Mr Bush

I haven’t added my two pennorth to the blogs who have despaired over the US election result, partly because I’ve been away.

I have blogged about Mr. Bush before. I have said many things about the lack of freedom and democracy in the country which elected him. (Note the lack of an again in that sentence…at least this time the majority of the country voted him in…probably)

Four more years while he pushes this world which is changing nearer and nearer to the edge. I have also said before that we are coming closer and closer to parralells of the nineteen thirties, it would be pleasant to blame it all on the idiot sitting in the White House. Alas not so.

On March the 18th last year I blogged Pastor Martin Niem

9 thoughts on “Mr Bush

  1. To paraphrase Churchill: the american people are like a tank of water. If you light a flame under them, they will simmer and boil and make a whole mess of steam. But when that flame grows, they will overflow and wash away everything in their path. I can’t remember the exact quote. It went something like that.

    Bush only got 50% of the vote. That means there are just as many americans who hate him as love him. He’s gonna light a fire under the american people and sooner or later they’re going to froth up, bubble over and engulf him.

    Up with this, they will not put!

  2. Miss UD just so you know his original statement was not a poem, it appears in th Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, as:

    When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church

  3. Actually, I didn’t know that. I’ve only ever come across it in poetic form, and only ever heard it discussed as being a poem. Thanks for pointing that out hon. You learn something every day…

  4. Me: ‘The president of the USA is only allowed two terms in office. If Bush Jr manages to get what Bush Sr didn’t, by actually finishing the job in Iraq, that’ll leave Bush Jr without any restraints whatsoever.
    In his second term, with no need to worry about re-election, and with a nice corporate retirement package already set up, he can do whatever the fuck he likes.’

    I can’t remember exactly when I posted that, but my attitude’s changed a little now. That was said on the proviso that Bush could bring peace to Iraq – it seems almost certain (no matter what happens in Falluja), there’ll be a shitload of dead Americans, hostage-takings, massacres of policemen, banditry and all that for at least the next few years.

    I was concerned that Term 2 would see war with North Korea, Iran or perhaps even China.

    Skipping from Iraq into a third war isn’t the same as skipping from Afghanistan to Iraq. The US can’t fight another war.

    Afghanistan was almost a proxy war, where most of the ground troops were locals. With the Northern Alliance and even former allies of the Taliban forming the backbone of the new Afghan army, the coalition could ease off a little and send its troops elsewhere. Sure, Afghanistan’s not perfect, but it’s far further on the road to peace than Iraq.

    In Iraq, even now, most of the government-supporting troops (and certainly the most effective troops) are from America, Britain and allies. We’re locked there until the situation stabilises. If things carry on as they are, the US (and perhaps us) will have to send in reinforcements (particularly if the battle for Falluja goes badly; we’ll win, but it depends how many US dead and wounded there are). There already aren’t enough troops there to pacify a country (the commonly suggested number is around 500,000, several times the number actually there).

    In short, the US is impotent outside its own borders, Afghanistan and Iraq. It can’t open up yet another front, and if Bush forces the issue, there’ll either have to be a draft or the sheer number of US dead from an undermanned invasion force will swamp the Republican party from power.

    The US public are as fickle as the citizens of any other democracy. Blair couldn’t have won a landslide in 1987, but managed it with pretty much the same electorate in 1997. The tiny swing towards Bush in this election could easily swing back towards Hillary Clinton or whoever next time around.

    Jack Straw has ruled out a war with Iran as being ‘inconceivable’, stating that diplomacy was the way to deal with Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. I don’t think Blair would go along with a US plan to invade Iran, and neither would the US military leaders, since the only invasion sources would be the unstable Iraq or Pakistan, where hosting a full American invasion force would destroy Musharraf’s government (or at least spark a major civil crisis).

    The only ways I can see a third Bush war starting are:

    1) Israel, with US prompting, bombs the Iranian reactors and the Arab world decides it’s going to try and pick a fight with Israel, who has previously taken them all on at once and twatted them. This time though, the USAF is already camped in and around Iraq, ready to sally out and kill them all as they cross the desert.

    2) Someone else starts it.

    2a) China might invade Taiwan; although it’s possible the US/UK alliance will look the other way, given their current military commitments. It could also be that the UN would lead a coalition, but unlikely, particularly with two permanent members of the Security Council unable to provide much support. Perhaps France and/or Germany might decide to stake a claim in the New World Order by intervening in Taiwan, perhaps as part of a NATO or even EU effort. This would diminish the US’s global supremacy by bolstering Europe’s political and military standing.

    2b) North Korea kicks off. Thousands of American troops are stationed in South Korea, many within a few miles of Seoul (i.e. on the frontline). Kim Jong Il is, by most accounts, a megalomaniac, so we can’t really rely on him or Bush to be exactly sensible in policy towards one another.

    Anyhow, I think Bush will actually calm down in his second term, simply because he’s no other option. He might not realise this yet, but it’ll hit him eventually.

  5. Bush is a cause as well as a symptom – he’s killing their economy. In times of economic crisis people tend to fall back on spiritual influences.

    And look, it’s getting harder and harder to be publicly non-Christian.

Leave a Reply