Log In | Register
During my life I have watched the free world struggle with the injustice and violence of the dictators and thugs of the Middle East who have enslaved their citizens under the umbrella of theocracies ruled by Islam and oil. No progress or peace and the eventual tragedy of 911 allowed George W. Bush to legally take actions against Ai Qaeda in Afghanistan and the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That action by Bush is directly responsible for the continuing fall of these notorious dictators. Bush will be remembered and admired for that bold action in due time. We can only hope that the door Bush opened to freedom will encourage the enslaved people of the Middle East to reach for better lives by accepting a more peaceful concept of secular democracy and rejecting radical Islam. There are no easy paths, but the free world should help inspire new directions for people who have never known freedom and individual rights......and we have successfully done that for others in the past!
Some day the world will thank George Bush for opening the door to Middle East change!
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (111)
Obama has actually been helpful with this.......although slow moving an reluctant and unsure of himself.
- 3 votes
#1 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:32 PM EDT
Obama IS actually the one to accomplish these feats, so don't hold your breath expecting history to credit Bush for what he DIDN'T do! Bush will receive credit for what he did, NOT what Obama did!
Slow and steady wins the race...which is probably why Obama's tacits are effective in reaching goals, and Bush's cowboy antics didn't produce anything!
- 14 votes
I wonder how these hawks would have felt if other countries had invaded the US to free the slaves from tyranny.
- 8 votes
If Bush had decided to work for "regime change" and "nation building" as a policy after finishing the job in Afghanistan, if he had built international consensus and applied diplomacy before bringing in the military hammer, if he had followed military advice on troop levels necessary for security and hadn't brought in cronies to "rebuild" Showcase Iraq, and if he hadn't been a petroleum slut hanging out with Saudi tyrants, than, yeah, he might deserve credit.
But he didn't do any of that. He did do a good job of breaking everything he touched just like every business he ever operated that Daddy & Friends bailed him out of.
- 15 votes
No progress or peace and the eventual tragedy of 911 allowed George W. Bush to legally take actions against Ai Qaeda in Afghanistan and the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That action by Bush is directly responsible for the continuing fall of these notorious dictators. Bush will be remembered and admired for that bold action in due time.
First rule of posting opinions: Make sense, then try proof reading your posts before clicking the "post comment" button.
- 6 votes
Even if Bush was "directly" responsibility for the changes going on in northern African I don't see any of these newly democratic nation denouncing Islam. Dictators or no I think Islam is still as strong a religion in this region as it was before.
- 1 vote
Further more...
What exactly do Afghanistan or Iraq have to do with North Africa anyway? Other than Islam and oil.
Upon further consideration I believe this to be a very bizarre article.
- 6 votes
Sorry, TUL. The only people who will ever thank Bush for anything he did in the middle east will be oil companies, their suppliers, their executives and their employees. Anyone not conflicted by profit interests, addled by partisanship or otherwise willfully nescient knows that Bush's actions in the middle east were reactionary at best and that the "bringing democracy to the middle east" canard was nothing more than the Bush Administration flailing about for a beard to cover its more base motivations.
Bush had intended to attack Iraq from the very beginning. Right after Bush's failure on 9/11, Chief Counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke disclosed this dialogue:
"Go back over everything, everything," Bush said, according to Clarke's account. "See if Saddam did this."
"But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this," Clarke replied.
"I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."
Reminded that the CIA, FBI and White House staffs had sought and found no such link before, Clarke said, Bush spoke "testily." As he left the room, Bush said a third time, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."
Clarke, who was serving his fourth President, three of whom were republican was blunt in his assessment that the Bush Administration:
"launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."
From the very beginning, Bush's actions in the middle east had a simple motivation: Finish the job of getting Saddam Hussein - a job he felt was left undone both by President Clinton and by his father President George H. W. Bush. The quest for democracy always was a mendacious assertion that they settled on after flailing about for reasons that turned out not to be true at all. Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Saddam did not have ties to Al Qaeda. None of those reasons were valid so he had to come up with something. One was true, but irrelevant to invasion: Saddam was a terrible dictator who killed his own people. The other was a fig leaf: Bringing democracy to the people.
Nice try, TUL. But a massive fail.
- 7 votes
Not to mention Bush's failure PRIOR to 9/11!
And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice.
He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer.
"All right," he said. "You've covered your ass, now."
www.justiceblind.com/warnings.html
Yeah, we all look to Bush as being responsible for all the wonderful things that are now happening in Egypt, Libya, etc. Yeah...sure!
