# The Bush dynasty???



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"(CNN) -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush would be "awfully good" in the job of president, but the timing isn't right, his father and former President George H.W. Bush told CNN Tuesday.

Asked if he would want Jeb to run, Bush said, "Someday I would, yes."

Bush, who was president from 1989-1993, appeared on CNN's "Larry King Live" with former first lady Barbara, from the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine."

The three Kennedy brothers might have made for an excellent presidential dynasty, but I can't see George, George W. and brother Jeb being/becoming effective presidents. Just my opinion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If I had to choose I'd take Jeb in a heartbeat over the moron currently in charge. 

General Wesley Clarke - :clap:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Why does it read as "The Bush dynasty???" on my computer, but "The Bush dynanty" on the "Everything else" page????

Might someone change this, SVP? Merci.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

But please, spare us Hillary Clinton too.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> If I had to choose I'd take Jeb in a heartbeat over the moron currently in charge.


Have you followed Florida politics? There would not be much difference....
and religion would really be at the forefront of American politics...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> But please, spare us Hillary Clinton too.


At least Hillary can put together a coherent sentence


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I heard the other day that Laura Bush said she would consider running in the future. Spare us...!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I would take H.Clinton over the Bush brothers.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

The longer we can keep the Bushes in office the better. The last thing the world needs right now is leftist/defeatist Government running the most powerful country in the world. With the Bush family (whether "you're with [them] or 'gainst [them]") you know where they stand. Democrats (and Hillary in particular) tend to vacillate on just about every issue except for catering to the needs of Unions and lefty-lobbiest (WHO, ACLU, etc). A democrat president would only bring the US one step closer to the travesty we as Canadians have to endure in our bloated, self-serving, corrupt government.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

jimtimesinfinity … 

Nice one!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

Thank you my friends


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where they stand eh .......... had a look at your finances lately?

Where THEY stand is in the economic trash heap.......aside from conducting a ruinous foreign policy that has damaged the US abroad immeasurably.



> *Frenzied froth*
> May 26th 2005 | WASHINGTON, DC
> From The Economist print edition
> 
> ...


GM = junk status
Ford = junk status










AND....well on the way to a theocracy......which would make them a laughingstock in the first world were they not so prone to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations.
Getting their own house in order might be a first step in regaining some respect.
Financial or political.



> Why is America still so prone to wars of religion?
> IN 1782, a French immigrant named Hector St John de Crèvecoeur predicted that America was destined to be a much more secular place than Europe. In America “religious indifference” was rapidly becoming the rule, and “the strict modes of Christianity as practised in Europe” were being lost. “Persecution, religious pride, the love of contradiction, are the food of what the world commonly calls religion,” he argued. In America, their absence meant that religious passion “burns away in the open air, and consumes without effect.”
> Suffice to say that de Crèvecoeur has not found a place alongside Alexis de Tocqueville as an anatomist of the American soul. In Europe religion doesn't rise to the level of burning away “in the open air”; in fact, it barely smoulders. Most European politicians would rather talk about sexually transmitted diseases than their own faith in God. The h
> America's policymakers, by contrast, don't seem to talk about anything else. Look at the issues that have dominated the past week: the Supreme Court's decision to take up an abortion case, George Bush's threat to veto a bill on stem cells, even the tortuous debate about filibusters. Religion is at the heart of each one. Or listen to the activists talk. From the left, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, warns that America risks being turned into a “theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do”. Lou Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition, talks darkly of “the all-out assault on Christians being waged by our government, by America's educational institutions, by the media and throughout popular culture”.
> ...


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> The longer we can keep the Bushes in office the better.


      



     


Edit: MacDoc, I hate to seem to be finicky, but



> … a laughingstock in the first world …


Are you suggesting the US is a first world nation? Just wondering.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Holly Flamebait Batman!*

jimtimesinfinity, I nominate you as Troll-of-the-Month (and it's only the first!).

Only time will tell if the U.S. citizens will be able to depose the American Taliban before their economy and their constitution are irretrievably damaged. For their economy, I think it may already be too late, but I have such respect for the US constitution that I still hold some hope that something of it may be salvaged.

I can't imagine anyone who thinks the US is better off today than it was when Clinton was in power. One might be so naive as to argue that outside forces have forced the US into it's current record deficits and draconian restrictions of civil rights, but no one can doubt that things are worse for Americans (apart from CEOs and defence contractors) since Bush came to power.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Snapple :clap:..........."first world??"........for the moment.
••

Bryanc they were NOT forced into Iraq, into boosting military spending 35% or cutting taxes to the point where they're gov deficit is measured in trillions.


If OPEC changes to a basket of currencies to peg oil or China pulls the bond plug.

Lookout.....it's freefall time.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I can't imagine anyone who thinks the US is better off today than it was when Clinton was in power. One might be so naive as to argue that outside forces have forced the US into it's current record deficits and draconian restrictions of civil rights, but no one can doubt that things are worse for Americans (apart from CEOs and defence contractors) since Bush came to power.


Kudos bryanc, well said. Methinks that troll jimtimesinfinity might be Macnutt disguised as a newbie.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MacDoc, my man.

OK. 

It's just that I have come to regard the US as a 2nd world nation (along with, I hasten to add "my" country, the UK), albeit a rich and powerful one. I got into a brief fire-fight with Mr. D. about this (kapow … per-ching) a little while ago. Still haven't learned my lesson.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You might be interested in this from the Economist. William Burroughs would be fascinated.......Lord of the Flies on a grand scale.......the descent into darkness.



> *R-e-s-p-e-c-t*
> May 19th 2005
> From The Economist print edition
> 
> ...


Required reading for this parliament perhaps??


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

MacDoc: I think you meant William Golding? A slip of the fingers, I'm sure.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

*"you know where they stand"*

Yeah, on your neck. In a jackboot.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes Golding. My bad. 

•••

Suppression of intellectuals - which # was that on the fascist indicator list


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Oh yes!

Respect!

There is a feeling that the basic norms are being trampled on in an unthinking way. Street behaviour, behaviour behind the wheel of a car, behaviour in the classroom, behaviour on planes, behaviour in public service premises (hospitals, doctor's surgeries, schools) - these are areas where there is a constant buzz of surliness and defiant selfishness. As a phenomenon, it is noticeably more prevalent nowadays. It may not be major, "sexy" crime that grabs the headlines, but it is certainly behaviour that has an enormously disconcerting and disruptive effect on daily routine. It "invades' other people's space in a major fashion.

It's almost like low-level civil disobedience.

The causes? The solution(s)?

Aha! Now there's a chance for the charlatans to make a killing! What do our esteemed leaders come up with? A Minister for Respect!

George Galloway - remember him? **** Senatus Disruptus. He won a seat in the recent General Election. His "Party"? He invented his own - yes! you guessed it! The Respect Party.

Our glorious leaders (speaking both locally and globally) have been poor role models for the hoi polloi in terms of respect. Discuss.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

bryanc said:


> jimtimesinfinity, I nominate you as Troll-of-the-Month (and it's only the first!).


I didn't start this thread. I merely responded. I'm no more of a troll than you or any other posters




> Only time will tell if the U.S. citizens will be able to depose the American Taliban before their economy and their constitution are irretrievably damaged. For their economy, I think it may already be too late, but I have such respect for the US constitution that I still hold some hope that something of it may be salvaged.
> 
> I can't imagine anyone who thinks the US is better off today than it was when Clinton was in power. One might be so naive as to argue that outside forces have forced the US into it's current record deficits and draconian restrictions of civil rights, but no one can doubt that things are worse for Americans (apart from CEOs and defence contractors) since Bush came to power.
> 
> Cheers


Hmmm. The Clinton years.....

Oh right I remember. Great economic policy based on the internet bubble - and that turned out very well didn't it  

Oh and Enron etc: Who was in office when most of that was going on? Yup the BJ king himself - or was it Hillary not sure who was running the show.

His awe-inspiring ability to turn a blind eye provided terrorists with plenty of time to prepare, organize, finance 9/11

Oh yeah. Let's not forget the appointment of liberal judges who feel the constant need to urinate on the US Constitution. 

Perhaps, if Clinton had acted even somewhat responsibly, Bush wouldn't have to work so hard to fix the mess that he was left with when he entered office.

Fact is that Americans are wisely overwhelming voting republican because they have completely lost faith in the democrats.

I'm not saying that Bush hasn't made mistakes but he is certainly better than Clinton was.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> I'm not saying that Bush hasn't made mistakes but he is certainly better than Clinton was.


      

Aw! Me achin' sides!


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> His awe-inspiring ability to turn a blind eye provided terrorists with plenty of time to prepare, organize, finance 9/11


The way I see it the events of 9/11 cannot be attributed to a single president they are the collective disaster of US foreign policy over the last 30 years.

Laterz


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> I didn't start this thread. I merely responded. I'm no more of a troll than you or any other posters


Holy Short Term Memory Batman! Least we forget...

*The last thing the world needs right now is leftist/defeatist Government running the most powerful country in the world. *

And...

*A democrat president would only bring the US one step closer to the travesty we as Canadians have to endure in our bloated, self-serving, corrupt government.*

I think that qualifies for TROLL of the Month.  




jimtimesinfinity said:


> Hmmm. The Clinton years.....
> 
> Oh right I remember. Great economic policy based on the internet bubble - and that turned out very well didn't it


Clinton's policies did nothing to either start nor sustain the "Bubble". Please point out ANY policy put forth by the administration that had any direct impact on creating or sustaining the bubble. You can't can you, that is because this arguement comes straight from the neo conservative rewriting of the history of 1990's. Conservatives can't stand that one of the greatest economic booms of the last century happened while a democrat was in power. 



jimtimesinfinity said:


> Oh and Enron etc: Who was in office when most of that was going on? Yup the BJ king himself - or was it Hillary not sure who was running the show.


Funny you should mention Enron, considering that Enron was one of Bush's largest campaign contributors (can you say 1.8 Million dollars). 



jimtimesinfinity said:


> His awe-inspiring ability to turn a blind eye provided terrorists with plenty of time to prepare, organize, finance 9/11


Yeah, terrorists that were originally funded and trained by Reagan and the boys in the 1980's. If you are going to point fingers please use more than one... Clinton never failed the US... they all failed themselves.



jimtimesinfinity said:


> Oh yeah. Let's not forget the appointment of liberal judges who feel the constant need to urinate on the US Constitution.


Again this is just rhetoric straight from the neo conservative playbook. Give me an example, any example.



jimtimesinfinity said:


> Fact is that Americans are wisely overwhelming voting republican because they have completely lost faith in the democrats.


Were you not paying attention during the election? Or is math not your strong suit? Or do you know a definition of overwhelming that I do not?

Republicans got 51%
Democrats got 48%
Nade got 1%

If you go Left vs. Right that's 49% vs. 51%

If you call that overwhelming than I think you need some remedial eduction or at least a dictionary.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Please, do not feed the trolls!*

I know it's hard to resist... they're so cute! But it only excites them and make's them unable to function in their natural habitat (churchs, right-wing 'think-tanks', etc.).

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I know it's hard to resist... they're so cute! But it only excites them and make's them unable to function in their natural habitat (churchs, right-wing 'think-tanks', etc.).
> 
> Cheers


It's so hard not too... I'm sorry I will try to be more restrained.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

Again, we appear to be at odds. Rather than start another rant, I will point out somethings that I do agree with and provide some explanation on points that I feel need to be clarified:



da_jonesy said:


> *A democrat president would only bring the US one step closer to the travesty we as Canadians have to endure in our bloated, self-serving, corrupt government.*
> 
> I think that qualifies for TROLL of the Month.


I think most Canadians, even those who support the Liberals, agree that the current administration is currupt. Regular poll data shows that Canadians are very upset with the Liberal party over Adscam. Most polls attribute the Liberal lead to mistrust of the Tories. I think we can agree, for the meantime, that Canadians who don't vote bloc or NDP are stuck between a rock and a hard place.



> Clinton's policies did nothing to either start nor sustain the "Bubble". Please point out ANY policy put forth by the administration that had any direct impact on creating or sustaining the bubble.


I agree totally with this point. Clinton was fortunate to be president at one of the best economic times in history (world-wide not just in the US). Nothing Clinton did or didn't do would have affected the economy very much.



> You can't can you, that is because this arguement comes straight from the neo conservative rewriting of the history of 1990's. Conservatives can't stand that one of the greatest economic booms of the last century happened while a democrat was in power.


There is no re-writing history. Clinton's economic policies were based on a fantastically good economy (as they should be). I have no problem with a boom happening under a democrat. Booms and recessions are typically the result of many factors. Attributing them to a particular person, administration, party, or even country is very difficult. 




> Funny you should mention Enron, considering that Enron was one of Bush's largest campaign contributors (can you say 1.8 Million dollars).


I only mentioned Enron to point out that there were problems that were allowed to continue (not start) under Clinton's watch. He is not responsible for Enron nor is he totally blameless. For too long, corporations were able to do this and my point was that everything caught up while Bush was in office. This caused an obvious drop in the markets that has as much to do with Bush as the boom had to do with Clinton.



> Yeah, terrorists that were originally funded and trained by Reagan and the boys in the 1980's. If you are going to point fingers please use more than one... Clinton never failed the US... they all failed themselves.


Same point as above. I agree that all administrations should have been more proactive when dealing with the threat of terrorists. The blood of 9/11 is on many people's hands. Rather than point fingers (I'll admit that was wrong) we should concentrate on fighting the terrorists (without getting into a war of words about the best way to fight them).




> Were you not paying attention during the election? Or is math not your strong suit? Or do you know a definition of overwhelming that I do not?
> 
> Republicans got 51%
> Democrats got 48%
> ...


Without checking my remedial education notebooks, I was not just referring to the last federal election where the Republicans beat the Democrats by a larger margin than the previous election and where several key Republican motions were passed. I was also referring to the past six straight senate victories and the fact that conservatives control all 3 levels of government. Who knows how the democrats will do in 2006 senate races? For now, the Republicans seem to have an overwhelming control.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> I think most Canadians, even those who support the Liberals, agree that the current administration is currupt. Regular poll data shows that Canadians are very upset with the Liberal party over Adscam. Most polls attribute the Liberal lead to mistrust of the Tories. I think we can agree, for the meantime, that Canadians who don't vote bloc or NDP are stuck between a rock and a hard place.


Actually I would agree with that. There is not much leadership on the Liberal side(I do respect their work on the budget, and Very much respect their position on same sex marriage) and none on the Conservative side. Canadians want real leadership and they want a choice and they are not getting that at the moment.



jimtimesinfinity said:


> I was not just referring to the last federal election where the Republicans beat the Democrats by a larger margin than the previous election and where several key Republican motions were passed. I was also referring to the past six straight senate victories and the fact that conservatives control all 3 levels of government. Who knows how the democrats will do in 2006 senate races? For now, the Republicans seem to have an overwhelming control.


I still wouldn't use the word overwhelming, even in The Senate and Congress the split doesn't go much past 50/50 and certainly not near 60/40 which is where one side would very much be able to control things.

America by all definitions is very divided.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

*I'm confused*

Is someone here actually suggesting that the American Democrats are "left wing"? Left of what? Left of extreme right-wing perhaps. (I'm getting dizzy with all this revolution.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> in our bloated, self-serving, corrupt government.


You MUST be joking.  Your federal government spending is entirely out of control to the point your dollar has fallen dramatically - a 1/2 trillion dollar gov deficit with the vice presidents fingers in all sorts of corporate pies does not entitle you to point fingers at a country with superb economic record - 10 straight surpluses and one that ranks way higher in the corruption scale and Gini scale and still manages to provide ALL it's population with health care.

As I was saying about "your own house in order". 

ALL large organizations require oversight - the problem in Quebec - which involves a miniscule amount of money is being dealt with under the auspices of a investigation called by and undertaken by the current government.

•••

Yes Clinton had good times but he also turned gov spending around.

Bush then just gave the savings to his rich friends via tax cuts.
THEN boosted gov spending into the realm of the ridiculous.

The mess is on Bush's watch period.
He had a choice after Afghanistan - he made the wrong one.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You MUST be joking.  Your federal government spending is entirely out of control to the point your dollar has fallen dramatically - a 1/2 trillion dollar gov deficit


One practical reason for the devaluation of the US dollar is to combat inflation. Greenspan has been slowly rachetting up the interest rate in order to achieve just that. As the entire world recovers from post 9/11 market woes, countries (and the E.U.) that allow their currency to rise have absolutely no problem doing so. Couple these two facts together and a significant portion of the dollars fall is obvious. Granted there are outstanding issues (rising oil prices, China) and the Bush administration has had several mis-steps along the way.

Nobody is suggesting that the federal deficit is good. Unfortunately, many events transpired that negatively affect the country's budget. The havoc caused by 9/11 and the ensuing wars cost America greatly. I'm sure that absolutely everybody in the Bush Administration would be more that happy if 9/11 never happened and we never had to go to war (and not just from a cost perspective). Additionally, look at the amount of aid the US provides to needy countries. This is especially important as it takes a lot of money to help improve the negative image of the US abroad. The scandals that rocked the markets in addition to the bubble bursting also contributed to the need to spend more. Finally, China keeps its currency pegged to the US dollar. This has led to a tremendous amount of trade deficit with China and again results in a high deficit in the US. Based on these circumstances, even with hindsight, I doubt that any economic policies would have achieved more.



> with the vice presidents fingers in all sorts of corporate pies does not entitle you to point fingers at a country with superb economic record - 10 straight surpluses and one that ranks way higher in the corruption scale and Gini scale and still manages to provide ALL it's population with health care.


Please name one VP that had no involvement with large corporations. Even our own cherished corp, Apple, has a certain Al Gore on its board. The entire war for oil theory is completely unfounded. I'm not going to waste any more time on conspiracy theories.

Regarding Canadian surpluses, I'm actually fairly pleased with this. Obviously, I think there are better ways to spend/not spend our tax dollars (i.e. not give it to ad execs in Quebec - btw, what was that about fingers in corporate pies?). I'm happy to debate Canadian fiscal reasoning all day. However, that has nothing to do with Amercia so I suggest we save that for another conversation. I agree that, clearly, Canada has been more fiscally responsible than the US but I think you would also have to agree that the US has accomplished much more internationally.

Healthcare is another discussion for another post. I'll only say this: Both the US and Canadian health systems are pretty weak. Canada does provide free universal health care but waiting times can be insane and brain-drain to the US is a significant problem.



> the problem in Quebec - which involves a miniscule amount of money


depends on your definition of miniscule. It's also a matter of public trust



> Bush then just gave the savings to his rich friends via tax cuts.


tax cuts that improved consumer confindence, the economy (admittedly not compared to the bubble), and worked to slow and reverse unemployment



> THEN boosted gov spending into the realm of the ridiculous.


agreed. Absolutely.



> The mess is on Bush's watch period.


As I discussed earlier, most of the events that occured during Bush's watch began decades earlier. Bush carries a lot of the blame but many others are responsible as well.



> He had a choice after Afghanistan - he made the wrong one.


I find it odd that you can callously call ending a homicidal maniac's regime of terror and helping an entire country embrace democracy the wrong choice. 
I can understand if you disagree with the methods of going to war but I find it hard to believe that thousands of images of defiantly waving purple fingers is not a valid justification. 
Don't bother pointing out the "Bush mislead America" line. Almost every single US Senator (repub and democrat) voted to go to war because they felt, based on the same info that Bush saw, the Saddam was a threat and that war would be worth it in the long run. Additionally, the EU also believed Iraq to be a threat but as we are discovering through the oil for food scandal. Most countries had their own "reasons" to avoid going to war.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

One thing that really seems to be a problem in the US and Canada is that there is so much bitterness between the two sides. I feel that most people in both countries feel that they must choose between two absolutes (neither of which truely represents their interests) and this is ruining their faith in democracy. How many Canadians are angry with the Liberals but too fearful of the conservatives to do anything but whine. Why don't most Canadians want another election? Likely, because most people feel that any choice is bad. The problem with this situation is that, as people lose faith in democracy, they are willing to expect less and tolerate more. We as Canadians should demand accountability! Instead, we see Paul Martin desperately holding onto power, bribing PC members (err, allegedly), and throwing around money in order to get any vote possible. We just discussed how successful Martin has been fiscally. Now we see him acting completely irresponsibly.

BUT, here's the kicker: We are not willing to do anything about this for 2 reasons.
First, too many people don't trust the conservatives or feel (as I wrote above) that they cannot agree with some of the PC party's more conservative ideas.
Second, the liberals refuse to force Martin to step down and appoint somebody worthy of holding Canada's highest honour.

Think about it. I'm a true conservative (in case you hadn't guessed  ) and even I believe that if the liberals had handled the adscam in a responsible way that showed Canadians that this sort of behaviour is not tolerated, they would have cruised to an easy election win. 

So now, we find ourselves in a situation where nobody wins. Elected MPs should respresent our desires. Our tax dollars pay their salaries. Our tax dollars are being wasted as the two parties ally themselves with very unlikely bed-fellows and waste all their time bickering. Liberal or Tory, we should demand better. Stop bickering! Find those responsible and bring them to justice quickly! Most of all: GIVE US SOMEBODY TO VOTE FOR!

Wouldn't it be great to vote for one party instead of against another?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> I find it odd that you can callously call ending a homicidal maniac's regime of terror and helping an entire country embrace democracy the wrong choice.


As if the only way to do it was for the USA to bomb, bomb, bomb - yet another country, yet again. The finest minds in the universe, dare I say it, by your reckoning, could only come up with this as an option. May they rot in their respective hells.

'The only way' is an attitude infiltrated into the public consciousness by the politicos.

_"There is no alternative."_

_"We're right."_

_"If you're not with us you're agin us."_

Your attitude, shared by many others, is, I believe, fundamentally wrong. The only people we don't hear from on these forums are Iraqis. I would like to hear what the relatives of the Iraqi civilians killed so far, as well as survivors of the various coalition actions, have to say. How many would say it was/is a price worth paying? And who gives a toss?

Shame on all the wholesale camp followers of anything emanating from the pro-war right.
Shame on the paltry level of intellectual enquiry that they barely manage to bring to bear.

Removing murderous regimes is not the reason the US bombs third world nations. The US happily props up murderous regimes when it suits the US. Example: that of one Saddam Hussein for over 20 years.

So to return to the quote, it ain't what you do, it's the way you do it.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

I think that the enthusiasm and massive amounts of Iraqi civilians who turned out to vote is a good indication that they want to be free and enjoy those freedoms. Obviously, ask any victim's family how they feel and they will say they are upset. The question is, how will they feel in a year, 5 years, 10 years, etc? It is impossible to say for certain whether any death was warranted. I think that most people would agree that a free Iraqi, in general, is happier than one living under the Saddam regime. Any discussion on the end results of this war are at best pure speculation. It would appear that, because of this war, attitudes all over the Middle East are changing: Libya, Lebanon, Egypt are prime examples of this. Will these countries ever become truely peaceful democratic nations? Who knows? But the signs are very positive.

Perhaps the war in Iraq will be regarded in the same light as dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. In 1945, it was determined, that dropping the bombs would result in fewer deaths (for Japanese and Americans) than a massive land invasion. The atomic bomb is a horrible thing but is was the lesser of two evils. Before Iraq, it was widely believed (not just in the US) that Saddam either had WMD or had access to WMD. Maybe the Bush Administration made a calculation that taking out Iraq would lead to fewer deaths than an all out nuclear war in the Middle East. We'll never know.

Unfortunately, there aren't many options when dealing with maniacs like Saddam. Let's not forget that he had 10 years of sanctions (which were undermined by the UN's Oil for Food scandal) and plenty of warning. Saddam was defiant.

I wholeheartedly believe that war was a last resort. You probably disagree. At this point, I feel that we should look at it this way. Like it or not, American troops are in Iraq. If they leave now, Iraq will completely collapse and likely destroy all the positive changes occurring in that region. We need to stand completely united against terrorism (that's obvious and I think we do. Even Sen. Kennedy can muster an "I don't like terrorist" statement now and then). We need to end violence in Iraq and we need to do so in a way that prompts other dangerous nations to change without us having to go in and bomb them too.

You are right regarding the fact that the US placed Hussein in power. They did not prop him up for 20 years. Bush Sr. realized the mistake and tried to remove him in the first Gulf war and the US and EU have been trying (to various degrees) to force him to reason ever since. Nobody disagrees that empowering Hussein was a bad move just as I doubt anybody disagrees that removing Hussein is a good move (they may disagree with the methods of his removal).

So, yes it aint what you do, it's the way you do it. If it turns out that, as a result of this war in Iraq, other nations continue on a path to democracy and peace, then a strong case can be made that this war was worth it. If, after this war, the Middle East is still hostile and unstable, then I would agree that this war was a horrible waste of time, money, and most importantly, life.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> I think that the enthusiasm and massive amounts of Iraqi civilians who turned out to vote is a good indication that they want to be free and enjoy those freedoms. Obviously, ask any victim's family how they feel and they will say they are upset. The question is, how will they feel in a year, 5 years, 10 years, etc? It is impossible to say for certain whether any death was warranted. I think that most people would agree that a free Iraqi, in general, is happier than one living under the Saddam regime. Any discussion on the end results of this war are at best pure speculation. It would appear that, because of this war, attitudes all over the Middle East are changing: Libya, Lebanon, Egypt are prime examples of this. Will these countries ever become truely peaceful democratic nations? Who knows? But the signs are very positive.


I think that you are grossly underestimating the influence of Wasabism in that region. Iraqi's may have turned out for the vote, but the fact that there are resitance fighters opporating with impunity in Iraq shows that a sizable portion of the population is in support of their goals. Otherwise how could they continue to operate with such impunity?

As for your other examples, Egypt is and has always been on the brink of civil war, Lebanon has seen one of the more brutal civil wars of the last part of the 20th century. Lebanon is walking the razors edge as it stands and could fall back into civil war at a moments notice (particularly with the assistance of Syria and the US).

Libya doesn't count since Kadafi is still in power so you can't call that a democracy can you? The only thing that has changed is that Libya is now looked upon more favourably by Washington... nothing in Libya has changed for its population.



jimtimesinfinity said:


> Perhaps the war in Iraq will be regarded in the same light as dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. In 1945, it was determined, that dropping the bombs would result in fewer deaths (for Japanese and Americans) than a massive land invasion. The atomic bomb is a horrible thing but is was the lesser of two evils. Before Iraq, it was widely believed (not just in the US) that Saddam either had WMD or had access to WMD. Maybe the Bush Administration made a calculation that taking out Iraq would lead to fewer deaths than an all out nuclear war in the Middle East. We'll never know.


Ouch... wrong analogy. The US dropped atomic weapons on a mostly civilian population for direct psycological impact. I do not think you are suggesting that the US start military operations against Iraqi civilians.

It's not that the atomic weapons were a horrible weapon, their use was on civilian populations... that directly constitutes a war crime, they were a crime against humanity. This is well documented... I would highly suggest that you watch "The Fog of War" where Robert MacNamara (former Secretary of Defence) says that and the fire bombing of Tokyo were war crimes plain and simple.

Iraq was a sovereign country, that had never directly attacked the US that had no WMDs. There is no legimate reason for the US to take the action that they did.



jimtimesinfinity said:


> Unfortunately, there aren't many options when dealing with maniacs like Saddam. Let's not forget that he had 10 years of sanctions (which were undermined by the UN's Oil for Food scandal) and plenty of warning. Saddam was defiant.


Defiant about what? UN sanctions? How would you expect any sovereign nation to react to sanctions imposed on it from an outside body? And... BTW he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction to begin with.



jimtimesinfinity said:


> I wholeheartedly believe that war was a last resort. You probably disagree. At this point, I feel that we should look at it this way. Like it or not, American troops are in Iraq. If they leave now, Iraq will completely collapse and likely destroy all the positive changes occurring in that region. We need to stand completely united against terrorism (that's obvious and I think we do. Even Sen. Kennedy can muster an "I don't like terrorist" statement now and then). We need to end violence in Iraq and we need to do so in a way that prompts other dangerous nations to change without us having to go in and bomb them too.


The simple fact is that the US is now in a Vietnam like situation, there is NO way they can succede now. The violence will not stop, it will only intensify (and recent events only show that I am correct) where more and more Iraqis and Americans will die. Eventually the US will pull out in "defeat" (if you want to use that term) or an even more brutal regime than Saddam (who was pretty Brutal in my books) will be put in place.

Terrorism is a word. Its use really depends upon which side you are on. Have a look at this image and explain to me who is terrorizing who? Look at the face of the kid against the wall... 
*
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52018170&cdi=0 *

Now here is the thing I hope you can also explain to me. You said... 

*We need to end violence in Iraq and we need to do so in a way that prompts other dangerous nations to change without us having to go in and bomb them too.* 

Who are the _we_ and the _us_? We (Canada) have not done anything to Iraq, and while we do have troops in Afganistan, at least in that situation there was a direct link between AlQaeda and the ruling Taliban. 

There is no _we_ and the _us_ in Iraq. Just them.



jimtimesinfinity said:


> You are right regarding the fact that the US placed Hussein in power. They did not prop him up for 20 years.


Sorry, they very much so supported Hussein up until the invasion of Kuwait. The US support of Iraq's war against Iran is well documented, it is of course being diligently swept under the table and ignored by the current administration (Most of whom all have at one point glad handed Saddam personally... with photos to prove it).



jimtimesinfinity said:


> So, yes it aint what you do, it's the way you do it. If it turns out that, as a result of this war in Iraq, other nations continue on a path to democracy and peace, then a strong case can be made that this war was worth it. If, after this war, the Middle East is still hostile and unstable, then I would agree that this war was a horrible waste of time, money, and most importantly, life.


Might makes right? or is it the ends justify the means? That's a pretty brutal way to solve a problem don't you think? History will look back at this moment in time and clearly show that a ruling oligarchy of business interests in the US aggresively forced this situation upon the world.

