DescentBB

Ok Foil, new thread to take over from the Hillary detour.

As a U.S. citizen, I'm ashamed the at the way we are behaving in the world stage. We became very nationalistic after 911, patriotism trumped everything, even common sense as well. Ooooh, look out for the big, bad terrorists. The New York press went psychotic and our government could do no wrong after that. Congress also fell victim to it. Bush used that fear like all leaders that crave power and created a presidency with almost unlimited and unchecked power, and our congress gave it to him!

Most of the world saw the folly of Bush's war, except for Britain and a few others that were suckered in. Most of the rest of the world had the common sense to not join in a preemptive war. The reason for this war, according to Bush, is to bring Democracy to the Middle East and force it with the barrel of a gun if needed. He's deluded enough to think that all nations crave our system. Idiot, you don't spread or force freedom on any nation, they even may resent the intrusion, as we've seen in Iraq. If a people truely want it, they will fight for it themselves and ask for our help if they want it. If Bush really wanted to spread freedom, why hasn't he invaded some of the other dictator nations around the world, especially Darfur.

We've even sunk to a new low when people question your patriotism if you don't wear a flag lapel pin! Obama was even questioned on that one! The other right-wing put down of Obama is that he's never served in the military. What B.S.! People forget that little party boy George Bush never even fired a gun in battle! He's never killed a human in war. For people too young to remember, the National Guard back in the 1960's was an old boys and rich boys weekend club! They were never sent to Vietnam. So frankly, Bush has no experience in the hell and killing of war, not all past presidents have had this and it should not be a marker of your patriotism or fitness for the office of President.

To answer your question (Is the U.S. acting too Imperialistic?) ...

No.

A link to Definition of Imperialistic

IMHO, I think the U.S. is currently struggling to re-define the direction it's headed. This naturally means there will be a lot of bumps, mis-steps, changes in direction, etc.

Some may *think* the U.S. is being imperialistic in it's actions (easy impression to make because of the sheer influence the U.S. is currently capable of) ... but it's really just trying to help other nations learn better democracy (sometimes by our own bad example). Matters are naturally complicated when greedy self-serving individuals (theives?) happen to be involved.

I suppose I tend to gauge my stance on this from looking at the two extremes which have seemingly become so prevalent in the last few years.

On one hand:
Ever since 9/11, I've started noticing an overly nationalistic and ethno-centric rhetoric, like, \"the U.S. is the best / most generous / most prosperous / most Godly nation the world has ever known\", \"we look out for our own, the rest of the world can go to hell\", and \"if you don't love our country, you're evil\". It's often couched in patriotic terminology with lots of references to WWII and the Founding Fathers, and leaves the impression that whatever the U.S. does is right. To me it comes across as intentionally misleading, implying that a sense of patriotism trumps any other considerations. (It's really disturbing when I've seen this attitude show up in a church service, turning the worship of God into worship of country.)

On the other hand:
Ever since the invasion of Iraq, I've also noticed the exact opposite... a particularly hateful, despising rhetoric, painting the U.S. and George W. Bush in particular as something akin to the source of nearly every worldwide evil. Usually citing wars and religious groups, the implications are things like, \"Bush / the United States is a monster on a power/ego trip\", \"Americans are lazy, fat, violent criminals bent on destroying the world\", etc. As a U.S. citizen myself, these kinds of innacurate \"broad-brush\" statements bother me almost as much as the ones above.

------------

Now, before you write off the above as radical extremes that no one really ascribes to... think about people's reactions that you've seen/heard/read when discussing this subject. Almost without fail, someone will end up implying that the other is a \"terrorist-empathizing U.S.-hater\" or \"blind nationalist U.S.-lover\", right? It's ridiculous, and personally drives me nuts, the same way Republicans and Democrats bash each other as extremists.

------------

So, in answer to the original topic: \"Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.\"

Okay, okay. If you want me to be a bit more specific: Honestly, I think the recent seemingly-imperialistic actions taken by the U.S. are more a product of dumb decisions based on fear and misinformation than an intentional power-play.

I don't believe the U.S. is a power-hungry evil empire... but we're no benevolent angelic nation, either.

We are what our population is... a strange combination of saints, good folks, not-so-good folks, and complete whackos.

