Bush's Historical Position

[rikzilla]

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.

I look forward to hearing what you think of it. I've read alot of political themed books but this by far is the best. It transcends the whole right/left dichtomy because the one great thing that we all really do agree on here is the basic ability to have the freedom to speak our minds without fear of harm.

That's really what we do here at JREF...from AUP, Fool and even Demon to Pepto, Mycroft, and myself. We are all doing what is illegal in totalitarian nations. This is why I don't understand people who profess themselves to be "progressive" or "liberal". They should be the ones leading the way in promoting democracy and freedom worldwide. Personally I like to think of myself as a liberal....but that label, if it is to be objectively earned, means I'll be backing the people who are really out there pressing for democratic reforms.

What does one call a thinking liberal these days? Why a "neo-con" of course!

-z

 

[IllegalArgument]

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.

My bad, you are right about waiting 10 years at least. What I meant is, trying to ignore the current coverage. Not because I think the elections were bad or worthless, hardly.

Once the emotional "we voted" effect wears off I want to see what happens. It particular the Sunni reaction.

 

[rikzilla]

My bad, you are right about waiting 10 years at least. What I meant is, trying to ignore the current coverage. Not because I think the elections were bad or worthless, hardly.

Once the emotional "we voted" effect wears off I want to see what happens. It particular the Sunni reaction.

Me too, but also keep in mind that the Sunnis were the beneficiaries of Saddams tyranny. Much like the whites in South Africa benefited from apartheid.

I doubt that anyone would have considered the S. African elections "flawed" if the whites had launched an insurgency and boycotted elections.

I think it'll work out. Think about it for a min, they're talking about low Sunni turnout, I for one think it's amazing that any Sunnis turned out. These are the people who have friends and family directly involved in the insurgency! The Sunnis who did vote are literally the bravest of the brave. Their existence also points up the fact that the Sunnis are not monolithic in their support of the insurgency. That's really good news for us all.

-z

 

[headscratcher4]

Let me say, it is obviously premature to know what the outcome of this policy will be or how it and Bush will be viewed in 50 years. I hope I have been wrong -- about Bush, his policy and, in particular the execution of this policy. The vote in Iraq was encouraging and frought with many possibilities...a working democracy in just Iraq alone would be a great thing, and should it infect other Arab/Middle East countries, better still.

However, I have, and continue to have, my doubts. History (and a lack of US understanding of history -- like colonialism, Islam, Baathism Iraq, Iran, etc.) leads me to believe that the challenges ahead are still far greater than anyone in our government seems to express or admit. We are paying for our misadventures in Iran to this day...and though we dispise the regime, it is the closest to a "democracy" (other than Isreal) you are likely to find in the region.

Of course, we are encouraging that democracy (Iran) by threatening it which allows the hardliners to put the democratic reformers on the defensive as stooges of the US, unifying the country more behind the clergy and nationalist pride at challenging the great Satan (sort of the Cuban model...everyone who opposes Castro is painted as a US Stooge and intent on imposing US colonialism on the island...) ...but that's another debate.

Anyway, I saw this piece below from the New York Times archive...It was intersting from the perspective of what the answer might have been to the question, if posed when the below was published, how will Johnson look in 50 years....

"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
"Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

"by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times -- Sept. 4, 1967

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

"According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

"The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

"A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.

"The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government."

[/B]

 

[Ed]

Me too, but also keep in mind that the Sunnis were the beneficiaries of Saddams tyranny. Much like the whites in South Africa benefited from apartheid.

I doubt that anyone would have considered the S. African elections "flawed" if the whites had launched an insurgency and boycotted elections.

I think it'll work out. Think about it for a min, they're talking about low Sunni turnout, I for one think it's amazing that any Sunnis turned out. These are the people who have friends and family directly involved in the insurgency! The Sunnis who did vote are literally the bravest of the brave. Their existence also points up the fact that the Sunnis are not monolithic in their support of the insurgency. That's really good news for us all.

