Why the whole world detest Bush?

[langeweile]

Speaking as an American. I could care less if the world likes me or not.
The price of success and leadership will always generate hate and love at the same time.
While the haters are consumming themselves and in some cases are throwing their lives away, just because they hate us.
I go on with my life and enjoy every minute of it.
Those poor bastards who blow themselves up are wasting a precious and unrecoverable gift, their own live. Since the verdict on heaven and hell is still out, they are missing out on the best parts of life.....life itself.
If the leadership of those terrorist countries would truly care about their own people, they would preach life instead of death.
Friendship instead of hatred and love instead of destruction.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Langeweile.

You are on target, the bigger picture is not the issue of Bush or Bush's foreign policy but rather the fact that we are dealing with diseased cultures that are producing diseased minds. This is not changing no matter who is President.

By way of example, last night I saw on MSNBC an interview with Canadian journalist Scott Taylor who was taken hostage in Iraq on September 8. He lost his papers but told his captors he was Canadian and that the Canadian government did not support the war, thinking his captors would play nicy nice with him on hearing this news. Instead, they severely tortured and beat him, told him he was going to be executed, prepared him for execution, and accused him of being an American spy and lapdog and infidel. He was ultimately freed due to a circumstance of luck involving the locating of an emir who was brother of an emir he knew.

Bottom line, Canadian friends, in the pea sized brains of these hatemongerers, the position of the Canadian government means nothing, and there is no disinction between a Canadian infidel and an American infidel. If you say you are Canadian to them that means you are an American spy or lap dog and your head will be cut off twice as fast.

This is the real problem. And short of killing all of them I don't know what the answer is. We can change a regime but we can't change a culture and what we are dealing with in Iraq is a culture of hate, self destruction, and perpetual blaming of problems on the USA and Israel instead of any intelligent, civilized or constructive attempt to deal with the real roots of those problems.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by ElfGoneBad
Interesting editorial in the Ottawa Sun today comparing George W. Bush with Winston Churchill. Not the war-time prime minister, but the prime minister and politician of the 30's who was desperately going around warning the apathetic arrogant people of his country that Hitler isn't joking. In retrospect, as we all know, Winston Churchill was right.

Yeah, I'll say that's interesting.

Okay, once more for everyone in the class. A very bad and dangerous man named Osmaa bin-Laden attacked the United States. As a result, George Bush decided to attack a very bad but not so dangerous man named Saddam Hussein who had not attacked the United States and who had nothing to do with Osama bin-Laden.

As a result the United States is stuck fighting a war that will end God knows when and that keeps us from putting all our energy against our real enemy, who is (guess now) Osama bin-Laden.

And trusting people who don't know much history try to pretend this is okay by telling themselves Bush is just like Winston Churchill.

A U.S. senator, Bill Graham, put it this way: if this were World War II, Bush would be attacking Mussolini instead of Hitler. Because, unlike Churchill, Bush just isn't too bright.

 

[langeweile]

Part of the problem with reaching the moderates in the mideast is iliteracy. I am not sure as to the % of it, but I suspect it is pretty high.
The mullahs have a great deal of power, which is partially derived from being a spititual leader, but I supect there is more than that.

Passages of the koran are being translated and interpreted by them, because a large % of the population can't read.
I suspect that some of the mullah's are using this for their own personal agenda.
I believe that most mullah's are spiritual leaders and stay away from political issues, but all it takes is a few bad apples.
In the process of bringing stabilization to the mideast we can't ignore the influence and power of these holy people.

It will be interesting to see, who the strong guy will be, after the elections in Iraq.
Having one of the more powerful mullah's emerge, would go a long way toward stabilization. The only downside could be a fight within the fractions, which is an internal issue and needs to be resolved from within.

The biggest advantage, that Saddam Hussein's terror regime had was, that his ruthlesness was equally imposed on all fractions. Anybody that opened his mouth was just killed. A brutal way, but it kept the peace in most of the country.
It reminds me a bit to what happened in the former Yugoslavia after Tito died.

 

[EagerBeaver]

My theory is that the only viable solution in Iraq is for the US to install a puppet dictator (forget about democracy, it will not work due to the culture previously discussed in numerous posts) and withdraw. The puppet dictator will have to rule with iron glove like Saddam, but at same time will be a US lapdog who can be controlled by US. Any other solution is simply unworkable.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by EagerBeaver
My theory is that the only viable solution in Iraq is for the US to install a puppet dictator . . . and withdraw. The puppet dictator will have to rule with iron glove like Saddam, but at same time will be a US lapdog who can be controlled by US.

Our goal: install a new Saddam who will cooperate with us for at least a few months longer than the old Saddam did.

Well, I applaud the idealism of your plan. This answers all the left-wingers and foreign cynics who question our motives for invading. And at the same time it's down to earth and realistic, since training a reliable Iraqi army should only take a decade or so. And it's not like our earlier thug pals in the Middle East ever showed a tendency to turn against us.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Originally posted by EagerBeaver
My theory is that the only viable solution in Iraq is for the US to install a puppet dictator (forget about democracy, it will not work due to the culture previously discussed in numerous posts) and withdraw. The puppet dictator will have to rule with iron glove like Saddam, but at same time will be a US lapdog who can be controlled by US.

Wasn't this the situation between Saddam & the Reagan administration during the 80's? The so-called WMDs that Iraq once had were given to them by Reagan's people in order to fight (and poison) Iran. Oh yeah...on top of poisoning Iranians, Saddam also poisoned the Kurds. Now that i reflect upon this, you could go as far as saying that Reagan indirectly poisoned those people, using his puppet, Saddam, to do the deed.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Red Paul,

I really believe that installing a new, "benevolent" Saddam (meaning brutal enough to restore order but at the same time beholden to the US) is the only practical resolution. It was an extreme error in judgment to believe that democracy could ever be foisted upon such a fundamentally corrupt country (see Langeweile's expose on the mullah system above). There is no way that Iraq will be restored to its pre-war order without a little bit of brutality and dictatorship. This guy Allawi will eventually be assassinated as will the rest of the Council and the choice will be let the terrorists run things or install a US supported thug. You know how that will get decided.

 

[FaceMaster]

As despicable as it is, Eager's plan is the only one that would work. What really, truly fucking pisses me off is that they could have done this years ago at a fraction of the cost and without loss of Western lives.

I've been saying it since 9/11 for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Doc Holliday]

George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz

Take the George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz. I scored a 1.

George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz

 

[Lawless]

EB
Would you go as far as bringing back the real "Saddam"?
He had been cooperating with the USA for years!
Might be best way to salvage the whole mess!
He was taking care of those muslims who play terrorism!
Handled Iran with the USA!
!

 

[EagerBeaver]

Lawless,

I think the real Saddam is probably too embittered by his humiliating capture and the killing of his sons by the US military, plus he is a broken old man.

What is needed is a younger, but equally ruthless Saddam-type dictator who is beholden to the US and will not only keep the "Islamofascists" in his own country in line, but also the Iranians. In return, we help him exploit the oil reserves in his country, give him and his minions (he'll need a new Republican Guard like Saddam had) a piece of the pie, and let the US oil companies come in and do the rest.

This is the ONLY possible solution to the Iraq fiasco. Anything else is either hopeless idealism or is otherwise not reality-based.

 

[wakeman]

First step for US to fight islamist terrorism: stop giving them money.

Most terrorist are from Saudi Arabia. US should implant an agressive politic to reduce US dependence to petroleum. Then they would be able to select from which country they buy their petroleum.

Second step: change their foreign politics.

Kicking the ass of traditionally friendly countries like France, Germany or Canada when they disagree with US government policies makes the US gov'nt looking like some kind of a world dictator.

Third step: solve the Israel vs Palestine problem would remove a king pin in islamists argumentation to hate US people.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by EagerBeaver
This is the ONLY possible solution to the Iraq fiasco. Anything else is either hopeless idealism or is otherwise not reality-based.

Beaver, you're missing the point here. Your plan is cynical in the extreme, yes. But it is not realistic. It's not going to work.

As I attempted delicately to indicate in my last post, our Middle East puppets do not remain puppets for long. Sooner or later we decide that they've burnt us, and the guy we were helping becomes our enemy. The turnaround can happen in a few weeks, as with Saddam in 1990.

Second, how does our puppet hold on to power once our soldiers go home? Saddam had a readymade and well-entrenched army to support him when he took over. Right now Iraq has no army at all, and the poor stooges we're trying to turn into a police force keep breaking and running when the guns go off.

So our brutal, repressive, hard-guy dictator won't be able to do any repressing unless our army does it for him. And that is a very bad use of the U.S. military when there's a war on terror we still have to win. And it means we won't be able to get out of the country after all.

Now, I happen to believe we'll end up doing something like what you propose. "This guy Allawi" is a thug and he's our boy (for now), so after the election debacle in January he may be the puppet king of Iraq. But not much of the country will be under his control, and if we get greedy about the oil the whole place will go up in smoke.

So what do we get out of all this? Absolutely nothing, except the realization that a lot of ordinary Americans are willing to say, "Screw that democracy stuff, let's just grab the oilfields."

By the way, I love the idea that Iraqis are too "corrupt" to be worthy of democracy. That society has got its problems, but Iraqis aren't talking about coming into our country and seizing our natural resources.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Red Paul,

So what is your "realistic" proposal for resolving the current situation in Iraq?

