Presidential Debate

[D-Dave]

I see a lot of Bush supporters in these posts so far, eager to point out Kerry's faults.  How about Bush's faults?  Will you 'side-step' these questions the same way Bush sidestepped them in the debate, or will you answer them?
...
4.) The head spokesman for the United Nations called the war in Iraq "illegal", but was coy to not make any accusations against Bush (perhaps out of fear).  Bush overstepped the ruling of the United Nations to not go to war in Iraq and closed the doors on many other nations so far.  Is Bush is so pompous to think that he overstep anyone he wants to be the worlds police force?  Here is my main question: what is Bush doing to repair Americas reputation that he was so quick to cast into disarray?
[right][snapback]56871[/snapback][/right]

I guess one reason so many people side with Bush is exactly what you point out under Nr. 4.).

Most of the international Community and it's Representative (Mr. Kofi Anan who is btw not the Spokesman but the Secratary-General; details on him here) think and have stated that the war is violating international law. (now that's one good reason for Bush not having the US join the International Court of Justice)

Also lot's of people have openly stated what they think is being done wrong and how it could be done better (just like I did in previous post when I was outlining my astonishment why the current administration did not learn from the past how to "win the peace" by pointing out the parallels between Iraq today and Germany post WW2)

So, in other words, people from allover the world dare to criticise the actions the US have taken. In reaction to this, I experienced a great amount of a "who are you to tell us if what we do is appropriate or legal" attitude (not so much on this board as people tend to bemore thoughtful then the average bloke, but across different forums and many many personal conversations with people that I thought were open to debates based on facts). As a result of this attitude many people blindly stick to Bush because if they would support Kerry they would admit that Bush realy did something wrong. Scary childish to be but who am I to judge...


After reviewing the Debate today (taped it) one thing realy struck me about the "international alliances" topic. The one thing I would have liked Kerry to point out more would have been just how exactly Bush tore apart many of those alliances.

Well, as I have the annoying tendency of doing long posts anyway I take the liberty of filling this gap.

It basicaly started right after Bush snuck into the oval ofiice. One of the first things he did was to not ratify the already signed agreements about Global warming and the already mentioned International Court of Justice.
(well the great effect global warming already has on us can be seen first hand in Florida right now, but hey, those are just trailer-park-punks being affected not exactly the ones funding Bush's election, right?)

Then right after 9/11 those things were not an issue to the allies anymore. All of them came together to support the US. This can be clearly seen by checking those Nations that joined the US in attacking the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

But then Bush started to get somewhat dizzy in his head again. From what has been reported by (now) former Intelligence workers Bush wanted as much "evidence" to go to war against Saddam Hussein. As this has been beaten to death I'll only point out only those that realy worked against the alliances.

-German Intelligence telling the US about mobile commandposts and communication equipment on trucks...turned by the Bush administration into mobile production facilies for WMDs ... damn they should learn to READ before trying to rule a country

-the infamous speeches featuring George's nice "You're either with us or with the Terrorists / against us" line as an indirect response to allies asking for more time for weapon inspections. (well, waiting two weeks is realy too much to ask when there is a risk of having bad weather conditions for an invasion during spring / summer) Guess what, being called a Terrorist is nothing that makes one feel positive towards the one making that claim!

-"Old Europe" as being "unrelyable" and scared little dudes...no this is better: "Freedom Fries" at the Pentagon? Hm, not that the French call them "French Fries" anyway but don't you think they were a bit ...erm, let's say...irritated by such open hostility?

-tons of international contracts being simply revoked. One for example that made the news here in evil old Germany was a small painter company that got a contract to paint the complete Pentagon with some high-tech lotus-effect Paint, investing heavily to be able to do this job and then going broke because the contract was revoked without any form of compensation.

Wow, a job well done in creating warm feelings among the allies (well, apart from Bush's pet dog Blair that is).

But that all changed now. Bush said in the debate he was (or already has) rebuilding those alliances.
On the other Hand, the Bush administration just made it mandatory for Visitors from 27 more countrys to be photographed and fingerprints being taken upon entering the US, and, wow, that list features France, Germany and yes the United Kingdom and Japan too. Well, George let me tell you, you do not make up for being rude to friends and allies by treating them as criminals.

Damn, I just realized that I dared to criticise Bush again. Will that generate even more "you girly-man won't tell us what to do" votes for him? :ph34r:

I better end here
Greetings
Dave