Posted by
Ed
17 yrs ago
Mornings for me would not be the same without coffee and the IHT!
Now you can also enjoy the same opportunity to read and enjoy the most excellent and world renowned journalists such as Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman and so on with this free offer
https://secure.iht.com/subscriptions/step1.php?location=Hong%20Kong&promocode=AX09
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
17 yrs ago
I'd give SCMP best English newspaper in HK (a tiny market) but outside of HK its not known so I dont think it can be considered for the honour of World's Best Newspaper.
Please support our advertisers:
has got to be Sunday Times.. Sunday is just not sunday without one...
Please support our advertisers:
Please support our advertisers:
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
17 yrs ago
NYT and IHT same same...
I almost dropped my Economist subscription when they took the position to support the Iraq War agreeing that Saddam had WMD and stating that Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
And I dropped it when they came out with a position continuing to support that war when it all went to hell.
Not sure whats going on there - either they have no idea - or they got the call from someone saying if you want Boeing ads going forward you toe the line....
Dont think that happens? I got 'that call' when I refused ads for a certain political party last year...
Please support our advertisers:
I know, but I prefer to read NYT columnists rather than IHT, call me old fashioned.
There are some publications that are bigger than the advertiser, in the sense the advertiser needs the publication more so than the publication needs the advertiser. If you are the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, how many publications that reach a cross section of decision makers in society can you advertise in?
The Economist is one of the few publications especially in America where subscriptions and readership continues to grow, rather than fall like everyone else is doing. I think 1.5 million subscribers 1/3 of which are in America, with subscriptions by senators, CEO's congressmen, and I strongly suspect the President himself through proxies.
The Economist's Iraq position is largely as a result of arrogance and pride. The simple inability and refusal to admit it made a mistake, that it was wrong, in the way that Hillary Clinton could not say she made a mistake when she was running. Except she felt she would lose an election, which is understandable, they are simply being pig headed and to proud and I would venture to big for their boots.
The worst thing that The Economist did is refuse to accept that they made a mistake over Iraq. Instead of admitting it they said it was not the invasion that was the mistake but how it was handled and everything after. That the war was bungled but the idea was not incorrect.
That is twisted logic even now, and they should know better than to continue to pass a line of bullsh*t over an educated readership.
Historically they are associated with the Republican Party, it is a paper that advocates free trade and less government intervention, and they have always made the case Saddam was a tyrant, so when regime change came about as an option they advocated it.
They failed to foresee what would happen and now cannot say that there was a failure on the part of their editor.
What they have refused to do is ever admit that the position was erroneous. I saw an interview with the current editor John Micklethwaite, and he squirmed when it was put to him, and made some vague excuse about it being the position of a previous editor which therefore meant it was not his place to reverse editorial position. Very slippery road and a ridiculous notion that one cannot suggest that predecessors have been wrong in their decisions.
It is a strange paper, in some ways it is a cliche reading it, it speaks with a unified editorial stance and its journalist use the same type of language idiosyncrasies, more so than any other publication I have read, but it regardless it offers quality journalism from around the world, on science and technology, and obviously economics.
Very useful to have when you are in a waiting room, and I have to say regardless of the cliche, I learn more from the Economist then I do from any other single source.
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
17 yrs ago
Call me a cynic but I strongly suspect their position was related to pressure or association with the GOP - or both.
I have experience with how these people work and how they attempt to influence advertisers...
Please support our advertisers:
Don't believe that for a second ed, I have to respectfully disagree with you sir. There may be some idealogical association and lesser publications may do the things you suggest.
In the digital age, a publication with a growing affluent readership, circulation and subscription above US$200k annually needs to pander to no one, they are too arrogant, and to big for their boots to allow anyone to tell them how to think or dictate what to print.
Some publications demand journalistic integrity, and will not compromise on that regardless of government policy or advertiser obligations. I have to say if anyone was going to require it, it would be The Economist.
They took a poor position on Iraq, and they refuse to accept a mistake, even the GOP admits that perhaps it was a misadventure and their failure to do so, for me puts its editorial to shame, it is a blight. If they said they got it wrong my respect and the editorial credibility in my view would increase 1000 per cent.
Pride comes before the fall
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
17 yrs ago
DG > you might be correct but then you might not... nobody will ever know because nobody will ever say (I am sure even Fox would deny they are influenced by the GOP).
All I do know is that if you go against the grain there are attempts to push you in the 'right direction' and it usually involves threats related to advertisers...
Now if anyone would bother with an expat site in Asia that has virtually no influence on politics in the States then you can surely imagine that they might put some serious effort into attempting to influence the editorial of a publication as influential as the Economist....
GV > I posted this on the Living in HK forum because there is no other remotely relevant category - and because the offer is for HK residents - kinda like a community service thing...
Also as Editor I have superhuman powers that allow me to override and/ or veto all rules of the site if I feel it is in the interest of the community.
Please support our advertisers:
ed after all this time you still spell my initials wrong!!
Fox news was set up with the specific intention to offer a counter viewpoint to what can really only be described as a left of centre TV news industry in America. There was such a gap in the market, that all they had to do was recruit those hooligans and they won massive ratings very quickly because previously if you were on the right in terms of media you were left with Radio or Print.
I don't think Fox just toes the GOP line, I think some of their journalists enunciate it, and its quite different to The Economist. A lot of it is trash, its political rhetoric, trashing left leaning principles and most of the time with no basis in reality.
You can be on the right of centre or even extreme right and still be able to offer educated view points. Fox is news for the Jerry Springer audience, I think it would be unfair to compare The Economist with Fox News.
I have no doubt that some advertisers may pull if media starts touting political views which contrast significantly with what would benefit them or even hurt them.
I just think there are some publications that would take a stand and give an advertiser the middle finger regardless of who they were based on their journalistic principles and freedom of speech. I think even Fox would draw a line somewhere, when you get large enough, you have the ability to do that.
In fact some columnists could simply not be told by their editors what they should write or how they should stand. Friedman as an NYT columnist was not allowed to make a presidential endorsement as a matter of editorial policy (because the editors do that). He did anyway, he wrote a column just before the elections and said basically he couldn't say who he endorsed explicitly, but this is who he implies he would do it for if he could and why.
The Economist is a privately held group (with publicly listed shareholders), and they are arrogant, and in a world of declining print they are growing, if someone came along and started bullying, I am pretty sure they would print that fact and threaten the advertiser, and they are influential, and to protect that, editorial integrity would have to be protected at all costs, even revenue. I mean really for them, if they started taking new editorial positions driven by advertisers, well for them that is one stop away from the National Enquirer, or heaven forbid Fox News.
Just my view Ed.
Please support our advertisers:
It is not inconsistent to separate idea and execution. For example, the idea that Japan must be defeated during WWII was justified, but Nagasaki was more debatable. Another: Soviet industrial development under Stalin, and the massacre of kulaks. More recently in the UK: creating obstacles for terrorists, and suspending habeas corpus for 90 days. In economics: FDR stopping bank runs, and seizing private gold holdings. The list goes on and on.
Please support our advertisers:
No in terms of Iraq policy it is quite slippery. For a start they had the first war to look at which should have told them a number of things, which both they and war administrators failed to take notice of.
If you are going to support an idea, then you need to enunciate how it should be executed prior, not point the finger when it was bungled post, and then suggest you are not to blame. That is simply not accepting responsibility and passing the buck. Something journalists can do quite easily.
Secondly the idea was wrong
It could have been the best managed war and The US and Britain could have sent in 100,000,000 troops into Iraq, and it there would have been an armed insurrection and infiltration of Al Qaeda regardless. It was a front line which was created that previously didn't exist, now it is a responsibility that has been created which did not exist 10 years ago.
Where are the benefits?
I don't mean this to turn into an Iraq debate, but the notion that they have not erred because the idea itself was right is a little rich to begin with.
If you do not believe me, imagine a world where neither of the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq occurred, and would it be a safer more stable one than the one we live in now.
Please support our advertisers:
A lot of people seemed convinced that Saddam had WMD. The Australian Head of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, was adamant that WMD existed.
The presence or absence of WMD does not validate the invasion of course, nor the dreadfully incompetent way that it, and the aftermath, were handled.
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
17 yrs ago
They did indeed - because people fail to question what they read - or they read publications that are either have corrupted editorial or have stupid moments.
In many instances government officials lied probably because they were coerced by the US with some sort of benefit if they played ball.
All one needed to do was stay informed by actually reading and watching and thinking vs just skimming headlines...
I cant remember how many times I saw Scott Ridder (or whatever his name is) one of the UN inspectors who screamed a billion times - there are no WMD - absolutely not.
Former regime officials also spoke out saying that all these weapons were disposed of.
Iraq was under the watch of satellites and closed off to the world after Desert Storm 1... how in the world were they to get systems to deliver and build WMD?
From day one I called this the load of horse crap that it was. It was, at least to me, so obvious what they were up to....
I recall the discussion with a friend who quoted The Economist who said oil played no part in this.
Oil played no part? And Iraq had WMD. That was the Economists position and they maintained it throughout - so my conclusion is they were either corrupted or had multiple stupid moments. Take your pick.
Wonder if they also supported Bush's claims that Saddam was behind 911... I dropped my subscription so no idea...
All you can do is read as many different sources as possible - every morning I cover everything from right leaning publications like Fortune and Forbes to the left leaning Alternet (we publish from both) - and yes some of the stuff on both sides needs to be dismissed as over the top - but you do get dissenting views to make you think - and you come up with your own conclusions....
I think that's what's most important.
I pick on the Economist more than most because prior to this I had the utmost respect for their credibility but when they took those positions on numerous occasions, I was very disappointed (I thought them to be cowardly actually) and decided I could not support them with a subscription.
Please support our advertisers:
I was pointing out the general logic that ideas can be separated from execution (ends do not justify means, is another way of putting it).
Whether it applies to Iraq specifically is a different matter. In fact, most debates stem from when and how the two can be separated, not whether they can, in principle, be separated.
Unlike some commentators who are very sure, I don't know, honestly, what the counterfactual would be, i.e. what kind of a world this would have been in the absence of Iraq and Afghanistan.
What I do know is this: I was in San Francisco, scheduled to speak at a meeting on Sept 11. The fear was not just that the Twin Towers had fallen, but that other parts of USA would be hit too. In fact, the Golden Gate Bridge was shut for weeks thereafter. Everyone felt that it was a matter of when, not if, the US would be attacked again.
Whatever one says about GWB - and I have alot of nasty things to say about him - the US did not see another attack on its soil after 9/11 under his presidency. Could the counterfactual be more attacks on US, a less safe US? To judge by the fear in SF on and after 9/11, I would say, possibly.
Please support our advertisers:
Ed, to be fair I don't believe that oil played a part myself either in the second war. But I could give ten reasons that were valid, which are the same today as it was then (and I appreciate you could give your own reasons why you believe the opposite).
Those guys refuse to say we supported the wrong side and are trying to use a nuanced argument to not apologise and say their editorial stance was wrong.
Its bullsh*t we all know Iraq was a mistake bungled or not.
Please support our advertisers:
"I was pointing out the general logic that ideas can be separated from execution (ends do not justify means, is another way of putting it)."
Its very slippery, you have to be on very strong ground to be able to do it, and Iraq was certainly not one of them.
I appreciate the mood in America. But that war was a personal vanity project for Mr. Bush, he used the mood to advance that. He was sabre rattling before his first election.
The notion that there has not been an attack since to justify the idea is ridiculous. What has the fact that another attack has not occurred since got to do with anything.
If someone with a brain decides they are going to make a point and there continue to be multiple soft targets in America, homeland security or not, there will be an attack. They may have prevented some, but they will not be able to indefinitely, and whether it occurs now or in ten years, is rather irrelevant.
Mr. Bushes response has made future attacks on soft targets inevitable, it is a question of when not If.
Please support our advertisers:
He was sabre rattling before his first election.
----
Actually, if you listen to his speeches as TX Gov, he wasn't. He didn't want to interfere in other countries unlike Clinton/Gore (and I disagreed with him on that), and when the spy plane went down in China in April 2001, everyone agreed that he handled it diplomatically rather well. In fact, he was more concerned with the N America that his first trip as prez was to Mexico, and some Taiwanese were rather alarmed to have Chen's pro-independence, China's ire, and a US Prez who didn't seem to lean automatically towards intervention.
I don't want to be a Bush apologist, but I think we need to set some records straight, so that real critcisms will hit the target more.
The real pre-9/11 sabre rattler was Blair, in his post-Kosovo Chicago speech he talked about the moral duties of intervention. Some have said that Bush was in fact Blair's poodle!
Please support our advertisers:
The notion that there has not been an attack since to justify the idea is ridiculous. What has the fact that another attack has not occurred since got to do with anything.
----
It is relevant. It means that the true counterfactual is multiple attacks on US soil. So moving from multiple attacks to zero, post 9/11, means it's safer, not more dangerous, logically speaking.
I believe the US is safer post 9/11 because of Bush. But the world is more dangerous. In effect, Bush's policies deflected terrorism, posing a cost on the rest of the world, but Fortress USA is safer.
Please support our advertisers:
mayo
17 yrs ago
I like to read The New Republic, a news magazine not a paper, i know. They also originally perpetuated the WMD justification but later kinda sorta retracted it.
"At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom."
Continuing on the tangent I also recently read an interesting piece on Slate on why there have been no more attacks on US soil since 911 http://www.slate.com/id/2208971/
Please support our advertisers:
That is exactly what the Economist should have done and did not. I have never read the New Republic, it is highly rated, never had the chance.
"I believe the US is safer post 9/11 because of Bush. But the world is more dangerous. In effect, Bush's policies deflected terrorism, posing a cost on the rest of the world, but Fortress USA is safer"
Not really mate, there has been no terror attacks on France in say 15 years, does that mean it is safer than America ever was, it just means no one credible has planned one, that is all it means.
If anything Bush made America more prone to a terror attack, he created a new front line, where one previously did not exist. When you start labelling people evil and then invading other countries, especially muslim ones, it would be very naive to suggest a lack of attack means anything other than that, a lack of an attack. It says nothing about whether it has become a safer place, only that America is more aware an attack could be perpetrated on its own soil and is now watching for it, and some muppets got caught planning one.
There is nothing America could do against a well financed operation that takes advantage of soft targets as all terrorist attacks all over the world continue to prove. What you want to be doing is prevent them, not offer retribution.
Tomorrow if a Jihadi group bought assault rifles and walked into 10 different New York hotels simultaneously and executed everyone in sight, not a damn thing you or Mr. Bush could have done about it.
In fact the right would probably start blaming the Obama administration.
After 9/11 policy needed to be centred about reducing the Islamic world's vitriol after decades of a cold war where each side was played off against one another for a greater strategic war against the "evil empire". Instead and understandably so, it focused on retribution, and that has failed.
You don't honestly expect lower middle class high school educated marines who cry over the loss of every life to fight against battle hardened "warriors of god" who celebrate each death of their own thinking, their fallen brethren are martyrs and will go to heaven asnd be with vrigins.
Its not a war fortress America or anyone else could ever win. The only people that can tell Muslims that the way have executed their own Jihad has been flawed are their own, people who poiint guns will have them fired back.
And that has what has been happening, there is an idealogical war going on right now that needs to be won, not a military one, it never was military. Dr. Fadl has even gone as far as to say outright 9/11 resulted in Afghanistan and Iraq and that attack has been completely counter productive to the cause of Muslims worldwide.
That stung so much Al Zawahiri had to offer up a 200 page rebuttal, he couldn't just denounce it as infidel propoganda.
They have to come to the conclusion that the idea of killing innocent people and innocent Muslims is "bankrupt" and counter to their religion. Sending an institutional force against a guerilla military machine never stood a chance, it didn't in Vietnam and it didn't in Iraq, nor is it going to in Afghanistan.
Please support our advertisers:
what you identified did happen. In Bombay - and India did not support US in Iraq or Afghanistan.
France is a red herring - 0 attack before, on and after 9/11. Uninteresting - a constant can't explain a variable.
USA - 0, 1, 0
Britain - 0, 0, 1+several unsuccessful ones
India - 0, 0, 1
Indonesia - 0, 0, 1
Spain - 0, 0, 1
I'm not counting those with all 0s (intellectually uninteresting), neither am I counting those with attacks throughout (e.g. Israel, Palestine, Pakistan) - also uninteresting.
Please support our advertisers:
I know it did, which is why I used it as an example. You cannot stop it from happening It was Islamic extremism, which was perpetrated by people who wanted to destabilise the region for no real logical reason. Probably the same people who committed today's attack and have probably launched hundreds of attacks on authorities in the Northwest frontier on both the Pakistan and American militaries.
Your India statistic is probably off by tens if not hundreds and you failed to include a Pakistan statistic, which would probably be considerably more, and I find none of those statistics intellectually uninteresting. In fact Pakistan is probably going to become the defining one of this decade and that has everything to do with US foreign and national security policy.
You're trying to make the case that based on Mr. Bush's policy that the fact there have been no attacks, the US is somehow safer on the one hand, and when a similar statistic is offered you suggest its a constant and therefore not valid. I cannot make a logical argument if you subjectively discount data which disagrees with your outlook.
Moreover its simply not true, its because no one credible has attacked either of those countries in any of those time frames, not because they are somehow safer as a result of government policy.
I'm not using the statistic to make my point, it makes itself. Every attack is intellectually interesting to me, and the simple fact of the matter is no matter what you do, you cannot stop an attack if someone decides to do it. Homeland Security, Billions spent on retribution and upgrading security. All you do is make it harder and force people to become smarter.
People are not safer today then they were on September 10th 2001, its just harder to get into America and perhaps bring in certain illicit goods. Both of those measures can be easily circumvented to launch an attack.
In fact they are softer in New York then they are in New Delhi, have you compared hotel security in either of those cities, the latter is like trying to board a plane now. They wont even do that in NYC until someone shoots up the lobby.
They are soft in America, there are hundreds if not thousands of moving targets and the reality is Mr Bush spent all this money on another war he could not win, and ultimately ended up fighting all the wrong ones, making the world more dangerous today then anyone could have ever conceived on even September 12th 2001.
The world we live in is dangerous, the situation has continued to deteriorate every day since 9/11, I cannot see how anyone could make the argument based on no attack being committed that somehow we are safer. Not in a million years, no way man, you have to be kidding me.
Please support our advertisers:
Dont bother mate
I am not known for my short concise and to the point posts.
Please support our advertisers:
DG, I'm not discounting inconvenient stats. But if a place is a basketcase before 2001, how can you blame Bush for it being a basketcase after 2001?
I didn't say everywhere is safer. I said the world is less safe, but US is safer compared to pre-9/11. I think "no attacks" is a legit benchmark. Just as we say HK is safer because it has less crime than Detroit. My problem is that attacks have been shifted to non-US targets. Good for US, not for everyone else.
"All you do is make it harder and force people to become smarter." - exactly. by making it harder - each day there isn't an attack is a relief.
I think you conflated shooting up hotel lobbies with 9/11 - the 2 are not on the same scale. The former can be committed in the US - look at school shootings in Virginia Tech for example. But coordinated group attacks have been made harder. I don't have data of course to show that they have become e.g. 10% harder, but 0 attacks does not mean nothing.
Please support our advertisers:
Not really, it just means an attack has not been planned by credible group. your statistic is as legit as mine. You say no attack, I say none has been planned or not by anyone who is smart enough to carry one out.
Islamic extremists walking into multiple hotels in New York and shooting up lobby's would not be as dramatic as bringing down the twin towers but it would have as catastrophic an effect on the psyche, and it could be done tomorrow.
The fact is there are soft targets, that continue to be soft regardless and will be until an attack occurs.
France was a colonial power that has done its fair share of manipulating regions countries and governments and in fact continues to do so. It is the reason I used that example it is and was no more a basket case then America has become.
Please support our advertisers:
Just because an attack MAY happen doesn't diminish the achievement that an attack hasn't happened for 7.5 years. I am not saying that an attack will never occur again in the US, but to the extent that it is harder, compared to pre-9/11, the likelihood is lower than pre-9/11.
I don't think the military and ideological strategies are substitutes. They are complements in many respects (e.g. cold war, various revolutions).
Anyway, the original reason for my post was this: the Economist may hold an unpopular view, but it's not illogical.
Please support our advertisers:
Hong Kong hasn't had an attack since the 60's you are not going to suggest using the same logic its been running successful counter terrorism policy and that is why. That would be ridiculous.
No attacks means nothing, it was right wing dogma used during electioneering.
The Economist says the idea to invade Iraq was correct, but the execution was botched and therefore it has no position to reverse. And I am telling you this right now, if you want to separate idea from execution, I will not stop you from doing it, but you need to have enunciated the strategy to begin with, its no good saying after the fact what went wrong, any muppet can do that.
Secondly, It had Israel and Vietnam to look at in terms of failure of hard military power, that it did not warn to begin with what the pitfalls were or how bad the insurgency would become and what a front line Iraq and then Afghanistan would eventually become when it offered its support is so slippery.
In fact Micklethwait, the editor said the editorial stance taken by the paper was developed by his predecessor, and therefore he could not look at what was said and say it was a mistake.
That is ludicrous. so you can't say the guy who came before you had it wrong? Its totally slippery.
Its not an unpopular view, its a failed one. The whole strategy failed, and there were thousands of voices which said that it would. So they do have a position to reverse and they are too arrogant to do so. Even the GOP will tell you that perhaps the idea to go in was misguided.
The fact that in the end there are no WMD in Iraq knocks any argument people make for the invasion for six. No one is interested in what the reasons are for that being the case. If I screwed up like that doing my job there would be no compassion, why should there be any for the Bush Administration or the Economist for that matter.
And the fact of the matter is there is none.
With all due respect you don't sound like someone who has spent much time with poor islamic people. I spent 5 years in India at the end of last decade start of this setting up my banks operation, dealing with everything you could possibly imagine in India including communal violence in my own house amongst the help.
Really, it was the most eye opening experience I have ever had and has left me deeply marked, and its how I made my bones with my organisation.
I have looked into an Imams eye's which have glaring hate, which is amongst the scariest things I have ever felt, and heard the preaching over the loud speakers. Any one who suggest a military strategy will do anything but incite these people further has not dealt with them. They just do not think like that.
The smack our forehead moment is the fact that we went in knowing that fully well and we did it anyway.
Please support our advertisers:
If HK were attacked in 2001, and hadn't been attacked for 7.5 years thereafter, I'd not dismiss lightly what was done in the interim.
I admire you spending time in India. But you can see the cold hatred even in the eyes of Muslims in London - you don't even need to mention something controversial. Their hatred is clear and can be seen when they look at women who have anything more than their eyes unclothed. Reason, enlightenment values, equality are really alien to them.
You picked out Israel and Vietnam. I have, unsurprisingly, different interpretations. Israel tried to pursue peace unilaterally, with Barak withdrawing from the West Bank and Lebanon. The message received was not an invitation to treat, but that Israel was scared and even more violent tactics would finish the country off. Concession and reasonableness didn't work. Lebanon and the West Bank just provided missile launching pads in closer proximity to Israel.
Vietnam may have resulted in a US military loss - but I take Lee Kuan Yew's view on this: the US military bought precious time for Malaya and Singapore govs to get their acts together and defeat communism. Even HK too, since pro-red riots were common in the 1960s. Johnson was humilitated by Vietnam, but his legacy needs to be remembered by people in this region.
It's not right or left wing - that's too simplistic. Kennedy and Johnson were left wing, but still believed that Vietnam was a principle worth sending troops in to die for. People forget that most Democrats supported the war.
The issue is also not choosing not to talk to one's enemies - but what happens when talking fails, or when the price of assent is too high, i.e. if Jihadists say, we will end this campaign if only our view of XX is accepted by the whole world. (XX can be e.g. ending education for girls). How will talking help? Talking necessitates that two parties regard each other as equals and there is room for give and take. I don't see it. Doesn't mean the military option is the only solution, just that it would be foolish to take it off the table. Again, not substitutes but complements.
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
17 yrs ago
Two things to say on this - do a google and find out when the first WTC attack was - these guys are in no rush - they have till eternity to strike back - 7.5 years is nothing to them. Its absurd to claim that the Iraq war prevented an attack in the US - does anyone think that Al Queda cant spare a few martyrs to plan an attack AND fight in Afghanistan and Iraq? Whats the American death count in those wars - 5000 or so? Thats bigger than 911 eh...
There are those who hold the opinion that the surge redeems the Bush administration somewhat. It does not. And it does not mean Iraq is a functioning country (if you think so then I'll buy you a plane ticket and lend you my camera and you take a spin around town and get me some pics for the site). This invasion is a travesty of lies and had nothing to do with keeping America safe - and if anything, its inflamed even more fundamentalists who are chomping at the bit to take more western lives.
Ask yourself this - if the current administration decided it was going to overthrow the Burma goons. No messing around with hidden agendas - they simply announced that we are going to get them - its going to cost thousands of American lives - and its going to cost lets say 3 trillion dollars.
Would anyone be good with that?
Please support our advertisers:
I'd be ok with that.
Ed, I never claimed that Iraq war made US safer. Just that Fortress US made US safer. Please don't misattribute.
I know Ed and DB are passionate anti-Bush anti-Iraq War - but it is ridiculous to slam everyone with a more nuanced view than yours.
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
17 yrs ago
I had a very big problem with Bush from day one because I thought he was incompetent and a thief. Anyone who employs karl rove should not be in public office.
And if you spend some time on the old threads you will find plenty of foreboding in my comments about where Bush was leading the world - although I never thought he would be responsible for tearing down the global economy.
Forgive me if I am too candid - but I have a huge problem with the fact that millions of people are going to suffer profoundly because of this idiot.
We operate a school in Java and many of the kids are no longer attending and are getting involved in criminal activity because their family's already meager income is gone and they cannot feed themselves.
The blame for this lays squarely at the feet of Bush - I haven't a lot of time for any excuses for Bush nor do I care to listen to nuanced opinions of this idiot of a man and his disastrous policies...
Listening to the GOP throw darts after they destroyed their country is particularly nauseating. Don’t they have any shame? Of course not – they come out on the attack instead of trying to cooperate.
And Insanely their mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh publicly voices his hope that Obama fails – and he is celebrated… He is a dangerous racist moron and he along with the ignorant dunce Palin are the pathetic faces of what is an immoral and corrupted political party.
What Bush and the GOP left in their wake is appalling. He can’t be done for stupidity but he should be strung up next to Saddam for war crimes.
You might think that harsh but add up the tens of thousands of innocents who have died or been maimed in the Iraq war as well as the American soldiers who have been killed - then throw in those he had tortured.... Saddam was a nasty piece of work but his body count comes nowhere near Bush's - and he got the noose.
Please support our advertisers:
Not anti bush particularly, nor anti Iraq war, If you were to argue that Afghanistan and Iraq were nothing more than vehicles for retribution, then I would back off and leave it at that, but that fact of the matter is that may be true of the former but the latter was a Bush vanity project from the beginning. He was sabre rattling all the way through his election, without ever having seen any intelligence to begin with.
You cannot be honestly suggesting that living in London, would give you some insight into the Muslim mindset. That those people form the bulk of warriors firing the guns?
Nuanced, does not mean looking at history and suggesting that the absence of, means anything more than it does.
You are defending policies that have failed. Rhetoric and language that painted others who dissented as evil or unpatriotic and an interventionist policy which ended up isolating America even further and causing more harm than it did good. These are facts. What would you have me say, oh no attacks means something. That is dogma.
If you want to believe it, that is fine, don't tell me it is a nuanced view though, its dogmatic is what it is. To be honest it sounds like something that crank on the radio would spurt.
Please support our advertisers:
You must be logged in to be able to reply.
Login now
Copy Link
Facebook
Gmail
Mail