Chavez: Blame gamer. New-style old-time nationalist politician with dictatorial tendencies. Will be fondly remembered for his reliance on the widespread (but wrong) belief that his policies benefit the poor, and his style of management, repressive politics designed to squeeze centrists and other critics, consists of radicalizing both his support base (broken promises of welfare) and his opponents (stealing their land and giving it to supporters). He is not a mass murderer, but I feel we have the mass media to thank for that - it simply isn't expedient. To his credit, I think that the mass murderers simply didn't know any better.
Bush: Stonewaller. Hid behind his term limit and obstructionists in Congress when his policies sucked. Will be fondly remembered for obsessive secrecy, a not-so-"humble" foreign policy, and reliance on the right-wing blogosphere wingnuts/Spin Zone/rabid messianic fundie types to crawl out of the woodwork and start waving and pointing frantically anytime a positive statistic appears about the conduct of his foreign policy.
Mugabe: Blame gamer. Hid behind the tattered boogeyman of British colonialism and imperialism when he needed a reason for supporting his fans. He's like Chavez but without a brain or the awareness that brutality puts him in danger of being assassinated. Chavez knows how to walk the line; Mugabe fell over it.
Putin: Legal acrobat and minor adventurer. Old-style nationalist politician who evokes pride while promoting a jealous but focused foreign policy with an emphasis on quiet provocations in the immediate area. In the great Soviet tradition, he'd rather have the Polish (or the Georgians) do his fighting for him; wants that buffer zone back.
Bottom line: In spite of Bush, the U.S. will slowly tack back to sane territory. Chavez doesn't care because when you're at the bottom of the barrel nobody expects you to do better (notice where he puts most of the blame, same as Mugabe). Much has been made of Putin and the supposed roll-back of Russian reforms; this assumes that reforms were ever especially strong in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
In terms of looking out for their own country, Bush has certainly not done as badly as Chavez. But in terms of being good world citizens, Bush has by any measure been worse (I'd listen to a Chavez speech every day if it meant we could bring back the dead, come on), and his late-hour philanthropic gestures - while important - won't come close to righting the balance of this Administration's effects. It reminds me of Nixon's later domestic and foreign policy accomplishments being negated in the public consciousness (and rightfully so) by Watergate (and the abortive plot to assassinate American journalist Jack Anderson) and secret Vietnam plans.
Happy July 5th!
I'll take a whole ethnic population segment in prison versus people being abducted to work in brick factories.Ceph wrote:*Mind you, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that the USA are exerting their power to keep nations run by religious fanatics from getting their hands on nuclear weapons.
The problem with the U.S. is that people are getting too complacent about the problems. "People being thrown in jail for outrageous stretches of time for nonviolent drug offenses (and until recently with no parity between sentences for crack vs. powder cocaine based on some racist 80s myths)?" Oh, they made their choices.
People getting shot all the time in the big city? We can't infringe on the rights of people in sparsely populated areas to protect themselves from marauding zombie mountain lion rapist goatsuckers FROM OUTER SPACE.
Invading other countries for ill defined foreign policy goals and on the cheap in manpowder? Look at how well-off all those dead people in Iraq will be once they have a functioning government and once all the sects sort themselves into different...countries.
Even so, putting the U.S. so far below China seems pretty hilarious. Of course, I don't believe those Falun Gong posters much.
On the contrary, it's not low enough. This isn't about repressive governments, it's a Global Peace Index.Ed Oscuro wrote: Even so, putting the U.S. so far below China seems pretty hilarious.
Please allow me to refresh your memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... since_1945
For some reason I thought they weren't counting external conflicts, so that makes more sense.
China's arm sales to anybody and everybody aren't much better than waging a war yourself.
Of course we have plenty of mercenaries and arms dealers so that's something of a wash; but still, it's their national policy.
China's arm sales to anybody and everybody aren't much better than waging a war yourself.
Of course we have plenty of mercenaries and arms dealers so that's something of a wash; but still, it's their national policy.
And the US's policy is of cause to not sell arms ?Ed Oscuro wrote:China's arm sales to anybody and everybody aren't much better than waging a war yourself.
Of course we have plenty of mercenaries and arms dealers so that's something of a wash; but still, it's their national policy.
Yeah right
Also, only having 2 parties to choose from with elections is hardly a real choice.
Heck, you only have 1 party more to not be a dictatorship.
But then again, it fits nicely in the policy of the USA were you're either with them or against them.
They only seem to know how to talk in good and bad with nothing in between.
All errors are intentional but mistakes could have been made.
Israel is a special case, for better or worse, and they aren't using them in a terror campaign against their own people (I know I'll catch hell for that but I stand by it all the same). In Iraq, we're giving away the guns, so you can't use that example either.Michaelm wrote:And the US's policy is of cause to not sell arms ?Ed Oscuro wrote:China's arm sales to anybody and everybody aren't much better than waging a war yourself.
Of course we have plenty of mercenaries and arms dealers so that's something of a wash; but still, it's their national policy.
Yeah right :)
You're mistaken in thinking the question of Colombia's polity is one of either/or. Colombia's gvt is fucked for sure (but nowhere as bad as in the 1980s and 1990s), but FARC will not improve anything. Their "struggle" has lost all legitimacy and is only ideological in symbolism. De facto it's just about sustaining themselves. What this country needs is the formation of a civil society, not a never-ending series of one militia taking over after the other.JoshF wrote:You don't have enough problems to think that they shouldn't win.I don't believe I've ever posted my opinion on the Colombian government here, so you're hardly in a position to make assumptions about it and what I do and do not have problems with.
I'm not talking about those hostages from the Colombian gvt and mlty (which number in the dozens), but about the thousands of civilian hostages that FARC kidnaps for extortion as "fundraising". And FARC has never agreed to release those in exchange for political prisoners.I actually don't have a problem with drugs, except when the other side uses them as a blood diamond substitute. FARC takes people of interest just like the government so they have more bargaining chips to get some of their people released. It's a stupid cycle but hey that's war. It's worth noting here that every time FARC attempts to make a humanitarian gesture they're usually stabbed in the back. For instance, they wanted to exchange these hostages at least a year ago if some rebels were released but we know that's not how it went down. Lastly, deeds do count and that's why Bush is not noble despite whatever sounds come out of him.
Btw, "hey that's war" is pretty Rumsfeldian, coming from you. Makes it apparent again that the far right and far left are really just governed by the same idiotic mindset.
Did you grow up in the burbs or something?WHITEY
That wasn't aimed at you I just wanted to type it in big letters.
I do agree that after a long time the means of sustainment has the potential to attract the wrong crowd who are more interested in the means than the end. There obviously isn't a blanket motivation but you'll see that happens everywhere.
I do agree that after a long time the means of sustainment has the potential to attract the wrong crowd who are more interested in the means than the end. There obviously isn't a blanket motivation but you'll see that happens everywhere.
A known unknown.pretty Rumsfeldian, coming from you
Last edited by JoshF on Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You mean the Canaanites, right? Because they sure weren't the Palestinians...JoshF wrote:If you're talking about the people who were in Jerusalem before the occupation then yes they are if you're talking about the Chosen People (Das Herrenvolk) then no they are not.
Proud citizen of the American Empire!