View Full Version : Some of the people, some of the time
Chris Alger
10-02-2003, 08:26 PM
Today's Times:
"Even worse news for the president was that Americans have now also become critical of his handling of foreign policy, which had long been seen as his strength. The latest survey found that only 44 percent of those polled approved of Mr. Bush's overall handling of foreign policy, down from 52 percent in July, and that 47 percent approved of his handling of the situation in Iraq, down from 58 percent in July.
Polls last winter showed that public support for the president's decision to go to war in Iraq was sharply divided along partisan lines, with broad indications of reluctance. Now there are growing doubts about whether the result was worth the loss of life and other costs involved. Only 41 percent said the effort was worth the cost, while 53 percent said it was not."
Good.
Ray Zee
10-02-2003, 08:39 PM
the people always tire of the mop up and dont want to fund the costs. cant blame them. bush needs to go into iran or korea just before the election to insure his triumph. if he thinks that is his best shot you can believe he will do it.
clinton was a liar that wanted to make the country better. bush is one that wants to make his cronies better off.
still he is lucky the war went so well for the u.s.
Wow - you are one cynical person. To think that a president would kill so many people to get reelected represents the worst and most disgusting thinking that America has to offer. Where are your facts?
Such hateful thinking with nothing to back it up. Hm...how do you know Clinton wanted to make the country better and that Bush wants to makes his cronies better off..pretty tightly connected with both adminstrations are ya?
Ray Zee
10-02-2003, 09:59 PM
you are so right. i cant think of any past presidents that sent many people to their deaths to stroke their ego. and its just coincidence that wars and invasions start just before election campaining. maybe you thought johnson was a good man.
clinton passed lots of things for the environment. bush passed things for big business.
Holy cow! You are one cynical dude. Why not believe in the best of man unless you have proof otherwise?
Chris Alger
10-03-2003, 01:28 AM
If some other country, Syria for example, waged war with Iraq using the same grounds and evidence Bush did, would you call it "hateful thinking" to say that he waged war for no good reason?
ACPlayer
10-03-2003, 07:32 AM
The proof is there for those willing to see it. The proof will never be there for those unwilling to see or hear of it.
God - you sound like the Preacher
First off, I am definately not a Republican and I am not for the war in Iraq (or against it).
My guiding principle is always logic and valid arguments. To me, when someone makes statements telling me a guy is a mass murderer and yet provides no argument to support it, I think that is simply hateful.
Chris Alger
10-03-2003, 12:30 PM
1. President Bush deliberate set into motion events that killed 10,000 people.
2. President Bush justified these actions on the grounds that they were vital for self-defense of many more people.
3. Presdient Bush repeatedly lied, exaggerated, and failed to disclose key facts concerning the evidence of self-defense.
4. Presdident Bush's actions therefore constituted acts of military aggression, making President Bush a mass murderer.
One can disagree with the evidence to support these propositions, and perhaps even the logic. But how is it so extreme, so removed from obvious reality that it constitutes an irrationally "hateful" argument?
baggins
10-03-2003, 03:46 PM
anytime anybody tells you that a politician does anything for any other reason that his/her own personal bottom line, they are full of $hit and don't know what they're talking about. all politicians are interested only in getting more money for themselves and their families, and they'll do anything o get re-elected so they can continue using their power to make more money. that's the bottom line of politics.
Well, you have laid out a valid argument. Nothing hateful about that in the least bit, if one believes it to be true. That is far different than the type of comments I was refering to:
bush needs to go into iran or korea just before the election to insure his triumph. if he thinks that is his best shot you can believe he will do it.
Cyrus
10-05-2003, 02:58 AM
"...Americans have now also become critical of [George Bush's] handling of foreign policy, which had long been seen as his strength."
You've got to be kidding me. Before the 2000 election, the man could not remember important foreign policy details, such as the goddamn names of foreign leaders (let alone their inclinations and politics), to save his life. Yet his strong suit was thought to be his foreign policy ?!
Maybe, indirectly, the American people were expressing how they felt about his other areas of expertise...
Cyrus
10-05-2003, 05:43 AM
Question:
<font color="blue"> Would the US President engage in a Military Action Abroad having as primary considerations getting re-elected and his place in History (eg as a Fighter against Terror) ?</font>
Considerations:
1. Politicians, like every other animal, are primarily interested in their survival and longevity. For politicians, longevity means time in office.
2. American politicians are no exception to the above rule.
3. The U.S. President is a politician, albeit with a limited term of office. However, for American Presidents longevity also involves their place in History, as they perceive it.
4. Direct financial interest is rarely anymore, if ever, a consideration for the actions of a US President. (There has been no case whereby a post-WWII US President faced financial difficulties after his term in office.) This means that we should not be looking for direct financial benefits to explain the actions of US Presidents, eg oil stocks.
5. The U.S. has engaged routinely post-WWII in military action abroad (call it MAA) with relatively small loss of life for Americans and heavy casualties for the opposition. (Korea and Vietnam were exceptions.) This means that Americans, in general, are not surprised or shook up when MAA news hits.
6. The majority of the American public always supports the Presidents in his MAAs, in practical terms. Moreover, the popularity of a sitting President has always increased, and in a big way too, during MAA.
7. The Military/Industrial Complex (call it MIC?) has grown much more complex and more industrious since the time Ike coined the term. It encompasses a large part of the US Economy and, most importantly, workforce. (Note that it doesn not necesarily follow that what is good for the MIC is good for the US Economy.)
8. The American public will not support any MAA without a reasonably-sounding excuse, such as has been provided for the numerous MAAs so far. (Call it the American Residue of Morality.)
9. This means that a large part of the American public will support the US President in any MAA, as long as reasonably-sounding excuses can be provided, with particularly strong support provided by the MIC and the people with small or big vested interests in the MIC, eg jobs.
10. The concentration of ownership in the American media, the onwership's current strong ideological bias to the Right and its commingling with MIC interests ensure that, irrespective of the standard appearances of "impropriety", the media will behave "patriotically" in case of MAA.
Summary:
If the US President will engage in MAA, he will :
engage in nothing that his predecessors haven't engaged in almost routinely,
face no serious public opposition,
actually enjoy greater popular support,
have the MIC solidly by his side,
have the tacit support of the media,
have a far bigger chance of getting re-elected.
Answer to the Question: (Fill in the dots)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.