Oh ya, almost forgot. I’ll be pretty grateful too if Bush manages to keep us out of any additional shooting wars or other foreign adventures for the next 4 years as well. Probably not something entirely in his control, but we could at least not have any more trumped up adventures at least. THAT would be a success IMO.
-XT
And would you count that state of affairs as a success, or a failure?
What kind of “revamping” do you have in mind?
For instance?
IMO too. But are you sure Bush would count that as a success?
If reasonably stable and an Iraq moving towards even more stability, then a success of course. I’m not too keen on US troops stationed in South Korea and especially not in Europe today, but I see the need despite my distaste. Same would go for Iraq.
Now, if we are 5 or 10 years down the pike and things look like they do today or worse…then thats a different kettle of fish. For that matter, if it looks like it does today in 4 years when Bush is on the way out it will be a major failure IMO.
Myself or Bush? For myself, you know I’d prefer a flat (or at least flatter) tax system that was simpler with less loopholes…something that wouldn’t take a tax accountant to prepare, and that was a bit more fair across the board. Of course, were it ME, then it would also come along with a radical restructuring of US expenditures across the board as well. 
I seriously doubt Bush is thinking anything like that…so I’ll just be surprised if anything changes at all to be honest.
Please. Of the top of my head I can think of several…thats without any digging at all. He’s poured money into the Department of Education. He’s created a new entitlement with his perscription drug bill. He has plans for even more things like this in his next term. Had he been a democrat and not gotten us into a war (and gotten through the rest of what he proposed to do in his first term) he’d be a very successful liberal democrat IMHO…except for the social conservatism of course, especially the gay marriage thing. Of course, IMO, if Bill Clinton would have been in the office, we would still be where we are on that issue…but people would FEEL that Clinton really was with them despite his lack of actual support.
No idea really…thats why I said from my own perspective. I think Bush is fairly happy with the way things went so far for him in the ME though. I seriously doubt he REALLY wants to invade another nation, though I would be willing to bet that there are plans to bomb the snot out of Iran if they don’t toe the line on their nuclear program. THATS something I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed too…and though the Europeans might howl about it, I think secretly they would be pleased too.
-XT
Ah, now THERE’s an interesting beast. Between Russia and India sharing secrets ant technology, I somehow think it would be rather difficult to do this… short of “nation building” in Iran. Are we the sole authority on who gets nukes now? I wonder how Bush would justify attacking Iran, much less doing so successfully.
Well, that’s all debatable. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration:
:dubious: Do you really?
It IS debatable…in fact its been debated several times here. Do you wish to debate it again? I’ve seen the numbers and I think, at least as far as education goes, they are being distorted (i.e. semantic games are being played with what COULD have been pumped in, while ignoring what WAS pumped in…all of which, to my own mind misses the point of what SHOULD have, or shouldn’t have in my case, been pumped in). Fact remains he poured in more money than previous administration, even if he didn’t put in the max amount he could have (which is ridiculous). To ME he has spent a hell of a lot on social type programs for a supposedly Conservative Republican.
Well…perhaps not. Wants…yes, maybe he WOULD want too. Can though…thats the question. I doubt he has either the political capital or the real ability to push though another invasion without a direct attack against the US by a foreign power. Even if we were attacked I really don’t see where we would scrape up another army from for both the invasion and subsequent occupation. I can certainly see air strikes, cruise missiles, etc…but no, I don’t see how it would be possible in the next 4 years to invade an Iran or a North Korea.
-XT
Or terrorists that can be loosely tied by rumors to that power, apparently.
His administration is certainly bending over backwards to make an attack against us possible, though. I mean, the terror alert level is like “this would be the best time to attack us”… then giving all the tips to the media, like which nuclear facilities are vulnerable, and to watch out for those radio controlled airplanes with sarin gas! :rolleyes:
Maybe the CIA can start funding Osama again.
Well, if they knew where the hell he was.
As an outsider:
I have fairly low expectations.
Never read/heard that before. Cite?
As to us being the sole Authority now:
We have, at least since JFK, said that U.S. policy is that no one else gets nuclear weapons. We are also a signatory the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty (below)
As to us being the *sole Authority * who decides who has nuclear weapons:
The U.N. agrees with the idea that the Nuclear club is closed: and in fact this international consensus is behind the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (Iran is a signatory) and the International Atomic Energy Agency. I think it is fair to say this: It is the official policy, or would be if they had any policy on the issue at all, of virtually/almost every government North of the Equator, save North Korea & Cuba, that Iran should not have Nuclear weapons.
What to Do about it:
This, I think, except for that one unfortunate sentence (that perhaps I unfairly cherry/nit picked) what is really most of the thought behind your post. The Europeans are working hard. I am hopeful, and I truly believe the Bush Administration is hopeful, that the Euros and IAEA will shut down the program.
I hope that this “bad cop” from Washington (the leak from Hirsch and the staements of Senior officials) are saber rattling to avoid a showdown.
To be clear: I believe totally that it would be a counterproductive mess to try and take out Iran’s Nuclear facilities militarily and should be the last, the very very last, resort. But I do not share the belief that it is necessarily impossible nor will it necessarily lead to an Iraq-style occupation of Iran.
Diplomacy will solve this – I hope – and to the OP I would put that on Bush being successful, doing it peacefully, but I don’t think it is entirely 100% up to him.
Interesting take, thanks.
Given that foreign relations isn’t exactly Bush’s strong point, I think he should let it rest for his term.
http://www.schooldata.com/ssm-hance.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/education.html
The actual numbers:
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html
I don’t see a problem with that. Happened to Germany happened to Japan, Korea and Western Europe, and somehow they became relatively successful, I don’t see how it is different for Iraq.
You really don’t see how it’s different? In a part of world where many regard the mere presence of non-Islamic troops as an outrage and a sacrilege? Do you really think that attitude is going to change within your lifetime or mine?
Just like Japan after World War Two. I don’t think they liked the fact of foreigners on their soil, yet became a success with our help. So this is why I see it as no different for Iraq.
They became a success because we poured a tremendous sum of money and industry into them, provided their armed services, etc etc.
So far, we’ve spend 1/10th of what we alloted for rebuilding, which is 1/10th of what we spent to invade them in the first place.
Something of a difference between the two.
Japan was – and is – a thing unto itself. Any cultural affinities it may have had with its Asian neighbors were neutralized by the fact that it had been brutally occupying all of them for years previous. Nobody was willing to stick up for the Japanese, or incite them to revolt against American occupation.
Iraq, on the other hand, is surrounded by other Arab and/or Muslim countries, most of whose governments and all of whose peoples are very interested in the situation there . . .