OT - Question about comment from Bush speech

[Cuckoo]

Did he say brown skins when referring to Arabs? Is this an accepted phrase now? Hmmm...

[wig]

No, he didn't

[cthomer5000]

anyone know where I can find a transcript of the speech/Q&A?

edit: nevermind. available from whitehouse.gov "soon"

[Anthony]

yes he did. that made me do a double take. i'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear of that comment.

[Cuckoo]

I keep searching to see if anyone has mentioned it, but they haven't. I couldn't believe it when he said it. I just thought I was missing something on a new phrase that was accepted.

[Suicane75]

Clear channel just fired him.

[Cuckoo]

Clear channel just fired him.


:D

[cthomer5000]

It's all over the yahoo message board that's tied to the news story. I'm just interested in seeing the context of the statement.

[Cuckoo]

He was just talking about Muslims and said something to the effect of "The Muslims... the brown-skins..." or something like that. It was just matter of fact... odd.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dang, I didn't think I was ever gonna find this.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/04/13/bush13.DTL
"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that."

[cthomer5000]

write it down!

[Cuckoo]

Dang, I didn't think I was ever gonna find this.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/04/13/bush13.DTL
"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that."

Thanks Jon, I was looking everywhere for it.

[wig]

Dang, I didn't think I was ever gonna find this.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/04/13/bush13.DTL
"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that."

I think that's an appropriate use of the phrase.

[Jon]

The transcript is available on NY TImes. com. I looked for it, and found it on page 8 or 9. Here's the specific quote:

"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that.

I reject that. Because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society"

I don't want to blow it out of proportion, but it seems odd.

Edited to note that Jon in the Middle beat me too it.

[cthomer5000]

Well, there doesn't really appear to be any racist intent there... but it's just an unbelievebly odd statement to have in a speech.

[wig]

It is odd, that's for sure.

[yabanci]

I've never heard anybody seriously argue that "brown-skinned" people can't govern themselves, but it's a cheap rhetorical trick that is used sometimes. It's an effort to imply that people who don't agree with what you are doing are racist.

[sabotai]

And in the news tomorrow, Bush Fires Speechwriter

[wig]

I've never heard anybody seriously argue that "brown-skinned" people can't govern themselves....

I've actually heard people say that. :(

[yabanci]

by the way, it was an off-script comment.

[Cuckoo]

by the way, it was an off-script comment.

I was just going to say that - It was him thinking on his toes. :D

[Dutch]

It wasn't in the speech, it was in the Q&A session that followed.

[cthomer5000]

by the way, it was an off-script comment.
In tomorrow's news: Bush hires 12 new speech writers, refuses to ever speak a non-scripted word again.

[Senator]

Come back Karen Hughes.

[wig]

I think his "speech" accomplished exactly what it was supposed to.

Bush supporters that were starting to stray were refocused. I really think that's all this was about.

I know wigneedy finished watching the speech and commented "Wow, he's really what the country needs." I suspect a lot of his straying supporters feel the same way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I've never heard anybody seriously argue that "brown-skinned" people can't govern themselves ...
Maybe you haven't, but I've heard that argued quite seriously
more times than I could possibly begin to count.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Come back Karen Hughes.
Amen to that.

[korme]

you brown-skinned crackas

[VPI97]

I've actually heard people say that. :(I had someone say it to me this afternoon, in fact.

[wig]

That's kind of messed up.

[wig]

The worst part about people that are ignorant enough to say stuff like that, is that they can vote. :(

[Cuckoo]

I just had Shorty say it to me.

[panerd]

The worst part about people that are ignorant enough to say stuff like that, is that they can vote. :(

or be elected president of the United States. :D

[MrBug708]

Dang, I didn't think I was ever gonna find this.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/04/13/bush13.DTL
"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that."


Maybe it's because I live in the biggest melting pot in the US, but I don't see where any arguement would be? He seems to allude to the fact that if someone insinuates that because you are of a certain color that is stereotyped, that you can't rule yourself? i mean, isn't that what we basically do in the airports? I'm pretty sure every airport screen checks a bit more thorough when they come across someone who looks "brown skinned" or like an Arab.

[tucker342]

Obviously there wasn't any ill-intent with what he said... but damn, that is a pretty weird thing to say...

[SFL Cat]

well...he was gonna say "towel-heads", but stopped himself just in time to use the slightly less inflammatory "brown-skin."

Good strategery! :cool:

[BishopMVP]

Brown skin may be an exaggeration, but I've seen it argued many times that Iraqis/Arabs in general/people in the third world don't believe in the same certain values (freedom of speech, representative government) and can't be expected to run their own country. Sort of like the White Man's Burden, except that these people generally have been opposed to American/Western intervention in the case of Iraq.

[Peregrine]

Brown skin may be an exaggeration, but I've seen it argued many times that Iraqis/Arabs in general/people in the third world don't believe in the same certain values (freedom of speech, representative government) and can't be expected to run their own country.

Some of it might be values, but a lot of it is just lack of, and lack of support for, democratic institutions. When you don't have a free press, a history of representative government, etc, and when you have a history of warlord rule and no guarantee that any elected official would actually step down when their term is over, it makes it hard for democracy to blossom. There is an excellent policy paper on the subject here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-505es.html

[Galaril]

well...he was gonna say "towel-heads", but stopped himself just in time to use the slightly less inflammatory "brown-skin."

Good strategery! :cool:


Or maybe he could always ask Rummy for some vocab choices:

"Mr. President how about Ragheads,Camel Jockeys, or Sand Nazis" so on and so and as for "Bush is what this country really needs right now!"-Wig....................ARE YOU F@#$%^& KIDDING ME!

[sabotai]

"Wow, he's really what the country needs."

What's that? Someone who can read? Yeah, I hope we can get one this time around too. :)

[Bosco]

I'm a little shocked that the President would use such a term. I'm sure comments like this will surely help our foreign relations.

[cody8200]

It was not meant in a racist manner at all. He was opposing naysayers. Not a big deal.

[yabanci]

It was not meant in a racist manner at all. He was opposing naysayers. Not a big deal.

Who are the naysayers who argue brown-skinned people can't be self-governing or free? Please point them out to me.

(I agree that it was not meant in a racist manner and that it's not a big deal)

[BishopMVP]

Some of it might be values, but a lot of it is just lack of, and lack of support for, democratic institutions. When you don't have a free press, a history of representative government, etc, and when you have a history of warlord rule and no guarantee that any elected official would actually step down when their term is over, it makes it hard for democracy to blossom. There is an excellent policy paper on the subject here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-505es.htmlI agree with the thinking that the reason democracy hasn't bloomed in the Middle East has to do with cultural and historical factors, not anything inherent in the people. That's why I find it ridiculous when someone says that "they just don't think the same way we do. It won't work."

yabanci - When I was at an ANSWER teach-in, it was stated by a number of people that the people of Iraq and Arab people in general didn't want and couldn't handle democracy.

[Peregrine]

That's why I find it ridiculous when someone says that "they just don't think the same way we do. It won't work."

I think some people interpret, or maybe misinterpret, this as part of the cultural factors you mentioned. For example, the lack of equality and voting rights for women is often mentioned as a major stumbling block for democracy for Middle Eastern states. Is this just because their religion supports a subordinate role for women, and their culture reinforces this? Or is it just that "They don't think the way we do, women will never really be equal." Interesting way to think about it I guess.

[Crapshoot]

I think that's an appropriate use of the phrase.


Im brown skinned, and Indian- I have the worlds largest democracy, one that's been headed by a woman, a minority, and many a former member of a disenfranchised class. Do you know what a load of bullshit that is ?

[yabanci]

...yabanci - When I was at an ANSWER teach-in, it was stated by a number of people that the people of Iraq and Arab people in general didn't want and couldn't handle democracy.

That's a totally different argument than saying brown-skinned people can't be self-governing or free, and you know that ANSWER does not argue that the capacity for self government or freedom is somehow determined by the color of a person's skin.

There are a number of very valid arguments as to why democracy will not take hold in different places, but I was asking this guy to point me to the "naysayers" to whom he referred.

As you know, there is no such "debate," which is why it's a cheap rhetorical trick designed to imply that those who disagree with your policy are racist. It's a variation of the strawman argument.

[Axxon]

It was not meant in a racist manner at all. He was opposing naysayers. Not a big deal.

This is my thought and I wish I could say different as I'd rather have anyone but him in office.

Anyway, we talk about best and worst presidents so here's my list, in my lifetime.

From worst to first.

1. George W Bush - I hate the asshat. I don't see much plus side really.

2. Ronald Reagan - many love him but I don't. He did his best to polarize our society and took a cavalier world view. I really didn't like this guy one bit. He's the only guy who has been president I've hated. Maybe should be #1 but as much as I hated him, as a president I think W is worse.

3. Lyndon Johnson - here's an award winning asshat. Escalated vietnam, did zip at home. He didn't even try. He is an asshat supreme and is easily amongst the worst. His only redeeming value is that the two above him were in office once I was older and therefore I'm more more critical. He may easily be the worst and if argued correctly I'd probably concur.

4. Jimmy Carter/ Gerald Ford - I love both of these guys. Neither was a good president maybe but they both served us as best as they could. They are both great guys. I could talk about successes and failures but I was proud of both of these men though neither would win any awards as president.

5. George Bush - I really love this man. He was a great president working in a difficult time. His choice here is by a nose. The man didn't get a lot of respect but handled a lot of world changes in a great way. Maybe the economy didn't exactly do well but he layed the groundwork for a world economy. He doesn't get credit for this.

6. John Kennedy - ok, he loses points for only living 21 days into my life. I understand his value and respect his life achievements but his accomplishments, minus the MM connection while admirable aren't memorable.

7. William Clinton - damn it's a close one. I had a better life under Bill and I'm not morally againsy blow jobs nor lying about them. I really want to put him as #1 and really he should be maybe. All presidents have warts, both domestically, in foreign policy and in their personal life. Bills didn't affect the country. His were deeply personal but I never felt he didn't care about me. It was great but not quite #1.

8. The winner is, Richard Millhouse Nixon - Sorry, he is my man. RMH had personal flaws and they were big ones. For me though, he was a hero. I was a child during vietnam. I can remember sincerely feeling that the war would go on forever and that I would surely die in a war I didn't give a damn about. This man ended that fear.

That alone would give him a bump sure, but he also championed detente, opening the door to normalized relations to China and brokered the first peace we had in the middle east, a feat we've never been able to really duplicate ever again. Kissinger was the cause? Sure, but who appointed him?

RMN had his faults and they were biggies but overall, his years in office were great ones. We can't easily ignore his warts and we payed for those, but how can we ignore his successes? I just don't get it. Yeah, I was a fan boy. I'm still alive. The world is more stable. All of these have been influenced by RMN. I just can't put an election scandal ( and an unnecessary one at that ) above what good he did. I'm not defending it but it just didn't matter in terms of history.

I imagine this post will piss off almost everybody but trust me, it's from the heart.

[portnoise]

I'm as far from a Bush-ite as you're going to get, but saw the comment and completely understand Bush was not making a racist comment here...

Bush attributes the words to un-named other people in an attempt to conjure the idea of nameless, faceless racists who believe democracy is impossible in Iraq so that he can then say but I'm not one of those racists.

The effect is to paint anyone who opposes the administration's particular vision of democracy in Iraq as a racist and, so, anyone who supports it as tolerant and decent. Of course, this thinking doesn't allow for any debate as to what KIND of democracy there should be in Iraq, or how we should go about pursuing it.

Racist? No. Political? Check.

[Maple Leafs]

As you know, there is no such "debate," which is why it's a cheap rhetorical trick designed to imply that those who disagree with your policy are racist. It's a variation of the strawman argument.A Republican president used a strawman to justify a war in a nationally televised press conference?

Um... can somebody drop by and knock on John Galt's door? You know, just to make sure he hasn't gone catatonic on us...

[Flasch186]

You could take it and skew it any way you want, dems. get mad. reps. say it wasnt a big deal. Much like everything else. Bush wont talk b4 9/11 commission w/o the puppetmaster next to him. Just the latest attempt to cover up IMO. The lying is so engrained in this admin that Im surprised they dont just come out and say, "he didnt say it." then they'll be proof of it and they'll say "it was written by a speech writer" then they say " it was taken out of context." The best question of the night was the question, "there are some who say that you never admit a mistake." I kinda blanked out when he answered though, anyone fill me in on his answer, Im sure it wasnt, "I make mistakes all the time," or "There have been some mistakes." So what was it? No matter what pres. we vote in they will be FORCED to handle Terrorism. It is ridonculous for Pres. Bush to say that without him in office the next pres. will make the US vulnerable. NO PRES not even KUCINICH would do anything to risk American lives. Thats why im not jumping on the 9/11 commission stuff that bush is BAD, cuz if he'd thought for a min. the WTC could happen he would have done everything to prevent it. UNfortuantely since now he is REACTING, in the words of his father, "its bad, its bad." So IMO just another stpid thing the pres. has opened up for the attack, his ignorance. I guess nobody thought he wasn't but for it to slip out was bad form.

[JonInMiddleGA]

As you know, there is no such "debate,"
Just because you aren't familiar with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And just because it isn't something you see discussed publically in a highly visible manner doesn't mean it doesn't exist either.

I know there's no shortage of people who doubt the city of Atlanta can effectively & efficiently govern itself as long as there's a dominant black influence on its politics, so I can't imagine it isn't possible that such doubts exist concerning "dark-skinned" citizens of foreign countries.

I recall similar concerns about various revolutions, new governments etc. during the era of political upheaval on the African continent. (I'm not talking South Africa here, I'm thinking Kenya, former Belgian Congo, etc). While I believe much of the argument/debate concerned the inexperience of incoming black leadership, it was also couched in terms of doubts whether "dark-skinned" people could govern themselves. Those debates (whether public or private) still generally pop-up again for at least a short while whenever an African nation see a government fail/be overthrown/etc.

You can argue that there should be no doubts, you can argue that it simply isn't so; hell, you can argue a racist angle if you want to, argue the point any way you like -- but to say that the doubts (and therefore the debate) doesn't exist is simply not true.

[Bosco]

I guess if you are around a bunch of racists all the time these debates may pop up from time to time, but around educated people I have a hard time believing anyone seriously discusses this topic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anyway, we talk about best and worst presidents so here's my list, in my lifetime.
Mind if I play too, just for the heck of it?

You're apparently just a little bit older than me, as I was born during the latter half of LBJ's second term.

In my lifetime, I'd rank them (in terms of my approval of their overall actions & subsequent effects)

From best to worst:

1) Nixon
2) Reagan (I could pretty easily flip-flop 1 & 2)
3) Ford
4) Bush I
5) Clinton
6) Johnson
7) Carter

Now, I'm purposely leaving off Bush II. His term isn't complete, whether he wins another term or not, even the first term isn't finished. And there's still opportunity for a major fuckup. But ... _IF_ he simply stays the course he's been on, he'll jump straight to head of my list. There's been no President in my lifetime I've agreed with more often in terms of policy, action, or approach. Hell, there isn't even another one that's been close. Certainly not perfect by any means, but significantly more agreeable to me than any of the others.

I imagine this post will piss off almost everybody but trust me, it's from the heart. Eh, we've all got opinions, I didn't see anything in yours that particuarly pissed me off. As a matter of fact, I thought it was kinda interesting that we had the same rough assessment of Nixon but then agreed on virtually nothing else.

[Flasch186]

i can honestly NEVER in my group or circle has a comment about African American's not being able ....oh wait, I mean Black Skins, not being able to govern themselves. It was never even a thought so where is this debate occurring? Maybe only in the White house and that section of the Pentagon with the label, "nation builders" on the door. BTW, theyre doing a great job thus far.

[Butter]

I find myself educated, and the serious debate that needs to take place is not necessarily why can't democracy take hold in Muslim nations, but rather how can it take place? Right now, we are witness to one of the most fascinating social experiments of all time.... can an imperialist-forced democracy really take hold in a traditionally dictatorial state without devolving into an ongoing police action?

If the democracy in Iraq ultimately fails, are we then to assume no democracy can evolve there? I doubt it. I think it takes time... a LONG time for new social ideas to infiltrate a society as closed as theirs. I don't think it has anything to do with skin color, but a lot to do with religion and tradition.

[Subby]

You could take it and skew it any way you want, dems. get mad. reps. say it wasnt a big deal. Much like everything else. Bush wont talk b4 9/11 commission w/o the puppetmaster next to him. Just the latest attempt to cover up IMO. The lying is so engrained in this admin that Im surprised they dont just come out and say, "he didnt say it." then they'll be proof of it and they'll say "it was written by a speech writer" then they say " it was taken out of context." The best question of the night was the question, "there are some who say that you never admit a mistake." I kinda blanked out when he answered though, anyone fill me in on his answer, Im sure it wasnt, "I make mistakes all the time," or "There have been some mistakes." So what was it? No matter what pres. we vote in they will be FORCED to handle Terrorism. It is ridonculous for Pres. Bush to say that without him in office the next pres. will make the US vulnerable. NO PRES not even KUCINICH would do anything to risk American lives. Thats why im not jumping on the 9/11 commission stuff that bush is BAD, cuz if he'd thought for a min. the WTC could happen he would have done everything to prevent it. UNfortuantely since now he is REACTING, in the words of his father, "its bad, its bad." So IMO just another stpid thing the pres. has opened up for the attack, his ignorance. I guess nobody thought he wasn't but for it to slip out was bad form.The Unabomber called. He wants his patented writing style back...

;)

[Butter]

That being said, Bush did what he always does.... you're either with us or un-American, or in this case racist.

[John Galt]

A Republican president used a strawman to justify a war in a nationally televised press conference?

Um... can somebody drop by and knock on John Galt's door? You know, just to make sure he hasn't gone catatonic on us...

Sorry, I was busy.

I think his use of "brown-skinned" was appropriate for his argument. He was saying that "others" would say that and therefore used the idea that he felt they would be thinking. Still, I could understand if someone was offended (especially if they didn't hear the context for its use).

It was also a bad strawman because the only people I've heard make that argument on a regular basis are Republicans (see Cato institute above). The notion of certain countries being unfit for democracy has long been used by certain factions of the GOP in opposition to Democrat's efforts to promote human rights abroad.

[Fritz]

It was also a bad strawman because the only people I've heard make that argument ....


Like you are are the center of the fucking universe

[John Galt]

Like you are are the center of the fucking universe

Never said that. Other so-called liberals above have argued that no one says that the Middle East isn't fit for demoacracy - I disagree. As others have cited, the CATO institute (right wing think tank) and other notable conservatives writing about the Middle East (Daniel Pipes) have made that argument. It justs seems odd for Bush to attack an argument found in his party.

[Fritz]

What you said is it is a bad strawman because the only people you have heard.

Do you consider yourself an authority on the matter?

[John Galt]

What you said is it is a bad strawman because the only people you have heard.

Do you consider yourself an authority on the matter?

I consider myself fairly well read on the matter (but only in regards to the Middle East, Burma and China). And no one has cited a major left wing group or person who has made that argument. I'm not saying the discussion is closed on the issue, but I just found it interesting. If someone can cite liberals who have made that argument, I would be interested in that as well.

[MrIllini]

strawman, bitch

[Butter]

So, Fritz, do you expect John Galt to base his opinions on information he hasn't heard?

Obviously, it's his opinion. If you want to attack his limited knowledge or "liberal" slant, then do so. But don't say that he makes a bad case because he only bases his opinions on things he knows about.

[Fritz]

Considier this John, is it possible that Bush was speaking to Europe?

[John Galt]

Considier this John, is it possible that Bush was speaking to Europe?

Could be. It was probably a bad forum if he was only speaking to Europe on that point (prime time American TV).

[Bosco]

Now, I'm purposely leaving off Bush II. His term isn't complete, whether he wins another term or not, even the first term isn't finished. And there's still opportunity for a major fuckup. But ... _IF_ he simply stays the course he's been on, he'll jump straight to head of my list. There's been no President in my lifetime I've agreed with more often in terms of policy, action, or approach. Hell, there isn't even another one that's been close. Certainly not perfect by any means, but significantly more agreeable to me than any of the others.


Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not you can't honestly tell me you believe we went about it the right way. Alienating the rest of the world is not an approach I think anyone can possibly agree with.

[wig]

Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not you can't honestly tell me you believe we went about it the right way.

I believe he went about it the right way.

[John Galt]

Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not you can't honestly tell me you believe we went about it the right way. Alienating the rest of the world is not an approach I think anyone can possibly agree with.

He does and has said as much in other threads (at least in regards to going it alone). I do think saying things like "is not an approach I think anyone can possibly agree with" is pure baiting. There are a lot of people on the board who disagree with you and saying that no one could argue with your point is disingenuous.

[Cuckoo]

Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not you can't honestly tell me you believe we went about it the right way. Alienating the rest of the world is not an approach I think anyone can possibly agree with.

I also think he went about it the right way.

[Fritz]

Could be. It was probably a bad forum if he was only speaking to Europe on that point (prime time American TV).

The other day I was talking with Ryan S about American politics. I asked if he followed them, and he said it was hard not to. Ryan is Scottish, andI guess not unique.

That said, I don't know who the President was speaking to. Could have been a wing of his own party. It could have been rhetoric. It could have been the intelligencia.

Certainly the idea that people of color, particuarly in the post colonial/emerging world, are not capable of self government is not an idea that is confined by party lines.

In passing, the CATO institue is identified by others and themselves as Libertarian. On quick review, their website does not exactly seems to have heavy pro-Bush tilt.

[Easy Mac]

can we just agree that it was a stupid remark and doesn't tarnish his administration because a) you feel its alrealdy tarnished enough,; or b)it doesn't diminish your feelings of love for Bush; or c) you couldn't give a rats ass anyway.

[John Galt]

In passing, the CATO institue is identified by others and themselves as Libertarian. On quick review, their website does not exactly seems to have heavy pro-Bush tilt.

The CATO institute is most definitely libertarian, but you will find on foreign policy issues that the reasons they criticize Republicans are that they don't go far enough to the right. For the most part, they (and the Heritage Foundation) are the right-wing think tanks used by Republicans in almost every hearing before Congress.

[Bosco]

I also think he went about it the right way.

Why is that? Because he is the President and says it was the right way? Do you think Saddam Hussein was a huge immediate threat? Do you feel that alienating other countries and entering a war without the full support of the UN was the right idea? I agree Saddam should have been removed, but I think had we waited our country's image wouldn't be so tarnished around the world. The way the war was handled is really the deal breaker for me and Bush. I don't agree with his social policies, but I do like his economic ideas. Had he handled the war in a way that signaled he had a clue about foreign policy I would be much more likely to vote for him.

[wheels]

Does Bush realize this, taken from a devoutly Christian website? Oh my! ;)

Noah and his family were probably mid-brown, with genes for both dark and light skin, because a medium skin color would seem to be the most generally suitable (dark enough to protect against skin cancer, yet light enough to allow vitamin D production). As all the factors for skin color were present in Adam and Eve, they would most likely have been mid-brown as well, with brown eyes and brown (or black) hair. In fact, most of the world's population today is still mid-brown.

from hxxp://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html)

[Cuckoo]

Why is that? Because he is the President and says it was the right way? Do you think Saddam Hussein was a huge immediate threat? Do you feel that alienating other countries and entering a war without the full support of the UN was the right idea? I agree Saddam should have been removed, but I think had we waited our country's image wouldn't be so tarnished around the world. The way the war was handled is really the deal breaker for me and Bush. I don't agree with his social policies, but I do like his economic ideas. Had he handled the war in a way that signaled he had a clue about foreign policy I would be much more likely to vote for him.

No, it's not because he's the President and says it was the right way, although I do try as much as possible to have trust in the President regardless of party affiliation because I feel that, for the most part, they truly are doing what they think is right, regardless of whether I agree with it.

I do think Saddam was an immediate threat, and I think that we are better off without him in power. I believe that he was allowing terrorists safe haven in his country and possibly even funding their training. I believe he had chemical or biological weapons that he used upon his own people. In the scheme of the world, this guy was an incredible threat, and although I typically do not believe in any kind of policy for the U.S. that advocates the removal of every leader that does not conduct business in a humane and democratic manner, I feel that the removal of Saddam was warranted and should have been done years ago.

I, unlike some others, do not feel any obligation to the United Nations. I understand its usefulness and hope that we continue to foster its role in world affairs, but I refuse to believe that the U.S. needs a permission slip from them to do what we feel is in our best interests. In the effort of "uniting," Bush went to them anyway and probably would have loved it if they had been supportive, unanimously, of his actions. But, I also don't buy into the rhetoric that comes from Bush-bashers that he is alienating the world. It's B.S. in my opinion. He may be pissing off a few European powers, but there are a great many countries who did and do support the effort to remove Saddam. And for those that don't, that's their decision to make, but it does not change our policies. Again, we don't need their permission or their undying love and support. The fact is: each and every country is out for their own needs, plain and simple. They'll support us when it suits them and not when it does not.

I feel that, under the circumstances, Bush handled the war in an appropriate manner. That said, I am not a huge Bush supporter despite the fact that I may defend him from some various attacks that I consider to be radical. The truth is that if I was making a list similar to Jon's, Bush would definitely not be number one, and if I thought there was another even remotely attractive candidate for which to vote, I would seriously consider it.

I respect your right to disagree with Bush's handling of the situation, Bosco. I just feel that to make a blanket statement about it is unwarranted since a great many people didn't and continue to not object to his action in Iraq.

[ISiddiqui]

But, I also don't buy into the rhetoric that comes from Bush-bashers that he is alienating the world.

You can't be serious. I mean, the US is being protested left and right, not just in Europe, but in countries we consider to be great allies, like Australia and South Korea. It's a very anti-Bush world out there, and not just in Paris and Berlin.

[Cuckoo]

You can't be serious. I mean, the US is being protested left and right, not just in Europe, but in countries we consider to be great allies, like Australia and South Korea. It's a very anti-Bush world out there, and not just in Paris and Berlin.

I'm absolutely serious. The protestors make the news, ISiddiqui, not the people who sit home in agreement. Do I think that Bush is more polarizing worldwide that have been some other U.S. Presidents? Probably. But, I think the extent of that is vastly exaggerated.

[Bosco]

You can't be serious. I mean, the US is being protested left and right, not just in Europe, but in countries we consider to be great allies, like Australia and South Korea. It's a very anti-Bush world out there, and not just in Paris and Berlin.

Exactly, anti-US sentiment is at an all-time high because of the way this war was handled. I've read numerous articles regarding business people having to explain the President's actions to foreign clients and that not all Americans agree with these actions. I really don't see how you can not believe that the war has alientated other countries.

[Fritz]

That went too far afield. My fault

All I was trying to do was point out that I don't think Johns "I have read" statement was enough to qualify his "bad strawman" position. But we know I have an ill reaction to seing the word strawman in John's posts (granted, he did not summon the strawman this time).

WIthout a doubt there is a faction of people on the right who feel that "brown skinned" people can not govern. But I would also say there is a group of less public people on the left who think the same.

I think rest of what followed is what happens on boards sometimes.
-------------

My personal take, for those that care:

First: the President's speechwriters chose this phrase after some diliberation. Certainly it was placed to make the Republicans politicaly inclusive. Perhaps it was also to suggest that dems think differently, but I don't see it that way. Honestly, I haven't a clue who the message was going out to. I just feel it has to do with much more than Iraq.

Second: I fall into the camp that feels that self goverment may be beyond the abilities of the Iraqis, at least for a while. I have long held the position that democracy is a difficult process, and hand holding people to it does not seem to have a good success rate. I think there is more to it than setting up a congress/parliment and opening voting booths.

This is not a position based on racism, but more on cultural traditions.

[Cuckoo]

I really don't see how you can not believe that the war has alientated other countries.

That's not what I said at all. If you want to have a discussion, I don't mind that, but please don't twist my words to fit what you'd like. I said he's not alienating the world, and I acknowledged that he's alienating some in some countries.

[Bosco]

That's not what I said at all. If you want to have a discussion, I don't mind that, but please don't twist my words to fit what you'd like. I said he's not alienating the world, and I acknowledged that he's alienating some in some countries.

I'm sure there are some 3rd world countries without TVs that he hasn't yet alientated but other than that just about every country's people has expressed displeasure with the US government, whether their own governments express these same concerns or not. I take it you don't travel abroad very often.

[John Galt]

My personal take, for those that care:

Second: I fall into the camp that feels that self goverment may be beyond the abilities of the Iraqis, at least for a while. I have long held the position that democracy is a difficult process, and hand holding people to it does not seem to have a good success rate. I think there is more to it than setting up a congress/parliment and opening voting booths.

This is not a position based on racism, but more on cultural traditions.

Here we are in agreement. There are an array of factors that have been used to identify a country's chance of a successful transition to democracy (history of democracy, education, rule of law, good leadership, strong economy, etc.). Iraq is lacking in almost every major indicator.

And for what it is worth, that is one of the primary reasons I opposed the invasion of Iraq. I argued a lot on this board that if Saddam was removed, US efforts to nation-build would almost certainly fail, and democracy was a pipe dream. And it is far from certain that the next leader won't be horrible. Ultimately, that is why I think a strategy of lifting sanctions and aggressively promoting free trade (which used to be the GOP position on foreign policy) is the most effective way to deal with dictatorships over the long run (with a few exceptions). Wars, followed by nation-building, do not often create long term democracies unless the conditions for democracy were already present.

[Cuckoo]

I'm sure there are some 3rd world countries without TVs that he hasn't yet alientated but other than that just about every country's people has expressed displeasure with the US government, whether their own governments express these same concerns or not. I take it you don't travel abroad very often.

Okay, so obviously if 20 percent of the United States population believes that women shouldn't be able to vote, that means that the United States advocates sexual discrimination in voting procedures. There are going to be people in every country that agree with his decision and people who do not.

[Bosco]

Okay, so obviously if 20 percent of the United States population believes that women shouldn't be able to vote, that means that the United States advocates sexual discrimination in voting procedures. There are going to be people in every country that agree with his decision and people who do not.


Your statements have only confirmed that you haven't traveled outside the country much.

[Cuckoo]

Your statements have only confirmed that you haven't traveled outside the country much.

Your statements have only confirmed that you know absolutely nothing about me, that you can't have an intelligent discussion to save your life, and that you continue to make blanket statements about people and ideas about which you clearly have little knowledge.

It's like I tried petting the puppy once again, and once more it bit me. You'd think I'd learn.

[wig]

Your statements have only confirmed that you know absolutely nothing about me, that you can't have an intelligent discussion to save your life, and that you continue to make blanket statements about people and ideas about which you clearly have little knowledge.

It's like I tried petting the puppy once again, and once more it bit me. You'd think I'd learn.

No kidding. Even stevew knows not to debate with this guy.

[Fritz]

And for what it is worth, that is one of the primary reasons I opposed the invasion of Iraq. I argued a lot on this board that if Saddam was removed, US efforts to nation-build would almost certainly fail, and democracy was a pipe dream.


It is interesting. Had we just asassinated the man (or if he just died one day), what would have happened? While we can not know for sure, I feel that there would have been a civil war of sizable proportions. Your standard multiethnic affair with genocide, mass murder, and other attrocities. The kind of thing that destabalizes a region. IMHO, the toll in terms of life loss would have been much higher.

Because of this, I supported occupation as a means to transition the govt. The only mistake I see is trying to make the emerging govt. a true democracy. The minds of the world need to formulate some sort of transitional form that can take a people from totalitarian to where they want to go.

[John Galt]

It is interesting. Had we just asassinated the man (or if he just died one day), what would have happened? While we can not know for sure, I feel that there would have been a civil war of sizable proportions. Your standard multiethnic affair with genocide, mass murder, and other attrocities. The kind of thing that destabalizes a region. IMHO, the toll in terms of life loss would have been much higher.

Because of this, I supported occupation as a means to transition the govt. The only mistake I see is trying to make the emerging govt. a true democracy. The minds of the world need to formulate some sort of transitional form that can take a people from totalitarian to where they want to go.

I think an assassination would have been a horrible idea (as it would be in Cuba). A takeover by the military is the usual result. Rwanda was probably the worst case scenario of what happens when a leader is killed and the military takes over.

I just don't know if there is a model transitional government that will work in Iraq. There are too many minority interests that could cause major conflict. That is why I still believe the best way to attack oppressive regimes is to make the leadership largely irrelevant to what is happening in the country (which is what I believe is slowly happening in China).

[ISiddiqui]

I'm absolutely serious. The protestors make the news, ISiddiqui, not the people who sit home in agreement. Do I think that Bush is more polarizing worldwide that have been some other U.S. Presidents? Probably. But, I think the extent of that is vastly exaggerated.

:rolleyes: Look at the poll numbers! In our allies like Spain, 80% were against the war. In Britain it is similar numbers. I think the amount of polarization has not be underplayed, really.

And we see the problems with alienating our allies in the occupation in Iraq. The entire burden is basically on us because the rest of the world says you told us to shove it back then, now we do the same to you. Frankly, I believe Bush's father could have gotten a consensus.

[Cuckoo]

:rolleyes: Look at the poll numbers! In our allies like Spain, 80% were against the war. In Britain it is similar numbers. I think the amount of polarization has not be underplayed, really.

And we see the problems with alienating our allies in the occupation in Iraq. The entire burden is basically on us because the rest of the world says you told us to shove it back then, now we do the same to you. Frankly, I believe Bush's father could have gotten a consensus.

Don't roll your eyes at me buddy. ;) I haven't seen those poll numbers. If you could link them to me, I'd appreciate it. Although I would still stick to my assessment that we don't need every country's unending support to do what is in our best interest. I do think that we have a number of countries solidly behind us. I do agree with you that Bush I could have gotten a larger consensus.

[Dutch]

The only thing we, as America, can do, is what is in our best interest and hope Europe joins us. If they don't, we have to do it alone. The people of Iraq will remember who helped them 10 years from now when Bush is gone. They will only remember that the USA came in and Europe did not. The leaders simply won't play a factor 10 years from now.

As for massive protest in Europe.

If Bush invades Iraq without UN Support = Bush is evil. USA in unilateralists.
If Bush invades with UN Support = Bush is evil. UN are puppets of USA.
If Bush agrees to keep UN Sanctions = Bush is evil. Bush kills Iraqi children.
If Bush agrees to lift Sanctions = Bush is evil. Allows tyrannt to rule and kill.

That is the cold hard truth of European polarization, in my opinion.

[WussGawd]

My $.02 on the comment.

No, I didn't consider Bush's statement racist taken in context, but I will agree with John Galt. It was a strawman argument. No one on the left side of center has made the assertion Bush suggests, and probably only the most extreme of folks on the right could have argued it. Like Fritz, I'm not sure who it was addressed to.

Spain is only the tip of the ice berg. Tony Blair is in as big a trouble in Britain as Aznar was in Spain, and is very unlikely to be reelected. Howard is similarly despised in Australia. Berlusconi might survive in Italy, only because he basically controls the entire Italian media. Even Bush's approval numbers over Iraq are way down. It isn't just a few banner waving Europeans, the numbers are like 3-1 against the war in much of Europe.

I opposed the war in Iraq at the time, simply because Iraq is very factionalized (mainly as the result of being artificially created out of three distinct cultures by post WWI-Britain), and I saw civil war as a very likely possibility once we inevitably pulled out. The fact that we entered the war under false pretences has made the Bush administration political poison through much of the rest of the world.

[Axxon]

Mind if I play too, just for the heck of it?

You're apparently just a little bit older than me, as I was born during the latter half of LBJ's second term.

In my lifetime, I'd rank them (in terms of my approval of their overall actions & subsequent effects)

From best to worst:

1) Nixon
2) Reagan (I could pretty easily flip-flop 1 & 2)
3) Ford
4) Bush I
5) Clinton
6) Johnson
7) Carter

Now, I'm purposely leaving off Bush II. His term isn't complete, whether he wins another term or not, even the first term isn't finished. And there's still opportunity for a major fuckup. But ... _IF_ he simply stays the course he's been on, he'll jump straight to head of my list. There's been no President in my lifetime I've agreed with more often in terms of policy, action, or approach. Hell, there isn't even another one that's been close. Certainly not perfect by any means, but significantly more agreeable to me than any of the others.

Eh, we've all got opinions, I didn't see anything in yours that particuarly pissed me off. As a matter of fact, I thought it was kinda interesting that we had the same rough assessment of Nixon but then agreed on virtually nothing else.

Your list looks a bit ohh partisan to me. ;)

I tried to honestly access the state of the country and the actions taken by the POTUS and disregard their political leanings. We certainly can agree to disagree but I can't see how you can say Ford accomplished more or that the country was in better shape during his term in office than you can say about Clinton.

You may well have an argument but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it wasn't because he used an R after his name instead of a D. :)

[BishopMVP]

Some various comments on different aspects of the thread.

Brown-Skinned Comment: Strawman? Yes. Unnecessary? Probably. Stupid or racist? No. And the claims that only right-wingers hold this idea are foolish. A minority of people hold this view, and even fewer are willing to express it publicly, but idiots and racists can be found all across the political spectrum.

Bush antagonizing the world: He's not very diplomatic. Take Kyoto for example. Whereas Clinton signed it and acted like he wanted it, while knowing there was zero chance the Senate would ever approve it, Bush ended any pretension of agreeing to it. Bush basically cuts the bullshit out of foreign policy. We saw when Clinton, probably the most "loved" US president in a long time, was in office that there are a number of people who still vehemently hate America. The way Bush deals with them pisses off many people in the middle, but the fact is that after 9/11, we can't and almost certainly won't return to the way we did business under Clinton (that's not an attack on Clinton. Circumstances have changed) and the belief by a number of Europeans that it's just Bush and a small group of evil neocons and once they're gone everything will be all well and good is false. The belief of some Americans that everyone will love us if Bush is gone is equally ludicrous. France and Russia (who is alleged to be the biggest beneficiary of the corrupt Oil Trust fund) had their own motives with regards to Iraq, as did we, and one thing I love about Bush is that he realizes this and does what he feels is right and necessary.

UN in Iraq: The idea sounds good, of giving legitimacy to the CPA, and involving the world, but I'm against giving them control. The UN's track record isn't very good on nation building, and I think Iraq has a better chance to succeed with the US controlling things than the UN. As we have seen recently, while certain countries troops have fought bravely and well (Poland, Britain, etc.) there are some countries in our coalition that have have refused to allow their soldiers to leave the base (South Korea.) Honestly, who has the better chance of defeating the limited, but significant, violent opposition. A US or NATO led operation comprised mostly of US troops or a UN led one made up of a mishmash of troops from countries like Pakistan and Nigeria? And this may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I don't think that countries like France, Germany, Russia, China, and consequently, the UN, wants Iraq to succeed like we do. I just don't trust them to do the tough task that is still ahead of us.

Ranking the Presidents: I was born in '85, but I'll go back to LBJ. This is just the general impression I have gotten, since the 2nd half of Clinton and Bush II are the only ones I've really understood or paid attention to. I'm not going to put them in a specific order, but just give a general sense.

LBJ: Vietnam was inherited, and not his fault that we were there. But he fought the war the wrong way. If we had been doing what Nixon started doing early in his term and didn't institute a draft, we probably would have won and at least achieved a situation similar to Korea instead of 'losing' the war and having South Vietnam and the surrounding countries being overrun by murderous thugs who committed genocide. Domestically, he signed the Civil Rights Bill, which Kennedy did a lot of work on, and attempted his "Great Society" program. Civil Rights turned out good, the great society not nearly as well. Verdict: Not very good.

Nixon: Did well on Vietnam, especially with his Vietnamization program, until domestic pressure spurred by Watergate became too great and he had to cut off all aid. Also opened relations with China. The effects of realpolitik are still being felt today, and while it solved many problems short term, it may have created just as many long term. Still, because we were in the middle of the Cold War, it was probably necessary. Domestically, he was responsible for much of the actual implementation of the Civil Rights Act and almost never gets any credit. His short-term economic policies implemented to help guarantee re-election hurt the country a lot in the mid-70's. Verdict:
A decent president who unfairly has his negatives focused on much more than most Presidents.

Ford: Wasn't there for long, didn't have much to work with, and didn't do much. I don;t know too much about his time in office, but he seems to have been more of a placeholder than anything else. Verdict: In the middle. Didn't do much either way. Gets a slight bonus for playing college football as well as he did, but it is negated because he played at Michigan.

Carter: Great man. My mom once said that he was probably the only President she would trust to watch her kids. Unfortunately, that seems to be a horrible quality for a President. His foreign policy was hideously weak, and cost him the election. His humanitarian efforts after his Presidency won him the Nobel Prize, but his brokered deal in Korea has been shown to be completely ignored by the North Koreans, which exemplifies the problems with his foreign policy while in office. Verdict: Worst President on the list.

Reagan: While others were urging conciliation with the USSR, his bellicose stance helped lead to the collapse and end of the Cold War. Shifting the tax burden from individuals to corporations is often mistaken as huge tax cuts. The economy did much better under him. His wife led the charge to the War on Drugs, the worst government program in a long time. Verdict: Best President on the list, despite the War on Drugs.

Bush I: Basically continued what Reagan was doing. Unfortunately for him, jobs recovered a year too late, Perot entered the race, and he lost the election. Verdict: Solid President. Didn't have too many of his own ideas that he tried to implement, but was an effective steward.

Clinton: Promoted Free Trade, especially NAFTA, which is good for the economy. Effectively ignored the growing threat of terrorism after the end of the Cold War. Proved effective in building coalitions for Kosovo, but his casualty-averse actions after Mogadishu (pulling out of Somalia, ignoring Rwanda) were disgraceful. Domestically, he presided over the biggest economic boom in a long time, but most of that was due to technological advances. Also expanded the War on Drugs. Verdict: A good President. Near the top of the list. His biggest failing was on the growing threat of terrorism, but no one was really talking about it and Republicans even accused him of "Wagging the Dog" when he took his small action against bin Laden.

Bush II: Pre 9/11 a listless President who wasn't doing much. Afterwards, recognized that something must be done and has set out to do it. While the results will not really be known for 10-20 years at the least, I think he is on the right track. Economically, has continued promoting free trade and has made some tax cuts, which are good but tilted a little too much towards the rich. Recent indications have him starting a War on Porn, which is an even more stupid idea than the War on Drugs. Verdict: Won't be known for a while, but as of now, I feel confident putting him in the top half.