- 2 votes
Unfortunately, TUL got himself suspended on his own vine. He won't be around to reply for a while.
- 2 votes
Bush was a monster that killed 100,000-500,000 Iraqis. He should be tried for genocide along with Cheney and his entire Cabinet. Iraq is not a free nation. It is plagued with violence and theocratic rule and Afghanistan is no better then it was before and will return to the Taliban in the future when US forces withdraw. The wars were done for economic gain especially in Afghanistan.
- 24 votes
Indeed I'd rather remember him for sending our troops in to be killed after lying to American citizens about WMD. I would rather remember that by his 2nd term the economy was going down and by the end of his term there was a collapse of the economy. I'd rather remember that he was no better than any of the middle east rulers and just as ruthless in his thinking. The cowboy from hell as I see it. I'd rather remember the torture that he approved of that doesn't work in accomplishing anything. This topic undoubtedly wasn't well thought out by the writer.
Indeed Obama is caught up in the role of President but he ain't no rat like Bush.
AND IT ISN'T NICE TO CALL NAMES
- 22 votes
Comment collapsed by the communityWow. I forgot to mention that Obama will also be remembered for destroying the economy and the economic gain you say Bush made in Afghanistan
Economic gain for corporations not the nation.
by conducting 3 wars that will kill even more people than Bush did.
Unlikely even if you give Obama blame for the two inherited wars.
Saddam Hussein is on record for killing 2 million Iraqis.....that would make those you say Bush killed rather lenient by you own numbers.
Yes but that was none of our concern. We had no business in Iraq for any reason especially made up reasons.
Do you think the world was better off with Bin Laden, Hussein, Gaddafy, Assad and the other murderous thugs being allowed to exist in the Middle East. Even Obama does not agree with you!
The world is better off without wars of aggression like in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya.
Really you just spout @!$%# off dont you?
I was right with 100,000-500,000 civilians killed. 100,000 being more "official" numbers and 500,000 likely closer to reality.
I will need to report you for CoH violations in 2.1. That is not acceptable.
- 14 votes
Report me then.
You may not understand the purpose of the Code of Honor but it exists to protect dialogue in the forums and to prevent name calling and other inappropriate speech. You may have had good points or not but calling me an idiot doesn't help your case and is not acceptable.
There are bonifide records and documents that Hussein was responsible for at least 2 million deaths of his slaves.
Sounds irrelevant to the reason that Bush II used to justify his war of aggression against Iraq based on imaginary WMDs.
- 18 votes
Comment collapsed by the communityI'm sorry you are so sensitive. Our forefathers called each other much worse names than idiots! Your comments sounded idiotic....there, is that nicer?
TryingUsingLogic,
It is not being sensitive, it is following the rules. Rules are a vital part of civilized society. It is LOGICAL not to insult those you are trying to have a fruitful discussion with. Founding Fathers had slaves (not freedom), cheated on their wives (not family values), and had duels. They were not perfect people so using them as your justification to insult someone does not really make logical sense.
P.S. The dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya did not fall under Bush. Not to mention others like Yemen, Syria, and others.
Have a good day.
- 17 votes
TryUsingLogic: Yes, please do.
You are wandering around in a minefield looking for wildflowers. The wildflowers mark the graves.
- 11 votes
Comment collapsed by the communityIn other words: Whaaaaaa!!...I can't argue with FACTS...NO FAIR...I'M TELLING!!!!
The facts? The facts that Bush II invaded Iraq without real justification and that war lead to at least 100,000 civilian deaths and thousands of US deaths?
- 14 votes
Yes but that was none of our concern. We had no business in Iraq for any reason especially made up reasons.
So how were you when Clinton ordered the surgical strikes in Bosnia?
- 1 vote
So how were you when Clinton ordered the surgical strikes in Bosnia?
I did not concern myself with military actions then but it is something to oppose because interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations is wrong.
- 7 votes
After Colin Powells presentation much of the US bought into Bush's war in Iraq. Of course, we later found out that Colin was handed a bill of goods. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the originators and architects of that debacle. While Saddam needed to go. our motivation for removing him was less than honest. He was no threat to the US.
- 10 votes
lying to American citizens about WMD.
The entire world and congress backed Bush after reading the same intel he saw.
Nooo... Everyone backed striking back at Afghanistan for harbouring al-Qaeda. Britain, Poland, and the Solomon Islands were among the few who backed Invasion: Iraq. Everyone else said 'What the Hell is wrong with you?' You know, Rumsfeld's "Old Europe?"And yeah, Congress was spineless and 'went along to get along' - including most of the Democrats, yes - rather than stand up to Commander "Mission Accomplished's" - I'll be civil - exaggerated intel.
- 7 votes
Cheney and Rumsfeld were the originators and architects of that debacle.
The arguments that Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMD began during the Clinton administration. Hillary back and supported the plan based on her experience with the situation while her husband was President and Gore, was for it, before he was against it, despite being on the Senate Intelligence Committee, getting access to ALL of the same intel the President gets.
- 1 vote
Sorry dude. This goes way back. Even before Nixon got his greedy, conniving little hands on the subject matter.
Wow 2.1 Comment collapsed by the community..I'm thinking that's the first time an Author has gone so far off topic his/her comment was collapsed...
The reason Bush invaded Iraq...revenge for his daddies failure, steal the oil...he got one out of two...not enough oil there to bother about the wells produce less than our own wells...no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig he will never be viewed as any kind of hero.
- 9 votes
Wizeguy, I second that...too bad his "forever wrong" supporters will never admit that Bush II was wrong, and made some really bad decisions...millions of people died because he wanted to be a modern day global cowboy..direct fail..
- 8 votes
Comment collapsed by the communityTryUsingLogic
The entire world and congress backed Bush after reading the same intel he saw.
And the mind play begins.
The entire country backed the interest in going to war with japan and Germany. After very high percentile of the American populous found out about Pearl Harbor. And the sinking of the Lusitania. Now. With that in mind.
There were tons of warnings about Pearl Harbor. With the decoding of scrambled Japanese messages.
Hitler even posted an ad in a prominent American newspaper stating: You are taking your lives into your own hands if you board the Lusitania.
Something to the effect that: This ship will surly be attacked if it enters enemy waters.
Now This bull@!$%# our politicians are doing is the same thing. The difference is: We are all to knowledgeable of their conniving nature now.
Polka
Really you just spout @!$%# off dont you?
Under Saddam
Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"
you really should just.......................
- 3 votes
#3 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:00 PM EDTTUL
I hope you know I am on your side. The Liberals posting and collapsing here are the same ones you have to point the same facts out to over and over, seems even if you beat them over the head with the same facts over and over they still spout the same stuff.
Bush lied us into war in one breath hes the dumbest man on the planet in the second breath, which begs the question to be asked, how did the dumbest person on the planet convince the smartest people on the planet to go to war?
- 2 votes
JonMavrick
The Liberals posting and collapsing here are the same ones you have to point the same facts out to over and over, seems even if you beat them over the head with the same facts over and over they still spout the same stuff.
The problem with your and TUL's comments is that there is a difference between facts and opinions. If you cite, say, a U.N. report as to how many people Saddam killed vs. how many the U.S. invasion killed, these are facts, the results of which can be debated. If you wave the flag and call W. a Glorious Liberator, that is an opinion that talks about the perspective of the writer, but not the historical antecedents and consequences of the war.
It's really not that difficult a concept.
- 2 votes
Keep in mind, Bush was being steered by Cheney who had an extreme fear/fascination with terrorism after 9/11. Also, Cheney, Rumsfield, Kristol, Wolfowitz and others had been members of PNAC - Project for a New American Century. Their goal was regime change in Iraq from 1997 on and even tried to tempt Pres. Clinton into invading (operative word) Iraq.
Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.
Bush was their tool....ostensibly, their fool.
- 4 votes
Lies, Damned Lies, And Lies Of The Fascistic Right ...
During my life I have watched the US support the Middle East dictators and thugs that enslaved their citizens. The US supports injustice and violence to gain access to oil deposits.
The US withdraws support from brutal regimes ONLY when they are unable or unwilling to be a willing client US state. Republican and Democratic administrations alike consistently support the most notorious criminals on the planet because US politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, are the most heinous criminals in the human story. Bush and Obama will be remembered for their role in this history.
In a hundred years, no one will know the names of George Bush or Barak Obama, save fifth graders who memorize the names of Presidents. But 500 years from now, school children everywhere will know the name of Yasser Arafat.
- 10 votes
#4 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:02 PM EDT Comment collapsed by the communityDear TUL:
So – you know why I’m the Village Idiot, do you?
I use insults and profanities? Very well, TUL; quote me! Show us where I used profanity!
You overlooked my serious charge that the US has a long history of support for dictators, opting instead to discuss the intelligence of the Left.
You overlooked my serious charge that the US supports regimes (such as Libya) so long as they are submissive, client states, opting instead to discuss the intelligence of the Left.
You overlooked my serious charge that these crimes occur under both party administrations, opting instead to discuss the intelligence of the Left.
Are you sure you know why I am the Village Idiot? Maybe I took this moniker to show that the Village Idiot has a saner mind, a more sober disposition and a keener intellect than 98% of the fascistic right.
The fact is, you can’t make a credible case that I am either profane nor an idiot. I can make a far better case for my idiocy than you. Example: The Village Idiot argues with idiots with the result that onlookers cannot tell them apart.
Think this through.
PS: I want documentation for my use of profane language. Don't forget. And kindly refrain from replying to this post until you can produce it.
- 15 votes
During my life I have watched the US support the Middle East dictators and thugs that enslaved their citizens. The US supports injustice and violence to gain access to oil deposits.
Going back to 1953 when we helped the Brits overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran and replaced him with the Shah and turned a blind eye as the Middle Eastern oil-despots abused their own populations...
- 3 votes
Village Idiot
Your comments are entirely on point and accurate.
It appears that the author is merely playing for an agenda and is not apparently interested in reality.
- 4 votes
VI
I think you need to drop back into time a little more try the Spanish American War.
- 2 votes
I now know why you are the Village Idiot! Newsvine is a great place to find you.....with the other liberal idiots.
TryUsingLogic, you are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 and # 4 of the Code of Honor.
- 14 votes
And, not to mention Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, oh hell....all of those countries down there. We propped up dictators who were attempting to squash the people's movement of oppression and terror (and we profess to be against terrorism!), all under the guise of repressing Communism.
Nice try.
Originator had an agenda and it didn't quite work out - or, an instigator and was hoping to create havoc.
- 1 vote
Fine, Collaborative Work, Shelby ...
The one that kills me was when we sent imperial storm troopers with Space Age weaponry into the Amazon to denude the territory of local inhabitants as a favor to the logging interests. These people defend themselves with Stone Age bow-and-arrow weaponry. Al those people want is for the rest of the world leave them alone.
- 1 vote
I'm sure Osama Bin Laden is thanking G.W.Bush for charging 2 wars tax breaks for the rich and free pill for the elderly on the American credit card.I thought Osama Bin Laden wanted to bankrupt America and George Bush beat him to it.
- 13 votes
#5 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:07 PM EDTThat action by Bush is directly responsible for the continuing fall of these notorious dictators.
LOL.....This is exactly like the conservative argument that Reagan brought down communism./sarcasm to the extreme. Bush was going to war no matter what....had to spend money with this contributors in the military industry complex election financiers. Got to love conservatives who are given their history to repeat and they do it quite well.
Anyway is Pres Bush name mentioned outside of Texas by any conservative? I do know he went on a bike ride with some vets, speaking at some schools, he visited Ft Hood injured soldiers, but all that occured in Texas reblicans outside of Texas treat him as a pariah.
- 10 votes
#6 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:50 PM EDTTUL:
Some day the world will thank George Bush for opening the door to Middle East change!
Maybe. But not today.
- 10 votes
#7 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:58 PM EDTThat action by Bush is directly responsible for the continuing fall of these notorious dictators.
Was that before or after 2006 when the Bush administration restored full diplomatic relations with Libya?
- 8 votes
#8 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:00 PM EDTThe sad note is you hell bent liberals can't see the benefit of freeing enslaved people when all else fails.
Could it be that if conservatives would quit employing dictators and terrorists people wouldn't be enslaved....ie bin laden/hussein? It must be from your tendecies to employing people who kill 3 thousand Americans...the enemy of my enemy WILL become our Nations Enemy.
- 9 votes
He could feel your pain and was trying a Liberal tactic.
Oh sweet Jesus! You praise Bush for Mideast revolutions because he led wars in different countries. I show you direct foreign policy regarding Bush and pre-revolutionized Libya, and your retort is "It's liberals fault". Where's the logic in that?
It must be from your natural tendencies to believe that oppresive government regimes are always the best path.
Oh give me a @!$%#ing break! The biggest liberal president fought the Nazis. The biggest conservative president sold guns to Iran to give money to the Contras.
- 14 votes
Sgt.,
Don't forget that it was a conservative president that got us out of an unpopular war that was started by a liberal.
Just saying.
- 2 votes
Don't forget that it was a conservative president that got us out of an unpopular war that was started by a liberal.
Are you referring to Vietnam? I seem to recall it was Dwight Eisenhower who agreed to partitioning the country, Kennedy who put in advisors, yes, Johnson escalated, but so did Nixon before he decided to try to end it. Plenty of blame to go around there. Just sayin.'
- 3 votes
This article really has no merits. Arab springs started during Obama's presidency.
Middle East was peaceful with some rights but that evaporated when Rogue israel was created.
- 7 votes
#9 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:46 PM EDTAlso didn't Bush invade Iraq for the "mushroom clouds" and not for peacekeeping. Also Bush didn't see one through, as he passed along 2 wars. One even after declaring victory on a Super Carrier.
PS... anyway Bush wasn't the 1st Pres to try and get Middle East peace.
- 3 votes
#10 - Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:50 PM EDTPS... anyway Bush wasn't the 1st Pres to try and get Middle East peace.
So true...Carter failed miserably in that area as well.
- 1 vote
So true...Carter failed miserably in that area as well.
Especially with the secret meeting to release the hostages by republicans who wanted Reagan to be President (depending on where you read it....Spain or Paris)
- 4 votes
Jim... and Bush made Iran stronger by going after Saddam Hussein. At least he keep Iran in check What did he do about Iran his whole 8 years in office Also didn't Reagan have that whole Iran Contra thing. Didn't Reagan run from Beirut after the Marines camp was attacked.
- 2 votes
In response to the "mushroom cloud" speech......
All this talk about Obama using a teleprompter. But I digress.
- 1 vote
The left can bluster all they want, but any opinions they have won't be included in history. If there is stability in the Middle East naturally it will be Bush for being the first to make inroads and for going it alone. And our brave military for their dedication. History doesn't care about petty party politics.
- 1 vote
#11 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:11 AM EDTDo you guys each have a crystal ball, that you know how history will play out?
Or will you write the book that spins history once again?
Seriously, logic and this thread have nothing remotely to do with each other.
- 5 votes
I borrowed one from the left who is always telling us how Bush will go down in history, none of it flattering of course. You mean their crystals balls aren't accurate?
- 1 vote
And our brave military for their dedication.
Only part of your comment that is accurate. They served despite having insufficient forces sent in to provide security or guard Hussein's munitions that got turned into IEDs, despite insufficient personal body armor or armored transport, and with repeat, repeat, repeat deployment.
- 5 votes
This line was inserted into my comment 11.4:
That really could lead to the end of the world.
I never wrote it. Is Brian Ford in charge again? That might explain it. He is an expert at altering threads, having witnessed his "re-work" on a previous thread.
- 1 vote
tyler...
Bush will get the credit for going it alone, and creating an enormous deficit with two wars on this Nation's credit cards...
- 4 votes
Saddam Hussein is on record for killing 2 million Iraqis.....that would make those you say Bush killed rather lenient by you own numbers.
"Yes but that was none of our concern." We had no business in Iraq for any reason"
So, what was our business in Libya, Polka?
#12 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:19 AM EDTSo, what was our business in Libya, Polka?
None. Don't assume I approve of Libya. All wars of aggression are wrong.
- 2 votes
I don't defend Obama's actions against sovereign Libya or his actions to continue the wars he inherited. We should end all the wars immediately.
- 2 votes
I think you will see more. I heard Obama give Syria a warning a day or so ago. According to a headline on MSNBC today a couple of countries are even taunting each other over who is next.
We need to stay out of the affairs of foreign nations. It is not right for us to interfere. This is the reason why I will not vote for Obama again. He has a pro-intervention and pro-militant mindset towards the internal affairs of foreign nations. That is not acceptable but I don't believe that anything will occur against Syria. Not enough oil there.
- 1 vote
TryUsingLogic
At least all this left wing babble has exposed one person who will not vote for Obama again.
"Left wing babble..." Hmm... How about this moniker: "Try Using FACTS." They are pesky and inconvenient things, but the comprise things like, well, history...., which really doesn't care a lot about partisan political opinions.
- 4 votes
tyler,
If you recall, we were invited to assist Libya, as part of the U.N. We didn't just ride in on our horses and start shooting.
- 4 votes
Maybe, but don't you have to just wonder who the democrats think they are fooling claiming such concern for the poor Libya citizens instead of it being about oil.
#13 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:57 AM EDTI do not know but the GOBP are no better then the democrats. No one cares about the citizens of Libya and the country is ruled by the most powerful tribal force in that region.
- 1 vote
The question I have is when gaddifi leaves....who is going to run the country...the military, chaos, or an elected official?
