Why the whole world detest Bush?

[EagerBeaver]

CSM,

That's what I have been saying: there has been lots of revisionist history in this thread and you have exposed some of it.

I think there is a tendency here for posters to reach conclusions first, without thinking about how they got there, and then go back and tailor the history to fit the conclusion. But that is not supposed to be how it works. History is supposed to be what guides you to your conclusion. We can't go back and change the facts. What we need to do is look at the facts as Truman saw them.

Bottom line, if Truman dawdled with indecision, or on a naval blockade that may not have worked and I think likely would have cost a tremendous amount of American lives in suicide attacks, and the US soil was in the interim attacked, however ineffectively, by the Japanese, it would have been an unpardonable sin in the eyes of the American public.

 

[500miles]

If my memory still works, hasn't Bush spent most of the last three years revising history? I think we "liberals" have exposed that the tendency to revise history to fit one's agenda is certainly not a liberal specialty. By the way, just because I think Bush's policies are atrocious doesn't not make me a liberal. I am a libertarian.

I'm really getting fed up with all the folks jumping on the winning team's bandwagon. I feel as if I'm dealing with the Chicago Bulls "fans" of the '90s. I know calling oneself a conservative is in fashion because it automatically puts one on the supposed moral high ground. (Then why are you hanging out at a hobbists' site? Doesn't that make you a degenerate among your conservative friends?) I don't think that most self-congratulatory "conservatives" have any idea what being a true conservative means. I, for one, thinks that Bush's deficit spending and his needless promotion of religious agenda using public funds aren't exactly conservative. A true conservative would want a smaller government, less interference by the government into private matters (of which hobbying is one), and a strict interpretation of the constitution. On this last issue, present-day conservatives seem to insist on strict interpretation only when the issue is abortion, but when it comes to spending public funds to promote religious activities, what's a little "liberal" interpretation of the separation of church and state?

 

[500miles]

Talk about an empty argument, CSMartin. Of course you won't waste your breath because you have nothing concrete to say. What sound bite did I use? What tactic did I use? According to the thread title, it is "Why Does The Whole World Detest Bush?" Well, I gave you concrete examples of what I think is wrong with the Bush administration. Why does that make it a change in topic? Isn't that EXACTLY what the title asks? Instead refuting each of my points with intelligent, well-thought-out counter arguments (which I would have considered with all seriousness), you start calling names and pointing fingers. Besides, did I not tell you that I'm a libertarian? Did you even read my post before dashing out your well-thought-out response?

Please, CS, if your brain is running on empty tonight or your intestines are giving you problems, get a night of sleep and recharge. Bluster and pomposity aren't going to carry you today. I eagerly await your intelligent response.

 

[HonestAbe]

More ASSumptions?

EB,

Unfortunately, some of these revisionists (i.e. liberals) forget some of the facts:

It's only those who will never have any respect for the U.S. that continue to advance this revisionist dribble. To those unpatriotic individuals, I offer the door. Excuse me if it hits you on the backside on your way out!!

CS

CS,

These ASSumptions of yours are getting ridiculous. But keep on making them if it makes you feel better about yourself. Get ready for another surprise, I am a registered Republican and was a volunteer for John McCains presidential run. I hope he runs again too. Want to know why? Because he isn't a lying sack of shit (like your buddy Bush) and he actually knows something about armed conflict from personal experience. I have much less of a problem with people who I disagree with if they tell the truth than I do with people who support lies and deception. John McCain is an honorable man who disagrees with me to a very large extent on what I feel about the war but John McCain wouldn't blow smoke up my ass to try and sucker me into supporting his position. Apparently you like the smoke being blown up there, maybe its foreplay.

This thread asked the question "Why the whole world detest Bush" which some of you need to be reminded of since you are only trying to rebuke the opinions AND factual evidence which has been given by many different well respected posters as explanation for their dislike of Bush because it shows them that he lacks moral character. We are answering the question, you are not. You are disagreeing, which is your right, but was not asked for in the thread. Perhaps you should start another thread asking "Who likes Bush?" I promise I won't try to disuade you from your glowing reviews of him in that thread. I bet that thread will get lonely real fast however except for a few of you staunch supporters. Your welcome to try and prove me wrong.

Like many other arrogant self righteous, jingoistic, blowhards, you also seem to think that you have a lock on Patriotism and that everyone who feels differently than you should move to France. All because you see your opinion as being the only one with any merit in the debate over this war. So what you want is for everyone else to think the same way as you. Otherwise you break out the smear tactics and start throwing around words like Liberal, and unpatriotic. My how Democratic of you. You must have an Ann Coulter fetish that your not telling us about.

One more thing so we can clear this up. The term "Revisionist history" refers to the process of taking actual events that really happened and trying to convince people that they didn't happen or they didn't happen the way that they did, OR events that didn't happen and trying to make people believe that they did. Its basically trying to CHANGE documented history. Its not that complicated to discern the difference between OPINIONS of other possible outcomes which MAY or MAY NOT have occured if circumstances were different and FACTS about what actually did occur. Speaking for myself I have not said anything that could be referred to as REVISIONISTIC. It was opinion based on the information that I have read, seen, and heard from numerous books, television programs, and people who I have met who have personal knowledge of the war because they were participants in it or lived through it. People like my Grandfather and Great Uncle who fought in it, one of whom still carries shrapnel in his leg to this day.

To suggest that anyone who disagrees with you should change citizenship sinks you to a new low CS. Care to keep going? My family has a long line of distinguished Veterans including my Father who served in Vietnam and beyond. It also includes myself. Although I never served in a war, I would happily give my life for my country if it was in a legitimate defense of it which this so called WAR is not. But thats the problem with volunteering for the military and liking to think for yourself(imagine that), you take a risk that you will be ordered to do something you can not do in good moral conscience. You will do it anyway since not acting in battle will get you killed which is why we can not blame any US soldier for doing what they must to return home alive.

As far as whether Japan had been given production plans for a jet fighter or not, you conveniently ignored the previously stated indisputable facts that Japan had little natural resources of its own, meaning it would have run out of raw materials to make new war machines of all types and the fuel to run them on in a short period of time. Especially with a Naval blockade of all ports, and under intense aerial bombardment of all industrial transportation, fuel storage facilities, the large factories necessary to build warplanes, and the airstrips to launch and land them at. Only a jackass would insinuate that sophisticated warplanes were being built from recycled cans in garages, fueled with a gas can, and flown out of an alleyway, congratulations on your new title.

So back to my original point, once the Japanese were left with nothing other than basic weaponry to continue their resistance it is conceivable that they may have seen the futility of it and surrendered without as great a loss of life as the toll of two atom bombs took. There are no guarantees of this but why not try it at least. What other possibilities could we have explored? What if we had dropped an a-bomb on a rural location where there was little civilian presence but close enough so they could witness the destructive power of it? Perhaps that would have been enough to make them surrender? We'll never know unfortunately because we chose to go full speed ahead and wipe out two cities. Plain and simple, the Japanese did not deserve this any more than we deserved Pearl Harbor. Only one thing is certain, two wrongs don't make a right and in our struggle to defeat a monster we sometimes become one as well. I think everyone can agree that this should be avoided if at all possible.

EB,

As for the debate over a naval blockade of WWII Japan I'll say it again that most of what we have been doing is pure speculation based on the knowledge we have. I assure you I have spent a lot of time researching the matter for obvious personal reasons which I think you understand judging by my previous posts on the matter. I don't claim to be more knowledgable than you or smarter than you or anyone else for that matter. I just disagree with your account of what the situation was but I'm sure you must have seen it or read it somewhere just as I saw and read things which support my ideas. Who is right? At this point I'm starting not to care since this is my first encounter on the board where I have been rudely insulted several times over my opinion which I gave in response to the thread. I respect you for not flaming me even though we strongly disagree.


