My opinion about Bush is no secret - Thread #3

  1. Like we all expected, looks like the "leader" of our country has decided that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is what is best for our country. . . and the world. GWB is following up on his promise to go after terrorism. This "good news" has even caused an upward surge in values of stocks as demonstrated by an over 200 point gain in the Dow Jones. The speculation by the stock market is that the war will be a swift and decided against Iraq. This is "good news" if it happens. It probably will be because the U. S. armed forces are well prepared . . . hopefully. I can hear the ardent supporters of this action. . . and of this administration. . . now: "Finally! We're going after Saddam Hussein! Finally! We're taking the bull by its balls and we're going to drag him under!" Quite frankly, it's hard to not rejoice with the supporters of this action. Saddam Hussein is a terrible man. A terrible man who probably is going to get his and his country's ass kicked in ways unimaginable. Rejoice, supporters, for your hour has come.

    Supporters. I can hear you now: "George W. Bush is a real leader with vision!" Sorry. No. Ghandi was a real leader with vision. He managed to thwart Britain's rule, by-in-large, by peaceful measures. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a real leader with vision. His dream was based on promoting change through non-violence. Jesus Christ was a real leader with vision. Whether or not you believe he was the "Son of God", there is no disputing his title: Prince of Peace. REAL leaders with vision are exceedingly rare.

    George W. Bush and his administration is leading us to war. We will most probably win this war. But he is no leader with vision. In fact his vision is blurry to the realities around him. His vision is almost non-existant to the future.

    But we are about to get Saddam Hussein! Rejoice, supporters, for your hour has come.

    Reality. Although an apparently increasing amout of support by this country's citizenry for a unilateral war against Iraq seems to exist, much of the world disagrees with this decision. At the very least, the world's voices seem to be saying, "Don't make a decision without us! Don't start a war without 'OUR' approval!" This unilateral decision is not recognizing that the world has a voice, an opinion, a "say-so" as how to manage world issues. I've read more than one article and more than one editorial that basically states we NEED the world's support. . . if not bombing Iraq. . . then rebuilding this country. We NEED the world's support in this whole apparently on-going issue of "fighting terrorism". And there's other issues, too! Poverty, economic, environmental and health issues. Quite frankly, we NEED the world's support in confronting these issues too. I fear that our nation's voice will be taken less seriously by the world when we expound the principles of "freedom" and "peace". How can we be taken seriously with regards to these values when we've "taken matters into our own hands"? How can we say we are not arrogant when our actions demonstrate arrogance (superiority, egotism, overconfidence)???

    Reality. Supporters of this war and of George W. Bush argue that his war is not about oil. I have posted at least two articles on this bulletin board that demonstrates otherwise. As nurses, we are trained to track trends. The articles posted were focused on the decisions made by this adminstration with regards to our country's environment. These articles demonstrated Mr. Bush's attempt to minimize if not altogether exempt the oil and gasoline companies from existing environmental standards. Standards meant to help keep our air, our water and our lands free from pollution. This trend is worth examing. This trend is worth questioning his motives towards Iraq. I do not believe that his decision is based 100% on having some kind of control with the oil found in Iraq. But I do believe that "OIL" is in the back of this administration's collective mind. Any altruistic motive being brought forth by Mr. Bush for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is rightly suspect if not a down-right lie.

    Reality. The whole issue of being protected against terrorism. "Terrorism" has existed in many forms throughout the history of the human species. Terrorism has existed, does exist and will probably exist as long as the human species populates the earth. Protection against terrorism is a myth. There will always be someone or some organization out there who does not like somebody else. If their intent is a violent action against this "somebody else", they will find a way to create "terror". The whole premise of "Going to War Against Iraq to Help Safeguard Our Country from Terrorism" is an unreality. Going to war purely on the basis of stoping terrorism is an unreality. What might make this world a place less filled with terrorism is up for debate. A debate best discussed as a world of nations; problem-solving best accomplished by many minds and not just the minds of one or two or three. Today, 3/17/2003, George W. Bush just put a stop to this debate and problem-solving. Today, George W. Bush is going to take OUR soldiers - our precious resource, put the world at risk for more and dangerous hostilities, and battle "windmills of terrorism".

    Peace - if not among nations, then, hopefully, in our own hearts, bodies, minds and souls. Maybe we need to find peace within our selves before any peace in the world can exist.

    Ted
    Last edit by Ted on Mar 17, '03
    •  
  2. 97 Comments

  3. by   passing thru
    Very well spoken Ted. You definitely have a way with words.
    Did you catch the French president on t.v. last night? He was eloquent and sincere. He said "the American response to the "threat" of Iraq is DISPROPORTIONAL."
    I've read your post slowly and thoughtfully twice. Impressive.
    I appreciate every word and your effort.
  4. by   pickledpepperRN
    Anyone feel safe and protected?
  5. by   l.rae
    Originally posted by spacenurse
    Anyone feel safe and protected?
    YIP!....but desenting views aren't facts...are they?
  6. by   valk
    Ted, I have been reading your posts & I am in total agreement with you. I would like to add a few words.

    At this point we are destined for this war. I sincerely hope that the VA will for once live up to it's mandate, "to care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan" in a timely manner.

    Please remember the Atomic vets, the Shad vets, the Agent Orange vets, the Gulf War Syndrome vets & all those who have lost their lives or health in service to their country.
  7. by   Mimi Wheeze
    Ted, I appreciate your views. However, Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. never had to deal with evil sociopathic dictators with chemical weapons.

    Do you truly believe that after we soundly beat SH that President Bush is going to hoard all of Iraq's oil and stack it in barrels in his backyard? Seriously, how will he benefit? If he would even attempt to hoard Iraq's oil, how would he get away with it?

    And yes, it would be nice if we had the entire worlds support in this war. But no, we do not NEED it. We are the worlds' super-power. This war, first and foremost, is to protect the citizens of the United States. The rest of the world will only benefit from it. SH isn't going to unleash his weapons on France or Germany, he has oil deals going with them.

    So far, President Bush's vision has captured Al-Quada terrorists, and has patiently waited for the UN to back up its own resolutions. He wants complete regime change in Iraq to free their cititzens. He wants the oil profits from their own oil fields to support them, to clothe and feed them. How is that blurry vision?
  8. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by spacenurse
    Anyone feel safe and protected?
    As safe as anyone can be in a world of terrorists I feel pretty safe right now, thanks in part to President Bush, Britain, and our Armed Forces.
  9. by   hoolahan
    Ted, you already know my opinion on...you, but let me say it for all to see...YOU ROCK!!!!!

    I nominate Ted to represent all those who pray for peaceful resolution to the threat of nuc war.

    Many have asked for issues, don't make generalizations, we want to hear you talk about issues as to why you have a problem w GWB. Well, maybe many of us are not as well spoken as those who make this request, but Ted has risen to the task, and I for one feel well represented by his words, and am ITA w everything he has posted. Thank you Ted for so intelligently and eloquently expressing what I, and I suspect others, may not have been able to say so well. :kiss
  10. by   cwazycwissyRN
    Rejoice because our hour has come?
    Wow........auuu even as a supporter of the President I cannot rejoice about war. I support his decision, but rejoice?
    The only reality I see, is the fact we will never know what would have happened, had we not taken this firm stance. We will never know the amount of bloodshed if things would have been handled differently. That is reality. A fact
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    Just a little correction to Ted's thesis. He keeps using the word "unilateral" to describe the United States and our actions and intentions towards Iraq. Unilateral means: "of, having, affecting, or done by one side only". Ted is using this word incorrectly (shades of the grammar thread

    The United States, Great Britian and Spain agreed together to not go forward with a vote in the United Nations. And we have many other allies who are on our side on this issue. The United States does not stand alone.

    steph
  12. by   Mimi Wheeze
    Steph, I meant to bring that up on my post, but forgot! Thank you! (I wasn't even going to look up the definition )
  13. by   l.rae
    Originally posted by stevielynn
    Just a little correction to Ted's thesis. He keeps using the word "unilateral" to describe the United States and our actions and intentions towards Iraq. Unilateral means: "of, having, affecting, or done by one side only". Ted is using this word incorrectly (shades of the grammar thread

    The United States, Great Britian and Spain agreed together to not go forward with a vote in the United Nations. And we have many other allies who are on our side on this issue. The United States does not stand alone.

    steph

    but propaganda is soooo popular when not based in fact
  14. by   Mimi Wheeze
    l. rae, you crack me up.

    Please, though, don't feel you have to sugar-coat. Just let us know how you really feel.

close