RE: Bush: 'Fool,' yes, 'Well-Meaning,' not quite
...he conveniently ignores the fact that imperialism isn't exactly great for anybody except the imperialists. European Imperialism benefited me, you, and Steyn — making it great for those of European descent — not necessarily for everybody else.
You contradicted yourself. First you say imperialism isn't good for anyone, then you say it's good for "us" and not "them." Which is it? Of course it is not true that imperialism is not good for anyone. Western civilization, along with all the benefits you and I reap from it, are products of imperialism. If you want to decry imperialism from the standpoint of its obvious detriments to freedom, that's fine and I'm right there with you, but if you want to decry it through some misguided sense of guilt for having reaped the benefits of it, or through some ill-conceived theory of universal social justice, then you're on your own.
And now here goes 'ol Dubya — with Steyn and others like him singing his praises — and he thinks he's going to build a self-sufficient democracy in the midst of a such a region and it's going to work?
Well, the bad news for your complaint is that as far as the democracy itself goes, it is working and it is, in and of itself, self-sufficient. All that is left to do is to leave it with an army that can defend it. This is what I can't understand about the left's approach to the war. Why do you assume that an American success in Iraq makes our original complaint against the action invalid? The left spends far too much time in Machiavellian pursuits. Even if we accomplish everything we set out to do, which we very likely will, does that change the fact that it was wrong for us to do it in the first place?
Or does he really even think that at all? Does Bush and Co. have another motivation other than 'freeing the Iraqi people'? Any guesses?
Drat! It's back to Michael Moore territory again. You (and others on the left) are over-thinking this. Bush is so very transparent. It's as simple as this: The Bush Doctrine is all wrapped up in that legacy thing. Ask Bill Clinton, he can explain it. The icing on the cake is the fact that Junior finished the job that Pop wouldn't take on. Furthermore, Junior got some big-time payback for the audacity of some tin-pot dictator who sent a hitman after his Pop. And you can take this to the bank: Bush believes his own spin. He genuinely believes that his adventurism has made the world a better place. And is some respects he is right, for now. But, as I said before, our grandchildren will pay for his mistakes.
All the oil conspiracies, the Saudi royal family conspiracies, and the rest of the CFR, tri-lateralist, and illuminati fairy tales simply detract from understanding and preventing the Bush phenomenon in the future.
You contradicted yourself. First you say imperialism isn't good for anyone, then you say it's good for "us" and not "them." Which is it? Of course it is not true that imperialism is not good for anyone. Western civilization, along with all the benefits you and I reap from it, are products of imperialism. If you want to decry imperialism from the standpoint of its obvious detriments to freedom, that's fine and I'm right there with you, but if you want to decry it through some misguided sense of guilt for having reaped the benefits of it, or through some ill-conceived theory of universal social justice, then you're on your own.
And now here goes 'ol Dubya — with Steyn and others like him singing his praises — and he thinks he's going to build a self-sufficient democracy in the midst of a such a region and it's going to work?
Well, the bad news for your complaint is that as far as the democracy itself goes, it is working and it is, in and of itself, self-sufficient. All that is left to do is to leave it with an army that can defend it. This is what I can't understand about the left's approach to the war. Why do you assume that an American success in Iraq makes our original complaint against the action invalid? The left spends far too much time in Machiavellian pursuits. Even if we accomplish everything we set out to do, which we very likely will, does that change the fact that it was wrong for us to do it in the first place?
Or does he really even think that at all? Does Bush and Co. have another motivation other than 'freeing the Iraqi people'? Any guesses?
Drat! It's back to Michael Moore territory again. You (and others on the left) are over-thinking this. Bush is so very transparent. It's as simple as this: The Bush Doctrine is all wrapped up in that legacy thing. Ask Bill Clinton, he can explain it. The icing on the cake is the fact that Junior finished the job that Pop wouldn't take on. Furthermore, Junior got some big-time payback for the audacity of some tin-pot dictator who sent a hitman after his Pop. And you can take this to the bank: Bush believes his own spin. He genuinely believes that his adventurism has made the world a better place. And is some respects he is right, for now. But, as I said before, our grandchildren will pay for his mistakes.
All the oil conspiracies, the Saudi royal family conspiracies, and the rest of the CFR, tri-lateralist, and illuminati fairy tales simply detract from understanding and preventing the Bush phenomenon in the future.
posted by Anonymous | 12:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home