Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
Do you think the family Bush and the family Saud are not a degree or two more emeshed than the family of any admnistration has eevr been before?
|
Their families have been close, and have done business together. But the real question is has this resulted in a diplomatic bias, as a result of that business history? I'd say no, and I'd ask you to show me how Bush has treated the Saudis differently than past administrations. I don't think they have.
Quote:
And do you really see blowing the shit out of the country of origin of none of the hijackers as a motivator to the country that sent most of them? Cause I see it as kind of an indication that they get a free pass. "Don't you EVER mess with us again, or we'll... get... some other guy that... you had a beef with too. So watch it!"
|
Again, you seem to bounce around from "realpolitik" realism, back to bomb-and-reform international liberalism. Do you not see a strategic purpose in keeping people who want to b friends as friends? And what message would it send if we invaded the most holy place in the muslim world? You keep arguing that we only make matters worse, so wouldn't that have made matters really, really bad?????????????? Let's not forget the oil. No blood for oil, "WHOSE STREETS, OUR STREETS!"
Iraq was not a friend, not a strategic ally, and had threatened military action aainst its neighbors. We deal with the Saudis b/c they are more willing to deal. Saddam had his chance, and declined.
Quote:
You take all opinions which don't match yours, at very very least half of our country, and you ascribe it all to either the blindness of Bush hatred or the habitual weakness of Americans. I think a greater degree of doubt would serve you (and most people) well. I imagine that no matter what opinion you hold, you'll find that not everyone who disagrees with you is blind, or weak, or an idiot.
|
Leaders make unpopular decisions. Was Iraq so much better in November 2004, when a record number of Americans turned out to vote for President Bush? More American troops were in fact dying at that point than they are now (Iraqis are now taking a greater burden). Should policy be dictated by opinion polls? Maybe we could have a big poll every week, and the president could shift foreign policy accordingly.
That isn't republicanism, or democracy, or even populism. That's lunacy, and you can't govern that way. People get tired of war. they also get tired of it, because they have no personal investment in it. They see billions of dollars going to rebuild another nation, and yet these people are blowing up our men and women.
I think we have electons, and elect a president in order to lead us in foreign affairs, not be bound to every whim and roadside bomb. They voted for the man, and this is how he chose to fight this war. They can change their minds again in the fall, and then again in 2008. We'll see. So tell me Max, either people are fickle about war, or they are terribly bi-polar (since a majority elected this man in the middle of the war). Which is it?
And regarding the Bush hatred-- I think it plays a HUGE role in all of this. This country is terribly polarized, Max. I think Bush bears a good deal of the blame in all that, but I also think the far-left makes matters worse. The "netroots", the new influentials in the party, and the Deaniacs, are all intent on purging the party of anyone who even smiles in Bush's direction. I see it rather close at the DNC, and you can read it from the Daily Kos types.
Quote:
I simply do not think that good can be squeezed out of so much killing. Far from 'itoldyasoism', I genuinely hope in the long term you are right and I am wrong. The killing has already happend and shpws no signs of stopping. It would seem to me a far better outcome if in the end it came to something than for me to be able to say 'I told you so.'
|
But the killing started long before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, Max. Radical Islam is creating conflict and turmoil all over the globe.
I think the fundamental problem is that one group of people acknowledge that there most certainly is a pattern in all of this, and that there is a global fight between ways of life. Others seem to see it as all grand coinsidence, or worse, all the fault of the United States (and maybe Israel just or kicks). And just because they can't beat us in conventional warfare doesn't mean they can't hurt us, and it also doesn't mean they won't keep oppressing their own people.
So we choose-- do we watch a secular Europe become more and more Islamic? Do we turn a blind eye to thriving radical movements on every continent, ignore their attemps to codify Islamic law around the globe? Do we isolate ourselvs and pretend that it all goes away if we leave Iraq, or if Israel withdraws from Gaza?