Being a believer in constant analysis rather than blind following, a conversation with a colleague brought me to reassess my reasons for really disliking George Bush. His arguments were that
-The American intervention in Iraq did free its people from a tyrant.
-As a leader, he responded to the first need of his people: security.
-Many other forms of oppression are taking place in the world and no one is trying to stop those. Other states only wait for Bush to intervene and then holler at the "interference".
After some reflection,
-That intervention might have put an end to the reign of a tyrant, we're still quite likely facing another Vietnam. The end result remains to be seen. In any case, the cause invoked then was not the removal of Saddam, it was the WMD that lay hidden there. You can't walk in for a "proven" reason, discover there was no reason, and pick up some other consequence and say, "We were still right".
-I agree that as a leader, Bush took the most populist option after September 11th 2001: security. The problem is that the machine is now in place to make the American people feel ever more insecure; what's more, as a result of black and white thinking not shared by the terrorists, Americans are unfortunately now more likely targets than before to such attacks.
- The lack of action on the part of the rest of the world is indeed the reason why the United Nations is such a paralysed place today. When there are real possibilities to defend the future of our children, such as the Kyoto protocol, the United States has to think of its economic interests. When there's trouble brewing in oil-rich countries, the United States has to think about the rights of trampled people.
I don't appreciate random ranting against the United States or its leader. However, there is enough solid material for concrete argument against its actions to dispel the random rants. When is November 2nd coming?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I work for a company that endorses Bush. And I as an individual will probably be better off if he stays in power.
Personally, I don't like Bush, but I don't like Kerry either. I don't believe in the "anything-but-Bush" mantra.
Now, where was I?
When some one engages a conversation about American politics with me, I say that stirring a heap of shit makes it stink even more. That's usually enough to for the person to get my opinion and stop talking.
I don't consider "the world is a pile of sh*t" or "this whole thing is just sh*t" as an actual opinion. But that's just me :)
Vous vous posez parfois la question de savoir à quoi ressemblerait la situation actuelle sans cette intervention ? Tout irait mieux ? Je pense pas. Parler avec votre coeur a l'avantage de toujours vous donner le beau rôle ; c'est sans aucun risque. Un petit refuge pour votre conscience, tout au plus.
Vous vous souvenez de ceux qui s'étonnaient du fait que l'on ait laissé Hitler s'installer au pouvoir ? Je suis certaine que, après coup, vous auriez voulu l'éliminer. Et sur le coup ? "bah, on verra..." Et on a vu effectivement ; beau résultat.
C'est toujours plus facile de critiquer l'action que la passivité. Non pas que l'action américaine me semble courageuse ; je ne me permettrais même pas de la juger utile car, pour ma part, je ne me sens pas compétent en la matière.
Puis quel intérêt de critiquer G. Bush ? Vous pensez réellement qu'il gouverne seul les États-Unis ? Le propre d'un bon politicien est de savoir bien s'entourer et/ou déléguer.
Je suis d'accord sur un point : je n'aime pas non plus les critiques gratuites contre les États-Unis. De là à prétendre prédir l'avenir ou à savoir si la guerre en Irak était une bonne ou une mauvaise solution, j'ai assez de modestie pour pas imposer ma vérité.
Bonne journée, Barthé
Post a Comment