Hi Sam!
11 Jan 2003, "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SE> Bush did manage to graduate from Yale and later got a MBA from
SE> Harvard, so he may not be as stupid as he seems at times.
SE> He's obvously dsylexic and struggles with word order and formation
SE> when he ad libs--but he's not stupid.
I think you are right that his dyslexia makes him sound more uninetligent than
he really is.
But than on the other hand he has extremely simple and naiv views.
good, bad etc.
Reality is not black or white, but gray.
Things are not simple, but complex, and this CANNOT be ignored.
And severe consequences will result if he goes on ignoring it.
And the world has changed as well ...
now the UN can do much good ...
But we all have to change as well.
In former times the US has done much good by "giving balance to the force"
(also some bad also resulted from it) but now there's an organization which
stands above any single country.
But IMHO it is very hard for america, because it was allways isolated.
(I mean they were strong enough to easily live without the rest of the world)
so they "did their thing" and did not really "care" how things are abroad.
America has to get a global view.
America cannot do whatever is best for it, if it severly hits the rest of the
world (kyoto, oil etc.)
America has to respect that *ALL* humans (including non americans) have rights.
The rest of the world has to do more to support peacekeeping missions.
Too often (especially in europe) have we relied on the strength of america ...
if anything goes wrong, cry for help, and America will come.
IMHO the real differences between america and europe (and the most of the rest
of the world) are small, and relatively easily can be overcome.
SE> Also he's an idealist, doing his level best to defend the United
SE> States against a very real threat and danger.
I truely believe that he believes this.
But this is a completely new kind of danger ...
and the measures he takes are IMO not appropriate.
They will only severly limit the freedom of americans, but not seriously hinder
terrorists.
And Sam (the other one) wrote a quote which is EXTREMELY right:
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
exactly this is the path were current politics will lead to ...
and that scares me.
SE> But he's not seeing the whole picture accurately. Not seeing the whole
SE> picture accurately is the great, naive failure of Americans. And I say
SE> that as a patriotic American who wants his country to live up to its
SE> ideals.
I couldn't agree more.
And IMHO everybody wants america to prosper.
America is a big and very important country.
The only difference is how to achieve this.
And IMO W goes exactly the wrong direction.
Ignoring the causes of things, and even enhancing isolation.
SE> The burden of American economic might and military power is
SE> troublesome. It would be easier to be Canadian or Austrian or
SE> Finnish and not be expected to act on the world stage.
I 100% agree.
But as there is a multilateral organization america can free itself of some of
the burden, while still holding extreme power in its hands.
But it would no longer be able to do illegal (assasinate people etc.) actions.
But it would also be able to cut the costs, and to have most of the world on
its side. (this would tremendously make the life of terrorists harder, because
they would loose most of the support they may even yet get)
SE> Yet if North Korea or Iraq built an atom bomb and either used it to
SE> blackmail Europe or Japan or Austrailia or sold it to terrorists who
SE> want to blow up Jakarta the world would demand to know how come we
SE> didn't do something about it.
This has to change.
The "world" has to do it themselves, and not rely that america does it.
(Anyways America will be a big part of the "world")
But it is "not good" (TM;) if america doesn't share its information, only to
support their views.
Eg. america wants war, but doesn't share information about the iraqi nuclear
program.
W often said that he has important information about it, but the UN nuclear
organization (here in vienna :) has still not received it.
America has to stop to do "its thing" and take an even stronger part in
multilateral organizations.
SE> I'm not saying that America should invade anyone. But, we do
SE> have legitimate concerns that the world expects us to do something
SE> about because nobody else can.
I agree that this is the case.
But IMO it is more desirable to have an international "army" under a
multilateral command (with a very strong american aspect)
More desireable for both sides at the end.
SE> America needs to grow up, learn more about the world and get
SE> smarter about how to handle the responsibilities that our global
SE> strength imposes on us.
I wholeheartedly agree ...
But the rest of the world has to change, too.
We have to think more globally, and we have to emancipate ourself.
SE> Sam Ewalt
CU, Ricsi
PS: apropos Korea (I know ... but I mix up which one is south and which one is
west :)
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> Money makes the world go around <=-
