>My position is straightforward: because real people
>have lost and will lose their lives as a direct result
>of this administrationís actions (approx. 10,000 in
>Iraq alone),
A million lost their lives under the Iraq policy of the alternative American administration. Are you forgetting to add that figure to your balance sheet?
> I cannot look forward to its retaining
>office past November. Additionally, on the domestic
>side, because this administrationís national program
>forces us to essentially re-fight past battles (for
>enforcement or continuance of environmental, fairness
>and safety net programs)
And you expect to be able to be relaxed and comfortable under not-Bush? This is something else that worries me.
>Do I have to repeat the already often repeated
>statement that no sensible person here expects Kerry,
>if the nominee and if elected, to improve things on
>his own?
But you appear to be under the impression that things won't get worse under Kerry. That everything will be downhill from there? I'm all for optimism, but that's taking optimism too far.
>So yes, there are undeniable similarities between Mr.
>Kerry, his likely cabinet and the Bush administration.
> There are also important differences. Unlike Bush,
>Kerry is not wedded, so far as we know, to the
>peculiar ideological modifications the Bush admin has
>made to standard American aggression.
Modifications which have got everyone's back up and on the alert. The world community will be more relaxed and comfortable with Kerry. You don't seem to be challenging the key argument that the Bush strategy for world domination has proved counter-productive and ineffective. I grant you it is more sinister in its ambition, but the point is that it won't work.
> Unlike Bush,
>Kerry, so far as we know, will face no serious
>pressure to ìbring democracy to the Middle Eastî or
>any of the rest of the Bush agenda.
Bush only faces pressures to bring democracy to the middle east because that was his justification for going to war in the middle east. But of course bringing democracy to the middle east isn't on his agenda and never has been. the agenda is to install puppet regimes in the middle east. A goal which, due to spectacular incompetence he has totally bungled. It takes a special kind of talent to lead the world's only superpower to the brink of humiliating defeat, I doubt any other living American would be up to it.
>At this point, you might object that this will mean a
>ëreturn to competent imperialismí and, as a result,
>prolonged American hegemony.
Yes. That doesn't sound like an improvement.
> We all agree, I suppose,
>this domination is a very bad thing, which should end.
> The difference between my thinking and that of the
>ëBush is a usefully destructive idiotí crowd is that I
>donít think cheering on the ëusefulí destructiveness,
>which will almost surely mean more mass death and
>mayhem, is a wise way to bring about the end of
>empire.
I can only repeat the advice of Sun Tzu: "To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." The way Bush is going appears to be providing that opportunity for defeat of American imperialism. Of course you may think that Sun Tzu was not wise in the ways of war, but his judgement makes sense to me.
>You see, chaos has a way of moving in all sorts of
>unexpected directions (or it wouldnít be chaos, nes
>pas?), most of which are no good for human health and
>well-being. Four more years of Busherian government,
>during which time more chaos will be sown, might mean
>the hastened collapse of empire but it would also mean
>quite a few other things ñ surely unpleasant ñ that we
>cannot foresee.
We can at least try.
>But the ëusefully destructive idiotí cheerleaders
>ignore the possibilities and, like the mythical gods
>mentioned in my previous post, assume that only one
>outcome ñ the one they desire ñ will occur.
Not at all, its only an outside chance that Bush will manage to smash the ship of the US state onto the rocks. Sure, he's headed full steam in that direction now, contemptuously ignoring all the warnings. But there's still time to change course. But I can hope can't I.
> Itís as
>if they exist outside of time and space and assume
>this de-construction will happen at some safe distance
>from their lives and the lives of their loved ones.
We've got nothing to lose but our chains, I can assure you.
---
At 3:29 PM -0400 13/5/04, Christian Gregory wrote:
>I didn't say there were no similarities between
>Bush and Clinton or Kerry or the Dems and the
>Repugs in general. But if what I have to choose
>from are two brands of imperialism, one that
>will surely kill more people, cost more money,
>and threaten the few minimally decent remnants
>of the welfare state at home than the other,
>well, you can guess which I'd choose.
I can assure you I am fully in accord with your principles. However I take issue the accounting that you and Dwayne seem to be relying on. If you tally up all the casualties of Bush it doesn't seem to me they come close to the casualties inflicted by the previous administration.
But mathematical disputes should be relatively amenable to arbitration. If you can demonstrate that the policies of Bush have killed more Iraqis than the policies of Clinton, I'll concede that Bush is more repugnant in practical humanitarian terms and should be gotten rid of. That isn't a price I think is worth paying to keep Bush, although I seem to recall it was a price the Clinton administration thought was worth paying.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas