|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is There Sufficient Evidence to Impeach W. Bush? |
| Yes |
|
55% |
[ 38 ] |
| No |
|
33% |
[ 23 ] |
| Unsure |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
| Other (Please be specific below) |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 68 |
|
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Hmm.
Here's what President Clinton has to say about what he was thinking on Saddam and weapons of mass destruction from 1998 until the end of his presidency, which, as you know, leads right up to the W. Bush Administration...
| President Clinton wrote: |
Six days earlier, on just the second day of renewed UN inspections in Iraq, some inspectors had been denied access to Saddam's Ba'ath Party headquarters. On the day we returned to Washington, the chief UN weapons inspector, Richard Butler, reported to Kofi Annan that Iraq had not kept its commitments to cooperate with him and had even imposed new restrictions on the inspectors' work.
The next day the United States and the United Kingdom launched a series of attacks from airplanes and with cruise missiles on Iraq's suspected chemical, biological, and nuclear lab sites and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. In my address to the American people that evening, I noted that Saddam had previously used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds in northern Iraq and had fired Scud missiles at other countries. I said I had called off an attack four weeks earlier because Saddam had promised full compliance. Instead, the inspectors had repeatedly been threatened, so "Iraq has abused its final chance."
At the time the strikes were launched, our intelligence indicated that substantial amounts of biological and chemical materials that had been in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as well as some missile warheads were still unaccounted for, and that some elementary laboratory work toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was being done. Our military experts felt that unconventional weapons might have become even more important to Saddam because his conventional military forces were much weaker than they had been before the Gulf War. |
Clinton, My Life, 833.
So.
Is Clinton being deceitful and lying here? Or did W. Bush inherit a pretty serious problem, one laced with serious concerns about WMD in Iraq -- notwithstanding the other factors which may have needlessly exacerbated these concerns or pushed them in irrational directions? |
Have logged out of your brain?
Dude, why are defending pure and utter BS? This is common knowledge you are arguing against. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY disputes that there were no WMDs at the time of the invasion. NO ONE. Why you keep talking about ancient history before that is beyond me. There were no WMDs at the time of the invasion. That is the only salient point.
What you are defending is sheer idiocy:
Bush: They have WMD's. We must attack.
Sane people: Not anymore.
Bush: So? Attack!!!!!
I realize you are trying to say Bush was so traumatized by 9/11, and was previously so unnerved by the previous issues with Saddam, that he THEN launched his campaign vs. Saddam. Unfortunately, those are not the facts. We know from too many different sources that before and after he was elected he was looking for a shot at Saddam.
Apparently, you're out of bailing wire and going with just the straw now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."
The controversy began last week when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published Tuesday in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.
That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.
"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."
The idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.
Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force. (Full story)
Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.
Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.
But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.
O'Neill, former CEO of aluminum producer Alcoa, sat on the National Security Council during his 23 months as treasury secretary.
He was pushed out of the administration in December 2002 during a dispute over tax cuts and growing budget deficits, and was the primary source for author Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill."
"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book.
"And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
But Tuesday O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."
Several Democratic presidential candidates seized on O'Neill's comments to argue that the Bush administration misled Americans about the drive to war with Iraq, where nearly 500 American troops have been killed since March.
Democratic front-runner Howard Dean used them as a jumping-off point to attack three rivals -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards -- who supported a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to act against Iraq.
"I would remind Iowans and others that a year ago, I stood up against this war and was the only one to do so of the individuals I have mentioned," said Dean, whose opposition to the war helped propel him to the top of the pack.
Bush repeated his position Monday that his administration turned to war with Iraq only after the September 11 attacks changed the way U.S. officials viewed Baghdad's suspected weapons programs.
That Iraq was a concern before that time was evident in July 2001, when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam "is on the radar screen for the administration," and senior officials met at the White House two days later to discuss Iraq.
During the same time, Iraq began dispersing aircraft and air defense capabilities in preparation for more aggressive U.S. airstrikes to enforce the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.
A senior administration official told CNN that early Bush administration discussions regarding Iraq reviewed existing policies and plans.
Officials were particularly concerned with enforcement of the "no-fly" zones, where Iraqi air defense forces had been taking potshots at U.S. and British warplanes since late 1998.
Rumsfeld said Tuesday that Iraq was the only place in the world where U.S. forces were being fired upon "with impunity," and "clearing it was something that needed to be addressed."
Richard Perle, a leading advocate of war with Iraq and a member of the independent Defense Advisory Board that advises Rumsfeld, told CNN the review was still under way when the September 11 attacks occurred.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher, there you go again (to quote RR), you got your history confused. The US had a legitimate reason to enter WWII in 1941. The US was attacked by Japan which meant the US had to enter the war against the axis powers.
It was earlier, WWI and before, where America screwed up. The US was supporting and arming one side against the other and got drawn into a war that could have been avoided. The US participation and the humiliation and financial disaster that Britain and France were able to dump on the German people led to the rise of Hitler. If the US had maintained a neutral policy and stayed out of WWI, there would have been a stand off and no Hitler. In additon, the Great Depression which exacerbated the problem and accelerated the rise of the Nazis was created by US government. The Smoot-Hawley tarrif law is now considered to be the direct cause of the stock market crash. Government expansion of the money supply in the 1920s followed by a sudden contraction caused a recession. This recession was expanded and deepened by the fascist-socialist, illegal and unconstitutional policies of FDR (who also should have been impeached). Without the mistakes (criminal IMHO) of the federal government of the US there would have been no WWII.
Yes, when attacked, the US government should respond, WWII and Afghanistan. But, the US often creates these problems by its meddlesome behavior for years and decades before. Unless the US changes its policies and brings its troops home, there will be a bigger attack against innocent Americans on US soil by some other Arab/Middle-Eastern group, this time followed by a third world war against the Islamic world. Another war the US will HAVE TO win, but which should have never happened.
Bush's actions in Afghanistan were legit. They should have stopped there and spent the money to build a showcase democractic success there. Now, they are mired down in two places. They might yet save the Afghan project, but Iraq is failing.
Bush is either criminally insane, criminally stupid or, just a criminal.
It's too bad that hard core Republicans insist on supporting such scum. Then, when the moderates finally throw him overboard (like they did with Nixon) the diehards are left to die on the sinking ship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BLT Trainer wrote: |
This is common knowledge you are arguing against. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY disputes that there were no WMDs at the time of the invasion. NO ONE. Why you keep talking about ancient history before that is beyond me. There were no WMDs at the time of the invasion. That is the only salient point.
What you are defending is sheer idiocy:
Bush: They have WMD's. We must attack.
Sane people: Not anymore.
Bush: So? Attack!!!!! |
Calm down. You are apoplectic again.
The last two years of the Clinton Administration are not "ancient history." And it was never conclusively settled whether Saddam had remaining weapons of mass destruction, and it still is not settled.
The only thing that is settled is that we were not able to find any after we took Iraq. This is not the same as being able to say that there definitely were not any.
Perhaps we destroyed them? Perhaps Saddam hid them? Perhaps someone else destroyed or hid them? We do not know.
In any case, as I said, Clinton was very concerned about all forms of weapons and mass destruction in Iraq, including an apparent nascent nuclear capability, and W. Bush inherited these concerns.
Indeed, Saddam threatened the U.S. with chemical warfare as late as 2002, when Cheney toured the region to secure basing and transit rights for a possible invasion.
| Gordon and Trainor wrote: |
| During his trip, Cheney stopped in Yemen and met with President Ali Abdullah Saleh at the Sanna airport. The Bush administration did not need Yemen for a war with Iraq; the subject was fighting terrorism. Saleh, who had close ties with Saddam, told Cheney that Saddam did not want to go to war but would use chemical weapons if attacked. Cheney did not blink. If Saddam used chemical weapons, then the Americans would deal with it. |
Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 43.
Gordon covered this trip for the New York Times, by the way, so he was travelling with Cheney and his entourage. Trainor is a retired Marine Corps general, and on the faculty at Harvard. Together they had unprecedented access to classified documents and war plans, which is more than the other journalistic accounts have to offer, relying as they do, on "insider" briefings from anonymous officials.
Also, Gordon and Trainor show how CENTCOM was seriously concerned about the WMD threat in their war planning.
