History will be harsh on Dubya. He is a weak man as revealed by his running to "religion" to rationalize this war for oil. His abilities for world diplomacy are abhorrent. All his decissions have been political, mostly going to the highest bidder. His values of nepotism over meritocracy in the selection of bureaucrats have been an extreme disservice to our society.
Maybe if we call him King Dubya for awhile it will fill his void of being the a son of a father who believed in the brother.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who's history will be "harsh" on "Dubya"? Yours, the American people's, Europe's.....? It is much too soon to decide how George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, will be remembered. Will the war against Iraq be his defining moment, the baramoter against which his place in history will be judged? Perhaps. Today, a majority of the American people are behind its president and the progess of the war. Based on this, it would appear that GWB's place in American history will be just fine.
If GWB has the support of the majority of the American people, what more could he REASONABLY hope to achieve? Quite frankly, it is refreshing to have a leader that is less concerned with world opinion than with the desires of his own people.
re: The Effect of War on Telecom God Bless America, the protector of freedom in this world!!!!!!!
Such naivete. I suspect you really believe this. Perhaps America is the protector of freedom in your world. Were you to live in Guatemala, Iran, Chile, or some other victim of American "defense of freedom" your mileage might vary. ;-)
re: The Effect of War on Telecom Protesting America's liberation of Iraq (last I checked we were not going to be there forever) is akin to supporting Saddam which really means that you support murder, torture and the use of rape against women.
What was all this called when Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand during the Iran/Iraq conflict? You really have no clue how cynical US policy has been in the Middle East do you? Just believe your silly nationalistic fairy tales if they make you feel better about it and go back to sleep. The rest of the world sees what you are blind to.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomI know what pushed your button in my previous post. It was these words:
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
The button pushed is that these troops follow orders and put their lives on the line. Our leaders and our press should show enough respect to them and the rest of society by speaking truthfully. Hiding behind patriotism solves nothing (though it does make for a popular Jerry Springer TV show).
We have an oil dependency which fuels fanatics. What are we going to do about it?
re: The Effect of War on Telecom Do you know what one of the great things about this country is (oops, more patriotism, sorry)? It is the fact that one can have open and free discussions such as we are having, and the truth can be revealed.
I got some news for you sunshine. The same is true in France, Germany, and Canada to mention a few of the states that are as free as the US but disinclined to start reckless wars that will only increase terrorist activity. Wake up and get out a little. You'll see that America isn't the only free country out there. In fact it's probably not even the freest anymore. Habeas corpus doesn't seem to apply to those that the governent doesn't want it to. Ask Hamdi--no saint but still an American citizen.
-I continue to be amazed at the high level of discourse coming from the "peace" movement. I ask yet again: is this how you intend to persuade people? Maybe a few more insults hurled at me will convince me 100% to join your cause.
-I'll stick with the US over France and Germany, thank you very much. These countries have provided no moral leadership recently. A few years ago, they stood idly by while genocide occured in their enighboring country. Nothing was done until the US once again intervened, to save a Muslim population, mind you. It is also worth noting that the UN did nothing about this situation either.
The hypocrisy of the French government is high. At the same time that they were lecturing the US that UN approval must be obtained prior to any action in Iraq, they sent their own troops into the Ivory Coast without any discussion. Not to mention the billions of dollars in commerce between French companies and Iraq, in violation of the UN sanctions.
Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic: the list of thugs, tyrants and mass-murderers brought down by the US is long. Soon, we can add two other names to the list: Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
I got some news for you sunshine. The same is true in France, Germany, and Canada to mention a few of the states that are as free as the US but disinclined to start reckless wars that will only increase terrorist activity. Wake up and get out a little. You'll see that America isn't the only free country out there. In fact it's probably not even the freest anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
France, Germany and Canada are as free as the US, this is certainly true. How much of a hand did America have in ensuring the freedom of the people of these nations? And talk about starting reckless wars...I am not a professional historian, but I do seem to recall that our German friends have a penchant for global conflict.
I have been amused by your recent flurry of posts. I truly believe that most of the anti-American postings can be traced to simple jealousy.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomTo all the narrow-minded hiding behind the Patriotic chant and affected by Alzheimer's, this may help. Although you need a pre-requisite: ABLE TO READ AND THINK ON YOUR OWN ------------- No, what your talking about is "read and think like I do".
Some comments on that article:
1) The author doesn't seem to understand that oil is a global supply issue. Just because the US doesn't take delivery on the oil coming out of the gulf doesn't mean that loss of oil from the gulf will not affect the US. If you remove production from the world market, the price goes up and everyone competes for what is left.
2) The author puts forward the delusional notion that the world can somehow ignore oil coming from the middle east. He starts by suggesting that something called "recreational" driving be eliminated. Never specific about what exactly "recreational driving" is or how it would be banned, I'm left at a loss as to how to validate his idea. Or where his notion that the world can ignore the middle east and its oil come from. The numbers simply don't add up.
3) The US abandoning the middle east is not an option. The author seems to think that if the US has no concern about middle east oil supplies, that events in the middle east would mean nothing to the US.
That is, in fact, delusional. And beyond abandoning oil, true US disengagement from the region would involve abandoning Israel to deal with its problems on its own. The first problem being that Israel's military spending and international financial position depend on american subsidies.
The second problem is that this is the nuclear age and global and/or large regional wars have consequences for everyone. The money avaiable in the middle east for weapons makes the problem even more serious.
4) The US didn't make Iraq attack Iran. And turning Iraq's need for loans to support its war on Iran into some elaborate conspiracy involving the gulf states has a rather disreputable source. This was part of Iraq's justification for the invasion of Kuwait. How *dare* Kuwait expect the money loaned to Iraq to fund its war on Iran to be repaid! And yet the author buys right into the Iraqi reasoning.
The real problem with the piece is that it distorts the efforts of the american government in dealing with international crisises....into a series of american-directed "plots". What in fact is a haphazard and conflicted decision making process on the part of the US is turned into an elaborate conspiracy with an unbelievable amount of forsight.
What the author didn't understand is that its possible within a US government to have factions pursuing policies that are conflicted or even are at odds with each other. And that what seems like an elaborate plan, can in reality end to be a series of incremental decisions made with incomplete information.
History will be harsh on Dubya. He is a weak man as revealed by his running to "religion" to rationalize this war for oil. His abilities for world diplomacy are abhorrent. All his decissions have been political, mostly going to the highest bidder. His values of nepotism over meritocracy in the selection of bureaucrats have been an extreme disservice to our society.
Maybe if we call him King Dubya for awhile it will fill his void of being the a son of a father who believed in the brother.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who's history will be "harsh" on "Dubya"? Yours, the American people's, Europe's.....? It is much too soon to decide how George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, will be remembered. Will the war against Iraq be his defining moment, the baramoter against which his place in history will be judged? Perhaps. Today, a majority of the American people are behind its president and the progess of the war. Based on this, it would appear that GWB's place in American history will be just fine.
If GWB has the support of the majority of the American people, what more could he REASONABLY hope to achieve? Quite frankly, it is refreshing to have a leader that is less concerned with world opinion than with the desires of his own people.
God Bless America!