Bush is Safer

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

I certainly understand why some simple folks like Bush in this article- which is written exactly for his fanboys, by the way.
The honest, down to earth “president of the world” (text) on a mission, who doesn’t care about media distortion and knows his facts & principles.

Truth is, Geldof and Bush have much in common- both are rich, dumb jerks and both get a boner when they think how many hungry mouths they fed and how goodly good they are.
Truth is also, putting more welfare money into Africa is futile. We’re financing thugs and dictators, literally arming militias and marauders, while at the same time preventing these countries from taking matter into their own hands and establishing a state of right and real democracies with an economical backbone.
Also, American AIDS relief is exclusively tied promoting safer sex through abstinence.

Yes, the same strategy that helped America skyrocket youth-pregnancies and will surely help in countries where often sperm is thought to be a cure for aids. Don’t educate- simply throw money at them and teach the to pray to the lord, cause you know, surely we don’t want them to pray to this crazy allah.

Reauthorizing the Clinton AGOA, however is a good step.

22

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We weren’t attacked because we weren’t bribing enough people to fight Islamists (i.e. foreign aid). We were attacked because we CHOSE to enter conflicts that weren’t ours.[/quote]

Why weren’t they ours? Why doesn’t the US have foreign interests?

23

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We weren’t attacked because we weren’t bribing enough people to fight Islamists (i.e. foreign aid). We were attacked because we CHOSE to enter conflicts that weren’t ours.

Why weren’t they ours? Why doesn’t the US have foreign interests?[/quote]

Because we end up in conflicts that aren’t in our interests?

24

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We weren’t attacked because we weren’t bribing enough people to fight Islamists (i.e. foreign aid). We were attacked because we CHOSE to enter conflicts that weren’t ours.

Why weren’t they ours? Why doesn’t the US have foreign interests?

Because we end up in conflicts that aren’t in our interests?[/quote]

Securing oil from madmen isn’t in our interest? Stopping the spread of communism in our backyard isn’t our interest? The only thing I can think of that wasn’t in our interest is the actions against the Serbs.

25

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We weren’t attacked because we weren’t bribing enough people to fight Islamists (i.e. foreign aid). We were attacked because we CHOSE to enter conflicts that weren’t ours.

Why weren’t they ours? Why doesn’t the US have foreign interests?

Because we end up in conflicts that aren’t in our interests?

Securing oil from madmen isn’t in our interest? Stopping the spread of communism in our backyard isn’t our interest? The only thing I can think of that wasn’t in our interest is the actions against the Serbs.[/quote]

Since the dollar is presently being replaced by the Euro as the world’s reserve currency, as oil and gold shoot to record highs, our standard of living is now going to drop relentlessly. The credit markets are sputtering to a halt and homes are being abandoned throughout the land.

Such an economy CANNOT support an effort to be the world’s policeman. All the things you describe above are going to happen and worse. It will take a global state to restore order, and it will have to be ruthless.

Here comes Big Brother…

26

I guess it is about who controls the oil. I admit, I fell for the spreading Democracy line, for a while. Let me tell you something. You come mucking around in my country, determining our destiny for us, through direct violence, or the backing of a dictator, all so your citizens could operate their SUV’s on the cheap, I’d hate your guts too. I’d burn your flags and celebrate your enemies. Find your own damn energy/oil sources if you don’t like who owns the oil fields.

27

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We weren’t attacked because we weren’t bribing enough people to fight Islamists (i.e. foreign aid). We were attacked because we CHOSE to enter conflicts that weren’t ours.

Why weren’t they ours? Why doesn’t the US have foreign interests?

Because we end up in conflicts that aren’t in our interests?

Securing oil from madmen isn’t in our interest? Stopping the spread of communism in our backyard isn’t our interest? The only thing I can think of that wasn’t in our interest is the actions against the Serbs.

Since the dollar is presently being replaced by the Euro as the world’s reserve currency, as oil and gold shoot to record highs, our standard of living is now going to drop relentlessly. The credit markets are sputtering to a halt and homes are being abandoned throughout the land.

Such an economy CANNOT support an effort to be the world’s policeman. All the things you describe above are going to happen and worse. It will take a global state to restore order, and it will have to be ruthless.

Here comes Big Brother…

[/quote]

You make no sense. Who will be Big Brother if we cannot afford it? Since it is too expensive to use power we will use more power?

28

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We weren’t attacked because we weren’t bribing enough people to fight Islamists (i.e. foreign aid). We were attacked because we CHOSE to enter conflicts that weren’t ours.

Why weren’t they ours? Why doesn’t the US have foreign interests?

Because we end up in conflicts that aren’t in our interests?

Securing oil from madmen isn’t in our interest? Stopping the spread of communism in our backyard isn’t our interest? The only thing I can think of that wasn’t in our interest is the actions against the Serbs.

