Man, that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Great satire Shark. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

When you oppose the world, the world opposes you. When you give the ultimatum, "you're either with us or against us," some will choose to be against you to maintain independence, and those who are pressured into being "with" you resent it. Bush makes the world uneasy. They fear us instead of respect us. I doubt that people in other countries see the US as a benevolent force in the world. They see our government for the greedy, power-hungry corporate entity that it has become. They don't see interventions--they see invasions.

In the worldview, Bush is just another in a long line of conquerors, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, from leaders of the Crusades to Hitler. He had an agenda to invade Iraq, and he did whatever he had to do to see this achieved, ultimately lying to his own people. How bad will the US look if we vote such a liar back into office?

It's not old-fashioned conquest where we raise our flag in the conquered lands. We control them without overtly claiming their land as ours. It's easier to use and abuse these conquered countries when we own everything on the down low. If we actually claimed them as our own, we would have to hold our actions there to the same standards that we have in our country (not so lofty under Bush, anyway). Instead, our corporations move in and rob them of their resources, enslave their workers and "bargain" away their power.

After Bush, we need a complete makeover in the image that we present to the world. The UN is a good place to start. That's only one step. Ultimately, we will need to show that we value human life (human as in any citizen of the world) above profit (fat chance--but we could at least improve on this). We need to put corporations in their place.

Great refutation, Tom.

There was a poll taken of Hungary secondary school children here asking which foreigners were most admired and which were most hated.

Bush was the second most hated foreigner, behind Hitler but ahead of Stalin, Osama and Saddam.

If that is just Hungarian school children, what is the perception of children across the world? These are future political leaders, future policy makers in the world arena.

I've seen many people say that Bush is changing the face of the middle east. He's going to democratize Islamic countries so they can see an example of how we live and that will fix all problems. Yeah, right. Democratic nations comprised of voters and politicians who hate us more than terrorists. That'll show the world, won't it?

Tom: "Man, that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Great satire Shark."

Thanks, Tom! And you know how much I value your opinion!

But you know what's really funny?


It's not satire.

IT'S.

ALL.

TRUE.

Seriously.




(And no, it's not reallyfunny)

Dirtgrain, excellent analysis. Bears repeating:

"...After Bush, we need a complete makeover in the image that we present to the world."

Let's just hope that there's an "after" after Bush. At this rate, who knows.

Which segues into Boom's poll of Hungarian children: I shudder and think "I wonder if there's too much damage already done? I wonder if it will take generations to heal the image of the US?" --- while another might think, "Fuck a buncha Hungarian children."

That's sorta what we're up against, the dichotomy of the current US, and personally, I think we're closing in on The End of the American Experiment.

(Thanks, George!)

Don't worry, Santa Bush has enough presents for all the children in the world.

"I think we're closing in on The End of the American Experiment." -- Shark

You wish.

The old "World Policeman" analogy is very fitting here. We are held to a much higher standard than other nations exactly because of our power. A policeman getting caught beating a criminal will get more attention and anger stirred up than criminals shooting each other in the face, raping minors, etc. etc.

In Sudan right now is a government allowing tens of thousands of it's citizens to be killed based on race. Up to a million more are facing starvation. Where is Omar al-Bashir on the list of Hungarian schoolkids hatred? Nowhere.


America is and will be hated around the world as long as we are the lone superpower. People in general are at least suspicious and often resentful towards others with more wealth, power, and authority. It's a good survival instinct and not going to go away anytime soon.

Liberals have a good argument that we could minimize the hatred if we minimized our world military presence. If we left the middle east and somehow reduced our dependence on their oil the Fundamentalists could go back to terrorizing their women and leave us alone for the most part. Although it would take several decades longer, freedom and democracy would still gradually creep in without us forcing it on them.

Of course UBL appreciates the extra support he gets right now from the war. The other solution would be to do nothing, accept the status quo, and settle for a bomb or hijacking every couple of years. Were taking a greater risk now to hopefully enjoy a future with a stable, democratic middle east..

Of course UBL appreciates the extra support he gets right now from the war. The other solution would be to do nothing, accept the status quo, and settle for a bomb or hijacking every couple of years.

Instead of saying 'the other solution', you should say 'another solution of many, but one that nobody is recommending is'

"...The other solution would be to do nothing, accept the status quo, and settle for a bomb or hijacking every couple of years. We[']re taking a greater risk now to hopefully enjoy a future with a stable, democratic middle east..."

You wish.

(I love that junior-high phrase!)

Democracy at the end of a gun won't work, and we'll continue to see terrorist acts no matter what we do or who we invade. (You're not only wishing, but you're dreaming if you think we're not.)

Invading Iraq was a short term solution that's creating long term problems.

(BTW: It's still a fucking disaster over there. 56 dead Americans in July (remember sovereignty, turnover, freedom, donuts...etc?) And while 900 some-odd dead Americans seems to be a small price to pay as part of your "greater risk" -- there are aspects of your 'greater risk' that remain unseen and immeasurable (like hundreds of more terrorists created), billions down the tubes, and Afghanistan's insane talibanian cats back outta the bag.

