Wednesday, July 06, 2005

The Bully



Must read. Two posts, here and here that sum up the issue of Bush and red-neck USA and Eye-rack.

Why do we bother about the USA? Because today it's Iraq, next month it's Iran. Who's to say that in 2012, it won't be India? Will somebody face up to the bully?

10 comments:

Jabberwock said...

JAP: with due respect etc, I think your Bharat Mahan should hold a mirror up to itself before facing up to potential threats from outside. With all the shit going on in this country, I don't think there's much need for moral high-horsedness towards others.

Laura said...

No reply to mail saar?

Jabberwock said...

Ignore first comment. I was drunk...on Brotherly Unlove.

Heh Heh said...

While i agree that the US committed a colossal blunder, I do not see what India gains by "facing up to the bully". India has already suffered because of fifty years of a foreign policy that was driven more by misguided notions of grandeur than by national interest.
It is easy to paint things as black and white, the US as evil perpetrators and the Eye-rackis as the poor victims of an invasion. Especially when one reads blogs like riverbend. But are things so black and white? I still remember sights of Iraqis dancing on the streets, and toppling Saddam's statues. And of exuberant Iraqis casting votes. Or the remarkable restraint the Shia have shown in getting a Government together. So it couldnt have been all bad.
How easily do we forget that Saddam was a dictator who killed millions his own people, whose son regularly picked up Iraqi women on the street and raped them? Lived in opulent palaces while all babies around him died by the thousands?
I don't agree with Bush on a lot of things pertaining to Iraq. I'm sure that his is a corrupt administration. But the fact is, in my view, the "excuse" of Al Qaida links was never even needed to justify a regime change. That they bungled it up so badly is another issue altogether. But withdrawing now, or even setting a fixed timetable (as Sen Ed Kennedy and his ilk want) will only makes matters worse for Iraq. I do not normally talk about politics, but some issues strike a nerve. And the last statement of your post did that to me.

sue-r said...

JAP, get a nice URL for yourself - sadoldbong sounds pathetic and going by your posts, its not you ar all (except the bong bit, ok and maybe the old bit is true too). but surely there are more appropriate identites?

Jabberwock said...

Yeah, badassbong would be a lot better!

ozymandiaz said...

Let me get this straight, you like the movie “Dirty Harry” yet you don’t like Bush’s DH type foreign policy of “shoot first and come up with reasons to shoot later?” What’s that about? And just so you will be properly informed, not every one of us in the US of A are red-necks. We may all be evil, but we are not red-necks. I don’t even own a gun, or for that matter a video game with a gun attachment. If you really want to know who the evil bastards are it is the British. Americans are mostly disenfranchised, the British on the other hand are a bunch of pompous asses. The UK has occupied more counties than the Soviet Union and they are against the war? Hardly! They are just pissed because they are not the sole occupying force.

newt! said...

I am not a fan of Bush's foreign policy, but I think he is an undiscriminating bully - the White House is after all, trying to stare down Americans on domestic issues as well. here's a very good post on slate magazine btw, in response to a Christopher Hitchens article, related to US policy in Iraq.

http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=15033342

sue-r said...

or bald-ass-bong?

BridalBeer said...

I agree with everything you said. Which helps in saying- brilliant!