Third Party & Independents: Archives

I don’t think Bush is trying to take ‘all the credit’ for the movement towards democracy in the Middle East.

If it was ever going to happen without the ‘boost’ given by the Iraq war, we will never know. It may have - eventually.

It will never be ‘justified’ to those who based everything on the WMD’s and seemed to miss all the other reasons for the Iraq invasion.

Who actually created the hate towards the U.S.? Was it the ruling dictators to justify their own rule? Did they convince their people they were protecting them from the west?

With the age of the internet, satellite TV and phones, exactly how long would people have continued to believe the U.S. played the enormous part in the way they live that they have been convinced of for so long?
We may buy the oil, but we had virtually no control over the governments and the way they spent the money.
People of the Middle East are far from stupid. A lack of knowledge is completely different.
They have realized that their own rulers are the ones suppressing them to stay in power.
Until the U.S. stepped in - full force - and they know we won’t back down this time - the people couldn’t muster the strength to do this alone.
How could they have believed that if they had an uprising in their own country it would have done them any good?
From what I’ve heard, the U.S. has admitted that our ‘support’ of these governments was wrong and had gone on for too long.
I’m sure that even those still so pissed about the issue of no WMD’s can believe the Iraqi invasion may ultimately have been the right thing to do.
Of course it is still the beginning and will be a long time before any of us know the results.
We in the U.S. have to speak in ONE voice about democracy along with the rest of the world.

All those who gave President Bush all the blame for everything that went wrong in the Middle East should give him at least some of the credit for good results.

The Neocons always had transforming the Middle East as a key goal. I googled transformation Middle East and Wolfowitz and came up thousands of entries. Many of them were critical of the idealism of the Neocons. A very good background is from the PBS show Frontline.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/dominoes.html

We are still at the beginning of the process, but the transformation looks a lot like what happened in 1989. If President Bush had backed down in 2003, this would not have happened. About that I have absolutely no doubt.

If the transformation does take place, even partially, it will vastly enhance the security of the United States and end up saving lives both here and in the Middle East. It will have been the equivalent of an operation to remove a cancer. It was hard, dangerous and costly, but worth the cost.

I don’t expect G.W. Bush or the U.S. to get much of the credit. The chattering classes are already saying that this is something that would have happened anyway. But we can take pride in having been instrumental to bringing freedom to last part of the world that didn’t have it.

Jack said: “If the transformation does take place, even partially, it will vastly enhance the security of the United States and end up saving lives both here and in the Middle East.”

Folks, don’t even believe this right wing propaganda. It only takes one terrorist and one suitcase to cause 10’s of thousands of deaths to Americans. And as long as the right wing insists on spending your tax dollars overseas instead of on securing our borders here at home, our risk will remain at extremely high levels no matter how much democracy spreads in the Middle East.

Please, use your head, and face the facts. Don’t fall victim to the right wing propaganda designed towards wealth enhancement in a host of ways, while continuing to ignore the real threat against Americans at home.

David

We should work on securing our borders, but we can’t make our borders 100% secure. Our free society is vulnerable to terrorists. Even if we prevent anyone bringing in bombs, they can make them locally. The 9/11 highjackers didn’t bring anything dangerous into the country except their hatred.

Truly securing the borders is not a matter of physical or technical security. As a society, we are unwilling to take the necessary steps to protect ourselves. Our success in the Middle East doesn’t affect this, but success in the Middle East might make the world less dangerous and that would help.

After all, for all the troubles we have with the French, we really don’t expect to be attacked by French terrorists. Why is that?

As Fareed Zarkia quoted in Newsweek, Tip O’Neill’s “all politics is local” is dead on. Give them a chance to focus on their own political bums over there and maybe they’ll leave us alone.

I know that’s a “maybe” and not a “they will and they’ll love us to boot” David, but as Fareed also said before the war, “I’ll take my chances with change.”

From one dice roller (me) to another (GW), roll them bones…..

Jack said: “We should work on securing our borders, but we can’t make our borders 100% secure.”

Jack, we can certainly make our borders far more secure for Americans than we can make the world safe for America. The former we can afford to do, the latter is impossible given national states and human behavior in perceived environments of inequity, and not within our financial resources to accomplish even if it were possible.

Bush’s priorities as well as that of many on the right are just plain don’t make logical sense from the point of view of security. Now put economic futures potential enhancement to certain vested interests and some of those priorities begin to make sense from a motivation perspective.

But, to claim the 200 to 300 billion spent in Iraq when all is said and done will make us safer than if that money had been put on our border security, is just plain nonsense.

David

I don’t think that securing the border is about money. Do we, as a society, want the things that come with a really secure border? We would have to keep out foreigners from many countries of the world. If we inspect everything, the cost of products will skyrocket. And it is impossible anyway. Even places like North Korea, which is one big concentration camp, has some smuggling.

Jack, it is about money, ingenuity, and intelligence. If we can master the technology to put a man on the moon in just a few short years of planning, if we defend, largely successfully, against the Soviet Union spy programs using our own highly developed international intelligence capability, and if we can throw a 1/3 to 1/2 trillion dollars at foreign nations for their sake, we can surely secure our own borders.

All that is lacking is political will, and that puts the problem squarely in the Republican’s court.

And the border problems tie in to the need for more workers who pay into our tax system.
We aren’t having the babies. The workers have to come from somewhere.
This is the reason very few of our politicians are trying very hard to do something about the border - including John Kerry.

Personally I don’t see how making us more secure on the border is going to scare off the legitimate immigrants.

The ball is in the court of our WHOLE government. If the dems really cared enough about it they would be making much more noise than they are.

Hey. The Republicans are doing the best they can to make America secure. Hundreds of people have already been Extraordinarily Renditioned to other countries for torture and abuse. Hundreds more are being treated the same at Abu Graib and Gitmo. I am sure that among these many a few would HAVE to be guilty, right?

Besides, there is talk of eliminating the minimum wage altogether. That should help rise the profit margin of BushCo.

David,

You say it is all about money, ingenuity, and will. But jack is right as well.

Look at what we have already with the little increase we have done. There are 11 ACLU lawsuits against the search of passangers at airports.
You know there will be more.

One congressman suggested the “internal-tag” idea for frequent fliers.
This is a little microchip implanted in your body, just like they do to pets to make them easier to find.
Now, do you really trust ANY government to be able to track everywhere you go at all times?

How intrusive to everyday freedoms are you willing to go?
Which freedoms are you willing to give up to “guarantee” our borders?
Which freedoms are others not going to ber willing to give up that you might?

David,

…as long as the right wing insists on spending your tax dollars overseas instead of on securing our borders here at home, our risk will remain at extremely high levels no matter how much democracy spreads in the Middle East.

The total political chaos and oppression today in the middle east is a direct result of how these governments were set up in the first place.

All the modern nations of this region were set up a century ago by European powers, when fascism and socialism were on the rise and considered the height of modernity. They followed the west’s moronic example of putting into practice command and control economies and limited private property rights.

The truth you are desparatly trying to avoid is a demonstration of how economic freedom brings both prosperity and civil tranquility.

Capitalism = peace.
Socialism = terror.

…All that is lacking is political will,

Ironically this phrase reminds me of this exact period of time. You might as well have said that we need someone who can make the trains run on time. Hmm?

Mr. Martin -

* Groans * Why the heck did you have to say “sole” credit? That makes the only reasonable answer “no, of course not!” There are very few events in all the world attributable to one cause, and something as interesting as the recent events in the Middle East is definitely not one of them.

Why in the world couldn’t you just say “Can The U.S. Claim Some Credit For Democratic Movement Sweeping the Middle East?”

Daniel—

Because Bush in his usual arrogance is acting like the credit is all his…

Those of us that live in the Southwest see the invasion on our Southern border every day. We see it in construction, groceery stores, fast food resturants, on our streets, in the hospitals and at local government services.
Stand in a line anywhere and ask how many people speak English.
Jack, I realize that completely securing the borders would be imposible.
Could we at least pretend that we are making an effort to do so?

