Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 25 May 2012, 19:59:46 pm *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Our Moral Leader - GWB  (Read 1172 times)
Bruno
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: 17 May 2002, 19:15:00 pm »

Unlike the moral leadership of a president who received blowjobs from an impressionable 21-year-old office girl and then lied about it? Moral vacuum has nothing to do with it.

As for caring only about big business, what does that really mean? Think about it. Big companies employ lots of people, whole cities depend on their economic well-being, millions of ordinary shareholders invest their savings in them. Not to mention the technology, medicines and often necessary products they contribute to all of us. ``Big business'' is a phrase that has taken on a meaning of its own with little reason why.

Further, what do health fraud, shareholder suits and the collapse of Enron all have in common? They are the most serious attacks on certain ``big businesses'' in years and they're all taking place during Bush's tenure. So if his interest is soley with BB he's not doing a very good job. As for caring about the poor, are we to elect people based on their ability to feel compassionate (basically rules out anyone running for office these days) or are we to elect them for policies that do the most to increase wealth for the poor. The stress on free markets and personal responsibility has done more for this than any well-intentioned feelings.

Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« Reply #15 on: 17 May 2002, 19:15:00 pm »



 Logged
Joseph27
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1506



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: 17 May 2002, 20:35:00 pm »

Clinton may have got a bj from a certain young lady - and frankly speaking i dont care that he did - in terms of leadership i will take his style and performance anyday. He is an intellectual master if compared to bush. I also believe that if he were able to contest the last election he would have won

Mr Bush is a clear black-and-white man, things are right or wrong – he can dichotomise the world into them and us without bothering to understand what ‘them’ actually represent and why they could possibly disagree with him.  He says that this "decisive decade in the history of liberty", and actually believes it.  "America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere," – this attitude is opens the door to conflict.
When the last election came up in the US I was uncertain about both candidates – and I don’t know how Gore would be running things now I can just see Bush and what I see is upsetting.  If you had Gore in power, I can imagine US Sino relations further deteriorating and I can imagine the US pushing for more accountability around the world – regimes democratising would be still the main national security interest.  Bush however pushes a different envelope and I wrote about it earlier and we disagreed because I wrote that Sep 11 relegitimised violence.  You said it had never changed but I feel that under Clinton there was a concerted push to democratise at all cost.  Now I disagree with that as a blanket agenda because democracy is an organic institution and needs to develop but what it did do was to make many states accountable for their human rights records and so on.  Under Bush little is said about human rights – no wonder relations are better – no ball busting rhetoric that clashed with Chinese values.

Now the situation is perfect – the US ask countries to crack down on terrorists – how perfect for China – North West province is always troublesome but before Sep11 the Chinese had to be mindful of how they dealt with it. Now no holds bared – they can do what they want and not have to stand up to criticism.  

I don’t have anything against America – the country is built on most important values however those values sometimes seem lost in Bush’s new America.  As for the 70% support that Bush is receiving – well that what the polls say today – the economy may be getting a tad better though unemployment is still growing

I like this line from the guardian  - “September 11 undoubtedly bound the American nation. But it did not blind it. Sooner or later, Mr Bush, self-styled universal soldier for truth, will have to stop pretending that tragedy gave him a free hand to remake America and the world to fit his simplistic, narrow vision - or risk having voters and US allies end the pretence for him. For this is the delusion under which he labours. And a very dangerous delusion it is too”.  

Logged

"truth is a group of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms; a sum of human relation which is poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed and adored so that after a long time it is then codified in the binding canon."
The Answer

Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: 18 May 2002, 14:18:00 pm »

Its funny. When GWB was elected I was literally sick about it (I'm a lifelong democrat). When the US Supreme Court stopped the vote count (I remember it well -it was a Saturday morning) I was foaming at the mouth I was so upset. I always liked Clinton -alot- and everything about the 2000 election and GWB stank.

But, if the election were held today, I'd definitely vote for GWB. This is politically significant because if a guy like me can switch parties the Democrats are in real trouble.

Logged
Joseph27
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1506



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: 18 May 2002, 18:17:00 pm »

The Answer -  why would you change vote?  what is GWB doing that makes you change loyalties?  Not that i really believe in being loyal in a party sense - in Australia i have never voted against the conservatives despite being upset with them last time.  I am just interested to hear why as an admitted democrat you would change votes now?
Logged

"truth is a group of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms; a sum of human relation which is poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed and adored so that after a long time it is then codified in the binding canon."
The Answer

Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: 19 May 2002, 12:30:00 pm »

Well, I still love Bill Clinton -regardless of what happened. I also believe that his policy and GWB's on the Middle East are completely complementary, but it would take a while to explain why.

In my view, GWB has done alot of things correctly. The war on terror, Israel/Palestinians, his switch toward democratic Taiwan, and his abandonment of the ABM Treaty which I initially thought to be a bad idea, I see differently today. The future of air power will be humanless drones and defensive missiles -something the ABM treaty would prevent. He is a firmer, more activist President and willing to take at advantage of the window that the US has right now as the world's only superpower. It may not last for long, so I think that he is capitalizing upon it as much as possible and in ways that CLinton did not.

He just signed a pact to reduce 2/3rds of all the US/Russian nukes. I am unsure about where the US should be with this UN Criminal Court. He has a stellar team of advisors that have helped him overcome his natural limitations in ways that Clinton did not. And Clinton's natural gifts were not enough. There is no question that Clinton is smarter and would have beat GWB in the 2000 election if he could run, but his cabinet was much weaker (with the glaring exception of Robert Rubin). Clinton became seasoned at foreign policy only at the very end of his tenure -far too late in my view.

I do not like GWB's or the Republican's domestic policy. I do not think that we should be drilling in Alaska. I think the tax break will cost us later. I also believe that he should have kept the nature preserves that Clinton signed during his last days in office.

I guess, in short, I feel that foreign policy is more important right now. Also, the Democrats have no one to run. I said that about the Republicans too, so maybe I'll be proven wrong in the end.

Logged
Bruno
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: 21 May 2002, 16:10:00 pm »

I'm with The Answer. Liked Clinton but think GWB and his team are the right people for the job now.

And Joseph, the Guardian? Is there an editorial department that has made more wrong predictions than their's since 9/11? The paper has become a joke. Where some see simplicity, others see clear goals and means that accurately reflect the views of the electorate. The world can do without the muddle-headed `sophisticaton' of Europeans who hemmed and hawed over Milosevic, and in France's case, took sophistication to an entirely new level in passing secrets to the Serbs. Europeans (and the Guardian) -- and I say this as someone who was born in the UK to an English father and German mother -- should hope that the US doesn't tire of their feeble contributions to global security and pouty politics.

Logged
Dr Opinion
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: 21 May 2002, 18:03:00 pm »

Answer:

> Clinton became seasoned at foreign policy only at the very end of his tenure...
Actually, I remember that Clinton moved swiftly and decisively to open up free trade with GATT, NAFTA, etc. I'm just working from memory now, but if recollection serves, in this regard at least Clinton was a decisive global figure from the start...

I believe that there's more to the GWBs foreign policy than meets the eye. It's a familiar notion that the US creates conflicts in order to increase M-I revenue, and frankly the "war-on-terror" looks to be just as endless, self-serving, and ultimately pointless as the "war-on-drugs". The most notable difference between the two media circuses is that the collateral damage from the "war-on-terror" has been far, far more tragic, and yet, so blatantly, obviously, wonderfully benficial for the Oil Lobby. The lobbies that support and benefit from the "war-on-drugs", such as Logging, Tobacco, Alcohol, and Oil, are far less obvious in this case.

The US is no longer the only Super Power on the planet. They just haven't realized it yet. The US is extremely, superlatively powerful, but they would no more win a conventional ground war in the EuroZone than they would in China. I'd draw attention to the accelerating creation of the European super-state, and the growing public awareness that China is, and has been, a super-power for some time now already.

Empires come and go, but they don't go easy. A typical scenario is an increasing state of paranoia about the world at large and competitors in particular, and increasing military spending as a percentage of GDP...

Enter Bush... A man for the times.  

Logged
Bruno
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: 21 May 2002, 18:36:00 pm »

The accelerating creation of the Euro superstate? That's quite funny. EU regulations on the required curvature of a banana will soon have the US on the run, I'm sure.

Here's a great article on European hypocrisy.


Mark Steyn
National Post
'Jaw-jaw is better than war-war," said Churchill, and on the whole he's right. It's better to talk to people than to kill them. That's why the Europeans are so thrilled to see Yasser Arafat sprung from his compound in Ramallah. Now he can get a shower and a shave -- well, OK, maybe not a shave -- and a change of bandolier, and get the "peace process" "back on track."

The Bush Administration was also pleased to see Israel's "partner for peace" freed up and his fax line reconnected. And, waddayaknow, at the very moment the President was discussing this latest hopeful development with Ariel Sharon at the White House, the "peace process" did indeed get back on its customary track with the detonation of a brand new suicide bomber in a pool hall in Rishon Letzion. Sixteen dead Israelis, and much joy from the heroic martyr's proud parents: "Yasser, that's my baby! Do we get a cheque from Saddam? Or the Saudis? Or both?"

Could there be a more heartening sign that the "peace process" is once again rolling along than the cheery sound of Palestinian baby kaboomers? All we need now is some guy to lend his name to a new plan which would open the way to get us back to Tenet, which would get us back to Mitchell, which would get us back to Wye River, which would get us back to Oslo, which would get us back to Kansas. Have I forgotten someone? Zinni? Did he have a plan? Or was his plan not to have a plan?

On Tuesday, one suicide bomber killed almost as many civilians as the entire Israeli army did during the notorious Jenin "massacre." Where are the condemnations from the EU? Where's the UN inquiry? Oh, wait, I forgot. When Palestinians kill Israelis, that just means Israel needs to do more to redouble its efforts to get the "peace process" back on that long and winding track.

It's instructive to contrast the eternal forbearance the EU demands of Israel with their own behaviour. On Sunday, the French presidential election ended with a result that the Republic's establishment claimed had strengthened their democracy. Can't quite see it myself. For a start, President Chirac refused to "jaw-jaw" with his opponent at all: Why, to debate him would only dignify him! No one else wanted to "jaw-jaw," either: Instead, there were large demonstrations by the left urging people to vote for "the crook, not the fascist." To make the street-theatre look a little better on TV, schools gave their pupils the day off to go and make up the numbers in a demonstration against a fellow most of them had barely heard of. To some of us, there's always something a little totalitarian about the state conscripting children in its propaganda efforts, but Chirac, though undoubtedly the crook, seemed appreciative of these fascistic touches.

The media rallied overwhelmingly to his soiled banner. Under France's onerous electoral laws, neither candidate is allowed to campaign on the day before the election, but, in an unprecedented display of cheerleading, the press urged voters to turn out for Monsieur Sleaze. Four out of five people voted for "the crook," but that still left a fifth of French electors to support a "fascist" who in any healthy political culture would have been a joke candidate: Putting aside his views, he's 74 and he's never held public office. If an election with only one viable candidate, no debate, a biased media, a blind eye to corruption, and public demonstrations with bused-in schoolchildren "strengthens" your democracy, then I'm moving to Zimbabwe.

The day after the French election attention turned to the Netherlands. Like President Chirac, Prime Minister Wim Kok had declared that his principal opponent, Pim Fortuyn, was someone who was beneath debate. So on Monday someone shot him dead. A militant vegan, if reports are to be believed. From across the North Sea, Tony Blair issued a heartfelt tribute to the first victim of political assassination in Holland in 350 years: "No matter what feelings political figures arouse, the ballot box is the place to express them."

In Rotterdam, voters had done just that: 35% of electors in the Netherlands' second largest city had cast their ballots for Pim Fortuyn. Yet that wasn't enough to get him a debate with Wim Kok, and even in death he remained, at least to the grudging Mr. Blair, beyond the pale (to coin a phrase). Fortuyn and Le Pen had virtually nothing in common: Le Pen's a Vichy nostalgist; Fortuyn was a flamboyant gay sociology professor, a beneficiary of Dutch liberalism who boasted about the ethnic diversity of his many lovers. Le Pen's a left-wing protectionist; Fortuyn was a Thatcherite on economic issues. But in the shorthand of European politics both were dismissed as "extreme," "hateful" and, of course, "right-wing."

Mark Kingwell and others have commented in these pages on public confusion over "right" and "left" labels, but here's an easy layman's guide: "left" is redundant, you never hear it any more; and "right" just means the side you're meant to dislike. Diehard Maoist Commies in Red China are "hardline conservatives" just as much as John Ashcroft is.

Apart from their mutual antipathy to Muslim immigration, Fortuyn and Le Pen would have loathed each other. But they cocked their individual snooks at the pieties of contemporary Eurofantasy and so they were beyond debate: Mais non, said Chirac and Blair and Kok, we cannot talk with these men, no matter how many people vote for them. To engage them would only legitimize them. What did either Fortuyn or Le Pen do to deserve having their voters ignored by the political establishment? Did they kill anyone? Did they issue orders for murders and bombings? Did they fund terrorism? Did they supply terrorists with weapons and training? Yasser Arafat has done -- is doing -- all these things, and yet the Europeans insist he is their "friend," a legitimate leader, a constructive "partner for peace," and someone who the Israelis must keep talking to, no matter how huge the vast mound of corpses grows. Oh, and as we all know, it's Ariel Sharon who is "extreme" and "right-wing": the side you're meant to dislike. European humbug has reached almost deafening levels in the last few weeks. There's the Pope's emissary high-fiving with the Chairman as he's liberated from his compound, while back home, legitimate political leaders who submit themselves to the ballot box are disdained and then assassinated. Yasser, of course, has postponed indefinitely his "re-election" campaign, but that doesn't stop the generous European Union subsidies which indirectly fund Palestinian suicide bombers. Smug, intolerant and decadent, Continental politics are in an advanced state of disease. When the establishment is too arrogant to "jaw-jaw," "war-war" -- or at least massive civil unrest -- isn't too far behind.

Logged
The Answer

Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: 22 May 2002, 14:33:00 pm »

Doc,

I couldn't disagree more with virtually everything you write above. Europe (with the exception of the UK) is so far behind the US in conventional weaponry that the US does not even ask for its help anymore. George Robertson lamented this fact just last month. Europeans still can't fight at night and are handicapped by dated, top heavy, human piloted, slow moving, weapons systems. If Europe had to fight in Afghanistan it would STILL be making the logistical preparations six months down the road.

As for other world superpowers, no other country comes even close to the US militarily or economically. China would have a difficult time even defeating Taiwan. Russia is bankrupt.

As for the war on terror, your view is the most cynical I've read. Its amazing that you can believe this six months after Septemebr 11th. If anything, the war on terror is upsetting oil prices. If the US fights Iraq there will be a huge spike in oil prices and the US and Europe will suffer. London, Washington and New York have alot at stake in 'winning' this war on terror, and this has little to do with politics, oil, or world domination. The next few years could be very bleak for us all if the US and Europe do nothing.

Logged
The Answer

Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: 22 May 2002, 14:43:00 pm »

Clinton had some early successes, such as those you describe. He also intervened in Haiti successfully. But he bumbled his through Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, and Rwanda. These were all exceedingly difficult foreign policy issues -made worse by British and European vascillation (Bosnia).

To his enormous credit, Clinton pulled it all together in the end in places like East Timor and Kosovo. Tremendous mistakes were made by Clinton and others that led to that war, but Clinton was masterful and decisive in managing it. The Republicans criticized him ferociously throughout the Kosovo campaign and were utterly stunned when he won the war by air power alone.

Logged
Dr Opinion
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: 22 May 2002, 14:51:00 pm »

Bruno,

Interesting, but off topic. Perhaps you could have linked it?  

Just in case you actually don't know why there was only one viable candidate in the final round for the French Presidency, in the previous round, two mainstream candidates campaigned healthily and split the electorate, allowing an extremist to have a flash of glory and come in second. In the next round the mainstream electorate united to oppose the non-viable candidate. Far from being a sign of hypocrisy, the spectacle was that of a singularly vibrant democracy, and an informed and engaged electorate.

This favorable European scenario can be pleasantly compared to the recent travesty that passed for democracy in the US. In the States, Democracy may not be dead yet, but with pitiful voter turnouts, soft money, lobby-appeasement and fraud, it sure smells funny...

In fact, a distortion of the recent French election to support an American accusation of systematic European electoral problems could perhaps be construed, itself, as "hypocrisy".  

Logged
richardrrr
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: 22 May 2002, 17:02:00 pm »

Dr Opinion

Your assessment of the French elections is actually way off beam. The two leading players (Jospin and Chiraq) were expected to be the two main contenders and have a typical right vs left play offf with both of them being essentially main stream

Jospin's vote was split by the inability of the french left to rally round him. Instead there were a whole plethora off fringe candidates.

The fact that le Pen came in second was a huge fright to the political classes in Paris.

Following this the success of a libertarian right wing group in the Dutch elections suggest that people in Europe are becoming increasinly detatched from their political masters. Similar unease is also being shown in Austria, Denmark, Italy and Germany.

In the UK there are pockets (particularly in the North of England) of extremist agitators. Because of the UK political system it is unlikely that they will make any headway in national polls but questions must be asked across Europe regarding political legitamacy and truly facing the concerns of the local people.  

Logged
Bruno
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: 22 May 2002, 17:17:00 pm »

When a country is forced to elect a crook because the alternative is a bench-pressing lunatic, I'm not sure I'd cite it as an example of vibrant democracy. For further answer to your post, I again leave it to Mark Steyn :
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-05-18&id=1867
Logged
Joseph27
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1506



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: 22 May 2002, 19:12:00 pm »

Though I was a fan of Clinton - I must take umbrage at the comment that East Timor was a foreign policy victory for him.  Australia for the first time in its foreign policy history went out on a limb and greatly annoyed the Indonesian elite by orchestrating the ballot that ultimately gave 'tim tim' its independence - and let me tell you when all the trouble came down all Australia got was an approving nod, perhaps one US guard dog and all the moral support Washington could muster.  

I dont object but that I thought it wrong to credit a person who did nothing to help

Logged

"truth is a group of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms; a sum of human relation which is poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed and adored so that after a long time it is then codified in the binding canon."
The Answer

Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: 23 May 2002, 13:34:00 pm »

Joe,

You are correct. But Australia was pulling its own weight as a US ally. With America jotting all over the globe with British help, this was really Australia's call. It is part of the price of the ANZUS treaty, like NATO. East Timor's SE Asia location placed the onus on Australia -and OZ rose to the call.

Australia had a tremendous moral imperative also. Like the US under Ford, Australia completely bungled and sold-out the East Timorese in 1975 and after. But unlike the US, Australians are conscious of East Timor's human rights problem -most Americans would probably have difficulty finding ET on a map (including me).

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines