Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Chad Whiting wrote:

> The Cold War - The massive
> USSR against the US, this was another huge us-against them scenario.

They were not massive.  They were puny by comparison and they were 
economically self-destructing just trying to keep up with us.


> The civil war - us against ourselves but again supporting what was 
> right.

How can "we" be right in a war against ourselves?


> Afghanistan - us against them going after terrorists.

Any president would have done the same thing, so Bush gets no special 
points for that one from me.


> Iraq (although more controversial) Us against the world because no one 
> would support us in taking down a dictatorship that was a corrupt 
> tyrany.

This is very naive.  There are *many* corrupt tyrannies around the globe. 
Why should the world support our choice of this one to attack?  Bush had 
to give a reason for it, so he lied, but not everyone believed his lies. 
Of course, in retrospect, France and others were correct - there were no 
weapons of mass destruction.


> It's not Isolationist, isolationist would mean we isolate ourselves and 
> ignore the rest of the world.

Sorry, Chad, I was responding to a man who had just written, "I don't give 
a flying rat what the rest of the world wants."  So I think he was 
ignoring the rest of the world and I think I am, by your own criteria, 
quite correct to call him an isolationist.

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion