saddam go ahead. Does it implicate the rest of us? The entire war is solely between America and the Middle East. Other countries happen to get themselves involved because of a subconcious desire to uphold international law. The political mess that the US finds itself in is what would have stopped Nazi Germany from invading Poland. Its a good thing that countries from all over the world have decided to adopt a moral standard to follow and force everyone to follow it.

Let Bush have his way. He won't kill the rest of us. Nonetheless the attention of the international community is always a good thing.

 

I think you have a point, but your opinion of Bush waging war in the Middle East being 'over there' is a bit too NIMBY. You never know what is required to make him go and attack any other country, even nearer to your home, because so far the only reason he has given was that the country under attack was 'supporting terrorists'. Bush has shown before that he feels he can just point at a country, say that and then invade the country.
He has threatened to invade the Netherlands because we refused to let American citizens, on trial before the International Court in The Hague, be transferred to the US for trial. There is no reason why citizens of the US should be an exception of international justice policies, but apparently Bush thinks this kind of threat is easily made.

 

Please don't push drivel like "9-11, The Big Lie". What a load of blatantly anti-American bull.
Bush isn't very smart, but what makes him dangerous is his belief that what he is doing is God's work. People who are that sure of their moral superiority, like most of the anti-western Islamic reactionaries, make me very afraid. I don't believe W launched the war in Iraq to secure oil, it would have been much easier, and cheaper, to buy it and Saddam would have been quite happy to become a wholly owned subsidary of the USA. W actually believed he was protecting the USA (and setting things right for daddy). It wasn't a grab for money or oil. He actually expected the Iraqi people to stage a repeat of Paris in August 1944.

 

I agree canambridge. The worst thing about Bush is that he is a zealot. No matter what he does, he believes he is doing it for the right reason.

 

Yes, the moral 'righteousness' of his wars make him oblivious of the fact that he is sending his troops abroad to conquer countries - and then what? These countries obviously need more time to accept the idea of democracy and free market economy, because they don't just accept it and go on: therefore Bush should have realized that his troops can't just liberate and leave. No matter how good the ideas are, if they are pressed upon you you will need time to master the new way, which wouldn't take long if these countries got around to installing it themselves. Which, I agree, would probably have taken centuries which isn't a good thing either.

 

Oh boy, I should have gotten into this thread long ago.

The National Debt of the U.S. when Bush took office was approx. $5.8 trillion, it now stands at approx. $7.1 trillion. This has resulted from three factors: 1. An economy that stagnated from early 2000 until 2004 (thereby flatlining revenues when large growth was projected 2. Increased defense spending 3. Tax cuts. Bush is responsible for #2 and #3, but the amount of #1 dwarfs 2,3,4, 5....... . This was handed to him by Clinton and juiced by 9/11. Without getting into excessive detail, #3 was an across-the-board tax cut that benefited everyone. Those who don't pay taxes or very little don't like those kind, they don't benefit quite as much. If this kind of tax cut works by stimulating growth, it's brilliant. If it fails, it's voodoo (like most of economics isn't?). #2 was needed, unless the U.S. was wishing to downsize its forces and return to the isolationism of the 1930s, because Clinton used military budget cutting to help balance his budgets. Some might say this would be great. Most would say it's not realistic in a modern world. The underlying problem with the U.S. budgets is not defense, it is social programs. Most people think free is a really good price.

Was Afganistan necessary? Most definitely. Was Iraq justified? Yes, but not (at least apparantly) for the reasons stated when it took place. Iraq played the U.N. for fools for 10 years. There were multiple violations of a cease-fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War and the U.S. finally did something about it. The supposed nuke program was a creation of Iraqi ex-patriots' imaginations to get the U.S. interested (they did). The chemical weapons were moved to Syria or Iran (if you believe they didn't exist, have I got a land deal for you!). If the U.S. deserves criticism, it's for crappy intel that fed off the U.N.'s crappy intel. Will democracy (actually a democratic republic, democracy is simply mob rule) work in Iraq? It would it the U.S. is patient enough. I'm not sure we are.

Yes Communism would work...... in a world populated with angels. I testify to the results of multiple attempts to make it work. They end up building walls to keep people in, "re-education camps", secret police, etc. Now that's a proletariat paradise! Democratic Republics are so evil that people consistently flee to them, often dying in the process. Perfection won't be achieved on this earth, but so far the Democratic Republic is the best political system going, and capitalism is the best economic system going.

 

Handed to him by Clinton, well I doubt that this economic stagnation just continues during Bush's term because of Clinton. If this is a problem then the US government under any president should do something about it, and you cannot possibly blame Clinton for the stagnation four years after he resigned. If it's still there now then it's Bush's fault, and if he doesn't handle it it'll get worse, because that is the nature of capitalist problems.

The Democracy and capitalist economies are the most succesful systems yet, but as has been noted here before the system attracts people because of the idea that they may influence the government which is far from reality. It is a good system for stimulating economies, because of the personal freedom and public happiness with short-term elected governments, but in all other affairs IMO it isn't as useful as it looks. In international affairs it is almost impossible to make decisions, and in war at least half of the population opposes action, thereby slowing it if needed and preventing it if not needed - both these things take time. In practice, it is perhaps too easy for a democracy to become a bureaucracy.

 

The economic slow-down was officially over as of late 2003 in the U.S.. Most of Europe should be so lucky. Such is the nature of growth or recession in a huge economy, it takes awhile to turn around in either direction.

If you want true efficiency, an emperor is the obvious choice. If you want moderate efficiency (yes, lots of bureaucracy) without the totalitarian rule, democratic republics are the choice. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Since this man seems to think running the USA like a business, where everything must make a profit; if it doesn't then throw it out, then the citizens should execute their rite to treat the current administration as a board of directors of a corporation. Remove them since their performance is below corporate standards.
Would you run a business this way, I know I wouldn't.

Researching this current president it has come to my attention that when elected governor of Texas he inherited a state that had the lowest unemployment rate of all the USA. The state had some of the best organised social spending structures and support in all the USA. There was a four billion dollar a year surplus to the state coffers.

After his election to Governor of the state of Texas he cut all the social support programs, unemployment sky rocketed to the highest of all the USA, and the surplus income of the state became a grteater than two billion dollar deficit. That is a six billion dollar nose dive!

I won't split hairs here but I think anyone reading this observation will understand my view.

Also the fact that the Bush family accepted a 25 million dollar campaign donation from a Saudi Prince, with the name Osama Benladen.
The same Saudi family the current USA government wants to eliminate from the face of the earth, ad for good reason!

In a congressional hearing on the Iran Contra Conspiracy Olivery North was asked who he thought was the most dangerous man alive that was a current and future threat to the interests of the USA. He answered Osama Benladen, that is why he spent a hell of a lot of money on his home security installation.

The reason they helped this terrorist was because he was fighting the Russian invasion of Afghanastan (I think the spelling is off).

 

I knew Bush had mismanaged Texas, but I had no idea that it was a six-billion dollar loss! How did this man ever become president?!?! :angry:

 

Good point Roel, but President Bush was not elected by the majority of the people in America, yet he still rules...which means he is a dictator.

 

I think that people who say that are often unaware of the fact that the system allows this kind of election and then criticize the outcome. The system of election is not very democratic and often outdated when it is done according to the number of inhabitants per state. In the eyes of any European like me it's very undemocratic anyway. If the people of the US don't want presidents to rule wihtout the vote of the majority then they should change their district election and two-party system.

 

Boy are you people ever letting your prejudices and ignorance show. I wish I had time for a longer post right now, but I'll be back.

 

Yes please! Criticism allows improvement.

 

In the USA after a fedearl election the President of the USA has a tradition to walk the last four blocks along Pensilvania Avenue (sorry for the spelling). The current President Bush was not able to do this beacause of a rather large mass of protesters throwing eggs at the limo convoy.
This of course was the protesting of the stolen presidency and the thfet of democracy in the USA.

I really feel for any person serving in the USA Armed Forces, brave and dedicated souls they are. It is shameful to the 'dream of democracy" for the current president and those behind his power base to think they are so smart that no one noticed. The cog in the wheel always comes full circle, it never fails.

I hope and wish safe keeping to all those who serve their USA and show such unwaivering patriotism as soldiers; who are more loyal to their country than that prick! That is exactly what he is . . . an adulterated prick!

 

I challenge you to site sources on all your allegations except the last line. This one is partially true, though I don't think Osama was there yet during the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan.

 

Yeah, Saddamm was bad, but not worth the hundreds of billions we are going to spend in Iraq.

 

I think most of us Americans support the war. Iraq did (perhaps does) have weapons of mass distruction. I know this because we gave them to Iraq in the 80's.

Edited by Moderator

 

Hmmm, the system of social security has developed since the 12th century you know. To compare democrates to Robin Hood isn't exactly right even though the basic idea is the same. By the way, compared to the Dutch socialist parties the democrates are seriously liberal as well.

Welcome to the forum, American mr. Griffin!

Here's another one that will get me bashed, but I think that Europe has outgrown Christianity and the US will do so in time.