Bush's Historical Position

[hammegk]

Dunno. Who said they were?

 

[hgc]

NK, Iran at least. It seems to me that a threat of invasion that can be taken seriously is necessary for dealing with these types of folks.

or, we can negotiate.......

But come now. The totalitarian nature of regimes in NK and Iran is of practically zero policy interest, whereas their enmity toward the U.S., combined with real/potential nukes is the real driver. Now, about that threat of invasion... Is that credible? When is the draft coming? When is the budget request to double Pentagon spending coming?

 

[hgc]

Dunno. Who said they were?

And what may the Syrians, Saudis, Kuwatis, Egyptians, & Iranis (in particular) do next? The entire Arab League is on notice, but I don't see emminent invasions. Do you?

You do list out a bunch of Arab countries and Iran, and then make a point of emphasis regarding the Arab League. That's my fault; I should have known. Hammy's enigmatic doggerel, always uninterpretable.

By the way, is Algeria on notice? Morocco? Tunisia? Kuwait?

 

[CapelDodger]

So Bush's mistake is not knowing in advance the real reason for starting this war?

There's some weird thinking going on, isn't there? Reminds me of "Jesus is the Messiah, he's not really a dead failure, he's not really dead at all and anyway we've re-defined Messiah ..." It's the "Messiah" aspect that triggers the mental connection, I think.

Dry historian-type history 75 years on - after the papers are released, the memoirs, skeletons turned up, and the repurcussions - is not going to credit George II with things he did by accident. While failing to achieve what he did intend. In my opinion, such history will assign little if any responsibility for policy to him anyway. He's the totty who presents the weather, not a meteorologist. Rove's the Cardinal Richelieu figure that history will concentrate on. (Who remembers which Louis he served?) This is the Day of the Neo-Cons.

Democracy may well spread - recent events in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq are remarkably encouraging - but it may be one that rejects the US. The opposite of the neo-con objective. In the meantime the US may well bankrupt itself to maintain world-spanning power. And George II will be left staring blankly and twitching occasionally, with sporadics shouts of "let me finish!". The deficits are the real story of this administration - personal, public, trade and reality deficits.

Iran will probably get nuclear weapons one day, and the sky won't fall. Any more than it did when France, China, India or Pakistan did. Shia influence will increase in the Middle East, and Arab (mostly Sunni) influence will decline in the Muslim world. Which is good, since the jihadists are overwhelmingly Sunni, as are Turkish Islamists. (The Shia current is one of the driving forces of al-Qaeda.) If the US goes to war to delay that by a few years or a decade it will be regarded as an example of late-imperial folly. Like Suez.

 

[Ladyhawk]

So Bush's mistake is not knowing in advance the real reason for starting this war? It's a good thing that you and the rest of his supporters knew all along. I assume that by this logic we'll be invading many, many countries and toppling their governments some time soon. Will all the dissenters to this policy in the U.S. become true believers to the cause of bringing freedom to the people of the world with our own blood and fortunes?

Bravo, hgc! My sentiments exactly!

There's a great deal of airplay being given to the 'maybe's' and 'what ifs' of our involvement in Iraq. Maybe support for Al Qaeda will weaken. Maybe a free and democratic Iraq will be a beacon of hope for other countries. Maybe we'll win back the respect and friendship of allies who have scorned us for our actions. These are noble goals. But, the fact remains that Americans supported this war because we were told and we believed that Iraq possessed WMD's and we were fearful they would use them. Turns out, they didn't. And while I , like many, hold the greatest hope for Iraq's citizens, the bottom line is that American troops have been, are and will most likely continue to die so that Iraqis can have a democratic society. For one friend of mine whose son is over there, the Iraqi election held no joy or sense of accomplishment for her or her husband. Her son may not come home for years yet, assuming he can get out alive....

Can someone please explain to me exactly what American interest has been served for all of this? Lower gas prices? What exactly should Americans and, in particular, the families of these brave soldiers, be celebrating?

 

[peptoabysmal]

...and the lesson is we need to stop supporting them. Political stability is not worth the cost of millions living in fear as they do in NK, etc.

It's no fluke that the 19 terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi. The common Saudis likely hate us most for supporting the corrupt Al Saud monarchy. Think about it...to a Saudi living in fear the US must look like the world's greatest hypocrite espousing freedom and democracy while cozying up to Al Saud for cheap oil and political stability.

Maybe that's why they hate us?

-z

Osama's Jihad against the US is a reaction to the Saudi government allowing US troops access during the Gulf War. The only reason Saddam ever cooperated in any of the UN inspections was because the US was in Saudi Arabia enforcing the no-fly zone. This is what drew the fire of terrorists against the US. They don't give a rat's behind about the plight of the average citizen in Saudi Arabia.

I think if you were to ask any Saudi who hates the US about why they hate the US, you would get a much different answer than you expect. They are fed a constant diet of lies. You would get an answer something like Saudi daily says U.S. harvests Iraqis' organs

 

[Batman Jr.]

Yay, they have "democracy"! All they had to do to get there was to keep genocide afloat at about the same levels as it was during Saddam's reign and also get rid of their electricity and water supply and then have soldiers arrest people and make them have sex for their captors' enjoyment!

Seriously, guys, there are better paths to democratization than war. In fact, it might even be argued that a nation being able to inflict its military might on another under the auspices of the mighty ghost of Democritus could bring a person to the conclusion that the philosopher didn't very well comprehend the authoritarianism the invasion of a country would imply. We should concentrate on the diplomatic channels available in fulfilling our goals, on the systemic problems widespread in the world which if alleviated would remove the desperation that leads to despotic rule.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Bush's Historical Position

Well,.... yeah. And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather.

Exactly. The current track record is not great. Ronnie, for all his historic accolades, only invaded Grenada. Even he was too smart to fight a real war. The rest was just grandstanding and bluster.

 

[BPSCG]

Seriously, guys, there are better paths to democratization than war. In fact, it might even be argued that a nation being able to inflict its military might on another under the auspices of the mighty ghost of Democritus could bring a person to the conclusion that the philosopher didn't very well comprehend the authoritarianism the invasion of a country would imply. We should concentrate on the diplomatic channels available in fulfilling our goals, on the systemic problems widespread in the world which if alleviated would remove the desperation that leads to despotic rule.

Noble sentiments indeed.

Now can you name for me some of the countries once subject to "despotic rule" that found the "path to democratization" via "concentration on the diplomatic channels available" and on "the systemic problems widespread in the world"?

 

[Ed]

Yay, they have "democracy"! All they had to do to get there was to keep genocide afloat at about the same levels as it was during Saddam's reign and also get rid of their electricity and water supply and then have soldiers arrest people and make them have sex for their captors' enjoyment!

Seriously, guys, there are better paths to democratization than war. In fact, it might even be argued that a nation being able to inflict its military might on another under the auspices of the mighty ghost of Democritus could bring a person to the conclusion that the philosopher didn't very well comprehend the authoritarianism the invasion of a country would imply. We should concentrate on the diplomatic channels available in fulfilling our goals, on the systemic problems widespread in the world which if alleviated would remove the desperation that leads to despotic rule.

I would be very interested to hear your diplomatic plan for getting rid of Saddam.

 

[dano]

Perhaps we ought to consider our own legacy, rather than just Bush's. With all the conjecturing of a potential grand legacy of florishing democracy in the Muslim world, have we all forgotten that Bush is a despicable liar, whose administration has been built on nothing but distortions and fabrications? He is and always has been a vicious little puppet of extremely wealthy interests. Whether or not history reflects that will depend on who gets to write it. Sadam was a despicable despot; attacking him as a menace is low-hanging fruit. How many other despots are out there? When do we attack them? Iran? North Korea? Indonesia? Where does it stop? There were no WMD, there was no Sadam/Bin Laden connection. If an Al Quaida connection was a real concern, why don't we have Bin Laden? Why weren't 150,000 U.S. marines combing Tora Bora when he was alledgedly conered? It was all a farce, fabricated to prop up the neo-con's agenda of gaining a pro-American regime in another oil-rich country as a hedge against the fall of the royal Saudi family to Islamic extremists. There are plenty of examples of repressive regimes in the world that the Bush administration doesn't give a damn about, and the American people can't even find on a map. There are others that Bushco is very comfortable with, including those Saudis. It's true that diplomacy generally fails with most tyrants. But if you're willing to mistake these actions as anything but a bunch of despicable bullies grabbing other peoples' resources in the name "freedom" and "homeland security", then I've got some spoon-bending tricks that you're going to be simply amazed by.

 

[Ed]

Perhaps we ought to consider our own legacy, rather than just Bush's. With all the conjecturing of a potential grand legacy of florishing democracy in the Muslim world, have we all forgotten that Bush is a despicable liar, whose administration has been built on nothing but distortions and fabrications? He is and always has been a vicious little puppet of extremely wealthy interests. Whether or not history reflects that will depend on who gets to write it. Sadam was a despicable despot; attacking him as a menace is low-hanging fruit. How many other despots are out there? When do we attack them? Iran? North Korea? Indonesia? Where does it stop? There were no WMD, there was no Sadam/Bin Laden connection. If an Al Quaida connection was a real concern, why don't we have Bin Laden? Why weren't 150,000 U.S. marines combing Tora Bora when he was alledgedly conered? It was all a farce, fabricated to prop up the neo-con's agenda of gaining a pro-American regime in another oil-rich country as a hedge against the fall of the royal Saudi family to Islamic extremists. There are plenty of examples of repressive regimes in the world that the Bush administration doesn't give a damn about, and the American people can't even find on a map. There are others that Bushco is very comfortable with, including those Saudis. It's true that diplomacy generally fails with most tyrants. But if you're willing to mistake these actions as anything but a bunch of despicable bullies grabbing other peoples' resources in the name "freedom" and "homeland security", then I've got some spoon-bending tricks that you're going to be simply amazed by.

Affix tinfoil hats.

 

[hgc]

Affix tinfoil hats.

Welcome to the forum, Dano.

Now, Ed. Would you care to answer some of those points? It doesn't sound so foil-hat to me. Why is the cause of freedom so focused on Iraq (and by focused, I mean like a magnifying glass over an ant hill), since the real reason for war, Iraq's alledged threat to the U.S., turns out to be bogus?

 

[Ed]

Welcome to the forum, Dano.

Now, Ed. Would you care to answer some of those points? It doesn't sound so foil-hat to me. Why is the cause of freedom so focused on Iraq (and by focused, I mean like a magnifying glass over an ant hill), since the real reason for war, Iraq's alledged threat to the U.S., turns out to be bogus?

I agree that going into Iraq was not particularly self serving in the short term. But as time has gone on (and given the elections) I wonder whether we might actually see some sort of stabilization in the Mid East. And, to me, stabilization means some sort of democratic process in place in the countries in the reigon. Afganistan and Iraq appear to me to hold the promise of leading this change. I note that there have been fairly positive reactions from the Arab press, which is a good thing.

I read with interest the postings of some who are very vocal about the importance of individual rights and liberties and so on. What I also note is that it appears that these are important when they are close at hand or "threatened" by the US, never when they are far away and maybe, just maybe, the US is instrumental in their support. I also note that there appears to be the (unstated) belief that these things just occur, like Venus rising fully formed from the sea. That is to say that the notion of sacrifice, on anyones part, is an impediment to achieving liberty.

That said, I hear no suggestions on how the lot of our brothers in the mid east (and elsewhere) might be ameliorated. As I recall I called Lister(?) on this some time ago and received an electronic version of a massed voice chorus of Kumbia. Words do not always work. I is odd to me that the notion that force can be clarifiying does not seem to be in the evoked set of some posters, historical precident notwithstanding. This strikes me as being as obnoxious as any other mindlessly held religious principle.

Which brings me to my tin hat event (THE tm). Every President has vested interests/friends, a personal history, if you will. Only in Jimmy Stewart movies do nobodies achieve power. Bush is oil, maybe. So? Should that fact pariylize him in any action in the mid east? And, after all, if oil were that important, it seems to me that all he would have to do is chuck the Jews into the Moslem oven. Easy. Somehow, though, the loons will have us believe that GW would tratioriously sell his own country out for oil and not dump Isreal. Does that really, really (when the dope and booze wear off) make sense? Or, does it have to be explained with yet more suppositions and tenuous links to dire forces?

As far as capturing Osma (who is here with me at the moment and he agrees with everything that I am writing ) is the suggestion that he was purposely let go? Being crass for a moment. Do you really think that GW, being the manipulative, angling conniveing SOB that he undoubtedly is, would give up that photo-op? OK. Might there have been some whoopsies with the Pakis? Might we have been really walking on eggshells with them? No. Dismiss all of those possibilities and construct a conspiracy.

My own thought is that if the mid east can, over the next 50-100 years, actually develop a non-oil based economy and stop being the centroid for all of the barbarities that characature being a human being, that, yes, GW will be viewed as a great president. The complaints that we hear will be completely and utterly forgotten except for mouldy old professors.

Credit will not be given for the simple reason that the inhabitants will be too damn embaressed to admit that they needed help, much like some Indians (and anti-colonial hysterics) forget that the Brits gave them a language and railroads and an administration and so on.