Tech, your definition of imperialistic is exactly what this country is doing. We have taken foreign land and built military bases on it, sometimes uninvited. We've laid claim to various country's mineral resources by flooding their country with counterfeit money they cannot pay back. We have stuck our dick in most every country on this planet. We're just being more subtle than the English were (in the 1800's)

tunnelcat wrote:As a U.S. citizen, I'm ashamed the at the way we are behaving in the world stage. We became very nationalistic after 911, patriotism trumped everything, even common sense as well. Ooooh, look out for the big, bad terrorists. The New York press went psychotic and our government could do no wrong after that. Congress also fell victim to it. Bush used that fear like all leaders that crave power and created a presidency with almost unlimited and unchecked power, and our congress gave it to him!

Most of the world saw the folly of Bush's war, except for Britain and a few others that were suckered in. Most of the rest of the world had the common sense to not join in a preemptive war. The reason for this war, according to Bush, is to bring Democracy to the Middle East and force it with the barrel of a gun if needed. He's deluded enough to think that all nations crave our system. Idiot, you don't spread or force freedom on any nation, they even may resent the intrusion, as we've seen in Iraq. If a people truely want it, they will fight for it themselves and ask for our help if they want it. If Bush really wanted to spread freedom, why hasn't he invaded some of the other dictator nations around the world, especially Darfur.

We've even sunk to a new low when people question your patriotism if you don't wear a flag lapel pin! Obama was even questioned on that one! The other right-wing put down of Obama is that he's never served in the military. What B.S.! People forget that little party boy George Bush never even fired a gun in battle! He's never killed a human in war. For people too young to remember, the National Guard back in the 1960's was an old boys and rich boys weekend club! They were never sent to Vietnam. So frankly, Bush has no experience in the hell and killing of war, not all past presidents have had this and it should not be a marker of your patriotism or fitness for the office of President.

I was just reading an encyclopedia article on Nazism (a REAL encyclopedia, not an online one) and this strikes me as VERY similar to that. (No offense to americans, of course.)

Alter-Fox wrote:...this strikes me as VERY similar to [Nazism]... (No offense to americans, of course.)

Here we go...

-----------------

Fox, if you're going to make extreme statements like that one, implying the U.S. is similar to one of the cruelest ideologies in history, you had better be able to back it up rationally. Otherwise, it's just flame-bait.

-----------------

That's what I was talking about above.

We should be able to talk about this reasonably, without the use of extremist rhetoric.

Imperialist? Not even close. The Brit's showed us the folly of trying to own the world, not that they were the first or the last.

In another sense though I can see the analogy does apply. We are trying to take over in the sense that we would like everyone else to share our values and play by our rules and we use all sorts of tactics to achieve that end, including manipulating factions in and out of war and even fighting in a few of them ourselves openly and/or secretly.

Bush worked off of the premise that given the chance the Iraqi people would buy into our system enough to make them an ally. It really isn't that far fetched but it won't happen, if it does at all, soon enough to salvage his short term reputation.
Come back in 20 or 30 years though and if Iraq is a shining model of a modern middle eastern, thriving capitalist economy, secularly governed by democratically elected representatives on good terms with the West, which could definitely happen, and G.W. Bush will be posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his fearless, brilliant leadership that boldly put the middle east on a new course to peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world.

If that were to happen the history books wouldn't reflect on this period as America's Imperialistic era, they would chronicle the achievement as something tremendous. A new age!!

If you think this sounds like a fantasy go learn about turkey's history and the quasi tyrant Ataturk who is now considered the father of modern Turkey in all her glory. At the time he was killing people and stamping out his detractors in a much more vicious fashion than anything Bush has done but now he's a national hero!

The victorious get to write the history books. I'm sure if you could go back in time you could find a lot of people who would show you just how treacherous and cruel the founding fathers of this country were...how terribly cruel all the Kings and Queens of Europe were...etc. etc.

America, Imperialists...sure, whatever... just be careful what you ask for when your knee jerks to protest but you don't have a clue how you could realistically shape a viable alternative without ultimately surrendering to some other country's or culture's version of Bush.

One planet one people.
So which tribe do you want to lead? Ossama's....The Peoples Republic of China....maybe you think it's not fair for one group to take the lead....

I'm not nearly as impressed with Bush's execution as I was with his boldly standing up and saying \"This is the way people...\"
But I'll be damned if I want to abandon the effort to persevere and instead snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That is the choice we are being offered by many.
God damn people, suck it up and get in the game!!

The way I see it is this…

Yes we may have overreacted just a tad after 911, but what the hell, this is a young country and the last memory of a terrorist attack anything like 911 was Pearl Harbor.

So you can go on critizing what the government does, but to this day I havent heard any other solutions, just Bush bashing. Well this country is in a time of crisis, how bout some of you try offering something constructive, instead of using it for political gain.

And maybe after the terrorists kill another few thousands of people in murderous attacks, we can give a proper response.

Actually, I think the U.S. tends toward a mix of Imperialism and Nationalism, depending on our fear level or resource needs at the moment. We tend toward Imperialism when it comes to securing parts of the world for securing our oil needs (at the moment) and we tend towards Nationalism when we are threatened, which in natural for any country.

We did overreact after 911, but I think that the fear that spread through the U.S. was magnified and extended by a New York centric, corporate owned press. Many of the main network news anchors are now admitting to that fact. Many of them have now revealed that the Pentagon was actually requiring them to steer the war news coverage to a favorable tack. So much for the free press.

My complaint is with our government and it's use of this fear, disseminated by a pliable, corporate owned press, to brainwash the populace into following our President's desire to bring down the leader of a sovereign nation (Iraq, which Bush is on record stating that this was his desire BEFORE he was even elected) and create a legacy for himself without any thought to the consequences. What we got was a costly and unneeded war, that has stained our world reputation and killed over 4000 of our kids and untold numbers of Iraqis and distracted us from the real threats in the world. It was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their cabninet that's responsible for this mess, they were at the helm.

I do love my country and what it has accompished, but I hold THEM and the rest of the government, including Congress, responsible for this entire debacle. I would really like to see Bush or Cheney impeached! War crimes is a pretty good reason.

Per some, Bush should be heralded...

Per others, Bush should be impeached...

LOI, this subject seems to divide people into extremes more than almost any other recent topic we've had. It's almost funny, were it not for all the similar stuff we'll be hearing up until the November elections. [sigh]

Sorry, I meant to a much lesser degree. It was mostly the apparent fanaticism of the war that I thought seemed similar. (As in... a problem with Obama's campaign was that he wasn't in the army... that just seems ridiculous.)

Ok, cut the crap…and tell me exactly where we go from here. Bush’s term is almost over so impeachment would make no sense. (and would be more unnecessary political BS)

What would you do to steer the country back on the proper course?

Well.... We need to create a list of sorts and organize it. My thoughts are the economy combined with a realistic approach to the middle east. The middle east is the hard one though.

Ok, sorry, I should have directed my last post to tunnelcat.

Not that other input is not welcome, I was just tasking the complainer.

Foil wrote:Per some, Bush should be heralded...

Per others, Bush should be impeached...

LOI, this subject seems to divide people into extremes more than almost any other recent topic we've had. It's almost funny, were it not for all the similar stuff we'll be hearing up until the November elections. [sigh]

You seem concerned about polarization. I'm glad people are noticing and perhaps wondering how it got this way: Polarization was a deliberately used political strategy in the past campaigns.

http://www.google.com.au/search?&q=politics+polarize
seems to lead to:
http://www.google.com.au/search?&q=carl+rove+polarize

From what i know about Carl Rove - master campaign strategist for the Bush Jr campaigns - he favoured polarizing tactics in mobilising the religious right to vote Bush into office (which worked), it was effectively his brainchild. He's a smart guy, i hate his guts - but he's undeniably effective at his job.

Also - these polarizing tactics arn't limited to external politics. It also goes on within the internal warring of the Republican party, with peppy Neocons (social conservative, fiscally liberal, big business and war industry lobbys) aggressively and successfully fighting for the reins of the party.

i'll close with a wiki quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(politics) wrote:
Polarization in United States politics

In recent times, some Americans, such as American Demographics magazine editor John McManus, have seen increasing polarization in the U.S. political system. Some point to Jim Jeffords' resignation from the Republican Party in 2001 because of his feelings that the party was becoming increasingly polarized and that moderate voices were getting shut out. Former President Bill Clinton said on the 9/18/06 Daily Show that he thinks the Republican Party believes in polarization.

Others, such as Constitution Party analyst Michael Peroutka, take the view that the U.S. political parties themselves are actually quite close in terms of actual policy and party leadership. They say that political rhetoric is polarized in order to create some illusion of policy difference; however, in practice and action, both parties take a similar approach to government. Examples include vast bipartisan and popular support for one side of various supposedly controversial issues; a majority of both major parties in Congress voted to cut taxes in 2001, to authorize use of force in Iraq in 2002, and to ban partial-birth abortion in 2003. Additionally, since 1948, the Congress and the President--whether Democratic or Republican--have shown the same willingness to grow the size of the Federal Government. Supporters of this theory also say that public opinion has not gone to the extreme; rather, both parties have come closer to the center. Thus, for the average "centrist" voter, it is easier to decide which party/candidate is closest to them. This can be demonstrated in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, when the vote was virtually half and half between the two sides. Essentially, both parties are equally desirable to average Americans.

That's not to deny that other parties or ideologies (worth mentioning seperately coz as i noted above, the Republican party currently has 2 different ideologies visibly competing for control of the one party) use polarizing techniques. I just hear more about it in reference to Neocons than to anyone else.

I personally have a repertoire of polarizing topics i like to use. They are simply topics that people feel strongly about, often with personally-dishonest (denial) or un-insightful (nievity) justifications. I'm keen to find out the truth about these topics - as i think they cut deeply, revealing much that is hidden.

Foil, you seem to be concerned about polarized politics, so I will use this as another excuse to bash the Republicans, while at the same time, offering not a single idea as to how to cope with the problem, or any solutions to change it.

stop

Roid wrote:You seem concerned about polarization. I'm glad people are noticing and perhaps wondering how it got this way: Polarization was a deliberately used political strategy in the past campaigns.

Bear in mind is that polarization is not only a deceptive political tactic. Truth itself is very polarizing. Polarization, or the clear rendering of inescapable differences isn't good for some people's naive ideas of peace and getting along, but it isn't always a bad thing. There's something very wrong with the smoothing over of differences instead of acknowledging and working in view of them. In my opinion there's been a subtle movement on this BB wanting to blur the lines between conservatives and liberals, like they could somehow find a middle ground, when the middle ground is the cavernous ravine that separates the two. It's been the same with the differences between Christians and non-Christians. The result is a failure to recognize on what grounds the two view-points can validly meet/interact/dialog, which results in confusion and/or compromise, and ultimately accomplishes nothing (except for compromise).

tunnelcat wrote:We did overreact after 911, ...

I don't think we did at all. I wouldn't say that all the right choices were made, but I think the level of action was in no way uncalled for.

If you're talking about Iraq, you should remember that 9/11 was not a direct reason for invading, the reason was intelligence about a treaty that was being violated, resulting in a potential threat that could not be ignored.

Personally I suspected, and am more and more convinced that attempting to spread "freedom" to a country whose people are not willing to pay the price (fight for it) is a bad idea.

Ehh... it depends on your definition of imperialistic. It's not a territorial-conquest type of imperialistic, but it is an extension-of-influence type.
And boy, is America known for that! The level of chauvinism, even amongst the regular people, is outstanding!

And the next person to say 'democracy = freedom' deserves to be shot.

tunnelcat wrote:We did overreact after 911, but I think that the fear that spread through the U.S. was magnified and extended by a New York centric, corporate owned press. Many of the main network news anchors are now admitting to that fact. Many of them have now revealed that the Pentagon was actually requiring them to steer the war news coverage to a favorable tack. So much for the free press.

That would also nicely explain why most Americans do see the Middle East as a threat to the US, while most non-Americans don't. In other words, because the fear-inducing media for the most part is US-exclusive, non-Americans are influenced by events that did happen, and since there weren't any attacks at all on the US since 9/11...

In before "Tiger hates America!"

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Personally I suspected, and am more and more convinced that attempting to spread "freedom" to a country whose people are not willing to pay the price (fight for it) is a bad idea.

The fact that there's a war involved suggests to me that they're paying the price to not introduce "freedom".

tunnelcat wrote: We tend toward Imperialism when it comes to securing parts of the world for securing our oil needs (at the moment) and we tend towards .

Riiight...thats why Bush went hat in hand to Saudia Arabia to ask for a increase in oil production instead of putting troops in and saying, "Do it".
And last time I checked we are not taking oil from Iraq unless we pay for it. Indeed the question has arisen as to where the Iraqi oil money is going and why is the US taxpayer funding Iraq's re-construction.
So Tunnelcat, just what parts of the world are we securing for our own personal oil use?

roid wrote:stop

Your post had nothing to do with the topic.
Why do you think you have the right to go unchallenged?
When you stop scanning the E&C for every excuse to bash Conservatives/Christians, then I will stop.

