Bush may have had it right...

Indeed, even I continue to be suprised at how well things have turned out. So far the counterattack against militant jihadist Islam has gone well, and it might even usher in an era where Islam can join the present era, instead of one 1,000 years ago.

 

There is another significant event missing from your list - that is Lybia's rather important policy change. Even back then I considered that one to be a milestone.

Of course all you're going to get from the left are millions of reasons why Bush policy has nothing to do with it - just like Reagan's policy had nothing to do with demise of communism.

Oh well.

 

As long as people think meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations is okay, there will always be more acts like 9/11. Funny how some people just don't like to be messed with.

Is that an acceptable price to pay to see the world Americanized? Is it GOOD to see the world Americanized?

Really, I can see both sides for this, but I'm just not convinced that being the biggest bully in the sandbox is the right idea in the long term.

 

You mean like agression against sovereign nation of Kuwait, or attempted assasination of US president, or harboring people who were behind 9/11 attack that resulted in over 3,000 deaths? Does that qualify as "meddling" in your book?

 

Since being Americanized is the same as having elected governments, freedom, liberty and choice, yes, this is good, very good indeed.

It has worked well for both Japan and Germany and it is working in the Middle East as well.

 

You know, the US government has had a lovely history of assassinations of foreign presidents and supplying subversives--- like, say, Bin Laden. What did that get us?

As for freedom, choice, etc.... I'm not sure what version of America you live in, but there are some pretty severe restrictions on all those things here. The form of democracy and the amount of wealth your country has built up is impressive, but it's also not sustainable indefinitely.

Maybe I see things differently because I am a foreign national myself. I don't think everyone here is jingoistic, but there seems to be a strong thread of 'our way is the only way' and 'might makes right'. It's the enforced application of cultural imperialism that makes a lot of non-Americans angry.

Just sayin'...

 

for all of you extolling the virtues of 'freedom' being on the march... is it really true that freedom IS on the march?.... holding first elections is one thing, being a free country is another... one election does not a democracy make... we'll see how things shape up over the next 10 years...

the reason democracy is working well in america (and 'well' may be an overstatement) is because we were country BORN into democracy, and we're only 229 years old at that.... not only that, but we weren't a truly democratic nation until women got the right to vote in 1920.. technically, we have been a true democracy for less than 100 years..

now, take the middle east... the peoples there have been around for at least a couple thousand years, and they were based upon tribal ties and religious beliefs... trying to export (by force i might add) democracy to areas that have been operating one way for 2 millenia in all probability will not be fruitful... and unless the peoples of these nations truly feel that a democracy is benefitting them, they stand a great chance of going back to the old ways.... it's too soon to tell...

and for those of you talking about aggression in kuwait, harboring the 9-11 terrorists, etc..... kuwait was not a democracy to begin with.. and the opium trade is now going full bore again in afghanistan... and our ally saudi arabia has one of the WORST human rights records in the world, but we aren't pressuring them... wonder why that could be?...... hmmmmmm......

not only that, but is it really good to "americanize' others... this country has seen the rich/poor gap continuously widen during the past 25 years and corporate crime is so rampant it rivals the era of big business that precipitated the stock market crash and the great depression.... and we have our own terrorists that we can't even control, terrorists like tim mcveigh, the unabomber, etc... so us forcing a (right) way of government on another nation when we have our own huge problems is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black....

for those who want to actually learn more about the 'why' of 9-11 and a good middle east contemporary history, i would suggest reading From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman (an american) or watching the discovery channel, which has had specials devoted to it.... and i would suggest that we fix our own country and human rights record and home grown terrorists before we go demanding that of others....

hubris is never an example of noble living....

 

Newk, you are right on target.

 

We were not born into being free, we had a war to do that and we won it. Wars have brought freedom or oppression, bringing good or bringing evil in for the past 200 years.

As far as Tim McViegh or Unabomber, one we put to death, the other we have locked up for life. We are controlling them rather well. McViegh can't hurt anyone anymore and the Unabomber is under strong lock and key.

As far as making demands on others, we have declared war upon our Islamic terrorist foes and the word from the president was that other nations were either with us or against us. That policy was upheld in the last election.

 

So Herr Taylor, you say that because you win a war or an election, that makes you 'right'?

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

Your non sequitur is very Zen.

 

First of all, I know full well that this post was bait, but I just had to respond. However, I will not keep responding to this thread except maybe so as to keep it current so people can see just how much a "fantasy based" reality has taken hold in America.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

When I was a kid and there was ever a downturn in the economy, each party had their own solution. The Republicans wanted a tax cut, and the Democrats wanted spending program. Each had good arguments, and each had repercussions.