We'll never 'exterminate' the terrorists; we can only hope to convert them to our greedy, educated, corrupt, materialistic, science-based ways.

Fuck democracy and invasions:

Save money, save lives;

give them free cable.

I stand corrected. I have never heard anyone say that they wished we had done nothing. I have seen people, especially on the left, who have opposed everything we have done. Not quite the same thing.

Wars are out. The Patriot Act is an invasion of privacy. The Homeland Security department is a joke. The President is playing politics with the alert system.

Economic sanctions would be more harmful to us than them and didn't work for years on Saddam. It doesn't leave a whole lot of options. A couple of ideas have circulated such as spending more to protect critical resources, ports, etc. A good idea but it is inherently more difficult to play defense than offense and that doesn't exactly solve the problem.

The bottom line is that we need to eliminate the source of the anger that fuels the terrorists. I believe that until the middle eastern governments go through radical reform, either through internal or external stimuli, we are going to continue to be haunted by international terrorism. Democracies such as Hungary and France may not like us much, but I don't see they're citizens lining up to be suicide bombers either.

"we'll continue to see terrorist acts no matter what we do or who we invade."

Agreed, regardless of what GW says we are at greater risk now. My hope is that the long term outlook has been improved.


I think a little Playboy channel could ease quite a bit of the tension over there. Maybe free cable would do the trick.

The bottom line is that we need to eliminate the source of the anger that fuels the terrorists. I believe that until the middle eastern governments go through radical reform, either through internal or external stimuli, we are going to continue to be haunted by international terrorism.

I agree 100% that we need to get rid of the source of the anger. I think Bush is doing the opposite of that though.

In terms of this long-term strategy that conservatives keep touting as the way to win the war, to reshape the entire Middle East, etc. all I can say is there is one of two things going on:

1) people aren't really looking at the long-term picture. A president is limited to 8 years tops. Bush is 50% of the way there practically. Doesn't give him much time to reshape the Arabic world into his mold really. At the best, we're going to be further entrenched in 4 years, into a global plan who's current participants and objectives will be moot.

Sorry folks, Democracy is the best form of government in the world, but religions including Islam can thrive in democracies. And democracies can be run by religions. I can point to a real good example of that if you are ever interested. And terrorists can live in democracies too. I don't see how a man in a cave, who travels by camel, is going to be hampered if we put him in an environment with a car, 24 hour news and a computer and telephones.

2) The only other thing that could be going on would be some fine print in the Patriot Act or something that will suspend the 2008 elections indefinitely so this long term plan can be fully executed.

"More than 900 US troops have died since Bush declared "the end of major combat" in his infamous "mission accomplished' speech in may 2003."

This isn't true. Slightly more than 900 have died TOTAL, since the start of the liberation.

"Democracy at the end of a gun won't work"

Worked pretty well here in the US, over 200 years ago...

"Democracy at the end of a gun won't work"

Wasn't the Magna Carta signed pretty-much at sword-point?

Given Hussein's death count, which estimates indicate is at least 800,000, that averages out to at least 32,000 deaths per year directly attributable to Saddam Hussein and his Baath party regime. I think the huge average drop in the Iraqi death toll at the hands of their own government speaks for itself. Or would you prefer the death toll in Iraq keep rising?

RJ: Worked pretty well here in the US, over 200 years ago...

Who, exactly, invaded and forced Democracy on America?

RJ: Worked pretty well here in the US, over 200 years ago...

Hal: Who, exactly, invaded and forced Democracy on America?

RJ: Wasn't the Magna Carta signed pretty-much at sword-point?

Shark: RJ, your grasp of history is, well... um... interesting. I don't know where you get the 'democracy at gunpoint 200 years ago' thingy, but to equate a group of English barons coercing a few rights from a King -- with an American Army invading a hostile Islamic nation, setting up a puppet government, and hoping democracy takes root is... well.. interesting.

You're in college, right?

re: Saddam's death count -

If controlling Saddam's 'death count' is "our job" -- fine. State the Iraqi invasion in those terms and let the public decide.

Didn't happen.

Meanwhile, as his original justifications lose merit (WMDs?), Bush has gone through a long, ever-changing list of justifications for this war.

Today's justification: "Saddam's Death Count".

That's their story and they're stickin' to it!

Ar, matey...

'Evilwhiteguy' want a cracker?

Sure, just as long as you'll share that Kool-Aid you've been drinking. Crackers make me thirsty.

Without guns, war, and death, the "United States" would have remained mere English colonies, and would not have been a beacon of democracy in the late 1700s.

(Butterfly effects from this? Not good, globally...)

Iraqis tried to rebel, and were unsuccessful. For numerous reasons, the US intervened, and is now allowing democracy there to have a chance.

You oppose democracy for a previously enslaved people? How..."liberal"...of you... :-/

Yeah, RJ, now I see now;

The US invading other nations to plant "democracy" by force is equivalent to American colonists using guns to fight against a monarchy.

Yeah. THAT makes sense.

RJ: "You oppose democracy for a previously enslaved people?"

Yes. And get this: I also oppose people enslaved by false analogies!

For Art Green, latest and youngest addition to the deluded right-wing whack hacks on Blogcritics.