Sorry tc.

TIGERassault wrote:...
The fact that there's a war involved suggests to me that they're paying the price to not introduce "freedom".

Not a well thought out line of reasoning.
The Americans have a particular goal in mind and are staying there to fight for it but just because there is a force there fighting against them doesn't prove that everyone else in Iraq doesn't seek the same end result as the Americans.
There a a lot of different factions involved in the war many of them not even Iraqi. For you to conclude that opposition proves Iraqi's don't want something is really a simpletons view.

Every day more and more Iraqi's join the Americans struggle and everyday more and more Iraqi's thank the Americans for the efforts to make Iraq a safe place for them to live. The majority of Iraqi's made up of both Sunni and Shia are in favor of the Americans end goal.
So your conclusion and perception of what is going on and what is at stake in Iraq is dead wrong.

Spidey wrote:Your post had nothing to do with the topic.
Why do you think you have the right to go unchallenged?
When you stop scanning the E&C for every excuse to bash Conservatives/Christians, then I will stop.

Sorry tc.

stop

Monkey see, monkey do.

This is between me and roid, so why don’t you be a good little boy…and stay the hell out of it!

Sorry again tc.

Spidey wrote:This is between me and roid

no, no it really isn't. What i'm doing in this thread has nothing - NOTHING - to do with you Spidey.

see: your name is no-where in this quote tree:

roid wrote:

Foil wrote:

Spidey you accuse me of adding nothing to the topic. My post was well thought out and true, and it was directed to Foil whom i seem to get along with just fine. I expect he might just appreciate my points on the subject of polarising politics - or at least introducing the formal term for it - "polarization", as it hadn't yet been brought up in the topic.

You on the otherhand.... what the ★■◆● are YOU adding with your baseless snipes at people's posts?! I see you Trollin - badly.
STOP.

Perhaps we should pass a law and make the forums a snipe free zone.

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

<<Techpro's definition>>
No one can accuse the U.S. of territorial Imperialism in the last century (before that...)however the use indirect control to solidify an economic empire has been a goal of the U.S. in many, many actions throughout Asia, South America and the Mid-east both overt and covert. The U.S. now consumes many times what it produces and depends on those goods and resources being both available and low cost in order to maintain the standard of living of it's people and it's position of power in the world order. Failure to defend that position, even at the cost of the standard of living and political freedom of another country would be unacceptable to most governments and that of the U.S. is no exception.
All empires fail at some time. The Romans, the Persians, the British all learned that hard lesson. At some point the economics of controlling large territories becomes unworkable. When the U.S. is finally out bid for strategic resources by the growing economies of China and India you will see what makes an Economic Empire more clearly as the actions to support it become more overt and less covert.
Remember how Japan became desperate to maintain their Asian empire without the resources in their home country to support it and the resulting stupidity of a war against the U.S.

Will: If George W. Bush can ever reach the status of Kamal Ataturk even with the hindsight of 100 years I would be amazed. Mind you the U.S. Presidents that oversaw the genocide of the North American Indians are now seen as heroes so I guess there is hope. As you say it is all in the results not the actions.

No way is the U.S. acting Imperialistic. Lets do a little history with Islam leading up to this war:

On November 4, 1979, Islamic Iranian's stormed US Embassy Tehran and took 66 Americans hostage.

On April 18, 1983, the Islamic Hezbollah employed a suicide bomber to truck-bomb US Embassy Beirut. Sixty-three people were killed.

On October 23, 1983, an Islamic suicide bomber truck-bombed the US Marine Corps Barracks at the Beirut International Airport. Two hundred twenty Marines and 21 members of other US military services were killed.

On December 12, 1983, a 25 year old Islamic Iraqi soldier belonging to the Islamic Iranian Dawa Group truck-bombed US Embassy Kuwait, seriously damaging the chancery and destroying the administrative annex, killing five, injuring 80. There was no American retaliation.

On March 16, 1984, Islamic Shiite's abducted US Embassy Beirut CIA Station Chief Lt. Col. William Buckley, USA, the CIA's top terrorism expert. In October 1985, the CIA assessed that Buckley had been taken to Islamic Iran by way of Islamic Syria and tortured to death.

On September 20, 1984, Islamic Shiite's car-bombed the US Embassy annex in east Beirut, killing 14 and injuring 57, including the US and British ambassadors and 19 other Americans. There was no American retaliation.

On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Scotland, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Of the 270 passengers, 189 were Americans.

On February 26, 1993, a massive explosion occurred in the public parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people were killed, all Americans, with more than 1,000 injured. A truck-bomb was the cause. Six Islamic conspirators were convicted of the crime.

1993 - An Islamic cell operating in New York City planned to blow up simultaneously the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, the UN, and the New York FBI office in lower Manhattan, all in New York City.

On April 14, 1993 the Islamic Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former US President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait.

In Late 1994, enemy Islamic forces operating in the Philippines were building bombs they planned to place and remotely detonate on twelve US carrier jumbo jets in a single 48-hour period as they flew from the Far East to the US.

On June 25, 1996, Islamic forces truck-bombed part of the Khobar Towers housing complex at the King Abdul Aziz Air Base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion occurred near building #131, an eight-story building used mostly by US Air Force personnel. Nineteen US servicemen and one Saudi were killed, with 372 injured.

On August 7, 1998, the US Embassy Nairobi was truck-bombed. Two hundred thirteen people were killed, more than 4,000 injured.

On August 7, 1998, the US Embassy Dar es Salaam was truck-bombed, within five minutes of the Nairobi bombing mentioned above. Eleven died and 85 were injured.

On December 14, 1999, an Islamic Algerian soldier was arrested while crossing from Canada into Washington State with 130 pounds of explosive chemicals and four homemade timing devices. His plan was to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport on the evening of December 31, 1999.

On January 3, 2000 Islamic suicide bombers attempted an attack against the USS The Sullivans in port at Aden, Yemen.

On October 12, 2000, an explosion occurred on the port side of the destroyer USS Cole while moored in the harbor of Aden, Yemen.

9/11/2001 - Four Islamic enemy air raids were conducted against American targets in New York and Washington, DC, killing close to 3,000 people, destroying the World Trade Towers, and severely damaging the Pentagon. The air raids were conducted employing hi-jacked US air carriers. One air raid did not reach its target in Washington, thwarted by the passengers.

Ford Prefect wrote:...Will: If George W. Bush can ever reach the status of Kamal Ataturk even with the hindsight of 100 years I would be amazed. Mind you the U.S. Presidents that oversaw the genocide of the North American Indians are now seen as heroes so I guess there is hope. As you say it is all in the results not the actions.

Exactly my point except I don't think Bush has the callous disregard for others the way his predecessors had for the American Indian. He seems to believe he is helping people by doing the right thing, the ends justify the means and all that rationalization that supports that view (of which I subscribe to to a large degree).
I don't believe he will be held in such high regard as Ataturk but he will most likely be remembered long term as a President who took bold initiative and helped lead/shove the middle east down a path toward a more modern relationship with the rest of the world...assuming we don't pull out early and hand the region over to al Queda and Iran and whatever other whacko faction can assume power. If that happpens Bush will be known as the dolt the Dems want you to believe he is. Really sad when half our government truly is working for total disaster in the middle east just to prop up their cartel.

Clinton or Obama could really screw up what looks like a possible last minute miracle victory, if not for that one aspect I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat just on the off chance he really is the guy he first seemed to be back at that speech at the Democrat convention a few years ago. I can live through his domestic agenda if he runs too far left but this is no time for a foreign policy failure!

I'm sorry. All the Americans I've met (or haven't met, as is the case on the DBB) are very good people, so it's hard for me to imagine this happening. I automatically assumed the worst.

Heh, nice post cuda68.

And see this is what I have said before, everyone comes clamoring for the US to go and do something. The US is always expected to take the lead in every damn little problem with the world, if we do nothing…we suck…if we make a mistake…we suck. But I never hear what we should have done differently.

It’s just too damn easy to always criticize, without offering alternatives.

woodchip wrote:Riiight...thats why Bush went hat in hand to Saudia Arabia to ask for a increase in oil production instead of putting troops in and saying, "Do it".
And last time I checked we are not taking oil from Iraq unless we pay for it. Indeed the question has arisen as to where the Iraqi oil money is going and why is the US taxpayer funding Iraq's re-construction.
So Tunnelcat, just what parts of the world are we securing for our own personal oil use?

Here's a really good example of the U.S. and corporate desire for oil that trumps the rights of a nation's people and the subversion of their government for that means, Nigeria in this case, that I just read about today.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... ?track=rss

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/02/23/nigeri804.htm

As for Bush going to Saudi Arabia, it was just a pathetic gesture on his part to make it look like he's trying to do something about high gas prices. What the Saudis and the multinational oil companies REALLY want is global oil pricing (no one's even talked about this in the press) and since Bush and Cheney are oil men and part of the cabal, they probably agree it's "good for business". I still believe Bush invaded Iraq for oil and to complete the job his father never finished. He just used terrorism as cover. Unfortunately, he created a whole country full of people, along with their neighbors, that now hate the U.S.

Frankly, after 911, he really should've invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, but since the Bush Family is very close friends with the Saudi Royals, that wasn't going to happen. Almost all of the 911 hijackers came from there, as well as the Bin Laden's. On top of that the Saudi Royals are despotic leaders and have an extremely repressive society with uncounted human rights abuses. Sounds just like Iraq. I would not want to live there as a female or petty criminal. The Saudis even refused the U.S. the use of their airbases to invade Afghanistan. Obviously Bush's close relationship to the Saudi Royals is all about oil, clouding his judgment, but it looks like they've finally found their balls now and THEY'RE going to control the oil spigot, it's under their soil and their right as a sovereign nation. No more kissing Bush's rear end for them.

Spidey, as for your question on what I would do to change things, there isn't much we common people can really do is there? Washington is controlled by special interests now and we lower pion voters really don't have the money to lobby on our behalf. ALL the present presidential candidates are connected to special interests, some more than others, so voting probably won't give us much change. It's very depressing.

As an independent voter, I'm really hoping that Obama will win the general election. Even though he's just as wired as all the other candidates, it seems that he just might have a small shred of dedication to the voter, not the special interests. As for foreign policy, hopefully he'll surround himself with a knowledgeable cabinet and I think that he'll be more open to working with the world community to collectively solve the terrorism issue. We don't need more of Clinton or McCain.

The only other option I've thought of is to move to Australia and join Roid.

tunnelcat wrote:....I still believe Bush invaded Iraq for oil and to complete the job his father never finished. He just used terrorism as cover. Unfortunately, he created a whole country full of people, along with their neighbors, that now hate the U.S.

If he was in it for the oil he could have built up to the war and then gone in behind the scenes like Russia and France did and negotiated oil futures deals with Saddam on the contingency the U.S. backs down instead of invade. The French and Russians had brand new contracts they worked out during the last few months before the invasion with Saddam in the billion$. They were on the U.N. Security Council and behind the scenes promised Saddam they would never vote for the invasion. they lost out when the U.S. and U.K. pushed forward in spite of their holding out.

Frankly, after 911, he really should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, but since the Bush Family is very close friends with the Saudi Royals, that wasn't going to happen.

The Royals in Saudi are but a small group that are always on the verge of being over run by the 22 million people there. The majority of those millions are religious fundamentalists. If you think getting something done in Iraq has been difficult you would be amazed at just how easy it was by comparison to trying to take and hold onto Saudi Arabia!!
And if your thought was just topple the Royals and leave then you would have crowned Ossama bin Laddin the new ruler of Saudi Arabia with all their military and financial might!!! A very, very bad plan!!
The Royals threw Ossama out specifically because he was a threat to their power and he's like a Robin Hood figure there only much stronger, like a prophet, because he's a religious icon to a country full of fundamentalists...the kind that will kill themselves if he asks for it! He is the face of successful jihad against the west and the corrupt Muslims like the Royals.

If you ever hear of the Royals being overthrown do not celebrate, be very concerned!

The Royals are every westerners best hope to keep Saudi Arabia under at least some kind of control. The Royals will take a hard line with us from time to time regarding our presence there to keep their religious leaders from starting an uprising.

It's all posturing, they know without the U.S. they would have been Saddam's towel boys long ago and if not Saddam then Iran was always next in line to over run Saudi Arabia. We have been protecting the Royals for decades and they need us more than we need them, they just wish we were a little more low key but things were brought to a boil thanks to the 9/11 attacks.

I promise you, the more you study the middle east the more you'll like a lot of what G.W. Bush has done. It's scary ★■◆● but it has to be dealt with and now while they are still way behind is better than after a few decades of someone like Obama trying to get along with them that will lead nowhere except to buy them time to catch up militarily.

Just take a look at the hardware China and N. Korea and Russia are shipping over there every chance they get! Things are really starting to unfold and the next President or two will make a big difference in how it all shakes out. We could easily see a bin Laddin type unite and control the middle east with all their collective weapons and control of the oil market...not a pretty picture at all. You could find yourself wishing Cheney was the next President!!

tunnelcat

The reason I ask people that question is, it’s very difficult to be a leader and make the correct choices. So I want people to tell me what they would do differently, it’s a valid tactic, because if you couldn’t do any better you should not criticize.

Put your alternatives out for people to judge, or shut up…that’s what I say.

But, you actually did give one thing, invading Saudi Arabia instead, and I actually sort of agree.

Ummm... Cuda68. History did not start in 1979. What the U.S. is as a country started long before that and many of the conflicts now have their roots from the 40s and 50s and even before that.

Will: Your post and points are well thought out. I don't know that I share your optimism as to the changes in the Iraq situation but only time will tell. I do feel there is room for the U.S. to back down on many of their policies that create the irritants that are at the root of these conflicts but it would cost in prestige and influence, something I don't see them giving up voluntarily. The \"America World Cop\" attitude is alive and well, particularly in the Republican and Christian Right camps. Add to this the votes from the Jewish Americans that would be lost and it becomes even more unlikely that there will be change in the U.S. Mid-East policies.

I was just being hypothetical here concerning the invasion of Saudi Arabia. I was merely pointing out that Bush's reason, terrorism, for invading Iraq was extremely misguided or deliberately inaccurate when he did it. Instead of concentrating on Afghanistan, which we at first were welcomed in by the local populace, he should have been focused on finding and capturing Bin Laden AND stabilizing the country. He instead took his eye off of the ball to deal with a despot nation that wasn't even the country of origin for the 911 terrorists. Now the Taliban is coming back stronger than ever, the U.S. coalition is getting bogged down in a messy fight in TWO countries and we now have TWO new large terrorist spawn zones.

Bush should have been putting more pressure on the Saudi Royals to deal with the home grown terrorists that were coming from there. But as you stated, the Islamic Fundamentalists in that country are constantly putting pressure on the Royals to break ties with the U.S. infidels and have threatened to topple them, which would be very bad news for us.

Somewhere a while back I read about some deal the Saudis and Bush made before we invaded Iraq, that if they helped us with a war by staging the attacks from the Saudi airbases, we would then leave the Saudi airbases as part of the deal when the war was complete. The Saudis would get rid of the U.S from their soil to pacify the Fundamentalists and at the same time allow the U.S. to create new ones in Iraq to compensate for the losses. I can't verify that though.

Spidey, if I could think of a better way, I'd run for President. The one thing I wouldn't have done was invade Iraq without good multinational support and actual factual intelligence. Bush altered the facts to suit his preconceived ideas of what he wanted to do. He is guilty of war crimes in my book.

But this is a free country, thank God, and I can criticize the bad choices a sitting President has made in my behalf. Criticism will hopefully benefit a future President to make different choices that don't kill thousands, run up a dept of trillions, mortgage our children's future and endanger world peace, all because he had the \"political capital\" to do so.

Ford Prefect wrote: I do feel there is room for the U.S. to back down on many of their policies that create the irritants that are at the root of these conflicts but it would cost in prestige and influence, something I don't see them giving up voluntarily.

Ford

As an American, I have given this subject a lot of thought, and I would like it if you would be more specific about just which policies you are refering to.

I hear a lot of this “It’s all the Americans fault” but I still have no idea just which policies are to blame.

So please if you would be so kind…no links please.

Ford Prefect wrote:Ummm... Cuda68. History did not start in 1979. What the U.S. is as a country started long before that and many of the conflicts now have their roots from the 40s and 50s and even before that.

OK - My point in that was we put up with many attacks from them and gave them what they wanted and what they deserved.

What are you referring to?

tunnelcat wrote:Bush's reason, terrorism, for invading Iraq

Am I the only one who actually comprehended Bush's speeches leading up to the Iraq war? Am I the only one who noticed he gave a series of reasons for invading Iraq, not just one or two? To phrase it as though he only gave one is simply dishonest.

Lothar wrote:Am I the only one who actually comprehended Bush's speeches leading up to the Iraq war?

Maybe you're the only one who believed them.