Like Groundhog’s Day
From the BBC:
The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed.
In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger.
The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war.
But it stresses that the US aims to spread democracy through diplomacy.
I suppose that George Bush’s model of diplomacy is his own version employed prior to America’s invasion of Iraq. How many more lies can America take? How much more are we able to consume and believe, as a whole, before we revolt? Can there, at this point, truly be that many people still sitting in the dark? I fear that the answers are still unbelievable.
As a function of the continued factors for aggression, here is a new list of political targets for George Bush’s America:
Stressing US preference for “transformational diplomacy” and coalition building, but not necessarily within United Nations or Nato frameworks
Criticising the lack of democratic freedoms in Russia and China
Branding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a “demagogue” aiming to destabilise the region
Urging Palestinian radical group Hamas to recognise Israel, renounce violence and disarm.
and a new list of potential enemies:
In a nod to previous high-level foreign policy statements, which singled out individual countries as potential enemies of the US, the new document highlights seven “despotic” states.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Iran’s president has taken a hard-line position
They are: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe.
The issue we all face is that while our taxes (extracted from the poor and nearly non-existent middle class) are used in greater proportion for the propagation of America’s own dictatorial ways, we still worry about the small social issues that we think we face. The greater evil is to ignore the wider scope of America’s lasting effect on the world and on peace itself while the administration, churches, and the media focus mainly on the evils of gay people, abortion, liberals, and intellectuals.
Finally, this administration is bolstering up the simple Reaganesque Cold War stance it has taken throughout its tenure:
“When the consequences of an attack with WMD [weapons of mass destruction] are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise.”
I understand that by keeping the people afraid, this administration can bilk us out of our earnings while dumbing us all down even further so that the Mob can scream with an even louder ignorance. I know that in order for this aggression against the world to continue, we cannot educate ourselves and talk to each other informatively. This fear for our brothers that is incubated by the simple-minded who lay about the throne is what destroys us and, if we don’t stop it ourselves, America.
“How much more are we able to consume and believe, as a whole, before we revolt?”
Why would you expect a general revolt in light of the fact that Bush was elected by a majority, albeit a small one, of the voting public? Also, what form would such a revolt take? The only plausible response is the impeachment of the President, but that doesn’t seem to be a realistic possibility. In other words, even though I agree with many of your points, Cas, I don’t believe we are on the cusp of a revolt in any sense of the word. Despite the case which could be made in favor of a revolt, the American public and their elected representatives don’t seem very responsive.
“The greater evil is to ignore the wider scope of America’s lasting effect on the world and on peace itself…”
This I agree with whole-heartedly. While it is wrong to believe that America is the only entity responsible for considering issues of world peace and harmony (I’m not implying that’s what you believe, Cas), we should never shirk our share of the responsibility.
And not to beat and old, dead horse, but it is overwhelmingly the taxes of the upper-class that are used to pursue the government’s agenda. I don’t think the upper-class citizens should be bilked either though.
By revolt, I mean direct action. I know that an overthrow or anything of the like is not very possible unless things become anarchic. But, yes, I am not speaking only to us, the people, but our leaders, who, sadly, seem to not have the fortitude to do anything about our current situation (broadly speaking) because we, as humans, are inherently selfish. People in positions of power, no matter how good, have some part of their selves that craves to keep that power. So, in calling for a revolt, I am seeking us and oour political leadership (of any political persuasion) to DO SOMETHING. There are Republicans that can and may yet do something and there are Democrats that can and won’t. All I am asking for is SOMETHING!
As far as the majority/minority factor in the last election, I can only ask you to look at what the most current polls show as President Bush’s approval ratings:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36% approve, 60% disapprove
NBC/Wall Street Journal: 37% approve, 58% disapprove
These numbers are nowhere near the election results thanks to gay marriage and other fringe social issues. Now that most people are out of the election haze, many are waking up to an America nowhere near to what Bush had promised. In fact, it’s much worse and is due to his own administration.
As far as taxing the upper-class, I firmly believe that they should bear the greater share of the burden in taxation. To me, it only makes sense that the richer you are, the more you should part with for the greater good. Go out on a limb and call me Catholic…..ha ha ha.
Re: the approval ratings – There’s only one poll that really counts, and it isn’t taken by a media group. Perhaps the difference between those approval ratings and the actual election results reflects bias and/or simple unreliability when it comes to opinion polls. Or maybe they truly ARE accurate. It’s hard to know.
I do agree that people do get sidetracked by peripheral issues at election time, though. Then again, John Kerry was not the always the most compelling presidential candidate.
I also believe the rich, esp. the extremely rich, should be taxed more heavily than the poor, within reason. Check out the table at this site. The bottom 50% of the country by income paid only 3.46% of the overall income taxes collected in 2003. They also paid the lowest percentage of their earnings of any income bracket.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html