Bush is a wanker
Jan. 28th, 2003 09:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockDid not get the chance to speak to parents tonight, as voice has now left entirely. Not even whispering. Just call me mute for the undetermined future.
Listened to Bush's state of the union address. Liked the bit about research into hydrogen-fueled cars and AIDS medication, but that was about it. Still don't see how the tax cut is going to help anyone except the richest 1% of the population. Still don't see how a cabinet seat of Homeland Security assured that I will "live in feeedom" when it and the Patriot act means secret trials, the government having aces to what should be protected by my search & seizure rights. I still don't see how his great new plan for energy is supposed to help the environment when everyone knows that the energy you're promising is only an excuse to start mining in nationally protected land in Alaska that supposed to be safe from drilling, when it won't even produce much oil there anyway.
And I still don't see any tangible proof that attests to why we're attacking Iraq now instead of two years ago or five years ago.
In fact, I don't know if its even war with Iraq that bothers me-- because I do think Saddam is an insane out-of-control power maniac-- so much as the WHY of it, and the fact that it won't be "war", it'll be strategic attacks until we beat them into submission. Like Afghanistan. Like the Gulf War. Why? Because if we actually declared war, we'd have that annoying little thing called "responsibility" toward cleaning up the country we just pummeled. If it's "retaliation" or "prevention" but not actual Congresss-declared "war", then we don't have to occupy them, protect them, and rebuild their government from scratch. And that's the real fuck-up here, becaue the only way Iraq would come out of another altercation with the US as a "liberated" country (to quote Pres. Bush) is if we actually DID all that, and stayed in the goddamn country for 30 years at least. But we won't. We'll do what we did in the Gulf War. We'll beat them up, kill a few hundred thousand, and then back off like dear old daddy Bush Senior did.
Depressing depressing depressing. This is not the person who was popularly elected
Listened to Bush's state of the union address. Liked the bit about research into hydrogen-fueled cars and AIDS medication, but that was about it. Still don't see how the tax cut is going to help anyone except the richest 1% of the population. Still don't see how a cabinet seat of Homeland Security assured that I will "live in feeedom" when it and the Patriot act means secret trials, the government having aces to what should be protected by my search & seizure rights. I still don't see how his great new plan for energy is supposed to help the environment when everyone knows that the energy you're promising is only an excuse to start mining in nationally protected land in Alaska that supposed to be safe from drilling, when it won't even produce much oil there anyway.
And I still don't see any tangible proof that attests to why we're attacking Iraq now instead of two years ago or five years ago.
In fact, I don't know if its even war with Iraq that bothers me-- because I do think Saddam is an insane out-of-control power maniac-- so much as the WHY of it, and the fact that it won't be "war", it'll be strategic attacks until we beat them into submission. Like Afghanistan. Like the Gulf War. Why? Because if we actually declared war, we'd have that annoying little thing called "responsibility" toward cleaning up the country we just pummeled. If it's "retaliation" or "prevention" but not actual Congresss-declared "war", then we don't have to occupy them, protect them, and rebuild their government from scratch. And that's the real fuck-up here, becaue the only way Iraq would come out of another altercation with the US as a "liberated" country (to quote Pres. Bush) is if we actually DID all that, and stayed in the goddamn country for 30 years at least. But we won't. We'll do what we did in the Gulf War. We'll beat them up, kill a few hundred thousand, and then back off like dear old daddy Bush Senior did.
Depressing depressing depressing. This is not the person who was popularly elected
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-28 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-29 01:16 am (UTC)I'd be more worried about this war than the one if Afghanistan, because here there is no Northern alliance to do all the "ground fighting" and soak up the casualities for us. That menas that US troops (and to a lesser extent british, we have a quarter of are army in the region, still only 25, 000 men) will have to actually fight for soil! If he is serious about remoing sadam, that means street fighting, which is perhaps the single most bloody type of mordern day warfare know to man (except of course NBCattacks, and saddam might try one of those as well). This war could be very bloody indeed.
Oh and why I can't belieiev I am about to defend Mr Bush, techinically speaking, there are still US forces in Afghanistan, helping to prop up the new "friendnly" regime (pity it's made up of drug barons, but never mind!). I can't of course guarentee that they be there for 30 years, but Iraq is different. It has oil reserves, so perhaps Mr Bush will make a better effort to rebulid the country this time, in a effort to make friends with a oil producing nation. On the other hand maybe the rest of the arab countrie will all get the jitters (because they are all tyranical, even the nicer ones). I don't know...
Get the democratic party to actually grow a spine and run a decent candidate against him in the next Election. I mean its not as if he hasn't made mistakes, or won't go on making them.