international politics, news and any damn thing at all
Bush not the Anti-Christ Shock!
Published on June 10, 2004 By noragchick In Current Events

The death of Reagan and the way it was greeted in the media got me thinking about George Dubya. Last week I hated him. This week I don't. Before people make their minds up on Bush and the wars, consider this.

The Taliban are fascists. I don't care if they dress it up and call it religion, fascists are fascists.

Saddam was a psychopath and good riddance to that

Oil for food schemes and trade embargos had taken their toll on the Iraqi population . Most Iraqi children were malnourished

Regular bombing raids on Iraqi infrastructure went on quite frequently through the nineties. Consequently, there was inadequate water supplies, inadequate sewage, inadequate transport, inadequate everything. This was helping the spread of unnecessary and often fatal diseases.

No one in the west was ever going to lift the embargo or stop the bombing whilst Saddam was still in charge. The hardship was indefinite.

Then I thought, even if Dubya lied about his motivations for going to war (and I don' think he did), there would still be the redemptive prospect of a democratic Iraq at the end of it all and if that does happen, then who cares if Dubya's main objective. was something more than sheer altruism. The Iraqi's won't care.

I am quite aware that there is one reason in the above post to want to marry George Jnr but I'll think of something

Comments
on Jun 10, 2004
so it takes a death to make you like Bush eh? How typical of the man. Imagine! You don't like him until someone dies. They you like him. Whatev.
on Jun 10, 2004
Very succinct despite the drivel miki drones on about.
on Jun 10, 2004
I live in England. Yeterday one of my colleagues got on a plane to Washington to pay her last respect to the Ray-Gun's remains. This is nothing if it isn't psychotic. I wouldn't travel that sort of distance to see a live Bush (even if I do want to marry him) let alone a dead Reagan. Its disturbing
on Jun 15, 2004
Basically, when one cuts through all the high-sounding rhetoric, this is nothing more than an ends justify the means argument. But if Bush were truly interested in giving Democracy its best chance of survival in Iraq, there is a lot more he could have done:
1) admit to the Iraqi people, as well as Americans, that we had made a mistake in supporting Hussein in the 80's despite knowing that he was using chemical weaponry against the Kurds (amongst others) and made it clear that we will never again value political expediency above human life;
2) planned better for the possibility that the Iraqis might not be as supportive of an American occupying force as they turned out not to be (considering our past support of Hussein, have we really given them any reason to trust us?);
3)barred Halliburton from any of the Iraqi restructuring contracts. Even if one agrees they were best suited for the job, doing so would have gone a long way to laying to rest any suspicion the Iraqis may have had that the war was undertaken for financial gain;
4) allowed companies that weren't part of the alliance to bid on the contracts. Not only did this make him sound like a petulant preteen who decides to take his ball and go home when things don't go his way, but I was under the impression that we went into this war to do what was best for the Iraqis, not as a favor granting scheme to those who supported us; and
5) made it clear that even if he didn't think that enemy combatants were deserving of being covered by the Geneva Convention standards, that they were still entitled to basic human rights. If nothing else, this would have given us a means to show that things, like the treatment of prisoners, are done differently, and better, under democracies than they are under dictatorships. But more importantly, it would have all but guaranteed that something like the scandal that took place at Abu Ghraib would have never happened.
on Jan 25, 2005
i think that bush and this whole thing you say about starving children and no water...blah blah blah... in the U.S. there are so many of our OWN PEOPLE that are left without water and food and die of hunger each day. Our troops are over in hell to defend our country that is fooling more than 50% of our people. The troops are without the right protection. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Why are we not in Afghanastan? I dont understand how you really think that our greatful leader is real leading our country... i hope when i 30 i will not be living in slavery anymore. how do you think the roman empire fell? hummm sound like it will happen eventually. oh and how about your rights as a female getting thrown away because what bush says is that it makes our country weaker.. yeah i really wanna stand up and shake this morons hand!
on Jan 26, 2005
'Basically, when one cuts through all the high-sounding rhetoric, this is nothing more than an ends justify the means argument.'
Well spotted, Emoticon Man. This argument is on a par with those other classic Machievellian arguments: 'Like him or not, Hitler certainly built some cracking motorways' and 'Mussolini? Well he may have been a fascist but at least he made the trains run on time.'
on Jan 26, 2005
may whatever gods exist have mercy on your soul.

TBT
on Jan 26, 2005
What about afganastan?