Reply
Sun 16 Jan, 2005 02:19 pm
By Paul Bourne
It seems that Americans are either highly unimaginative in regards the opportunity cost of wars as it relates peoples' sufferings, lives lost, production lost due to displacement of humans and the social reality of the psychology impart of the lost lives on communities or the role of peace in economic, social and political development. Furthermore, when the governance is primarily concern about war without the understanding its opportunity; and when this is the focus of any stateman this cannot be an ideal leader.
Now that were are cognizant of Mr. Bush perspective of the world,
as an independent non-american bystander it is difficult to comprehend why this stateman was select by the people of America.
Is was an answer to social dilemma, political instability and-or cruel humans?
I am requesting that I be informed as the valid reasons why Mr. Bush was reinstated from the vantage point that war begets more of the same.
Hint: Your credibility suffers terribly when you consider Saddam (murderer of millions) a benevolent alternative to Bush's war. Statistically speaking, Bush kills no more people in war than Saddam did in peace, and you want us to cry along to the peacenik drumbeat? The majority of Americans that bothered to vote didn't buy that crap and neither do I. Show me a candidate who'll take out more of the world's trash in 2008 and he'll get my vote. If he has a feasible plan to do it peacefully, I'll campaign for him full time, but I wouldn't waste my time on indecisive, phony, weathervane like John Kerry
so you better look a little harder than that.
Oh, and welcome to A2K!