Analysis on Bush from a freeper at work...

[budkin]

Granted this guy I work with is pretty nice and not your typical arrogant freeper, but the points he makes are always these blind blanket statements that don't take into account the actions of the administration he defends; they are not set in reality. I know he is a smart guy, why can't he just figure this out? Why are they all like this and what would you say to him?

I voted for Bush again because I feel that we actually are being led, and led correctly… I am very disappointed though that his administration does a piss poor job of explaining everything they do. But I do think that his actions have resulted in some of the more significant positive strategic and geopolitical advances since World War II.

One of these is the spread of the Aristotelian concept of “rule of law” to non-Western countries, something I think is woefully underreported and underappreciated. The concept of the rule of law basically states that no man is above the law, a fundamental component of any democratic society.

The War in Iraq under Hussein is part of the larger War on Terror for one reason: both are against those who choose not to follow international law. The U.S. is in a unique position where – fair or not – the global community expects us to not only champion international law, but also be the first to defend them.

When I see positive repercussions across the globe initiated by our making a stand for the rule of law, and when I consider the possibilities of inaction, I think it was the right call, despite poor planning, execution or however high the human cost is up to now.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Very intellectual.

But at the core of things, he still has his head up his ass.

But he probably sleeps better at night than I do.

[lancdem]

2. What positive repercussions is he talking about??

All I see is the complete opposite.

[Alpharetta]

3. Just ask who gets the blame if the $hi7 hi7s the fan

I don't try to convince any of them right now. It's their mess.

Wait till FoxNews starts trying to distance Jeb from Dubya's screwups.

Then ask if the same people that work for Dubya will work for Jeb.

[Pig_Latin_Lover]

4. We don't follow international law either

The War in Iraq under Hussein is part of the larger War on Terror for one reason: both are against those who choose not to follow international law.

Should we declare war on ourselves?

[trotsky]

5. Ask him:

1) If "rule of law" is so important, why did we arm & support Saddam in the first place? Saint Reagan and Poppy Bush even sold him the chemicals he used to GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE as the hawks rammed down our throats.

2) If "rule of law" is so important, why did we arm, support, and train bin Laden and the radical Muslims in the first place? They were terrorists then, too, but because they hated the Soviet Union more, their terrorism was A-OK for the USA. Blowback, anyone?

3) What would be the positive repercussions this guy sees that have come out of the Iraq invasion?

4) Would there be level at which he would consider the "human cost" to be too great? Obviously 1300 American troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis isn't enough. What about 10,000 troops and 100s of thousands of Iraqis? A million troops? What's his cost-benefit analysis?

[NMDemDist2]

6. ask him how Saddam's ignoring the "rule of International law" was

grounds for invasion, why are Israel's violations ignored and supported by the administration, in spite of repeated UN resolutions?

What about the anarchy in Sudan? isn't that terrorism? Why aren't we taking action there?

Ask him to be specific about this comment "But I do think that his actions have resulted in some of the more significant positive strategic and geopolitical advances since World War II." and make him give you several examples

edit for the grammar police

[MichiganVote]

7. Can't wait till guys like this have their kids called up to serve

[TlalocW]

8. The truth

There are for the most part 3 reasons we invaded Iraq.

1. Saddam's support of al-Qaida. That has been shown not to exist. With him gone, Iraq is now becoming a quagmire and a breeding ground for terrorists.
2. Weapons of mass destruction. They've given up the search for them because they don't exist.
3. To get rid of Saddam and spread freedom to the region. Bush himself said that if Saddam would disarm of his weapons (now proven to not exist), he could stay in power, so the 3rd reason falls flat as well.

This was an illegal war based on lies and to take the heat off of Bush for not being able to find Bin Laden. They've lied to us repeatedly. If they were doing the upstanding thing, they would have had no need to lie, and everything done has made us less safe. President Bush and by extension your voting for him has caused over 1000 of our troops to die for lies.

TlalocW

[trotsky]

12. Excellent response.

#3 is very powerful. * himself admitting that this wasn't about bringing democracy to Iraq or the Middle East at all. Damn.

[dave123williams]

41. Freedom, but at the point of a gun...

The Iraqis are going to have freedom, if they want it or not.

[aden_nak]

9. Thoughtful counter-argument.

Since he at least sounds educated, if not fluidly aware of the global political climate, I would make the counter-argument that a war against something as insubstantial as "Terror" cannot be won with troops and weaponry alone. Rather, those troops and weaponry must be used as tools to win a greater peace.

As "Terror" itself is comprised of an army of the enraged, the lost, and perhaps even the easily misled, it should be one of the United States' chief military concerns to NOT take a course of action that displaces or destroys the lives of large groups of otherwise politically uninvolved people in the Middle East. Such actions can only result in increased Terrorist activity.

Essentially, we must have a New Military, and a New Military Strategy that understands our New Enemy. As it is not a traditional army, it cannot be fought with traditional or conventional tactics. Our real enemy is not any standing army, but rather the potential of the masses to organize against us. Short of genocide, which is unthinkable and as un-American as one can get, the only effective method for defusing this potential is to prove ourselves to be an ally rather than an enemy to these masses.

Some would call this pandering to the enemy or perhaps even caving in to their demands. Nothing could be father from the truth. Bush himself has claimed to believe in this principle. He has spoken often of "winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people". This is an important goal, but the President's actions all work directly in opposition to this goal, whether he realizes it or not.

Yes, we are being led. But even lambs must be led to the slaughter.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. Good grief

"The U.S. is in a unique position where – fair or not – the global community expects us to not only champion international law, but also be the first to defend them." I don't remember the global community urging chimp into the Iraq quagmire. Chimp went it alone, against any reasonable interpretation of "the rule of law", the consequences have been and will continue to be disastrous, inspite of your friend looking for a silver lining to this cloud.


Interesting how all of a sudden the freepers have gone global, all the while Clinton was lambasted for any global policy.

[NAO]

11. didn't the US ignore 'rule of law' and negate International Law

in invading Iraq against the UN? and again in violating the Geneva Conventions?

If they are so into "International Law" and "The Rule of Law", why aren't they supporting the International Criminal Court?

And why aren't they rallying against Israel, who has violated more UN Resolutions than ANY OTHER COUNTRY EVER?

[ArkDem]

13. He can't have this opinion unless he and his family

are fighting in Afganistan and Iraq.

[Xipe Totec]

14. Thought terminating cliches

They are designed to ensnare thinking minds while letting those who sleep-walk through life pass through unscathed; They are self-contradicting farces masquerading as deep thoughts.

[LibertyorDeath]

15. "Analysis" LOL

This is right wing unsubstantiated Shit.

"Analysis" He calls this analysis it's just this side of retarded.

He sounds completely brain washed IMO.


"The War in Iraq under Hussein is part of the larger War on Terror for one reason: both are against those who choose not to follow international law. The U.S. is in a unique position where – fair or not – the global community expects us to not only champion international law, but also be the first to defend them.

When I see positive repercussions across the globe initiated by our making a stand for the rule of law, and when I consider the possibilities of inaction, I think it was the right call, despite poor planning, execution or however high the human cost is up to now."

[bkcc]

16. "...no man is above the law..."

Except for Bush's cronies.

Although maybe he's just interpreting loosely because corporations are above the law, but are not technically "men", but rather businesses.

Nice message from your coworker, though. Amazing that someone who thinks that way can actually be literate enough to type complete sentences.

[paineinthearse]

17. Ask your friend: is it OK to break international law...

to "spread the Aristotelian concept of “rule of law” to non-Western countries"?

sheesh :crazy:

[theorist]

18. The U.S. under Bush does not follow the "rule of law".

Never forget that as layed out in U.N. Resolution 1441, Bush was supposed to go back to the security council to find Hussein in material breach. That was never done, and this is why the rest of the world sees the war as illegal and the administration as a group of war criminals. To think that the rest of the world sees us a shining city on a hill is incorrect, so to say that "the global community expects us to...be the first to defend <internation law>" is completely wrong. The global community expects us to be the first to twist international law for our own imperialistic designs.