-z

The interesting thing to watch will be the trend of their voting. The question will be whether they will take the rejectionist palistinian road and thus, marginalize themselves and their children for 10 genrations (while blaming everyone in sight) of if they will suck it in and figure out how to maximize their impact.....

Which brings to mind Jesse Jackson. Maybe he could give them advice for how to leverage block voting. After all, blacks here are what, 10% of the electorate? Yet they vote democratic and are adminstered massive BJ's for their trouble. They have to be smart, not whiners.

 

[rikzilla]

Let me say, it is obviously premature to know what the outcome of this policy will be or how it and Bush will be viewed in 50 years. I hope I have been wrong -- about Bush, his policy and, in particular the execution of this policy. The vote in Iraq was encouraging and frought with many possibilities...a working democracy in just Iraq alone would be a great thing, and should it infect other Arab/Middle East countries, better still.

However, I have, and continue to have, my doubts. History (and a lack of US understanding of history -- like colonialism, Islam, Baathism Iraq, Iran, etc.) leads me to believe that the challenges ahead are still far greater than anyone in our government seems to express or admit. We are paying for our misadventures in Iran to this day...and though we dispise the regime, it is the closest to a "democracy" (other than Isreal) you are likely to find in the region.

Of course, we are encouraging that democracy (Iran) by threatening it which allows the hardliners to put the democratic reformers on the defensive as stooges of the US, unifying the country more behind the clergy and nationalist pride at challenging the great Satan (sort of the Cuban model...everyone who opposes Castro is painted as a US Stooge and intent on imposing US colonialism on the island...) ...but that's another debate.

Anyway, I saw this piece below from the New York Times archive...It was intersting from the perspective of what the answer might have been to the question, if posed when the below was published, how will Johnson look in 50 years....

Very interesting article HS4....I wonder what are the salient differences between S. Vietnam's elections and Iraq's? I seem to remember the SVN gov't was rife with corruption. The real question is were the people really living in a free society there?

But again they had not only an insurgency, but an entire nation to the north supported by the USSR and China at war with them. It must also be noted that the Vietnamese war played out as a subset of the Cold War. So really comparing both elections is not likely to be valid....at least I sure hope not!

-z

 

[Batman Jr.]

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"?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe you've heard of this little country. It's called Russia.

 

[BPSCG]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe you've heard of this little country. It's called Russia.

Yeah, I thought you might say that.

Are you suggesting the Soviet Union negotiated its own collapse? That the destruction of communism was attained through diplomatic exchanges between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Soviet Foreign Minister? That while the Soviet ambassador was out taking a leak, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring the Soviet Union become a democratic state or face "grave consequences" and when he came back from the bathroom it was too late to veto the resolution?

Please.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Bush's Historical Position:
That would be where he sits on his own shoulders.

 

[headscratcher4]

Very interesting article HS4....I wonder what are the salient differences between S. Vietnam's elections and Iraq's? I seem to remember the SVN gov't was rife with corruption. The real question is were the people really living in a free society there?

But again they had not only an insurgency, but an entire nation to the north supported by the USSR and China at war with them. It must also be noted that the Vietnamese war played out as a subset of the Cold War. So really comparing both elections is not likely to be valid....at least I sure hope not!

-z

There is, of course, no direct analogy. Different times, differnet culture, differnet expectations, different war. I think the only thing that is similar is that the US went into Vietnam not knowing a lot about Vietnam, its people, culture, etc. and, I think, we're doing the same now in Iraq. But, as said, it is different.

My only point in posting the old Times article is the similarity of the spin, the Administration feels good about this election, it sees the clouds clearing, the sweet song-birds of democratic revolution making Bahgdad indistiguishable from Tucson or Miami (or Huston).

Myabe they are right...time will tell. But, we went into Vietnam, I like to believe, for nobel reasons. I'll grant we've gone into Iraq for nobel reasons, but the exit strategy in Nam was forced on us by circumstances that the Administration of that time could not control...I fear there are circumstances, cultural differences, popular expectations and predjudices that will conspire against the best laid plans of Rice and men (Bush).

