BUSH: blows his chance for redemption, at least in this world!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Harry Vest

Refugee
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
2,455
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
George W. Bush could of been a hero - a real hero. Despite the Bush family history and his father's diabolical dealings George Jr. could of redeemed himself - and the sad part of it is it wouldn't of costed him anything. If George W. and his administration were not such blatant hypocrites YOU WOULD THINK they would go into the Sudan and put an end (once and for all!!!) to the rapes and murders COMITTED BY ARABS of the black people of the region. First off, the states should be doing something about this but surprise, like Rwanda, they just don't give a shit. Second the perpetrators are ARAB...Yes that's right folks MUSLIM ARABS!!!!!
George W. Bush's sworn enemies!!!! You'd think if only for that reason and that reason alone he would send in the troops to wipe out the scum that is doing the raping and murdering of tens of thousands. Alas though, he is a BUSH and in that the people of the Sudan shall perish. George W. you had your chance!!!
God help you.
 
Last edited:
Eh no, Bush's "sworn enemies" are not "Muslim Arabs". He is quite friendly with the Saudi Arabian government, for example, and they are Muslim Arabs.
 
Point taken - you're right.
BUT... as a public relations coup don't you think that saving tens of thousands of Blacks from the swords and guns of "Arab Terrorists" would work???
 
I think the title of this thread could have been shortened from "BUSH: blows his chance for redemption, at least in this world!!!" to simply "Bush blows!!!"
 
I always wonder why the US is the one that has to go in there, I mean the EU and UN are supposedly powerful multilateral organisations in a position to act.

Nobody is going into Sudan without the security blanket of a UN resolution, that resolution will not come into existence unless some key members of the Security Council cease giving diplomatic support to Khartoum. An AU force backed by western surveillance and air support could effectively stop the Janjaweed militiamen, but it's not going to happen until there is UN coverage which is is essential in peacekeeping missions of this type.
 
Bush is a failure for different reasons: he's a domestic policy failure. I don't vote for a world policeman, mind you.

Melon
 
I agree with melon, I don't like Bush's domestic agenda worth a damn. It's terrible about the Sudan and the EU and the rest of the world should do something, but I don't like the role of the U.S. as world policeman either.
 
O.K. but what the hell is Iraq???
If that's not "world policemean" what is.
I'm not stupid, I know that Oil is the primary reason for securing Iraq BUT when all Bush seems to be obsessed with outside the U.S is "Terrorism" he should play the role of the hero and go into Sudan (something Clinton failed miserably at in Rwanda) Firstly - because it's the right thing to do (which obviously he doesn't give a shit about!!!) and secondly because the perpetrators are Islamic "Terrorists" - he can look like the "hero". As far as the UN goes - they are a useless entity - proven during the Rwanda crisis.
 
Harry Vest said:
O.K. but what the hell is Iraq???
If that's not "world policemean" what is.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq. I have no love for Saddam, but God knows he wasn't the only odious dictator on the planet.
 
Well, considering that many of the perpetrators are Muslims working against Christians and animists, wouldn't the Muslim world see his actions as even more evidence that he is at war against Islam?
 
Ft. Worth Frog said:
Well, considering that many of the perpetrators are Muslims working against Christians and animists, wouldn't the Muslim world see his actions as even more evidence that he is at war against Islam?

Not necessarily. In this case the "humanitarian" argument would work quite well
 
So what if they see it as a war against Islam. These fuckers that are trying to exterminate the blacks of the region are nothing but facist Islamics - I would love to see a multinational force go in there and give them a taste of thier own medicine. On the other hand...where are the African troops (Black African troops) - why aren't they coming to the defence of these people???
 
Flying FuManchu said:
Seeing as how people view going into Iraq as a failure, to go into Sudan should be opposed by all liberals as well.

Seeing as how people view going into Iraq as a neccessity, to go into Sudan should be supported by all conservatives as well.

Mr Bush, you should listen to Flying FuManchu's logic.

Using his logic, he says that you have to go into Sudan because you went to Iraq.

I think things are more complicated than that, but that's silly me.
 
The US is not able to go into Sudan alone, this is a combination of factors from Iraq and overextension to it's last major humanitarian intervention in the region. Then there are the domestic concerns; the US public may not be willing to go along with such an intervention.

The UN is not going to be able to do a thing, it does not function effectively and the security council members have a vested interest in keeping good relations up with the Sudanese government for it's lucrative fossil fuel contracts.

People are going to continue to die and at the end of the slaughter the world will ask itself why, then go on to forget until the next genocide can come around and they can pontificate at their multilateral meetings and draft resolutions.

Sanctions will not stop a country with a policy of rape and murder, millitary force will. Given that no western power has any interest in going in then the best that can be hoped for is an augmented African force. Getting the French, Chinese and Russians on board for a resolution that allows enforcers to go into the country is the only way for anything to happen. I suspect that the US and some European nations would be able to lend a hand.
 
Last edited:
bush blows (and) dick sucks....um.....
seriously, a couple of things i'd like to point out:
1) Bush is friends with the Saudia Arabia....not the arabs who live in the country but the royal family who happen to be saudiese (sp?)...there is a huge difference between being arab and be saudiense (fuck all these weird nations...i sound like bush trying to pronouce all this)
2) as much as i detest Bush, i agree that it's not just his fault...the EU once again has failed to do anything substantial...and the UN has blown it here too
3) where the greatest fault lies though, the Arab world. Listen, I'm very liberal, and I oppose Bush's war in the middle-east and his plan to redesign the area, but Arab nations should be expressing outrage over the atrocities. Brand Arab (as Bono would say) could sure use a nice PR campaign, and here's an opportunity.
 
"Brand Arab" seems more content with breeding a seething hatred of Jews and paranoid conspiracy theories than putting a stop to those who murder out of (possibly) misguided faith; attitudes that go a long way in keeping kleptocratic leaders in charge and keeping those who hold aspirations for fair democratic process locked away in dungeons or in shallow graves as traitors. I fail to see the what is liberal about opposing change and opposition in this most illiberal and intollerant region.
 
It's a complicated situation. I opposed the invasion of Iraq, not because I had any love for Saddam, God forbid, but out of fear that any replacement of him might turn into someone too similar. You guys knew that I was just plain pessimistic about democracy in Iraq, but hey, I'd love to be wrong, for the sake of the Iraqi people.
 
Back
Top Bottom