Harry,
Straw man:
remember 800,000 dead in Baghdad alone?
On the other hand, my guess is that Iraq will prosper as a result of
Saddaam's demise but the form of government will not be to our liking and
there will be a resurgence of conservatism. You may stop seeing women on
TV without a scarf across their face.
Bill
On Wed, 28 May 2003 16:55:23 -0700 Harry Pollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Keith,
>
> Your final sentence "This is a most fascinating change-point in
> history" is
> the most apt description.
>
> IQ is not necessarily the best gauge of Presidential ability.
> Probably the
> worst recent President was Jimmy Carter, a thoroughly nice
> individual with
> a high IQ, but ouch!
>
> However, Carter was almost an accident. A surprise to everyone.
>
> The deliberate political intention to become President requires
> qualities
> that do not necessarily make one the right person for the job.
> American
> Presidents, just like the "leaders" of other lands, are not
> particularly
> successful. We can be grateful if they "make do" accomplishing a
> rare
> success without doing to much harm.
>
> Bush actually did something with American power and Blair did the
> right
> thing by allying Britain to the US. Every prediction of absolute
> doom so
> far has been shown to be wrong - and even silly - remember 800,000
> dead in
> Baghdad alone?
>
> Most problems until now have been the byproducts of success. We did
> the job
> too quickly and efficiently. We weren't prepared for the suddenness
> of our
> victory.
>
> As I said, I thought the chance of finding WMD weren't high. I also
> think
> it doesn't matter. Yet, that's where Western criticism is at the
> moment.
>
> As soon as utilities are effective again, the Iraqi will be happy
> again,
> though they'll be looking for relatives in the mass graves for a
> time There
> are still 'enemy' out there who have lost their premium positions
> under
> Saddam are now angrily like everyone else. They'll be dangerous for
> a while.
>
> Iran and Syria have been told in no uncertain measure "Stay!"
>
> They have.
>
> The Israeli/Palestinian dialogue is perhaps about to occur. I
> pointed out
> earlier that this had begun before the war ended. Whether successful
> or
> not, Bush has maneuvered the best chance of resolving the insoluble
> perhaps
> ever.
>
> If Bush manages the impossible, what will you say then? But, of
> course,
> both of us hope he will.
>
> Harry
> ------------------------------------------
> Keith wrote:
>
> >Harry,
> >
> >At 11:34 27/05/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >>Keith,
> >>
> >>Or perhaps it won't fail.
> >
> >We'll have to see.
> >
> >>Would you concede that an American President who is prepared to
> act
> >>rather than talk, who has just completed a successful war with
> minimum
> >>casualties on all sides against an enemy of Israel, might have a
> decisive
> >>effect on a somewhat implacable Israel?
> >
> >Bush could certainly have a decisive effect on Israel-Palestine,
> but if
> >Sharon starts making objections and there's a stalemate then Bush
> will
> >take his side, not the Palestinians'. I don't see America's
> long-term
> >partiality to Jewry changing much in the coming years.
> >
> >>Unlike Clinton, Bush offers the aspect of someone who means what
> he says.
> >>He also controls the money that keeps both Israel and Palestine
> going.
> >
> >That's true and he'll keep sending the money to Israel.
> >
> >>I'm coming to belief that the problem is more Palestinian than
> Israeli.
> >>The Israeli "occupation" as Sharon called it may end. Palestine
> must
> >>quickly form a government and Arafat must release control of the
> several
> >>security services he presently holds.
> >
> >I think the problem is now so complex that only force majeure will
> solve
> >it. Constructively, it could be done by the imposition of fair
> boundaries
> >on the two nations by America. In fact (I fear) the force majeure
> will be
> >applied by the Israelis against the Palestinians and the Americans
> will
> >supply the former with whatever they need by way of munitions.
> >
> >>My fear at the moment is that the settlements may be destroyed in
> the
> >>Israeli withdrawal. They should be placed in the hands of
> Palestinians by
> >>the new Government. (Think of that political Pandora's Box.)
> >>
> >>Saw a bit of Bush this morning. He was chatting amiably with a
> bunch of
> >>baseball people at some kind of ceremony. He joked, made allusions
> to
> >>some inside baseball stuff, generally was most relaxed.
> >
> >He is certainly able chat to baseball people! But ring me up
> (reverse the
> >charges) when you next see him talking socially to anyone halfway
> >intelligent -- doctors, say, or scientists, or international
> politicians
> >or university deans or even, so help me, a bunch of CEOs.
> >
> >>Didn't see any of the Gnomes of the Beltway handing him a script,
> or
> >>prompting him, He was on his own as a former President of a
> baseball
> >>franchise.
> >>
> >>Rather, as he has been on several occasions that I have seen.
> Notably
> >>that Press Conference, where he walked alone some 40-50 feet up to
> the
> >>podium - then engaged the Press for about 50 minutes, as I recall.
> >
> >On any one occasion he has a bunch of carefully prepared statements
> and he
> >won't depart much, if at all, from those.
> >
> >Once again, Harry, I have absolutely nothing against the guy. He is
> about
> >of average intelligence and the product of his minders ever since
> he went
> >into politics. The point is that someone of average intelligence is
> simply
> >not good enough to be a leader (in any real sense of the word) of a
>
> >complex and powerful nation.
> >
> >>No other President has appeared before the Press without a covey
> of
> >>handlers with him. Also, I can't remember another President
> spending so
> >>much time with the Press. Usually someone from their 'covies'
> tells the
> >>President to end the session.
> >>
> >>I see a different President from the one who is reviled in the
> Press and
> >>elsewhere. I do see the BBC news every night. (Channel Four News
> used to
> >>be on over here, but I can't find it. Maybe it has been
> discontinued.)
> >>
> >>The BBC is definitely biassed against America, and particularly
> against
> >>Bush. That's a good reason for every American and Canadian to
> watch it.
> >>For they'll see anti-American opinions that perhaps will never be
> heard
> >>on our newscasts - except with accompanied amazement. "How can
> they?"
> >>
> >>Bush now has a reputation. I hope he won't lose his nerve, but
> will use
> >>his successes to bring a peace of some sort to the Middle East.
> >
> >Snowflake in hell's chance, I'm afraid. I wish you were right but
> I'm
> >extremely doubtful.
> >
> >But let's not get too excited about all this. Time will tell and
> let's
> >hope that there's time for both of us to see who is right about
> Bush. This
> >is a most fascinating change-point in history.
> >
> >Keith Hudson
>
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242
> http://home.attbi.com/~haledward
> ****************************************************
>
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
