In a message dated 09/17/2001 9:09:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
SFORACLE@prodigy.net writes:
> Friends
>
> This is part of the puzzle - the failure of Bush foreign policy particularly
> in regard to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The article below is from the
> Jordan Times. So from stumbling, bumbling, inarticulate Bush pummeled by
> a falling economy, an isolationist foreign policy, and a disastrous
> environmental policy, we now have King Bush leading us into WWI III without
> opposition. Translate that to invading Iraq and possibly Afghanistan.
>
> Allen Cohen
>
>
>
>
The idiocy of ideologues continues to amaze me. To attribute the bombing of
the WTC and the Pentagon on the failure of the Bush administration alone
shows a total lack of historical understanding of the problem at hand. The
previous administrations prior to Bush II FAILED to achieve anything in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Clinton managed to get some papers signed
between the two parties, but they were dead in the water. Part of this is
attributed to Arafat's unwillingness to compromise and part to the return of
Ariel Sharon, another person who does not have the term compromise in his
vocabulary.
The deep-seeded hatred of the United States among many of the Middle Eastern
peoples goes back to developments that began in the early 20th century that
deteriorated as time went on, going from bad to worse. Their contention that
the United States has exerted its influence by military and economic force
is, sadly, borne out as true historically. In many ways, the Bush foreign
policy (or lack thereof) doesn't look to much different from that of Clinton.
They both had all the influence and power of a used kleenex...a lot of
bluster behind them...with a big mess the result. I wonder if Sharon called
Bush urging "restraint" after the bombings of September 11, seeing as that
was the typical American response to every attack in the West Bank.
At the same time, I could not help but fall out of my chair in hysterical
laughter at some of the comments on this list, including the one above.
Excuse me for being so blunt, but come down from your tie-dyed ivory tower
where the solution to the world's problems is a group hug, the collected
works of Allen Ginsberg, and a hooch of Columbian power weed...followed by a
march in the streets to assure adequate air time and a good headline on an
MTV newsbreak. Stumbling, bumbling and inarticulate describes two-thirds of
America's presidents in our history, so no revelation there. At the same
time, you claim this buffoon has destroyed the country and the environment
after being in office for only nine months....and you have proclaimed him
king. Wow. The last question I have is what kind of a foreign policy should
we have? Interventionist...or isolationist? If Bush was isolationist, we
condemn him. If he is interventionist, we condemn him. The guy can't win.
As usual, this is little more than name-calling and finger-pointing.
Whatever the cause, this is where we are, for better or worse. Any
alternative proposals on how to deal with what has happened? Or is this just
another case of nothing to contribute but several cellars of vintage whine?
Brad L. Duren
Instructor of History
Oklahoma Panhandle State University
213 Hamilton Hall
Goodwell, Oklahoma 73939
work phone: 580-349-1498
email: Uriah768@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 18 2001 - 19:17:21 EDT