Well GW did BOTH. Massive tax cuts and massive spending. He poured over *1.2 trillion dollars into the American economy over the last 4 years and you’re PROUD of just 262,000 jobs? The issue isn’t whether Bush’s economic policies have turned the economy around, it’s how can you spend so many trillions and get such a meager response? And don’t forget the repercussions, have you seen how the American dollar is collapsing? Also in the past, tax cuts were targeted to the middle and lower classes. GW's was targeted to the rich. THAT IS THE MAIN reason those tax cuts took 3-4 years to work.
{*Edit: after my post I found other sources that suggest that 2.4 trillion is more acurate, but you get the idea.}

Also when I was a kid, I used to argue with my mother and whenever it got mentioned that FDR ended the depression, I was told that FDR did not end the depression, WWII did. So how is it that for GW Bush, the war on terror has slowed down our economy, but for FDR war caused the economy to thrive?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

Mubarak has done this before. And he is doing it now because Bush threatened to withdraw the 2 billion we give him every year. Plus, in that part of the world, it’s pretty easy to have sham elections so don’t be too sure that things will change. Indeed, 85% of his parliament is his party, and that parliament has always been elected. With those kinds of numbers, it's doubtfull he will lose his job. And who is the next highest in his party? His son.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

I work with a doctor from Lebanon. Most of his family is still there and he goes there for a month every year. He assures me that what is happening in Lebanon has NOTHING to do with GW and has been brewing for 5 years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

But the Dow has never been a productive economic indicator. It's more like gambling.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

Elections do not equate to Democracy.



Yes, everybody, I know, I'm wasting my time. But I love the USA and fear just how successful the corporate owners of our media have been in getting people to believe that Bush is very nearly a God.

When in actuality, GW Bush is the most dangerous American President since Jefferson Davis, partly because he has been so successful in repealing the 20th century and returnign us to the way government functioned in the 19th. And all this time I thought the 20th century was a success.

 

Very well said Prius04. Good to hear someone else argue the opposite end.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"70085)</div>

It would be utter foolishness to be sidetracked by such considerations. The only issue that concerns US policy makers is whether Iraq (or Guatemala, or Nicaragua, or Chile, or Iran, or Panama, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or or or--the list goes on forever) is cooperative. We support governments that welcome US corporations and who play by the rules dictated to them by US policy makers. Elections are nice window dressing (totalitarian societies have almost universally been careful to hold regular elections), but "elections"--far less "democracy"--are not the point of the process. Not now, and not ten years from now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"70357)</div>

When I was a kid and there was ever a downturn in the economy, each party had their own solution. The Republicans wanted a tax cut, and the Democrats wanted spending program. Each had good arguments, and each had repercussions.

Well GW did BOTH. Massive tax cuts and massive spending. He poured over *1.2 trillion dollars into the American economy over the last 4 years and you’re PROUD of just 262,000 jobs? The issue isn’t whether Bush’s economic policies have turned the economy around, it’s how can you spend so many trillions and get such a meager response? And don’t forget the repercussions, have you seen how the American dollar is collapsing? Also in the past, tax cuts were targeted to the middle and lower classes. GW's was targeted to the rich. THAT IS THE MAIN reason those tax cuts took 3-4 years to work.
{*Edit: after my post I found other sources that suggest that 2.4 trillion is more acurate, but you get the idea.}

Also when I was a kid, I used to argue with my mother and whenever it got mentioned that FDR ended the depression, I was told that FDR did not end the depression, WWII did. So how is it that for GW Bush, the war on terror has slowed down our economy, but for FDR war caused the economy to thrive?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

Mubarak has done this before. And he is doing it now because Bush threatened to withdraw the 2 billion we give him every year. Plus, in that part of the world, it’s pretty easy to have sham elections so don’t be too sure that things will change. Indeed, 85% of his parliament is his party, and that parliament has always been elected. With those kinds of numbers, it's doubtfull he will lose his job. And who is the next highest in his party? His son.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

I work with a doctor from Lebanon. Most of his family is still there and he goes there for a month every year. He assures me that what is happening in Lebanon has NOTHING to do with GW and has been brewing for 5 years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

But the Dow has never been a productive economic indicator. It's more like gambling.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"69816)</div>

Elections do not equate to Democracy.



Yes, everybody, I know, I'm wasting my time. But I love the USA and fear just how successful the corporate owners of our media have been in getting people to believe that Bush is very nearly a God.

When in actuality, GW Bush is the most dangerous American President since Jefferson Davis, partly because he has been so successful in repealing the 20th century and returnign us to the way government functioned in the 19th. And all this time I thought the 20th century was a success.
[/b][/quote]

I do not recall seeing where Jefferson Davis was a US president.

 

[align=center:6023b80bc5]War Has Never Solved Anything
Except for creating the United States of America
and for ending
Slavery
Genocide
Fascism
Nazism
Baathism
and a few other unpleasant institutions and regimes....[/align:6023b80bc5]

 

By 'genocide' you refer to the native Americans?