Understanding America and the Bush administration

Quote:

Wow, that's the best you can do? Those are the changes that you've noticed in 70 years of development, the unification of Europe into a single union with a united currency, the emergence of the world from the great depression, the arrival and departure of the cold war.... Oh screw it.

Aunti, you are a literalist. Which, in turn, leads to scoffing at all the poor, benighted morons who do not have the depth of understanding that only a literalist believer can have.
The unification of Europe into a single union with a united currency... Hmmm, it seems to me that this has been tried before, recently. What could not be achieved by aggressive meausures in the last century, due to the unilaterlist decisions of the United States, England and the former Soviet Union, is being strived for in a more benign way today.
However, things going as they are, unchanged, demographically you will have Eurabia united under the banner of Dar Islam, which might eventually provoke the unilateralist motives of the United States once more...
As a historical paradigm, the "great depression" is not able to be factored.
And that "cold war" you speak of....
Odd, I thought the unilateralist motives of the US had a lot to do with the results of that "cold war..."
Perhaps Europe would have been better served uniting under the banner of a United Soviet...

0 Replies

Hey Moishe...

See I make a point right, that the situation in 1930s Germany and the situation in the Middle East of 2005 are different. One assumes that this would be sufficiently obvious that it requires neither agreement, discussion or proof. To me this fact is at a near truistic level of obviousness.

Yet, clearly people seem to wish to protest that the two are the same so <shrug> that's fine with me. Here are a small list of differences focusing on those particularly relevant to war.

1. No great depression.
2. Vastly higher number of guns. (more than two guns per person)
3. The two countries at war are not at the same level of technological development.
4. The two countries are dominated by opposing religions.
5. Guerilla warfare.
6. Dictator has been in charge for much much longer.
7. Entire surrounding countryside relatively hostile to America.
8. America far less fluent in cultural values and language.

...

Do I really need to continue?

Quote:

Aunti, you are a literalist.

I've always wanted to be an "ist"... What am I taking overly literally now?

Quote:

Which, in turn, leads to scoffing

So far as I recall I was immensely polite to Physgrad. I scoffed at georgeob, not because I disagree with him but because he acted like a jerk.

Quote:

The unification of Europe into a single union with a united currency...

Since 2003.

Quote:

Hmmm, it seems to me that this has been tried before, recently.

Most likely, nothing's new under the sun.

Quote:

What could not be achieved by aggressive meausures in the last century, due to the unilaterlist decisions of the United States, England and the former Soviet Union, is being strived for in a more benign way today.

Okay, I'm going to bite... what the hell are you talking about and what does it have to do with the topic at hand? Or do you simply feel like reminiscing here? Is this a nostalgia moment?

Quote:

However, things going as they are, unchanged, demographically you will have Eurabia united under the banner of Dar Islam, which might eventually provoke the unilateralist motives of the United States once more...

Interesting idea. It'd never happen, but nevertheless an interesting scenario.... I assume that the unilateralist motive you refer to would be surrendering? Or would it be option 2: Destroy all life on Earth?

I can just picture that war.

America - We declare war on you Eurasia.
Eurasia... Uh, okay. No oil for you.
America - But... but... how will we invade you?
Eurasia - Not our problem.
America - If you don't give us oil so we can invade you we'll nuke you.
Eurasia - And we'll nuke you.
...

Hehehe, thanks for the image.

Quote:

As a historical paradigm, the "great depression" is not able to be factored.

Oh right. It didn't affect Europe at all, what the hell was I thinking?

Quote:

And that "cold war" you speak of....

Yes I spoke, strange really, I don't know why I bother when people don't seem to have a clue what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Odd, I thought the unilateralist motives of the US had a lot to do with the results of that "cold war..."

Yes it did. I was just going to make a reference to this but I might as well spell it out, I don't feel like extending this any more than I have to because you continue to miss the point.

I've made my point okay? It is as follows

* America is unilateralist to the outside world.

To which you people have brought up the following justifications...

* everyone else does it.
* But it ended the cold war isn't that good.
* Only because the UN is such a screw up.

....

You're not trying to disprove me, you're attempting to justify America's unilateralism but you're posing your justifications to me as though they're counterpoints to my argument when they're not.

I've already said that I'm not opposed to America's unilaterism, that they're welcome to do what they want and I only oppose the self-deceit of believing that they're not. Moral justifications are irrelevant.

Quote:

Perhaps Europe would have been better served uniting under the banner of a United Soviet...

See above...

0 Replies

Quote:

You're not trying to disprove me, you're attempting to justify America's unilateralism but you're posing your justifications to me as though they're counterpoints to my argument when they're not.

I've already said that I'm not opposed to America's unilaterism, that they're welcome to do what they want and I only oppose the self-deceit of believing that they're not. Moral justifications are irrelevant.

I apologize. I did not read the entire thread. What I was responding to did indeed read as a negative judgement on your part.
I disagree with the assessment that Americans are engaged in some sort of self - deceit. From what I read and hear and see, Americans are quite proud of their "unilateralist" decisions. It seems that the majority of Americans view these decisions as being morally correct and useful to the stability of both the world and the US.
One may disagree with this perception, but it is hardly self-deceit.

Quote:

See I make a point right, that the situation in 1930s Germany and the situation in the Middle East of 2005 are different. One assumes that this would be sufficiently obvious that it requires neither agreement, discussion or proof. To me this fact is at a near truistic level of obviousness.

Yet, clearly people seem to wish to protest that the two are the same so <shrug> that's fine with me. Here are a small list of differences focusing on those particularly relevant to war.

1. No great depression.
2. Vastly higher number of guns. (more than two guns per person)
3. The two countries at war are not at the same level of technological development.
4. The two countries are dominated by opposing religions.
5. Guerilla warfare.
6. Dictator has been in charge for much much longer.
7. Entire surrounding countryside relatively hostile to America.
8. America far less fluent in cultural values and language.

Oddly enough, I find most of reasoning above 100% innaccurate. Or 180 degrees from reality.
1. As I implied before regarding a depression, the condition of the overall economy has never been a good predictor as to the causes of war. In the past, countries have tended to go to war due to an economic downturn, but there are just as many situations where an economic downturn has not been followed by that particular country going to war.
2. Your "vastly higher number of guns" is ludicrous. The arms race begun during the industrial revolution is directly related to WWI; WWII; the Cold War; and the Arab/Muslim conflicts that accompanied the Cold War. The literal number of weapons has never been a factor in the history of warfare. The use and advancement of the armaments of the conflicting parties has always been a factor.
3. Techological development? Yes. This is true. And generally, but certainly not always, the less technologically developed party in warfare loses. This has been true for thousands of years. And technology includes govermental systems; military strategy; and the morale of the troops. This is an historical, easily proveable, fact.
4. Most parties in most historical conflicts of conquest have been in opposing religions. Removing rebellions and Civil Wars, I can't think of any, offhand, that have not been opposing religions.
5. Guerilla Warfare? I assume you are simply throwing out ideas and are not serious. How is the guerilla warfare different in the current Islamist conflict different than that in WWII? Unless you are specifically noting Islam fascist Death Cultists and the penchant to deliberately target innocent non-opposing nationals/non combatants, which is, of course, a much more widespread phenomonen that is has been it the past.
Nonetheless, even this detestable practice was used during WWII and before in a more limited fashion.
6. Dictator in charge of ? Iraq? Iran? (Saudi Arabia?) Egypt? Etcetera. All of these are relatively short term dictators, as was Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo.
7. Weird. The majority of Iraqi, Iranian and Afghani people are wildly favorable to Americans. Especially to the idea that whether they be religious mullahs; tribal warlords; or simply average merchants or farmers, that they should have a say in their own affairs. This is an immensely popular idea that, on the face of it, is only set forth for consideration by the United States. I would agree that those who find these ideas repulsive are indeed hostile towards the US. Those people do seem to favor other, more repressive Arab regimes and certainly seem to favor more "enlightened" European regimes.
8. You may be correct. I don't think so, but you might be. Those people with whom I have contact know a hell of lot more about Arab and Islamic culture today than they know about today's German or European values. Speaking of which - what are "European" values, if such a "unified" thing exists? How would you say they differ from the "cultural values and language" of the Middle East?

0 Replies

hi

Anti wrote

Quote:

I meant that America makes its decisions for other countries unilaterally without consulting them or involving their opinions into their decision making processes.

If you think claiming that other countries do the same thing is an effective defense to someone decrying the claim of american moral superiority then you may wish to examine that logic just a little...

I mean that it has elitist policies which hold non-americans and americans to different standards and degrees of importance.

I mean that it has restrictive policies when it disallows other countries their own decision-making processes and simply imposes its own will upon them.

This would be easier to debate with a few specific references, however, I will assume that you mean Iraq. Let me know of other instances and then those can be tackled on a case by case basis. With specific reference to Iraq, are you suggesting that America should have asked Saddam Hussein's advice concerning the war? Obviously, it is not always possible to take into the account the feelings and interest of foreign governments if it is those very governments which you believe pose a threat to you. I believe America went to war against a tyrannical regime, not a whole religion. The initial action was based on inaccurate intelligence, however, the dangers articulated by the current administration are not mere fabrications, as the following facts will indicate:

1. This was a dictator who had previously shown aggressive militant tendencies.

2. He paid and encouraged suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians. thereby fostering violence in one of the most unstable regions in the world. Given the US support to israel, is it unimaginable that he would encourage similar terrorist action against the US?

3. His interest in chemical and biological weapons was also previously established.

Also consider that war was not the first response of the US government, it was preceded by several UN resolutions which were sadly ignored. The UN's inability to enforce those resolutions is understandable considering that it was blocked by other countries guarding their own self interest in the region. So why should the US place its interests second to those of France or Germany? Can the US action be considered unilateral by some, yes, but you have yet to point out an alternative to what you call unilateral US action, other than inaction, which would have been counter productive to US interests. Also, even granting your position of unilateral US action in this case, I fail to see how that was morally unjustifiable?

Lets look at the outcome of the war:

1. The establishment of a young democracy in the middle east.

2. The elimination of an aggressive, unilaterist dictator from one of the most unstable, but important regions in the world.

I am supposing that you do agree that all people should have a say in their government and that a democracy is a good thing.

Also, is this not better in the long run for Iraqi men and women? The US did not decide for them, it fought and bled for their right to decide for themselves. Also, in the current scenario, when oppressors have so many guns that a small minority is able to subdue the basic human rights of the vast majority without fear of retribution or rebellion, Is the US really correct to just sit by?

As regards the difference between 1930's europe and present day middle east, I believe Moishe pointed out a number of similarities, which I need not reiterate, I will however say this. It is not completely correct to restrict the lessons of history solely to the region it occurred in, the french revolution, russian revolution, american revolution are all historical events which profoundly altered the way the rest of the world thought. The events of these historical landmarks were repeated the world over in remarkably different regions/situations. The point is that it is not correct to selectively apply history to narrow subsets, the consequences, influences and underlying causes of most historical events, including the second world war, are basically global.

Also, georgeob, cicerone, anti, dookie, thanx for the welcoming words.

0 Replies

physgrad,
You are, thus far, logically consistent. This is very good.
Smile

Welcome.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

Wow, that's the best you can do? Those are the changes that you've noticed in 70 years of development, the unification of Europe into a single union with a united currency, the emergence of the world from the great depression, the arrival and departure of the cold war.... Oh screw it.

Yes. Europe is exactly the same as it was. Nothing has changed in close to a century. The situation is not at all different.

<cough cough>

And yes, the middle east is exactly the same as 1930s EUROPE! You can easily tell because of how sandy France is, and the strict islamic law in Germany and the dictator in charge of Belgium...

Have I made my point yet?

What is your point? There is indeed a certain monotone quality to European history. Exchange the roles of Germany and France and the Seven Years War looks a lot like WWI. From 1739 to 1945, the Seven years War, The Napoleonic Wars, WWI, and WWII, were all, more or less part of the same struggle. (as an afterthought, I could have started earlier with the Wars of Louis XIV.).

The EU may or may not turn out to be a significant change. The historical frictions are still present -- we shall see if the EU is any more effective than was the ?'Trikaiserbund' of the early 19th century.

I have no Idea what your remarks about the Middle East mean. Care to explain?

Quote:

If you think claiming that other countries do the same thing is an effective defense to someone decrying the claim of american moral superiority then you may wish to examine that logic just a little...

I mean that it has elitist policies which hold non-americans and americans to different standards and degrees of importance.

I mean that it has restrictive policies when it disallows other countries their own decision-making processes and simply imposes its own will upon them.

I said "superior", not perfect. My impression is that the Australian government considers the interests of Australians before those of Indonesians and others. Do you hold us to a higher standard? Imposing one's will on a thug or dangerous criminal is not a bad thing.

Quote:

If America were truly dedicated to spreading democracy then perhaps they would have worked a bit on the world democratic process rather than simply assuming their own unilateral decisions.

There is a difference between the act of encouraging democracy in (say) Iraq, and imagining that a democratic world government can be created among authoritarian sovereign states. The first is difficult, but possible: the second is a foolish illusion.

Quote:

And to think that a country that withdrew from the international criminal court after being found guilty of terrorism would be on the security commission makes us wonder how its advice on dealing with terrorism could possibly be taken seriously.

The U.S. never ratified the Treaty of Rome that created the ICC. We have not "been found guilty" of terrorism by any body execpt perhaps your and other like opinions - and I don't think that is particularly important. So far we are doing fairly well in the campaign against terrorism.

Quote:

Perhaps Physgrad is capable of making up his own mind without you holding his hand.

I fully agree. I merely endorsed his choice and warned him of foolishness and sophistry such as yours.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The U.S. never ratified the Treaty of Rome that created the ICC.

"Rome Statute" (full name: "Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court" [17 July 1998] it is - the Treaty of Rome (1957) established the European Union :wink:

0 Replies

Walter, are you being "icky"? Twisted Evil

:wink:

0 Replies

George is certainly more indulgent with me than someone else.

( I hope so, at least, Francis, especially since I really love him much more than e.g. the Italian government and president :wink: )

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

I apologize. I did not read the entire thread.

This happens easily and is equally my fault for poorly conveying my sentiments. Please think nothing of it.

Quote:

Oddly enough, I find most of reasoning above 100% innaccurate. Or 180 degrees from reality.

Forget it...

If I can't convince people that hundreds of miles and seventy years creates sufficiently different circumstances that policy is worth considering upon it's own merits within two posts then I give up.

Please, make as many Hitler references as you wish. I won't complain anymore.

0 Replies

Francvis,

Walter and I disagree about most things. However I find it impossible to dislike him or stay sore at him for more than a moment or two - even when he corrects me on the details.

0 Replies

Why exactly is the Bush Administration unpopular outside america? I dont mean the generalized rhetorical answers, but definite unjustifiable actions that this administration has done. I don't believe that the US has always been selfless but it would be interesting to see how much of the opposition is based on actual facts as opposed to perceived slights or past baggage.

P.S. Moishe, thanx for the encouragement and Anti, thanx for letting me use a hitler reference Very Happy

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Hey, Magginkat, welcome to able2know.com. I'm the one formerly know as mptwain.

physgrad wrote:
The excerpts from the book posted were well written and interesting, but is it also not correct to appluad a country which not just allows a dissenting opinion, but fights for the right to have it. Not just that, in this case, America is fighting for the right of other countries to dissent and this act is laudable. I believe that the way to fight terrorism is freedom and if someone interprets that to mean the American version of freedom, then that is still not in my opinion a bad thing.

Problem is, if you were to pay enough attention to the American media, you'd think those who dissent are enemies of the state and are committing an act of treason. That is, according to the neocons and the Republican run government we currently have in place.

Where do you hail from? I'm curious as to what exactly you see when describing an American version of freedom. Would that include unfettered capitalism, corporate special interests influencing our politicians and their decisions, character destruction during election time, voter fraud, administrative secrecy, censorship, and so much more which (IMO) doesn't characterize a true, "free" country. As we have an administration hellbent on infusing Christian conservative values into government, where is the freedom FROM this?

I believe it is so much more complicated than you could possibly imagine...

mptwain = dookiestix Whoa!

Usually an Abuzz avatar relocates to A2K with a more reasonable personae.

I guess there is an exception to every rule.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

Why exactly is the Bush Administration unpopular outside america? I dont mean the generalized rhetorical answers, but definite unjustifiable actions that this administration has done. I don't believe that the US has always been selfless but it would be interesting to see how much of the opposition is based on actual facts as opposed to perceived slights or past baggage.

Physgrad has posed a very good question that I hope (but doubt) will attract the attention and response of the several vociferous foreign critics of the current U.S. administration on these threads. Just what has Bush done that is so infuriating to his detractors?

I suspect the real cause of the anti Bush and anti American distemper in parts of the world today has causes that arise from three principal sources; (1) The perception that American power has no real challengers since the fall of the Soviet Empire, and that we have the potential to do anything we want; (2) A long-standing distaste for American exceptionalism, particularly among Europeans and the people of Latin America, one that goes back at least two centuries; and (3) Specific actions, statements, and positions taken by President Bush that excite feelings imbedded in the two factors above, and which, in some cases, have defied the contemporary political wisdom (illusions in my view) of others, particularly Europeans.

The fact is that periods of dominance by great powers are usually very short, and our challengers are already evident. Moreover, so far, at least, we have been less intrusive during our moment in history's sun than were our mostly European predecessors in theirs.

