Bobby,
I agree that the legacy of past presidents includes contributions to today's foreign policy disasters. However, Keith is right about an abundance of information in the archives. We've been through this before.
There is an abundance of information that supports the position that our current president is one of the most destructive and dangerous leaders in US history. One of the problems associated with this is the fact that only a few politically zealous, media moguls control what you see on the most available news networks. For example, when have you ever seen a report listing the UN resolutions and which way the votes went (how often the US and Israel veto them). Some of those resolutions include the demilitarization of space, nuclear weapons treatise and punishment for UN security council violators. Israel and Turkey had more violations than Iraq at the time of the invasion (for
example).
...and who do we have representing the US at the UN?
Re: John Bolton
"There is no such thing as the United Nations." On the United Nations itself
"If you lost 10 storeys, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." On UN headquarters in New York
"If I were redoing the Security Council, I'd have one permanent member: the United States." On the UN Security Council
"A gleam in one beholder's eye but looks like flat-out aggression to somebody else." On humanitarian intervention
"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so - because, over the long term, the goal of those who think international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." On the US and international law
Bobby Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Some Europeans have never lost faith in appeasement as a way of life." On Europe
When someone says that "we had to do something" or "doing something is better than doing nothing" they are clearly unaware of the crimminal
acts associated with "doing something". How about the total number of dead compared with pre-invasion statistics ("It is better to err on the side of life" - GWB)? And, since when has there even been a thimble full of justification for the war to begin with. Real proof of why the US invaded Iraq is contained in the Downing Street Memos - another document with limited coverage in the US, "main stream" media.
Bobby said: "You can't blame bush for everything". You're right - only the things he's been involved with. Do you really believe that foreign policy, domestic policy, the environment, energy policy, etc., etc., has improved since he took office?
Ending terrorism means understanding why it's there and gathering
intelligence to formulate a solution. Alienating our allies is the first step in severely limiting that effort.
The "war on terror" has made the world a more dangerous place and created divisions which make conflict more likely, says Amnesty International.
Mike
Bobby Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Bush Administration is not trying to kill you. Sounds like a little
paranoia.
First of all, I don't think all of the decisions coming out of this
administration are wrong; although the media would certainly have you
believe so. They really have it out for this president; even to the point of
bending the truth and hiding other elements of it. Not to say that this
administration has not done the same thing at times, but we've come to
expect this in politics, unfortunately.
The thing I like about Bush is that he is not afraid to say how he feels and
believes. He is not afraid to make a decision. Sometimes indecision is
better than making a wrong decision in the eyes of many, but sometimes
indecision and inaction is very dangerous.
The gripes that you hear coming out of those who are against Bush and this
government aren't all problems that this administration created. You can't
blame Bush for everything; well, I guess you can but you'd be wrong. Many of
the problems the nation faces today have been lingering for 15-20 years or
longer. I didn't hear anyone griping about them when Clinton was in office
beacuse most people liked Clinton. You see, for a lot of people it is
personal.
Now if you are against the war in Iraq; then you can blame Bush. If you are
upset about rising fuel costs, you can partially blame Bush (which I do, by
the way). But if you are upset about illegal immigration or the lack of a
future for social security, you can't rightfully blame Bush. These were
problems that were there before he ever took office, but I often still hear
people blaming him for them.
As far as terrorism goes; Bush usn't inciting people anymore than they were
already. Fundamentalist Islam hates America, period. Our way of life is
against what their religion teaches and it (our way of life) continues to
entice many young people out of Islam. 9/11 happened before the "war on
terror" or the war in Iraq (although it seems many forget this fact). They
came on our soil and blew up our buidlings. Swift action had to be taken to
send a message to terrorists who wold hate America even if Mickey Mouse was
president.
I don't agree with this administration on everything; in fact, I disagree
with it a lot. However, I don't let my personal feelings take me on wild
flights of fancy like "the governement is completely evil" or "the
government is trying to kill me". It is in those statements that logic is
absent.
Bobby Clark
[snip]
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