Rocky:

I’m quite certain that the number of people who speak English has nothing to do with how secure our borders are. While I’m sure they’re somehow partially related, a statement like that only shows a close-minded, stereotypical American attitude that gives us the amazing reputation we have around the world right now.

To the topic at hand: I don’t believe that the President is trying to claim sole responsibility, nore do I think his verbage suggests it. Like any other second-term President, he’s looking for a nice line under his photo in history books that says something about democracy and peace in the Middle East. While one might question his methods for starting the process under false suggestions and red flags with pictures of WMDs being waved, one certainly can’t be frustrated with him for his efforts.

Because Bush in his usual arrogance is acting like the credit is all his…

Where? When? Can you cite one example of President Bush ‘acting’ like he is taking ALL credit for what is going on?

“Could we at least pretend that we are making an effort to do so?”

One would think so, seeing how “pretending” is what politicians do best.
Neither side cares about the common man.

Rocky, I spent two months down in San Antonio mexico last year and I know what your talking about. Its a beautiful place though.

” While I’m sure they’re somehow partially related, a statement like that only shows a close-minded, stereotypical American attitude that gives us the amazing reputation we have around the world right now.”

Mr. Spin,

When I visit a foreign country, and I have visited many, I make an effort to learn enough of the local language to, at very least, get by.
I don’t “expect” the locals to speak English.
If that sounds closed minded and arrogant to you, it sounds like you are the one with the problem.

“The total political chaos and oppression today in the middle east is a direct result of how these governments were set up in the first place.”

Eric,

We were among those that “helped” set up these governments in the first place.
We were “Johnny on the spot” when oil was first discovered, and have been proping up governments around the region ever since.
Shouldn’t we look at the Middle East as a “you broke it, you bought it” kind of thing?

Eric,
Is it me or was this statement of “capitalism= peace socialism= terror” one of the most simplicist, generalized, and outright absurd comments on this post. Don’t worry, as far as how partisian you are, I don’t expect anything less of your message. From my observation, people in socialized countries are the ones with freedom. These are not facts but my observations in places like France. They are happier, healthier, less violent, more control of their government, less war, and they are in a generally socialized country. Germany is more socialized than France. Your second favorite country in the world, Israel, is more socialized than the two of these countries. Can you please back the, “socialism=’s terror” rant.
David, being that you have way more knowledge than me, jump on my side for this please. You are a part of the Green Party so you can attack this generalized view of socialism and socialized programs. I am looking forward to hearing from you Eric and David.

Martin,
I don’t know what Bush is doing, as far as taking credit. I personally don’t care either. I am actually starting to get more on the bandwagon of neoconism when I see stuff like Lebanon, considering I am a part of the Kerry Generation. David’s argument is compelling and I will seriously consider his before any drastic moves. It is way to early to tell so I will stick with the Democratic Party for now.

“Sole Credit” almost certainly not. “But for” credit, meaning that if the US had not acted, democracy would not be rearing its head at this time—quite possibly. “A very large amount of credit”, almost certainly.

My problem with Bush taking credit for Democracy spreading across the Middle-East, is that like a lot of past antics of this administration, it it short-sighted.

One only needs to look at history to find a better model than Japan or Germany, Post WWII —- which can be found in Africa. Post WWII, several colonies in Africa were given their independence because it didn’t seem right, after having fought a war over democracy, that the Allied countries themselves had colonies in Africa.

Overnight, sovereignty was granted, and before long, these countries were corrupted by local tribal leaders. To this day, just look at the Republic of Congo, they still haven’t gotten it right, or at least as expected.

If the President’s idea is to stay in Iraq until it is a stabilized (pro-US) sovereign state, we are in there for the long haul, and at serious risk to our patriots who are putting so much on the line.

Bush can claim responsibility for attempts at democracy in Iraq, BUT, the rest is due to globalization, not Bush. Globalization of media news and information, globalization of economics and finance dictate that countries at odds with the west which includes the EU, will not fare as well as those who seek common ground and confidence in their economic abilities which requires national and social stability.