?

Log in

No account? Create an account
I see the dawning of World War Three... - One person's lack of compassion does not equal another's comfort.
One person's lack of comprehension does not equal another's consent.
fixx
fixx
I see the dawning of World War Three...
... but I'm getting the feeling that this time the United States will lose. Maybe not all at once, maybe not from guns and bombs, but as we lose our freedom we will also lose our pride.

Make no mistake, I am proud to be an American. I hold dear the ideals upon which this country was founded, and I look forward to a day when those ideals are once again recognized as policy here, as apparently does the rest of the world.

This speech by the president of Venezuela which I advise all of you to read, while written in a very unusual style, actually makes a great deal of sense, and I believe it represents the feeling of the majority of world leaders.

I'm not convinced that the majority felt this way prior to the invasion of Iraq. I believe it was a minority opinion at the time. Having a minority of world leaders angry at us was tolerable.

Having the majority of world leaders angry at the politics and behavior of the United States is a very bad sign. There comes a point where it isn't just unpopular to be an American, when it isn't just unsafe to travel abroad in three or four hostile countries, but when it is unsafe to be here because those who we would call "terrorists", those who feel it is honorable to bring misery to America, represent the majority of the earth's population.

From the American Civil War to WW2 it is never clear who will ally themselves with whom and where the battle lines will be drawn. I will point out that WW2 did not begin when Hitler took office in 1933, six years before Germany's unprovoked invasion of Poland. During that time many world leaders were disturbed by Germany's worrisome politics, much as world leaders seem worried about the politics of the United States today.

No, I don't think that the US government itself is consciously planning world domination. Outside of the misuse of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, we are not the least bit prepared to defend ourselves in a conventional war. Which raises the question if that's why the US has continued to invest in and develop weapons which had previously been banned by the UN.

America cannot afford a third term of a Republican leader who thinks as Bush does. Every one of us knows someone who does not vote in presidential elections for whatever reason. The time has come to emphasize to them what's at stake.

Tags:

4 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky
Comments
keith_m043 From: keith_m043 Date: September 26th, 2006 01:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
hmm, I think he was bending things on a couple of points, such as whether every time Bush sees a coloured man, he sees a terrorist. The thing is that Bush is the epitome of an 'ugly american' and plays beautifully into any embellishment that Chavez may utter. I personally think that Chavez may end up being the Ronald Reagan of Latin America, by making speechs that piss off a lot of people. He has enough power and influence to put an end to the Monroe Doctrine which is basically the statement that the western hemisphere is the US's playground. The worst damage Chavez could do to the US is to help various latin nations to get out from under their indebtedness to the Internation Monetary Fund, a tool used by the US to force said countries to structure their econimies to suit the US and not the poor people living in those countries.

In any case, Chavez promises to be a serious PitA to the bushies, and if Bush can use all his influence to put an asshole assertive nationalist in the UN as the US's representative, then the various folk in the UN are certainly entitled to push back but voting Chavez into the security council. Should make for lots of whacky fun in the near future. :3
polydad From: polydad Date: September 26th, 2006 02:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
They're going to be *very* hesitant to attack, due to the American military machine. If things go well in November and the Republicans lose control over the house, which has seemed the top probability for a couple of months now, impeachment is virtually certain, and the arrests on ethics charges of about a dozen Republican senators and about three times that many Republican representatives just as certain.

Given Democratic incompetence and corruption, in that order, I doubt that a conviction in the Senate is likely; Dems don't want to create a precedent of putting white-collar politicians in the Federal pen. But I think a nice showy impeachment trial will put the world at ease, and keep shrubya too occupied to do any more invading.

best,

Joel. Who doesn't *like* the outcome he predicts, or any outcome that doesn't lead to the board of directors of Halliburton with ropes around their necks, but would be willing to settle for it.
keith_m043 From: keith_m043 Date: September 26th, 2006 02:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
Given that 67 senators need to vote thumbs down on Shrub, I doubt that conviction is possible unless he does something so stunningly bad that Republican senators feel they have to vote for conviction just to keep their jobs. I personally am against impeachment, partly cuz it perpetuates the cycle of bad feelings, and even if we did manage to fire the president, what would we get?...President Cheney and Vice President Ashcroft (or someone just as nasty), not a good bargain.
browneyedgirl65 From: browneyedgirl65 Date: September 27th, 2006 05:51 am (UTC) (Link)
I am utterly convinced that Cheney is the *only* reason Bush hasn't already been impeached -- no one wants him in charge! ALthough, an impeachment of Bush *might* also take Cheney down...

No, I think the best possible (in terms of actual probability) outcome would be enough Dems elected to put a stop to the actions of the senate and thereby put brakes on Bush and then perhaps nail him in the last six months or so of the term. Do it backwards and convict everyone starting bottom up marching directly toward him.

The last main wrinkle left is the fact that Presidents are allowed to pardon those in their own administrations, which should be ruled illegal as obstructing justice for personal gain but nothing's likely to be done about that for the foreseable future...

Also, saw Clinton's news appearance. It was a lovely thing to behold, but I'm telling you it won't change the minds of people who already hate him. they will not see the truth in his words, they will only see the figure that they hate, have hated for so long, as a hypocrite, and nothing will change that view. Breaking the current neocon/authoritan repub mindset will have to come from someone else than Clinton or perhaps even the demos. It might take a split straight down the Repub party where a good portion of the the goldwater conservatives condemn the rest particularly Bush. Probability of that? Um, let's return to the improvment in the senate balance...

Bah. Politics. Feh. No wonder Earth's running a damn fever.
4 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky