1
   

Bush a Genius Says NY Times

 
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:22 pm
Um, what about the fact that there are more moderate and pragmatic leaders taking power in the Middle East who KNOW that if they continue down the path of death and destruction, that that is what they will most likely receive in return.

Look at the current situation in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The U.S. has stayed out of that, and look what they are doing on their own. Look at what's happening in Lebanon and Egypt. Even Saudi Arabia is slowly creeping towards democratic elections.

Attributing all of this to Bush's "genius" is like attributing the victory at Normandy to Gary Coleman.

I thought that Glasnost and Perestroika were a result of Gorbachev's dynamic and revolutionary leadership in a time of massive social change in his country? From what I understand, the PEOPLE of Russia were more than ready for their first taste of democracy, and it was obvious that there would be no turning back.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:25 pm
Yeltsin? Glasnost started exactly 30 years ago by Gorbachev, btw.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:32 pm
Quote:
In the 1985 Geneva summit, progress on arms control had foundered over Gorbachev's insistence on scrapping SDI, and Reagan's commitment to its development. The October 1986 summit between Reagan and Gorbachev, in Reykjavik, Iceland, also ended in a stalemate. At this second summit, Reagan still refused to budge on SDI, and Gorbachev refused to make further concessions without compromise. But at the third summit, in Washington, DC, in December 1987, Gorbachev yielded to Reagan's terms. The USSR was in dire economic straits, and Gorbachev needed a respite from the arms race.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande01.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:46 pm
Thanks for the link - I never objected that.

(As said, today, 30 years ago, all started, and not only because media are reporting everything again.)

Yeltsin came 'on stage', when the USSR collapsed - by then, e.g. Germany was already unified some time :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:08 pm
No, I didn't mean that Yeltsin was involved. But he was a Russian citizen through all that. And after the Berlin wall came down he said, as Gorbachev had said, that they simply couldn't keep up with us economically and that fact greatly hastened the demise of the USSR.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:28 pm
Lash wrote:
Here is the PLAN...

Create a democracy in the ME.
Fortunes will improve for Les Miserables, who have nothing good enough in their lives than get blown up for virgins.
Other oppressed ME types will see Iraqis choosing their leaders and having an active role in their self-determination.
They will throw the yoke off their necks as well.
Terrorism will decrease substantially.
Freedom and democracy will increase.
Just as peace breaks out in the ME, China will declare war... (kidding)


Personally I never really believed that bit about the virgins, I mean how do you account for female suicide bombers and young suicide bombers? I am not saying that it is not somewhere in the Quran, but then there is a lot in the Bible or Torah that we don't do today.

All in all I think people in the middle east did see something to be gained from watching the Iraq elections.

But dookiestix (right name?) is right, a lot of the changes that are taking place happened without our interference unless we killed Arafat which is something I don't believe. Abbas is the one that is making a lot of the changes in that situation by going after the Palestinian militants.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:34 pm
Revel writes
Quote:
But dookiestix (right name?) is right, a lot of the changes that are taking place happened without our interference unless we killed Arafat which is something I don't believe. Abbas is the one that is making a lot of the changes in that situation by going after the Palestinian militants.


I'm sure those who oppose George W. Bush and everything he stands for desperately want to believe this. But the fact is, Middle Eastern leaders have come and gone, died, been assassinated, resigned, been forced out, replaced, or came to power through rights of succession for hundreds of years now, including the last 30-40 years of the Twentieth Century, and the opening of the Twenty-First Century, and until now noting has changed. They have become largely increasingly militantly Islamic-extremist, increasingly hostile toward Israel and the United States, and frequently militarily aggressive, until now--until the Iraqi elections by a free people.

You can say that wasn't the catalyst for all the rest all you want. I can accept that you don't want to believe it was. I can't see how you can make a case for that given the history of the region however.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:38 pm
Good old NYT

They do sarcasm well.

When Bush and Putin were at the joint press conference recently, Bush started to say how much he admired Vladimir (who never raised an eyebrow) because he was a man who "said yes, and meant it because sometimes yes is a maybe and no-be is er ...he really means it". (suppressed laughter from reporters)

I'm willing to believe Bush is more intelligent than he appears sometimes. We can all make mistakes with words. But a genius? Absolutely not.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 02:46 pm
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050228/huffaker.gif
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 02:59 pm
Asherman wrote:
On the other hand, Bush as a genius? You have to be kidding.

I'm just baiting them.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 03:21 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Asherman wrote:
On the other hand, Bush as a genius? You have to be kidding.

I'm just baiting them.


You shouldn't.

You'll get conversation just by mentioning Bush, baiting is against the rules and you really should avoid it.

"If you build it, they will come."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 03:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Revel writes
Quote:
But dookiestix (right name?) is right, a lot of the changes that are taking place happened without our interference unless we killed Arafat which is something I don't believe. Abbas is the one that is making a lot of the changes in that situation by going after the Palestinian militants.


I'm sure those who oppose George W. Bush and everything he stands for desperately want to believe this. But the fact is, Middle Eastern leaders have come and gone, died, been assassinated, resigned, been forced out, replaced, or came to power through rights of succession for hundreds of years now, including the last 30-40 years of the Twentieth Century, and the opening of the Twenty-First Century, and until now noting has changed. They have become largely increasingly militantly Islamic-extremist, increasingly hostile toward Israel and the United States, and frequently militarily aggressive, until now--until the Iraqi elections by a free people.

You can say that wasn't the catalyst for all the rest all you want. I can accept that you don't want to believe it was. I can't see how you can make a case for that given the history of the region however.


How did watching Iraqi's vote do anything for the Palestinians? I think it was just dumb luck that Arafat died more than anything as he was the one encouraging the militants which was holding the Palestinians back by always portraying themselves as aggressors.

In other parts of the world the Iraqi elections may have been encouraging.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 03:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm sure those who oppose George W. Bush and everything he stands for desperately want to believe this. But the fact is, Middle Eastern leaders have come and gone, died, been assassinated, resigned, been forced out, replaced, or came to power through rights of succession for hundreds of years now, including the last 30-40 years of the Twentieth Century, and the opening of the Twenty-First Century, and until now noting has changed. They have become largely increasingly militantly Islamic-extremist, increasingly hostile toward Israel and the United States, and frequently militarily aggressive, until now--until the Iraqi elections by a free people.

You can say that wasn't the catalyst for all the rest all you want. I can accept that you don't want to believe it was. I can't see how you can make a case for that given the history of the region however.

And the Academy Award for most predictible use of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy goes to . . . Foxfyre!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 03:46 pm
McGentrix wrote:
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050228/huffaker.gif

I agree with the cartoon: it isn't funny.

Although, on second thought, making George W. Bush look like a cross between Fred Flintstone and the Piltdown Man is somewhat humorous.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 03:47 pm
Anyone that believes the US has "stayed out" of what is happening between Israel and Palestine needs to get back in touch with reality.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 03:47 pm
What exactly do you suppose is in democracy fertilizer?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 03:53 pm
The recipe is a closely guarded secret FreeDuck, but I'm guessing there are liberal amounts of hope, optimism, encouragement, belief in possibilities, courage, and images of people joyously casting their voluntary ballots for the first time in their lives and dancing in the street thereafter.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 04:33 pm
Quote:
Anyone that believes the US has "stayed out" of what is happening between Israel and Palestine needs to get back in touch with reality.


Sigh...looks like McGentrix missed it again.

As Abbas is now firmly in control in Palestine, we have seen an amazing drop in Palestinian violence against Israelis, and Sharon has done more than anyone imagined in working with Abbas for real peace. Where is the American involvement in that process?

Where is the U.S. right now in these negotiations, McGentrix? Even Clinton couldn't do what Abbas and Sharon are currently doing in that region. And Abbas' reason for a cease-fire: the utter futility and complete failure of the Intifada, which serves no purpose whatsoever for the Palestinian people, and only emboldens and angers Israel into more attacks against innocent Palestinian victims. Arafat NEVER addressed the situation in such a succinct description that profoundly suggests to the Palestinian people that they truly need to take a different course.

Sometimes, people DO eventually get tired of the violence, and they demand change. It is the LACK of American involvement that is allowing people in these regions to solve there OWN PROBLEMS without U.S. involvement.

As is the conventional wisdom here; we weren't attacked on 9/11 because of our liberties and freedoms, as many in the Bush administration contend, but we were attacked because of our involvment in the Middle Eastern region, our military bases, our "evil" influence, our complacency with dictatorial regimes, etc. If we were to just get out and stay out of these affairs, the indigenous peoples will feel more empowered to take care of their own problems, as is happening right now.

It is the deafening silence from the administration regarding these actions in the Middle East, as Bush is primarily concerned with destroying SS as we know it, that is the most telling.

Don't you think, McGentrix, that if we were more involved currently in these affairs, that Bush would somehow take credit in some way for something he had no part of?

Laughing
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 04:37 pm
That article was very interesting.

Too bad most of the posts after that have been the usual boring hyper-partisan (to borrow an OCCOMBILL word) crap from all sides.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 04:41 pm
Oh, wait, I guess there is U.S. involvement here.

They're called military bases. And we're gonna need alot more troops to maintain a much bigger presence in the region. Too bad Iraq has turned into bad P.R. for military recruiters. Invading Iran probably won't help.

The military draft is not far off it would seem.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 04:50:59