Bush: oxymoron to world democracy

  • News
  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
  • #1
3,077
3

Main Question or Discussion Point

History will bestow little credit to George W. Bush for the freeing of nations. World democracy does not need to be dictated by a reckless zealot - in the first place, that is what others thrive to rid from their own system. The President is hardly representative of governments ruled by the majority or other popular politics.

If he truly desires to liberate the world's peoples, he would best be served by attending to their peaceful social and survival needs rather than fomenting questionable war. How shall he foist eventual Armageddon upon us? Discard the righteous posturing, Mr. President, and stand shoulder to shoulder with humankind.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
466
2
If Iraq and Afghanistan work out in the long-run, who WOULDN'T give Bush credit for that? Bush initiated the whole process, he's certainly not responsible for everything that happens, but without him you'd still have the same dictatorial rulers in those countries without any chance of Democracy.
 
  • #3
50
0
wasteofo2 said:
If Iraq and Afghanistan work out in the long-run, who WOULDN'T give Bush credit for that? Bush initiated the whole process, he's certainly not responsible for everything that happens, but without him you'd still have the same dictatorial rulers in those countries without any chance of Democracy.
He is the dictator now, he is the modern day Napoleon, betrayer of the revolution - not as bad, but his ideals are like world communism, ideally it works, but hell you need a whole country to want, it's a difficult subject, true, but Bush is not the guy to be implimening it. I think if he had focused the money spent, (many argue wasted on iraq and afganistan, soon to be the rest of the middle east for their "good targets"), or cancelling world debt, who knows how many people would not have had to die?
 
  • #4
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
0
wasteofo2 said:
If Iraq and Afghanistan work out in the long-run, who WOULDN'T give Bush credit for that? Bush initiated the whole process, he's certainly not responsible for everything that happens, but without him you'd still have the same dictatorial rulers in those countries without any chance of Democracy.
If only so ... the problem I've with this line of thought is that he is continuing the age old policies which led to the formation of such rulers in the first place, if there really was a reform in policies in the line of :

Loren Booda said:
he would best be served by attending to their peaceful social and survival needs rather than fomenting questionable war
rather than the same old & same old self interest supervision, then there actually might be something. Bush can't claim success for something occurring which was not his intention in the first place (i.e. eliminate hypocrisy from the equation).
 
  • #5
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
First, just who are we talking about? Someone who spent their life following, pondering, and working in world affairs?

BACKGROUND

Education: George W. attended Andover, Yale, and later Harvard Business School (due to family name/connections). Throughout prep school and college, George W. was a mediocre student who clung to the traditions of an earlier era with boozy fraternity parties and football weekends. George W. majored in history.

George W’s grades apparently were not good enough for admission to the University of Texas law school, which turned him down as an in-state applicant two years after he graduated from college. (Bush will not give permission for his grades to be released.)

Business: The story of Bush's career in oil is mostly about his failure to succeed, and his personal life continued to be clouded by drinking.

Bush did not turn his life around until the age of 40. During an interview in 1999, George W. was asked: Did you have a plan for your life after Harvard? He replied: “None whatsoever.”

With only five years of political experience as Governor, Bush announced his candidacy for president in 1999.

BUSH’S AGENDA – Has he ever had one? Regarding foreign policy:

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000128.htm

…“three cheers for the Bush Doctrine.” ...It’s too bad there’s no such thing. ...For conservatives, the Bush Doctrine is the Rorschach Test as foreign policy paradigm; apparently, it is whatever you see in it.

The transformation of George Bush is the most striking. In 2000, candidate Bush decried the role of nation building in American foreign policy. In the October 12, 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush sounded a cautious tone about American unilateralism and its role as global policeman, “If we're an arrogant nation they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong they'll welcome us.”

After the September 11 attacks, Bush’s worldview changed dramatically. In his September 20, 2001 address to Congress, Bush declared “We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.” …On June 1, 2002, President Bush addressed the cadets at West Point and made clear the role preemptive action would play in the future of American foreign policy and national defense. …The global promotion of democracy, however, was nowhere to be found in administration thinking prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Fast forward to 2005. President Bush shows it is better to be lucky than good. …All of which brings us to George Bush, born-again democrat, Wilsonian idealist on steroids.

The short and happy life of the Bush Doctrine, then, is one of political expediency, intellectual dishonesty, and strategic confusion. The United States will punish states providing safe haven to terrorists, except in those countries like Lebanon where we don’t. The U.S. will act preemptively against gathering threats from rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction, especially if they don’t in fact have them, as in Iraq, but not when they shortly will, as in Iran and North Korea. And the U.S. will not merely protect free, democratic states as it has it the past. America will spread democracy around the globe, and end tyranny in our world, unless the world includes China, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and a host of others.

In a nutshell, there is no “Bush Doctrine.” Or more accurately, there are many Bush Doctrines. It is whatever you need to it to be. It is the foreign policy hedonism of President Bush and the conservative ascendancy: if it feels good, do it.”
More than half of Americans and most of the rest of the world realize this. Intellectuals write history books -- that's one good thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Opium production in Afghanistan is at an all time high and living conditions have improved little to none. More soldiers were killed in Iraq this Feb than last Feb. The number one reason for our problems in the middle east is our intervention in ME affairs. Bush will rightfully be thought of as King George The Tird.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
466
2
Padford said:
He is the dictator now, he is the modern day Napoleon, betrayer of the revolution - not as bad, but his ideals are like world communism, ideally it works, but hell you need a whole country to want, it's a difficult subject, true, but Bush is not the guy to be implimening it. I think if he had focused the money spent, (many argue wasted on iraq and afganistan, soon to be the rest of the middle east for their "good targets"), or cancelling world debt, who knows how many people would not have had to die?
You know, there's no point arguing in this, either it will work or it won't work. If you think spreading Democracy and allowing people to vote is the same as spreading Communism, that's your ideology - whatever.
 
  • #8
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
wasteofo2 said:
You know, there's no point arguing in this, either it will work or it won't work. If you think spreading Democracy and allowing people to vote is the same as spreading Communism, that's your ideology - whatever.
Waste, that kind of attitude would kill most of the threads on this forum. Bloviation rules!
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
19,710
6,050
Insisting that we stick to reality? waste, you're not moving to the right, are you? :surprised
 
  • #10
737
0
Loren Booda said:
History will bestow little credit to George W. Bush for the freeing of nations. World democracy does not need to be dictated by a reckless zealot - in the first place, that is what others thrive to rid from their own system. The President is hardly representative of governments ruled by the majority or other popular politics.

If he truly desires to liberate the world's peoples, he would best be served by attending to their peaceful social and survival needs rather than fomenting questionable war. How shall he foist eventual Armageddon upon us? Discard the righteous posturing, Mr. President, and stand shoulder to shoulder with humankind.
So you would rank George W. Bush with the likes of Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Ho Chi Min, Fidel Castro and any other reckless zealot dictators who oppress their people and strip them of their rights? Seems a bit extreme to me. I think we are bring these rights to people who have never known them, people who asked us for help. I certainly wouldn't rank Bush as the Best American President, but he certainly isn't the worst as you claim him to be.

He made a choice to fight terrorism no matter what country it hides in. Fact.
No one else woud stand behind him. Fact
No country thought he would actually overthrow Saddam, Liberate the Iraqi people and help them re-establish their government. Fact.
He over threw Saddam and helped Iraq get through their 1st free election. Fact.

These are all facts that have been presented in the media since this war began. They are common knowledge. Think what you like of him. But don't put him with those who would fight for people NOT to have what we gave the Iraqi people. Don't put Bush with the people we are fighting against.

It cost lives, blood. No one ever said freedom came without a price. To think otherwise is naive.The Military Personel that said good-bye to their families, some for the very last time, went to fight to give other people what Americans have. They died for that cause. Freedom is purchased with sweat, tears, and blood of those who will fight. There are some who don't agree with the war, but they went anyway because its their job. War is a possibility and they knew it when they signed up.

Would you fight for your freedom the way these people fought for theirs?
 
  • #11
166
1
Bush gives the Americans democracy, but then inflicts their opinions upon the rest of the world, hence depriving them of their democracy.
 
  • #12
737
0
I would hardly call it inflicting since Iraq asked us to come and overthrow Hussein.
 
  • #13
3,077
3
Miss Kitty,

I never called "W" a dictator - if he were, the majority of Americans would not stand to have him in office. I call him a reckless zealot for his zeal to start a war in Iraq for questionable intentions, and for his fealty first to his religion before the good of all Americans and all of the world's faiths. The U. S. is not a Christian nation - nor is the Bible its Constitution. Separation between church and state begins at the White House.

I did not say that "W" is the worst president of all. How does he intend to bring freedom to those Africans who crave it? Oh yes, Nigeria has oil! Even if our nation eventually prospers under him (as long as you aren't on Medicaid), the greatest credit goes to the many industrious Americans that thrive despite the policy of pettiness at the top.

Personally, I think my president has improved as of late, but remains to be judged by his people for his worldview, and for his actions on the economy overall. Don't romanticize with "Facts" which are political or actually undecided as to their eventual outcome. I wish America, along with all peoples, the best opportunities. Whether George W. Bush can communicate multilaterally toward that goal remains moot.

My Dad fought at Pearl Harbor, Midway and in other Pacific battles of WWII. I would be scared as hell to go into those conflicts. From your description of the Iraq war, I would guess that you neither signed up for it, nor have plans to, nor know anyone of its casualties. At least Roosevelt joined WWII with an obvious mission, not the scattered intelligence of Bush. (I do believe that the war and occupation in Afghanistan was and is necessary, primarily because it was the foremost training ground for anti-American terrorism. Invading Iraq seems either random or willful in comparison.)
 
  • #14
737
0
You have no idea how close to the war I am right now. If I was old enough to go fight for the Iraqi people and get them the freedom they deserve, bet your ass I'd sign up.

You didn't answer my question: would you or would you not be willing to fight and die for your freedom?
 
  • #15
466
2
russ_watters said:
Insisting that we stick to reality? waste, you're not moving to the right, are you? :surprised
I've been moving to the right for quite a while now - ever since I stopped believing in Communism when I was 13 or 14.
 
  • #16
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
misskitty said:
...would you or would you not be willing to fight and die for your freedom?
Aside from differing opinions on some things felt to be fact, such as being asked/invited to help Iraq (there's a reason the war in Iraq is referred to as an invasion/occupation) many do not feel we are fighting this war for our freedom. There was no "clear and present" danger from Iraq--they were not attacking the U.S. or even threatening to do so, and were being closely monitored, etc. In fact, many feel this kind of intervention may be more detrimental to U.S. security, and it is hoped this is not precedence for more wars with other countries.
 
  • #17
737
0
The last thing I want is another war. I dislike war just as much as the next person. Because there's just more fear of "ok, I hope my loved ones don't come home in boxes and I get a visit from some man in uniform". I'm not saying this war was the brightest thing to do, but it was what Bush felt needed to be done at the time.
 
  • #18
737
0
Before I go any further with my participation in this thread, I would like to Publically Apologize to anyone I may have offended with my first post. It was not in anyway ment to be an attack in any way on Loren. I'm sorry if I have managed to offend or hurt someone. I feel very strongly about the war, I agree with it, but there are many things about it that I do NOT agree with. I think my opinions of the war may have be expressed in a less than elequaint manner. My apologies to everyone.
 
  • #19
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
misskitty said:
Before I go any further with my participation in this thread, I would like to Publically Apologize to anyone I may have offended with my first post. It was not in anyway ment to be an attack in any way on Loren. I'm sorry if I have managed to offend or hurt someone. I feel very strongly about the war, I agree with it, but there are many things about it that I do NOT agree with. I think my opinions of the war may have be expressed in a less than elequaint manner. My apologies to everyone.
You have the right to express your opinion just like anyone else. When people debate topics on forums such as PF, it is understood by everyone that there will be differing opinions, and hopefully no one will take things personally. You certainly have never offended me. :smile:
 
  • #20
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
wasteofo2 said:
I've been moving to the right for quite a while now - ever since I stopped believing in Communism when I was 13 or 14.
Hard not to move to the right when you're that far left. I wonder how many people grow up believing in communism at one time or another. I don't recall ever believing that it could work for an entire nation, but I always dreamed as a teenager of starting up a commune with friends of mine, on which we would divide labor according to individual skill, and live off of the land with no need for money or outside assistance. We even found some fairly cheap land down in Santa Barbara county. If only . . .
 
Last edited:
  • #21
737
0
SOS2008 said:
You have the right to express your opinion just like anyone else. When people debate topics on forums such as PF, it is understood by everyone that there will be differing opinions, and hopefully no one will take things personally. You certainly have never offended me. :smile:
Thats good to know. :smile:
 
  • #22
737
0
loseyourname said:
Hard not to move to the right when you're that far left. I wonder how many people grow up believing in communism at one time or another. I don't recall ever believing that it could work for an entire nation, but I always dreamed as a teenager of starting up a commune with friends of mine, on which we would divide labor according to individual skill, and live off of the land with no need for money or outside assistance. We even found some fairly cheap land down in Santa Barbara county. If only . . .
Communism looks great on paper. However when it comes to applying it as a government. The system is flawed and it doesn't work very well. It would be pretty interesting to see how believeing in communism affects the thought process of a teenager.

Democracy continually proves itself to be the best system of government. With all the countries that are starting to move towards a democratic system they are discovering this is true. It triggers a kind of chain reaction, I guess thats the only way to really describe it. When you neighbors see how well you do with democracy, both in the stablility of the system and economically, they begin to wonder if it will work for them. So they try it and begin to shift to a democratic government.

I know it doesn't happen just like that everyday. Or that it is that simple. Because it certainly isn't. However democracy is increasingly becoming the choice government structure throughout the world.
 
  • #23
3,077
3
Before I go any further with my participation in this thread, I would like to Publically Apologize to anyone I may have offended with my first post. It was not in anyway ment to be an attack in any way on Loren. I'm sorry if I have managed to offend or hurt someone. I feel very strongly about the war, I agree with it, but there are many things about it that I do NOT agree with. I think my opinions of the war may have be expressed in a less than elequaint manner. My apologies to everyone.
No problem, misskitty. Sorry for the delay in my responding. I appreciate your sensitivity.
You didn't answer my question: would you or would you not be willing to fight and die for your freedom?
Although I am considered incompetent to bear arms, I hope that my death in any case is meaningful toward a more peaceful Earth.
 
  • #24
737
0
At least you answered my question. Thanks.
 
  • #25
BeyondTheBounds
First of all I would like to say that I 'use' to hold The United States of America in great respect, and i still do. However the events that have heppened in the recent years have greatly changed my opinion.

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction ? Where ?
2. Overthrowing a Dictator/Tyrant ? Yes, so are a few more other Dictator/Tyrants in this world, the're still safe on thier throne.
3. Bringing freedom ? What is freedom ?
4. Spearding Democracy throughout the world ? Is the world ready for democracy?
5. Is there really Democracy in Iraq ? ( Please don't tell me about the election held ) the US are still imposing a LOT of rules there, news flash: An Iraqi General was shot to death this morning by US Troops because he went home late.

I support the Troops in Iraq and would readily sign up for it, but I WILL NOT fight a war that was built on VERY questionable grounds.
 

Related Threads on Bush: oxymoron to world democracy

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
73
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
52
Views
6K
Replies
283
Views
16K
Replies
67
Views
35K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Top