Bush's Failed Policies - Political Forum

CHUQ · 10-11-2006, 06:47 AM

Thgis is an analysis from across the pond on some of the Prez's policies.

http://thestaronline.com/news/story....c=Worldupdates

What do you think?

Zebra · 10-15-2006, 06:39 PM

As someone across the pond, I think that Mr Bush looks like someone who is out of his depth. I like him personally. I believe he is honestly trying to do the right thing. I think his thinking is wrong on a number of issues.
1. How can there be a war on terror? It does not make sense. First, one must define terror. There was a summit in the Middle East to decide that and it failed, I believe. So there are a series of problems.
2. Islamofascist? Is that a help? We are aware now that Muslims, speaking very generally, are not a particularly self-critical group. They are a very divided one. Islamofascist isn’t a helpful concept in my opinion. He has tended to lump all our ‘enemies’ together and lost much goodwill from many of our friends, such as Pakistan. He has not helped to divide them. It appears that it is not by killing our enemies that we defeat them. We do far more to gain or keep support by the casualties we suffer, than those we inflict. Mr Bush gives the impression that he is not aware of this and seems to look too much for military victories to help. His reactions to 9/11 as reported by the journalist Mr Woodward, seems to suggest that he wanted to use the 9/11attacks to obtain global support for a number of targets apart from Al Qaeda. He failed to see these disparate warring groups as requiring different approaches. Emphasising that Muslims in general should not feel threatened would have been better than allowing Muslim fundamentalism, which has a vast following that is peaceful, to be linked so closely with terrorism. So fanatical terrorism might be better than him saying ‘Islamic terrorism’. This is not to deny that many of the most dangerous terrorist are Muslim fundamentalists. Or that many fundamentalists did already hate the west, but many were and still are peaceful. His insistent talk of Al Qaeda added to their legend more than was necessary.
3. I think we have all learned the need for a more multinational approach to world issues and threats. He has led the west into Iraq and Afghanistan without the political capital to win, perhaps. It is lacking more in those countries and regions, than in the west.
5. One should never make threats one is not prepared to carry out. Is he seriously considering invading Iran or North Korea? If not, it would be helpful to say so. He should also emphasise that it is not just the USA’s problem and they can only act with the co-operation of others. This would allow retaliation if attacked, but would make non-nuclear nations feel less threatened. That would be valuable moral capital.
6. Like many republicans, he sometimes seems to mistake inaction, caution, or objections for weakness.
7. He does not look ahead. There is a huge and growing difference between the relationship the west has with many Muslim countries governments and the west’s relationship to their peoples. It is the latter that is important and should be our focus. What will happen if a popular government occurs in Saudi Arabia for instance?
8. Overall, I think that Mr Clinton was a far better leader and looked much more in control.
This is just a personal opinion.
Sorry for the long posting!

lordoftheworld · 10-18-2006, 12:08 AM

I believe that the US has to do some major reorganization with Middle-Eastern policy. They are a completly different society, almost uncivilized. We have no understanding about what they are about as a people. Bush has had a lot of things happen to him while in office, and every wrong move he makes someone is there to jump on him. Maybe he has brought it on himself, but what could Bush have done to stop NK from getting nukes? What could we offer them? Are we supposed to give them money or more aid? WHy sould we, when NK should realize that they have no business possesing nukes. That's why the US is working with the UN, we are the biggest contibutors to the UN, we might as well use them, maybe one day they will side with us. Why should the US have to talk to NK one on one, when no other country does? We have nothing to offer them, because they deserve nothing more from us. Should we give them more aid like past persidents in order to stop them from getting nukes?