At least Bush is meeting with family members who have had family members pay the ultimate price in the war against terrorism.
When he visited Australia last month, he addressed a joint session of both houses of Parliament, and mentioned by name the first Aussie killed in Afghanistan, and later that day, laid a wreath at the national war memorial in his memory. (in between PM Howard hosted a BBQ lunch for the Prez, inviting 80 typical Aussies, such as Steve Irwin god help us).
However, the widow of the serviceman wasn’t invited to anything. Not even the public gallery of the Parlaiment. It was suspected that this was punishment for her kicking up a fuss, after her husband was killed, about the low amounts paid as pensions to war widows.
Most Aussies feel Howard wants the photo ops, but not the ongoing responsibilities they will produce.
Actually, if you would read some history on Carter, he very shrewdly positioned himself for the presidential dark horse nomination. The bumpkin act was mostly an act. Carter was a veteran campaigner and an intelligent analyst of which way the wind was blowing. Unfortunately for him, his abilities didn’t translate well to the presidency.
Hmmm…I’ve seen different numbers, jjimm. A poll which will be published in the Guardian tomorrow seems to say that Bush’s reception might be warmer than expected…or at least more welcomed by the silent majority. The most relevant part:
From your quote, Ogre – (survey of U.K. residents)
— And some two-thirds of those questioned said that British and American troops should not withdraw from Iraq now, but remain until the situation in the country is more stable. —
Well, I suppose we’ll be there until - when exactly will the sun consume the earth? Ah, 7.5 billion years, give or take.
The Holy Land will always be unstable. Always has, always will be.
Let me add as an afterthought, Blonde, that the land now known as Iraq has, at several times in its history, been fully, gloriously, prosperously at peace. Why do you think Osama’s so enamored with his idea for a new Caliphate?
As for your 1st point: yes, you are correct. Close enough for comfort, though.
On your 2nd point: the U.S. cannot win a war against religious fanatics. Ever.
Our two choices seem to be:
Cut off our dependence on oil (hey! I hear we have electric cars now.) Walk the hell away from Iraq. Use all that $ we saved to increase security within our own nation.
I’m sorry, I just had to comment on some of this stuff.
Close enough to what? Are you saying that Iraq is culturally and geographically close enough to the Holy Land that - what the hey - we might as well consider them the same? Might as well say Illinois was part of the Confederate States of America. I mean, hell, it was pretty close to the South, and there were lots of rural Illini who were pro-Confederacy, right? No making are sense you.
Fallacy of the excluded middle, ends, penultimate loci, and points between. You’re missing so many possibilities here it’s not even funny. Oh, and your premise is faulty too. Prove we can’t win a war against religious fanaticism. Can’t? No premise.
Halting the US’s dependence on oil will accomplish two things: 1) cripple the US’s economy, and 2) send the world into an economic death spiral probably better described as a Dark Age. There is simply no technology available which will let us do all the things we do as cheaply as with oil. What do you think would happen to, say, the food delivery trucks? The ambulances? The police cars? The airlines? The Life Flight helicopters? The harvesters? This planet, for better or for worse at the moment, depends on oil as much as your body depends on blood, and the US is a major organ. It is simply wishful thinking at its most detached to think that either the US specifically, or the world in general, will benefit any time in the next 50 or more years from “cutting off our dependence on oil.” Such a bizarre move would set world civilization back centuries.
Blonde, you claim that one cannot win a war with religious fanatics. Ever.
George Bush is a religious fanatic. It therefore follows–by your logic–that his armies are invincible.
I think you need to check your premises.
It seems odd to me that we assume that any terrorist killed means 10 more terrorists will rise to take their place, but that every American killed means 10 more Americans will chicken out and run away. Why exactly? Why not the opposite?
And history is replete with examples of religious fanatics being defeated, their movements crushed, and their land put under foreign rule, often permanently. I could list dozens of examples for you if you don’t believe me. Religious fanaticism and neo-religious totalitarian brainwashing are not invincible. Free peoples and the free societies they create are far stronger than any collection of death-seeking psychopaths, and I’m sick of the argument that the terrorists are destined to win.
Fact is, we’re our own worst critics. And believe me, we’ve insulted, mocked, hated, and believed obviously false and petty rumors/lies about every President after Washington. Heck, if you want to see some erious bile, take a look at waht the northern Democrats wrote about lincoln during the Civil War.