Boy president in a failed world?


mrmom2
#1
Interesting
 
Jo Canadian
#2
I know, I know. I already posted this today, but with a title like:
Boy president in a failed world? I couldn't resist posting the picture again.


 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#3
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9445.htm

"boy " president, boy mentality with big guns- but bloodthirsty, power hungry as the worst of them in history.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#4
what it might read is:

Failed boy pres in a challenging world.
 
manda
#5
What they fail to mention in this article, is that smirk always plastered to W's face It makes him like a complete . aah to pie him like Chretien got pie'd when he came to the island
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by manda

What they fail to mention in this article, is that smirk always plastered to W's face It makes him like a complete . aah to pie him like Chretien got pie'd when he came to the island


someone should make a bush doll.......along the lines of a voodoo doll.........so people could buy them and stick pins into it .....to release their frustration with the idiot. (the proceeds of this doll could go to African relief programs...
 
mrmom2
#7
How about the proceeds go to the aid of the children of Iraq
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

How about the proceeds go to the aid of the children of Iraq

you bet. Good idea....


mr.m. Like your new avatar.
 
mrmom2
#9
Thanks Ocean I;m always on the hunt for a new animated stickman avatars there my favorites
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#10
Quote:

Illegal War - Final World War? Iraq, America and China
Bill Henderson


July 21, 2005



In more than 40 op- eds on the net I have gone round and round why Iraq was an illegal war. Evidence of temptation, motive, deceit, aggression and incompetence.

I haven't spent the time writing just to say 'Bad USA' or 'Bad Bush'. There are consequences to breaking the law, especially when you consider yourself the world's policeman. Corrosion of the rule of law and of needed multilateral institutions (the UN); loss of respect.

One of my central themes is that our world is now a much more dangerous place. Nuclear weapons - weapons of mass destruction - never went away. Humanity's Bottleneck condition promises fierce competition for resources. In this context the Bush Admin sent a signal to the world in invading Iraq. The world is a much more dangerous place for everybody because the Bush Admin chose a resource war path, a path for all of us toward a nuclear World War Three.

In an April 04 op-ed that was mainly about Lisa Martin's (Harvard School of Government) prescient paper Multilateral Organizations after the U.S.-Iraq War of 2003 , I speculated:

"For only one example, how are Japan and China going to perceive American military-strategic action in the Middle East and the Caspian Basin which can very easily be seen as a new Great Game to control the major oil producing regions that Japanese and Chinese economies are dependent upon for most of their oil? Will they submit to this new vehicle of US control of their economies or will they surprise with ramifications that are not even considered today?

"Ecologist Buzz Holling has succinctly labeled some particularly nasty ecological consequences of 'unilateral' natural resource management: Surprise. Holling's cautionary applied science is extremely pertinent to the Bush Admin's rejection of the constraints of multilateralism. The whole adventure in Iraq has been unthought out surprise; and this geo-strategic use of American overwhelming military power in not only Iraq but in Afghanistan and in pressuring Russia and China with bases in the Caspian Basin promises immense but worryingly unpredictable consequences down the road. "

US unilateralism in Iraq did send a strong signal to emerging power China and still nuclear muscled Russia. (Japan has acquiesced and is re-emphasizing it's role as America's East Asian ally.) Now in July 05 we are swimming full bore in surprising and exceedingly dangerous new situations catalyzed by the Bush Admin attempt to seize geo-strategically tempting Iraq:

We have half of Asia including Russia, China, India, Iran and many of the new nations in the Caspian Basin joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO):

"A new multinational organization that already represents over half the world's population and whose clear intent is to create a counterbalance to the United States' political and strategic hegemony has begun flexing its muscle." ( Jonathan Manthorpe)

The SCO and then Russian President Putin and visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao issued in support of national integrity and multilateral problem solving clearly motivated by US unilateralist actions. Differences and disputes must be solved through peaceful means rather than through unilateralism or coercion. There should be no use or threatened use of force. Disagreement 'should not be used as pretext for interference in other countries' internal affairs'. Jingoism maybe but still basically bedrock democratic truth.

The SCO countries also demanded that the US set a timetable for leaving Central Asia

Did Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz anticipate how aggression in Iraq would precipitate this new anti-American alliance?

We have also had a Chinese oil company make an offer on a second tier but quintessentially American oil company, Unocal, because

"(T)he Bush administration's decision to wage the war in Iraq stands out as a crucial factor in explaining how Beijing came to scour the Earth for energy and why the effort is likely to remain central to Sino-US relations for some time, say the analysts....

``Iraq changed the government's thinking,'' said Pan Rui, an international relations expert at Fudan University in Shanghai. ``The Middle East is China's largest source of oil. America is now pursuing a grand strategy, the pursuit of American hegemony in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is the number one oil producer, and Iraq is number two [in terms of reserves]. Now, the United States has direct influence in both countries....''

``Many people argue that oil interests are the driving force behind the Iraq war,'' said Beijing University security expert Zhu Feng. ``For China, it has been a reminder and a warning about how geopolitical changes can affect its own energy interests. So China has decided to focus much more intently to address its security.''

( Long march to energy security )

We then had American politicians openly repudiate free market access to what is now perceived as a geo-strategically important oil company. We had the leaders of free enterprise America openly denying the fungibility of oil.

Did those oil men in the Bush Admin anticipate being outflanked in the endgame for cheap oil by not only the new SCO alliance, but by the Chinese using American dollars to out compete America in stock markets globally?

In an Observer essay entitled US and China Slipping into a Conflict over Oil Will Hutton argues that peak oil is the inescapable context for conflict. The China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC)

bid for Unocal is but one small move in a much bigger game.

This is a new great geopolitical game and neither the Chinese nor American military are impressed by arguments that the market must rule and that great powers in today’s globalized world no longer need strategic oil reserves. The US keeps six nuclear battle fleets permanently at sea supported by an unparalleled network of global bases not because of irrational chauvinism or the needs of the military-industrial complex, but because of the pressure they place on upstart countries like China.Japan’s decision this year to abandon its effort to build its own oil company and attempted strategic reserve was an overt acceptance of its dependent position. China is not ready to make the same admission of defeat.

And then last Friday we had a Chinese general, Zhu Chenghu, rattle the People's Liberation Army nuclear sword at America:

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons.”

Zhu was reacting to America's promise to defend Taiwan in event of attack and America's increasing deployment encircling China.

"Irresponsible" was the American reaction but few Americans connect the dots.

Military and foreign affairs experts such as Gwynne Dyer though are aware of

"the present US effort to sort of encircle and build anti-Chinese alliances, which is well underway now. The US sees China as its challenger for unique military superpower * head honcho of the planet."

During the same interview when asked 'What you're saying about the United States' foreign policy though, do you think that they are heading in the right direction to avoid what you call a catastrophic conflict?' Mr. Dyer replied

"No, I think they're heading straight into it. I mean, they're re-militarising the international system. I mean, the Americans are running around Asia at the moment, making bilateral agreements which are essentially anti-Chinese, with every country that they can sign up * join us, confront China, contain China.

"Well, we don't need to contain China and that obviously will spook the Chinese. They're behaving reasonably well at the moment but they can see what the Americans are up to."

'What would a catastrophic war between those two powers look like, and when do you think it might happen?'

Dyer: "Well I sincerely hope it won't and we aren't there yet. If it went down that road and you do end up with a sort of Asian NATO confronting China and redefining everything as a military confrontation * and it then toppled over into an actual open war, let's say over Taiwan * well, I guess you're looking at World War Three with a different cast of characters than you were expecting."

The neocons in the Bush Admin had signed on to policy documents which anticipated conflict with an emerging China in the future and which advocated preemptive use of American military power to forestall any threat to America's sole super-power status - Did they not expect China to react to US provocation in Iraq? What turn of events are they expecting in August?

Hutton ends his essay:

The best way of avoiding war is not to dismiss its possibility as outlandish; it is to recognize how easily it could happen and vigilantly guard against the risk. Too few in Washington or Beijing are currently doing that.

Conflict with emerging power China was perhaps always in the cards, but Americans, informed Americans in Washington and throughout the country, have to awaken to how cynically premeditated aggression in Iraq has made the world a much more dangerous place and understand that a final nuclear war - or perhaps a preemptive attempt to depopulate Asia? - is ahead on this resource war path.

Getting off this path requires justice and an end to occupation in Iraq and a renunciation of preemptive unilateralism. Aware Americans must work to impeach Bush and try members of his Administration for war crimes, for lying to Americans, and aggression in Iraq.

And instead of re-militarizing the international system, the US must lead in recognizing the dangers of war caused by Bottleneck caused severe resource depletion - peak oil, but also water and food in the near future. People on this planet need the US to lead by committing American can-do ingenuity to multilateral cooperation in heading off these global-scale problems.


 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#11
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../con05255.html


thief in the Whitehouse.
 
Jo Canadian
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

someone should make a bush doll.......along the lines of a voodoo doll.........so people could buy them and stick pins into it .....to release their frustration with the idiot. (the proceeds of this doll could go to African relief programs...


They alrealdy have a bunch of Bush dolls on the market. My choice for of them would be the FARTING GEORGE BUSH DOLL , he seems soft enough to push pins into also.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

someone should make a bush doll.......along the lines of a voodoo doll.........so people could buy them and stick pins into it .....to release their frustration with the idiot. (the proceeds of this doll could go to African relief programs...


They alrealdy have a bunch of Bush dolls on the market. My choice for of them would be the FARTING GEORGE BUSH DOLL , he seems soft enough to push pins into also.

what a hoot!!! I played some of the sound effects....

thanks for that. (site) and the chuckle.

( the doll I would NOT pick.......is the talking doll.
 
Ten Packs
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

what it might read is:

Failed boy pres in a challenging world.

Thank you, BREEZE!!!

What is this "failed world" shyte? MY world is still hopeful, optimistic, hard-working (yeah, My WORLD - so what if I am retired? Did I get here by being 'warm-and-breathing' for 35 years?)

My world believes that many things will pass, including many things on the front page of every Paper and Magazine right now. Vietnam did, the Depression did, The Great War did. . . for better or worse, the occupation of North America by Europeans did, the Crusades did - so DEAL WITH IT!

The sad part is that many PEOPLE need to also "pass" for that to occur. Do not ask me why.



BUT CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHEN IT WAS EVER DIFFERENT?
I know we must strive to be better. But if we fall short of perfection, do we just have a "loaded" Pizza, drink a pint of Jack Daniels, and toss ourselves of the most handy bridge?

Horse-flop...... nothing but defeatism. Shameful.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#15
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...ck:VF&b=914279

polls now reflecting a downward movement.....not only because of his many failed policies, but his "character" too.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#16
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0728-07.htm

opponants want bush barred from summit. (on "security " grounds)

When will bush realize that he just ain't wanted ......just about everywhere now???

Has any other leader in recent history been met with as many "Go Home Bush " signs???? What he fails to realize too , is this unfavorable image, impression , status he has on the world stage affects his decisions and how they are received. It affects his overall performance /capabilities.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#17
Quote:

AP Poll: Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq reaches low point
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also found fewer than half now think he's honest.
A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the president's confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number.

Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38%. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to abandon Bush on his handling of Iraq in the last six months.

American troops have suffered heavy casualties in Iraq in recent days. On Wednesday, 14 Marines were killed in the Euphrates River valley in the worst roadside bombing targeting Americans since the war began in March 2003.

William Anderson, a retired Republican from Fort Worth, said Bush "has the right intentions, but he's going about them the wrong way."

"Iraq is one of the issues that everybody has a problem with," Anderson said. "There are some big discussions about it around town. Everybody's got their agreements and disagreements. It seems like there's no end. Is it going to end up another Vietnam?"

Continuing worries about Iraq may do more than drag down Bush's standing with the public. They could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

Bush's overall job approval was at 42%, with 55% disapproving. That's about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year.

The portion of people who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, when 53% described him that way while 45% did not. Now, people are just about evenly split on that issue — with 48% saying he's honest and 50% saying he's not.

The drop in the number of people who see Bush as honest was strongest among middle-aged Americans as well as suburban women, a key voting group in the 2004 election. A further erosion of trust could make it tougher for Bush to win support for his policies in Congress and internationally.

"The reason that trust is so important has to do with the long-standing belief that you could trust him, even if you don't always agree with him and don't understand what he's doing," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "The honesty dip is partly caused by a loss of faith in his credibility on Iraq."

The president said Thursday from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, that threats from al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, "make it clear that Iraq is a part of this war on terror, and we're at war." Bush pledged to "complete this job in Iraq."

Almost two-thirds in the poll described Bush as strong and likable.

"He's a man of character," said Cheryl Cheyney, a school bus driver from Cumming, Ga., and a Republican. "He's very honest in the things he says. I agree with his belief system, the way he believes in God and is not afraid to show it. That's very important to me."

But the portion of people who view his confidence as arrogance has increased from 49% in January to 56% now.

"This country is a monarchy," said Charles Nuutinen, a 62-year-old independent from Greenville, Wis. "He's turning this country into Saudi Arabia. He does what he wants. He doesn't care what the people want."

Six in 10 said they think the country is headed down the wrong track, despite some encouraging economic news in recent weeks.

"Iraq is just a great weight holding down perceptions of an economy that is quite robust," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "Whenever you have troops in harm's way, people are anxious about things in general."

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Aug. 1-3 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.


failed prez. Not failed world...


(sure took some time to see that it is NOT confidence that he portrays,....but basic simplistic arrogance. (the kind that comes with having too much power -and then lends itself to abuse of same)
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#18
http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/

interesting site..


arrogance is deadly , indeed..
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#19
http://www.canadiancontent.net/en/jd...hypocrisy.com/

bush quotes: that speak for themselves
 
mrmom2
#20
This fits with those quotes

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#21
yep......the "Texas hillbillies"..
 
GL Schmitt
#22
 

Similar Threads

0
3
$2000 and a failed test later...
by The Gunslinger | Feb 14th, 2006
25
When Democracy Failed
by Jo Canadian | Apr 15th, 2005