Don't you think there are other better solutions to the problem? Don't you think that if the US spent a half, even a quarter of what it is spending now on the war in Iraq on looking for alternative fuel sources that this problem wouldn't go away? If not for the oil, why would the US even care what happens in the middle east. If the US could develop a strategy to move its economy from an oil based economy to something else (who knows... hydrogen? syntheic fuels, etc...) than it could care less what happens in the middle east. Leadership is what is missing in the US, that is the problem. 

The US is being incredibly short sighted right now and it will eventually cost them. While they are diverted on the folly of the war in Iraq, China and India are establishing themselves as the real economic powers in the world.

Eventually the conflict will end, but not before even more blood is spilt... and that is the tradegy of the situation.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I think that you are grossly underestimating the influence of Wasabism in that region. Iraqi's may have turned out for the vote, but the fact that there are resitance fighters opporating with impunity in Iraq shows that a sizable portion of the population is in support of their goals. Otherwise how could they continue to operate with such impunity?


I don't know if a sizable population is in support of their goals or if they just don't want to be involved. With all the violence going on there, I'm sure many people just want to keep their heads down and avoid being killed. 

As a side note. Most of the insurgents are actually coming from neighbouring countries.

You do have a very valid point about the influence of Wasabism. I'm optimistic that, given time, that influence will start to fade. I think that their is a world-wide movement towards compassion and tolerance that will eventually make its way into Iraq.



> As for your other examples, Egypt is and has always been on the brink of civil war, Lebanon has seen one of the more brutal civil wars of the last part of the 20th century. Lebanon is walking the razors edge as it stands and could fall back into civil war at a moments notice (particularly with the assistance of Syria and the US).
> 
> Libya doesn't count since Kadafi is still in power so you can't call that a democracy can you? The only thing that has changed is that Libya is now looked upon more favourably by Washington... nothing in Libya has changed for its population.


All I'm saying is that there have been some positive signs in those regions - not a guaranty of democracy. Call it coincidence, but most of these events happened once the US overthrew Saddam.



> Ouch... wrong analogy. The US dropped atomic weapons on a mostly civilian population for direct psycological impact. I do not think you are suggesting that the US start military operations against Iraqi civilians.


Actually those targets were selected because they were harbours and were used to produce much of the Japanese Empire's war machinery. Clearly I'm not suggesting the US start military operations against Iraqi civilians



> It's not that the atomic weapons were a horrible weapon, their use was on civilian populations... that directly constitutes a war crime, they were a crime against humanity. This is well documented... I would highly suggest that you watch "The Fog of War" where Robert MacNamara (former Secretary of Defence) says that and the fire bombing of Tokyo were war crimes plain and simple.


Admittedly, I haven't seen "The Fog of War" so I'll have to reserve judgement for now. Does MacNamara detail any other options that were available at the time. Considering the millitary importance of Tokyo, what in particular made MacNamara describe the bombing as a war crime? 



> Iraq was a sovereign country, that had never directly attacked the US that had no WMDs. There is no legimate reason for the US to take the action that they did.
> [/QUOTE/
> Correction: No WMD were found. Weapons inspectors did find facilities and equipment that could be used for WMD.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The single thing that made some positive difference in the Middle East was the death of Arafat.

Yankee go home. ........as ever.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> I find it odd that you can callously call ending a homicidal maniac's regime of terror and helping an entire country embrace democracy the wrong choice.


Helping? Is that what you call it? Seems US involvemenr has made things more than worse....lots of dead people you know....not to mention the US rearguard of "gulags" in the name of 'democracy'

read some Tolstoy and try to understand the real issues about US right-wing hegemony.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

Considering the fact that Iraqis no longer need to fear torture and mass graves, I think that helping is an appropriate word. 
The Gulag comment was completely unfounded and came from an organization with a clear anti-American bias. First of all, the only way AI gets any information about the goings-on in any US detainment center is through the US authorities. How many gulags had a completely transparant system set up to ensure the human rights of its prisoners? Secondly, the accusation that the quaran was flushed was completely false and retracted. Thirdly, what kind of gulag provides its inmates with the exact text by which those inmates advocate killing innocent people? AI may just as well have accused the Hilton hotel chain of being a gulag because some people's room service was late and their coffee was cold. Lastly, it is a well known fact that Al-quaida (sp?) teaches its followers to claim religious persecution when captured. How can anybody trust their word. 

I doubt very much that Tolstoy had any concept at all about 21st century foreign policy or detainment. 

Look, you are welcome to any appeasement fantasy you like. The fact remains that a liberated Iraq is better than one under Saddam Hussein and that the club med-like treatment of suspected TERRORISTS has absolutely nothing in common with a gulag. 

There's nothing wrong with intelligent disagreement over political theories such as foreign policy or the justification of war. But drop the wild accusations about gulags and war for oil. If you feel the need to spread those lies try www.democraticunderground.com.
Wild accusations only serve to degrade the content of this forum and anger and mislead its members. Earlier, I had started on a flame-war track and I appologize for that. Let's keep the discussions civil.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

JTI, you really shouldn't use the word "fact" in so cavalier a fashion if, as I suspect, you wish to be taken seriously. May I respectfully suggest that the words "axiom" and "axiomatic" would be more appropriate.

Your posts would then be much more entertaining, and much more informative in terms of giving of yourself to these discussions. The tendency for _you_ to degrade the content of this forum and anger and mislead its members would be ameliorated.

Anyways … back to the thread!

I'd like to consider a list of political dynasties. Only those involving a family succession* of heads of state, eh?

If anyone is intersted, I'll start the ball rolling:

Papa Doc Duvalier and his son, Baby Doc.

Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung.

Edit: * Even if the succession is _dynastus interruptus_.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Kennedy's and perhaps the Clintons ......you might broaden your scope to include powerful families not necessarily the top dogs.

The Schrivers come to mind in the US, the Irvings in New Brunswick - there are many powerful "dynasties" just below the top seats.

Some like the Medici's were king and pope makers......if they didn't occupy the latter seat of power themselves.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Could do!

I'm not hot on North American families - the Rockefellers?

Here's one:

Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar al-Assad


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> Considering the fact that Iraqis no longer need to fear torture and mass graves, I think that helping is an appropriate word.
> The Gulag comment was completely unfounded and came from an organization with a clear anti-American bias. First of all, the only way AI gets any information about the goings-on in any US detainment center is through the US authorities. How many gulags had a completely transparant system set up to ensure the human rights of its prisoners? Secondly, the accusation that the quaran was flushed was completely false and retracted. Thirdly, what kind of gulag provides its inmates with the exact text by which those inmates advocate killing innocent people? AI may just as well have accused the Hilton hotel chain of being a gulag because some people's room service was late and their coffee was cold. Lastly, it is a well known fact that Al-quaida (sp?) teaches its followers to claim religious persecution when captured. How can anybody trust their word.
> 
> I doubt very much that Tolstoy had any concept at all about 21st century foreign policy or detainment.
> ...



As usuall truth is the first casualty in your posts. I'm comming in late so I'll just deal with the above.

1) Iraqi's do fear torture from the US and from insurgents.
2) There is nothing "transparent" about "gitmo"
3) AI does not have a "clear anti-American bias", only in yours and the Bush administrations fantasys.
4) You may be right the Koran may not have been flushed but it was pissed on.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8090656/
5) It is a well know fact by whom? (al Queda trains recruits to cry persecution)
6) Iraq is not better off. You have no numbers to back this up. Iraq is about to be in a horrible civil war thanks to the incompetance of Bush and his cronies. This is worse off.
More than 21,940 civillians have died in this invasion and aftermath(this is a VERY conservative estimate. Many place the count above 100,000). Durring Sadaam's reign things were very bad but the civillian casualty toll was far less per year. note: these are just the deaths far more were injured.
7) If Iraq isn't about oil then why is the US trying so hard to get OIL FROM IRAQ? Why was the original plan to take Iraq's oil? Hell why Iraq and not North Korea or Sudan?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> \
> 
> I wholeheartedly believe that war was a last resort. You probably disagree. \


Why yes I do dissagree. I know you have been absent from the forum for a while but I will assume you have not been on Mars....
Heard of this scandal?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html


> The Sunday Times - Britain
> 
> May 01, 2005
> 
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> A few weeks later the government would paint Saddam as an imminent threat to the Middle East and the world. But that morning in private Straw said: “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”
> 
> It was a key point. If Saddam was not an immediate threat, could war be justified legally? The attorney-general made his position clear, telling the meeting that “the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action”.
> 
> ...



You'll just type anything and hope no one notices, won't you?

(sorry I couldn't let that one slip by without comment despite what I said above)


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> I doubt very much that Tolstoy had any concept at all about 21st century foreign policy or detainment.


Just because a chunk of time has passed does not mean that there has been 'Progress' or a diminishment of certain constants, like 

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Or Tolstoy's Favorite (IMO) [along w/ Nietzsche]
The rich get richer, the poor get Religion.

PS- Don't intimate that I'm trying to Flame you. You just come across as Arrogant and Agressive, is all.


----------



## jimtimesinfinity (May 18, 2005)

Listen, I don't mean to be arrogant but, to paraphrase a great liberal Lewis Black, there isn't enough deodorant in the world to continue this conversation. From this point on, I'm going to avoid these discussions that venture too heavily into politcs. I won't convince you of anything and you won't convince me either. I think that Bush is doing everything possible to protect us from people that want to harm us. I don't care how many people he offends doing that as long as he gets results and he is getting very positive results. Say what you like. I'll let history prove me right or wrong. While it is obvious that there is a lot of antagonism between us in this thread, I hope that doesn't spread to other threads that don't involve politics. Have a great day.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think that Bush is doing everything possible to protect us from people that want to harm us." However, in the final analysis, who shall protect us from Bush? The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been assaulted in a manner that has not been seen since the days of Watergate. Paix.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JTI - perhaps in your time away you should ask yourself frankly WHY "people want to harm you".

Then ponder why there are no more IRA bombs in London..........for now.
If you meddle in sovereign nations and peoples......eventually it wil come back to haunt you.

It HAS come home to roost in the US.
Yankee go home is only a start in what needs changing.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

jimtimesinfinity said:


> From this point on, I'm going to avoid these discussions that venture too heavily into politcs. Have a great day.


Better now.


----------