Since the dollar is presently being replaced by the Euro as the world’s reserve currency, as oil and gold shoot to record highs, our standard of living is now going to drop relentlessly. The credit markets are sputtering to a halt and homes are being abandoned throughout the land.

Such an economy CANNOT support an effort to be the world’s policeman. All the things you describe above are going to happen and worse. It will take a global state to restore order, and it will have to be ruthless.

Here comes Big Brother…

You make no sense. Who will be Big Brother if we cannot afford it? Since it is too expensive to use power we will use more power? [/quote]

Since the USA won’t be the world cop anymore, there will have to be a world government and world police, to keep order. The Chinese won’t do it — they’re too smart to get roped into that thankless task.

With all the crazy shit happening, the world police will have to be absolutely ruthless and diabolical, if it wants to maintain order. The US military will be under UN command, for example.

29

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I guess it is about who controls the oil. I admit, I fell for the spreading Democracy line, for a while. Let me tell you something. You come mucking around in my country, determining our destiny for us, through direct violence, or the backing of a dictator, all so your citizens could operate their SUV’s on the cheap, I’d hate your guts too. I’d burn your flags and celebrate your enemies. Find your own damn energy/oil sources if you don’t like who owns the oil fields.
[/quote]

I couldn’t have said it better.

The first sentence in your paragraph is the bottom line. If you have your hand on the spigot, you have leverage over all other industrial nations.

Dustin

30

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I guess it is about who controls the oil. I admit, I fell for the spreading Democracy line, for a while. Let me tell you something. You come mucking around in my country, determining our destiny for us, through direct violence, or the backing of a dictator, all so your citizens could operate their SUV’s on the cheap, I’d hate your guts too. I’d burn your flags and celebrate your enemies. Find your own damn energy/oil sources if you don’t like who owns the oil fields.

[/quote]

Well put. I don’t necessarily agree that Iraq was solely, or even mainly, about oil. But most Americans’ inability to put themselves in the mindset of our enemies is startling, something Ron Paul mentioned once or twice, to predictable disgust from the GOP establishment.

31

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
Since the USA won’t be the world cop anymore, there will have to be a world government and world police, to keep order. The Chinese won’t do it — they’re too smart to get roped into that thankless task.

With all the crazy shit happening, the world police will have to be absolutely ruthless and diabolical, if it wants to maintain order. The US military will be under UN command, for example.

[/quote]

Who will fund it?

32

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh yeah, sure, we’re already going bankrupt through domestic welfare programs, might as well speed up the process by increasing spending on foreign welfare programs. WE’RE ALREADY BORROWING MONEY FROM THE SAUDS AND CHINA TO FIGHT OUR OWN WARS, AND TO PAY OFF DICTATORS! [/quote]

Wars are expensive. Those that drag on and on because of poor planning and lack of international support are costlier still. But that’s another debate.

The amounts mentioned in the article, spent over years, are but a tiny fraction of what Iraq costs per month… I’d wager that the return calculated as “people whose life is improved / dollar invested” is also much higher.

There are some things that private charities cannot do. Some problems are best handled with the US Govt’s clout and influence. I don’t see private charities being able to convince drug companies to install programs so that poor countries can get access to AIDS drugs, or being able to mobilize NATO into a peacekeeping mission.

Some problems are beyond the scope of what a private charity, or even a whole gaggle of them acting in concert, can achieve.

Your cost analysis also discounts any future returns from these “investments.” A more productive Africa is good for everyone involved. So is a better educated one, a healthier one, etc. Instead of letting future terror breeding grounds simmer and fester, you increase the chances that you’ll end up with trading partners.

It’s long term, but I think it’s myopic of us to ignore it simply because the ultimate pay off starts in two or three generations.

We suffer enough from short-term planning; from administrations that do as little as possible while pushing off problems for the next election cycle, that we should applaud long term projects that show some vision.

I had to search far and wide to find something Bush did that I agreed with when Jeff last posed the question; now I have two things I can agree with.

33

[quote]pookie wrote:
I had to search far and wide to find something Bush did that I agreed with when Jeff last posed the question; now I have two things I can agree with.
[/quote]

Well, I’m still searching for something I can credit Bush for. Anyways, my responses are still the same. And, I’m just going to have disagree with you all as to what the role of the US government should be.

34

[quote]pat wrote:
[…]

One of the biggest african fronts against islamic terrorism is in Somalia and is being fought by Ethiopia at our request. Their soldiers are their putting their lives on the line for us as well as themselves. Yet the country needs things from us and we are not doing enough to help them. God forbid they turn on us, Somalia makes Iraq look like Switzerland in it’s stability. They have no government. Hopefully we have pledged more aid and dough to them otherwise we’ll have an african front sooner than later and sooner is not good in out current situation.
In the end I do believe their will be an african front to the war, but hopefully what we are doing now will make it a minimal event.
[/quote]

Holy shit, did I call this one or what?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/03/somalia.us/index.html#cnnSTCText

You may call me “the prophet” if you wish! Or master, etc. It doesn’t matter so long as it is reverent!

