I was pondering the election results again today, and reflecting on the comments of people who based their vote for President Bush on “morals and values”, primarily his opposition of gay marriage and abortion, and I got to thinking that (unless they change the rules) the party will need a new candidate for the 2008 election.
Then it hit me, there’s a guy who’s been in the news a lot lately that fits this profile very well; he’s strongly against both homosexuality and abortion, and goes beyond even our current president in his outspoken opposition of many other types of immoral behavior. What’s more, like our current administration, he is willing to take drastic measures (including military action) to deter those who either oppose his ideals or represent a potential threat. The only drawback is that no one knows exactly where to find him. Some say he’s still in a cave in Afghanistan, or maybe Pakistan…..
8 Comments
then there is a man who was for homosexuality when it came to his own affairs and loved the thought of abortion, that man is Adolf Hitler.
referring to first sentence in second paragraph
I have to ask, if not military action to stop terrorists from killing us, what? What is your plan, solution, ideas? I am serious, I always hear anti-war, anti-Bush people saying “you trigger happy, warmongering rednecks are screwing things up”, well I haven’t heard the solution from these people. Can you please tell me your ideas. The only way I believe to have piece and freedom is through force, can you tell me of one dictator removed, war ended etc… from a peace treaty? I know that peace treaty’s have stopped some evil doers, but only for a very short, temporary time.
See, that’s exactly the problem - in asking the question “if not military action to stop terrorists from killing us, what?”, you’ve already bought into several underlying premises that just aren’t true.
Myth #1 - We need to invade Iraq to “stop terrorists from killing us” There is *no evidence* that Iraq was connected with any terrorist attacks on our country, *ever*. Period.
Myth #2 - Iraq was preparing to attack us themselves. This has now been **PROVEN** to be false - they did not have the WMDs that we accused them of having, and therefore there was no way they could have “complied with our demands” by turning them over in order to avoid our invasion.
There’s a lot more to say on that, but I’ll answer your other questions.
I absolutely believe that *in certain circumstances*, military action is the only possible LAST RESORT (rather than a predetermined decision like this one was) in order to deal with a problem.
To say that people who oppose this war believe that war is *always* wrong, is just not true. Sure there are some that believe that, but most are reasonable people that are just against THIS PARTICULAR war. People don’t object to this war because they think war is *always* wrong, they just know that *this* war is definitely wrong; there’s a big difference there.
As for peace treaties, there are many occasions where huge conflicts have been resolved without war. Many peace treaties have been very successful in ending violent conflicts that lasted for years and sometimes decades prior to the treaties.
March 26, 1979: Peace treaty signed between Egypt and Israel.
December 1987/1988: Gorbachev working peacefully with the U.S. to END THE COLD WAR.
1989: breaking down the Berlin wall.
1994: Millions of South Africans go to the polls (UNARMED) and bring an end to 342 years of white minority rule, when they elected Nelson Mandela to power. A quote from his opposition, President F.W. de Klerk: “I hold out my hand to Mr Mandela in friendship and in cooperation. … A power greater than man has given South Africa the spirit, the chance to go forward in peace.” (Whereas VP Cheney stubbornly opposed his release from prison, even after it was clearly seen as racist oppression by the rest of the world, and even most of the USA, and defends that position to this day)
1996: Friendship treaty between Romania and Hungary
1996: Settlement between Philippine President Fidel Ramos and muslim separatists
1996: Guatemala treaty between government and guerrilla opposition ends 36 year civil war
1997: Ukraine and Poland “Declaration on Accord and Unity”
1998: Northern Ireland Peace Agreement
1998: Honduras and El Salvador
For more, research the many winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, our own country has a rich history of non-violent resistance leading to progress on the civil rights front. That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot more room for improvement, but the victories that have been achieved have only been undermined, not helped, by the small minority that believed that violence was the only way to right the wrong.
(P.S. - As for the international stuff above, don’t feel bad if you haven’t heard of most of these. Like I said before, American media plays to our arrogance by having almost no significant coverage of international events. The rare things that do squeak in are carefully sanitized by the propaganda machine.)
The real point however isn’t that peace treaties win wars or defeat terrorists. The point is that our foreign policies and actions set the stage for us to get into these kind of confrontations. When a bully is pushing around a group of people for long enough, it’s only a matter of time before someone kicks him in the balls. The plain fact is that if we hadn’t been bullying the mideast for the last several decades, they wouldn’t hate us so much that a a small minority of their population decides that there is nothing else they can do but fight back with terrorist attacks.
This isn’t justifying terrorist attacks, just saying that it’s analogous to a cop going up to a random guy on the street and starting to beat him; then saying that when the victim tried to defend himself, the cop was forced to shoot him. His “forced” decision to shoot could have been avoided by responsible action in the first place, and the same could be said for our foreign policy.
P.S. - before this gets sidetracked to far, I just want to restate that the point I was making in this original satirical post about bin Laden was that the people who claim that they voted for Bush because of his “moral values” had a very narrowly defined focus on two specific issues, and when you do that, there are a lot of other people who also fit the bill, and it doesn’t make them fit to be president.
thanks for the feedback dude, I voted for Bush and here is why, I am pro-capitalism and free markets. Being self employed and knowing there is no limit to the American dream I voted for the man who would get in my way the least for pursuing those dreams. As for abortion or gay rights, I do believe that abortion cheapens the meaning of life and for gay marriage, if two dudes want to hook up let em, but I think they should appreciate the fact that they were granted civil unions, what I think urked a lot of people is that they went beyond the boundaries of law and found these judges to illegally marry them when they knew they were breaking the law. But, those two issues didn’t effect my vote as I don’t plan on having an abortion or marrying a dude anytime soon.
Cool. It’s nice to know that some people aren’t ashamed to say that they support Bush for capitalist reasons; I think that’s at least a more honest or thought out position (even if I disagree with it) than the “moral” argument.
As you can probably tell by reading some of my other posts, I’m not a huge fan of unrestricted capitalism. In fact, you could probably safely consider me more of a socialist.
I am familiar with the idealistic part of the American dream that claims to give every person in America the chance to be a millionaire (or even president). The unfortunate reality is that only an extremely small minority can actually be president; and, due to the same basic laws of math, very few can be millionaires: there’s only so much money to go around.
Traditionally, when there are few restrictions on capitalism, it allows corporations to begin to dominate to such a degree that their influence extends into government (research pre-WW2 Germany for a good example of this). More specifically, the statement has been made (I forget by whom) that a healthy middle class is essential for a democracy, and that is evidenced by looking at the various nations of the earth. In places where there are governmental restrictions that protect the “middle class” by limiting corporate power and distributing wealth to the poorer via higher taxes on the rich, there is the opportunity for all people to have an equal say in the government; leading to things like good health care and education for everyone, which they realize benefits the society as a whole. On the opposite side of the spectrum, where there is unrestricted acquisition of wealth, it will always be the case where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The latter is unfortunately more common, especially in the “third world” nations, where almost all the wealth is held by a very tiny minority ruling class, and everyone else is left to starve and fend for themselves.
The irony is that those “elites” are living the “American dream”. They (or more likely their ancestors) took it upon themselves to grab as much for themselves as they could. Their families will be well cared for for generations to come. Unfortunately, there’s a slight problem with that: everyone around them is left in the dust. For an example that’s a little closer to home, look no farther than the many large American corporations that are doing everything they can to exploit overseas child labor just to make a buck. I wonder if the execs of that company, probably having realized this version of the “American dream” are satisfied? Some of them probably are, since they don’t actually have to personally see the poverty that their success is built on the backs of.
A “free market” cannot be free when the government allows corporations to gain a monopolizing hold on certain segments of the market. The Bush administration and other supporters of privatization of social services would love for us to believe that the “free market” will allow for the best, most economically sound solutions to needs such as health care, education, social security, etc. The glaring hole in that logic is that the goal of most companies is to make as much profit as possible, period. You’ll get a great example of the pitfalls of privatized medical care if you simply ask anyone who’s on an HMO plan these days what they think of their experience with that HMO provider. Has that HMO acted in such a way that would indicate that their goal was to provide the best possible care for their patients, or are they acting in a way that would be most profitable for them, which often means cutting costs, benefits, and approvals for patient care at every opportunity?
This is a big subject, and I’m sure there’s a lot more that could be said, but I’ also sure that almost everyone has stopped reading by this point in the post. For those that haven’t, here’s some parting info. There is an abundance of information out there on fascism, and it’s relationship to unrestricted corporate power. Here is a small excerpt from a History Channel piece on Mussolini:
Bush is a Hypocrite when it comes to free trade.
Thanks for posting your longest comment, otherwise I would have overlooked this great conversation.
You’re a socialist? Who would of guessed, ha ha. We’ll have to sit down one day and have a discussion, to much to say and type. For the truth go to rushlimbaugh.com
It’s always funny to see the words “truth” and “Rush Limbaugh” in the same sentence. Ironically, the last time I went to his site, I found this gem of a quote referring to the Iraqi insurgents:
That is an outright LIE; even the Bush administration now admits that there is absolutely no evidence of any link of that kind. Rush knows (or should know) this, and yet he continues to perpetuate this false accusation.