 

[Lawless]

With due respect, I fully agree with EB!
But a younger Saddam (too late for the real one!) must be found! Not that easy in the prevailing circumstances!
You don't fight Islam!
Iraqis are not too corrupted! One must distinguish between ordinary citizens (I have met may Iraqis for business) and the extremist!
Corruption is not necessarily the problem! It does exist all around the world! We don't have to leave our countries for that!
Democracy is a nice expression, but to implement it in some countries is another challenge alltogether! You don't turn a country into a democratic one overnight!
We don't have to go very far! Just a few miles from the coast!
Still puzzled why a move was made on Iraq though!
Iran might have been a bigger threath!
Kadafi appears to be under control!
North Korea will be taken care of if ever required, but not necessarily by North America! Look at their neighbours!

Quite interresting to see what will happen with the recent decision concerning the "Patriot Act"!

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by EagerBeaver
Red Paul,

So what is your "realistic" proposal for resolving the current situation in Iraq?

Did I say I had one?

George Bush has created a disaster. Disasters do not have easy or obvious solutions. The only first step I can propose is getting rid of the man who created the mess.

After that, my suggestion is we avoid "solutions" that have already been tried and failed, such as pinning our hopes to some local thug and thinking he'll stay our buddy.

And please, let us not begin acting like the old Soviet Union. Let's not claim that we're invading a country in self-defense and then try to turn it into a satellite. Let's not say we're fighting for democracy and then create a puppet dictator. Let's not say we're there to help the Iraqi people and then try to grab their oil.

I've given up on seeing a foreign policy that makes sense and actually helps our country. But how about a little self-respect?

Anyway, I thought you said in another thread that you were against bullies.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Red Paul,

That's a whole lot of rhetoric but no answer. Getting rid of Bush does not solve the mess. In fact it is not even a first step.

We must first acknowledge that democracy is not going to happen in Iraq. That's the first step. Whether the acknowledgment is made by Bush, Kerry or Hilary Clinton in 2008 is of no moment. It just isn't going to work.

Then we have to "pick a thug." I don't know if Allawi is the right thug; in fact my bet is that he will be killed by other thugs before the January elections and we'll never find out.

Once we hand pick the correct thug, we have to figure out how we are going to pay for a clean up of the damn mess. Only one way, boys. Money ain't growing on trees in Iraq. The only way is to exploit that oil reserve, pay off the thug and help him train a new Republican Guard to do his bidding.

This is Reality 101. I have heard no other alternatives that are viable. It is very easy to take shots, but not so easy to solve problems. I solve problems, I don't cry over the proverbial spilled milk like Red Paul. Because the criers do not get ahead in life. The guys who get ahead are the problem solvers.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by EagerBeaver
Red Paul,

That's a whole lot of rhetoric but no answer. Getting rid of Bush does not solve the mess. In fact it is not even a first step.

...
we have to "pick a thug." ... exploit that oil reserve, pay off the thug and help him train a new Republican Guard to do his bidding.

This is Reality 101. . . . I solve problems, I don't cry over the proverbial spilled milk like Red Paul. Because the criers do not get ahead in life. The guys who get ahead are the problem solvers.

Is that any way to talk? You're a man sitting by himself with a keyboard. Don't get carried away here, Mr. Problem Solver.

Beaver, the memories I have of you. Telling us back in 2003 that being against the war was like appeasing Nazi Germany. And now you want us to act like Nazi Germany.

You haven't thought this thru. Do you know how long it will take to build an army for Iraq? Do you know when we can get enough money from the oil fields to pay for that military? Have you thought that maybe the potential soldiers couldn't be bribed into loyalty because they'd rather kill each other?

In fact, do you know anything about Iraqi history? Have you, in your life, read a book about Iraq? Have you read a book about the Middle East? Or two books? If not, better give it a try before drafting your "New Iraq" plan.

There is one thing you do know because I've explained it twice: our Middle Eastern thugs turn against us. Choosing "the correct thug" (love that phrase) bombed with Osama and it bombed with Saddam. It will bomb again. Using a policy that doesn't work is not being realistic; it's being dense.

So why don't we take the one self-evident step in front of us: get rid of the man who created the mess. The Iraq war is not the act of a competent leader. And when incompetence has been exposed, it must be eliminated. Otherwise we all pay the price.

My advice: read and consider, and then try remaking that poor fucked-up country. If you still think the job is so simple.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I never said it was simple. But at least I have offered a possible way to try to solve the problem. Getting rid of Bush, in my mind, is not going to help solve the problem because the situation is what it is and it will have to be dealt with no matter who is President.

Regarding my 2003 comments, it's true I made those comments but that was when we all believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Your candidate John Kerry also believed this and voted in support of the war.

We need to move forward, not backward. How do we do so, if not with the correct thug being put in charge of Iraq?