Therefore, it was not a fabricated pretext with no substance; it was a real concern.
Whether W. Bush -- and I think you have the wrong villain anyway, I think they villains are Cheney and Rumsfeld and their adherents, and W. Bush was more or less their figurehead, so to speak -- enhanced this threat and tweaked the intelligence information and analysis to support his casus belli and misleadingly present Saddam as a clear and present danger to the United States is hardly in doubt.
In any case, you cannot cite this war, or the U.S. govt's very legitimate and reasonable concerns about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as reasons to impeach the President. It was legally derived at. People like myself, Joo, and Urban Myth have stated and restated that point several times now. You are apparently unwilling to acknowledge it: the Senate approved it 77-23.
So if you insist on going after W. Bush, find something you can sustain with credible and unequivocal evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ontheway
| Quote: |
| But, the US often creates these problems by its meddlesome behavior for years and decades before. Unless the US changes its policies and brings its troops home, there will be a bigger attack against innocent Americans on US soil by some other Arab/Middle-Eastern group, this time followed by a third world war against the Islamic world. Another war the US will HAVE TO win, but which should have never happened |
Like what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
You will never be able to reason with Ontheway, Joo.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the problems inherent in superpower status -- that is, for one thing, having an economy that everyone in the world wants to participate in and that we are simply too big and widespread to be neutral in anything, anywhere -- and focuses only on "U.S. meddling" is not going to listen to anything you say.
Another narrow-minded, antiAmerican simpleton making a pathetic hijack attempt. It has absolutely nothing to do with the debate on whether W. Bush should, can, or will be impeached. |
The more your points are refuted, the more insulting you become. I'm beginning to seriously doubt you're out of high school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
You will never be able to reason with Ontheway, Joo.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the problems inherent in superpower status -- that is, for one thing, having an economy that everyone in the world wants to participate in and that we are simply too big and widespread to be neutral in anything, anywhere -- and focuses only on "U.S. meddling" is not going to listen to anything you say.
Another narrow-minded, antiAmerican simpleton making a pathetic hijack attempt. It has absolutely nothing to do with the debate on whether W. Bush should, can, or will be impeached. |
The more your points are refuted, the more insulting you become. I'm beginning to seriously doubt you're out of high school. |
Whatever Al Qadia , Khomeni follower and Saddam all fought to conquer the mideast or even more than that.
All would perscute their minorities and all refused to give up their war.
Anyone want to say it is not so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
244,700 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
86%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.4%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
7.6%
I don't know.
1.8%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo asked the question "Like what?" in response to my previous post.
Yes, Joo, it is likely that the current stupidity that passes for foreign policy by the Bush administration, and the lickspittles who support it, will lead to MORE violence on US soil. Attacks by an increasingly hostile group of Middle Eastern nationalists, extremists, terrorists, religious fanatics and patriots in their own lands. Their numbers are growing. They are strong and diversified. They will discover a way to attack again. Current US policy is akin to throwing a rock into a hornets' nest. The hornets get all riled up and counterattack. You shouldn't attack a nest of bees unless you are prepared to kill them all.
As to your question, I could design and present to you, on the internet, a dozen possible attacks followed by a dozen more. Why would I do that? I have no interest in helping terrorist scum attack the US. I want the attacks to stop so the people of the US can live in peace. This will only happen when the US brings its troops home and lets the world live in peace. WE SHOULD BE THE HORNETS NEST THAT NO ONE DARES TO ATTACK.
It is not in the interest of the American people to have a government that makes enemies abroad and makes the world a more dangerous place to live. The US should be peaceful, neutral and militarily isolationist. As George Washington advised long ago: "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." Such a policy will earn the respect of the world. No one would attack Americans at home or abroad. Other nations would once again wish to join the US as states. The US would be a peaceful, free, economic giant - a threat to no one. Only then would the US, and its military muscle, be truly respected around the world. We could be friends to all, but all would respect the slogan "Don't tread on Me". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
.
| Quote: |
Yes, Joo, it is likely that the current stupidity that passes for foreign policy by the Bush administration, and the lickspittles who support it, will lead to MORE violence on US soil. Attacks by an increasingly hostile group of Middle Eastern nationalists, extremists, terrorists, religious fanatics and patriots in their own lands. Their numbers are growing. They are strong and diversified. They will discover a way to attack again. Current US policy is akin to throwing a rock into a hornets' nest. The hornets get all riled up and counterattack. You shouldn't attack a nest of bees unless you are prepared to kill them all. |
Mideast regimes are just about all police states - not so different from North Korea. They control the media and they know what the elites do. Almost all the clerics in the mideast are paid by the government They can put down Al Qaeda if they want to.
| Quote: |
| As to your question, I could design and present to you, on the internet, a dozen possible attacks followed by a dozen more. Why would I do that? I have no interest in helping terrorist scum attack the US. I want the attacks to stop so the people of the US can live in peace. This will only happen when the US brings its troops home and lets the world live in peace. WE SHOULD BE THE HORNETS NEST THAT NO ONE DARES TO ATTACK. |
Al Qaeda fights for the caliphate they want the US out of the region so they can take it over for themselves.
Removing US forces from the mideast will not stop Al Qaeda. What they demand is far more complicated than that.
Why Al Qaeda fights
| Quote: |
So, Spencer asked: "You have no regret, no remorse?"
"No regret, no remorse," Moussaoui responded.
When he left court after the judge and jury, he yelled: "God curse America. We will win. It's just a question of time."
In a lengthy explanation of why he hates Americans, Moussaoui said Islam requires Muslims to be the world's superpower as he flipped through a copy of the Quran searching for verses to support his assertion. He said one verse requires Muslims "to fight against all who believe not in Allah."
"We have an obligation to be the superpower. You have to be subdued," Moussaoui said. "America is a superpower and you want to eradicate Islam." |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060413/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui_64;_ylt=Ak2hWb8eL0RydxMFW7eTJpETv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Why don't you get it?
| Quote: |
| It is not in the interest of the American people to have a government that makes enemies abroad and makes the world a more dangerous place to live. The US should be peaceful, neutral and militarily isolationist. As George Washington advised long ago: "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." Such a policy will earn the respect of the world. No one would attack Americans at home or abroad. Other nations would once again wish to join the US as states. The US would be a peaceful, free, economic giant - a threat to no one. Only then would the US, and its military muscle, be truly respected around the world. We could be friends to all, but all would respect the slogan "Don't tread on Me". |
The reason the US is targeted is cause mideast governments , elites and the media over there all too often teach hate and incite violence for political ends.
Notice not to many went out and demonstrated when Assad destroyed the city of Hama, when Saddam gassed MUSLIM kurds, when Khomeni killed 30,000 of his own citizens in 1988 or when Bin Laden's Al Qaeda killed muslims . What relgion were those of the Northern alliance you tell us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Joo. If you believe that the mideast regimes "can put down Al Qaeda if they want to" then that is one more reason for the US to leave.
While the US remains in the Mideast, it is convenient for these police states to whip up their populations to resent the US and wink at or even fund Al Qaeda. The US and Al Qaeda fight, and those police states and dictators can stay in power. When we leave, Al Quaeda and the police states can get down to business. Al Quaeda will fight for its caliphate and the dictators who do not want this caliphate will put them down. So, we can win by staying out. But, if the dictators fail and Al Quaeda starts to win, we still have the option to fight if they attack the US.
Your point supports my argument.
As long as these dictators have the US as an enemy, they can stay in power. Let them deal with Al Quaeda.
After the US finally learns its lesson and becomes a peaceful, neutral state, the people in the Mideast will learn that neither their leaders nor their governments nor Al Quaeda are their friends. The people can rise up and change the region, just like in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
As far as Moussaoui, he's a true wacko. His words do nothing to support your side. Perhaps a war against the mentally ill? He volunteered to be a martyr and feels guilty because he didn't die. He was duped into this suicide mission by leaders who don't lead by example, but instead hide like the true cowards that they are. (is Osama a coward or is he dead? or both?)
