The US, UN & Iraq III

I remember seeing Mike Dukakis's silly head, protrudng from the top of a tank-- This killed his Presidential chances. Because he 'looked' like most people's mental image of a Democrat in control of the military-- a doofus, way out of his league. Even strong supporter and part of the Dukakis team, Susan Estrich said so last night. "Dukakis was a 1 and Bush was a 10", was her quote on both men's military photo ops.

The whole subject is silly. Who looks better in a military surrounding....? Like that matters. But, how the public perceives a Presidential candidates ability in military matters is somehow interwoven into their perceptions of Dukakis in a tank and Bush piloting a jet.


(I agree with Estrich. Bush looked great in that flight suit.)

I see Bush, uniform clad, driving his '55 desoto into the driveway of his modest California bungalo, opening the two-tone door, stepping out into the bright sunlight, taking off his cap and giving his flattop crew cut a quick brush, then strutting up the sidewalk to the waiting arms of his wife Pamela Anderson.

He married her because she was smarter.

Sofia
I should remind you that there are still some people who believe that John Wayne was a military hero. Perception counts. Bush getting out of the plane on the Aircraft carrier was and is a great photo opp. You can rest assured it will be used in the coming election to his advantage. The fact that Bush was AWOL during the Viet Nam war for some reason does not seem to have an impact with the electorate.

Once again, Ann gets it right.
http://www.anncoulter.org/

AWOLBUSH

Max
The question now remains can we win the peace. Or will the cure end up being worse than the disease? From a government controlled by a tyrant to a tyrannical theocracy. Take your choice which is worse?

Ann Coulter says some figurines were broken in the Baghdad Museum, thus qualifying for the philistine of the year -- or is this the second year? I believe this is typical of the uneducated, self-absorbed Right.

So what, if the majority of those people, living in that country where "The question now remains can we win the peace.", wants in a democratic way (e.g. by elections) theocracy?

Before we allow a theocracy we should dig up Saddam and reinstall his regime. IMO that is the lesser of two evils.

Oh. You allow. I see.

Walter
You must have by this time heard about Rummy's stand on the establishment of a theocracy. I agree a theocracy is an abomination. As I said of the two, Saddam type government and a theocracy, IMO a theocracy is the most undesirable.

So we're definitely not talking theocracy here. We're definitely talking about something which is "like us," socially and culturally. Careful, this is a trap.

Fascinating, AU, so it would have been better to leave Saddam in power rather than risk the rise of the Shi'a? Hmmm. I think that's what George Herbert Bush thought. I am interested in what you think the worst parts of a theocracy are and if you think the USA is one. (There are those who insist it is a Christian nation, are they right?)

Mmmh.

Oh Tartarin, it's not a trap. Most of it's pretty obvious. Just like us, except it turns out we have no idea who us is. We've tried MacDonald's and Disneyland in places where people were more similar to us, and it didn't work.

I wonder if they plan to set up offices in Iraq where they can hold daily prayer meetings like John Ashcroft does, only Christian instead of Moslem, because that's the American way?

It's obvious we're not thought of as liberators, and apparently we were never greeted with all the cheering crowds. So our State Department and our Defense Department fight among themseleves, and we send over Garner (whom few want) and Chalabi (whom fewer want) to run a country whose people had been told they were beeing set free to have their own country.

And then we're told about a quick exit so these free and democratic Iraqis can get on with their lives. Their lives are so different from ours; their beliefs are so different. And culturally and historically, they lasted a lot longer that we have so far. brought the world mathematics, art, literature, architecture and infra-structure that worked. Democracy has different meanings. Shi-ites, Sunnis, Kurds - they've all been there before us. The only way a third party can bring anything is by force. And sometimes even that doesn't effect the change.

Bush plays Tom Cruise in a Rove-directed campaign film:
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=633

And the public starts to pay attention again to his "war record":
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/


[quote][...]But don't tell us this was a triumph in the war on terrordon't flatter yourself. You haven't changed the world in 19 months. You've only changed the subject.http://slate.msn.com/id/2082419/[/quote]

[quote][...]Median CEO pay at the 37 largest defense contractors rose 79 percent from 2001 to 2002, while overall CEO pay climbed only 6 percent, according to a new report from United for a Fair Economy, More Bucks for the Bang: CEO Pay at Top Defense Contractors, by Chris Hartman and David Martin.
Median pay was 45 percent higher in 2002 at defense contractors than at the 365 large companies surveyed by Business Week magazine. The typical U.S. CEO made $3.7 million in 2002, while the typical defense industry CEO got $5.4 million.
The jump in median defense contractor CEO pay far exceeded the increase in defense spending, which rose 14 percent from 2001 to 2002.
Compared with an army private's pay of $19,585, the average CEO at a major defense contractor made 577 times as much in 2002, or $11,297,548. This is also more than 28 times as much as the Commander in Chief's salary of $400,000.[...]
http://www.ufenet.org/press/2003/MoreBucksForBang_pr.html[/quote]

[quote]Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.[...] In his final days in office, Clinton had been preparing a bold deal in which North Korea would give up its missile and nuclear programs in return for aid and normalized relations. But President Bush was skeptical of Pyongyang's intentions and called for a policy review in March 2001. Two months later the DOE, after consulting with Rumsfeld's Pentagon, renewed the authorization to send nuclear technology to North Korea. Groundbreaking ceremonies attended by Westinghouse and North Korean officials were held Sept. 14, 2001--three days after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil. The Bush administration still hasn't abandoned the project. Representative Edward Markey and other Congressmen have been sending letters to Bush and Rumsfeld, asking them to pull the plug on the reactors, which Markey calls "nuclear bomb factories." Nevertheless, a concrete-pouring ceremony was held last August, and Westinghouse sponsored a training course for the North Koreans that concluded in October--shortly before Pyongyang confessed to having a secret uranium program, kicked inspectors out, and said it would start making plutonium. The Bush administration has suspended further transfers of nuclear technology, but in January it authorized $3.5 million to keep the project going. [...]
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,447429,00.html? [/quote]

Joe Nation
To answer your question I think that Bush would, if he had his way, turn this nation into a Christian theocracy. IMO there is nothing that ever devised by the futile mind of man that is more destructive and divisive than religion. Depots and tyrants come and go and the damage they do goes with them. However, the damage and divisiveness of religion stays with us forever. Religion of any stripe fowls the air and is the precursor to war, genocide and all that is evil. What would have been gained from going from Saddam to another Iran.

tartarin, your first quote above, from slate, is a killer.

From James Morrison:



I think this tax cut is a most ill-advised move. As the cuts are made, year by year down the line, they will run right up against the increasingly large payments (because of the aging population) to fund Social Security and will cause deep deficits. It is a political move, plain and simple, and will do nothing to stimulate the economy.


Blatham wrote:



The photos of him strutting triumphally among the crew on the ship made me unutterably sad. Is that what you would want to see if your son or daughter or spouse had been killed in the war on Iraq? This was his war. Why wasn't he shown speaking from a quiet dark study, somber faced at the young lives that have been lost, talking about what he had done and why he was compelled to do it, looking sorrowful about lives destroyed, military and civilian. How much more seemly that would have been, even if he expressed quietly his hope that Iraq would be a happier and better country after his war.