Mullahs for Bush!

Remove all ads!

Who said that George Bush Jr. is unpopular all over the world? He has friends in all the unlikely places.

Well, that concurs with Gen. Odom's view that the war on Iraq didn't serve US strategic interests -- but Bin Laden's and Iran's.
And, it underlines my thesis that Bush Jr., by implementing the neo-con strategy of pre-emption -- resulting in the unprecedented blundering in Iraq -- has rendered the US impotent to continue it, rendering deterrence through pre-emption incredible, rendering it ineffective.

 

If Bush has learned from his mistakes, it implies that he would admit his mistakes. If this sentence is true, it is the biggest news in the entire article.

 

Too bad the very last thing that Bush gives a dying rat's ass about is world opinion.

 

Even worse: This attitude of Bush is known to all. Yet there are countries whose governments will support this man. I mean, how much closer can one come to what must be called a veritable vassal?

 

You're right, we should all get behind Schroeder and Chirac and cruise to European bankruptcy.

 

Excuse me?
Are trying to tell me something? For I fail to see the relevance of your people's minority complex for this topic.
If it suits the Netherlands any better you can also rally behind Russia or China.

 

Pac Man, Europe aint more on a road to bankruptcy than the US. The US deficiency is a looming threat on the entire worlds economy.

 

If it's all the same to you, i'd rather not rally behind anyone, not China, not Russia, and especially not behind Germany with their crumbling economy, matter of fact, if it was up to me, we'd step out of the sinking ship called EU, and follow our own path. And what do you mean with minority complex ? I don't think we have any complexes whatsoever, on the contrary. It actually feels quite good that we're still part of the coalition.

 

It's completly off-topic, but I feel like it.

1. The own path is very, very, very, very expensive. You'd find that out as soon everyone is going abroad to shop, because everything costs half or a quarter in the European trade zone. That's because your not inside and importing stuff is quite a fuss.

2. Waves of Germans are flooding your country no matter what member of what organization you are. They're push factors are so huge, particularly in the east.

3. The Dutch economy would drown like ours does. It is so hard to have the same status as Belarussia in trade matters, I tell you. But Heineken could care less, they wouldn't mind to move away from the Netherlands anyway and do it faster as you can snip with your finger.

4. You'd still be bordering sad, sad Central-Europe and be tangented by its mess.

 

Ah well, the EU won't last anyway, i give it another 3 years and then we'll all go our seperate ways. Europeans aren't meant to be united in the first place.

 

Don't be so synical... I'm sure we can find a way to come together in unity and... oh what the hell of cause its all gonna fall apart. The UK couldn't even be bothered to get in there let alone sustain it, so why the helll should the rest of Europe wait while the rest of the sideliners faf around trying to decide wether or not its a good enough time for thier country to join?

 

I'm not trying to be cynical, i simply don't see a future for a united Europe. Why ? Because basically noone likes eachother very much. Keeping up appearances will work for a short while, but eventually old pains will take the upperhand again. Besides, everyone wants to be in charge, and none of us is willing to follow the other.

 

OK, back to it then, Bush and Kerry. Is Bush just in this for a world wide popularity contest or does he really care about what he constantly goes on about? I need to know this as I am not part of the US and ferel that we are just getting CNN/Al Jazera left overs that are just filling us with this so called 'nightmare' media of terrorism, and it seems to be a huge leverage point for the campaign for that seat at the white house.

 

I'd say Bush cares ONLY for American interrests, which is really not that odd for an American president. Bush is obviously not searching for global popularity, otherwise he would be sucking up with the Europeans and Asians. Bush takes care of his own, like anyone else in his right mind would.

But i'm not saying Kerry isn't fit for the job, noone can until he's proven himself wrong. I don't think he'll get that chance however.

 

If this was not supposed to be a serious thread I would fall over from laughing so hard. That is so, so, not true. In fact, America has had some good presidents. The rap on George Sr. was that he was too much of an "internationalist." He built a legitmate coalition to deal with Iraq; even Richard Nixon had a diplomatic breakthorough with "Red" China and ended the Vietnam War. Not a bad record for an avowed "anti-Communist." Bill Clinton was another Prez who thought it was in the US interest to understand that other countries have interests also, and to find a place where diplomacy could have a chance to find allies and friends through mutual interests.

This is called "statesmanship." Every once in while we really do have a prez who at least understands that it is something worthwhile. They may fall a bit short in their efforts, but at least they understand its value. Bill Clinton tried, but came up a little bit short, yet as I mentioned, not for a lack of trying. As an example he made a really good try at peace in the Middle East, but Arafat did him in at the last moment. He did make a few inroads in Ireland, for which he is still very proud and mentions often in his accomplishments. I'm sure his detractors will attack every effort he made to achieve peace and prosperity where ever he saw a chance. But that is more partisanship than it is a real concern towards an effort for world peace. We all know that "war" and "sacrifice" is the real worthwile effort these days.

[ October 21, 2004, 08:57: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Good to see that Bush's policies have been good for SOMEONE outside of the corporate world, even if it is one of the so-called "Axis Of Evil" countries.

 

Chandos, you misunderstood my post. I wasn't implying that the US only had selfcentered presidents in the past, all i was saying that it's not that strange that an American president looks after American interrests first, before listening to anyone else. I didn't say that all American presidents were like this.

 

Yes look after your own country first and foremost but not at the expense of others.