I'm not sure where he got the "'rule of law' to non-Western counties" talking point, but it's clearly rooted in racism and xenophobia. Non-western countries with stable religious and political institutions have had the "rule of law" for centuries. Of course, when an invading force disrupts this stability, as in Afghanistan (not exactly stable before the Russian invasion) and Iraq, it appears that we are delivering them justice. It's a horrible cluster-fuck of an ideology to hold, especially when you consider the amount of information one would have to ignore.

[punpirate]

19. How can he be that smart when...

... he's saying the United States is upholding and promoting international law, when the simple facts are otherwise.

Bush avoided a confrontation with international law by invading Iraq before a final Security Council determination on the need to do so, and therefore, according to his latest pronouncements, invaded another country for the purpose of regime and government change, a clear violation of international law.

He then encouraged counsel for the violation of international law respecting the treatment of prisoners, in a variety of ways, and of our own laws regarding habeus corpus and due process.

He's been running roughshod over law everywhere, even in neutral countries, in his so-called global war on terrorism.

He's unilaterally abandoned international treaties without even asking the Senate for de-ratification.

He's actively sought to undermine the International Criminal Court, which is established by treaty and international law.

So much for Bush upholding the rule of law. Bush believes laws are to be broken, and always has, right back to his adolescence.

[Pacifist Patriot]

20. Wow, his comments are the absolute height of irony.

He may appear educated, but with respect to reality he is woefully ignorant. Ouch!

[Fridays Child]

21. I'd ask him to name the positive repurcussions. I'd also point out...

...that every society has laws to which its members must adhere. The fact that their laws, or their enforcement of those laws, may be different from ours does not mean that their members are "above the law." If your co-worker is suggesting that American law should be world law, remind him that such ideology has led to the fall of every dominant society in western civilization.

[fob]

22. bush* uses extra-legal means to start a war and this fuckface actually

uses the phrase;The War in Iraq under Hussein is part of the larger War on Terror for one reason: both are against those who choose not to follow international law

First, without warning punch him right in the face.
Second, take his wallet and remove all cash (or CC's if no cash)
Third, ask him if he knows what "Ends justify means" means
Fourth, repeat until he "get's it"


Disclaimer: One might ask, "why take his money? That doesn't correalte to bush*s blunder". Good question. Here's the answer; your "freep-worker" may take that money and hire a hitman to kill you one day, yours is a pre-emptive or "preventative" strike. The fact that it may be considered "above the law" should actually comfort this dickbag if he REALLY believes in his idiotology.

[Why Syzygy]

23. rule of LAW???

Two words:

Abu Graib

2 more:

Guantanamo Bay

2 MORE!

Geneva Convention

Who's freaking 'rule of law' does he think this is?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-geneva7jan07,1,1734138.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

WASHINGTON — White House officials considered trying to rewrite the international treaties signed more than half a century ago protecting certain wartime prisoners from mistreatment, senators were told Thursday.

That revelation came during testimony by Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's choice as attorney general, whose conclusion as White House counsel that the Geneva Convention did not apply to suspected terrorists has prompted Democrats and human rights advocates to question his suitability as head of the Justice Department.
(cut)

[Divernan]

24. Bush worst violator of "Rule of Law" since Nazis.

I can't give you courses in international law, or U.S. constitutional law in a DU thread. But as a lawyer who has taught international law, and studied Constitutional Law, I can only say your "friend" has latched onto and invoked a noble ideal, ie, The Rule of Law, with no idea of what it means. Bush and his remorra fish advisors have decreed that they are above the law, whenever it suits their version of the national interests.

[Lexingtonian]

25. rule of law?

Ask this good fellow about how well Dubya is doing with our merely domestic Constitution. Ask him about Equal Protection guarantees, i.e. the 14th Amendment. As applies to nonwhites, elections, gay people, Social Security.

Essentially, there's nothing you can do. This fellow lives in a fairy tale U.S. of A. of roughly 1900-1920. With "rule of law" he means the European peoples' dominion and colonialism and The White Man's Burden. He imagines that he's a civilized person and everyone else a barbarian, which is the definition of genteel barbarianism/philistinism. They're the most stupid, because somewhat educated and perfectly selfconvinced. His ideas about the Middle East was also the ideology of the Crusades, though he doesn't know it, but Middle Easterners are perfectly aware of it.

Yes, there is a faux Clash of Civilizations. It's the uncivilized people who imagine they represent European civilization versus everyone else.

[specimenfred1984]

26. Tell Him To Get Mental Health Help and Laugh at Him

Denial, delusions, inability to learn, inability to grasp large topics: he's got a slew of mental problems.

It's not your job to provide him with long-term therapy is it?

[budkin]

29. No, just to fire back when he sends out this garbage.

It's tough because he is not a complete asshole like most freeps, but he is just as delusional as the rest of them.

[calimary]

27. Bringing the "rule of law" to non-Western countries?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Uh, what's this guy smoking? We are the most lawless of the bunch now. Uh, how would he define the Geneva Conventions?

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. No man is above the law? Did you tell your friend that Bush could

be facing an International criminal tribunal for making a mistake regarding Iraq? Please ask your friend what he thinks about that. I don't think this country should back up Bush on that mistake. There's plenty of evidence that Bush wished Iraq upon himself.

[budkin]

30. That would rule...

Got any good links on the subject I could send him? Thanks.

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Follow the fate of Pinochet. If Pinochet goes down, so will Kissinger.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. Here's a link to get started:

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9903a/kissingerchile.html

[Lefty48197]

32. That's a laugher

"The War in Iraq under Hussein is part of the larger War on Terror for one reason: both are against those who choose not to follow international law. The U.S. is in a unique position where – fair or not – the global community expects us to not only champion international law, but also be the first to defend them."

Ask your buddy if he doesn't think it's more important to go after the guy who's trying to kill us, than to set a good example about law & order for all the little kiddies around the globe?

[johnaries]

33. "Aristotelian"? The first known laws in human history were in

Hammurabi's Code. And what country did Hammurabi rule? Babylon! Talk about Revisionist History!
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html
http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

[jpgray]

34. Er, we act against those who choose not to follow international law?

We violate international law, especially in our illegal invasion and flouting of the Geneva Convention. What was this fool talking about again? Iraq had no illegal weapons stores, so how was it violating international law? All it had left were the Al-Samoud missiles which it was turning over to the UN one the eve of our misguided invasion.

[seaj11]

36. "Aristotelian concept of “rule of law” to non-Western countries"

There! He just said it! Aristotelian concept being forced in non-Western countries! Why do these idiots act like Western cultures are so much better than any other?! :grr:

Also, I'm sorry, but is he saying that the U.S. has a respect for international law? I guess that's why we ignored the U.N., right? Sheesh.

[leesa]

37. Then why is Bush above the law?? Why is America above the law?

He's deep in denial, I can't imagine anything would reach him.

[bobbyboucher]

38. He's fucking delusional.

What "Rule of Law"?

[TexasLawyer]

39. He's smokin' crack

Big Time!

[AliceWonderland]

40. Specific examples, please

That's what strikes me about this "analysis." Lots of talking points but no specific examples. What positive repercussions, precisely, does he mean? In what instances has the foreign policy of the US spread the "rule of law" and what exactly does he mean by the phrase "rule of law"? What exactly does this gentleman mean by "significant positive strategic and geopolitical advances"?

Until he can be specific and explain his broad talking points, he's just a stooge with a decent grasp of grammar.