cicerone imposter wrote:
Flaws in the American way of life.....
You're actually going to post this ignorant rant in multiple places? I mean, if I was messed up enough to concoct something like that I'd try to hide it and not advertise it....
Quote:
"Are we sure that the extreme Christian fundamentalists who lurk behind President Bush
You're calling Colin Powell, Andy Card, Condi Rice, and Paul Wolfowicz a bunch of Christian fundamentalists???
George W. Bush is basically an old-line liberal similar to JFK more than anything else I could think of. A real conservative president would have, by now, eliminated the department of education and gotten the government out of the school business altogether, thoroughly cleansed the state department, booted the UN off our shores and told Kofi Anan and his ilk that in future times if they want to visit New York, to contact their travel agents, outlawed all abortion via the slick method (stroke of the pen/law of the land, pretty cool huh) etc. etc. etc.
Quote:
In the London Evening Standard, the political commentator Peter Oborne calls the US "a rogue state". The editor of Newsweek International,
Fareed Zakaria, acknowledges that, to much of the world, the US is "an international outlaw".
That's undoubtedly because those two guys are idiots. The sad thing is that you as an American should be able to refute such idiocy easily enough, nonetheless since you are clearly not up to the task, allow me:
Nobody is buying leftist claims that simply citing a British intel claim of an African uranium connection amounts to any sort of a big lie on the part of George W Bush, or that toxic levels of cyanide and mustard agents found in the major rivers of Iraq are leftover from weapons programs of Hammurabi and Nebachanezzer.
There was ample reason to believe that Saddam Hussein had his hands in the anthrax attacks which followed 9/11, in the Oklahoma City bombing, in the original bombing of the trade towers, and in several other kinds of ****
over the last ten years. Hussein was the one paying the families of suicide bombers in the middle East, and wsa running a school for hijackers with mockup airliners.
The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.
In taking Hussein out, Bush and Blair have achieved a number of major objectives, any one of which would have justified the effort.
The most major is probably that they have created the opportunity for Arab democracies by creating one example of such or soon-to-be example of such in the midst of the dictatorships. A number of the best analyses available indicate that the total lack of democracy or responsible government in the Arab world is the most major problem in the middle East.
They have eliminated the threat to Saudi Arabia as well as any need to keep US troops in Saudi Arabia.
They have eliminated major parts of the terrorist network threat to the United States and to our allies.
They have eliminated a major source of funding for terrorism worldwide.
They have created the situation for putting Iraqi oil back on the market.
They have freed 20 million people from one of the worst despotisms of the last century.
They have put the fear of God into several of the remaining outlaw regimes in the world, most notably North Korea. We may have actually just averted a disasterous war in Korea by the example of Hussein. Guys like the "beloved leader" in North Korea don't give a rat's ass what happens to their people, but when they see the ruling family and leadership echelon of a place just like theirs targeted and taken out without the people being harmed at all, it gets their attention.
In baseball, you call something like that a "Grand Slam".
In particular, and particularly after witnessing the totally opposite example of Kosovo just four years ago, it's just really hard to sympathize with any of the people doing these crybaby acts over what probably amounts to the greatest victory of American arms and diplomacy since WW-II.
Quote:
As always, US leaders try to present America's crimes as an aberration. What happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, we are told, does not
represent "American values".
Basically Abu Ghraib does not represent TRADITIONAL American values; it represents Clinton-age values perfectly well. The problem is that Bush and co. have put all their efforts into weeding the clintonistas out of the military at the top and have neglected the enlisted ranks. I assume that will be fixed in Bush's second term.
Quote:
Why we expect so much of America is a puzzle. During the Korean war, it bombed the north so intensively that it ran out of targets. In the 1960s
and 1970s, it killed an estimated three million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. At the end of the first Gulf war, it killed retreating Iraqi
conscripts in their tens of thousands. In Chile and Nicaragua, it helped armed opponents of democratically elected governments. It has tried to
squeeze the life out of Cuba for decades and took new measures to stop Cuban Americans sending cash to their families back home only the other
day. It opposes a host of international treaties - on banning nuclear tests and controlling carbon-dioxide emissions, for example - and now abjures
the Geneva Conventions as well.
As to Korea, I suggest you visit both North and South Korea and, if you survive the visit to North Korea without being eaten, tell us which side you figure is better off.
VietNam was a typical democrat war which should have been over with inside of one year.
As to Nicarague, how could anybody forget the looks on democrat/liberal faces after the Nicaraguans voted the Sandinistas out the first chance they ever had to do so, thanks to Ronald Reagan?
Cuba, as is well known, has provided the footsoldiers for marxist insurrections all over the globe. The United States can best help the victims of those operations by letting Cuba starve on its own and not helping them.
Communism is good at producing starvation; that's probably the one thing in the world which communism actually IS good for. I mean, how can you possibly get famines in the Ukraine, the richest belt of farmland on the entire planet? You've got to work pretty hard at that one.
Hitler was planning to use the Ukrane as the basic farm area for all of Europe and had plans for a superguage train in and out of the region for the purpose.
)