35

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I guess it is about who controls the oil. I admit, I fell for the spreading Democracy line, for a while. Let me tell you something. You come mucking around in my country, determining our destiny for us, through direct violence, or the backing of a dictator, all so your citizens could operate their SUV’s on the cheap, I’d hate your guts too. I’d burn your flags and celebrate your enemies. Find your own damn energy/oil sources if you don’t like who owns the oil fields.

[/quote]

Or for crying out loud for the last time the war isn’t and never was about oil!

We had access to all the Iraqi oil we wanted as a result of the first war there. Oil was in much greater abundance and far cheaper than it is now.

Bottom line is two things, Bush wanted Saddam’s ass and he was looking for a reason to get it. Second, he thought that if we controlled Iraq, we could “change the way the middle east works” . That was his crack pipe dream. Sufficed to say, that didn’t work, but we broke it so we bought it.

Also, Iraq was a problem. They were basically pissing on all the resolutions they agreed to follow, did interact with terrorists and was a basic thorn in the side. It isn’t that they did not need to be dealt with. It’s that obliterating the government and wiping out the entire infastructure of the country by way of war was not the we to handle them. They were not an immediate threat and there were other ways to handle them. Besides that, Saddam was a greedy secularist, that is an easy mentality to work with if you are well resourced as we are.

Make no mistake though, Saddam lost all rights to be left alone when he invaded our ally Kuwait. He should have been taken out then. Since he wasn’t it certainly should not have been revisited by means of war. But don’t trick yourself into thinking Saddam was some innocent choir boy just being picked on by big bad America.

36

[quote]Sloth wrote:
…WE’RE ALREADY BORROWING MONEY FROM THE SAUDS AND CHINA TO FIGHT OUR OWN WARS…[/quote]

Maybe we should fight less wars.

37

[quote]pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I guess it is about who controls the oil. I admit, I fell for the spreading Democracy line, for a while. Let me tell you something. You come mucking around in my country, determining our destiny for us, through direct violence, or the backing of a dictator, all so your citizens could operate their SUV’s on the cheap, I’d hate your guts too. I’d burn your flags and celebrate your enemies. Find your own damn energy/oil sources if you don’t like who owns the oil fields.

Or for crying out loud for the last time the war isn’t and never was about oil!

We had access to all the Iraqi oil we wanted as a result of the first war there. Oil was in much greater abundance and far cheaper than it is now.

Bottom line is two things, Bush wanted Saddam’s ass and he was looking for a reason to get it. Second, he thought that if we controlled Iraq, we could “change the way the middle east works” . That was his crack pipe dream. Sufficed to say, that didn’t work, but we broke it so we bought it.

Also, Iraq was a problem. They were basically pissing on all the resolutions they agreed to follow, did interact with terrorists and was a basic thorn in the side. It isn’t that they did not need to be dealt with. It’s that obliterating the government and wiping out the entire infastructure of the country by way of war was not the we to handle them. They were not an immediate threat and there were other ways to handle them. Besides that, Saddam was a greedy secularist, that is an easy mentality to work with if you are well resourced as we are.
Make no mistake though, Saddam lost all rights to be left alone when he invaded our ally Kuwait. He should have been taken out then. Since he wasn’t it certainly should not have been revisited by means of war. But don’t trick yourself into thinking Saddam was some innocent choir boy just being picked on by big bad America. [/quote]

I was responding to Zap’s bringing up oil.

Now wait a minute, where’s our loyalties? To Kuwait? Screw them. Screw every bloody single Middle-Eastern regime. About the only damn thing they’re capable of is pulling us idiots into their wars. Let the victors set the damned borders. We’ll buy our oil off the winner. Enough with the world cop b.s. And what about Saddam being a bad man? Were we under any threat of an Iraqi invasion?

Time to reexamine where our loyalties lie, and the role of our military.

38

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I was responding to Zap’s bringing up oil.

Now wait a minute, where’s our loyalties? To Kuwait? Screw them. Screw every bloody single Middle-Eastern regime. About the only damn thing they’re capable of is pulling us idiots into their wars. Let the victors set the damned borders. We’ll buy our oil off the winner. Enough with the world cop b.s. And what about Saddam being a bad man? Were we under any threat of an Iraqi invasion?

Time to reexamine where our loyalties lie, and the role of our military.

[/quote]

Hey I am all for digging in our own ground, ramping up the use of “alternative” fuels and pulling every single penny out of the ME. You want to see the Saudi’s panic? Tell them we don’t need them anymore. But you can’t change the past and you can’t undo what we have done. We just have to deal with it now. We can’t undo wrong things by doing more wrong things.

We’ll never be a total isolationist nation again. That hymen has been popped. We can’t shove the genie back in the bottle.