CS, you know exactly where you can stick those change of citizenship papers.

 

[Mod 2]

Gentlemen,

I would like to remind you all about the Posting Guidelines and Rules of Conduct:

RULES

2) Forbidden Activities:
iii) Personal attacks on others, flames, fights, name-calling, etc...
iv) Lack of respect to either client, escort or other board members.

POSTING GUIDELINES

3) Courtesy
i) All posters are expected to show the utmost respect and courtesy in all communications. Refrain from name calling, unjustified accusations etc.

Given how much of a serious matter this whole thing is , I can understand how a debate about this may relate to some of you on a more personal level and get others to be more temperamental. However, I urge everyone to keep a cool attitude. I will not allow people being run down because of their opinion, nor anymore condescending attitude from anyone.

We are all adults, let`s keep acting as such. If this trend continues, I will have no choice other than close this thread (or more).

Thank you

M2

 

[HonestAbe]

Thanks for the info Curious.

Perhaps we should start a new thread on outrageous statements by supposed Christians. After all I don't remember Jesus ever advocating murdering anyone but it seems like Robertson has no problem killing in his name. Wonder where he read that Christ advocated assasinations? I thought the Hagel comments were very telling about how support for Bushs' policies are finally starting to erode within the GOP.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Robertson is a nutcase and the Bush Administration has dismissed his statements as the rantings of a lunatic:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

 

[HonestAbe]

Glad to hear that!

Robertson is a nutcase and the Bush Administration has dismissed his statements as the rantings of a lunatic:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

Thanks for the link EB,

Bob Dole slammed him pretty good. I think that most people would agree that Robertson is a bit touched, and I don't mean by the hand of God! This is a good topic for debate within this thread since it applies to the question asked about why so many people don't like Bush. His overly strong connection to religious organizations has many people worried about separation of Church and State.

My understanding of him is that he is a very religious man, a born again Christian who credits his rehabilitation from drugs and Alchohol to his "finding" Jesus. Its hard to believe for some people because of his policies being viewed as responsible for so many deaths which many say are needless. Even if he is a true believer and somehow finds a way to live with his decisions and not find himself to be a hypocrite, what of his open "shilling" for his religious beliefs?

As President should he be so vocal about his religion playing a substantial role in his decisions when our country is supposed to have a separation of Church and State? Should he be bound to keep his faith separate from his politics and support the will of the majority of people or is he entitled to enforce his ideologies on issues such as embryonic stem cell research or abortion?

Its obviously everyones right to worship whatever way they please in this country(as long as it doesn't harm anyone) and it would probably be impossible to enforce rules as to how a President must make decisions that are hotbutton religious issues anyways. All he would have to do is keep quiet about his religion and go right on making decisons based on his religious doctrine. Should this bother us though as a country, and if it does then how much importance does, or should, religion play when people vote for a President?

One could make a good argument that in the last two elections the GOP used religion as a battering ram against the Democrats who were painted as Godless anti christians by groups headed by guys like Robertson. One of their biggest fear tactics was talking about Gay marriage and then reassuring us that Bush was a "Christian" in order to inspire trust that he wouldn't let the scary gay people sneak into our childrens bedrooms and violate them in their sleep. Playing on fear of gays was a brilliant, albeit sleazy, strategy as observed by countless exit polls that showed conservatives came out in droves because of referendums on gay marriage in localities across the country.

I remember seeing one of Canadas' former Prime Ministers(a woman) on a talk show where she said someone like Bush could never be elected in Canada because Canadians would look at a political candidate like Bush who espouses his religious views so openly, as if he had two heads! The same idea was also expressed about most European nations with the point being that Europeans and Canadians have come to expect the separation of church and state to be a sort of prerequisite for a political candidate as they have a healthy fear of religion being too involved in politics from their past historical lessons.

 

[eastender]

Separation of church and state

The separation of church and state arose out of the desire of the founding fathers of the United States to avoid the situation that had evolved in England with the relationship between the Church of England and the parliament/monarchy.The founding fathers did not wish to separate concepts of morality or good from the political domain.The protection afforded religions
and religious freedoms is evidence of this.

Regardless of their intentions the founding fathers did not foresee that various scoundrels could form a church and hide behind the cloak of religion
to promote their agenda.

In Canada,the catholic church had tremendous influence in all politics in the province of Quebec into the 1960's as did the protestants and the various
denominations in other regions of Canada.The debate about same sex marriages is on going in Canada and the religious influences surface behind the party rhetoric.

The overlooked issue in the debate is the fact that both President Bush
(father and son) are grounded in the CIA culture while Vladimir Putin the Russian leader brings a KGB background to the table.Should there be a separation of spy and state?Prohibiting agents of any ilk from running for public office.

 

[Nugie]

So, let's see... I'm new to the board, didn't read the entirety of this thread, and I'm going to post about politics. I must really want people to hate me!

All the bantering aside, I don't think it's so much that the religious right came out for the election that made the difference. It certainly was a point of contention, to be sure, but not a deal-breaker. I think it's that the GOP did an excellent job of painting the Dems as a party allied with fringe organizations and thought.

It's not hard to convince a Dixie Democrat black southern baptist to vote with wealthy corporations and big business when the alternative is (as s/he has been convinced) an environmentalist lesbian from California who burns flags as sacrifices to the devil and doesn't believe in the concept of showering daily.

Politics are cyclical - the parties copy each other constantly and reverse positions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, by the next presidential election cycle, the Dems have managed to paint the GOP as the party with fringe extremist loyalties. Instead of pointing at the Dems and screaming about how Hillary marched in a parade with NAMBLA and the Green Party is calling for the government to absorb and dissolve the assets of all the Fortune 500 companies, you're going to see the finger reversed - the traditional conservatives are going to be pissed at Bush's stances on immigration policy, etc, the religious right are going to be pissed at Bush's failure to follow through on his promises to allow "christian majority rule", the hawks and neocons will be pissed that we haven't invaded Iran yet, the federalists will be pissed at the stupid Terry Schiavo thing, and the corporations that thought Bush would keep oil cheap to fuel growth will realize there isn't a damn thing the GOP can do to keep the Chinese from increasing their fuel demands faster then the US ever did.

Not that anything will really change anyway.

 

[bond_james_bond]

Why the world detests Bush

Hopefully, I'll be the last person to post on this, but FWIW, here's my flammable $0.02 worth.

I think the world hates Bush simply because most of the developed world (i.e. Canada and Europe) leans to the left, if not outright socialist. Bush was elected by a resurgence of right-wing politics in the USA, brought about by radio talk shows and an overall disgust with Clinton's antics in the White House. Even those who could care less what Clinton does with his Johnson were sold on the right wing's promises of less taxes.

Even before Bush, before 9/11, anti-American sentiment was growing. Many nations which were devastated by WW2 had fully recovered economically, and were now yearning for economic independence from American culture and influence. Recall that the French were expressing misgivings over Michael Jordan's and Disney's new projects in France. The constant neon signs of McDonald's, Starbucks, and KFC in lands as far away as China smacked of American imperialism.

Into this environment walks Bush, the very embodiment of the bullying American cowboy. The Rest of World (ROW) had no problem providing support for the Gulf War run by Bush I. It was clear that Iraq had attacked and occupied another sovereign nation. But Bush II did not present a very convincing case for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The ROW was barely buying the WMD theory and Americans were not seeing much of any links between Iraq and 9/11. Yet, the world hesitantly gave Bush the go ahead for the invasion of Iraq much like a parent telling his child that this will be the very last toy to be bought.