Amazing, I quote George Washington, you have Moussaoui. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Thank you Joo. If you believe that the mideast regimes "can put down Al Qaeda if they want to" then that is one more reason for the US to leave. |
They wont' do it unless they are forced to do it.
| Quote: |
While the US remains in the Mideast, it is convenient for these police states to whip up their populations to resent the US and wink at or even fund Al Qaeda. The US and Al Qaeda fight, and those police states and dictators can stay in power. When we leave, Al Quaeda and the police states can get down to business. Al Quaeda will fight for its caliphate and the dictators who do not want this caliphate will put them down. So, we can win by staying out. But, if the dictators fail and Al Quaeda starts to win, we still have the option to fight if they attack the US. |
Even if the US is not there Al Qaeda will go after the US. Attacking the US shows the mideast that they are powerful.
Besides Al Qaeda wants Spain back and they want North Africa and SE Asia.
You don't understand what they are demanding.
who is Jemaah Islamiah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemaah_Islamiyah
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/jemaah-islamiah/
| Quote: |
Your point supports my argument.
As long as these dictators have the US as an enemy, they can stay in power. Let them deal with Al Quaeda. |
They won't deal w/ AQ unless they are forced to. and you also leave out that it was the objective of both Khomeni and Saddam to conquer the mideast.
| Quote: |
| After the US finally learns its lesson and becomes a peaceful, neutral state, the people in the Mideast will learn that neither their leaders nor their governments nor Al Quaeda are their friends. The people can rise up and change the region, just like in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. |
Just like North Korea. and they got oil to buy off their elites and populations.
Those regimes are too cruel to ever be overthrown.
| Quote: |
| As far as Moussaoui, he's a true wacko. His words do nothing to support your side. Perhaps a war against the mentally ill? He volunteered to be a martyr and feels guilty because he didn't die. He was duped into this suicide mission by leaders who don't lead by example, but instead hide like the true cowards that they are. (is Osama a coward or is he dead? or both?) |
that is why AQ fights.
| Quote: |
| Amazing, I quote George Washington, you have Moussaoui. |
One is alive one isn't with us anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher, did you ever notice how often children fight. Every day. People who "grow up" learn how not to fight. They learn how to live in peace. They learn how to be neutral.
You are right about growing up though, the US needs to outgrow this childish habit of being a bully in the world. Eventually bullies get put down by someone smaller. Bullies are always big dumb guys supported by other big dumb guys. They push their weight around until some "David" defeats them. If the US doesn't grow up it will be destroyed.
The world is complicated. It's too complicated for any government to try to manage it through war, manipulation, covert and overt operations or even diplomacy. These acts make enemies who will attack the US, its citizens, businesses, churches and children. It has nothing to do with "making all of the people happy all of the time." Not making people happy does not make them your enemy - attacking them does.
Furthermore, being "neutral" means in military and diplomatic terms. Citizens of the US will be able to travel, invest and trade as the representatives of a truly international, peaceful nation that leads by example. People who are not cowards. True Americans do not have to hide in bunkers nor behind the US military. We can go out in the world alone unafraid. At least we could if the US government hadn't spent decades making billions of enemies around the world - people who hate Americans because of things the US government has done. Evil things. The US government supported and funded Sadam and made enemies. Then we attack Sadam and make more enemies. The manipulations in country after country would and do fill hundreds of books. You want me to post item by item, but it's not necessary. I disagree with all of these policies, individually.
Yes, the world is so complicated and many Americans are clueless as to how it works. They follow Bush blindly. They have followed the interventionists blindly for a long time now. The world is not getting safer under the leadership of this group. They are Democrats and Republicans. They are not high on the IQ scale. They do not understand people nor how the world works.
The people of the world will follow principled, moral leadership gladly. One reason the US can and must be neutral IS because it is big. This does not make childish interventionism necessary, but indeed, makes it unnecessary and foolish.
When the US is big and neutral, the US economy will grow faster. Trade will grow. Nations that are free and friendly will grow with the massive investment that free Americans will bring to them. Nations that are afraid of little petty dictatorships without the US to protect them can become states of the US. If the US was a free and peaceful nation, they would want to.
And finally, you pointed out the many individual people who go to America seeking prosperity. This proves once again that my point is correct. The people of the world do not hate Americans or a free market economic system. They want to be a part of it. What they do hate is the Government of the United States - with good reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