.America, during its first several centuries was largely the creation of oppressed Europeans fleeing their native countries in search of an alternative to them - no surprise that those who stayed behind harbor a deep-seated resentment. The conventional image of the American in European literature of the last two centuries is of the vulgar, grasping, materialistic Yankee. It is noteworthy that after a two decades campaign to suppress the worldwide slave trade the British establishment favored and actively aided the slave-holding Confederacy during our Civil War. It wasn't until WWI, when Britain and France had something worse to fear that they "discovered" an affinity for us. That lasted through WWII and the Cold War. Now they are reverting to their previous state.

Europe has been remarkably successful so far in its efforts at ?'shared sovereignty' in the creation of a vibrant European Union. It is only natural for them to wish to apply the same techniques and measures in addressing problems outside Europe. The problem is these measures may not be exportable: Europe, after all, has spent centuries since the Thirty Years War demonstrating the malevolence of European nationalism. That problem, though it occurs outside Europe as well, is not universal, and the European remedies have proven useless so far in addressing the major issues facing the world today. This is a fundamental point of disagreement between America and Europe, and President Bush has become a symbol of that difference.

I suspect that the chief specific actions of President Bush that reawakened and focused all the present opposition included his rejection of the Kyoto and ICC treaties. Both actions involved rejections of contemporary European preoccupations, and both emphasized the traditional American exceptionalism. Never mind that the most populous nations in the world, China and India, also rejected these foolish treaties - the fury and focus was on America for doing so. I also suspect that a similar dynamic was at work with respect to our campaign against terrorism and the authoritarian governments that infest the Moslem world and which stand in the way of the freedom and development of their people. "You're either with us or against us" was a challenge that (in my view) was both necessary and utterly infuriating to those infected with the preoccupations indicated above.

It will be interesting to observe the inevitable denial and rationalizations that will accompany the final acceptance of the successful applications of Bush's policies in the world.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

Why exactly is the Bush Administration unpopular outside america? I dont mean the generalized rhetorical answers, but definite unjustifiable actions that this administration has done.

1) Starting a war on a nation that hadn't attacked America, diverting resources from a war on a nation that had; doing all this on dubious evidence, and misleading the rest of the world (intentionally or not) about the reliability of said evidence; having his underlings trash those heads of states who found the evidence unconvincing.

2) Using Orwellian rhetoric to argue that terrorists aren't criminals, they are enemy combatants in a vaguely defined war on terrorism. But they are not entitled to Geneva convention rights, because they don't really fit the proper status. But they are not entitled to the process specified in the Geneva conventions for figuring out what their real status is, because their status isn't really in doubt.

3) Using Orwellian rhetoric to argue that the USA isn't torturing people because their legal experts, handpicked for that purpose don't call it torture. Outsourcing torture to rouge arabic states as the administration feels the heat of adverse public opinion at home.

4) By combining unsustainable tax cuts with an unsustainable spending explosion, setting the Federal government up for a balance of payment crisis, which would wreak havoc with the world's financial system if it came to happen.

These are the specific actions that make the Bush administration unpopular with me. Other Europeans would add:

5) Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol

6) Bush's refusal to have America join the UN court of war criminals in Den Haag.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

physgrad wrote:
Why exactly is the Bush Administration unpopular outside america? I dont mean the generalized rhetorical answers, but definite unjustifiable actions that this administration has done. I don't believe that the US has always been selfless but it would be interesting to see how much of the opposition is based on actual facts as opposed to perceived slights or past baggage.

Physgrad has posed a very good question that I hope (but doubt) will attract the attention and response of the several vociferous foreign critics of the current U.S. administration on these threads. Just what has Bush done that is so infuriating to his detractors?

I suspect the real cause of the anti Bush and anti American distemper in parts of the world today has causes that arise from three principal sources; (1) The perception that American power has no real challengers since the fall of the Soviet Empire, and that we have the potential to do anything we want; (2) A long-standing distaste for American exceptionalism, particularly among Europeans and the people of Latin America, one that goes back at least two centuries; and (3) Specific actions, statements, and positions taken by President Bush that excite feelings imbedded in the two factors above, and which, in some cases, have defied the contemporary political wisdom (illusions in my view) of others, particularly Europeans.

The fact is that periods of dominance by great powers are usually very short, and our challengers are already evident. Moreover, so far, at least, we have been less intrusive during our moment in history's sun than were our mostly European predecessors in theirs.

.America, during its first several centuries was largely the creation of oppressed Europeans fleeing their native countries in search of an alternative to them - no surprise that those who stayed behind harbor a deep-seated resentment. The conventional image of the American in European literature of the last two centuries is of the vulgar, grasping, materialistic Yankee. It is noteworthy that after a two decades campaign to suppress the worldwide slave trade the British establishment favored and actively aided the slave-holding Confederacy during our Civil War. It wasn't until WWI, when Britain and France had something worse to fear that they "discovered" an affinity for us. That lasted through WWII and the Cold War. Now they are reverting to their previous state.

Europe has been remarkably successful so far in its efforts at ?'shared sovereignty' in the creation of a vibrant European Union. It is only natural for them to wish to apply the same techniques and measures in addressing problems outside Europe. The problem is these measures may not be exportable: Europe, after all, has spent centuries since the Thirty Years War demonstrating the malevolence of European nationalism. That problem, though it occurs outside Europe as well, is not universal, and the European remedies have proven useless so far in addressing the major issues facing the world today. This is a fundamental point of disagreement between America and Europe, and President Bush has become a symbol of that difference.

I suspect that the chief specific actions of President Bush that reawakened and focused all the present opposition included his rejection of the Kyoto and ICC treaties. Both actions involved rejections of contemporary European preoccupations, and both emphasized the traditional American exceptionalism. Never mind that the most populous nations in the world, China and India, also rejected these foolish treaties - the fury and focus was on America for doing so. I also suspect that a similar dynamic was at work with respect to our campaign against terrorism and the authoritarian governments that infest the Moslem world and which stand in the way of the freedom and development of their people. "You're either with us or against us" was a challenge that (in my view) was both necessary and utterly infuriating to those infected with the preoccupations indicated above.

It will be interesting to observe the inevitable denial and rationalizations that will accompany the final acceptance of the successful applications of Bush's policies in the world.

I am impressed by your logical insight.
The question that I do not understand is why the European Union should succeed or, at the present time, appear to be succeeding.
It does not fit with any of my pre-conceived historical paradigms and therefore, it fascinates me.
I fantasize that Europe has slid into some vast cross-cultural ennui; a morass of bored existentialism where nothing really matters as long as there is wine and the seashore. This is obviously ridiculous as a rational explanation of Europe's apparent growing cohesiveness, but I can think of no other serious explanation that takes into account over a thousand years of cutural rivalries.
Any thoughts on this conundrum?

0 Replies

Thomas,

It seems to me that the four objections to which you evidently suscribe are relatively trivial and more theoretical than real, compared to the more serious, significant, and immediate issues to which they were addressed. Your arguments are those of a bureaucrat, rather than an historian or strategist. You confuse process and procedure with principle and objective.

Contrary to the implications of your words, I believe that the Bush policies struck at the heart of the matter, and not at periferal, contradictory matters as you imply. In short, I believe you are dead wrong, and the evidence of this is growing before our eyes..

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

diverting resources from a war on a nation that had ...

Which nation are you referring to that attacked America?

Putting your dislike of perceived "Orwellian rhetoric" aside, treating terrorists as criminals is clearly an ineffective way of dealing with terrorists in a foreign country, unwilling to extradite.

You dislike the Bush Administration because of our tax cuts? Shocked

0 Replies

George -- personally I wouldn't say that war, international law, torture, and national bankruptcy are theoretical or trivial issues. But it is certainly possible that I am wrong on those issues. No need to decide this now, we can always revisit this thread in ten years if this site survives until then.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Thomas wrote:
diverting resources from a war on a nation that had ...

Which nation are you referring to that attacked America?

Afghanistan, using Al Quaeda as a proxy. This is a war the Bush administration actually handled quite well, until they decided to invade Iraq.

Ticomaya wrote:

Putting your dislike of perceived "Orwellian rhetoric" aside, treating terrorists as criminals is clearly an ineffective way of dealing with terrorists in a foreign country, unwilling to extradite.

But some of the alleged terrorist were arrested on American soil, and the Bush administration still refuses to have them tried in civil courts. The administration reserves the right to call anyone they want an enemy combatant, and use this as a sole basis for keeping them locked up for as long as they please. Europeans -- including myself -- get worried when the rule of law gets eroded this way.

Ticomaya wrote:

You dislike the Bush Administration because of our tax cuts?

If the Bush administration had financed those tax cuts with corresponding spending cuts, I would have no problem with them. But they boosted government spending instead, thereby creating a permanent budget deficit big enough to create a financial meltdown in 5-10 years. It is this meltdown that I dislike the administration for, not the tax cuts per se.

0 Replies

Understanding America and the Bush administration

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know