obama vs. bush, pt II

[chloe harris]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

and he's already made impact on what bush has done.

he's working for people like me and i like that. there are great politicians in office in a lot of places. i've become very close to someone i deem truly inspirational who works in seattle poltics. thats small pie compared to the president, but i see him motivating and enriching and helping people everyday.

[DIDI]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

Obama is doing is simply what needs to be done for the US at this time...when the US needs change so will his policies.

And here we have one of the major reasons Obama is so much better than Bush. Bush DIDN'T do what needed to be done. You now have someone who will !!!

[Shpira]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

^^Yes, thats true I am not praising Bush in the least lol BUT is that whats best for the whole world?
My argument is that since US influence is so great, US foreign policy must encompass the best for the whole world...i.e. multilateral approach rather than going around doing damage to everyone in order to get some growth in the US economy.

If that is not the case than the US should (pardon my french) mind its own fucking business.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

the middle east is the plexus of the world. it is the prominent battleground and burning ground for humanity and it's progressive races/civilizations over the more recent millenniums(east meets west kinda stuff). it all has to go forward and be worked out over time i would assume.

try to imagine and hypothesize the course of happenings -- if western prominence had not intervened in the middle east? what might have transpired for the better or worse?

why did krishna insist that arjuna do his duty and fight (allegorically or historically it don't matter)? in the bhagavad gita. i'm abstractly alluding to the west's presence there. idunno maybe the political regime here is so corrupt and mislead that it has become much more complicated then a issue of stability and duty.

btw., i think obama as a speaker, is up to the titanic challenge of stimulating the moral and determination of the nation.

[Mariner1]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

^^Yes, thats true I am not praising Bush in the least lol BUT is that whats best for the whole world?
My argument is that since US influence is so great, US foreign policy must encompass the best for the whole world...i.e. multilateral approach rather than going around doing damage to everyone in order to get some growth in the US economy.

If that is not the case than the US should (pardon my french) mind its own fucking business.

The United States Government should always have minded it's own fucking business. The government should serve the citizens who fund it, not any other individual, government, or organization. Or else, you get exactly what you have come to see in the present day: a macrocosm of Washington D.C. itself on a global level...where every nation/prime minister/president/dictator act as lobbyists trying to extract more wealth, rights, and entitlements at the expense of our hard work.

[Shpira]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

^^that doesn't actually make much sense. How do you imagine the US government is supposed to serve its citizens? lock down its borders or something?
Your hard work? Thats just fucking ignorant man...everything the US spends on foreign policy comes back to the US ten-fold thats precisely my point...business was going well for the US until now.

The US government has ALWAYS interfered in other nations politics read your own nations history man...1823 Monroe Doctorine; Bolivia, Argentina, Panama, Venezuela, Nicaragua just to name a few in that time frame. 180 military involvements in the 20th century...hardly something that Bush can be blamed for.

As for the middle east...I know many people are emotionally vested in that particular example but I think that they should have been left alone...yes there are economically sound arguments i.e. oil but I would sacrifice my life style if there was even a slight chance to get some fucking peace in the world.

[Mariner1]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

I was simply pointing out that the primary functions of our government do not include interventionism wherever and whenever it damn pleases.

I was explaining how our government doesn't exist to serve anyone but its citizens, and to illustrate that it now serves just about everyone else but those who grant it power. That is to say, it has exceeded its proper functions. And at great expense to all of us.

You suggested that our government, because of it's status, should
make decisions on what is best for the whole world, that is to say, factor other countries interests into its analysis of how it should act/respond. Well, we DO do that, and that is indeed why much is fucked up today. That Wilsonian mentality of spreading democracy with bombs to make us feel good about freeing the shit out of impoverished people has harmed us more than it has made slight benefit to anyone, or anything.

[Shpira]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

No, there is a difference between the reasons a politician states as official reason for military involvement and true reasons behind military involvement. Why do you think the US got involved in Iraq but not in Darfur which is in a much much worse state than Iraq ever was...do yo honestly believe that it was because of WMD and if you do believe that how come North Korea is still standing?

Of course every government serves its citizens, thats the basis of international society. The US government DOES serve its people...it just prefers its citizens who are rich to those that are not so rich.

If the US truly acted in the interest of the international community it would get UN approval before invading Iraq and it wouldn't be the most resented government in the world...spreading democracy is a means to an end not an end achieved by other means i.e. by spreading 'democracy' the US increases its influence.

Look at the Military aid given post sept 11 to Turkey, a nation that kills its own people...that same aid was then later used to kill thousands of Kurds...or what about Asia? or Saudi Arabia?

How do you think the US picks what nation its going to spread 'democracy' to next? on the basis of self interest of course...

anyway...I really don't like ranting on like this you should seriously read some stuff if you are really interested in politics...

[Mariner1]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

I wrote an incredibly lengthy reply to your 'interesting' comments until i came to your last line.


you're right. i should really read about politics if I'm interested in it.

[Shpira]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

if you want to know more read "hegemony or survival" by Noam chomsky its not big and its an easy read good introduction...a kind of an eye opener to US foreign policy if you will.

[Mariner1]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

if you want to know more read "hegemony or survival" by Noam chomsky its not big and its an easy read good introduction...a kind of an eye opener to US foreign policy if you will.

[chloe harris]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

lol @ it's not big.

[floridaorange]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

I think that everyone is pretty much agreeing here, with the exception of some minor miscommunication here and there.

I do think everyone would agree with Shpira that there are many more Americans who can relate to someone like Obama rather than G. W. Bush or McCain. In addition, there are many more humans globally who can relate with Obama, vs. Bush or McCain. And we would also all agree that the problems Obama and his advisors are facing have amounted over many years, not just the last 8. All of the issues are intertwined and you cannot actually isolate 1 or even 5 issues without affecting the others, there are completely interrelated. So, we are all hopeful that he will be able to surround himself with a competent administration that will be willing to reach across the table and pragmatically move the ball forward on the most pressing issues facing America and the Globe one day at a time.

[Mariner1]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

pragmatically

I think being pragmatic is the worst way an elected leader can act right now.

[MJDub]

Re: obama vs. bush, pt II

pragmatically

I think being pragmatic is the worst way an elected leader can act right now.

wut