[Vision2020] Dems Policies, etc

[Paul]

Ted, et. al.;

> How fond is "that fond?"
>
> You don't sound like you object to Bush's murderous irrational foreign 
> policy.

Point of  technicality: War is the organized, legally sanctioned murder 
of another countries' citizens, to achieve political goals.
Any war is focussed mass murder. See Clausewitz(German miliray scientist 
of the late 1800s). Every government's leader who
has war under his leadership has the charge of massive murder, because 
responsibility flows upwards(See Nuremburg trials for precedent).
Each war-time leader from  FDR to JFK to Bush is guilty of the murder of 
their fellow-humans. It is quite legal, sadly enough.

With regard to rationality:

The Afghanistan operation went off reasonably well.
The Iraq operation is a fiasco, overall.

But I don't consider Bush irrational.(!!!)
If you place the security of the United States as the paramount duty of 
the government and work with such logic,
his actions are reasonable.

Regarding myself and my views on GWB;
I:
     don't like or want much of his domestic security policy;
    don't care for his blending of religious and state issues;
    don't like his lack of funding for education.

And probably more things that that, but those thoughts are what come to 
mind.
I object to war. Why should I _like_ it ? But even while not wanting 
war, I can see the justification for waging war.
One only has to look at history.
And one should remember that the present peace in the world(yes, even 
now), is as nothing relative to
pre-Waterloo European history, and especially pre-Hundred Years War. At 
those times, a country was either a) warring, b) preparing for war,
or c)getting warred upon.

It also should be of note that in a single day in World War One, 300,000 
human beings were slaughtered.
In World War Two, at the battle of Iwo Jima, 7,000 people died, and 18, 
000 were wounded.
This too should be considered in the context of the Trade Towers, 
Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Which is not to be accepting of the current world problems.
But I think it is wise to be aware of history in regards to current 
human suffering.

> And you also wrote:
>
> "And back to Ted's statment.
> Yes. Bush does need to have an eye on global warming and what is
> happening in regards to the enviroment."
>
> What sort of "eye" does Bush have?  One filled with oil wells and 
> dollar signs?

Can't say what exactly drives Bush with enviromental issues. Could be 
better, could be worse.
It _is_ record that he wanted to put some money into hydrgen car 
research(see state of union address, 04 or 03).
This is probably to reduce dependance on Arab/Muslim oil, but also has 
the effect of being more friendly to the enviroment.
Bush seems to view much of the world in a security driven lens, 
unfortunately.

As for the charge of imperialism and reneging on that promise, I would 
submit that 9/11 changed the perception of the US with respect
 to foreign policy in general.

In general, I don't support Bush. But I see his rationale, and it tends 
to be understandable.
His and Congress' actions in regard to security are truly acceptable 
only in the context of a full-scale war, which the current War on 
Terrorism is not.
If it was, we would have bombs, etc, continously in the US. It's really 
a war of ideas. But that's a whole thread in and of itself.

-paul