Which will do more to liberate the world in the next 4 years, President G. W. Bush's lame duck, isolationist and hypocritical policies, or the corrupt, deceitful and smutty Internet?
Hi LB how are you these days? I dont think that either the Internet or Bush have done much liberating really. Bush liberated the Iraqis from their constitution and their status as a Republic, I guess that's sarcastic. Honestly, that's kind of comparing apples to oranges more or less. I think the Bush term is more quantifiable: under Saddam people are oppressed and the Ba'ath party leeches off of society, however, the system is inherently socialist and property is, at least on paper, publicly owned. Bremer's new constitution violates the Geneva convention and puts formerly public property into the hands of politically selected contractors who are licenced to loot both American and Iraqi public property. Iraqis are free of Saddam, but they are not free to vote for him. I wouldn't call any of it Liberation until the Bremer constitution, which is designed to remain after the new Iraqi constitution is drafted, is completely abolished forever.Loren Booda said:Which will do more to liberate the world in the next 4 years, President G. W. Bush's lame duck, isolationist and hypocritical policies, or the corrupt, deceitful and smutty Internet?
Isolationism traditionally refers to non-involvement in the world economically, militarily, etc. as the U.S. was prior to the world wars. However, LB is correct that Bush has had a "go it alone" approach, though largely because other countries didn't choose to assist HIM with world-domination war mongering.cragwolf said:There is nothing isolationist about Dubya's policies. And it depends what you mean by liberation.