That Bush was using this flimsy story to invade Iraq in a "pre-emptive strike" while the USA was already conducting operations in Afghanistan in response to 9/11, was proof positive to most in the world that America, led by the cowboy Bush, is perfectly willing to use military as well as economic power to monopolize natural resources such as oil, to seize and occupy foreign lands, and in short, to build and grow its empire. Bush had turned America into the bully, and everyone hates the bully.

BTW, I hate bush myself. I only like to DATY on clean shaven poontang.

 

[Nugie]

WARNING: This is NOT light reading. Takes a bit of time to digest. But if you're up for it, check out:

www.thomaspmbarnett.com

This is the website of the guy who wrote "The Pentagon's New Map" in Esquire a few years back.

Interesting reading, even if you don't agree with it. Useful for understanding events (to quote) "in the context of... everything else".

 

[Red Paul]

The ROW was barely buying the WMD theory and Americans were not seeing much of any links between Iraq and 9/11. Yet, the world hesitantly gave Bush the go ahead for the invasion of Iraq much like a parent telling his child that this will be the very last toy to be bought.

As I remember it, the world -- or at least the UN -- didn't give Bush the final go-ahead for Gulf II. Of course it was a long, drawn-out process before the final no, a process that I did not follow at all closely, but in the end Bush had to invade without any UN sanction. Or so my less-than-100%-reliable memory tells me.

BTW thanks for the Barnett link.

 

[bond_james_bond]

As I remember it, the world -- or at least the UN -- didn't give Bush the final go-ahead for Gulf II. Of course it was a long, drawn-out process before the final no, a process that I did not follow at all closely, but in the end Bush had to invade without any UN sanction. Or so my less-than-100%-reliable memory tells me.

BTW thanks for the Barnett link.

Yeah, I don't remember exactly, so I wouldn't doubt it. Then the US defied the UN and pursued its own agenda. This sets a dangerous precedent. What if Russian or China were to attack another nation? How would the US be able to condemn such an action through the UN?

The actions of the USA undermine the integrity of the UN. Which is all the more reason for the world to despise Bush. It will be interesting to see if this signals the beginning of the end of the UN as far as being an effective tool for world peace.

 

[Red Paul]

Then the US defied the UN and pursued its own agenda. This sets a dangerous precedent. What if Russian or China were to attack another nation? How would the US be able to condemn such an action through the UN?

That's a good point. On the one hand, the UN is far from an ideal representative of good order and world opinion. On the other hand, it's all we've got and just pushing it aside may cost the US when some other country feels like throwing its weight around.

Anyway, I noitce I thanked you for the Barnett link, which in fact was provided by Nugie. Which shows what I mean about my memory. (And that's assuming I got Nugie's name right.)

 

[Nugie]

Red Paul, no problem. Reading Barnett will challenge most to think beyond their normal scale of things.

As far as pre-emptive war goes, from a legal standpoint I'd have to disagree. I viewed Gulf II as simply a resumption of Gulf I, once it was clearly proven that the terms of the agreement calling for a cease-fire (not peace) had been violated.

I offer this example: A simple test of cognition for developing infants is whether they understand the concept of permanence. For example, you show them an object. You then hide the object under a blanket or something. When you reveal the blanket, some children are surprised the object is there. Other children know the object is under the blanket and look for it.

At the end of Gulf I, it was acknowledged by all parties that Iraq was still in possession of certain quantities of arms. Massive disarmament was a primary term under which cease fire was held, and economic sanctions were in place until the disarmament could be agreed upon. After some time, and without the acknowledged arms being wholly accounted for, they are covered with a blanket (inspectors kicked out of country in 90's).

What type of infant are we? Do we presume the permanence of said object until otherwise demonstrated? Or should we be surprised to find them there when the veil is lifted?

I understand that US policy affects more then just Americans. BUT... (and here's the big test) we need to take an honest look at ourselves and decide whether our opinions are based more on fact or on politics (which is also fine. Having some sort of opinion is better then either having no opinion or having an opinion and the government repressing it)...

In 1998, the US under Clinton launched strikes against targets in Iraq and the Sudan. The US had not been engaged in action against the Sudanese nor is it now (technically). The explanation for the attack was not straightforward:

CIA agents had taken soil samples from outside a factory in Sudan. The soil samples tested positive for a chemcial precursor. This chemical precursor had no industrial value, EXCEPT in the manufacture of VX nerve gas. VX nerve gas can be produced in a variety of ways. The only people known to use this particular chemical pathway were Iraqi scientists. It was known that al Qaeda had infiltrated Sudan and were corrorborating with the military-industrial organizations there (before being booted from the Sudan and taking up residence in Afghanistan).

So, it was reasoned, Iraqi scientists were helping the Sudanese produce nerve gas for al Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Afterwards, many questions were raised about the validity of the intelligence. Also, there were allegations that the US president had launched the attack to distract the public from the fact that he was likely guilty of felony perjury.

Now, I understand that this was a little while back, but having heard my brief summary....

Were you as angry about this as you are about Gulf II? If not, then you MAY be a political hack.

Were you angry about this BECAUSE you thought it was Clinton wagging the dog, but NOT angry about Gulf II? If so, then you MAY be a political hack.

If you remember many things from 1998 but NOT this event, then you MAY have a selective political memory.

If you were as unreservedly supportive of the action in 1998 as you are about Gulf II, then you MAY be a hawk.

And, as a pre-emptive defensive strike, allow me to say this: I voted for Bush because I didn't like Kerry. I was a McCain fan in 2000 and a Clinton fan in 1996. I have a job I can't really talk about but I've seen enough classified intelligence to know that truth can be VERRRRY subjective. If you don't think I'm a cynic, just translate my autosig.

 

[HonestAbe]

Thoughtful and well balanced Nugie.

As far as pre-emptive war goes, from a legal standpoint I'd have to disagree. I viewed Gulf II as simply a resumption of Gulf I, once it was clearly proven that the terms of the agreement calling for a cease-fire (not peace) had been violated.

I offer this example: A simple test of cognition for developing infants is whether they understand the concept of permanence. For example, you show them an object. You then hide the object under a blanket or something. When you reveal the blanket, some children are surprised the object is there. Other children know the object is under the blanket and look for it.

At the end of Gulf I, it was acknowledged by all parties that Iraq was still in possession of certain quantities of arms. Massive disarmament was a primary term under which cease fire was held, and economic sanctions were in place until the disarmament could be agreed upon. After some time, and without the acknowledged arms being wholly accounted for, they are covered with a blanket (inspectors kicked out of country in 90's).

What type of infant are we? Do we presume the permanence of said object until otherwise demonstrated? Or should we be surprised to find them there when the veil is lifted?

I understand that US policy affects more then just Americans. BUT... (and here's the big test) we need to take an honest look at ourselves and decide whether our opinions are based more on fact or on politics (which is also fine. Having some sort of opinion is better then either having no opinion or having an opinion and the government repressing it)...

In 1998, the US under Clinton launched strikes against targets in Iraq and the Sudan. The US had not been engaged in action against the Sudanese nor is it now (technically). The explanation for the attack was not straightforward:

it was reasoned, Iraqi scientists were helping the Sudanese produce nerve gas for al Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Afterwards, many questions were raised about the validity of the intelligence. Also, there were allegations that the US president had launched the attack to distract the public

Hello Nugie,

I liked your example of object permanency in relation to infants. Its a good point and the reason why inspections were needed. Our threat to invade gave us the oppurtunity to do those inspections so I think the "tough" stance was necessary. I didn't agree with pulling the trigger however for the following reasons which I would like to use a similar example to yours to demonstrate.

