What Would "You" Say To Bush?

wolfix

I just spent about a hour and a half responding to this and then somehow it was deleted....... I hate that....

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

Carrera

I know where you and Lim are coming from here but, at the end of the day, where would this get us? I mean, countless people have damned Bush publically, insulted Bush and even used the Pres as a means of being hip, so to speak i.e. being insulting to win friends.
I would rather look the man in the eye and speak frankly. However, my feeling is he'd agree with me. I think Bush now realises he got it very wrong.
Myself, I would never want to be a President and carry the burden of war on my shoulders. Why Schwarzennegger or Hilary Clinton would want that, I don't really know.
I understand that the role of President carries a huge risk of mistake that can cost thousands of people their lives.
I'm glad it's not me that took that decision to go to war but I can understand some of the pressures Bush may have faced after 9/11. Many pressure groups were urging war and the man made a huge, tactical error of judgement caving in to it. Whether he is essentially a bad, corrupt individual as Wurm stresses, I cannot say.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Carrera

It's quite true the U.S. has this nasty habit of interfering in other countries. The U.S. is historically quite similar to the old, democratic Athenian naval Empire, forcing and imposing democracy on surrounding nations as a point of convenience.
Lately it seems Russia is being targeted, which led Putin to refer to the U.S. recently as "Comrade Wolf". Yes, the U.S. really seems to be trying to sew seeds of discord between Russia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan in order to try and get companies established in the oil-rich Caspian.
Still as Wolf says, Europeans have been there too. I hear recently that black football fans have been advised to stay clear of East Germany (certain areas) due to the predominance of Nazi-saluting, skinheaded thugs who go so far as to salute Hitler.
I was kind of disgusted when I read about it. Even in deep Southern Texas a black guy can usually go about his business without some neo-Nazi gang of thugs breaking into goose-steps.
So, I worry where Europe is headed too at times.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

wolfix

I'm not so sure that Bush is that far off the mark with Iraq. Looking back at the time when the war was being discussed, there were many others including his opponents that saw the same info he had. To this day Hilary Clinton has not spoke out against the war, only that it was not handled the way she would have handled it... And Hilary Clinton is the Democratic Party. Kerry, Gore, Kennedy all are of little importance to the Democratic Party when you look at it's future. I said this before, and I know I am right when you look at the 2004 election..... Hilary Clinton engineered the defeat of the Democrats on purpose. At the time the Democrats were unsure that Hilary could defeat Bush. She decided not to run. It was her nomination if she asked. When Kerry ran, Hilary never really supported him, only gave him token support when she was forced to. She spoke many times of Bush and agreed with many of the things he did. Bill Clinton was hospitalized before the election and only spoke good things of Kerry when it was too late.
If Kerry would have won, Hilary was finished as a politician. She would never have gotten the chance to run for President again. Hilary is only interested in the White House. It was in her best interest for Kerry to be defeated. And again...... Hilary is the Democratic Party.

So I have to ask myself as we see Hilary settting herself up to run in 2008. {All the signs are there.} Why is she not speaking out against the war , and mainly she has never really suggested we were wrong for going. The other Democrats have said they were fed bad info by Bush, but that really is nothing but a political stand. I know the liberals think all the Democrats are against the war , but they forget that "labor" make up the largest voting force of the Democratic Party. And most labor is for the war. The liberals think too highly of themselves as they are really a small voting block in the party.

So again I ask myself..... what does Hilary know that others may not. We sometimes forget that she was in the White House and was privy to more sensitive information then all the other Democrats combined. There are stories out there that she even had info blocked that was supposed to go to Gore when he was VP. It is no secret the Clintons could not tolerate the Gores. Hilary made it a point on numerous occassions to prevent Al Gore from even being in her presence. Al Gore embarressed the Clintons.
Hialry Clinton is a smart lady. She may be the smartest politically of all politicians at the moment.


The opinions of other countries really matter little to the US and never really have. They can speak loudly now, but give them a few years when they need a favor and they are smiling that smile again. The important thing to me as an American is not the welfare of other nations if it interfers with the welfare of Americans. That is not to say I want bad things to happen to anyone, but I want my politicians to look out for me. But then that very same thing can be said about every other country. It's just that the US has more say in international politics then most.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

11ring

And you think your politicians do a good job at looking after you?

After Katrina it became clear that the welfafe of US citizens is a pretty low priority priority for Bush etc.

On the democrats, why would you think that their support for war means their must be some hidden justification the rest of us have no access to. They have always supported US imperialism for the same reason the republicans do- it is good for US business. And they, like the Republicans are the representatives of US business.

Point is, no matter how much the US government wants to ignore the wishes of other people, there is only so far they can get away with it. The US economy can't affort to just keep expanding the military budget forever, (leaving aside the political issues which could stop such an expansion) and currently the US army can't even win in Iraq. So if your government pisses off enough people sooner of later those same people will take to the streets with guns and run your corporations out of town. And there will be nothing Bush or Clinton will be able to do about it. Already people in Bolivia and Venezuela are doing things their own way and all Bush can do is mouth off.

To put it bluntly, the US empire is in seriouse dange of falling apart.

It is our responsibility to both speed up that collapse and ensure that progressive alternatives assume the leadership of the anti-imperialist movements.


The opinions of other countries really matter little to the US and never really have. They can speak loudly now, but give them a few years when they need a favor and they are smiling that smile again. The important thing to me as an American is not the welfare of other nations if it interfers with the welfare of Americans. That is not to say I want bad things to happen to anyone, but I want my politicians to look out for me. But then that very same thing can be said about every other country. It's just that the US has more say in international politics then most.[/QUOTE]

Wurm

What planet are you inhabiting this week, Carrera??

Attached Images

 

__________________
"Bush is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

- John Dean, former Counsel to the President (Nixon)

The aim of big corporations is to separate fools from their money all of the time and ordinary folks from their money most of the time. The rest of us must fend for ourselves.

davidmc

She was the 1st politician to endorse a seperate palestinian state. Her pronouncements following that leave many wondering what she's up to specifically-cozying up to voters/donors in her district. That being said, she is probably very busy raising money right now to go up against the repub candidate for pres. in 08'. That is a full time job. Many people believe that one should not run for office when they already occupy one, as "republican light" lieberman did in 2000. Hillary has left some wondering what w/ accepting money from fox ceo murdoch
Campaign finance now more than ever

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

wolfix

Exactly right. And Americans would not want it any other way.

I don't know what 3rd world country you live in, but the people in America are not that upset. People are going about their business as usual.The economy has been on a 8 year boom and looks as if it is going to continue. People in America use their political systems to cause change. We have representitive government here. As far as Venezuela , Mr Chavez is digging himself a financial hole. His spending is starting to get out of control. He no longer has the US giving his country 10% of his countries GNP. He has a very limited time to direct his government into power in his government. He has insurgents on his borders causing him stress.

Again ...... Do they have television where you live? Because i do not see any signs of it at all.


Get a hobby.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

janiejones

Hey Lumpy,

sometimes being an Australian makes me feel the same way, but I think the rest of the world knows not every American thinks the same as the country's politicians. Every country has it's losers - I've been to America and had a wonderful time, saw some great places and most of all met some very good and caring people.

tcklyde

Personally, I have zero interest in meeting the guy. None. Zip. Nada. Nothing I would say to him would even register with him. The man doesn't even read newspapers. And then he brags about it. He brags about being a lousy student.

Fortunately, I doubt I'll have an opportunity to meet him. Portland, Oregon is probably one of the last places in the U.S. the guy would want to visit. He would not get a warm welcome.

__________________
Harry

11ring

Compare the US now to 1940,s 50,s.

1940's-50's

50% of world GDP, 60% of manufacturing output, Politically dominant in Europe and Latin America, making inroads into the middle east. Can fight and win major world war against serious industrial powers. Almost universal suppoprt for cold war. Can spend up to 11% of GDP on war without halting growth. Dollar is undisputed world currency. US major lender country. Holds and manipulates foreign debt.

2006-

approx 20% of world GDP, 15% manufacturing output. Record levels of debt. Can't defeat insurgency is small, devastated country. Seriose potential economic and strategic competitors in China, Europe and Japan. Majority/near majority opposition to ongoing war in Iraq. Losing control in South/Latin American back door. Dollar faces competition from Euro. Major debtor country to China/Japan/Saudi who could pull the plug if they wanted.

You can pretend that everything is fine but a cursory glance indicates that the US empire is in long term decline.

And I do have a hobby. It is called cycling.


Again ...... Do they have television where you live? Because i do not see any signs of it at all.


Get a hobby.[/QUOTE]

BimmsAndBices

Assuming I had a loaded pistol in my hand, I wouldn't need to say anything.

wolfix

[/QUOTE]
First of all your figures are misleading ....... The periods you have picked for your outlook are convenient to make your point. And some of the things are irrelevent to today.

1st of all .......If there was a war against a industrial power such as there was in the 40's , the time period you selected, it would be over in a few days. Look at Iraq, {the Gulf War}...... nothing but a big video game to place Saddam where he was supposed to be. And you say the states could'nt win a war against a small devastated country today but back then we could..... Does Viet-Nam ring a bell? Korea? Before you try historical comparisions, know what you are talking about.

And I want to see the facts on the GNP......]

The facts are misleading of the numbers you quote about manufacturing. The periods you quote were re-building years for manufacturing countries devasted by the war....... Germany did not start re-building until the beginning of the 50's..... And Germany was divided at that time. Japan was also in a re-building phase.
But the world is not based on manufacturing today. It is technology. The manufacturing will continue to leave the shores of modern countries to the shores of countries that do not have enviromental standards and human rights conscience.

As far as the back door in South America.... That area has always gone through it's ups and downs. Hold your breath and tomorrow there will be another strong talking man telling the world how he is standing up to the imperialists...... It's the same old story for over 50 years. My father worked for the government in that area of the world in the 50's. He said it is totally reliant on oil back then and it is today. As soon as oil prices go down, and they will, the in-flowing cash to those countries will dry up. Then the bonds that Mr Chavez has will be worthless.... It's a cycle. Mr Chavez is also operating on borrowed money based on the price of oil.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

11ring

These are good points, and what you say about reconstruction not coming on line is true, but the general trend has been for relative US economic power to decline. Germany and Japan grew so quickly not only because they were rebuilding but because they spent less on guns.

The comparison with Vietnam and Korea are good ones. The US lost or drew in these wars, but look at the amount of resources it could employ. North Korea and North Vietnam had modern, heavily armoured fighting vehicles and large regular armies (millions of troops mobilised in Korea) that had comparable equipment to the US. There is no way the US could fight a war on the same scale as Vietnam or Korea now.

And vietnam came near the end of this period. US economic decline was already apparent. Look at the way the war spending pushed up inflation and hurt the real economy. In the 50's the US economy could stand 11 percent war budgets, in the 70,s 9 percent was too much, and now even 5 percent is a stretch.

And actually South America has been pretty much a complete sucess story up until now. Guatemaly, Nicaragua, Chile- all US victories.

Do you really think the US could pull off a major intervention in latin America today? Where are the spare troops? Where is the reserve political goodwill?

As per Chaves etc, the impending crisis you allude to is certainly possible, but not without foreign intervention or internal counterrevolution. There is no reason to expect oil prices to fall any time soon, and the funds from the sale of oil are now staying in the country and can hopefully be used to build other sectors of the economy- like agriculture and industry.

To say that the absense of US aid is enough to bring ruin on any country that spurns us imperialism is a big call. The increased royalties from oil will more than make up this gap, and this revunue is more likeley to be redistributed or invested/ as opposed to ending up in a small number of wealthy elite with Miami bank accounts.

The same point applies to Bolivia.



First of all your figures are misleading ....... The periods you have picked for your outlook are convenient to make your point. And some of the things are irrelevent to today.

1st of all .......If there was a war against a industrial power such as there was in the 40's , the time period you selected, it would be over in a few days. Look at Iraq, {the Gulf War}...... nothing but a big video game to place Saddam where he was supposed to be. And you say the states could'nt win a war against a small devastated country today but back then we could..... Does Viet-Nam ring a bell? Korea? Before you try historical comparisions, know what you are talking about.

And I want to see the facts on the GNP......]

The facts are misleading of the numbers you quote about manufacturing. The periods you quote were re-building years for manufacturing countries devasted by the war....... Germany did not start re-building until the beginning of the 50's..... And Germany was divided at that time. Japan was also in a re-building phase.
But the world is not based on manufacturing today. It is technology. The manufacturing will continue to leave the shores of modern countries to the shores of countries that do not have enviromental standards and human rights conscience.

As far as the back door in South America.... That area has always gone through it's ups and downs. Hold your breath and tomorrow there will be another strong talking man telling the world how he is standing up to the imperialists...... It's the same old story for over 50 years. My father worked for the government in that area of the world in the 50's. He said it is totally reliant on oil back then and it is today. As soon as oil prices go down, and they will, the in-flowing cash to those countries will dry up. Then the bonds that Mr Chavez has will be worthless.... It's a cycle. Mr Chavez is also operating on borrowed money based on the price of oil.[/QUOTE]