Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Moog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
ansteyg I'm not disputing that he won fair and square [this time!] or that Kerry was neccesarily a viable alternative to Bush since his campaign seemed to be based entirely on the fact that he wasn't Bush, not what he'd actually do different to Bush and it has nothing to do with Kyoto in my opinion I just disagree with Bush's neo-conservatism and am not looking forward to four more years of it. [btw it's spelt yoghurt though I suspect it's not a regular item on your shopping list so I wouldn't worry]
I never cease to be amazed by the ease with which people - particularly Europeans such as ourselves - seem to credit George W Bush with near-cretinism. The man has a Bachelor's degree from Yale University and a Master's from Harvard. This very morning in 'The Times', these two institutions are listed 8th and 1st respectively in the list of the world's best universities. In other words, his IQ is almost certainly higher than that of his critics!
He - along with Tony Blair - did what had to be done in 2003 re Iraq. For over a decade since the First Gulf War, the UN had issued resolution after resolution telling Saddam Hussein that he had to stop what he was doing or else. To all of them, the dictator simply raised one digit and said: "Or else what?" Somebody had to let him know what 'What' was and it was obvious that that useless talking-shop, the UN was never going to be the one to do so. They allowed genocide in Rwanda to proceed unhindered, just as they were doing recently in Sudan and Darfur. Utterly useless!
The war was right and the do-gooding peaceniks wrong...simple as that.
Incidentally, I am a socialist and somebody such as Bush would normally be anathema to me. However, unlike most lefties, I am no peace-at-any-price pacifist. Having spent over half my working life in military service, I am perfectly aware that there comes a time when the talking has to stop and the shooting has to start. Thank goodness George and Tony amongst others saw that, too.
Power to your elbow, George Dubya!
I wasn't insulting his intelligence, as you point out QM he's not AS stupid as he is often portrayed, however I do have to disagree with you regarding the war in Iraq, Bush and Blair did not go to war with a UN mandate but on the basis of intelligence which has been proved, at the very least, to be shaky. Iraq was no direct threat to the "west", had no capability to deploy weapons of mass destruction or indeed it turned out the weapons themselves and no links to Al Qaeda. Yes Saddam Hussein was a deplorable dictator who was a great threat to the people of Iraq and potentially the stability of the middle east, but does that give anyone the mandate to instigate a "regime change"? What about Iran, North Korea or as you point out Rwanda and Sudan? Perhaps if Rwanda and Sudan had similar resources of oil as Iraq the US would of taken more notice... is that too cynical?
Dear Moog, events have, indeed, shown that Iraq's WMD were non-existent, but the entire civilised world believed in their existence at the relevant time. The 'sexed-up' dossier, with which Blair is accused of deluding us all, was published in September 2002. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 - which stated categorically that these weapons did exist and were being proliferated along with the means of their delivery - was promulgated in November 2002....two months later. And it was unanimously signed-up-to by all 15 members of UNSC. So, if Bush and Blair lied, so too did Chirac, Putin, the Chinese president - whose name escapes me for the moment - and all ten floating member-countries' leaders.
It's worth pointing out that - considering only the permanent members of the Security Council - there have been lots of occasions when war has been joined by them without a UN mandate. China and Russia participated in the Korean War, France and Britain invaded Egypt over Suez, NATO entered Kosovo and so on all without UN approval. And why not? The organisation is useless.
We've all got 20-20 hindsight, but the plain fact is that the WMD were believed to be a real threat. I certainly believed in them in late 2002...didn't you?
It's not the wars that particularly concern me (although I'm not convinced many Iraqis feel liberated at the moment), its the way neo-cons now rule Washington and that any contrary view is stamped on.
I cannot recall any election that has polarised the electorate and interested observers to such a degree. That in itself cannot be healthy, can it?
Big business rules to such an extent that the Secretary of Defence will soon proudly be associated with Halliburton, purveyors of fine canned goods, oil well extinguishers and logistics services. The Secretary of State will be brought to you by McDonalds, when you can't be bothered to cook
Kyoto may be nine parts useless, but it has to be better than nothing, at least it is trying to stop the problems getting worse.
As for Bush's degree, I have no idea whether they were earned. Some partial observers have queried them, but we will never know the truth. I would observe that he does not appear particularly intelligent, which is not conclusive but is of concern