Sometimes small children have a hard time accepting or admitting when they are wrong. In this case lets say the Bush Administration represents the small child. The child insisted that the WMD's were hiding in the closet, lets call the WMD's "the boogeyman", but we were told by the UN, lets call them "Mom and Dad", that we needed to make sure before we lit the house on fire(started/finished a war, whatever you prefer).

So Mom and Dad opened up the closet and turned on the light and proceeded to show us that the boogeyman was not there. In this case the child threw a temper tantrum and refused to believe the honest effort of Mom and Dad. Further the child refused to allow Mom and Dad to KEEP opening up the closet to show us time after time that the boogeyman was not there and instead burned down the house without permission.

You are absolutely right about making our decisions based on facts being of the utmost importance. Its hard though with so much smoke and mirrors in the media today to make informed decisions. What they report as absolute Gods' truth one day they are telling us months or years later was a total farce fed to us by someone to try and manipulate us to approve of things we otherwise would not. Thats why opinions are relevant. They are a kind of intuition. Sometimes you have to go with your gut when you are unsure. If something smells like bullshit it probably is bullshit. Especially if the source of the bullshit is well known for their bullshit like Slick Willy Clinton and W.

In the Clinton case you hit the nail right on the head. Attacking Sudan was so oppurtune for him during that period of time its almost impossible not to believe it. If there was any doubt it disappeared after the bombing when there was no credible evidence to substantiate the claims made about nerve gas being produced in those facilities. Clinton was a smart man but to other smart people his actions were a naked attempt at misdirection of attention.

A fellow McCain fan, Abe

 

[Nugie]

Abe,

Your point about the boogeyman is logical if and only if the boogeyman was never there to begin with...

Let's say the boogeyman WAS there at one point... but now he's not.

Is it realistic for the child to then ask:

1) Where'd he go? How'd he get out of the closet?
2) How do I know he's really gone? Since he "left" without anyone noticing how can I be sure he won't come back without anyone noticing either?

For further illustration, let's assume you've got some guns in your house. You also have children. To help avoid misuse or accidents, you keep the guns locked in a gun safe.

One day you open the safe and the guns are gone. You ask your children, "what happened to my guns?" And they reply, "I don't know, but they're not there now, so what's the problem?"

I can bet you'd start looking REALLY hard to find your guns before something awful happened. I think we could probably argue minutia for weeks and never resolve anything. So, to change the topic slightly...

Would you feel better if the administration said, "Yes, we made a mistake when we thought there were stockpiles of WMD. But now that we're there, we have to see it through or else it will be worse then when we went in."

Or do you think the best solution is to cut our losses and get out now?

 

[wakeman]

Invading another country?

Yeah, I don't remember exactly, so I wouldn't doubt it. Then the US defied the UN and pursued its own agenda. This sets a dangerous precedent. What if Russian or China were to attack another nation? How would the US be able to condemn such an action through the UN?

The actions of the USA undermine the integrity of the UN. Which is all the more reason for the world to despise Bush. It will be interesting to see if this signals the beginning of the end of the UN as far as being an effective tool for world peace.

Am I wrong but Russia had invaded Afghanistan in the early 80's, right? And how does the USA had reacted to that? And the UN? Sorry, I can't remember very well. My failing memory needs help!

Thanks!

W.

 

[bond_james_bond]

Am I wrong but Russia had invaded Afghanistan in the early 80's, right? And how does the USA had reacted to that? And the UN? Sorry, I can't remember very well. My failing memory needs help!

Thanks!

W.

Not sure of the details, but the USA supplied the Mujahadeen, the Afghani resistance, with weapons and advisors to fight the Russians. Many feel that the US aid helped the Afghanis to defeat the Russians.

This was done in payback for the Russians assisting the Vietnamese and the Koreans against the USA.

These days, everyone does everything through the UN. If the USA ignores the UN, how can we expect other nations to abide by the UN?