- 1 vote
I asked that same question on another thread and was told, no government is in place, the citizens will vote. If more infighting among them breaks out or a worse dictator takes over that is just too bad. Sounds like as long as they secure the oil quickly no cares anymore.
#14 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:28 AM EDTWe must also give thanks to the rooster's cockadoodledo without which we wouldn't have the sun come up each morning.
#15 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:59 AM EDTI don't get it, what exactly is the link between the Arab Spring and George W. Bush? What specifically did he do that produced what we are seeing in the Middle East, and why did it take so much time after his departure, with nary a hint of what was coming, for these outbursts to occur? I'm not seeing the connection.
Look, I understand the desire to rehabilitate the right-wing's rather dismal foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East, but I find it kind of arrogant to try and credit America, or any one person's vision, for the brave efforts of the people of those nations now trying to find their own voice and create their own future.
Ultimately this struggle belongs only to the people who are fighting these battles themselves, no matter how much we onlookers would like to think it validates whatever it is we believe.
- 3 votes
#16 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:04 AM EDTI figured it out! The author just forgot the satire tag.
Everyone join hands.
We will pray in his holy image.That we may turn the cup to one side. So his life force spillath over onto us. We will bask in the disingenuous of his image.
AMEN!
(sarc.)
I didn't!
#18 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:47 AM EDTI find the whole premise of this article ludicrous. The author fails to look at or mention historical reality.
The case is that the US is responsible for most of these middle east dictators gaining power in the first place.
Iran- After WWII we installed the Shah and supported him- A vicious, torturing murderer. When the people of Iran (in the 70's) we (the US) turned to:
Iraq- and heavily supported Saddam another vicious, torturing murderer.
Saudi Arabia- We still support a backwards theocratic regime.
Egypt- Murbarrack (SP?) Our great friend over there.
Israel- Wouldn't exist w/o US support. Guilty of war crimes against the Palestinians.
All of this is simply force projection by the US in an attempt to control the resources of this area.
Further the author states that:
"but the free world should help inspire new directions for people who have never known freedom and individual rights......and we have successfully done that for others in the past!"
I would put forth that the US has never truly assisted others to find freedom and individual rights. I think that in articles of this nature the author needs to address history or it becomes little more than a propaganda piece.
- 8 votes
#19 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:17 AM EDTThanks Gypsy
It is so tiresome to read this articles from people that either don't have a clue about their subject or just don't give a damn about reality.
- 2 votes
Dear TUL
I just read your collapsed post and would suggest that the problem people are having with your article is it's factually flawed, and your response to this is to not respond with intelligence but rather to attack liberals.
Newsvine is a great forum for people to speak and gain comprehension, unfortunately, some seek to use it to promote an agenda under the guise of reporting.
- 4 votes
#20 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:43 AM EDTthen counter my facts with some of your own. You seem to be strong on attacking liberal viewpoints but weak on buttressing your own argument with reality.
See # 19 and respond to dispute my "opinion".
- 3 votes
if we use the logic of this article then we must also thank Osama Bin Ladin then the Mujahedeen then the Saudi Royal family then we must thank the Soviet Union for invading Afghanistan.
History does not live in a partisan vacuum.
- 8 votes
#21 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:21 AM EDTVlad
"History does not live in a partisan vacuum." Put this in Caps and bold letters. Probably the most accurate comment on this thread.
- 2 votes
There are plenty of opinions based on fact to question the liberal bull on newsvine....
here's one concerning my article content....
#22 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:06 AM EDTActually I was looking for a factual refutation of my points. Try using a bit of logic and give us your viewpoint supported by facts. It's easy to spout nonsense about liberal bull but thus far you can't support anything.
- 2 votes
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
*takes breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Oh damn, good times.
Anyway, one small point, I don't think you understand the difference between "directly and indirectly." Not that either would be true anyway.
- 2 votes
#23 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:31 AM EDTAnother link for you clowns!
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/impact-of-democracy-peace-breaks-out-2/
#24 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:22 AM EDTYou keep calling every body names but the fact is you are dead wrong. At best Bush was INdirectly responsible and I would argue even that point. You're just way off here...
- 1 vote
One of those that was for it before against it.....
#25 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:24 AM EDTProject For A New American Century - you don't need to say anything else. These guys wanted war with Iraq since they were formed in 1997 and hounded Clinton. Thankfully, Clinton saw the light and stayed out.
PNAC is one of of the most blatant neoconservative organizations ever to be formed!
- 3 votes
Interestingly, Cheney has come out with a book which reprts say he claims to be in charge after 9/11. I never doubted that.
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