 

[dano]

Let me first say that although some comments in this thread raise my hackles, overall I'm rather impressed with the intelligent level of discussion.

Let me also say that I'm not fundamentally anti-conversative, my opinions are issue-dependent.

That having been said, two comments about Reagan and Bush II:

- Reagan deserves credit for being an honest man who sincerely tried to do what was right for the country, and for having a backbone and being willing to stand firm realtive to what he believed in. However, he was also a simpleton who was far out of his league dealing with the complexity of the issues of the day. While external U.S. pressure was a factor, Perestroika and Glasnost were far more influential in bringing about change in the USSR than Star Wars ever was, and Gorbachev did not institute those programs because of Ronald Reagan. He did so because he knew the Soviet regime was losing his grip on the populace and some change had to occur. Once in place, the lessening of restrictions on their people could not be reversed. Were it not that he was later quoted as regretting that his actions led where they did [I can't cite where just now], Gorbachev might be remembered as one of the great leaders of the late 20th century. Reagan is Chauncy Gardener, a simple man brought to power by his acting ability who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

- As far as Bush II goes, th hypocrisy of many of his followers baffles me. When war is truly needed a people must be willing to fight, but the human and economic costs of war are an enormous burden to bear. There can be no higher crime or greater misdemeanor than to lie and/or mislead the public about the need to go to war. Thousands of people have been killed. The U.S. economy is burdened with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional debt, exacerbating poor economic management. Our international relations are near an all-time low. Yet Bush apologists seem to have no problem dismissing this flagrant deception that led to it. Now, when Clinton lied about a sexual indiscretion with an intern, he was literally impeached! Those actions may have seemed like poor judgement, but who was harmed? Maybe Socks the cat, since he couldn't sleep on the couch while Bill was stuck there for a while. Does that really demand a mid-stream disruption of our government? In both cases, the public was deliberately deceived by their leadership. Apparently, an orgasm is a much weightier issue than thousands of bloody corpses and hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. The perspective of the right wing is outright astonishing.

 

[hgc]

...
The perspective of the right wing is outright astonishing.

Stick around. Your hackles will get quite a workout.

 

[rikzilla]

Let me first say that although some comments in this thread raise my hackles, overall I'm rather impressed with the intelligent level of discussion.

Let me also say that I'm not fundamentally anti-conversative, my opinions are issue-dependent.

That having been said, two comments about Reagan and Bush II:

- Reagan deserves credit for being an honest man who sincerely tried to do what was right for the country, and for having a backbone and being willing to stand firm realtive to what he believed in. However, he was also a simpleton who was far out of his league dealing with the complexity of the issues of the day. While external U.S. pressure was a factor, Perestroika and Glasnost were far more influential in bringing about change in the USSR than Star Wars ever was, and Gorbachev did not institute those programs because of Ronald Reagan. He did so because he knew the Soviet regime was losing his grip on the populace and some change had to occur. Once in place, the lessening of restrictions on their people could not be reversed. Were it not that he was later quoted as regretting that his actions led where they did [I can't cite where just now], Gorbachev might be remembered as one of the great leaders of the late 20th century. Reagan is Chauncy Gardener, a simple man brought to power by his acting ability who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

That is your opinion. It's not based on much though. I'd agree that he inhereted the benefits of Helsinki...but only because he pushed the Soviet Union to actually comply with Helsinki. Something Carter never did. It was the lever of Helsinki, coupled with the scrapping of detante that made Gorby open the doors of freedom ever so slightly...but even that was too far for the shaky USSR fear state to survive. Reagan made this happen...he also deftly used the threat of SDI to accelerate the whole process. You must admit the effect was fairly spectacular. As far as your characterization of Reagan as a simpleton,...well that's not supported by any facts at all is it?

- As far as Bush II goes, th hypocrisy of many of his followers baffles me. When war is truly needed a people must be willing to fight, but the human and economic costs of war are an enormous burden to bear. There can be no higher crime or greater misdemeanor than to lie and/or mislead the public about the need to go to war. Thousands of people have been killed. The U.S. economy is burdened with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional debt, exacerbating poor economic management. Our international relations are near an all-time low. Yet Bush apologists seem to have no problem dismissing this flagrant deception that led to it. Now, when Clinton lied about a sexual indiscretion with an intern, he was literally impeached! Those actions may have seemed like poor judgement, but who was harmed? Maybe Socks the cat, since he couldn't sleep on the couch while Bill was stuck there for a while. Does that really demand a mid-stream disruption of our government? In both cases, the public was deliberately deceived by their leadership. Apparently, an orgasm is a much weightier issue than thousands of bloody corpses and hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. The perspective of the right wing is outright astonishing.

Well I'd say you have a point aside from this little fact; Clinton's BJ was not a crime...his perjury about it was an actual crime. The crime of perjury was what was instrumental in his impeachment...not the BJ. OTOH you will need to name a crime that there is solid evidence of Bush having comitted. Allegations of Bush lying won't cut it....you'd need to prove it and we've already had a long thread here trying to do just that. The short version? It didn't happen.

As for further comparison Bush's Iraq/Afghanistan adventures killed alot of good troops, and cost alot of money. Yet they were done in reaction to the reality illuminated by 9/11. In a pre-9/11 world Bush would never have done these things...even if he wanted to....there was simply no support for such adventures. But now that it's been done we can all see the fledgling free states left in the wake of war. The joy of many millions of newly free peoples is the real tangible payoff for our sacrifices as a nation.

Clinton's BJ? Inconsequential of course. Didn't kill anyone, didn't cost anything. His was an act of ill-advised selfishness that had no impact on the world. Bush's so called "mis-leadership" was either a big lie done in the service of a noble goal, or an honest mistake done in the service of a noble goal. You'd be hard put to find Clinton's noble goal....unless you count that stain on Monica's blue dress. (ah, cheap-shot I know, but couldn't resist!)

-z

 

[headscratcher4]

z -- this is one of those points where I have a real disagreement with you. Arguably, Afghanistan was motivated/justified by the "illumination" of 9/11 as you put it.

However, 9/11 didn't justify Iraq...and the premise that much of that justification was AT THE TIME based on...non-complience with the UN, WMDs, potential links to terrorism were either known to be false at the time, or subsequently turned out to be false. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was a bastard or because we wanted to bring democracy to the middle east. He was, of course, but there are a lot of bastards out there. We invaded because he, allegedly posed a security risk to the US. Once that occured, the you break it you buy it doctrine came into play...we had to rebuild Iraq and building stable democratic institutions is what a democratic society should do....

We committed to Iraq, and the crusade for democracy is, IMO, a post-hoc justification for something Bush wanted to do all along but couldn't explain to the American people.

I guess what I am saying is that Afghanastan and Iraq are very different cases. While the Administration likes to conflate the two as the same war, I suggest they are very different wars, requiring very different ends, means, etc.

The open question about Iraq isn't so much whether it will be a ignition switch for burgeoning democracy in the region, but whether it can be de-fused as a ralleying point for once dispersed Islamic-facist-terrorists.

As stated above, the election was hopeful, given that we are there now it was a necessary step...but as evil as Saddam was, I am still not convinced by anything I've seen or heard (especially from the Administration) that Iraq posed a real threat to this country...so our justification is a whole lot of boot-strapping and a who-lot of inflation, and not much substance.

just as an aide/after thought: if the little half-hearted connection between Saddam and Islamic terrorist constitutes a reason for the invasion, than the UK should invade the US for the level of support that US citizens have actively given to terrorists in Northern Ireland...I know this is off-topic and an unreasonable analogy, but I'm in that kind of mood....

 

[Batman Jr.]

Yeah, I thought you might say that.

Are you suggesting the Soviet Union negotiated its own collapse? That the destruction of communism was attained through diplomatic exchanges between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Soviet Foreign Minister? That while the Soviet ambassador was out taking a leak, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring the Soviet Union become a democratic state or face "grave consequences" and when he came back from the bathroom it was too late to veto the resolution?

Please.

You sound like you're trying to say that collapses cause democracy.

 

[BPSCG]

Portable Medicinal Stone for Deoxidized Drinking Water Developed
Pyongyang, January 20 (KCNA) -- Scientists of the Geological Survey Faculty in Kim Chaek University of Technology of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has succeeded in developing portable medicinal stone for deoxidized drinking water. It is made of natural minerals which contain rich ingredients good for human body.
It not only instantly removes active oxygen but also contains 13 kinds of elements including Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu and Se.
One can easily make deoxidized water as fresh as natural mineral water with the stone in any place.
Drinking the water every day improves health, prevents aging and controls cancer cell. It is also efficacious for such diseases as colitis, chronic diarrhea and constipation, circulatory disorder, diabetes and inflammation.

I have some questions:

1) If you deoxidize water, wouldn't that make it undrinkable?
2) If you deoxidize water, doesn't that leave you with two hydrogen atoms for each oxygen atom removed?
3) Why is North Korea developing nuclear power when it is already so far along the road to cheap hydrogen power?
4) Is Kim Jong Il going to apply for the JREF prize?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Hey dano
Welcome to the forum, hope you enjoy Your stay.
Issue dependent argument is a wise way to approach life here.
You will find however that even on this self described forum of "skeptics" there are many ( tho fewer then on most boards) who's advocey is concrete and will not be swayed by contrary evidence or argument. Such as the homeopathy threads , the Israeli VS Palestinian and the Deists VS non-believers threads . You will see their intransigence after a few dialogs. For instance You may not critique Bush without invoking the specter of Clinton , who BTW for all who live in never-land has been out of office for 5 years! That's 1825 days against Sylvia Browne's paltry 1246 days! Sorry , inside joke anyway, Its usually the same people so ...

 

[corplinx]

Hey dano

You will find however that even on this self described forum of "skeptics" there are many ( tho fewer then on most boards) who's advocey is concrete and will not be swayed by contrary evidence or argument. S

No need to apologize in advance for your behavior, just try to stop instead. Takes as much effort.....

 

[headscratcher4]

1) If you deoxidize water, wouldn't that make it undrinkable?

Running dog: Drinking the water every day improves health, prevents aging and controls cancer cell. It is also efficacious for such diseases as colitis, chronic diarrhea and constipation, circulatory disorder, diabetes and inflammation.

2)If you deoxiddize water, doesn't that leave you with two hydrogen atoms for each oxygen atom removed?

Running dog American flunky: don't you listen? Drinking the water every day improves health, prevents aging and controls cancer cell. It is also efficacious for such diseases as colitis, chronic diarrhea and constipation, circulatory disorder, diabetes and inflammation.

3) Why is North Korea developing nuclear power when it is already so far along the road to cheap hydrogen power?

Running dog American flunky provocatur: you are really starting to piss Kim off. One more time: Drinking the water every day improves health, prevents aging and controls cancer cell. It is also efficacious for such diseases as colitis, chronic diarrhea and constipation, circulatory disorder, diabetes and inflammation.


4) Is Kim Jong Il going to apply for the JREF proze?

Off to the gulag, do not pass go do not drink the water every day to improve health, prevent aging and control cancer cell. May you long suffer such diseases as colitis, chronic diarrhea and constipation, circulatory disorder, diabetes and inflammation.

 

[drkitten]

I have some questions:

1) If you deoxidize water, wouldn't that make it undrinkable?
2) If you deoxidize water, doesn't that leave you with two hydrogen atoms for each oxygen atom removed?

Get a life. "Normal" water has dissolved oxygen in it. Among other things, that's how fish manage to breathe it. If you don't have enough oxygen in the water, the fish die (or they resort to other methods of getting oxygen, such as air-breathing).

"Deoxidized" water is water without dissolved oxygen. I would not recommend using it in your fish tank for the reason above. But there's nothing undrinkable about it. And it's certainly different than elemental hydrogen.

Make fun of the woo-woo claims if you like. But at least get the real science right.