 

[IllegalArgument]

I heard on CNN yesterday that he was on the phone with many Arab leaders yesterday. One can hope that the pressure is already being applied.

Do yourself a favor hgc and read Sharansky I'm sure you'll enjoy it. The man has a unique insight having experienced tyranny and freedom.

-z

One thing I have learned reading this forum, when one of the regulars really likes a book. It's usually good. The book should get here about a week. And since psychology is my hobbie this should be interesting.

As for Bush, I can't say how he will be viewed. Short term let's see what Iraq is like three months from now, when the afterglow of the elections has worn off.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Bush's Historical Position

Exactly. The current track record is not great. Ronnie, for all his historic accolades, only invaded Grenada. Even he was too smart to fight a real war. The rest was just grandstanding and bluster.

President Reagan came to the Oval office with a long stated distrust of tyrants. Under his administration detante with the USSR was scrapped. Reagan decided to challenge the USSR directly. Advocates of detante (leftists) argued that Reagan was recklessly rattling sabers. Fortunately he paid no attention to his critics...a lesson that GWB seems to have learned well.

Reagan knew the USSR was a sick society. Instead of giving it a helping hand to continue to oppress it's people he challenged it. At the time the USSR looked strong from the outside, but Reagan's rebuilding of the US military and SDI challenged the Soviets to a race they could not possibly win. It was akin to a healthy young man challenging a poor dying bed-ridden fellow to run a marathon.

The USSR simply needed the US to back off. They signed the Helsinki agreement in 1975 in order to further detante and receive more "Co-operation in the Field of Economics, of Science and Technology and of the Environment". Yet all these goodies were tied to the USSR's treatment of human rights issues.

The participating States,

Considering the development of contacts to be an important element in the strengthening of friendly relations and trust among peoples,

Affirming, in relation to their present effort to improve conditions in this area, the importance they attach to humanitarian considerations,

Desiring in this spirit to develop, with the continuance of détente, further efforts to achieve continuing progress in this field

And conscious that the questions relevant hereto must be settled by the States concerned under mutually acceptable conditions,

Make it their aim to facilitate freer movement and contacts, individually and collectively, whether privately or officially, among persons, institutions and organizations of the participating States, and to contribute to the solution of the humanitarian problems that arise in that connexion,

Declare their readiness to these ends to take measures which they consider appropriate and to conclude agreements or arrangements among themselves, as may be needed, and

Express their intention now to proceed to the implementation of the following: (snip)....

...yet the Carter admin, for all it's great intentions in the field of human rights never really worked very hard to hold the Soviets feet to the fire of the Helsinki HR clause. It took Reagan to do that. Reagan enforced Helsinki...he rightly tied the "goodies" the USSR so needed to prop up it's tyranny to the treatment of human rights inside the USSR.

Once all the old Soviet premiers died off in quick succession, the young Gorby was left with a Hobson's choice; do nothing and allow the USSR to fall apart, slowly losing economic and military ground to the west and losing control over it's own people...or decrease the fear a few notches...allow limited freedom...and renew cooperation with the west.

We all know now which choice he made...and once the spark of freedom had been released the people wanted more. The rest is history....but at the time almost no one saw it coming.

page 140-141 Sharansky, The Case For Democracy:
"The information age and global marketplace were creating an entire nation of doublethinkers, as people increasingly learned about the good life beyond the iron curtain and the tyranny inside it. As Amalrik had predicted, the Soviet regime, forced to wage perpetual war at home and abroad to maintain stability, was devoting more and more resources to controlling it's own people. As Sakharov had warned, the tight control and restrictions on freedom that were necessary to maintain a fear society were causing the Soviets to fall further and further behind in the scientific and technological race with the West. Reagan, for his part, was only accelerating the pace. Finally the Jackson amendment, Helsinki Agreements, and Reagan administration had combined to create an environment in which policy toward the Soviet Union was being linked to internal Soviet reforms. With the batteries of the Soviet's fear society depleteing, the demands for energy growing, and external sources of power cut off, the USSR was nearing it's end."

When people like AUP choose to ignore Reagan's pivotal role in all this, they are simply making themselves look stupid. When they say things like; "freedom cannot be imposed from outside" they are showing their own ignorance of recent history.

Sharansky argues that the same formula can work today. The fear regimes of the Arab world are just as unstable as the USSR's was. All these regimes have the same kind of mechanics at work. The hate-mongering of the Arab press that Pepto points out is merely another sign of the fear society at work. In order to maintain internal stability one of the tricks a fear state has is in manufacturing an external enemy. What worked for Hitler works even better for Arabs. The "Zionist" entity...the "evil" Jews.... are great tools for whipping up nationalist fervor and turning double-thinkers back into true believers.

Simply put, if we in the west work to tie international cooperation and trade to the way these regimes treat their own peoples we can open up these nations...weaken these fear states...and promote freedom and democracy without military intervention.

-z

 

[Ed]

As for Bush, I can't say how he will be viewed. Short term let's see what Iraq is like three months from now, when the afterglow of the elections has worn off.

This is way premature and the 10 year rule should be invoked but.... I am getting a vibe that both Bush Sr. and Clinton are being very quietly, subtley, identified as having screwed up the mid-east big time by not agressively persuing military options when they had the chance. Just a breath of a feeling that I am getting. Interesting times.

 

[corplinx]

I was watching Hitchens this afternoon and he was asked what he thought about how history would rate GWB 75 or 100 years out.

He said words to the effect that if Democracy took in Afganistan and Iraq and if he was instrumental to a Palestinian/Isreali peace and if the Iran threat is truly blunted THEN his Presidency might well be considered one of the best.

Thoughts?

The ripple effect of Bush's freedom marching strategy is that in 100 years the exploitation the anti-globalists cry about in third world countries won't be nearly so bad. Eventually, consumer products prices will rise due to increasing third world wages and conditions.

I wonder if the rabidly anti-bush realize that if his policies are successful what the impliciations are for the globe as a whole 100 years down the line.

Breaking the backbone of theocracy is a process thats been going on for only the past few hundred years in a tangible way, its the true american dream. For all that the rabidly anti-bush clamor about seperation of church and state, I wonder if they have taken time to realize what viral democracy could do in the middle east of the course of 100 years.

Bush is anathema to me. He's a creationist, an elitist, borderline evangelical, a college party boy and late to mature. He went to ivy league schools and had a powerful father, yet he pretends to be a dirt farmer from texas. Bush is a very loathable person in many ways.

However, I wonder if in 100 years people will speak of his flaws as they speak now of Churchill's.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Bush's Historical Position

The ripple effect of Bush's freedom marching strategy is that in 100 years the exploitation the anti-globalists cry about in third world countries won't be nearly so bad. Eventually, consumer products prices will rise due to increasing third world wages and conditions.

I wonder if the rabidly anti-bush realize that if his policies are successful what the impliciations are for the globe as a whole 100 years down the line.

Breaking the backbone of theocracy is a process thats been going on for only the past few hundred years in a tangible way, its the true american dream. For all that the rabidly anti-bush clamor about seperation of church and state, I wonder if they have taken time to realize what viral democracy could do in the middle east of the course of 100 years.

Bush is anathema to me. He's a creationist, an elitist, borderline evangelical, a college party boy and late to mature. He went to ivy league schools and had a powerful father, yet he pretends to be a dirt farmer from texas. Bush is a very loathable person in many ways.

However, I wonder if in 100 years people will speak of his flaws as they speak now of Churchill's.

A very considered repply. Thank you.

Let me note that when you characterize him negatively as you did, there is really very little that he can do about his past, his father or his beliefs. Frankly, to me at least, those things (as well as Clintons rather amazing background) are irrelevant. I want to see what each of these SOB's accomplishes with the power that we have given them.

 

[BPSCG]

I am getting a vibe that both Bush Sr. and Clinton are being very quietly, subtley, identified as having screwed up the mid-east big time by not agressively persuing military options when they had the chance. Just a breath of a feeling that I am getting.

I think you have to look at Bush 41 and Clinton from the perspective of their times. Should Bush 41 have "finished the job" on Saddam? In retrospect, yes, but there was serious disagreement at the time, and the coalition he'd put together would have fallen apart if operation Desert Storm had continued to march into Baghdad.

Similarly, should Clinton have led the country into war with al Qaeda after the first WTC bombing? In retrospect, yes, but would the country have followed his lead? Should Clinton have cut off communication with Arafat when he failed to live up to his side of the Oslo agreements? In retrospect, yes, but...

Bush 41 and Clinton laid the groundwork for the dirty work Bush 43 had to do. That may not have been their intent , but it was a lesson that had to be demonstrated. There are still many silly people who proclaim we have to deal with tyrants by negotiating with them, but fortunately, most people have learned the important lesson of the last 15 years: You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants don't negotiate in good faith.