[Maple Leafs]

If Bush invades Iraq without UN Support = Bush is evil. USA in unilateralists.
If Bush invades with UN Support = Bush is evil. UN are puppets of USA.
If Bush agrees to keep UN Sanctions = Bush is evil. Bush kills Iraqi children.
If Bush agrees to lift Sanctions = Bush is evil. Allows tyrannt to rule and kill.
You pretty much nailed it. But don't forget:

If Bush invades Iraq without UN Support = It's about the oil!
If Bush invades with UN Support = It's about the oil!
If Bush agrees to keep UN Sanctions = It's about the oil!
If Bush agrees to lift Sanctions = It's about the oil!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Your list looks a bit ohh partisan to me. ;) Actually, I wasn't trying to be non-partisan on the list thing, I just thought it was an interesting aside.

We certainly can agree to disagree but I can't see how you can say Ford accomplished more or that the country was in better shape during his term in office than you can say about Clinton.
I didn't really offer details or reasoning behind any of my choices, was just shooting for a general quick list for the heck of it, but of all of the ones who I ranked, I came closest to adding an "author's note" about Ford. It isn't a matter of my thinking he accomplished anything particularly worthwhile (or hardly even notable). It was more a matter of "he really did so little that he at least did no particular harm". Clinton on the other hand ... well, let's just say I wasn't impressed ;)

You may well have an argument but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it wasn't because he used an R after his name instead of a D. :)
Ah, but you forget ... I spent a lot more years as a Democrat than I've ever spent as a right-leaning indy (remember, I won't accept or claim GOP membership as long as the party opposes legalized abortion on demand). Ford was a largely ineffectual bumbler, but I don't see him as having very much in the way of long-term impact regardless of party.

The low ranking for the Dems in this list doesn't stem from their having a (D) out there, it stems from Carter being an inept fool (probably a darned good Sunday School teacher, but couldn't lead starving dogs to fresh meat), Johnson lacking the ability and/or the will to manage the Vietnam conflict adequately, and Clinton for being a general all-purpose leftist with the morals of your average alley-cat. It ain't my fault they all happen to be Demoncrats http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[AENeuman]

My political two cents: Bush seems to be putting the emphasis now on this "grievous threat" more than WMD or whatever. This makes the N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. situation even more fuzzy.
Also, IMO, I'm not entirely sure that we have done everything possible, or at least own up to some mistakes. It seems treating countries as raw producers, cheap labor and preventing them from being competitive causes more harm than most else. As the great Bono said, there are a 100 potential Afghanistan's in Africa; when/if they lose all hope and put the blame on the US, it's over. Are we then to just beat all of them down too?
Finally, as Gandhi said at the end of the movie "no nation has ever survived by means of force"

[Axxon]

Actually, I wasn't trying to be non-partisan on the list thing, I just thought it was an interesting aside.


I didn't really offer details or reasoning behind any of my choices, was just shooting for a general quick list for the heck of it, but of all of the ones who I ranked, I came closest to adding an "author's note" about Ford. It isn't a matter of my thinking he accomplished anything particularly worthwhile (or hardly even notable). It was more a matter of "he really did so little that he at least did no particular harm". Clinton on the other hand ... well, let's just say I wasn't impressed ;)


Ah, but you forget ... I spent a lot more years as a Democrat than I've ever spent as a right-leaning indy (remember, I won't accept or claim GOP membership as long as the party opposes legalized abortion on demand). Ford was a largely ineffectual bumbler, but I don't see him as having very much in the way of long-term impact regardless of party.

The low ranking for the Dems in this list doesn't stem from their having a (D) out there, it stems from Carter being an inept fool (probably a darned good Sunday School teacher, but couldn't lead starving dogs to fresh meat), Johnson lacking the ability and/or the will to manage the Vietnam conflict adequately, and Clinton for being a general all-purpose leftist with the morals of your average alley-cat. It ain't my fault they all happen to be Demoncrats http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Well, it's not just Nixon then, we pretty much sum up Ford the same way too. :)

Now, an interesting topic is your statement about Clinton's morals. I didn't grade on morals but your sentence on Clinton suggests that you did.

I can't see how you can grade on morals and still leave Nixon on the top of the list. I'm strictly going by his term of office here as I've read some of Nixon's works and I don't consider him to be immoral really but lets look at their "sins" in office.

Both committed perjury while in office. It's what they were both accused of doing. Clinton perjured himself to deny a possibly immoral but not illegal act. Nixon, however perjured himself to deny an undeniable illegal ( albeit stupid ) act. Which is more immoral?? It seems that Nixon's offense was worse.

Now, I did include morals in my judgement of Reagan. The whole Iran/Contra fiasco and it's blatant cover up is a far worse offense and really sickened me. That's what turned dislike into hate with me. I'm especially curious considering it was Iran that pretty much put Reagan in office ( well Carter's handling of it but still here's the new president brokering secret deals with the folks who got him elected ), it was also Iran which allowed us to support Saddam Hussein's military buildup which made it essential that we now lose american lives to try and rectify. Maybe if he wasn't propping up our enemies so he could fight an illegal war in south america we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. But he was a great president. :mad:

That's not at you specifically but to everybody who reveres Reagan when IMHO his scandal dwarfs both Nixon's and Clinton's put together.

[Dutch]

You pretty much nailed it. But don't forget:

If Bush invades Iraq without UN Support = It's about the oil!
If Bush invades with UN Support = It's about the oil!
If Bush agrees to keep UN Sanctions = It's about the oil!
If Bush agrees to lift Sanctions = It's about the oil!

And that too!

[Galaril]

Exactly, anti-US sentiment is at an all-time high because of the way this war was handled. I've read numerous articles regarding business people having to explain the President's actions to foreign clients and that not all Americans agree with these actions. I really don't see how you can not believe that the war has alientated other countries.


I have lived in South Korea and Japan now for 7 years and I will tell you as for these two countries; they hate are guts,even though they buy our shit they still hate us.The reason they give is Bush and the perception that America thinks it can do what ever it wants to and to whoever.They have seen this attitude alot from our citizen over the years when some of us travel and do the "Ugly American thing".