Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Video: Putin mocks Bush to his face


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mind you, both Eisner and Bush will be gone while what they created may live on, perhaps in spite of them.

That's a pretty convenient formulation - Bush has spent 5+ years fighting tooth and nail, against a non-stop barrage of criticism and at the risk of his political career, for a fledgling democracy in the Middle East. And if that democracy survives and flourishes, it will be "in spite of" his efforts. I'm sure this will be the meme I'll be reading from the anti-Bush brigades for the rest of my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3. Substance? Bush Jnr is right to do what he's doing (Putin knows that) but Bush Jnr is going about this in a typically naive North American way - North American liberals take note.

Too bad the so-called naivite was demonstrated, in this case, by a Conservative. I think your entire 'reconstruction plan' was also cooked up by Conservatives (the so-called Neo-Cons) - so I fail to see how Liberals should take note, except to comment on your failures.

What was Putin to say? 'Yes, we would love a country teetering on the abyss of a religious civil war.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a pretty convenient formulation - Bush has spent 5+ years fighting tooth and nail, against a non-stop barrage of criticism and at the risk of his political career, for a fledgling democracy in the Middle East. And if that democracy survives and flourishes, it will be "in spite of" his efforts. I'm sure this will be the meme I'll be reading from the anti-Bush brigades for the rest of my life.

Huh? Exactly how has Bush fought 'tooth and nail' for democracy? Hes been sitting in an air-conditioned office, last time I checked, eating buttered rolls and talking shit.

For a successful reconstruction look at post WW2 Japan. Now look at Iraq. Any questions?

Unless rational thought died in the intervening 40 years, what we have here is a monumental failure. I fail to see why I should commend a leader who could not accomplish his mission. Bush, throughout his tenure, has been more interested in social policies than waging any War on Terror or spreading democracy. He advanced a corporate agenda primarily.

If anything, Bush has been the halfhearted mascot of democracy - unfortunately it is all too easy to pin a 'Kick Me' sign on his back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? Exactly how has Bush fought 'tooth and nail' for democracy? Hes been sitting in an air-conditioned office, last time I checked, eating buttered rolls and talking shit.

"Fighting tooth and nail" is an expression. No teeth or nails were involved; indeed, the fight has been political rather than physical. Kinda how people dressing up like clowns and carrying idiotic placards in the street are "fighting" for whatever the cause of the day is.

For a successful reconstruction look at post WW2 Japan. Now look at Iraq. Any questions?

Yeah. When did the Yanks drop a nuke on an Iraqi city?

Unless rational thought died in the intervening 40 years, what we have here is a monumental failure.

Not to be overly rational, but by what standard has the Iraq intervention been a failure? By using what comparison can you make that statement? What war happened that went smoother?

I fail to see why I should commend a leader who could not accomplish his mission.

The war isn't over yet. I don't expect you to commend Bush, but accusing him of failing his mission before it's complete demonstrates nothing more than unrealistic expectations on your part.

Bush, throughout his tenure, has been more interested in social policies than waging any War on Terror or spreading democracy. He advanced a corporate agenda primarily.

I don't think you're going to get a lot of support for this statement, even with the ranks of like-minded thinkers. Anway, can you provide examples of his corporate agenda? Can you explain how his agenda has been more corporate than, say, Jimmy Carter's?

If anything, Bush has been the halfhearted mascot of democracy - unfortunately it is all too easy to pin a 'Kick Me' sign on his back.

I'm confused. Nothing in the rest of your post explains why you would find this unfortunate, or even how a "kick me" sign relates to Bush's attempts to bring democracy to the ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What was Putin to say? 'Yes, we would love a country teetering on the abyss of a religious civil war.'
Huh?

This is the Russian way of dealing with Islamic insurgents:

http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr22-23/foto/grozny.jpg

http://www.cst.ras.eu.org/images/Grozny1.jpg

http://www.gva.be/dossiers/-t/tsjetsjenie/img/grozny.jpg

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/photos/huge/...16/grozny_4.jpg

The Russians did most of this in two years too.

----

It's interesting that many radical Muslims refer to Chechnya and Bosnia as turning points in their political viewpoints. But whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain to me how Bush has brought democracy anywhere.

Cmon, just ONE place. Anywhere? At all?

I mean, I know he has made grandiose speeches, and proposed all sorts of schemes, and told us any number of wonderful things would happen - that we would be greeted with flowers, that Iraq would rebuild - I half expected Iraq to suddenly sprout gigantic vegatables and for the cure for cancer to be found in the microorganisms inside an Iraqi oil aquifier. Sadly, all of this talk turned out to be just that - talk. What has Bush DONE? Give me some examples - other than a vague ' he fought dem liberuls and the New Yawk Times'. Because frankly, they gave carte blanche - they have no majorities and as a party look more emasculated than our own Liberals.

The Moral of the Story: Democracy at the barrel of a gun does'nt work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey - did I somehow get interpreted as being 'RAH-RAH!' Putin? I'm no Putin fanboy, if I can use the expression.

I'm pointing out that Russia, unlike Iraq, is not on the verge of a religious civil war. The war in Chechyna was primarily a war of seperation, with Islamists wanting to create an Islamic republic. This differs from Iraq in many ways, including the fact that there is little or nothing we can do about it without going to war with Russia. Unlike, say, Iraq, or Lebanon, where we have choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain to me how Bush has brought democracy anywhere.

Cmon, just ONE place. Anywhere? At all?

I mean, I know he has made grandiose speeches, and proposed all sorts of schemes, and told us any number of wonderful things would happen - that we would be greeted with flowers, that Iraq would rebuild - I half expected Iraq to suddenly sprout gigantic vegatables and for the cure for cancer to be found in the microorganisms inside an Iraqi oil aquifier. Sadly, all of this talk turned out to be just that - talk. What has Bush DONE? Give me some examples - other than a vague ' he fought dem liberuls and the New Yawk Times'. Because frankly, they gave carte blanche - they have no majorities and as a party look more emasculated than our own Liberals.

The Moral of the Story: Democracy at the barrel of a gun does'nt work.

Did you miss the whole Iraqi election thing back in December? Have you been following the news at all, or did you just come out of a three year coma?

I wasn't aware that democracy included unusual vegetation or any of the other things you mentioned. I have so much to learn from you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Moral of the Story: Democracy at the barrel of a gun does'nt work.

Since this statement is so important to you that you've made the effort to bold it, I'll write a seperate post for it specifically.

Name one (1) democracy that didn't come into being as a result of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Moral of the Story: Democracy at the barrel of a gun does'nt work.

Since this statement is so important to you that you've made the effort to bold it, I'll write a seperate post for it specifically.

Name one (1) democracy that didn't come into being as a result of war.

Athens.

And to clarify, forcing democracy on another people does not work. Revolutionary wars are often successful, but not wars initiated by a foreign power with the intention of installing democracy. Thats called 'colonialism'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you miss the whole Iraqi election thing back in December? Have you been following the news at all, or did you just come out of a three year coma?

I wasn't aware that democracy included unusual vegetation or any of the other things you mentioned. I have so much to learn from you.

No, I saw the elections. I also saw the capture of a female MP and her bodyguard and the general breakdown of government since. Or did your brain shut off after the election? 'Ok, alls well now Alice, they done voted!'

You do have much to learn, padawan. The good news is that you have the capacity to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Moral of the Story: Democracy at the barrel of a gun does'nt work.

Since this statement is so important to you that you've made the effort to bold it, I'll write a seperate post for it specifically.

Name one (1) democracy that didn't come into being as a result of war.

Athens.

And to clarify, forcing democracy on another people does not work. Revolutionary wars are often successful, but not wars initiated by a foreign power with the intention of installing democracy. Thats called 'colonialism'.

So, India's not a democracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, India's not a democracy?

You skipped my points.

I would argue that Gandhi fought a revolutionary war. I think the British would too. Despite Gandhi's best efforts, violence erupted many times.

India is unique in that it has an ancient national identity and unifying national religion, for the most part. The subcontinent has a long and rich history - and it had during the period strong leaders to help guide it through the dark periods. However, even Gandhi was not entierly successful - he wanted a single, secular state - sadly Pakistan formed a seperate Muslim state despite his best intentions. I don't think there is any argument that Gandhi was a revolutionary figure and the figurative father of India's democracy.

Now, Gandhi advocated peace through non-violence. Where is the Gandhi in Iraq - Bush certainly is no statesman or leader of his calibre.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, Gandhi advocated peace through non-violence. Where is the Gandhi in Iraq - Bush certainly is no statesman or leader of his calibre.

Ghandi was a unique individual. There isn't a world leader like him anywhere in the world today. It isn't reasonable to expect a man of his calibre to magically appear and save Iraq, when no other country can claim to have a man like him either.

Also, Ghandi's legacy is not a non-violent nation, despite his best intentions. Indira Ghandi was assasinated by her own seperatist bodyguard. Her son was also assasinated. There are still incidents of intra-religious mob violence leading to numerous fatalities. All this, decades after independance and Pakistani secession. Saddam Hussein has been out of power for a scant three years. Again, it's unreasonable to expect perfection in Iraq when even the best intentions in other nations yield imperfect results with more than 10 times the amount of time for reconciliation.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree about him being the "Father of Indian Democracy". He was the spiritual leader of the independance movement, but he wasn't a member of any political party nor was he involved in the nuts and bolts creation of the Indian system of government. The Wikipedia entry about the Indian political system leads me to believe it was created to imitate both the British and American systems of government, while Ghandi is cited as being, at most, philosophically influential.

I don't know what points of yours I've skipped over. I went back and reread the relevant posts. Please reiterate what you'd like me to respond to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And to clarify, forcing democracy on another people does not work. Revolutionary wars are often successful, but not wars initiated by a foreign power with the intention of installing democracy. Thats called 'colonialism'.
Germany and Japan after 1945 are the obvious examples (and Bush Jnr specifically referred to them).

One could argue that all the democracies of Eastern Europe were the result of the Cold War and the defeat of the previous regimes by foreign powers.

Government is inherently unstable and democratic government is no exception. I think it's false to generalize and say that a democratic government can never come into existence through an outside force.

God knows if the US attempt to foster a democratic government in Iraq will be successful. But it's certainly worth trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Germany and Japan after 1945 are the obvious examples (and Bush Jnr specifically referred to them).
Germany and Japan where both democracies before WW2 started. "Imposing" democracy on these countries was simply a matter of restoring existing institutions and fixing the flaws that allowed these institutions to be usurped by military dictators. A better example is South Korea which was basically a military dictatorship until the late 80s. However, democracy was not really imposed there either - it was the South Korean people who demanded the democratic reforms after years of living under US approved dictators.

The belief that democracy can be imposed by force is perhaps the most frightening beliefs of our time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Germany and Japan where both democracies before WW2 started.
Riverview, I suggest you do a little bit of historical research.

The Weimar Republic was Germany's experience in "democracy" and it lasted between 1919-1933. (I would argue that one great success of the past century was the defeat of tyranny and the victory of individual freedom in Germany. It took eventually well over 100 years and is the only way to understand European history.)

Before 1945, I don't know if Japan ever had democracy. I'm not sure it even had democracy after 1945.

The point is this: in 1945, the Allied powers were setting up entirely new institutions in both Japan and Germany.

Something similar is happening in Iraq, with one big difference. In Iraq, the Sunni minority refuses to accept its minority status and insists that it should keep its prerogatives. Iraqi Sunnis are behaving like White Rhodesians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Weimar Republic was Germany's experience in "democracy" and it lasted between 1919-1933.
It was a democracy - elections were held and the outcome was not known until the ballots were counted. The economy was a mess but that has no bearing on whether the system of gov't was a democracy or not.
Before 1945, I don't know if Japan ever had democracy. I'm not sure it even had democracy after 1945.
Taisho Democracy 1912-1926 - look it up.
The point is this: in 1945, the Allied powers were setting up entirely new institutions in both Japan and Germany.
The institutions had a number of structural differences from the previous democratic experiments but it is wrong to say that these institutions were 'completely new'.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Taisho Democracy 1912-1926 - look it up.
Right. A democracy named after an Emperor, a period determined by the reign of the Emperor. A series of short-lived, unstable governments during a world war and Japanese agression abroad. That's like a teenager claiming work experience because she babysat her younger brother.

Riverview, I won't be drawn into a debate about whether Germany or Japan after WWI were democracies or not.

It is possible for an outside power to create an environment where democratic government can be born even if the country has scant or no experience of democratic government before.

The principle problem in Iraq right now is that there is sectarian violence, primarily around Baghdad. In many ways, it reminds me of the Lebanese Civil War.

The Allies did not face similar divisions in German and Japanese societies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what points of yours I've skipped over. I went back and reread the relevant posts. Please reiterate what you'd like me to respond to.

Sorry, been working alot lately.

I think my assertion that Iraq is plunging headalong into the abyss of sectarian civil war - and that our 'intervention' caused it - is the one I am referring to.

It is obvious at this point to any who care to look the experiment in exporting democracy to Iraq was a collossal failure. No wonder, considering how unrealistic their expectations were - 'we'll be greeted with flowers!'. As I understand it, prior to the invasion, they had no real reconstruction plan. Also stupid was the decision to disband the entire Iraqi army and to pass out no-bid contracts to corporations that were politically connected. All this led to what we have today. I place blame at the foot of the door where it lies - the White House.

Let's face facts people - it was incredibly, incredibly infantile to believe that somehow, by bringing democracy to Iraq that other democracies would begin to pop up all over the region. The United States supports repressive regimes (ie Saudi) as long as they cooporate with the US agenda. If democracy was the real goal, we have plenty of tools to exert pressure - we choose not to use them because we do not want the oil spigot shut off.

We're afraid that who they elect would be more hostile to US interests, you see? Does any of this make sense, yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...