The Bush Foreign Policy

:yawn:

 

Kras - You have to understand that here in the United States, we spend an enormous amount of time and money on things you consider frivilous. We're having one heck of a party over here and I can understand why you envy us and critize us. The US spends about $250billion annually on vacations, and another $18billion on lawn services. The nation is fighting the war in the middle east with one hand tied behind our back because very few people here really have their heart in it other than family members of the military. It's the wrong war at the wrong time.

Moen - As you have posed the question, there probably isn't a solution at this point. I think there are only two goal worth pursuing at this point. (1) keep the oil flowing, and (2) try to keep a low enough international profile so that the USA fades into the background in a few years and lessens the chance that we will be a terror target. Nobody in history has been able to tame the middle east, and it is unlikely that we will be the first to succeed. I have no concrete suggestions on what to do at this point. It might be too late.

 

I have one possible solution now that the military opinion has failed or is well on it's way to failing...Negotiate!

No we can't say that we had a glorious victory and our military is up to any task we give them and we may have to eat as much crow as the Russians did in Afghanistan, but there are those in the international community that just may begin to respect us again if we put down the sword and pick up the pen.

I'm willing to say George Bush was a fool and move on. It's sad that so many people had to die before we reached this point but that's the consequences of electing leaders so utterly unfit to serve. This isn't the first time it has happened to America and I'm sure it won't be the last either. You can have disagreements over any past president but when you have to start measuring their presidencies in body counts, it's a good time to take a good hard look at what the cost of their agendas has done for us and the rest of the world.

A good negotiator rather than a war president is looking more and more attractive all the time.

 

Who are we supposed to negotiate with? And what are we to give them that would make for peace? And do we stay there until we are done negotiating? And I wonder if it would take as long to negotiate a peace in Iraq as it has taken to negotiate one in the Middle East with Israel et al?

Edited to add that I am not slamming, I am just not sure how we negotiate our way out of there...

 

start by making nice with Iran, they elected that wacko in RESPONSE to our wacko. If we had a moderate they would elect a moderate.

 

Study conflict of Chechenya, and you will find that Russia really not have heart in conflict there either. It is in a part of Russia not many people care about anyway. Mostly muslim and only reason Russia hold it is because they sit on potential oil reserves. In past, early XXth century there was oil wells there, but now largely used up. Until Nazi invasion get caught up with Volgograd(Stalingrad) battle, oil wells of Caucusus area main objective of drive into USSR.

I think Bush should give up long vacations at his ranch, where Bin Laden hiding, and maybe go vacation in Iraq instead. Iraq is now safer than Florida, they only have 3.000 civilian deaths last month from insurrection. :hail:

 

If you knew anything about Iran, you find that this guy elected because religious fanatics wanted someone not a reformer like Rafsanjani or any other moderates. Election was not fair, and box stuffing happened. You Americans think Iran all fanatics, but actually it is a moderate country led by few fanatics that hold power through secret police and religion drama.

 

Only good negotiation is that with a bomb, missile or gunshot. All else you might as well bend over and say stick it to me.! If you cannot win, then get hell out and not negotiate. Just bomb to XIIIth century.

 

The rulers (Guardian Council, Supreme Leader, etc) of Iran are not elected.

 

Just who would you promote for this office that had the characteristics of a 'moderate'?

 

it is a moderate country, though most of the population are under 24 thus do not vote. I happen to have friends from Iran and I do not think they are fanatics (your assumptions are incorrect). That election was as " fair" as ours in America if not more fair.

 

probably a bit less direct than our electoral college, but the same type of idea

 

most of Iran are moderate, do you know any Iranians? try talking to an Iranian about the political disposition of the typical Iranian.

 

From what I have been able to read and been told by those who experienced his administration, President Fanklin D. Roosevelt was generally thought of as a fairly nice guy. There wasn't this name calling and grinding of teeth every time his name was mentioned and a body count was given for the fighting forces.
A quick review shows that a total of 462,016 members of the military were killed, and another 565,861 wounded during WWII. These people had to wait 60 years to have a memorial built to honor them, and never complained about how they were treated.
So what is you'r point old man? Should America have sued for peace with the Jap government and harbored the German military who fled their country when Russia drove into town? Is this what you are proposing, or do you want to turn tail and run for their lives. It's no wonder the GI's are now wearing their armor on their back. With this type of thinking and the Dems in office yelling 'what are we doing there" and "I wanat out, now". Who can blame them.

 

If you are attempting to compare the war in Iraq with WWII, I can give you no meaningful answer. They are/were completely different kinds of confilcts generations apart. Vietnam is a far better and more apt comparison to the Iraq war with considerably more similarities than either of the two world wars we were involved in.
I guess the knee-jerk reaction of the defenders of this war is to compare it to the last "good" or "honorable" war this country fought. There really is no comparison and I think for any objective consideration of the current situation one would certainly not have to look back as far as 60 years for a legitimate comparison. Ask yourself why you decided to use WWII instead of the many wars that occurred between then and now.

 

If you look at it, you will notice is is circular...like some people's reasoning. Yes, the Guardian Council is appointed by the President/Parliament and the President/Parliament are voted on by the people. However, the Guardian Council gets to choose who runs for President/Parliament. See the problem with considering them 'elected' even indirectly? There is zero chance that a President who the council does not want to be President will get elected. The President is merely a puppet chosen by the Council/Leader. Not only will no one that the Council/Leader does not approve ever get elected President but no President can do anything that the Council/Leader does not approve of. They have decision making and veto power over everything that either he or the Parliament does.

No matter who we elect, it will not change who rules Iran. That is why in the picture you posted, the Supreme Leader is labeled as 'Absolute Ruler'.

 

This was not my intent, but only to illustrate that your statement that President Bush and the number of deaths are somehow related and linked in someones mind is a little far fetched. No one thinks of President Roosevelt and the deaths of WWII, which was far greater than any thing we have even come close to in any of the following wars. To make the statement that you made is clutching at straws to put your spin on the issue.
I just took the long way around telling you it was pure BS!

 

But you're still making the comparison. You're still using a Roosevelt/WWII as a comparison while saying that you're not.

My point regarding body counts in my previous post was a tougue in cheek referrence to Bush's place in the history books. He may have inadvertantly come up with the next statistic we use to gage our future leaders. It just depends on how war-like this country becomes in the future. I can see it happening.

 

And my point is that Roosevelt isn't thought of in that light, so why should Bush be thought of that way?
I don't care which war you want to compare, a death is a death and who ever the sitting President is at the time has the responsibility of that death. Is that so hard for you to understand?

 

The only thing that is hard for me to understand is first; why you would compare a great public servant like FDR to a hack like George W. Bush. Second, you may not care that your comparison is as about as apt as comparing comic books to Shakespeare but if your beliefs mean anything to you at all, you might want to actually put some thought into what you are saying and try and actually care. Third, a "death is a death" isn't all that convincing of an argument unless you don't wish to examine any of the details involved but I guess at least you are being consistent in that respect. And lastly, many things have the potential for being difficult to understand, you are just not one of them. Have a nice holiday weekend Guard buddy. :hail: